Through all the controversial debate surrounding the discriminatory bake sale, writer urges naysayers to take a look at bigger picture.

By Jessie Wong

What’s your flavor: red velvet, creamy chocolate, or French vanilla? For UC Berkeley students the only color that mattered was the one on your skin. Well, sort of.

There were protests in response to the racist bake sale at UC Berkeley. Some argued for SB 185 and others against.

The point was to raise awareness

and get a message across. And in this writer’s opinion, the members of the university’s College Republicans did just that.

Gov. Jerry Brown seemed to receive the message loud and clear as he vetoed Senate Bill 185 on Saturday. It was a bill that would have allowed public universities to consider one’s race, ethnicity, gender, national origin, and other relevant factors in their admissions process.

According to The Daily Californian, Shawn Lewis, president of the Berkeley College Republicans, issued a statement supporting Brown’s decision to veto the bill, stating that college admissions decisions should be based on “the qualifications of the applicant and the individual challenges he or she has faced” rather than race.

But it all started with a little bake sale.

The now infamous “Increase Diversity Bake Sale” held last month involved cupcakes and cookies sold at different prices according to the buyer’s race:

• $2 for white students
• $1.50 for Asian students
• $1 for Latinos
• 75 cents for African Americans
• 25 cents for Native Americans

And of course, all women received a 25-cent discount.

Yes, it was a racist bake sale. I don’t think anyone is denying that. But those that decried it missed the whole point of the bake sale.

“We agree that the event is inherently racist, but that is the point,” Lewis wrote in response as reported by CNN. “It is no more racist than giving an individual an advantage in college admissions based solely on their race (or) gender.”

The racism in the sale clearly parallels the racism in the controversial and discriminatory state bill.

Regardless of your position on affirmative action, the amount of anger and hurt feelings over this bake sale was overblown and unjustified. University campuses, especially one as liberal and tolerant as Berkeley, are supposed to be bastions of free speech even if the stance is in the minority.

There was no need for Associated Students to gather in an emergency meeting and condemn the use of discriminatory methods for all occasions. This sent the message that students are unable to freely voice their opinions and share in deep and provocative discourse.

If deep and provocative discussion isn’t safe in the academic atmosphere of college life, where is it safe?

The College Republicans did not obstruct anyone’s way or physically harm anyone.

So, why did this story pick up so much press? The idea of hosting “bake sales” to prove a point certainly wasn’t unprecedented. Bake sales have been used on other college campuses to make a political argument or stir up public discussion.

And this sale was a piece of cake compared to other more radical protests at the top teaching and research university.

Everybody needs to take a step back and examine the bigger picture. The story isn’t about race and a petty bake sale, but the construction of race and its role in a piece of legislation that threatens to reinstate affirmative action in California.

Cupcakes are colorblind or are they? Photo: Flickr.

Editor’s Notes: Do you have questions or comments? Feel free to join the conversation by leaving a comment below or E-mailing the columnist directly by clicking here.

By E. J. Bies, guest writer

Diversity’s back in the limelight, and it’s getting more than 15 minutes of fame. Recent events, notably the Increase Diversity Bake Sale held at UC Berkeley’s Sproul Plaza in September, have stoked discourse to a blaze. The Berkeley College Republicans, whose members sought to expose the “unconstitutional” aim of one Senate Bill 185, sold cupcakes to ethnic minorities for a discounted price, whereas white males were charged a premium (two bucks) for a baked treat.

What might have been insensitive — or just rude — has, however, called for significant discussion. The bill — which would enact an affirmative action policy, allowing UC’s and CSU’s to consider “race, gender, ethnicity,” and so on — doesn’t only demand we ponder the constitutionality of giving preference to applicants based on their ethnicity, but whether diversity’s really all it’s cracked up to be.

Diversity’s supporters claim that the chief benefit of a diversified student body — one that more or less satisfies a baseline number, or “critical mass,” of minority students — is an enriched college experience. What better way to learn, if not in the classroom, than connecting with students from all different backgrounds? Many times, indeed, college is the venue wherein young men and women first become exposed to harshly contrasting forms of worldview, religion, language, food — the list goes on. These eye-opening experiences — which are what college is “all about” — make for more well-rounded students. And it’s certainly important to escape that ingrained “small town” insularity. Think of it as a necessary rite of passage, into adulthood, or maturity.

Now, go to the other end of the spectrum: you’ll get thumped by statistics, recent studies. But, as is expected, the studies have a lot to say. Prominently, in 1999, one Stanley Rothman headed a new project at Smith College. With just two other men under his wings, Rothman impressively surveyed a combined 4,000 students and faculty members from 140 colleges nationwide. Participants answered benign questions questions (like: “How do you rate the quality of education you receive?”), and the answers were then evaluated under a relevant context: the proportion of minority students enrolled at each school. If diversity’s proponents were correct in their assumptions, the schools with higher minority percentages would report higher rates of cultural acceptance among their students and faculty, more positive evaluations of the educational conditions, etc. Shockingly enough, Rothman results were exactly the contrary. Not only were the diversified schools increasingly eager to complain about discrimination, their students held lower estimations for both the quality of education they received and the perceived work ethic of their colleagues. Rothman said it loud: diversity does more harm than good.

Things became even more interesting when Rothman looked into how a concentrated enrollment of a particular minority affected the survey results. Hispanic students remained fairly neutral a factor, whereas — appealing to the stereotype — schools that saw higher rates of Asian enrollment reported greater student quality. Faculty members generally perceived their students as performing at a higher caliber.

I’m stuck (and it’s okay!). As with most normative issues, it’s difficult to arrive at a stance that seems overwhelmingly “right.” Studies here, studies there — it might seem logical to dissuade, or even disallow, colleges from the use of affirmative action. Constitutional or not, we’ve seen that diversification might not even be effective. But, while the statistics don’t lie — for those 140 colleges, at least — people aren’t afraid to stand up to numbers, normal distributions, et al. . . . So I’ll say it: Let’s never forget to make the distinction between what’s effective and what’s upright.

E. J. Bies is currently a technical writing intern at Versatile College Consulting.