Imagine going to a bake sale and instead of paying a listed, generic price paid by everyone, just envision yourself paying for a cupcake according to your race and gender. I am sure you are thinking, what does my gender or race have anything to do with how much I pay for a cupcake?
That is exactly what the students of the Berkeley College Republicans at the University of California Berkeley thought. This past week they decided to hold a bake sale in a satrical protest against the Affirmative Action like bills awaiting the signature of approval from Governor Brown. The prices of the baked goods were based on your gender and race. $2.00 for a white male, $1.50 for an Asian male, $1.00 if he was Latino, $0.75 if he was Black and $0.25 if he was Native American. All women received $0.25 off that price. This bake sale was taken place at the same time and location of a phone bank taken place in support of the SB185. SB185 is a bill initiative to reverse the effects of Proposition 209 that had originally eliminated the use of affirmative action throughout the state. SB185 would let public universities consider race when selecting applicants in their outreach and retention programs.
Although its intentions were satirical and not meant to be anything more then a demonstration, many students were outraged. Students thought the bake sale was shameful, racist, and just didn't understand what the point was.
I'm not too sure where I stand on this issue. I thought the bake sale was rather witty and a clever, somewhat peaceful demonstration to shed some light on the issue. I do not think it is necessarily fair for someone to get into college based on race over someone who is just as or more qualified in other areas. Coming from an Asian descent, being Asian didn't help me get into any college any easier or might have even hurt me at the schools looking for more diversity.
On the other hand, since Proposition 209 came into place, the number of students in higher education that are Latino, African American and Native American descent, has remained stagnant since 1995. I believe race plays a part on people's opportunities to an extent and it is more about someone's socioeconomic status. Yes, socioeconomic and race are correlated to an extent, but there are people of all races who are poor. A lot of people don't have the opportunities to participate in extra curricular activities, or take Advanced Placement classes, or have tutoring on the SAT because they cannot afford it or their area does not offer it. If anything, someone's socioeconomic status should be taken into consideration to make the system more "fair" and give everyone an equal opportunity.
It is a lot to think about and it is a sticky situation when it comes to race. A lot of it is based on bias and the perspective of your own race which affects how you would view this demonstration. Based on your race, would you be offended by this bake sale?
I think it's cool you wrote about this as I'm friends with the Berkeley CR's. I think what they did was necessary to shed light on the hypocrisy in the CA gov with SB185. I'm more offended by the bill than the bake sale which is exactly what they were trying to point out. Schools should not use immutable traits to determine who gets into a school. That's racist and unfair.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it’s a sticky situation when it comes to race but I think the bake sale put on by the College Republican’s at Berkeley was terrible. The bake sale highlighted myths about affirmative action that only hurt the policy more. Many think that with affirmative action, college admissions boards will allow students who aren’t qualified to attend the school. Why would they set someone up for failure at the school? Institutions of higher learning are businesses and they want to make money. If a student fails out of school then they lose money. Admitting someone that’s destined to fail because of race is setting up the school for some loses in the near future. At least for employment in the regards of affirmative action, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act makes is illegal to hire someone who is unqualified just because of race. Additionally, you talked about switching the affirmative action policy to revolve around SES. This completely undermines the entire reason for affirmative action. It was put in place to even the playing field for women and minorities that were being underrepresented in schools. Also, many schools are “need blind” to protect from discrimination against people who would require large amounts of financial aid to attend school. These policies would be completely contradictory. There are already too many obstacles in this economic climate for people who want to go to college and this would add another burden. Thanks for bringing light to the bake sale in this post!
ReplyDeleteYou present a really good question, Elizabeth. Like you I am tempted to commend Berkeley’s College Republicans for finding a way to make a point in a creative and clever way, but then again I have a somewhat inappropriate sense of humor. I do see how they could have come on a little strong, and the whole demonstration could have appeared the way it was received by many. Race is an incredibly touchy subject, even more so than socioeconomic status, a social phenomenon that I find peculiar given the fact race is something you cannot change and socioeconomic standing is something that is in flux throughout a person’s life time—though admittedly that type of change is rare. I’m not sure that “offended” would be the right word for how I personally would have received the demonstration; surprised would be a more accurate descriptor. I’m surprised that they had the audacity to actually put a plan like that into action, but I wonder if they took it a little too far.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you however, that “socioeconomic status should be taken into consideration to make the system more ‘fair’ and give everyone an equal opportunity.” Universities are need blind because at the root, they are businesses, in the game to make a profit. Looking at socioeconomic status would not necessarily make it a more equitable process because the would most likely refer to socioeconomic status as a deal breaker, extending offers to those able to pay over those whose financial status is in question (all other qualifications being equal).
Great post though, you always talk about really interesting/relevant things and I’ve really enjoyed reading your blog.