Racist Bake Sale Still On for Tomorrow, Not Yet Clear What the Consequences Will Be
**Update: If you didn't have a chance to visit Sproul Plaza today, these are pretty good recaps by the Huffington Post (includes photos) and SF Gate about the bake sale and related protests. Highlights include a surprise appearance by Ward Connerly, who helped BCR sell racist cupcakes, and a number of bake sale tables that sold "opposition pastries" including a Harry Potter-themed table offering "enchanted Costco muffins" priced differently for pure bloods and Muggles.**
This afternoon, UC Berkeley students received an open letter from Chancellor Birgeneau condemning the recent baked-goods controversy that has inflamed the campus community and garnered national media attention. At the center of the proverbial food fight are the Berkeley College Republicans, who last week unanimously approved a pay-by-race bake sale and began advertising the sale on campus with posters that read:
Bake Sale Prices:
White $2.00
Asian $1.50
Latino $1.00
Black $0.75
Native American $0.25
$0.25 Off for All Women
The tactic, which BCR has admitted is intentionally racist and discriminatory, is meant to draw attention to pending legislation (SB 185) that would allow CA universities to consider race, gender, ethnicity and national origin during the admissions process. Defending the bake sale, BCR President Shawn Lewis wrote, "It is no more racist than giving an individual an advantage in college admissions based solely on their race (or) gender."
Last night, in response to widespread campus disapproval of the tactic, the ASUC Senate--which has previously endorsed SB 185--convened an emergency meeting during which they passed a resolution that, in part, "condemns the use of discrimination whether it is in satire or in seriousness by any student group." In addition, ASUC President Vishalli Loomba has commented that the tactic is offensive and harmful to campus inclusivity. At this point, it is unclear what the consequences will be under the new resolution if BCR conducts the bake sale as planned.
Endorsing the ASUC's resolution, Chancellor Birgeneau's letter also criticized the sale as contrary to UC Berkeley's Principles of Community [queue Full House music]:
The Principles of Community are not about political positions. They require a consciousness of the potential effect of words or deeds on others: a positive intent not to hurt, offend, or denigrate others while expressing a reasoned position. Regardless what policies or practices one advocates, careful consideration is needed on how to express those opinions. The issue is not whether one thinks an action is satirical or inoffensive, the issue is whether community members will be intentionally - or unintentionally - hurt or demeaned by that action. The same applies to the way we interact with each other, whether academically, professionally, or socially.
According to the most recent news reports, the bake sale is still scheduled to take place tomorrow--and I'm curious to hear what we law students think about it. BCR has admitted the sale is intentionally racist and discriminatory, albeit in a satirical manner. Has UC reacted appropriately? What is preventing something like this from happening again when, arguably, BCR has gotten exactly what they wanted with campus- and nation-wide attention for their anti-affirmative action stance? Does anyone else find it ridiculous that muffins have somehow gotten mixed up with race politics? Discuss.
This afternoon, UC Berkeley students received an open letter from Chancellor Birgeneau condemning the recent baked-goods controversy that has inflamed the campus community and garnered national media attention. At the center of the proverbial food fight are the Berkeley College Republicans, who last week unanimously approved a pay-by-race bake sale and began advertising the sale on campus with posters that read:
Bake Sale Prices:
White $2.00
Asian $1.50
Latino $1.00
Black $0.75
Native American $0.25
$0.25 Off for All Women
The tactic, which BCR has admitted is intentionally racist and discriminatory, is meant to draw attention to pending legislation (SB 185) that would allow CA universities to consider race, gender, ethnicity and national origin during the admissions process. Defending the bake sale, BCR President Shawn Lewis wrote, "It is no more racist than giving an individual an advantage in college admissions based solely on their race (or) gender."
Last night, in response to widespread campus disapproval of the tactic, the ASUC Senate--which has previously endorsed SB 185--convened an emergency meeting during which they passed a resolution that, in part, "condemns the use of discrimination whether it is in satire or in seriousness by any student group." In addition, ASUC President Vishalli Loomba has commented that the tactic is offensive and harmful to campus inclusivity. At this point, it is unclear what the consequences will be under the new resolution if BCR conducts the bake sale as planned.
Endorsing the ASUC's resolution, Chancellor Birgeneau's letter also criticized the sale as contrary to UC Berkeley's Principles of Community [queue Full House music]:
The Principles of Community are not about political positions. They require a consciousness of the potential effect of words or deeds on others: a positive intent not to hurt, offend, or denigrate others while expressing a reasoned position. Regardless what policies or practices one advocates, careful consideration is needed on how to express those opinions. The issue is not whether one thinks an action is satirical or inoffensive, the issue is whether community members will be intentionally - or unintentionally - hurt or demeaned by that action. The same applies to the way we interact with each other, whether academically, professionally, or socially.
According to the most recent news reports, the bake sale is still scheduled to take place tomorrow--and I'm curious to hear what we law students think about it. BCR has admitted the sale is intentionally racist and discriminatory, albeit in a satirical manner. Has UC reacted appropriately? What is preventing something like this from happening again when, arguably, BCR has gotten exactly what they wanted with campus- and nation-wide attention for their anti-affirmative action stance? Does anyone else find it ridiculous that muffins have somehow gotten mixed up with race politics? Discuss.
posted by L'Alex at 6:36 PM
32 Comments:
Sweet, free cookies!
-Pocahontas's great great great granddaughter.
If anyone would like to write an op-ed style piece on behalf of the College Republicans or their critics pertaining to this event, please let me know.
I edit The Berkeley Graduate (www.theberkeleygradaute.com) and I'm trying to put together a point/counterpoint style article on this issue.
If interested, please send me an email at:
berkeleygraduate@ga.berkeley.edu
This gimmick always fails because everyone ends up debating the offensiveness of the bake sale, not the issue CRs claim to be interested in starting a dialog over. For an eight year old example from the University of Washington, see http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=15903
Yes, I have seen this during undergrad as well. Always pans out this way, the attention is on the "offensive" price discrimination.
But it remains that there is a valid point to be made: Universities like Berkeley would love to discriminate based on race. They just feel it is OK because it is minorities, instead of whites, that receives preferential treatment. Now, if every black person had a horrible childhood and grew up in the ghetto then sure, it is good to give them a boost. Let them shine without the restrictions of their youth. But everyone has to admit that they know at least one minority admit that grew up in Marin, or Palo Alto, or the Hollywood Hills. How is that fair to the white kid from rural New Mexico? Or Concord?
Racial criteria for any purpose is discriminatory. The bake sale just illustrates via a particularly pointless use of racial discrimination. Berkeley should exert some of its amazing intellectual ability to try and find a different proxy for a poor or disadvantaged childhood. Otherwise it is no different than assuming all blacks are criminals. Berkeley assumes all blacks are poor, disadvantaged urchins from the slums of LA and therefore cannot stand with other, "normal" applicants.
how can anyone fall for this old AA-bake-sale meme? i mean, c'mon, it's so dumb and so played out. if you truly are offended and outraged, you have no sense of priorities. if you aren't but claim to be, please give it a rest.
btw, if the CRs wanted to do this one correctly, they should have charged Asian students the highest prices, because UC-Bereley's (barely hidden and clearly unlawful) affirmative action policies require the highest incoming credentials from them.
When I first read the email, I felt offended.
But then I thought about it a bit more, and I realize that as a supporter of affirmative action who has given serious thought to reparations, I actually support this bake sale. Not the satirical bake sale, but the actual discounted-for-disadvantaged-groups bake sale.
If we want an affirmative action program that works, and if the state is involved in the process, then yes the process will make certain things seem more difficult for traditionally advantaged groups.
The solution won't be perfect. There will be some free riders, and there will be some collateral damage. But considering the widespread suffering of entire groups that exists today, it may be what we need to solve the problem.
First of all, can someone explain how this is not already pre-empted by prop 209, which says race cannot be considered. SB 185 says it can, how are these two laws reconcilable?
Also, why do people support race based affirmative action over class based affirmative action? Can someone explain why a white male who grew up in the ghetto deserves less favorable treatment than a Black celebrity's child?
If you don't base affirmative action based on economics, then you are inferring that minorities are inferior even in the same environment. That's the real evil of race based affirmative action, it's based on the premise that minorities are inherently inferior, which is something I just do not believe.
First, I think the Chancellor's email was overblown. This looks like speech we should be encouraging, not condemning. Sure it might offend some people, but so what. It seems to have sparked some much needed dialogue here on Nuts and Boalts!
Second, one thing I like about the bake-sale is that in its simplicity it focuses on two flaws of affirmative action. Which is worse? Is it worse for a poor white student to be made to pay an artificially high price, or is it worse for some affluent minorities to get an "undeserved" discount?
Affirmative action is a rough tool. Race surely does not equate to socioeconomic status. On each side, some people will be harmed/benefitted unfairly.
I like that the bake sale makes that point so clearly. What the bake sale doesn't do, however, is add much to the merits of affirmative action. Or, more to the point, the merits of the bill in question. I'd like to see more of that dialogue, but for now, I am happy, unlike the Chancellor, that people are taking a creative approach to this conversation.
Think what you will about the bake sale itself, but I am mostly concerned about the official reaction to the whole mess.
Sure, some people will think this event is horribly racist/offensive and some people will think it is a salient political demonstration. That's the nature of sensitive topics like affirmative action.
What worries me is the reaction on the part of the university effectively attempting to squash a particular type of speech or demonstration that doesn't mesh with the party line here at Cal. The message from the chancellor and threats from the ASUC to de-fund the organization almost amount to censorship in my opinion. If Berkeley wants to be a place that claims to welcome all ideas/backgrounds/beliefs than the campus community has to accept that some of those ideas will be ones they (strongly) disagree with.
The first principle you learn in First Amendment is that it's most necessary when someone is advocating for an unpopular opinion. UC Berkeley is effectively becoming a marketplace of liberal ideas rather than market of ideas, and I'm insanely liberal. The fact that the letter calls these ideas "unreasonable" is an utterly unacceptable political judgment.
We liberals do speech all the time that is more inflammatory than productive than truthful. Examples I've seen include Israeli Checkpoint demonstrations, John Yoo hooded people wearing asian racist caricature masks, arguably even the Exec pension satire.
The point is controversy is an effective tool to create attention, and conservatives have every bit as much right to use it.
To follow up, according to the DailyCal, several members of the college republicans have been threatened with physical harm in person, via email, and through facebook.
If that's true, then this is a sad day for the Berkeley community.
Typical Republican BS. The economy is in the toilet, the state of California is in the toilet, unofficial unemployment is in the double digits and what do the Berkeley Repubs think is their most pressing issue? Trying to get white privilege back. While not surprising, it's still hilarious.
Actually James, I believe that the bake sale was set up to protest an ASUC event. The ASUC set up a phone bank to call in support for the pending bill, and the college republicans took issue with the fact that the ASUC purported to represent the Berkeley community in that decision. So, the bake sale was set up as a counter to that.
Definitely doesn't contradict my point.
It also doesn't reflect the realities of admissions, which are more difficult for women now (compared to their male counterparts) and, as someone noted, overrepresented minorities.
Instead, it's privilege whining about the death of privilege.
Are Berkeley students really that incapable of understanding satire? This is roughly as offensive as Jonathan Swift's modest proposal to eat babies.
It might not be an accurate metaphor, but it's not mean-spirited.
@James, I think there are good reasons for affirmative reaction, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the bake sale as privileged whining.
At Berkeley at least, the immediate "losers" from reinstating affirmative action would likely be students of East Asian descent, hardly the beneficiaries of "white privilege".
This comment has been removed by the author.
Free speech is a two way street, I am ashamed at berkeley officially condemning the event. Our society is floating dangerously towards viewpoint discrimination which is utterly intolerable. I hope we all support bcrs right to protest... because tomorrow our society may declare your view as unacceptable.
Any group who is currently under represented would see a spike in admissions. Pretty sure this includes white people.
Just 3 quick points:
- really glad N&B finally has a post people actually care about.
- i'm a hippie liberal, but the hypocrisy i see sometimes from fellow liberals is saddening. liberals make some of the most inflammatory remarks and take some of the most radical actions, but once a contrary opinion is voiced, we become offensive. wth?
- asians should be the ones really piseed about AA. since when were asians over-represented/privileged? sure, they are dandy now, but does noone remember the "no dogs and asians" signs that used to be on san francisco storefronts? now, with AA, they are punished for working hard and achieving? i don't believe benefitting one group at the expense of another - especially when that group has also historically been discriminated against - is just.
I'm not sure anyone's saying the bake sale cannot go forward, but rather, using speech to comment on other speech. I'm pretty sure that's all rosy when it comes to the First Amendment. If you say something idiotic other people have the right to point that out.
Certain groups still have trouble getting access to higher education in this country. These groups have this trouble because of a long history of legalized racism and social/cultural racism that continues today. There should be a mechanism to address this.
I'm curious as to the thought process behind the ranking of white > asian > latino > black > native american. Average income? Perceived social standing? Most oppressed?
Proffessor *ppenheimer has an op ed in the Daily Californian: http://www.dailycal.org/2011/09/27/diversity-racism-higher-education-and-the-real-cost-of-baked-goods/
It's worth a read.
decent read, James, but I wish *pp had hit his rhetorical point a bit harder.
Am I the only supporter of affirmative action who also thinks that the literal diversity bake sale is a good idea? Why are liberals so angry about this?
James is wrong about most everything else he's said here, but I want to emphasize one thing I agree with him on: speaking out against ugly speech isn't "viewpoint suppression" or whatever other garbage people are accusing it of. No one is saying the Berkeley Republicans can't say what they want.
This same issue came up when hating on John Yoo was all the rage. People who took issue with his actions outside of the classroom and explored potential repercussions weren't attempting to close Boalt to conservative viewpoints.
The bottom line is that it is completely possible to be annoyed with, or disgusted by, particular viewpoints while still being completely supportive of the ability of those who voice these viewpoints to voice these viewpoints. Claiming otherwise ironically supports the whitewashing of viewpoints people claim to be against.
Commissar Birgenaeu said the sale was "against the Principles of Community" at Berkeley, not just that he disagreed.
James is right about most everything he's said here, somebody should counter. The Yoo analogy is weak: many people who protest want him fired. That pretty effectively would close Boalt to a particular viewpoint.
Point taken, '11, but the discounts are negligible. The problem with the BCR stunt is that it is humor-impaired. Not that satire must be funny, but if its shock value doesn't prove instructive, then it has only humor to purvey its effect. Ours are generations raised on lame humor: Saturday Night Live, The Simpsons, caustic stand-ups, and writers and entertainers who have trouble distinguishing a good idea and its bad execution. That's how I view the BCR bake sale.
I get BCR's point. In a greatly simplified form, AA is like the bake sale, seemingly arbitrarily charging different rates for different groups. Everybody should have equal opportunity, and should bear equal costs, to acquire a substantially similar muffin/education. But the humor of the comparison wears thin pretty quickly if one of the things you value in an education is the opportunity to study and learn among a diverse population of students.
"to acquire a substantially similar muffin/education" gold
I cannot believe I am actually hearing a reasoned discussion about this here. I am a Cal undergrad, and the talk around here is absolutely insane. Life here is hell for a closet-conservative.
It always surprises me that when the AA debate comes up, it is still so often reduced to hemming and hawing over whether it is "fair" to individuals. I think AA is constitutionally unjustifiable on individual grounds, but diversity is not an individual issue; it's a systemic issue. Universities benefit from diverse communities. The more groups represented in a community, the better the education is for everyone else there. Individual white kids from suburbia, like myself, probably got more out of meeting and befriending people of different backgrounds than we did from attending any course on "Issues in Diversity" or whatever. So why shouldn't a University consider racial diversity a systemic benefit? Why shouldn't they be able to consider gestalt effect as a plus factor in any individual application?
To be fair, I think this same logic can apply to almost any type of uniqueness. I am pretty sure being the only kid from Utah in my undergraduate class gave me a leg up there, and I'm pretty sure writing my personal statement about my history with Mormonism helped me get into Berkeley Law. Why should a black kid's experience as the only black kid in some Palo Alto high school be any less valuable, even if he wasn't disadvantaged economically? By the same token, a white person who grew up poor might have a unique experience to share, and that should also be considered.
Again, all this contributes to creating a community that houses diversity of thought and perspective, which is invaluable to a university education. Anyone who thinks otherwise probably would have been more comfortable going to school in the 1800s and should consider moving to a Utah suburb.
If a man were to judge a woman by her shoes, he could be making a terrible mistake. For starters, women have lots of shoes and the chances that she wears the same type of shoe day in day out are slim to none. What kind of footwear a woman wears largely depends on what kind of day she has ahead of her, or even how she will Christian Louboutin shoes on sale at runway-heels
the next hour. For instance, career women may have to walk quite a distance to work and may prefer sneakers of flat shoes on their feet. Does that mean they don’t care about their appearance or have a laidback personality? No, it simply means that they are more comfortable and faster in sneakers or flat shoes than they are in high heels. Once at work those women may change their comfortable footwear for more elegant shoes.
I love the way the first sentence at 4:16's spam warns about the "terrible mistake" one can make by judging a woman by her shoes (fair enough) . . . yet the first few words of the second sentence are a cheerful statement about ALL women -- based on facts about their shoes!
Post a Comment
<< Home