If he had a chance to do it again in the future, said Berkeley College Republicans President Shawn Lewis, he wouldn’t.
But Lewis believes that Tuesday’s “Increase Diversity Bake Sale,” which led to international uproar, disapproval from the campus student government and administration and violent threats for the group’s members, was largely a success.
“I don’t regret the fact that we’ve started a debate on campus,” he said.
The group’s message was this: that the entire event is a satirical representation of SB 185, which would allow the UC “to consider race, gender, ethnicity and national origin, along with other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions” to the extent allowed under federal and state constitutions.
One sign, held by a Berkeley Republican, clearly outlined the source of the controversy, which was the baked goods’ pricing schedule: $2 for Caucasians, $1.50 for Asian or Asian Americans, $1 for Latinos, $0.75 for African Americans, and $0.25 for Native Americans with a blanket $0.25 discount for women.
He and other members of his group acknowledged that the sale was racist, but deliberately so.
“Sometimes you have to do things that are wrong in order to correct things which are more wrong,” said former UC Regent Ward Connerly, who was present at the sale and who was the main proponent behind Proposition 209, banning affirmative action in California with its implementation in 1997.
But much of the campus disagreed both before and during the event. Over the course of the weekend, reactions to the bake sale ranged from annoyed to vitriolic as many wondered how the campus Republicans could act so tactlessly on a topic like race.
On Sunday, the ASUC Senate passed a bill frowning on Berkeley College Republican’s bake sale. Yesterday, Chancellor Robert Birgeneau sent a campuswide message denouncing the bake sale’s tactics. And during the event, the group fielded accusations from BAMN, campus political science professor Wendy Brown and campus Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion Gibor Basri.
Lewis and the Republicans were undeterred. Rather, Lewis and others welcomed the attention, which thrust an often overlooked student group to the forefront of campus politics. He said Gov. Jerry Brown’s impending action on SB 185 — due by Oct. 9 — and the ASUC’s phone banking in support of the bill necessitated the Republicans’ action.
“It’s all about publicity,” Lewis said. “I’m actually glad that the media is here.”
For much of the day, throngs of people both in support and in opposition to SB 185 surrounded the bake sale table. Small groups fervently debated one another on the merits of power structures, social stratification and identity as others exchanged money for cupcakes.
While many came to denounce the sale, some passersby, like UC Berkeley junior Steve Rossi, a veteran who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, supported the group’s stance against SB 185 and joined the group’s demonstration.
“When you racially profile, you’re taking away freedom,” Rossi said. “This is pretty important.”
Lewis said that the idea for the bake sale met no vocal opposition from anybody inside the Republicans group and that generally the members of the group present, about 15 to 20 or so, were happy with the day’s events.
“I think really it’s a civilization issue,” said Berkeley College Republicans Vice President Derek Zhou. “In order to move society forward, you’ve gotta look past race.”
Clarification
A previous version of this article may have implied that Shawn Lewis, president of Berkeley College Republicans, would not have held the bake sale if he had a chance to go back in time. In fact, he would not repeat it in the future.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
It succeeded in creating a divided society,an atmosphere of hostility. That was the goal and that was the result.
This is a school and students should not be distracted by this kind of nonsense od offense and defense of character. This kind of meddling comes from the yards of primary schools where children are still supposed to be learning to behave themselves. You see here that many have not.
UC Berkeley discrimination against Californians,
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]
“As long as you attribute external factors as the primary reasons for your struggles, you will always render yourself helpless.”
^ Matt, you nailed it!
The Berkeley College Republicans allow themselves only surface arguments.
They argue that individual achievement is what should be rewarded.
They have not, and likely will not, argue form the point of view that a public university should provide the greatest good for all people of the state, regardless if the attend UC or not.
Based on the whining and crying, perhaps a disposable diaper sale to benefit Affirmative Action and “diversity” types would be more appropriate…
Dogmatic corporatism has a home!
Glad the cultists have their own little organization on campus. I was beginning to worry…
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]
“On Sunday, the ASUC Senate passed a bill frowning on Berkeley College Republican’s bake sale.”
A bill. A bill that frowns upon something. How productive.
“He and other members of his group acknowledged that the sale was racist, but deliberately so.”
“He” who? Can we get a name? Liar! Nobody is buying this quote. The only thing ‘racist’ according to this author IMO is that they had to hear and see the truth from the Berkeley Republicans. Libs don’t want to hear sh*t from members of the opposing faction, they throw out the term ‘racist’ as a scared skunk sprays it’s foul defense.
If only all political protests could be delicious bake sales, our country might not be so ideologically divided.
To the U.C.B. Republican: please grow up and learn to articulate your arguments… This is not the Berkeley I attended. Cal grad 1985
Let’s start with you simply articulating an argument. What part of the UCB Republican’s argument did you find inarticulate?
What about the group simply airing their grievances about SB 185. The bake sale was immature and stupid. I want to know how is race, gender, ethnicity, national origin factored into a student’s admission. Is a student given points for being a certain race or gender? And what are they. How do those factors impact or enhance a student’s GPA and SAT score, admisssions letter, community service, etc. There is so much that goes into allowing a student admission into a particular school. I didn’t see any quotes by the UCB Republicans explaining these items. Nor did they give any social or economic examples of why SB 185 would be damaging. I want examples and quotes from these students. What about percentages, how many minority students are “unjustly” admitted simply because of their race or gender. I want to hear from UCB REpublicans on those facts. Lastely, of those students who are “unjustly” admitted, how many are able to stay in school and maintain a good GPA. I want those facts and information from the student republicans, otherwise they appear to be simply reiterating right wing republican positions.
The group’s message was this: that the entire event is a satirical representation of SB 185, which would allow the UC “to consider race, gender, ethnicity and national origin, along with other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions” to The group’s message was this: that the entire event is a satirical representation of SB 185, which would allow the UC “to consider race, gender, ethnicity and national origin, along with other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions” to
OK now we are talking. These are interesting questions, but the onus for answering them does not fall on the college republicans, it would need to all on those supporting the bill, because prop 209 already demonstratedthe will of the people, which SB 185 is attempting to contravene. The bake sale was controversial, but it clearly did a good job of hghlighting the point that SB 185 is fundamentally doing the same thimg.
The UCB Republicans were making a very good point with their bake sale. For someone who should be well educated, you cannot be so naive to not know exactly what was going on in the admissions department when you were in school. Basic research will show you that when affirmative action was in place before 1997, graduation rates were lower than they are today and the percentages of unqualified minorities were higher. Do the math! I was in student government at UCLA in the late ’80s and worked closely with the admissions department about their stats with regard to affimative action to support gettting rid of it! If you do your reseach, you will find that many of those ‘”unjustly’” admitted students failed out or dropped out before their junior year.
If
you graduated in 1985, then you were admitted in the late 70′s/early
1980′s. The way affirmative action worked then was any Black, Latino,
Chicano, Pilipino, Disabled who met absolute minimum UC systemwide
admissions standards was admitted to UC. In 1985, UC started
admitting between 40% and 60% of the class, depending on year based on
Gpa and test scores alone. Said admits were Tier 1: Gpa x 1000 +
the value of the Sat(Verbal + Math) + Achievement Tests(
Math/Writing/Other.) Theoretically, the rest of the class was admitted
after adding points for a variety of factors such as extracurricular
activities, the essay, going to a school that did not offer AP classes
and whatnot. However, the aforementioned preferred groups were admitted
prior to Tier 2 and their admission was subtracted from Tier 2. UC
and several outreach groups started massive recruiting of minority applicants bringing up busloads of bareky UC qualified potential applicants from LA through the mid to late 80′s
and encouraging them to apply. There was also another tier of Special
admit applicants that did not meet UC minimum qualifications limited to
6% of Admits. Berkeley went from approximately 2% Black in 1981 to 12%
Black in 1989 and around 22% Hispanic. A sizable Pilipino contingent
was alo admitted under until they lost their preferred status in 1990. The group admitted due
to race preferences became so large by 1989, that there were no admits
from Tier 2. The dropout rate was very high among those admitted with
minimal UC qualifications and there was growing dissatisfaction among
Asian and White applicants denied admission which led to the Asian Task Force Allegations and a Justice Dept
Investigation of alleged discrimination against Asians. Needless to
say, the admissions were changed in a way that favored Asians primarily by
minimizing the Sat Verbal Score by double counting Achievement test
scores. Asians had complained that looking at the Sat
Verbal score discriminated against them since for many English was a
foreign language. Also Asians had complained that requiring a minimum
Sat Verbal score of 400 at Berkeley discriminated for the same reason.
Likewise with requiring four years of a foreign language or two years of two foreign languages under tier two and since there
were no Achievement tests in Asian Languages. UC also petitioned the
College Board for Achievement tests in Chinese and Japanese. The changes had the desired effect and in 1990/1991 Asians surpassed whites in freshman admits at Berkeley for the first time. For a more detailed explanation search for Asian Task Force and Berkeley or UC Admissions and also read the Karabel Report. By
the mid 1990′s the Regents under Ward Connerly and Pete Wilson’s
guidance voted to end Affirmative Action in UC admissions and
hiring, first at the graduate level. Voters then passed Prop 209
changing the California Constitution to outlaw affirmative action,
which is why SB 187 will have not effect whether passed or not passed.
Laws cannot override the California Constitution. In 1996, Berkeley
started using Comprehensive Review admissions for half the class and
then in 1998 for the entire freshman class. Under Berkeley’s
Comprehensive Review two readers read the essay and application and
assign a number from 1-5. A 1 or 2 means admission. A 5 means does not meet
requirements. There are no standards and no justification given for why
a 1,2,3,4 or 5 as assigned. Even the number assigned is not known.
It is totally subjective. After the Moores Report, UC started taking information related to
ethnicity off the application packet the readers are provided. Even so,
the race is usually quite clear given the essay prompt that asks a
student to tell of himself and his community. It has also become
evident that UC’s have hired a disproportionate number of minorities as
readers in an attempt to bias the process. The fact is that
affirmative action is still taking place. Anyone who has been a
student, teacher or Counselor at a diverse high school such as Berkeley
High in the past decade knows perfectly well that the requirements for
a white or Asian to be admitted are far higher than for Blacks and
Latinos. It isn’t even close. The anti-bake sale pro-185 crowd
essentially wants to go back to the time when all it took to be
admitted to the UC of choice was preferred status due to skin color and
meeting absolute minimum UC systemwide requirements. UC Admissions
will undergo a dramatic change this admissions cycle with the
elimination of Sat Subject tests and with every student in the top 10%
of every California high school UC eligible regardless of Sat scores.
The impact on various groups is unlcear but in my opinion UC did not
correctly factor how much applications will increase with the
elimination of Subject exams and with allowing all in the top 10% to be
UC eligible. .UC Admissions prior to Comprehensive Review, Karabel Report:http://academic-senate.berkeley.edu/committees/aepe/freshman-admissions-berkeley-policy-1990s-and-beyondhttp://academic-senate.berkeley.edu/committees/aepe/implementation-karabel-report-freshman-admissions-berkeley-1990-1993Best explanation of Comprehensive Review, Moores Report:http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/compreview/mooresreport.pdfUC Admissions Cheating with Comprehensive Review, Groseclose Report:http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/CUARS.Resignation.Report.pdfhttp://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2008/09/if_you_like_whodunit_books.htmlAsian Task Force:
pg 25-26:
http://books.google.com/books?id=b25VQklHaY4C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q&f=false
pg 33-38:
http://books.google.com/books?id=b25VQklHaY4C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA33#v=onepage&q&f=false
I noticed that you gave no grief to the liberals staging an, um, “die in” (over an admissions issue for pete’s sake). Talk about growing up, do they even understand the point of the “die-in” protest?
Betty, you are an embarrassment to the Cal class of 1985. You complain about the BCR bake sale and think it’s their job to explain SB 185? Why don’t you ask the supporters of 185, or better yet, look it up yourself? Clearly you’ve learned to use a computer since your graduation. Then explain why consideration of skin color should be allowed in any merit based competition?
What’s all this fuss about a bike sale? After all, many people ride their bikes on campus, even dangerously close to hitting pedenstrians, but that is no reason to sell the bikes. And so what if all the bikes have different colors or some are racers. Races are just good clean fun competition. It should not be made into an “ism.” It’s just a bike race…(oh what? Oh I see.) Never mind.
LOL. I assumed you misspelled “bake” but you continued. Good read. Made me laugh.
Ha ha! Great post! :)
One of the reasons why most African Americans never vote for the Republicans is because as African Americans we are issues based voters. We tend to generally look to see if a political party and/or ideology is inclusive of the diverse experiences and histories that various racial/ethnic groups face in America. We know that you can’t limp all Asians in the same group since some come from the Mid GOP:dle East (from various countries, others from Central Asia and others from South East Asia or the Pacific Islands. We also tend to know that American experiences for Mexican’s is not necessarily going to be the same for Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans etc.
When it specifically comes to the issues concerning African Americans, Republicans over the years have labeled us welfare queens, wanting handouts from the government and much more. There is always this broad brush painted on African Americans and other People of Color in America.
They say the democrats pander to Black people if they speak to the issues concerning our community. Ditto that for Latino’s.
But let me quote Micheal Steele on the absence of the majority of POC’s in the the Republican party from a GQ interview:
Why do you think so few nonwhite Americans support the Republican Party right now?
“Cause we have offered them nothing! And the impression we’ve created
is that we don’t give a damn about them or we just outright don’t like
them. And that’s not a healthy thing for a political party. I think the
way we’ve talked about immigration, the way we’ve talked about some of
the issues that are important to African-Americans, like affirmative
action… I mean, you know, having an absolute holier-than-thou attitude
about something that’s important to a particular community doesn’t
engender confidence in your leadership by that community—or
consideration of you for office or other things—because you’ve already
given off the vibe that you don’t care.”
And that is best describes your problem. And from the looks of the recent event you still have not got the message.
So you got your media attention. But you have successfully alienated most POC’s for the next 40 years. Hope you are happy!
KBAC, I am not convinced that African Americans, broadly speaking, are really that concerned with the experience of cultures beyond their own. This by the way holds true for all ethnic groups. My experience with enthno-centric groups touting “diverstity” really means that they want more recognition for their particular ethnic indentity, and are not necessarily looking to creat a multicultural utopia. Blacks want to elevate blacks, southeast asians want to elevate southeast asians, mexicans want to elevate mexicans, etc. There are exceptions of course, but generally the truth about the “diversity movement” is that it is really just an arena for racial potitics, and it ends up separating us into racially identified categories more than ever, i.e. it has a polarizing effect on people of different ethnicities, which I surmise is the opposite of the original intent. Go to Los Angeles and see the discontent between latinos and blacks, and my point is easily illustrated.
I am not sure where you get the impression that Republicans have labeled blacks as anything negative, in modern times at least. It is true that Republicans oppose welfare-state mecanisms and unfettered entitlements such as welfare in general, but they don’t make it about any one race. As a matter of fact, I think republicans, if anything, understand the perceptions of them as the good ol’ boy party, and take specific measures not to indict race when discussing social issues. The idea that the republicans are against people of color in 2012 America is not only unfounded, but unfortunately this mindset contributes to the lingering “culture of victimhood” that is so prevalent with certain minorities and I must say blacks in particular. As long as you attribute external factors as the primary reasons for your struggles, you will always render yourself helpless. What was true in 1959 is not true today, and our nation has made a lot of progress with respect to race relations. Pointing out Obama is cliche, but what about Attorney General Eric Holder, your afroementioned Michael Steele, or current republican candidate Herman Cain? Black representation in leadership of our nation has grown by leaps and bounds. Most of the old barriers have been brought down since the civil rights movement, which was a movement by all americans, black, white and everyone else. That was a great example of what can be done when we are truly together as one, and not seperated by racial identity as most diversity programs actually end updoing.
As another point of reference, Asian Americans have also has past struggles assimilating to our nation, but they seem, I must say, much more succesful at playing ball in this country, and many of them come from low-income and working class backgrounds as well. Why do you think this is? I would say that the fact that they focus on a strong family unit, education, and self-development make all the difference.
So, republicans definitely hear the message that is being sent, but their viewpoint is that the message itself is flawed. America is not a nation based on victimhood, it is a nation ased on individual responsibility and individual choice. I thnk black communities, as a whole, have to do a better job of emphasizing education from the outset. Unfortunately, it seems that their cultural identity has redered many to feel like emphasizing education is “too white” or that they are victims from the outset, so why try? Either way, it is a problem of ill-advised perception.
KBAC
“The idea that the republicans are against people of color in 2012
America is not only unfounded, but unfortunately this mindset
contributes to the lingering “culture of victimhood” that is so
prevalent with certain minorities and I must say blacks in particular.” —See this statement right here. You wouldn’t even begin to understand the labeling you did right right there. This is exactly what Michael Steele was talking about. You’ve proven my point 12 times over. And this is why you don’t get it.
Yet you were all too willing to label republicans and even puport to know their thoughts about blacks being welfare-seekers. I do understand the “labelling” as you call it, it is a simple observation. I know that it is not easy to read, but this is not the viewpoint of some fringe bigot. Many, many people of al ethnicities, blacks incliuded, make simlar observations.
I didn’t have to do the labeling Michael Steele has called you out. And what he said was true. So why don’t first address Mr. Steele (R) comments.
Some of what Mr. Steele states has merit, and the republicans can do a better job of reaching out to ethnic groups if that is what you are looking for, but I thought that as americans we should all be treated equal, and republicans are not about giving special favors or entitlements to anyone, they are about smaller government and individual responsibility. They are certanly not, however, actively campaigning against minority success. By the way, it is a miscoception that non-whites don’t support republicans. While blacks have been historically democratic, asians and latinos figure prominantly in conservative support. The problem is after the civil rights and the emphasis on diversity and multiculturalism that started in the early 90′s, we have identified ourselves by our race more than ever, and that is polarizing.
Most of us black people are tired of people like you talking down to us or being condescending and trying to talk about a community you know nothing about. The moment you try to go pontificating about the black community from your ivory tower you get the cold shoulder. So what you need to do is take a few ethnic studies courses and learn about different communities rather from then from the comfort of your cul-de-sac. But wait a minute you think those are useless majors you’d soon as cut. Thank goodness everyone is not like you.
Such tired and played out notions, that non-blacks will “never understand”, as if we can never know anything significant about the black community or history. As long as you continue to erect walls of self- righteousness by claiming “we’ll never understand”, you’ll continue to institutionalize your victimhood and maitan a built-in excuse for not fully participating in our great democratic experiment. The fact is, all Americans have taken painstaking measures to understand the balck experience with things like support of the civil rights movement, affirmative action, ethcnic stiudies classes, inclusion of more ethnic history into our general history curriculums, recognition of blacks in the arts, politics, and culture, and black viewoints via cinema, television, and media. The fact that you made about 5 ill-advised assumptions in your post about who I am, what I am about, and what I think, simply demonstrates that it is you who in fact does not understand. I know some of the things I posit are hard for some to take, but instead of taking the typical reactionary line, try to consider the logic of my points. If you disagee, let’s talk about t, but a simple blanket response thet “you are just whitey and you’ll never understand” is not only egregiously incorrect, but it basically supports my assertion that you seem interested in maintaining the culture of victimhood.
First off, you misquoted the person you responded to… No one said “you’ll never understand.”
As a fellow white person, it is hard to get to the point where you recognize what white privilege is, but you’ve got a ton of it.
I find it laughable that hundreds of years of slavery can be erased by some art appreciation and civil rights support. How about this concept: you are a high school senior in a foot race against a student from another school who was actively denied coaching, stopped from running on the street or in the trails because of what he looked like, and was refused injury help when he needed it. He’s standing on the same starting line, but you don’t even need to put in half the amount of work to win that race. Now extrapolate this to slavery, Jim Crow, active racism of the 1920s, and then tell me with a straight face that we have achieved equal racial footing because of 50 years of ideas with little follow-through in many places and zero years of thought progress in a sizable proportion of the population as well.
[I find it laughable that hundreds of years of slavery can be erased by some art appreciation and civil rights support.]
Nobody applying for admission at Cal was subjected to “hundreds to years of slavery”, so you can take that stupid notion and shove it.
You are right, the use of quotations was indeed ill-advised. However, the sentiment itself is in line with her overall message, suggesting that I, as a non-black, does not/cannot understand the black community, which is rather silly considering how much we are exposed to black culture in academia, socially, and via the media. I have heard many arguments for/against the idea that white privilege exists, and some probably does, or more aptly did in the past, but in 2011 it is basically a theorhetical idea that cannot be proven or disproven, but still touted by certain individuals to support racial agendas. However, what I can tell you is that I went to very diverse middle schools and high schools respectively, and people of black, hispanic (mostly mexican), asian (all ethnicities including southeast asian and east indian), and caucasian lineages all received the same access to the same classes, extracurriculars, sports, student government, etc. Everyone started in the same spot on day one. So, to go with your analogy, I did not see anyone denied coaching, stopped from practice, or refused assistance for injury.
Equality of opportunity was readilly apparent.
Readilly apparent.
As a matter of fact, there were several ethnic-clubs that encouraged self-development of select groups.
In my opinion, your analogy just doesn’t play out in the real world, where pubilc schools are are relatively equally funded and staffed based on state mandates. Additionally, 50 years of race improvement initiatives, both spurred by the government and initiated privately, is indeed quite a bit of investment in race relations, and our current presidential administration demonstrates that the race-relations landscape has significantly improved. Ask someone in 1955 if a balck would be President, and se what kind of reaction you would get.
Things have improved significantly.
Tel me, how long should it take? Do we need an equivalent hundreds of years of reconciliation to match hundreds of years of slavery and oppression? I don’t think it is so mathematical. History shows that solutions are tyically rendered more quickly that a problem may linger once people are genuinely motivated to resolve an issue. I would also disagree that race-relation-improvement ideas have indeed not had significant follow-through, in the form of compomonents I have already laid out in the above post.
I think, in the final analysis, there will always be certain individuals who have institutionalized themselves as victims, and along with them there will be members of the establishment that, out of some sort of guilt, misguided sense of doing what they think is the right thing (what I call ”feel-good politics”), or political expediancy, have a vested interest in maintaining class warfare and the victim -class mentality. As log as we seperate peoble by race, gender, etc. under the auspices of these ideas, we do more to maintain separation than we do in bringing us together.
The area where you attended middle and high schools is one of privilege, and you have acknowledged that in this way–everyone was treated equally. It is readily apparent that you are taking your singular experience and claiming that it is the same for all peoples in all states across all of America. In the event that all states and all cities and all teachers/employers/HS counselors/coaches are created equal and unprejudiced, then I would agree that all this hype is worthless. But no, I’m not sure what sort of area you lived in where everything was sunshine and honeysuckle, but I’ve run into too many people on hiring committees that say “well he’s Black, so I’ll consider someone else.” There are too many educators in primary and secondary education that say “she should be in classes with ‘her kind;’” and in 2008 (which is still relevant as far as this is concerned) nonetheless.
What would be ideal in this situation is a *dialogue* where different perspectives are shared, where each side is listened to, processed and understood. However, it is clear that you have no intention of believing something that could exist in a city different from your own since much of what you say is along the lines of ‘it’s 2011, we’ve had lots of progress, I went to perfect schools, hence all is equitable in the world.’
You want to convince people at the margins, I know, but you won’t do it by hard-lining ideologies that only align with yourself and limited numbers of individuals, and the moderate/libertarian person can see that.
The areas I attended schools were not areas of privilege to say the least. I was bussed to an Uurban high school due to district mapping considerations. Whites were a significant minority there. It was Hiram Johnson High School in Sacramento, CA. It certainly was not sunshine and honeysuckle, but equality of opportunity was afforded to all there. I am surprised to hear that you have experienced indivisuals who actually state “well, he’s black, so I’ll consider someone else”, or that students should be grouped by ethnicity. Perhaps this is more common in the deep south? My intention with this dialogue is simply to determine objective reality. I have no agenda. I don’t even think the ideology I am suggesting is hard-line, as a matter of fact, I think most reasonable folks would agree with my point of view, but again you may say that is because most folks are still inherently racist, so we will never get out of this cycle of definitions and assertions. You mention libertarians, but I will almost guarantee that most libertarians will agree with me, as proponents of minimal government interference in anything, they would oppose mechanisms that exert any sort of excessive government control or madates via mechanisms like college admission preferences, affirmative action, or unfettered entitlements via social welfare.
“Perhaps this is more common in the deep south?”
The “deep south” is probably more integrated than anywhere else in the nation. We fought that battle here first.
That makes sense too. I think the stories of overt discrimination nowadays are the exception and not the rule. Does Canada have similar racial isues?
Though I’m far from an expert, Canada has until recently had a population of Scot Presbyterians and French Catholics. They got along pretty well in large part due to being separated geographically. Immigration is a fairly new thing with the English being more open to immigrants retaining their native cultures. The French Canadians are more protective of their culture, and are less willing to bend to political correctness.
Take a gander at Ward Connerly’s bio sometime. Would you really respond the same way to him when he starts making the same arguments? Thank goodness we still have rational people on this earth who are not like you.
Lisa1232, we would not talk down to you if we felt you truly made it into Berkeley on your own merit instead of relying on Affirmative Action or SB 185. That is precisely the reason all race-based preferences should be abolished in U.C. admissions. If you can make it here now, despite Prop 209, why can’t other black students?
[So what you need to do is take a few ethnic studies courses and learn about different communities rather from then from the comfort of your cul-de-sac.]
I have learned plenty about the culture of others, having attended primarly black and/or hispanic public schools when I was younger. When are some of you “people of color” going to open up YOUR minds and start learning about the MAJORITY in this country? Of course you’re not going to do that, because it would shatter your comforting myths about “white privelege” and other such BS. The fact of the matter is that very few white students were admitted to Cal on anything even resembling “privelege”. We got there because we consistently outperformed most other students academically (black, white, and otherwise) by something called EFFORT.
Umm, the point of the original post was that you cannot compare people of different racial/ethnic groups to one another in America. More to the point you mentioned assimilation, which is the root of the problem. This intrinsic notion that everyone must assimilate to make “you feel” safe. I will not assimilate and will still make it.
Where from the original post did you distill that main idea? Why can’t we comare people of different racial and ethnic groups? Are we not all supposed to be equal? Isn’t that the point? Aren’t we all Americans 1st? When you say you won’t assimilate, what do you mean? I think your notion of white folks (I assume that is what you meant by ”me” feeling safe) wanting others to assimilate so we “feel safe” is misguided and self-indulgent at best. Quite frankly, we are doing fine and we are trying to provide the tools so you can realize success. If ou don’t want to assimilate, why are you here? The point of this nation is that everyone can come together under a set of ideals, a set of principals. What do you define as “not assimilating? If you don’t believe in the way we do things, there are hundreds of other nations you can try your hand with, and see where it gets you.
The term “assimilation” comes to mind. If you had an understanding how most POC’s receive that word then you’d get it. Until you understand the history of the term and its effects in American cultural society (that if you even care to know) then you will continue to be ignorant of the experiences you don’t have to know. And I don’t believe in the way YOU do things. Thankfully not everyone is like you.
Just because you call me ignorant and claim I don’t understand does not make it true. You didn’t even answer one of my questions. If you are getting hung up on the word, then choose a different word… how about “participate” instead of “assimilate”?
Assimilation is not a bad thing, it is what the italians, the chinese, the irish did, it is what latinos are doing now, and it is what blacks are doing slowly but surely. It is a good thing, and the cohesiveness we have established has made us nothing less than the world’s greatest nation, so the proof is clearly in the pudding.
As a fellow POC, I detest how you so casually try to speak for the rest of us. Please stop. You only need to pick up a newspaper to read about prominent POCs who succeeded in life despite growing up in worse conditions that you can imagine. Quit blaming everybody else and start being responsible for yourself.
This speaks volumes.
This is the best response I’ve ever read!
Outside of the Science Departments, how deversified politically are the professors ?
Stated in another way: Karl Rove did not get President Bush elected by appealing to voters with a simple logical argument. He appealed to much deeper ganglia.
Now you’re spouting about Karl Rove? Talk about irrelevant.
Mr. Rove was very good at motivating people to agree with his political point of view. The Berkeley College Republicans acted in a way that their mother base could love.
The vast majority of people are not sociopaths. Most only feel good about themselves if they conduct themselves both in their inner and outer worlds with a sense of fairness.
While on the surface the Berkeley College Republican’s position has elements of fairness and several people have pointed out the logic behind this fairness.
A great thing about people is that they don’t think in the type of logical ways a in which software engineer can program to give a result. They think more in terms of the Gestalt.
This is why the Berkeley College Republicans lost.
How in the world do you figure that the College Reepublicans lost? Their protest garnered international attention and in fact pretty broad international support. In a typical UC Berkely political debate, anything besides the liberal point of view is simply shouted down or not covered due to the agenda-driven nature of certain college campuses. To the contrary, this was a huge victory for the College Rebublicans. In any case, the ultimate winners and losers of this debate will be vetted out based on whether or not SB 185 passes.
The following is from FOXNEWS:
California Senate Bill 185, which was passed by the state Legislature and now awaits Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature, would authorize the University of California and the California State University to consider those and “other relevant factors” during the admissions process.
…………….
The bill has passed and the ultimate loser is…
You really need to work on your chops Matt Leonnig.
Uh, LOL, I think you need to work on your basic understanding of our government. Jerry Brown still needs to sign the bill… or veto it. Because we have prop 209 as a precedent of the will of the people, there is a good chance he will. So, the bill has not “passed” until it is signed into law, and that is far from a mere formality, it is stil a major step. Governor Brown has shown many shades of libertarianism in his current administration, and a bill such as this, that contravenes a direct vote by the people, definitely has great potential to be struck down.
Consider yourself slapped with logic yet again… and I wouldn’t discuss the chops of others until even your basic understanding of how bills become law is more acute.
Legislatures pass bills. Executives sign (passed bills) into law.
You may regret it but your word was “passed”.
We can discuss syntax all day but that would be a tangent, the point is the college republicans wone a HUGE victory in bringing this debate to the forefront, and just you saying they lost does not make it true. Like I said before, 185 passed the senate before the bake sale even occured, so it has nothing to do with whether this was a victory for the college repubs or not. The coutrt of public opinion, however, has clearly demonstrated it was a win for them.
Oh and by the way the senate already passed the bill by the time the college repub’s held their protest sale, so the fact that it passed the senate isn’t even germane to the argument.
[This is why the Berkeley College Republicans lost.]
Au contraire. They got the lefties hysterical and received national media attention in the process. The site of idiot liberal protesters chanting their silly mantras on TV, and demanding that the BCR be censured, only reinforced the impression that most people in this country have of far-left liberals, and Berkeley kooks in particular.
I find when people play the idiot card they are playing with a short deck.
The pros in business and government typically get what they want through more savory means.
I feel that I should take you under my wing, but I don’t have any openings; I know an eight year old that might.
[I find when people play the idiot card they are playing with a short deck.}
That description described you to a T. Why don’t you quite while you’re only slightly behind?
“This is why the Berkeley College Republicans lost.” Are you kidding. The BCRs made this Floridian aware of SB185. They hit a homerun for their cause.
LOST? I read about this in a Canadian paper. The globe and mail.
It is too bad that the continued emphasis on race identification and racial politics by certain social engineers, which perhaps contrary to the original intention divides folks by racial identity more than anything else, has impregnated the college campuses of the US to such a degree. College needs to be about academics, not race-hustling and pushing a specific social agenda. Bravo to the college republicans for standing up for the people of California, who have already had a referrendum on this issue and made a decision about it nearly 15 years ago via prop 209.
“‘Sometimes you have to do things that are wrong in order to correct things which are more wrong,’ said former UC Regent Ward Connerly”
Two wrongs don’t make a right. The bake sale was an ignorant and counter-productive response to SB 185. Their opposition is understandable, but they are supposed to be a well-educated student body who should use their skills to properly demonstrate and explain their position. If they want the public to understand their message then this was the wrong way to go about it.
I believe there are other ways to achieve a more diverse student body and this is what all parties should be brainstorming and focusing on. It’s not about being color blind but rather finding ways to help a broad range of racial groups become (intellectually and educationally) competitive in applying for college.
How is a bake-sale which accurately depicts the concept of affirmative action more ignorant or counter-productive than dressing up in black and performing a die-in? Why all of a sudden is a theatrical political stunt being criticized when the left employs such tactics on a daily basis? Or are you suggesting only conservatives should be held to this standard, as they’re the only ones with a rational basis for their beliefs?
To effectively argue against Erika Clark’s point you should provide evidence that the bake sale helped the Berkeley College Republicans politically.
To effectively argue against my point, you need to provide evidence that the bake-sale was in any way ignorant or counter-productive – and that the College Republicans are not being unfairly criticized.
The college republicans were able to bring their argument, and the overall debate on preferential admissions, to the national, and indeed international, forefront. A simple Google Search on this subject, news watching, or news radio listening provide sufficient evidence of this idea.
Did you hear about that plane crash in Nepal? It made the news.
While good news may make the news sometimes, making the news doesn’t mean that the news being made is good news for the newsmaker.
I agree with your point about the news wholeheartedly, but in this case, everything I have read and heard suggests that the debate has been brought to the forefront even internationally, which is what the college republicans wanted to do. The acheived their major objective.
They gained national publicity and support, despite your laughable attempt at spinning this your way…
I’m having a hard time understanding this as well. On one hand people seem to be celebrating the political stunt of the die-in even though it doesn’t make sense in this context since nobody is dying as a result of college admissions not using Affirmative Action. On the other hand, they’re decrying the bake sale as a cheap political stunt.
I guess political stunts that your side does are brave shows of unity but political stunts that the other side does are “criminal” and need to be silenced.
Do you believe Morehouse college should stress racial diversity?
They do. but to know that you would have to have gone there. Morehouse and other HBC’s (Historically Black Colleges for the culturally unaware) have students from diverse backgrounds. but if you really want to know if you can get in apply. They’d be happy to have you. In fact Morehouse University had their first Caucasian Valedictorian. And guess what you can get in through the same system you dislike. Check out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua_qjsmDGPQ
Erika, by your argument the entire Free Speech Movement was ignorant and counter-productive. The leaders of that movement believed, as does the BCR, that sometimes you have to do things that are wrong. Gandhi never had permission to lead civil disobedience protests but he did it anyways.
When people say the UCs are underfunded, you need only point to biased, abusive state-funded thugs like Birgenea, Brown (a supposed Poli Sci educator too stupid to comprehend the concept of free enterprise), and Basri (holding an unnecessary position if ever there was one) to prove them wrong. It’s waste. These bullies never denounce any theatrical protest from the left, but are only too happy to denounce anyone who disagrees with their politics as offensive. It’s high time the state cleaned house, and removed indoctrination and its tyrants from the payroll. We’re spending our money on education, not biased leftist activism.
If you feel the need to inject “stupid” into your argument, it probably is.
As Birgeneau and his ilk began the name-calling with their denouncements, I feel justified in the use of the term. Plus, I think it fits Brown especially, considering her field and expertise. A Communications major or something not grasping or having learned the concept, I’d be more forgiving. But Brown has little excuse other than being an idiot and a baiter.
And pray tell us what intelligent insight you have contributed to the discussion? Not much…
Here’s some one else’s reflected insight I can contribute:
………….
If he had a chance to do it again, said Berkeley College Republicans President Shawn Lewis, he wouldn’t.
…………..
Perhaps Mr. Lewis thinks the Berkeley College Republican’s victory was less glorious than you have portrayed it, that is , if he considers it a victory at all.
I think that he was simply acknowledging that it was racist (which he is on the record stating anyway), but was so by design, his point being that the bake sale mirrired SB 185, which he claims is racist. He is simply stating that he would not want to make a habit of such a style of protest. However, he is clearly on the record saying it was a victory, and the story has even sparked new debate about the legality of SB 185. It dclearly would have benefitted proponents of 185 if this had stayed “off the grid” as a story. Now folks are questioning why the will of the people, via prop 209, is beig cotravened by a government mechanism like UC Berkely.
When is racism not by design?
I think some racism can be subconcious or inadvertant. However, based on your suggestion, you must agree that SB 185 is racist, being that by design there is at least a degree of preferential treatment for certain races?
The Socratic question
Socrates posed question to get his pup is to self- commit to an idea.the Socratic question need not be posed to have the question affirmed. It can be used in the search for truth to have the idea behind the question rebuked.
You have commit that discrimination can reside in the sub-conscience.
You may or may not remember or read my ‘ganglia’ post, but in several post I have argued that
the problem with the Berkeley College Republicans argument is that they are only using surface logic and not the type of decision making that the many, many connections of cell bodies in a ganglion can lead.
The ganglia idea represents how people really think at a subconscious.
Just how does one go about combating sub-conscience discrimination or racism? Affirmative Action can do this by helping put people that are the object of sub-conscious discrimination into places that people respect.
You can still argue that Affirmative Action has wrong in it but even Ward Connelly argues that a little bit of wrong can be used to combat a bigger wrong.
Behold the results of sub-conscious thinking.
The assumption that we live in a post-racial society is severely flawed. The rate of poverty as well as incarceration is starkly different across racial groups. You can’t just be colorblind and hope that society will move forward–the approach should be more complex than that.
At some point the communities that accept this behavior from theor own racially-identified members are going to have to accept responsibility for themselves and said behavior. If we look closer at racial stratification and the legal system, there is an opposite end of the sprectrum from what you highlight, and it demonstrates that certain minority groups tend to stay out of prison and pursue education to an extremely high degree. There has to be a reason for this stark contrast. I believe it is quite somple actually: Attempting to socially engineer a society based on individual liberty such as ours is problematic, because the USA ultimately places the onus of choices and behavior on the individual, which is almost without exception a function of good parenting, community norms, and emphasis on education. This is readilly apparent to anyone with an iota of observational ability. Trying to force folks to behave a certain way vial civil mechanisms is not the answer… a change of choices and behavior is the most substantial and permanent solution.
This is called racial triangulation (using another minority group which is more privileged to keep the others down).
This implies that “the man” actively leverages the success of asians against the efforts of blacks and hispanics. That seems ridiculous.
Matt is merely using the success of asians as a measuring stick.
[This is called racial triangulation (using another minority group which is more privileged to keep the others down).]
Yeah, right, whatever. Did you learn this from one of your silly left-wing sociology professors down on the “dumb” end of the campus, or do you merely make up this shit as you go along?
So how did another minority group gain such suggested privilege?
LOL, this clearly sounds like a concept developed by some ethnic studies professor at at Cal. Can you explain how exactly establishment powers are using generally succesful minority groups to keep other less succesful minorities down? This sounds like a rather complex idea that would take a lot of planning and management to maintain. Do you have some examples? Or is it just that certain groups, via their emphasis on certain behaviors, choices, and values, end up succeeding on a broader scale that groups who may not emphasize such values? Typically, the most simple and obvious answer is the correct one. Simply coining a platitude such as “racial triangulation” does not mean it actually exists.
[The assumption that we live in a post-racial society is severely flawed.
The rate of poverty as well as incarceration is starkly different
across racial groups.]
And whose fault is that? Can you prove it’s due to one group deliberately scheming to keep the other one down? And if it is not, why should one group be punished or places at a competitive disadvantage merely because not as many members of another group either lack the ability, or can’t get their own acts together?
The problem with those of you who view everything through some Utopian frame of reference is that you confuse equality OPPORTUNITY with equality of RESULTS. While the former may be commendable, it does not automatically lead to the latter. The attempt to push for some type of utopian or cosmic justice often results in specific INJUSTICE to individuals when you try to game the outcome to fit your own personal agenda…
The UCB Republicans come across as whiny and entitled. If you are so concerned about someone taking “your” spot at a university because of affirmative action then why don’t you work a little harder instead of wasting the opportunities your race and socioeconomic standing have afforded you.
That is indeed the point, with SB 185, there exists the potential for people to be awarded college admissions over someone else even though another person did in fact work harder. What is it with folks suggesting that white males basically have things handed to us? What a horrible stereotype.
“That is indeed the point, with SB 185, there exists the potential for
people to be awarded college admissions over someone else even though
another person did in fact work harder.”
Yes, the minority students easily work harder than white students to get to the same level. Should they be rewarded for having more skills and stronger work ethic AND being at the same merit level?
I think so.
[Yes, the minority students easily work harder than white students to get to the same level.]
Then why do they need special preferences?
If they are at the same level, then why do they need affirmative action?
White interviewers on average see a white guy and black guy, both perform the same in the interview. Given the stereotypes against black men, the white man will be hired despite completely equal ranks in education/interview skills/criminal record–true to a very high statistically significant degree. See “The Mark of a Criminal Record” Devah Pager (2002).
First, I’m very skeptical of the methodology of this study (for one, it only looks at individuals with criminal records, which is a small subset of the overall population, one that is not representative of the overall population.)
Anecdotally, I’ll say that most white people love a well-spoken, highly-educated black person (see Obama in 2007-2008) more than an equally qualified white guy because picking the former makes them feel like a good, non-racist person. Secondly, how does this apply to university admissions, which can be made color-blind by simply not asking for the person’s race on an application?
White guy alum, your posts seem to indicate that you are suffering from guilty white liberalism, which in my opinion is actually a slight mental disorder. Alas, I am no psychologist. However, while I believe that each individual should be judged solely on their academic merit and what record reflects they have accomplished, you seem to purport to know for certain that minorities clearly work harder than whites to get to the same level (“easily” at that). Yes, we whites pretty much get it handed to us while we all keep our feet on the necks of brown people. Suffice to say, I am not surpirsed that this kind of thinking comes from someone who used the phrase “racial triangulation”. This is why the democrats have many minorities in their pockets, because there are enough liberal folks out there convincing them they are victims, so they will continue to be.
Excellent post.
Haven’t seen you add any substantive dialogue components or acknowledge that experiences other than your own exist, Tony M.
White interviewers on average see a white guy and black guy, both
perform the same in the interview. Given the stereotypes against black
men, the white man will be hired despite completely equal ranks in
education/interview skills/criminal record–true to a very high
statistically significant degree. See “The Mark of a Criminal Record”
Devah Pager (2002).
A decent artivcle indeed. Yes I have sen these sorts of reports and in fact studied them myself in college. Clearly we are not 100% colorblind, I concede that, but we have come very far, and I am somewhat cynical about any statistical study, be it focusing on an issue that I either agree or disagree with. Statistical reports, especially regarding social issues, are typically conducted by those with a specific agenda, and thus the data, almost without exception, seems to land in the favor of the interested parties sponsoring the study. For instance, “The Mark of a Criminal Record” was, besides being conducted by a sociology professor, which is suspect in itself, funded by grants from the Soros foundation (as in international leftist and anti-american critic George Soros) and the Joyce foundation, an apparent social justice group. Thank you for the reference to the article though. Additionally, in my experience in the corporate world, I simply, personally, have not observed such favoritism. People of colo are hired over whites, and other ethnicities, often, this is based on merit and interview impressions. Of course, my experience does not represent a sttistical sample, but I am just saying that empirical observation does not seem to reflect what the study suggests.
“Yes, the minority students easily work harder than white students to get to the same level.”
Are you implying minorities are inherently of an inferior intellect? Go heil your Fuhrer Mr .White Guy.
Why don’t the minorities work a little harder instead? Then there would be no stigma attached to enrollment in a highly selective campus and everyone can be happy.
The fact remains that we don’t live in a “post-race” world…so why should’t universities acknowledge race?
[The fact remains that we don't live in a "post-race" world.]
Simply because people like you would lose political pull if you could no longer play the “victim” game to get ahead…
Can you define the parameters of a “post-racial” world? I am struggling to understand what that eve means. I hate to use Obama because it is soo cliche, but if the majority of americans, mostly caucasian, voted a black man into to the most powerful office on earth (not to mention considered a woman during the primary as well), what does that say about the progress of race relations in the USA at least?
Begin sarcasm:
Racial relations are tense in the US, people are held down by their race, and it’s the worst in the South where Blacks are still killed for being Black, just not as much as gays now.
All of a sudden, Obama, a half-international Black, half-white person is elected into the highest position in the land.
Race instantaneously matters no more, long live the white voters!
End sarcasm.
Would be cool if that actually happened.
No one suggested that the election of Obama was a panacea of complete racial harmony, but it is definitely a huge symbol of how far we have come.
How can you becertain that people are being helld down by their race and not their behavior as individuals? I work with all ethnicities across both genders, and several minorities in positions of power. They seem to do very well and are fully participating in what our system has to offer. Suffice to say, it is their behavior and choices that dominated their destiny, not some sense of needing to be compensated for their theorhtical victimhood.
Yes, I agree, electing an African-American president is progress, but not the kind of progress that negates hundreds of years of institutionalized slavery, segregation and discrimination.
What would you define as evidence that we infact negated hndreds of years of slavery, segregation, and discrimination?
So by this logic, where else should we acknowledge race? Is it OK to allow a degree of racial profiling for everything?
Every day every time you see someone of a different skin color, you recognize they are of different skin color. For you that may be where it stops. For many others, negative stereotypes strongly shoved into their minds follow–it’s a Black man so I should take an extra step away on the sidewalk and move the side I have my purse on; it’s an Asian person so of course they don’t drive well; it’s a Latino who obviously crossed the border illegally and should be sent to Mexico.
I think that what you describe above are merely stereotypes of caucasian behavior that many would find just as offensive as the stereotypes of minorities that you mention in the above post. If you concede that the above stereotyoe is a legitimate description of many whites as you suggest, then are the well-known stereotyoes of minorities also true?
Like it or not, racial profiling is part of our society and institutions. Only when is does not benefit the majority is it seriously called into question.
Why don’t you answer the question? What stops these groups from working harder to achieve their goals?
[The UCB Republicans come across as whiny and entitled.]
Wrong. The most whiny entitled ones are the self-described “people of color” who think that they should be granted university admission in spite of their mediocre academic performance merely because one of their ancestor has suffered some real or imagined injustice, OR because they share the same race/ethnicity as someone who has.
Define entitlement… go.
Oh hey, affirmative action? Take two candidates of equal merit (your comment about “mediocre academic performance” is invalid), preference *CAN* be given to the candidate of disadvantaged status (this implicitly means the disadvantaged student is a better student given that they have more “training” aka work ethic).
But how do we know that the minority was the unprivleged one and vice-versa? The real victim in this scenario is the individual as a concept, who is subject to a number of assumptions, one of which is that people of color are always from a disadvantaged background relative to caucasian counterparts.
Asians have faced historical discrimination in the U.S. as well. Why do we not receive preferential treatment because of our race?
Not only that, but in fact despite historical discrimination, Asians have excelled in the USA and have realized phenomenal success as a whole. It’s a simple correlation and I see it all the time, Asian communities tend to emhasize education, self reliance, making good choices, and strong family units. they are aware of the tremendous oppirtunity this natio affords, and the leverage it, plain and simple. They don’t see themselves as victims, and thus they are not victims.
Your confusion can all be traced to history and class. Most Asian immigrants come from wealthier families… advantage. Most Black and Latino/a students come from a history where white people kept them down over and over and over… disadvantage over hundreds of years.
Another source of conflation is that all Asians excel naturally. This is where you overlook Asian groups such as Thai, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Lao, where their class status and performance is similar to that of the “other minorities.”
[Your confusion can all be traced to history and class.]
And your confusion can all be traced to believing all this nonsensical psycho-babble in the first place.
There is no confusion, Asian immigrants come from all sorts of backgrounds, go the LA and see how many Korean families live there where a mom and pop store clearing 30K a year is feeding a family of six. Then, look at how their kids are doing in school… probably excellent. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese immigrants came here from rural, agricultrual backgrounds in their home country. I also don’t believe you can even group latnos and blacks together, as it seems latinos have had a better go of it overall, especially in California and the southwest. In what respect have whites attempted to “keep latinos down over and over”? Again, there is no such thing happening, no hispanic jim crow laws, no large history of active discrimination, etc. Historically, hispanics have been part of the USA since it’s inception. Additioally, in my experience asians from the southeast area of asia that you referenced have in fact done very well. I certainly observed their work ethic and academic focus when I was in college, and I rarely if ever see a southeast asian in a position of taking any entitlements such as welfare or general assistance, and I never see a homeless one begging. Ever. Southeast asians definitely do well here.
[Your confusion can all be traced to history and class. Most Asian immigrants come from wealthier families]
There are plenty of poor Asians that have done quite well for themselves. I personally have many Vietnamese friends in the South Bay who spent years in refugee camps and lost family members after the Communists in Southeast Asia went on their murdering spree in the late 1970′s. Not only have all of the managed to pull themselves out of poverty and do well for themselves, they instilled the value of education in their children, many of them going off to attend Cal, Stanford, UC Davis, et. al. Your idea that wealth is responsible for their success is clearly ludicrous. You need to stop couching all your arguments in terms tired old Marxist analogies…
And why are Asian ASUC Senators supporting SB 185? SB 185 would actively discriminate against Asians in the future.
Probably for the same reason that Irish and Italians don’t.
[The assumption that we live in a post-racial society is severely flawed.]
Primarily because crybabies like you still peddle racial envy and resentment. Really, you have no ground from complaining that race is still an issue in this country when you still believe it should be a factor in setting public policy. How clueless can you get?
What if there are differences, cultural or inherent, between racial groups that explain whatever statistics you provide?
Liberals love to praise diversity, but are scared of the fact that people may, in fact, be different.
Also, there is no true poverty in America–only inequality of wealth. Virtually everybody has decent shelter (except those who don’t want it due to lifestyle choice or mental illness) and a amply-caloric diet. In fact, the so-called poor are more likely to be obese than the rich–a situation that no truly poor person would ever be in.) In fact, most poor people have amazing technology such as cell phones, color televisions, automobiles, et cetera. The average American poor person has more square feet of living space than the average (not necessarily poor) person in London, Vienna, Berlin, or Paris.
If you go to any truly poor country and say that an American poor person is poor, you will be laughed at.
If unemployment rates are different across racial groups and employers are judging prospective employees by the content of their minds and not tone of their skin, what does the math suggest?
It suggests that, broadly speaking, different racial communities, and by extension individuals, place different emphasis on education, skill building, and personal development.
It is not a matter of emphasis within these racial communities, it’s a matter of access in education and resources that is the broader issue transcending race, ethnicity and gender into other spheres such as socioeconomic background, national origin, and geographic origin. When you look at the offerings at schools in communities with made up for folks from the lower end of the socioeconomic strata, they are lacking in equivalent and fair funding to provide an education on par with that offered at schools in communities made up of people coming from much more affluent backgrounds.
I’m not saying that race is and should ever be a sole factor either, but do take into consideration that communities on this lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum are often made up of groups that have historically been marginalized. I am also not implying that white students are never a part of these communities or experience socioeconomic difficulty, because I know from personal experiences that poverty is an issue affecting all groups, but do recognize the trend that often these poorer communites are made up marginalized groups of people.
I do believe that any university should be comprised of students of academic merit, among various factors, but it also should host and foster and environment where students come from a variety of perspectives and experiences and reflect different communities. Berkeley shouldn’t be focusing on just cranking out academics/scholars/what have you, but for their alumni to be reflective of many more princples.
Once again, I want to put it out there that SB185 is not solely about race and please point out to me where exactly it says there is “preference” rather than “consideration” of the various factors mentioned in SB185. No where does it say that this “consideration” exactly means the same thing as “lowering standards,” all students should be held to similar standards and principles, but it shouldn’t necessarily mean a correlation of “I took X amount of AP classes and received Y score on the SAT and achieved Z GPA” because that turns applications into a number game based on factors that are often reflective of access to resources.
Do you think it’s a fair assesment these days to use test scores and GPAs to judge an applicant’s character and their experiences in pursuit of higher education? Have you ever considered that the ability to achieve in the purely academic sense can be hindered by the quality of education provided to students?
I’m not trying to aggravate anyone here, but I feel that the larger issue in relation to SB185 is attempting to bridge the gaps formed by inequitites in educational access.
[When you look at the offerings at schools in communities with made up for folks from the lower end of the socioeconomic strata, they are lacking in equivalent and fair funding]
That’s not true. Some of the highest-funded school districts (DC is a prime example) have some the most abysmal performance statistics. Numerous studies have shown that there is NO correlation between per-student K-12 school funding on a state basis and academic performance.
What about on the state-level (California)? Certainly schools within the state itself are not equally funded.
I’m not talking about per state spending, I’m talking about SB185 and it’s relation to education within California.
I am not certain how educational funding works, but are you suggesting that California selectivey funds certain public schools at a higher level than others? I don’t believe that is the case, don’t all CA public schools receive equal funding? FDroma perspective of public education, aI am struggling to cnced that equality of opportunity does not exist.
Apologies for my misunderstanding in the matter, but I did check and apparently public schools are equally funded by the state, but there is variance in additional funding received by these schools and the makeup of the schools themselves that come into play in terms of equal funding.
I still don’t fully understand how this “equivalent funding” necessarily works though.
In terms of the “additional funding,” it’s a matter of involvment from parents, teachers, and community members and their ability to invest both time and money into develop the school(s) in their communities past the money provided by the state. The ability to fund raise and aptly keep a school afloat despite cuts to education on the state-level is not something that is found equally throughout California. Lower income communities often are made up of families where parents are spending most of their time working to make ends meet, thus limiting their ability to enact fundraisers and also personally contribute to their schools in support than say some communities that may be more affluent. (Not to say that affluence comes without hard work, it definitely does come with plenty of work, but that there may be more folks with that ability to fundraise and give more support.)
Anyway, I think I’m content at this point bringing up my own perspective to the matter and I appreciate the civility in the responses that I have gotten. My reasonsings for responding were only to put out my own perspective of the matter in hopes that multiple sides of the issue may come into light, not just one or a few.
In all due respect, I’m fine with ending my own personal point here. I am welcome to folks who would like to argue over the issue, but I have no intention of keeping my own invovlement the conversation further as I feel like I have said what was on my mind.
So you want to penalize families whose parents are actively involved in their children’s schools? You want to penalize students whose communities give a d*mn and donate time and money to improve those local schools? Isn’t your suggestion just a race to the bottom for all schools?
(sound of Matt giving Kenneth an intellectual slap upside the head…)
It suggests that members of some racial groups on average are not as prepared as others. Nothing new or earth shattering there…
if unemployment rates were equal across all racial groups what would that suggest?
Given that they aren’t, why is your question even relevant?
Have the Berkeley College Republican Released salesl figures?
500+ items all sold out