Berkeley college students protest with bake sale

Story by Adrienne Primicias
1:20 AM, 2/28/2003

“Fight racism! Buy a cookie!”

A far cry from what you would hear at your average bake sale, this was exactly what Cal students heard on Sproul Plaza when the Berkeley College Republicans held the campus’ first affirmative action bake sale late last month.

At the event, students were charged varying prices for cookies based on their ethnicity. The cost of one cookie was $1.50 for Whites/Caucasians, $1.25 for Asian Americans, $1.00 for Latino/Spanish Americans, $0.75 for Chicano/Mexican-Americans, and $0.25 for Africa-Americans.

“This event was intended to create a visual argument and to help people understand the injustices of Affirmative Action,” said Travis Ratliff, a director for the California College Republicans and member of the Berkeley College Republicans.

Bake sale organizers said the event was meant to bring the organization’s opposition to affirmative action to the campus debate on the issue, rather than to make a profit from the cookies sold.

“The money raised here won’t even pay for the cost of the cookies,” added David Galich, president of the Berkeley College Republicans. “We’re not interested in profits, just making an argument.”

And arguments arose indeed, as onlookers approached the BCR table to express their personal opinions about affirmative action, often with raised voices.

At times dozens of students filled the north end of the plaza to engage in emotionally charged debate. Groups such as the Cal Berkeley Democrats and BAMN came out to object to the event. Even students who were not affiliated with any political associations expressed their outrage.

“Did the chocolate chips experience a century of cookie dough slavery? I find what you’re doing irritating, insulting, and naive. It pisses me off that you’ve flattened an issue that is very large,” said Patrick Conner, a UC Berkeley junior.

Hoku Jeffrey, a BAMN leader and ASUC senator, said he found the event “ironic” in that the bake sale intends to “attack affirmative action for being discriminatory, but (BCR is) just highlighting inequality. Affirmative action is necessary to offset inequality in our society because of race.”

“If black people pay less because black people make less, then yeah they should have affirmative action,” he added.

Cal-SERVE Senator Taina Gomez denounced the event at the ASUC meeting held later that night, saying that “affirmative action is not a handout.”

“To say that discrimination doesn’t happen in admissions, I think it’s ridiculous,” she said at the meeting. “Discrimination still happens because of preference.”

Likewise, California Democratic Party chair Art Torres condemned the event, demanding an apology from BCR officials.

“Once again we see hard working students of color subjected to racist Republican rhetoric for simply seeking a good education and equal opportunity,” Torres said in a statement. “These College Republicans have opted to perpetuate the legacy of Trent Lott.”

Beyond participating in the heated debate on Sproul Plaza, BCR members supported their opposition to racial preferences by distributed flyers during the event.

“Race-based preferences are morally unsound,” the flyers stated. “Countering bias with more bias does not provide a solution. We hope this bake sale illustrates the injustice and moral bankruptcy of (racial preferences).”

Some bystanders expressed support for the event, arguing that it is proponents of affirmative action rather than the organizers of the bake sale who espouse racist views.

“Affirmative action is even more racist,” said one UC Berkeley freshman, who wished to remain anonymous. “It automatically assumes that a person is less qualified if he or she is of a certain race. I find that insulting.”

The Bruin Republicans at UCLA were one of the first organizations to hold an affirmative action bake sale on their campus.

“If you’re really against affirmative action, you need to say so,” said Andrew Jones, chairman for the Bruin Republicans. “I definitely think this (bake sale) is a clever ay to do it. I don’t think it is offensive.”

Racial preferences in hiring and admissions became illegal in California in 1996 with the passage of Proposition 209, which was spearheaded by UC Regent Ward Connerly.

Later this year, the US Supreme Court will revisit the topic of affirmative action when it presides over a case on the use of race preferences at the University of Michigan.

With the looming presence of what many think will be a landmark Supreme Court decision, it is no wonder the affirmative action controversy has resurfaced with such magnitude.