Live Blog: ‘Increase Diversity Bake Sale’

Opponents of the Berkeley College Republicans' Increase Diversity bake sale stand on Upper Sproul Plaza.
Carli Baker/Staff
Opponents of the Berkeley College Republicans' Increase Diversity bake sale stand on Upper Sproul Plaza.

Amid a national media storm and an outcry of racism, the Berkeley College Republicans are holding their “Increase Diversity Bake Sale,” which sets a tiered price system for baked goods based on race and sex. The sale today is intended to satirically protest SB 185 — affirmative action-like legislation that is currently awaiting Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature. However, campus student leaders and administrators have condemned the event, which was first announced on Facebook Thursday night.

Go here for a collection of our previous coverage of the controversy surrounding the Berkeley College Republicans’ “Increase Diversity Bake Sale.”


Chloe Hunt, Nicholas Luther, Curan Mehra, JD Morris, Annie Sciacca, Alex Sklueff, Amruta Trivedi, Christopher Yee and Mihir Zaveri of The Daily Californian reporting from the field.

3:25 p.m.

“The Coalition,” a newly formed cross-cultural, cross-gender group, held a press conference in the Cesar Chavez Student Center to present demands of the campus, administration and state government. The press conference lasted approximately 15 minutes and the coalition did not take questions after reading its statement.

“We are a united body of students that are working to transform the public higher education system,” said Naomi Wilson, a member of the coalition, at the press conference. “The Coalition’s demonstration today, known as ‘The Affirmation,’ is our beginning action.  We will no longer allow the university to pacify us by minimally addressing these issues.”

2:27 p.m.

The Berkeley College Republicans have cleaned up their table and are walking off of Sproul Plaza.

2:02 p.m.

As the scale of demonstrations has diminished, political debates have sparked up at the Berkeley College Republicans table. Topics include affirmative action and the distribution of wealth in American society.

Former UC Regent Ward Connerly sits at the Increase Diversity bake sale table on Upper Sproul Plaza.

Ashley Chen/Staff

1:48 p.m.

BAMN representatives at the bake sale table in Sproul Plaza have issued a challenge to the Berkeley College Republicans to debate affirmative action. If the campus Republicans agree, BAMN has said that it will book Pauley Ballroom for the event.

1:25 p.m.

The “Conscious Cupcake Giveaway” has wrapped up its distribution of over 200 baked goods.

“We didn’t set up closer to (the Berkeley College Republicans) because this wasn’t about confrontation,” said Damaris Olaechea, who gave away cupcakes. “It is a forum for many voices, not a screaming match.”

1:11 p.m.

Former ASUC Senator Stefan Montouth protested along with hundreds of other students and community members in opposition to the Increase Diversity Bake Sale.

Shirin Ghaffary/Staff

According to members of the “black out” protest, the protest finished early because of the heat.

1:10 p.m.

Members of Cloyne have given away thousands of sugary snacks on the plaza.

“We gave away about 2000 baked goods, now we’re giving out free hugs,” said Haley Kitchens, a third-year UC Berkeley student. “We’re arguing against the way they went about this in a discriminatory and hateful way.”

Members of the co-op community also sold baked goods on Upper Sproul Plaza today.

Kevin Hahn/Staff

1:06 p.m.

A little after 1:00 p.m., the ‘black out’ protesters stood up on Sproul Plaza and chanted, “It is our duty to fight for our freedom.” They are now dispersing and leaving Sproul Plaza.

Opponents of the Increase Diversity bake sale raise their fists and cheer on Upper Sproul Plaza.

Randy Adam Romero/Staff

1:02 p.m.

BAMN is no longer protesting in front of the campus Republicans’ table. The area of the table does not have protesters directly in front of it, except for anti-SB 185 demonstrators.

The campus Republicans’ has sold out of cupcakes. Cookies are still available. People at the Republicans’ table said that most people who took baked goods were willing to pay for them.

A member of the Berkeley College Republicans sells a baked good to a patron on Upper Sproul Plaza during the Increase Diversity bake sale.

Derek Remsburg/Staff

12:42 p.m.

In response to BAMN’s chants directly at the Berkeley College Republicans, Derek Zhou, vice president of the group, said “it’s free speech.”

“They have just as much of a right as us,” he added.

Berkeley College Republicans and supports hold signs for the Increase Diversity bake sale.

Giana Tansman/Staff

12:31 p.m.

Protesters against SB 185 have formed a human barrier around the back of the bake sale table.

12:28 p.m.

Students and members of the public protest the Berkeley College Republican's Increase Diversity bake sale on Upper Sproul Plaza.

Randy Adam Romero/Staff

Members of the group known as By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) are chanting directly in front of the bake sale: “Affirmative action is a must. We won’t go to the back of the bus” and “Hey hey, ho ho, this racist bake sale’s got to go.”

12:19 p.m.

Compared to other events currently occurring, there is not much to report from the ASUC phone bank.

“It’s quiet here because of all the spectacle over there,” said Nolan Pack, sustainability coordinator in the ASUC Office of the External Affairs Vice President.  “We’re being serious about making a difference while they’re over there using a cheap gimmick to get attention.”

12:08 p.m.

Protesters are still lying down.

“I hope it’s comfortable for them,” said Ward Connerly, a former UC Regent and a driving force behind Proposition 209 who is working with the Berkeley College Republicans at the bake sale.

Hundreds of students and community members were lying down on Upper Sproul Plaza in opposition to the Increase Diversity Bake Sale

Anna Vignet/Senior Staff

12: 02 p.m.

As the clock struck twelve, the line of protesters lay down on Upper Sproul Plaza.

“The Republicans’ basic message is that people of color and women would benefit most from SB 185,” said Lou Brown, a volunteer at the Revolution Bookstore who is protesting in front of the bake sale. “But Governor Brown’s weak ass bill doesn’t even come close to making amends for hundreds of years of slavery and exploitation.”

Students dressed in black were lying down on Upper Sproul Plaza to oppose the Increase Diversity Bake Sale.

Anna Vignet/Senior Staff

11: 59 a.m.

Meanwhile, business is continuing at the bake sale as members of the Berkeley College Republicans discussing SB 185 with customers.

“In order to move society forward, we’ve got to look past race” said Derek Zhou, vice president of the group.

11: 55 a.m.

Students and community members dressed in black and holding signs joined hands in protest against the Increasing Diversity Bake Sale.

Carli Baker/Staff

The roughly 300 people are all beginning to face Sproul Hall and join hands.

11: 48 a.m.

The line of approximately 300 protesters dressed in black has now moved to Upper Sproul Plaza. Participants are not talking to reflect their silent protest.

Opponents of the Increase Diversity bake sale stand in a line on Upper Sproul Plaza.

Giana Tansman/Staff

11: 43 a.m.

The group dressed in black who were formerly gathered at Lower Sproul Plaza have stopped moving at Bancroft Way and Telegraph Avenue. Several are carrying signs with messages that include “Don’t UC Us” and “UC Us Now.”

“We’re committed,” said Salih Muhammad, chair of the campus Black Student Union, addressing the crowd. “We’re ready to make change on this campus.”

11: 33 a.m.

Vice Chancellor Harry LeGrande said that, although he has no opinion on SB 185, today’s bake sale is about freedom of speech in the university. LeGrande added that he hopes to see healthy, peaceful discourse among students.

11: 24 a.m.

Students including members of the Black Student Union have started a march from Lower Sproul Plaza to the bake sale on Upper Sproul Plaza. They plan to peacefully protest by lying on their backs for two hours, starting at noon.

11: 21 a.m.

The group gathered on Lower Sproul Plaza has started chanting: “It’s our duty to fight for our freedom,” “We have nothing to lose but our chains” and “It is our duty to win.

Meanwhile, Haitian-American Andre Louis, an ex-Berkeley student, joined in the protest on the side of the Berkeley College Republicans, helping them hold signs. He is not officially affiliated with the BCR.

“(UC Berkeley) demonstrates on a daily basis that it cares much more about politics, political correctness and demagoguery than either free inquiry or education, which is what I stand here defending,” he said. “I don’t see how the means (of the BCR bake sale) are offensive. Satire is a much used and successful political tactic historically.”

11:16 a.m.

UC Berkeley Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion Gibor Basri said that members of the Berkeley College Republicans do not reflect complete understanding of the issue in their bake sale.

“They’ve misread SB 185,” he said. “It would not overturn prop. 209.”

11:00 a.m.

Meanwhile, over at the ASUC phone bank in support of SB 185 — the event that triggered the campus Republicans’ bake sale, which in turned sparked the campus racism debate and the national media attention — has seen about 50 people sign up to make calls, according to Beatrice Montenegro, a UC Student Association field organizer.

10:56 a.m.

A BAMN protest has line up across from the Berkeley College Republicans’ table, where members of the campus Republicans’ group are standing with signs protesting SB 185.

Across from them, Ronald Cruz, an attorney with BAMN, is still talking through his megaphone.

“They have not answered he opposition or called for debate,” he said.

10:46 a.m.

UC Berkeley Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion Gibor Basri spoke in an interview on Sproul Plaza: “We’d be ready for race blind admissions if, when you looked through the K-12 system and the academic performance indexes for the different races, you saw no correlation. Currently we are not there.”

10:39 a.m.

UCPD Lt. Marc DeCoulode said that there are “several” officers in Sproul Plaza monitoring the bake sale.

Meanwhile, a group of around 100 people dressed in all black are gathering in Lower Sproul Plaza.

Thirty-five cupcakes have been sold so far.

Members of the affirmation prepare for a counter protest of the Berkeley College Republican's Increase Diversity Bake Sale.

Kevin Foote/Staff

10:34 a.m.

Elia Kritz, dressed as a Native American, said the bake sale is offensive because it trivializes the issue of affirmative action.

“If (the Berkeley College Republicans) were serious about the issue, they would have done something serious,” she said.

UC Berkeley junior Byron Hunt also took issue with the event.

“I think this bake sale is pretty counter productive,” he said. “They could have sent their message without causing such a controversy.”

10:26 a.m.

Ronald Cruz, an attorney working to restore affirmative action, spoke to the gathering crowd in Sproul Plaza.

“Let’s not let this event be unprotested, speak out for equality today,” he said.

BAMN has also arrived at the plaza.

Liana Mulholland, who graduated the University of Michigan in 2009, said she was protesting with BAMN because “they work to restore affirmative action.”

“It is the key to defending public education at all levels,” she said.

10:17 a.m.

Ward Connerly, a former UC Regent and a driving force behind Proposition 209, has come to UC Berkeley to help the Berkeley College Republicans sell cupcakes.

Ward Connerly, a driving force behind Proposition 209, in Sproul Plaza Wednesday.

Jan Flatley-Feldman/Staff

10:00 a.m.

UC Berkeley Professor of political science Wendy Brown tried to buy all the baked goods at the Republicans’ sale, but they did not allow her to do so.

“I thought the Republicans were free enterprise, but they won’t let me buy all the cupcakes,” she said.

9:45 a.m.

Shawn Lewis, of the Berkeley College Republicans, stands behind the Increase Diversity Bake Sale table on Upper Sproul Plaza.

Randy Adam Romero/Staff

The Berkeley College Republicans have begun to set up their table. Police and media outnumber other attendees at this point.

Please keep our community civil. Comments should remain on topic and be respectful.
Read our full comment policy
  • Chris Fox

    Because as any Republican will try to tell you, the *real* racists are the people who refuse to continue to pretend that racism doesn’t exist.

  • Anonymous

    University of California Chancellor Birgeneau discriminates against instate Californians at admission: no one cares.

    Chancellor Robert J Birgeneau ($500,000 salary) of University of California Berkeley displaces qualified
    for public university education at Cal. Californians for $50,600  payment by FOREIGN students.

    The University
    of California Berkeley,
    ranked # 70 Forbes, is not increasing enrollment.  $50,600 tuition FOREIGN students are accepted
    by Birgeneau at the expense of qualified instate students.

    UC Regent Chairwoman Lansing and President Yudof agree discriminating
    against instate Californians for admission to UC Berkeley. Birgeneau, Yudof, Lansing need to answer to
    Californians.

    Your opinion makes a difference; email UC Board of
    Regents   [email protected]

  • anon1234

    I’d like to point out that the main factor as to why there are so many Asians on campus is NOT because we are wealthier or more advantaged or whatever you’d like to use as an excuse. It is mostly a cultural thing. In general, we place utmost attention and value on our education. It is one of our top priorities. This attitude carries over to our hard work in school, which translates over to good grades and good scores, which qualifies us to attend good universities. 
    Now I do understand that students who are less fortunate because they have had to work full-time jobs and have had to deal with less than ideal situations at home may not have grades that show their full potential, and THAT’S OKAY. But you cannot use your economic background, race, and upbringing as excuses and justifications for your poor academic performance and lack of qualifications when applying for college. SB 185 is encouraging just that. 

    • Schapel2

      Re: “cultural thing…”
      (1) So if Latinos are told it is their duty to work after school (or drop out) to help support the family, and Asians growing up are told “hit the books ! You’re working for 7 generations…” how do we address this in our educational system? (I don’t have an answer.)

      (2) So if Latinos are brought into the US to supply cheap labor  (on many Republican  or corporate owned farms), and to be future voting Democrats, while US companies destroy the price of corn in Mexico and the small farmers and, as a result, they are driven across our border to support their families, how do we address this in our educational system?  (I don’t have an answer.)

      (3) So if large corporations (that contribute millions to campaigns) decide they need educated bilingual Asians to help exploit the cheap labor in Asia, do they not influence the $$ that goes to education?

      (4) So if our enlightened politicians, all bought and paid for, decide to ship our industry to Asia, helping to wipe out our middle class, putting the US in over $1T in debt and these countries use the money to send Asian students to US who are fully financed to compete with American students that must go into massive debt or work, work, work to get an education, how does this influence the educational process?
      My intent is not to take sides, but to ask  you to consider more factors.  And I do not have answers.  But I do have many questions: How much tax money is going into so-called ‘defense’ and how much to education? My view? Investing in ALL students is an investment in betterment of the country. Going around the world killing people…not so much.  Build more colleges, universities. Find out where all the tax dollars are going.  ALL STUDENTS UNITE.  Otherwise, divided, you will continue to be manipulated.

  • MarkMJ

    “But Governor Brown’s weak ass bill doesn’t even come close to making amends for hundreds of years of slavery and exploitation.”- Apparently the Governor of California (admitted to the Union in 1850 as a Free State) has to make up for slavery.

  • Ironyman

    Elia Kritz, dressed as a Native American, said the bake sale is
    offensive because it trivializes the issue of affirmative action.

    “If (the Berkeley College Republicans) were serious about the issue, they would have done something serious,” she said.

    How ironic, she says this as she’s dressed in a Native American costume.

    • workinDawg

      and she gets free cupcakes…..you just can’t make the people happy.

  • JPF

    The major problem I have with it is that their
    inane point is actually incredibly wrong. Given admissions rates in the
    UC system and peer elite institutions Asian males actually would sell
    for the highest rate and women would not be discounted. Rather the men
    would, unless you were Asian, as it’s a little known fact that it’s
    easier for men to get into college these days than women due to a gender
    based achievement back. Yes, white men, that means you’re getting
    affirmative actioned around the admissions table. Also affirmative
    action is illegal in California. And any admissions officer at an elite
    school will tell you every single person admitted is more than
    qualified.

    • workinDawg

      Their inane point is that racial policy is wrong.  I’m sure they aren’t to caught up in their pricing model.  Nor do they care if they benefit from the policy, which I’m sure puzzles the liberal mind.

      And what would you expect an admission person to say?  “we let in all sorts of unqualified poeple”….really?  And saying that everyone accepted is more than qualified doesn’t mean that some got in over applicants with greater qualifications….be it Asian male or white male, makes no differences. 

  • AlumniX

    “12: 02 p.m.
    As the clock struck twelve, the line
    of protestors lay down on Upper Sproul Plaza.
    “The Republicans’ basic message is
    that people of color and women would benefit most from SB 185,” said Lou Brown,
    a volunteer at the Revolution Bookstore who is protesting in front of the bake
    sale. “But Governor Brown’s weak ass bill doesn’t even come close to making
    amends for hundreds of years of slavery and exploitation.”

    Wait a minute!

    Someone not connected to Cal walked on campus to disrupt a student event?

    Someone that is not a member of the UC Berkeley community, not a student,
    faculty, or administrator has access to students in order to confront the
    students he disagrees with?  During such a heated event in where threats
    to those students have been confirmed!

    Do those students, or for that matter any student that does not have the
    blessing of the local creepy radicals, have the right to NOT be harassed by
    strangers to the UC Berkeley community?

    Creepy, very creepy.

  • Anonymous

    College Republicans. Such a joke. No wonder this country is going down the drain.

    These kids really believe their own hype.  It’s like a vast ignorant part of America that believe they’re only temporarily embarrassed millionaires (thanks Steinbeck).

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_EBVYE63DXJIWSZXTW2UZZ6MAZA Juanfer

    What a tantalizing menagerie of young politicians! Chasing each other’s tails on semantics while absolutely missing the point about the education debate (which should be universal and free if we had our priorities straight). Go on House Negroes, love your master more than thyself! 
    Malcolm X must be rolling in his grave :(

    • Schapel2

      Re: “should be free and universal..”Good point. google: free college university.  There are numerous countries that invest in younger generations to insure they have well educated people working and as leaders when they retire.                                                                             On the other hand decisions at the political level tend to be more easily made with a homogeneous population. Ex: Denmark got everyone to switch to bikes fairly easily.                                                        Such are the trials and tribulations of ‘diversity’.  We either learn toleration and understanding across color, class, race, ethnic group or we continue into gridlock on the political scene ,i.e. those who distribute the tax dollars to education.  If history is indicator, next comes chaos.                                                                                            Sadly, I see many opinions here, but few based on facts.  Perhaps the lesson of the bank bailout and massive fraud with no prosecutions is we are no longer a country of the rule of law.  Whoever can grab the most wins. There will be no resolution until the students learn to go to the books and find out how the $$ is distributed and where it comes from – from K-12 on up.  Will they?

  • brainzzzzzzz

    I appreciate the Daily Cal’s continuous coverage of today’s events on campus, thanks for keeping us informed about what was happening on all sides.

  • Mariahellen

    Cal Alumni 2011. If California wants to solve the
    socioeconomic problems faced by minority groups it should spend time coming up
    with programs that increase educational awareness and allocate funding to
    intercity schools that need it most. Supporting legislation that only PROMOTES
    STEREOTYPES, creates tension between racial groups, and discriminates against
    other underprivileged groups including the disabled is an attempt to win
    minority votes by the Democratic Party. Today is the day I make the switch to
    the Republican Party.

    • Schapel2

      Do you think either party represents the people? Have you thought of registering as independent? I was life-long Dem but switched when I got tired of voting for lessor of two evils.  Now independents are just a few points less than Dems.  Force both parties to negotiate with the people.

  • G.R.

    Most of the people supporting Affiirmative Action are minorities.

    What a surprise. Not.

    • Ixchel

      Yes, the people who have experienced first hand all the disadvantages of being a minority and who rely on this policy to help them get the opportunities that would otherwise be denied by them support this very strongly. Thanks for stating the obvious.

      • Guest

        Yes, the people whose self-interest is served by enacting racist legislation rely on this policy to help them get the
        opportunities that would otherwise be denied by them support this racist legislation very
        strongly. Thanks for stating the obvious. 

        • Anonymous

          That’s so cute.  You’ll be a millionaire soon if you just really believe enough. Atta-boy!

          • workinDawg

            Nice attititude- pretty sure you will not be a millionaire on day.  Do you feel you don’t have what it takes?  Is this why you are so supportive of gathering unearned prizes?  That person may very well be a millionaire one day.  I bet you will not.  So head to the coffee house and sneer with your urban poet buddies while that young person goes to work. 

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WRACM77JT2RXUR3LMGDPPUGUYY Tony M

            Do you say “millionaire” every time someone pulls your string or what?

    • Anonymous

      And plenty of white men support affirmative action, too. Next!

  • AffirmativeRacism

    Fat people protesting can’t take the heat … only people admitted through affirmative action would wear all black on a day like this.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1218806 Michael Nguyen

    As an alum, I’m happy to see that the spirit of protest is alive and well. I’m also glad to see that the Berkeley Republicans are still hilariously ignorant of the privileged background from which they came, and are eager to make claims in defense of “equality” when they are those that benefit most from inequality! 

    It’s like the kid who sets up the game, makes up the rules, owns all of the pieces, owns the board, even controls some of the other players, and then says to his opponents, “C’mon guys why can’t you compete on a level playing field?!” Golden.

    • Wendy

      Hello, I was one of the people selling the cupcakes today. I am a proud Berkeley College Republican, and white. Privileged background? I worked 60 hour work weeks (yes, I am a student) this summer, my mom is a single mother of 8 kids… please explain to me how much equality this gives me? A level playing field? I am given no government money to get through school- I am here purely on my own merits and money.

      Please take the time to consider that there are people- of all races- who ARE smart enough and able enough to get into college on purely their own merits. Stipulating that they need an extra hand up to get in is demeaning and purely incorrect. Thank you.

      • http://www.gaurano.com Jonathan Gaurano

        Hi Wendy,

        Prop 185 also includes gender. Also, including race and gender does not dissuade the fact that they got in because of their merits. UC Berkeley does a comprehensive review and based on your own circumstances, and I don’t think that they’ll accept you SOLELY due in part of your race. It’s just a factor.

        It’s like a factor they considered when you told them you had 8 siblings, or your story (struggles), or when they checked the API of your school. UC Berkeley is comprehensive – pretty soon if we take this off – people are going to say, “You got a leg up because you were poor.” 

        All these factors is what makes you – who you are! 

        The idea of having your race included means that in the cultural realm from which these ‘people of color’ come from – they will have an understanding that they’re included into society. Believe it or not we live in a racist society and it can be quite burdensome (we even lose confidence) when we look around and all we see is white society dictating America. We don’t stand a chance.  We’ll push and we’ll try to recover the pieces that was taken away from us (rebuilding). 

        It’s quite hard to rebuild when you don’t have any tools. It’s quite hard when the person holding the tools is someone who you are unable to relate. Role models? 

        So the idea that your race and gender will be included = means people are actually paying attention to us. 

        SMART enough? Who judges this? How much you memorize? How much American White Society doctrine you must learn? Come on. SMART is an arbitrary thing. I think everyone is SMART on certain levels (dependent on the case) In my case smart = how well you carry yourself and adapt to different situations. 

        By the way I worked 20-25 hours a week (Peets Coffee Shop), graduated in 3.5 years, paid for school on my own, have 6 siblings, come from a single home (mother) and still pursued a lot of activities in Berkeley (ASUC, PASS [Academic Outreach], Research…). So, I feel your empathy on that one. 

        • Anonymous

          So why does the campus need to consider race at all?

      • Ixchel

        I find it really offensive that you treat Affirmative Action as admitting students based ONLY on race. This isn’t the case at all, students admitted also must demonstrate merit in their actions and educational potential. That is, Affirmative Action merely recognizes the imbalances of a particular race created by society and thus takes that into consideration as well. In no way does that somehow end up invalidating the merit and intelligence of a person who was also admitted because of Affirmative Action. It’s also not only a matter of “being smart enough” to get out of a bad situation–you underestimate how far-reaching socioeconomic factors deeply rooted to race can be.

        I think that it’s a problem with the system if a single mother of 8 isn’t given any government aid, but targeting Affirmative Action programs does nothing to right your wrong and only ends up further neglecting the disadvantaged minorities. 

        Yes, I am a minority myself and I do not consider it demeaning to think that maybe Affirmative Action helped me get into UCB (I’m a student myself). Please do not speak for everyone when you make statements like that.

        • Ghihg

          But if Wendy and a minority has similar qualifications who do you think would get in, even if Wendy grew up in a worse situation? Asians in this country have and continue to face discrimination but through a culture of hard work and emphasis on education have been successful. The only racists comments I heard these days on campus are “there are too many asians”.  We need to stop discriminating against those who work hard, and help those in hard circumstances rise to the standards of this school.

      • Egheighe

        Wendy. Thank you for that post. The stereotyping and offensive remarks  from the LIBERALS on this campus have been truly upsetting.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1218806 Michael Nguyen

        The problem with this argument, and fundamentally the difference between the two ‘sides’ of this debate, is that your perspective is individualist, while this policy is for a class of people. It is a myth that individuals live entirely in a vacuum, and that their backgrounds play little part in their success. Of course, it is commendable that you have worked so hard and gotten so far with your talent, and I nor anyone can detract from that, nor seek to do so. 

        However, it is also not true that you are “purely” on your own merits. A long history follows you into the present. To give a personal example, I am the son of Vietnamese immigrants. Sure, I worked hard to get to Cal. I studied a lot, I had a lot of extra-curriculars and jobs and all that. But would my family have even been in the country, were not Vietnam and the US intertwined in a massive military action, and had the US not allowed for Vietnamese refugees to stay in the country? What now of my personal efforts? They still stand, of course, but cannot be separated from the history and social milieu from which they sprouted.

        I don’t know who you are, but you did not come from the ether, you have characteristics that are a part of you as your arms and legs. Race and gender play an important part of identity AND social opportunity. Wendy, you will forever need to contend with your own afflictions, some of which you will be able to surmount, some you will not be able to. What I’m saying is that there are circumstances that are completely out of our control and that will forever relegate us to particular social opportunities, despite our efforts. It is an important role of the state to mitigate these circumstances, based upon historical and proven social facts. This is why we focus so intently on race, because race has played such an important role in the past. 

        Of course, you might then argue, well, then we should ignore race since that may continue to transmit injustice. But this would be an ill logical choice. For those who have been afflicted by discrimination, to suddenly then not be able to address such discrimination, is doubly insulting. It would be like being docked points for your height, then after all of the short people were denied entry into the school, suddenly changing the rules so that we were never allowed to talk about height at all. We MUST be able to discuss this, to talk about race, because race is important. One day we won’t need to talk about it, but until then, all we are doing is denying the past and in doing so, propagating it.

        • http://anonymoustroll.myopenid.com/ anonymous

          You’re a disgrace to the millions of Vietnamese heroes who died defending freedom from collectivism.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WRACM77JT2RXUR3LMGDPPUGUYY Tony M

      [I’m also glad to see that the Berkeley Republicans are still hilariously
      ignorant of the privileged background from which they came]

      Their “privilege” is most likely coming from a background and culture where they were taught to be industrious and self-reliant, instead of wards of the social welfare state expecting someone else to wipe their ass and make everything nice and “fair” for them. It’s certainly nothing that excludes people by race or ethnicity, as there are plenty of independent young black and hispanic kids in this country who aren’t afraid to compete as equals. You won’t see them out whining and crying about the bake sale – they are too busy working their butts off.

  • Jason McKenzie

    Those against affirmative action assume that the status quo is the unbiased system and
    that the affirmative action efforts would introduce bias. However, they
    cannot defend the status quo, nor do they try. They don’t defend that
    test scores used for admission correlate more strongly with income than
    any other variable.

     They don’t defend that higher income school
    districts have a better prepared pipeline to help students understand
    what it means to go to college and to get them there. They don’t defend
    that lower income school districts routinely have students working 20-40
    hours per week while in high school to support their families – so not
    only do they not have the income to go to Kaplan every night, they don’t
    have the time to.

    They have no explanation for why a state where nearly
    50% of 18 year-olds are Latino, fewer than 25% of UC and Cal State
    students are Latino, and 15% of 18 year-old are African American, fewer
    than 5% of UC and Cal State students are African American.

    They don’t try and defend the current system as unbiased because the only way they can do that is to admit that if
    the current system is unbiased, that means that Latinos and African
    Americans are inherently less academically capable. And they know they
    can’t go there (even if they might believe it).

    • Perspective

      If the correlation is between income and education, should affirmative action be about income and not race?

      • Schapel2

        Exactly.  You know how long this has been going on? I saw this at San Francisco State College in 1958.  Latinos got ‘special considerations’ per having a Latino name no matter what their income.  Whites did not.
        The poverty issue, the gang issue, the crime issue has been getting worse since those days.  One can only begin to wonder if this is by intention.  Solution?  I don’t know.

    • workinDawg

      Your are 100% correct about income and academic achievement- how you conclude such as evidence for racial preferences is illogical.  Based on your own observation ask yourself this- is Kobe Bryant (who was schooled in Europe and is the son of a very succesful businessman, grew up going to fine prep schools, living in great n-goods) in greater need than a very poor white kid from southern California who did work 40 hrs a week while going to school, etc, simply because he can check the “African American” box on the college app?

    • Guest

       You are completely misinformed regarding the Latino population at CSU campuses.

  • Ixchel

    It’s not racism. Racism is the idea that one race is superior to another, and certainly many attitudes present in America today are of a racist origin. Affirmative Action, on the other hand, DOES NOT seek to say that colored people are somehow better than white people. The aim is to alleviate all of the discrimination and racist policies that have put colored people at a disadvantage, be it in college admissions or even job employment. 

    To illustrate the idea, suppose that you want to balance a scale. On one side, you will put almonds and in another you put walnuts. Now, to be analogous with racist policy that only favored whites, let’s say you ONLY put a bunch of walnuts on the right scale and leave the left scale unattended. Realizing your mistake, you begin to ONLY put almonds to counter-act your previous move of only favoring walnuts. This is, roughly, what affirmative action is. What the protesters are asking us to do is, after having an unbalanced scale in favor of walnuts go with a policy of “one almond, one walnut” BUT given the grievous inequality already existing, it is clear that walnuts would benefit much more than almonds and equality won’t be reached. Of course, this is an oversimplification of this very complex issue, but the point I want to make is that the only reason that races are “favored” is to remedy an already existing structural problem NOT to say that certain people deserve more rights because of their race. 

    It is true that affirmative action does deny some deserving individuals of educational opportunities, however, we must realize that these people were at an unfair advantage (although, admittedly, by way of social constructs beyond their control) to begin with and would not have been in such a favorable position had racism and other bad policies not created such huge disparities between races. To put it more clearly: a lot of the people who lose out on an educational spot because of Affirmative Action were actually people who were unfairly benefiting from a social structure that benefited “white” people, and thus, their denial of education, while certainly a lamentable loss, is not quite as unfair as is made out to be. To go back to my scale example, it would be as if as I was about to put yet another walnut into the unbalanced scale, I realized I neglected the almonds. Thus, rather than put yet another walnut and imbalance the scale even further, I opt to chose an almond and try to balance things out. So yes, it is rather unfortunate, but in the grand scheme of things, it may be unfairer still to give the “walnut” the preferential treatment.

    Is affirmative action still necessary? That’s a tough call and I certainly don’t know how I feel about it. However, I think that the comments here do not properly reflect the intent of affirmative action and that this bakesale is an idiotic representation of a policy intended to finally even out the playing field for the disadvantaged.

    I hope this makes sense and puts to rest the petty argumentation seen here. 

  • Ixchel

    It’s not racism. Racism is the idea that one race is superior to another, and certainly many attitudes present in America today are of a racist origin. Affirmative Action, on the other hand, DOES NOT seek to say that colored people are somehow better than white people. The aim is to alleviate all of the discrimination and racist policies that have put colored people at a disadvantage, be it in college admissions or even job employment. 

    To illustrate the idea, suppose that you want to balance a scale. On one side, you will put almonds and in another you put walnuts. Now, to be analogous with racist policy that only favored whites, let’s say you ONLY put a bunch of walnuts on the right scale and leave the left scale unattended. Realizing your mistake, you begin to ONLY put almonds to counter-act your previous move of only favoring walnuts. This is, roughly, what affirmative action is. What the protesters are asking us to do is, after having an unbalanced scale in favor of walnuts go with a policy of “one almond, one walnut” BUT given the grievous inequality already existing, it is clear that walnuts would benefit much more than almonds and equality won’t be reached. Of course, this is an oversimplification of this very complex issue, but the point I want to make is that the only reason that races are “favored” is to remedy an already existing structural problem NOT to say that certain people deserve more rights because of their race. 

    It is true that affirmative action does deny some deserving individuals of educational opportunities, however, we must realize that these people were at an unfair advantage (although, admittedly, by way of social constructs beyond their control) to begin with and would not have been in such a favorable position had racism and other bad policies not created such huge disparities between races. To put it more clearly: a lot of the people who lose out on an educational spot because of Affirmative Action were actually people who were unfairly benefiting from a social structure that benefited “white” people, and thus, their denial of education, while certainly a lamentable loss, is not quite as unfair as is made out to be. To go back to my scale example, it would be as if as I was about to put yet another walnut into the unbalanced scale, I realized I neglected the almonds. Thus, rather than put yet another walnut and imbalance the scale even further, I opt to chose an almond and try to balance things out. So yes, it is rather unfortunate, but in the grand scheme of things, it may be unfairer still to give the “walnut” the preferential treatment.

    Is affirmative action still necessary? That’s a tough call and I certainly don’t know how I feel about it. However, I think that the comments here do not properly reflect the intent of affirmative action and that this bakesale is an idiotic representation of a policy intended to finally even out the playing field for the disadvantaged.

    I hope this makes sense and puts to rest the petty argumentation seen here. 

    • Zoom

      Actually, while “belief in superiority” is often a factor in racism, it is hardly a requirement, nor an element in every definition:

      1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races  determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race  is superior and has the right to rule others.

      2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

      3. hatred or intolerance of another race  or other races.

      Also, seems a bit hypocritical to be all this discussion “petty” when you yourself call the bakesale “idiotic.”

      Changing people to nuts doesn’t make it any less racist. And you don’t level out a playing field by benching great players in favor of mediocre ones. The field was level before the players even left the locker room.

      • Ixchel

        The reason I called the bakesale idiotic is because it does not take into consideration the grander social and structural factors at plays and dumbs it down into “one race is being favored over another” without taking into consideration WHY it is such. I think I’m fully justified in calling the concept of the bakesale idiotic if it doesn’t even properly address the issue it is trying to protest and I called the debate here petty because it’s also over-simplifying an issue and people are just being very stupid in the way they comment. 

        You missed my point with the nuts. The point I was trying to make is that the sole reason minorities are favored is to make-up for the previously lost opportunities, opportunities lost to race. Sure, it certainly is “discriminatory” and if we define racism as discrimination upon race, then affirmative action is certainly “racist,” but this is just a minor semantic victory when analyzed. Discrimination isn’t always a bad thing. For example, I can definitely see why a lumberjack company would discriminate against a paraplegic. Similarly, it could very well be that the way society deprives minorities of opportunities warrants some discriminatory policy to alleviate the problems caused by other discriminatory policies which were NOT justifiable. And even if, under certain definitions, affirmative action is “racist” it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the same kind of racism that led to the lynching of black people among other atrocities. The “racism” inherent in affirmative action is clearly just a by-product of the way that major disadvantages in college admissions were founded upon racial discrimination, thus, the appropriate response would also be based upon race. 

        The argument I’m trying to make is very complex, but it basically boils down to “just because something is racist doesn’t all of a sudden mean that its foundation is malicious.” I hope this clears things up.

        • Zoom

          It isn’t oversimplifying, because it’s rather simple. It’s a metaphor, so, no the bakesale need not taken into account “grander social and structural factors.” However, it is an accurate representation of affirmative action policies, and does satirically take into these nebulous and questionable vague “factors” implicitly. It also dismisses them as irrelevant and/or non-existent, depending on one’s point of view.

          You may disagree with whether or not society should be responsible for enacting affirmative action policies, but the metaphor is apt.

          I didn’t miss your point with the nuts, I just think it’s idiotic, petty, malicious, and racist – because it relies on petty, sweeping generalizations and untruths.

          It really isn’t all that complex. You’re saying, all white people are racist and thus all benefit from that, and everyone else does not, so we have to balance it out. I GET that argument, I just disagree with the premise, as not all whites DO benefit from some ill-defined “privilege,” nor are all minorities hindered by some white societal “factors” or whatever.

          That said, I completely disagree somewhat with the notion that “just because something is racist doesn’t all of a sudden mean that its foundation is malicious.” Perhaps not always purposefully malicious, or even not well-meaning, but at it’s root, it is based on an evil core, and worse, irrationality. That said, I do think a lot of people really fail at adequately distinguishing what is and what is not racist. Although, sure, in some instances, I do think being discriminating (vs. discriminatory) is not always a bad thing.

    • workinDawg

      How about letting folks pick either the almond or walnut for themselves??  You can’t “alleviate discrimination and racist policies” by simply applying them to another race.  A policy that is racist when aimed at one group is certainly racist when aimed at another. 

      • Ixchel

        Your response does nothing to the argument I presented. The REASON why we don’t let “folks” pick either almonds or walnuts is because the very way racism structured society made it so that, unless dramatic actions are taken, the only thing that will continue to be picked will be the walnuts. That is, leaving the system as is would merely result in the favoritism of the walnuts while doing nothing to help the almonds get back the lost ground. It’s not so much “racist” as merely righting the inequality created by the racism. 

        • Zoom

          It’s always some vague, undefined SYSTEM or SOCIAL STRUCTURE, no concrete discrimination that they can ever point to.

          • Ixchel

            What are you talking about? No concrete discrimination? Is this some kind of a joke? I’ll point to the most concrete system and social structure there is: the way that blacks were first enslaved and then forced into poverty after the Civil War, and later denied job and educational opportunities because of their race tied socioeconomic factors to race and created a society that was structured around race. The reason it was vague is because I assumed everyone here recognized this simple historical fact. I’m sorry I have to write 2+2=4 every single time.

          • Zoom

            I should be held accountable for the civil war because…? Guess what, slavery, over – there is no system or societal structure in place today discriminating against anyone.

          • Ixchel

            …You’re not being held accountable for it. I’m sorry, but whatever semblance of intelligent debate you just had was lost after that inane comment. I can’t even begin to imagine how many lapses of reason that mentality involves. Nobody is indicting you for the Civil War, I was just asked to cite what Structural Construction I was referring to and I did. I have no idea where you got this “I should be held accountable…” for nonsense. That has nothing to do with the conversation, the way this debate has been going or anything even remotely relevant. 

          • Krmccoin

            I thinkthe point Zoom was trying to make is ” what structural construction in this century” can you site.

          • Zoom

            I am being held accountable if you’re using it as an excuse to play favoritism based on race rather than on a sane factor, like family income.

            You seem to enjoy declaring the debate over when it’s not.

        • workinDawg

          So your position is it is OK to do the Walnut what was done to the Almond- which is what caused in the imbalance in the first place.  Correct?  I wish you would be more honest with your diction as that sounds like moving racism from one target to another to me.

          • Ixchel

            …I fail to see why you think this is so pointed (and how you fail to realize how the oversimplification of my analogy makes this argument you make here grossly unrepresentative of the issue at stake here) and challenging when in reality…well, it’s a poor response.

            What actually happened with racism is that society was shaped and structured in terms of race. One race was absolutely favored while all others had an absurd amount of opportunities limited. Affirmative Action DOES NOT take away all of the opportunities away from white people NOR does it subject them to the same treatment that minorities went through. So no, we are not doing the same thing to the almonds as was done to the walnuts, that’s just taking my analogy way too far. We’re not restructuring society to absolutely favor minorities, we’re only restructuring to give minorities the opportunities that the previous racial system caused them to lose. It is true that it is done in terms of race, but this is only because the inequalities occurred because of race. Please try to actually think about this rather than present these childish oversimplifications of the issue at hand. Thank you.

          • workinDawg

            Forgive me for not being as nuanced as yourself.  I believe childish notions like judging the content of ones character and other such nonsense.  I also feel that telling Johnny he can’t get into school because he’s white is just as bad as telling Jimmy he can’t because he’s black- I know it sounds like an oversimplification.  Is it not my view that is colorblind?  Isn’t that equality?

            I have to ask, in your view, when have we achieved equality?  When will we no longer need AA policies?

    • Perspective

      Ixchel, I am compelled to agree with your analogy and logic, however there is one fatal flaw.  Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because the problem was caused by racial discrimination doesn’t mean it should be solved with more racial discrimination.

      There are much better, and more more equitable ways to right such a wrong. Take this over-simplified analogy. Women weren’t allowed to vote for hundreds of years, as such they should be provided with two votes for every one person today to make up for it. Does that really make up for it? No, it’s an over-correction that is just as discriminatory. Would a better solution be to allow women to vote, and then preform an outreach campaign to women encouraging them to vote and providing them with information on how to? Why it might be.

      Racial discrimination isn’t as much the problem now as what it CAUSED: Poverty, ghettos, poor education, ect… It’s those effects that we should be trying to right. We’ve already righted the racism (by outlawing discrimination by race), we now need to right the effects of racism.

      • Ixchel

        I do not think the analogy you provide is analogous to what Affirmative Action does. It is not giving minorities over-representation, it’s merely trying to give them the opportunities that were lost due to racist policy. I also do not think that the phrase “two wrongs make a right” applies here since it assumes that it isn’t right to try and make-up for the lost opportunity. It is true that affirmative action has currently been based on race, but this is merely in response to the way that race was previously a determinant of who got which opportunities. Thus, although it is based on race, it is more a response to racism than a racist product itself. I hope that makes sense. 

        Perhaps it would be best to change affirmative action so that it now favors people living in poverty and who have a poor education, but we still have to realize that racism still, unfortunately, shapes the outcome of many people’s lives and thus it is, in my opinion, fully justifiable to act based on race to address these issues. That is, our response based on race isn’t because we WANT to favor a race over another, but it’s because previous policies that favored one race over another FORCE us to have to view inequalities–at least to some extent–within the context of race. Besides, just because racism is not institutionalized by laws anymore doesn’t mean that it isn’t there anymore from a structural perspective. What I mean by this is that, say, in the South, had a law been passed outlawing forcing blacks to seat in the back of the bus, it would have no effect if social pressures forced blacks to seat in the back of the bus anyway. Thus, racism can linger structurally, even if it isn’t a part of our laws, and that’s what we need to address. Unfortunately, the very way it is structured forces us to think of it in terms of race, but this, I think, is not racist in and of itself, it just means that we’re dealing with a racially structured society.

        • Perspective

          You right in some people minds racism still lingers, as does discrimination against women or certain religions. But the way to stop that certainty doesn’t come in anyway in college admissions. That solution is in exposure and education, and I’m sure you would agree that each generation that has passed is far less concerned with the color of someone’s skin than the last – that is a slow process that is working to fix itself.

          Just because there is a racial disparity doesn’t mean that it is still being caused by racism, it takes a long time to correct such a dramatic disparity.

          Once again if affirmative action “favors people living in poverty and who have a poor education” why doesn’t affirmative action help people living in poverty and who have a poor education instead of a racial demographic. Using race in a determination is still racist regardless of what you say or the reasons behind it.

          The racial disparity is being perpetuated by itself, and while it could be solved by giving a boost to a race – then end result of such an action would simply be a perpetuation of racism, and eventually the boost would result in an different underprivileged race and a different overprivileged race. Instead if you fight the actual problem – education and poverty – the problem can be resolved at the same speed, without racism.

          The way to solve your scale problem isn’t to keep adding walnuts and almonds to it, its to stop comparing walnuts and almonds to each other and place all of them on the same scale with the same chance of being eaten.

          There are plenty of cases of inequity in our history (African Slaves being the largest, but also Chinese Indentured Servants, Irish, Italaian and other Southern European and Eastern European immigrants, Arabs, ect…) should every group that has ever been discriminated against recieve some sort of preferential treatment now, even if said discrimination has greatly diminished?

          • Ixchel

            I don’t have the time to completely respond so I’ll just provide this very quick response: why do you think that each passing generation is less concerned with the color of a person’s skin? I think a large portion of the reason why has been the integration that is provided by programs like Affirmative Action. By studying with more minority students, various students grow up and form bonds together and realize that “racial tensions” is just some stupid social construct. Thus, Affirmative Action went a long way in deconstructing the racial discrimination that was inherent in American society. I don’t mean to say that Affirmative Action is STILL as warranted as it was before, but I do mean to say that the policy has much more merit than what it is given credit to. I’m more intent on providing a defense of Affirmative Action in general than a defense of the policy today. Most of the comments here attack Affirmative Action in concept, not modern application. I do think you’re right about shifting the focus from race and that it’s no longer THE pressing issue. Thank you for your thoughtful replies.

          • Perspective

            And I think we have reached common ground. I have absolutely no problem with the use of Affirmative Action in the past, it helped to weed out and prevent a policy of actively denying minorities various opportunities. It served a clear and noble purpose to set goals to prevent racial discrimination – which was the clear cause of the disparity in various institutions, not just academics. In the atmosphere of the time if the actions hadn’t been taken, you are correct that much of our advancement against discrimination may not have happened  – simply because the policy was your not white your not allowed in.

            I just believe that in today’s world (while not racism free) where race isn’t THE reason your denied (by which I mean someone doesn’t look at your application and say your black, sorry)  much more good can come from focusing on the resulting issues (poverty, ghettos, a broken education system), and that by fixing those issues not only can we correct the racial disparity but can also result in a better educated and more diverse society as a whole.

            And thank you too for your thoughts and time. If only we could get everyone else to sit down and have a respectful and civil discourse there might be a more complete and uncontroversial solution.

    • Dmitry

      “this bakesale is an idiotic representation of a policy intended to finally even out the playing field for the disadvantaged.”

      How so? If you’re supporting minorities getting preference over a more qualified individuals due to their race or background (it evens the playing field, doesn’t it?), then you should be in full support of a bakesale which evens the playing field by charging the underprivileged people less!

      Hypocritical vocal liberal minority in Berkeley, as always.

      • Ixchel

        …Do explain how a bakesale based on race is parallel to policy that is meant to provide education to people who had been historically deprived of educational opportunities and was a direct response to the racial inequalities. A more applicable way to present affirmative action would be if previously, all minorities had been charged $4.00 for cupcakes and whites $2. The university, recognizing the racism of this policy, changes the prices–for a while–to $.00 for minorities and leaves it at $2 for whites. This is to recompense the minorities for the extra $2 they had to pay whilst racism was implemented. If you add up how much whites and minorities end up paying for BOTH rounds of the cupcake sale, they both add up to $4 paid in total. Again, this is just a rough outline but the intent is to actually even out the amount paid and not discriminate against whites, even if superficially, judging ONLY on the second sale where minorities had “free” cupcakes, it seems as if whites are being maliciously discriminated against. Not to mention, one of the reasons it SEEMS as if minorities are “less qualified” is because they tend to come from the less prestigious schools where they had less opportunity, among other factors. It’s not that they’re actually mediocre, it’s just that compared to other students, they had it rougher. It’s not perfect but I do think it is, to some extent, warranted.

  • workinDawg

    How cute, UC Berkely Professor jumps in trying to buy all of the cupcakes and “silence” the bake sale.  Yet another lesson on how colleges & universities continue to demand young minds explore alternative viewpoints and engage in vigorous debate (note- sarcasm).

    • http://anonymoustroll.myopenid.com/ anonymous

      Wendy Brown is a political activist wearing the robes of academia to grant herself credibility. This is similar to our President, known for his professorial tone and his academic approach, despite never having written a single academic article in a decade as a faculty member at a highly prestigious university.

  • Hannah Katz

    Why would minorities not appreciate a “diversity discount”?  It kind of fits with those who demand reparations for slavery.

    • Anonymous

      Or reparations for abusive, genocidal, legalized apartheid that lasted until 1965. You know—the kind that leads to people being cheated out of hard-earned wages, indebted to the point of bankruptcy through the euphemistically named “sharecropping” system, or lynched for the crime of being too financially successful or “uppity.” Billions of dollars were robbed from Black southerners through unpaid labor or stolen land and property. How would you like to be forcibly thrown off of your farm and run out of town?

      Yet while most Black folks have never seriously endorsed the reparations movement, right-wingers sure love using reparations as a political boogeyman, don’t they?

      • Guest

        If you are any color other than white and stand up against racism toward your people, you’re an ACTIVIST.

        If you’re white and stand up against racism toward your people, you’re a RACIST.

        Time to wake up and realize we have not only allowed, but fostered and condoned racism and class-envy in non-white communities.

        This
        is due to our collective trauma of slavery, even though it ended over
        150 years ago and most whites were not even here when slavery existed as
        the big waves of European immigration was well after the Civil War.

        And remember, it was white Christians who risked everything to end this odious institution.

        • Anonymous

          This is due to our collective trauma of slavery, even though it ended over 150 years ago and most whites were not even here when slavery existed

          Slavery ended 146 years ago, to be exact. Nice exaggeration there. Besides plenty of whites alive today were around when Jim Crow existed. What’s your point?

          And remember, it was white Christians who risked everything to end this odious institution.

          You’re totally not racist, but yet you credit Black folks’ struggle against slavery to white Christians. As if Black folk did absolutely nothing to free themselves from bondage.

          Either way, why the frack are we talking about slavery? Oh yeah—because your totally colorblind self brought it up. Let’s return to the land of 2011, please.

          • Guest123

            OH MY GOD! 2.74% OFF!
            WHAT A HORRIBLE EXAGGERATION!!!

            And, of course more straw men and putting words into people’s mouths from the racist parkwood1920 who thinks that African Americans can’t get into college on their own merits and need to have lowered expectations because of their skin color.

          • Anonymous

            And, of course more straw men and putting words into people’s mouths from the racist parkwood1920 who thinks that African Americans can’t get into college on their own merits and need to have lowered expectations because of their skin color.

            Whoa—“Guest123″—you have got to stop projecting. That ain’t a good look. You totally just made up a quote and threw it into my mouth. I don’t believe one word of the steaming pile of nonsense you just attributed to me.  Come on now!

          • Guest123

             

            You totally just made up a quote and threw it into my mouth.

            Which part of the post you’re replying to has quotation marks in it, which would denote a “made up quote?”

            If you don’t think that African Americans can’t get into college on their own merits and
            need to have lowered expectations because of their skin color, perhaps you should re-think your stance on race-based affirmative action.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=652840510 Henry C. Service

    What the media is not covering, folks don’t want you to know and what the students are too young and poorly informed to tell you is the following:
    1.     White women are by far the biggest beneficiaries of both welfare and affirmative action — it’s hard to see how this is about race when white people are the biggest beneficiaries of the program.  At the very least, the students should be charging people of color more for the cupcakes so that their so-called protest is accurate. 
    2.     There is no such thing as affirmative action the Supreme Court struck it down in a series of cases…  Hopwood, Adarand, J. R. Croson…  You are only allowed to consider race for diversity and then, only at eh undergraduate level.  Diversity is not about preferential treatment for races, but is seen as essential in an undergraduate academic environment. 
    3.     The majority of the people who are against affirmative action have not been and will not be in a position for it to make any difference to them.

    • G.R.

      “1. White women are by far the biggest beneficiaries of both welfare and affirmative action”

      “2. There is no such thing as affirmative action”

      If it does not exist, how can you falsely claim that white women are the biggest beneficiaries of it?

      Gotcha.

      • http://www.gaurano.com Jonathan Gaurano

        Oh G.R. When AA was alive and well. There was research done on who benefited from AA. This research was kept in a book so when the Supreme Court abolished AA – it still remained in the book. Sometimes those facts are pulled out of the book and we use it in our argument. 

        “Several studies have documented important gains in racial and gender equality as a direct result of affirmative action (Bowen & Bok, 1998; Murrell & Jones, 1996). For example, according to a report from the U.S. Labor Department, affirmative action has helped 5 million minority members and 6 million White and minority women move up in the workforce (“Reverse Discrimination,” 1995). Likewise, a study sponsored by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs showed that between 1974 and 1980 federal contractors (who were required to adopt affirmative action goals) added Black and female officials and managers at twice the rate of noncontractors (Citizens’ Commission, 1984). There have also been a number of well-publicized cases in which large companies (e.g., AT&T, IBM, Sears Roebuck) increased minority employment as a result of adopting affirmative action policies.”  

        No ‘Gotcha’ on Henry’s response

  • Blue-eyed Barbie Doll

    I bet Uncle Ward Connerly enjoys being the lone “Black” at that table.  He probably doesn’t want too many to join him.  You know, don’t want the neighborhood to go ‘down.’

    • G.R.

      What a racist comment.

  • willa Lavie

    Diversity is what makes this country and this state great.  The Republican notion of “equality” is based on select criteria, simliar to that which they criticize.  They are hypocrites.  However, Berkeley being Berkeley I’m glad that various voices can be heard (or silent).  

    • workinDawg

      What is the “Republican notion of equality”?  I am very curious.

      • Anonymous

        “What is the “Republican notion of equality”?  I am very curious.”

        Right-wingers believe that it’s racism to talk about race or address racial disparity in a substantive way. But they think that privileging white people in housing, education, jobs, and credit is just fine—as long as no one makes explicitly bigoted remarks about people of color. Perhaps phony colorblindness would be a better term for this phenomenon.

        • Zoom

          PRIVILEGE! The vague boogeyman word, yet again.

          Your “substantive way” of addressing “racial disparity” is in itself racist, leading only to other forms of “racial disparity.” It’s tribalism. More racism does not fix racism.

          I don’t really speak for “right-wingers,” being more libertarian, but I don’t know anyone that thinks “it’s racism to talk about race.” It is however racist to vilify specific ethnicities. It’s discriminatory for the state to do it.

          • Anonymous

            Tribalism? Do you even know what that word means? We’re talking about government legislation here, not chauvinism toward one’s own ethnic group (the actual definition of tribalism).

            And who’s “vilifying specific ethnicities?” Fighting systemic racism doesn’t vilify white people, if that’s what you’re thinking. No one has called white people evil or bad for being white, and being white is not a crime. That’s another red herring the right-wing throws around to dismiss affirmative action. We talking about systemic discrimination, not whiteness.

            By the way, anything that defends and protects the status quo is right-wing, and your comments on this thread definitely support business as usual.

          • Zoom

            Hardly a red herring when people speak so much of “white privilege” and whites are the ones punished under the legislation. The term “systematic discrimination” is the true red herring here. It’s finger pointing at nothing.

            What I meant is that such legislation divides us into tribes, rather than treats us all the same. “The state or fact of being organized in a tribe or tribes.”

            I’m not defending any “status quo,” simply the notion of individual freedom and responsibility, and decrying the tyrannical social engineering attempts by the state.

          • Anonymous

            The term “systematic discrimination” is the true red herring here. It’s finger pointing at nothing.

            Yeah—banks and employers rejecting people of color for credit, loans, and jobs is “nothing.” You know, your own denial illustrates the need for AA  better than I ever could. Nice work.

            And by the way, we’re not “divide[d] into tribes.” Bravo for denying racism while employing ethnic stereotyping to make your point.

          • Guest

            ROTFLMAO!!! As if poor whites don’t get rejected for the same stuff every day!

            When all you see around you  is racism, you should consider that maybe the racism is inside YOU.

          • Anonymous

            The fact that white people are poor doesn’t make racism a fiction. Stop making fallacious arguments.

          • Guest123

            No one said it did. Stop making up straw men to attack.

          • Zoom

            Banks and employers reject a lot of whites too. You’re lying if you’re saying minorities are always denied loans and employment. Affirmative action, legislated, DOES divide us into tribes – and worse grants privileges to some and punished others, based on skin color. Bravo for pulling the race card yet again, when I made not a single ethnic stereotype. You’re just “offended” I disagree with your premise and these policies – using faux-outrage rather than reason to make your debate… just like UCB administrators, professors and a good portion of the student body.

        • workinDawg

          What do you mean by “privileging white people in housing, education, jobs and credit”?  I find it odd that the “rightwingers” I know are far more colorblind than any liberal I’ve met.

          • Anonymous

            For your information, both right-wingers and liberals hold white privilege, and many white people in both groups are in denial about holding this privilege. This doesn’t mean that white people are inherently evil and bad. But all folks with unearned privilege have a choice when it comes to dealing with unearned advantage.

            You can either deny benefitting from social inequity, or you can fight for a world where unearned privilege does not exist. It’s your choice.

          • workinDawg

            Focus parkwood- what privleges do white folks get in housing, jobs, education and credit?  Please be specific.  Thanks in advance.

          • Anonymous

            Focus workinDawg—and use Google. Took me all of three minutes to find this.

          • workinDawg

            Laughable.  Tell me again how you end racial discrimination by supporting racial discrimination?  You still didn’t site examples where white folks are getting houses, jobs and education (which is rather ironic given the topic we’re commenting from) because they are white.  You know that old SNL skit where Eddie Murphy goes undercover as a white guy is a joke right?  Bankers don’t really give money to white folks. 

          • Guest123

            It’s both hilarious, and tellingly sad how parkwood1920 will attack others for not citing sources, and then make broad statements of “fact” without any evidence to support them at all.

            It really shows you the extreme level of cognitive dissonance required to think that supporting race-based discrimination is the best way to end race-based discrimination.

          • Anonymous

            Guest123, you not looking for sources, so stop pretending. I linked a 24-page report on racial discrimination that you have yet to read . You just want a flame war. Period.

          • Anonymous

            Yeah—you didn’t read the report. I didn’t think you would.

          • Zoom

            I came from a poor Irish family, raised by a single mother in a predominantly lower-class Hispanic/Asian-immigrant community. You know how Irish indentured servants were treated prior to the Civil War? Or the  Irish community in general throughout American history? You can take your generalizations, offensive ones at that, about unearned advantages and privileges based on race and stick them where the sun doesn’t shine. I do deny that because I’m white I benefited from social inequity.  I choose to fight for a world where institutionalized racial privileges, such as affirmative action, are not legislated and supported unfairly by the state.

        • Guest

          Right-wingers believe that it’s racism to talk about race or address racial disparity in a substantive way.

          Bullshit.
          Cite sources, etc.

          If you want to talk about shutting down discussion, any time anyone wants to talk about race, it’s the Liberals who scream that anyone who disagrees with them is a racist.

          • Anonymous

            I cited sources upthread and you didn’t read ‘em. Too bad. I’m not going to do your research for you—Google is a browser tab away. Stop being lazy and put some of that good ole “personal responsibility” to work.

          • Guest123

            Personal attacks are the last resort of a pathetic intellect.

            In case you aren’t aware, it’s obvious that you’re lashing out at me for asking you to cite a source proving your statement that all individuals who hold right-wing political views think it’s racism to talk about race issues because you clearly don’t have a source for such an ignorant and bigoted comment.

            Next time try replying rationally. That way you might avoid looking like such a fool in the future.

          • Anonymous

            “Personal attacks” and “lashing out.” Wow—someone has a serious victimhood complex, don’t they?

            Projecting your own insecurities onto someone you’re debating is pretty darn irrational, if you ask me.

          • Guest123

            Thanks for proving my point, hombre.

          • Anonymous

            ??????

          • Guest123

             PS: Care to cite your source backing up your statement that all individuals who hold right-wing political views think it’s racism to talk about race issues?

          • Anonymous

            Uh—your comments?

          • Guest123

            Uh—nope. I think discussing this issue is great. Try again.

            Please cite your source backing up your statement that all individuals who hold right-wing political beliefs believe it is “racism” to discuss race issues.

          • Anonymous

            You, a few minutes ago:
            “If you are any color other than white and stand up against racism toward your people, you’re an ACTIVIST.
            If you’re white and stand up against racism toward your people, you’re a RACIST.
            Time to wake up and realize we have not only allowed, but fostered and condoned racism and class-envy in non-white communities.”

            Where’s your evidence for racism in nonwhite communities?

          • Guest123

            As you said, Google is a browser tab away. Stop being lazy and put some of that good ole “personal responsibility” to work.

            http://www.google.com/search?q=non-white+racism

  • Blue-eyed Barbie

    Funny, Affirmative Action is never discussed at cal FOOTBALL and BASKETBALL games.

    • http://www.gaurano.com Jonathan Gaurano

      There is a difference between including race and gender as a factor into college admissions….and racially balancing a basketball team. Talking about Prop185 not AA. 
      Also, for the record (my turn to be woozy/sarcastic/facetious/whatever you call it) – it looks like you’re complaining because the mens football and basketball teams are NOT majority white and asian. Typical. Trying to discredit the things people of color end up becoming the majority of…

      • Guest

        Also, for the record (my turn to be woozy/sarcastic/facetious/whatever
        you call it) – it looks like you’re in favor of racist legislation like SB185 because college campuses are NOT majority black/hispanic/etc. Typical.
        Trying to discredit the things white people end up becoming the
        majority of… 

  • http://www.gaurano.com Jonathan Gaurano

     “In order to move society forward, we’ve got to look past race” said Derek Zhou, vice president of the group. I’m sorry but based on social realities and who is in power (the majority = white society) –  this is not true!

    If it were only that simple, but it’s not.

    As a person of a very low-class under-resourced city and school (who
    graduated from UC Berkeley)…  I must say that it was always hard for
    me to understand if society ‘accepted me.’ I looked around and time and
    time again – I’m surrounded by white society
    (leaders/tv/hollywood/magazines). How can we not look past race when racism is still alive and well today?

    Go to youtube, you have a black kid singing and laughing to a rap song – boom someone comments, “Future Felon.” A white girl raps, “Praise. Inspiration.”

    Walk around cities, turn on the tv, understand who is in control, – what I’m saying is that – race matters. To shun it away means you do not care or understand the current social climates of today.

    Rambling there for a second. Oops. You can surely critique me on those points ^ (the rambling).

    Prop 185 includes race and gender when applying to college. This does not mean that these people (who do accepted) are not there based on merit. They are indeed qualified candidates. Prop 185 and a box to choose from – says, “I am included. I am seen. I’m heard for.”

    Why try to silence our voices when we are just trying to be heard?
    Why try to bring us down when we are climbing?

    Did you know that when prop 209 was overturned (1995) that there was a decrease of accepted Filipino students by a staggering 70%+

    I just find it that when a privileged group is suddenly being challenged – that they call themselves the victims – make a bake sale – get public attention… annoying.

    • Zoom

      If you’re only seeing “white society” when you look around California, you’re as blind as a bat. No one claims that rare instances of actual racism do occur, but it’s just as racist to grant special privilege (yes, PRIVILEGE) to students based on race and/or ethnicity. And in the case of affirmative action, it’s institutionalized, state government discrimination, which is much worse, as it effects everyone based on their skill color – and it’s got the strong-arm of the state behind it. What I find annoying is when students, administrators and professors who leech off the state by creating a business of race-baiting and divisiveness cry foul when other students exercise their right to free speech and equal treatment under the law, and dare to criticize and even satirize the holy cows of leftist tribalism.

      • http://www.gaurano.com Jonathan Gaurano

        “rare instances” Ouch. Either you’re blind, but in our society – it is definitely not a rare occurrence. As for Affirmative Action? My original post did not proclaim the words ‘Affirmative Action.’

        I am talking about a bill (Prop 185) that factors race and gender…

        Including race and gender is NOT worse than the racist climate we live in today. Where people are granted special privilege on a daily basis for being white. I just have to turn on the news, watch movies, read pop-culture, go to websites of white men who are lauded for breaking the law (& womanizing)… All this is WORSE than factoring ‘race and gender’ into college applications. 

        It’s not race-baiting. It’s saying: I a woman, a black person, a (underprivileged race & gender) is heard. Is being seen. Finally, someone hears us – we can apply – we are given a chance.

        Sorry, but someone who has outreached to under-resourced low-income schools… it’s tough to see children think that they cannot make it because they feel that ‘white society’ doesn’t give them a chance. Including race, gives them another motivation to apply to go for their dreams to feel – ‘included.’

        Also, I feel that white privilege society (who is against including race and gender into this process) are satisfied ONLY WHEN the under-priviledged follow by THEIR RULES. The RULES they dictate so they feel no sense of guilt or responsibility to how society runs? 

        A note to white privileged society who run this country (who are against this cause):

        You complain when we race to be included.
        You complain when we are the majority (Examples: SO MANY ASIANS IN SCHOOLS! AHH or OMG THAT IS AN ALL BLACK SCHOOL)
        You complain and complain when nothing goes your way, even though it is going your way – and has been for a very long long time. 

        I feel like you’re never happy when people of color go out there and speak out! 

        • Zoom

          Rare as in not the norm. I didn’t say they’re isn’t racism. And I especially wouldn’t suggest that only one group is racist – which seems to be the major ploy of the left.

          Factoring race and ethnicity IS affirmative action, despite semantic ploys to suggest that it is not.

          And, again, you’re ignoring a lot of society, if everything you see is ALL WHITE. That’s YOUR problem, not mine, and not the state’s.

          For the  most part, it is the fault of the race-baiters that people feel “white society” is not giving them the chance. They’ve been taught that by those who economically benefit from the business of “race complaints.” And the end of your post is a prime example of the anti-Caucasian racism that seems to increasingly dominate the left. Nothing but bigoted finger-pointing and vague vilification.

    • Heath

      You assume that the privliedged group is exclusively White. Why not simply look at applicants from a socio-economic stance?

      • http://www.gaurano.com Jonathan Gaurano

        Listen, I’m not discrediting people, based on the level of socio-economic status. I am mentioning that the privileged group, when it comes to race, is white society. 

        • G.R.

          Tell that to the tens of millions of white people living in crushing poverty.

          • http://www.gaurano.com Jonathan Gaurano

            http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?rgn=1&cat=1&ind=14 Look at the Stats (Percentages). The majority of white people are doing better than most? I’m letting you know. 

            I was about to repeat myself. But, you can read what I’ve said before.  ^^ (and everywhere).

          • Guest

            How the fuck does that alleviate things for white people in poverty? Why the fuck does that make underprivileged white people less deserving than underprivileged black people just because their skin is a different color?

          • Anonymous

            And the majority of rich people are white. The vast majority of minorities are doing worse than whites in this economy, so what?

          • Guest

            The majority of poor people are white.
            Where’s their affirmative action?

      • Anonymous

        The majority of wealthy and upper income people in California and the US are white. This concentration of wealth is a result of continuing discrimination in housing, education, employment, and credit. It ain’t an accident. Equal opportunity is impossible when employers and bankers continue to favor white applicants over black and brown ones.

        Simply put, most white people in this country aren’t rich, but most rich people are white. If we really look at this “from a socio-economic stance,” we’ll find racial discrimination and white privilege all over the place.

        • Facts Don’t Lie

          The vast majority of poor people in this country are white.

          • Anonymous

            Well, obviously since white people are the majority of people in this country PERIOD, they will obviously be the majority of both poor and rich people. Doesn’t mean white privilege doesn’t exist.

            Even when controlling for income and education, white people tend to have higher net worth than black and brown people of their economic class. If you want the evidence for this, Google and ProQuest are your friends.

    • Oski Is Brown

      No one is trying to silence your voice.  

      But did you know that while you were “climbing”, you did so by taking the place of someone who (on academic terms) was a better candidate than you?  And that person’s only crime was having slanted eyes or white skin?

      • http://www.gaurano.com Jonathan Gaurano

        Ouch. This argument can go for someone with economic stance as well? I mean how far can it go? I can see it now: “Did you know that while you were climbing, you did so by taking the place of someone who was a better candidate than you? And that person’s only crime was having tons of money in the bank.”

        First off. I’m Asian (Filipino). My eyes are slightly slanted, that’s besides the point. 

        As for taking someone’s place? Um, people of color (in this society) rarely have place (of power) in society. I can say right then that  our voices ‘are being taken away’ and replaced by someone else. 

        In addition, just because you take race into consideration does not mean you’re going to take the place of another candidate that’s better… You don’t know that! Statistically, people of color (especially at UC Berkeley – even while Prop 209) who were accepted into UC Berkeley – were the top of their class. mMmm

        “Better Candidate?” Does not automatically mean slanted eyes or white skin. 

        • Oski Is Brown

          No, better candidate “on academic terms” (as I said in my post) means exactly that: rank them on academic terms alone.  If they’re at the top of the class, if they’re doing well on all of the metrics that we use to try to rank students, then they should be admitted to UC Berkeley… REGARDLESS of race.  

          You talk about “place of power” in society.  A random East Asian or white teenager denied admission to UC Berkeley for someone less academically qualified never had a place of power in society.  You are trying to justify some undefined social injustice on the backs of completely innocent people.

          I shake my head when some African-Americans, for example, talk about the legacy of slavery.  What are we saying, exactly?  As a society we are telling some Korean or Indian kid who’s parents just arrived in this country 20 years ago, that they must sacrifice their future prospects for a crime committed by white slavers dead and buried 150 years ago?

    • Wendy

      Hello, I was one of the people selling the cupcakes today. I am a proud
      Berkeley College Republican, and white. Privileged? I worked
      60 hour work weeks (yes, I am a student) this summer, my mom is a single
      mother of 8 kids… please explain to me how much equality this gives
      me? A level playing field? I am given no government money to get through
      school- I am here purely on my own merits and money.

      Please take
      the time to consider that there are people- of all races- who ARE smart
      enough and able enough to get into college on purely their own merits.
      Stipulating that they need an extra hand up to get in is demeaning and
      purely incorrect. Thank you.

      • Zoom

        Good job, Wendy. Thanks for fighting the good fight, and bringing attention to harmful state legislation like SB 185.

  • Sherman

    So Zoom — what about Prof Brown?   How can the Repubs censor and oppress free enterpise?

    • Zoom

      In a free market, it is a business’s decision with whom to do business. Businesses can limit orders per customer. That is free enterprise. Perhaps if you understood the difference between businesses and customers making free, individual decisions, and the state telling them what to do, you’d comprehend how such an action is merely free enterprise at work.

  • Hi We’re surprisingly similar

    It’s funny because the Republican Clu is doing this for equalitynand the protesters are protesting equality. Our only difference is then the way we think we need to use to achieve equality. Personally I’m against affirmative action, but for social programs that help support those who don’t have the opportunities of the “rich white kids.”

  • Schapel2

    I see complete address didn’t print out.  Google: statehealthfacts.org, then type in “Poverty rate by Race/Ethnicity, states (2008-2009), U.S. (2009).

  • Schapel2

    Highest poverty in  ACTUAL NUMBERS in US is so called ‘white’.

    http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?rgn=6&ind=14&cat=1

    So who is paying how much for cupcakes? And who is getting how much re help/resources?  What is real intent of social engineering?  How’s that working for everyone? People are united in poverty, divided by social engineering.  Best not let them know the facts.  They might join together, find out where the money is going and cause big trouble.

    • http://www.gaurano.com Jonathan Gaurano

      Please look at the percentages: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?rgn=1&cat=1&ind=14 – are they the majority now? (when it comes to poverty). Percentages.

      • Schapel2

        Jonathan: Thanks for responding.  Why percentages?  I’m looking at pound for pound of pain.  I’m saying if you lined up all the people by color/race the “white” line would be far longer.  More importantly, you never see that in the media.  Why? Likely because the media is one of the many instruments of ‘social engineering’.  They take advantage of the tendency of people to  respond  to issues they see as affecting their own ‘group.’ God forbid ‘whites’ find out more of them are in poverty than other groups.  Then we must start asking the serious questions.
        (1) Why are the student “groups’ dickering over crumbs instead of finding out where the real inequities are? Goole: Mercury News, type in search:Bay area public employees salries, click ‘higher education, click UofC, Click UC Berkeley.  LOOK AT THOSE SALARIES.   It’s outrageous. This is stealing from the students, from all America that needs well educated people. These are not educators. They are money grubbers.  They are digging their own graves. A few cycles of retirement and no one will be able to pay.  Then comes debt. Once you hit that point -either an under water mortgage, tuition with no job to pay off, or a country like Greece (and next Italy, Portugal, etc.) the International Banksters move in to confiscate.  That means public and private property.
        (2) Why is higher education free in other countries (ex:Denmark) and students must go into debt here?  This is a give-a-way to the ‘too big to fail’ banks that should have been chopped up long ago.  Any student loans are created from digits, not money put in the bank by another customer, not real wealth.  Loans are created out of thin air just like mortgages.

        The bottom line is there is plenty enough to go around for everyone, but not if people in power grab an unfair share, or others manipulate so the ‘groups’ grovel  over crumbs, blame each other, allow them selves to be manipulated instead of basing decisions on facts, and don’t of analyze the whole system.  It’s tedious work.  I hope more students move in this direction.

        Tip: Anytime you look for solutions find one that includes everyone.  Whoever you leave out becomes a threat to success. Stay away from ideologies. Look for what works. PS: I am not a Rep or Dem. I’m independent.

  • Zoom

    GOP exercise free speech = bad. ASUC corruptly uses student fee money to promote a particular bill = good. Welcome to the Twilight Zone world that is UC Berkeley. The ASUC should be thrown in jail for their misuse of funds. But, of course, that the sort of “principles” UCB teaches nowadays. Tribalism and single-party control by any violent and corrupt means necessary.

    • G.R.

      Any speech I disagree with is hate speech and should be banned.

      • Zoom

        Help, help, I’m being oppressed!

        • Zoom

          Make that “Help! Help! I’m being repressed!”

      • http://www.gaurano.com Jonathan Gaurano

        Facetious. Ouch. 

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_CVRZE7H2ENKKMCYYOMIUIVWRW4 rhody

        Your “I” comments suggests you are may be 5 years old at best.

        • Nikolai

          Swing and a miss!

        • lcmarl

          Monty Python?  No?

  • Zoom

    Caucasians make up only 30% of the UCB undergraduate population, yet whites make up 58% of the population of California. Who is really underrepresented at Berkeley? Who is really being discriminated against?

    • http://www.gaurano.com Jonathan Gaurano

      I love how you group the 70% minorities as ONE GROUP. I’m sorry, but if you split the numbers up, you will still see that whites are the MAJORITY in that school.

      • Zoom

        I love how you say I did something I didn’t do, and argue against a point I didn’t make. I merely point out that Caucasians are under-represented in comparison to state populations, thus implying that the university is actively discriminating against them (at least by the convoluted logic of affirmative action supporters). Also, you seem not to understand the technical definitions of “majority”, since whites are hardly the largest group (Asians make up 40%) nor are they a group larger than 50%.

      • Cuperfalls

        If you split whites into groups jews, germans, rusians, americans, irish-americans, communist, capitalist, … dont even get us started.

        • http://www.gaurano.com Jonathan Gaurano

          What’s funny is this. When you say the word white – in our society. All those (countries you mentioned) feel included. You say the word Asian… different story. 

          • Cuperfalls

            french, italien, norwegian, cultures that deliverd social economic standard that scale and asians want to be apart of without doing the ground work. what we get from asians are silicon valley sweatshops and unaffordable housing and education. the denail of service attack, the professor at my european university once said. today china or india doesnt need to send an atomic bomb for war, they send millions of people to destoy the accessability to social services, i.e schools, healthcare, roads,traffic, quaility of life, working conditions. cap, limitations, basically government doing its job by allocating resources correctly.

      • Rebekah Barham
        • http://www.gaurano.com Jonathan Gaurano

          Grouping Asians into one category such as that? Mmm Chinese, East Asians, Filipino, Pacific Islander…. It won’t equate to those numbers. 

          • Zoom

            And if you ungroup whites into various categories, like Irish, Greek, German, etc…. then there’s no white number to count anymore either. What do you know? Categorization semantics at work. Let’s just say, if you’re going to group whites together, and all the various latinos (Mexcian, Puerto Rican, Argentine, Brazilian) then we should group the Asians together too. Plus, it doesn’t really matter who there is MORE of – what’s one should expect is that the proportions come out roughly to those of the state population.

      • Elitenemesis

        Technically Asians are the plurality. Whites are not the majority.

        • http://www.gaurano.com Jonathan Gaurano

          Grouping Asians into one category such as that? Mmm Chinese, East Asians, Filipino, Pacific Islander…. It won’t equate to those numbers. 

      • ReverseRacism

        Seems like you are unemployed and pass off time by spewing out liberal PC on dailycal.org, hows that degree working out for you man?

    • Chris Yenn

      California history shows that if there were no consideration for race, Asians would be a much larger percentage of UC admits than the 40ish% they currently occupy.  Yes, Asians are currently the plurality at Cal (surely, the word that both Zoom and J.Guarano are looking for), but by academic measures would easily have been the majority at Cal (at least in the 90s and early 00s).

      But then, Cal would be full of Asian people and lack the diversity of people and opinion that make it such a great campus.

      A good read during these touchy debates:

      http://www.amazon.com/Coming-White-Minority-Dale-Maharidge/dp/0679750088

      Go Bears.

      • Guest

         The reason Asians greatly increased at Cal and other UC’s in the mid to late 80’s and into the 90’s  is because UC  caved in to the Asian Coalition’s  claims of discrimination and changed the admissions scheme to favor Asians as opposed to whites and everyone else.
        The Asian Coalition’s claims of being discriminated against in admissions were due to the following:
        1) UC using the Sat Verbal Score(Current Cr but also had analogies) for Admissions since for many Asians, English is a foreign language.
        [Note that most highly selective colleges place much greater weight on the Cr score than Math for all but those applying to Engineering Programs. The Math score has little relevance to Social Science and Humanities majors.]
        2) Requiring four years of one foreign language or two years or two foreign languages in the A-F requirements.
        3) Requiring a minimum 400 Sat Verbal Score at Berkeley.
        4) Having no Achievement Tests(Sat Subect Tests) in Asian Languages.
        As a result UC started double counting Sat Subject Exams thereby minimizing the Sat Verbal(Cr) score in admissions decisions. At the time GPA was multiplied by 1oo0=4,000 and the Sat and Sat Achievement test scores were equal to 4,000. Before the change to placate the Asian Coalition,  each part of the Sat(Verbal and Math) and the three Achievement Exams( Writing/Math/Other) were counted at face value adding up to 4,000 points.
        After the change, the Sat was  counted at face value and  each Achievement test was doubled;  all were added together and multiplied by 0.625 coming to 4,000 points. [Sat Verbal + Sat Math] + [2( Three Achievement Tests: Writing/Math/Other)] [0.625]
        UC also petitioned the College Board to start offering Achievement Exams in Chinese and Japanese.
        In contrast,  Ivy Leagues place the most weight on the Sat Verbal(Cr) and did not require an Achievement Exam in Math and looked very negatively on students taking Achievement exams in foreign languages that they are native speakers.
        Considering the Math Sat and requiring a double counted Math Achievement Exam  greatly disadvantaged students not proficient in Math  and who had no need for Math as potential Humanities or Social Science majors.
         The UC admissions scheme was tailored to Asian strengths, and predictably the percent of Asians admitted soared.
        Depending on year,  between 40% to 60% of each class was admitted strictly on test scores and Gpa.  Then a certain number of points were added for a variety of attributes such as participation in extracurricular activities, going to a school that did not offer AP courses etc . The rest of the class was then theoretically admitted after adding these points.
        There was another tier:  any African American, Hispanic, Native American, Pilipino, Disabled, Athlete meeting minimum UC system wide requirements was admitted. By 1989, the latter tier had become so large that there were no admissions from the second tier.

        • Fheih

          This may be true but the most significant reason for the large population of asian students at UCs it that they work hard and have a culture that values education above all else.

    • Anonymous

      Whites make up 41% of California’s population and many hispanics call themselves white so they are not showing up in your numbers. 

      • Zoom

        Ah, you’re right. Good catch. Forgot the census counts ethnicity and “hispanic-ness” separately.

        Of course, my points above still stand. Whites are still under-represnted at UCB in comparison to the state population.

    • the devil

      Go count Stanford students. Cal isn’t the whole world, but a narrow view makes it seem so.

  • Zoom

    So, VC Basri thinks individuals should be held responsible for performance based upon their group affiliation. Not really sure this hypocrite really understands WHY racism is evil in the first place. Learned the first half of the equations, “racism bad,” but lacks the critical intelligence to either recognize actual discrimination or the moral, logical and ethical basis why bigotry should be seen as bad.

  • Stupid

    Just bought my cupcake. It was OK.  Some old long haired dude called me racist.  In fact I am a male with long hair myself and he said “What a long haired racist?!”, proving that he judges people based on their appearance.  I gave them an extra dollar too.

    Then I went to the pro 185 call in table and used their phone to urge Jerry Brown to veto the bill.  I am against racism.  I am for using socioeconomic background to normalize when judging merit, but don’t use race or gender.

  • Blue-eyedbarbie

    They need to increase the racial balance on the football and mens basketball team.  Add more whites and asians now!!!

    • Dmitry

      You, sir (or ma’am), win the thread.

    • http://www.gaurano.com Jonathan Gaurano

      Racial Balance? There is a difference between including race and gender as a factor into college admissions….and racially balancing a basketball team. smh. Also, for the record (my turn to be facetious) – it looks like you’re complaining because the mens football and basketball teams are NOT majority white and asian. Typical. Trying to discredit the things we’re the majority of…

      • Zoom

        Because you only seem to be complaining about stuff you’re not the majority of.

  • Oski Is Brown

    Cal ’98.  I’ve never voted Republican, and I never will… but two thumbs up to the College Republicans for shining a bright light on the hypocrisy of some on the left.  

    • Nikolai

      This.  

      Thank you for not allowing this to be a partisan issue.  The present political climate in these United States is far too polarized, with the sole purpose of all this squabbling being to beat out one’s opponents “by whatever means necessary” (to borrow a phrase…).  

      Too many double standards exist today – and they’re not, as some might have you think, all perpetrated by one party or the other.  They go both ways, but they don’t balance.  Double standards simply reinforce division.  

  • http://www.gaurano.com Jonathan Gaurano

    I’m in love with Prof. Brown! 

  • Cuperfalls

    They forgot to add the price for multiculti ( 3 or more races ), human centipede

  • Zoom

    It’s offensive now to trivialize a political point of view with which you disagree? Affirmative Action, like all forms of racism and discrimination, SHOULD be trivialized and condemned by well-meaning, intelligent individuals. At least Kritz is smart enough to realize the UCB GOP isn’t trivializing individuals or even particular ethnic groups, but instead is trivializing policies which judge & reward people differently based on the color of their skin.

    • Anonymous

      So the fact that school districts throughout California are racially segregated isn’t a form of discrimination? Do you really think majority white and majority Black/Latino high public schools are an accident? Segregated K-12 schools means segregated universities, and Black/Latino enrollment in the UC system is at an all-time low. The whole point of the SB 185 is to address this institutional discrimination.

      If affirmative action bothers you more than the fact that Black/Latino students are marginalized on UC campuses, then I wonder where your ethics are.

      • Zoom

        To answer your questions in order:

        School districts are not racially “segregated.”

        That people tend to cluster culturally is not necessarily an accident, but it is hardly part either some grand discriminatory plot nor the responsibility of the state.

        White enrollment at UCs and CSUs is at an all time low as well. RACISM!

        The whole point of SB 185 is to grant special privilege based on race. Well, actually, the whole point is to create a false dependency on a certain political party and on the state by creating a false villain (RACISM!) out of the state and society.

        Black and Latino students are hardly marginalized on UC campuses. If anything, the UC attempts to pampe, give special privilege, and over-award them funding. If you think that, you’ve obviously never set foot on a UC campus. I wonder where “your ethics are,” if you believe different people should be treated differently because they are black, hispanic, asian or white.

        • Anonymous

          De facto segregation in residential areas is definitely a result of housing and employment discrimination. People do not “tend to cluster culturally”—an apologist euphemism if I’ve ever heard one.  This has nothing to do with any conspiracy, but everything to do with the conscious decisions of employers, banks and other mortgage lenders, and realtors. Segregated neighborhoods and schools are NEVER an accident.

          And nice attempt to throw a red herring about my desire to treat people differently. That’s not the point of SB 185 nor any affirmative action program, and you know it. What this bill and all initiatives like it attempt to do is remedy the racist discrimination that happens everyday in this country, like the kind I mentioned above. If Black and Latino applicants with stellar resumes, academic records, and credit scores are rejected for jobs, colleges, and loans, how is a program to fix this obvious discrimination “racist?” Why isn’t the person who made the nonsensical decision to reject racist? That’s something I have yet to hear the anti-affirmative action crowd address.

          • Zoom

            People very well do cluster culturally. They’ve done it for ages. They certainly do it less so nowadays, but culture-based neighbors do exist. The employers, banks, lenders and realtors aren’t forcing anyone to live anywhere.

            The point and result of SB 185 is to treat people differently. And it’s real, legislation, unlike your ghost stories about people being discriminated against all over the place – for which you have absolutely no evidence.

            And, of course, even if they were, accepting your premise for the sake of argument here, why are young applicants who aren’t hiring or approving loans being held responsible as a result of such legislation, based solely on their skin?

          • Anonymous

            “Culture-based neighbors?” Huh?

            And if you really wanted to find the hard evidence for my “ghost stories” about discrimination, you’d use Google. But of course you won’t. No surprise there.

          • Guest123

            A personal attack and a link that proves nothing instead of a coherent response? How magnificently unsurprising.

             

          • Scream
          • Mama latina

            Not sure what rock you’ve been living under,butI grew up in alatino/puerto rican neighborhood in NY. We lived there by choice. As do my mny friends here in Sacramento. Oak Park is full of Latinos who are there by choice.

          • Egheioghe

            The Clinton administration required subprime loans to be available to minorities to increase their ability to acquire homes. Look where we ended up….I’m not saying that’s what caused the  financial meltdown but the lending to people of all races with poor credit was a major factor and it began with extending loans to people who could not afford them simply because they were minorties. I think you greatly over estimate how often “Black and Latino applicants with stellar resumes, academic records, and credit scores are rejected for jobs, colleges, and loans.” And affirmative action would only increase distrust.

          • um

            A much, much larger percentage of foreclosure value was on homes owned by wealthy people who just didn’t give a shit about the foreclosure because they had plenty of money to begin with.

  • Cuperfalls

    Haha, stupid liberal fascist beaten with their own club

  • Zoom

    The college Republicans are the only ones “speak[ing] out for equality today.” Supporters of affirmative action promote inequality, unfairness and injustice.

  • Sherman

    Bahahahaha!  I love what Professor Brown did!  Exposed them for their little foolish game right from the start!    Republicans refusing the free market system?!!!!

    • William Tecumseh

      Agreed, they should have been prepared with truckloads…take all the limousine liberals’ money, especially the ones feeding off of student tuition. Disappointed at the lack of on-call flexible capacity (they could have taken her money and told her to wait two hours)…it could have been a huge fundraiser.

      Better yet, plan from the start to go all day, and have an initial quantity of some absurd amount to last the whole time (say, 5000) with the ability to get more within a couple of hours if you need it. Sell her 3500, tell her that’s all, and then wheel out the 1500 in reserve after she leaves and refuse to sell her any more if she comes back. A good strategist should always prepare for upside and downside contingencies.

      • Anonymous

        Yeaaaaaah, that would have been the smart thing to do.  Too bad they lacked the foresight, as well as the brainpower to do any such thing.

    • G.R.

       Trying to use money to silence political opponents? Typical of a Democrat.