Discussing divisive diversity at the UC

Extra credit: Read every third word to crack Republican "code words" that finally prove they're racist.


By: Brooke Cook -- Staff Writer

     Cookies and cupcakes.  How could something so harmless (and so delicious) turn into such a controversy?  Ask the Berkeley College Republicans (BCRs), a group that decided to turn a bake sale into a political statement about a piece of California legislation that would allow California universities use affirmative action in admissions.  Now, cookies and cupcakes are no longer merely a means for decadent indulgence, but they have become a symbol for free speech on college campuses.
     On September 27, 2011, the BCRs set up a table on Sproul Plaza (the Berkeley equivalent of Bruin Plaza) to sell cookies and cupcakes from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. in what they called an “Increase Diversity Bake Sale.”  Next to the table, there was a sign that assigned different prices for the baked goods depending on the race of the customer.  Each baked good was priced accordingly: Whites, $2.00, Asians $1.50, Latinos, $1.00, African-Americans, $0.75, and Native Americans, $0.25. Women got $0.25 off their purchase.  Adjacent this sign, there was another sign that clarified the prices were merely trying to get a message across and that the baked items were not priced differently based on race.   Since it is illegal to price things differently based on race the controversial pricing was merely communicating a political point and did not represent the literal prices of the baked goods. In fact, the BCRs were accepting any price offered by customers for the baked goods.  If someone did not want to pay for the cupcakes, the BCRs gave them to the customer for free.
     Mixed emotions filled the plaza as the bake sale captured the attention of students. “Naturally it’s ingrained in our culture that we want to be treated equally,” remarked Andrew Glidden, a fourth year Materials Science student and a member of the BCRs, who was holding a sign next to the table on the day of the bake sale. The president of BCR, Shawn Lewis, a third year Political Science student, told The Bruin Standard that the bake sale was “meant to get people to think more critically about any policy that treats people differently based on their ethnicity or gender.”
     California Senate Bill 185 (SB 185) is the affirmative action policy that Lewis referenced.  SB 185 was a bill that would allow California state universities to “consider race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin, along with other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions.”  This bill, if signed into law, would contest a proposition that voters approved 14 years ago prohibiting not only California universities, but any public institution in California from considering such factors.
     The bake sale has received national and even international attention, causing many to discuss not only the merits of the bill, but also whether or not the bake sale was an offensive way for those opposing SB 185 to get their message across.  In response to claims from students and faculty that the bake sale was offensive to minority groups, Lewis claims, “race in politics in America is an inherently controversial subject, so we faced it with a controversial event.”
     But the ASUC, Berkeley’s student government, as well as the chancellor, and minority and student groups on Berkeley’s campus, including the Black Student Union, MEChA, and Cal Democrats came out passionately opposed to the bake sale. And not just on the day of the bake sale.  No, the BCRs began receiving opposition and even media attention almost a week before the bake sale occurred. 
     According to Lewis, the bake sale was a response to an “Increase Diversity Phone Bank” that was sponsored by ASUC to encourage students to call Governor Brown and urge him to sign SB 185 into law.  Lewis says, “There was a one sided conversation on-campus regarding this issue and this bill.”  According to Lewis, the goal of the bake sale was to have another view represented on campus.  Perhaps this view was more consistent with the citizens of California—a Survey USA poll conducted on September 26, 2011 found that 77% of Californians opposed SB 185.
     Five days before the bake sale, the event was announced via Facebook, and it immediately went viral.  Within 24 hours of the Facebook event post, Student Action, one Berkeley’s student government political parties (similar to Students First and Bruins United), set up an emergency townhall to oppose the bake sale. 
Two days after the townhall and two days before the bake sale, the student government held an emergency Senate session, in which a resolution was passed condemning “offensiveness” on campus, implicating the bake sale that had not yet occurred. The resolution threatened to revoke student funding from any event that was offensive.  Later that day, the president of ASUC told media outlets that there was a strong possibility that the BCRs might lose their funding. 
     In response to the threats to cut BCR’s funding, Lewis firmly expressed that the BCRs would take legal action.  “It would be illegal. It would be unconstitutional in California, it would be unconstitutional under the United States Constitution,” emphasized Lewis.  Evidently many others agree with Lewis, because public interest firms and civil rights attorneys from across the nation called the BCRs and told Lewis that they would defend the group in court for free.  As of now, threats to revoke funding have died down, and no party has taken legal action.
     The chancellor sent an email to the students of Berkeley the evening after the bake sale.  In the email, Chancellor Robert Birgeneau discussed his disappointment in the bake sale by saying, “The issue is whether community members will be intentionally - or unintentionally - hurt or demeaned by that action.” Glidden responded to this email expressing, “this is an impossible standard to live up to.”  Chancellor Birgeneau further comments on First Amendment liberties saying, “Freedom of speech is not properly exercised without taking responsibility for its impact.” 
     On Sunday, October 9, 2011, Governor Brown vetoed SB 185.  Was his veto a result of the BCRs bake sale?  Maybe not, but Lewis states that the bake sale “brought attention to something that was on its way to quietly moving through the legislature.”



Brooke Cook is a fourth-year communication studies major. She can be reached at thebruinstandard@gmail.com