From story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=15&u=/ap/20031224/ap_on_re_us/campus_controversy_2

College Bake Sales Spark Conflict    

By MELANTHIA MITCHELL, Associated Press Writer

SEATTLE - Campus bake sales by conservatives who oppose affirmative-action are cooking up discord — and complaints about restrictions on free speech.

Organizers charge white students $1 for a cookie, while blacks and other minorities pay 25 to 95 cents. Doughnuts are available for 50 cents to everyone except Asian Americans and whites, who cannot purchase them.

Unfair? So is affirmative action, organizers contend.

"It's a good example of what affirmative action does, judging people based on race," said Jason Chambers, president of the University of Washington College Republicans, which held a sale in October that shut down when some students began attacking the booth.

"People were upset. People did feel offended," said Anthony Rose, president of the UW Black Student Union. "You see something like that, you feel itemized."

In September, Southern Methodist University shut down a similar event by the Young Conservatives of Texas.

Similar bake sales have been held since February at the University of California-Berkeley, the University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M University, Northwestern University near Chicago, the University of Michigan and Indiana University.

A conservative watchdog group in Philadelphia contends some universities are violating students' constitutional freedoms by restricting the protests.

"They cannot defend in public what they have done to the First Amendment at the University of Washington," said Thor Halvorssen, CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. "There is no question that the administration would never censor a group of students holding a peaceful protest in favor of affirmative action."

The UW College Republicans' Oct. 8 bake sale took place about the same time as a step performance by a traditionally black fraternity and drew plenty of attention.

Chambers said students engaged in a couple hours of good, heated discussion, until some began yelling and tearing down signs, even throwing cookies at members of the conservative group.

"I really thought that everyone on campus could maintain their composure and have a civil discussion without getting violent. I was really surprised that it went that far," Chambers said.

UW spokesman Robert Roseth said the administration had nothing to do with the shutdown. The group's members dismantled the booth voluntarily after the office of student affairs asked them if they wished to take it down, he said.

Rose, a 20-year-old junior majoring in American Ethnic Studies, backs up the university's account.

"It was for their own safety," Rose said. "They shut themselves down."

In a letter responding to the melee, Board of Regents President Jerry Grinstein expressed disappointment with the sale.

"The statements of the UW College Republicans in putting on a bake sale about affirmative action were tasteless, divisive and hurtful to many members of the university community," he wrote.

In the incident at Southern Methodist University, organizers described the event as a bake sale — not an anti-affirmative-action protest — in their application for event space, said Jim Caswell, vice president for student affairs.

Had the university known it was a demonstration, a more appropriate location would have been chosen, Caswell said. A staff member thought the friction was likely to escalate, and stopped the event, he said.

"I think it's important to note that freedom of expression was not the issue, it was the hostile environment created by the Young Conservatives' failure to fully disclose their intentions," Caswell said.

Isn't it funny how the peace loving liberals are generally the violent ones?  

The Truth shall be suppressed until Liberalism is tha accepted norm!

I guess all men are created equal, some are just more equal than others.[v]

This is how democracy works for democrats.

1, You can have free speech, as long as you say what they want to hear.

2, You can own guns, as long as they get to approve of the type of gun and restrict them. (whatever is acceptable to a person who hates guns is what you get)

3, You can make as much money as you like, as long as they get to redistribute it as they see fit.

4, You can go to the doctor, as long as they decide which one and how often.

5, You can own a car or house, as long as they get to pick your neighbors and where you live.

6, You can travel, use the internet and phone system, as long as they get to monitor whatever you say and where you go.

7, You can be discriminated against and you better like it. You should be punished for doing well and being educated.  

8, You should pay retribution and apologize for acts committed in the previous 3 centuries. You punishment is based on your skin color, not guilt or innocence.(Is it racist when they do this to a white person?)

9, You should be ashamed of yourself for having a job and not being on welfare.

To consolidate a powerbase, they must reduce as many people as possible to dependancy on the government for welfare and healthcare.  By threatening to reduce or curtail benefits they can force the uneducated majority they creat to vote for them.  Reducing the economy to shambles and moving as many people as possible to low wage, low class service jobs (like Wal-Mart) with few if any benefits they will gain this power base.

So you wanna be a democrat?

You forgot that you have the right to demand to be safe, but the United States has no right to wage war to bring about that safety...

This shit always cracks me up.  I love the cookie sale idea as a way of spreading the message.  There's nothing less antagonistic that gets the message across in a more succinct manner.

who would have thought selling cookies would cause such an uproar.

hilarious.  i love it!

it's always funny when someone's beliefs are questioned and they don't have the intelligence to argue so they turn to violence.  

Gee, the group that Mr. Rose is president of attacked the table???????  Who woulda thunk it.[whacko]

They felt offended so they attacked and we are the racists??????????????[shock]

The only problem is that all it really illustrates is how these people really don't understand affirmative action.

Affirmative action is about providing a "level playing field", and the way it is should work is that when/if there are two EQUALLY QUALIFIED APPLICANTS to a job, and one of them is a minority candidate, the job should go to the minority candidate.

Affirmative action has nothing to do with hiring LESS qualified people, as is clearly implied by this "protest".  (I know that also happens,, but that's not because of affirmative action, but because of idiots with an agenda)

So unfortunately, this kind of bake sale only illustrates how these guys are using the exact same kind of inflammatory and inaccurate techniques as ultra-liberals do (but I guess the ends justify the means, right?).

The only problem is that you just proved that you have no idea how affirmative action works in reality.

It has been proven and documented in court cases that hiring less qualified people is EXACTLY what is happening.

Sorry, unlike most people who flap their gums about this topic (and I'm NOT saying you're one of them), I actually do know something about this.

I often point out the shortcomings of Affirmative Action to my fiancee, and she used to work as an HR officer of a major Fortune 100 company, and is EXTREMELY aware of how AA works - both in theory and in practice.  In fact, she teaches HR to MBAs at a top business school.  I have no doubt that she understands this MUCH stuff better than any of us, and I certainly understand it much better now than I used to (after arguing with her many times).


I agree that sometimes the implementation os AA is really skewed in some cases, and unqualified people are getting hired - but you have to balance that against other cases where people are only paying lip service to AA, and are really not following the intent of AA at all.  It probably washes out.

I still think AA is a bad idea, but at least I understand what it actually says, and how it is supposed to work.

Many people do not.

That sounds nice in theory but it's pure bullshit in practical application.  I should know because I have been left on the sidelines while a less qualified woman was put in the lead position for a product I developed.  When she got into trouble, she at least had the sense to come to me to help fix it.  I found that kind of culture to be demoralizing, so I found a better job at another company about a year later.  BTW, it only took 4 people working nearly full time to cover what I was doing.

The bake sale is indicative of the truth of the application of the affirmative action laws.  Affirmative action is being used to enforce a quota system upon all professional jobs regardless of qualifications.  The problem is that not every race is equally represented in every profession with qualified candidates.  How do you reconcile that?  Imagine how blacks might respond if they were told the NBA, NFL, and MLB were required to have 70% white players, 15% Hispanic players, and 5% Asian players.

Simply put, if you're stupid enough to use racial criteria to choose your employees, you are denying yourself access to the talent pool of a substantial portion of the population.  Others will be smarter and hire those people.  I am astonished that freedom-loving people here would ever think that government coercion is a good thing.  [:o]

There is the ideal of what AA is and there is the reality.  

I like consistancy in life.  I try not to be a hypocrite.  AA is a hypocritical policy, even when evaluating two equaly qualified employees.  The idea is that in that case the job should goto the minority...well on the flip side of that would it be okay to deny a job to the minority in a imilar situation?  If you make it okay to consider race then you should not be upset when it is considered in a way that one may not like.

Very simple solution to this problem, eliminate race and gender from applications.  As much as I dislike SS#'s, that is the easiest way to fairly evaluate a persons credentials without tainting the process with gender and race status.

I'll say it quite simple.  AA is a form of white guilt.  The white race has been made to feel guilty for slavery, and many in the black communtiy reinforce this idea.  Without this guilt, Jesse Jackson would still be bussing tables in Greenville, instead of running a multi-million dollar extorsion agency.  Many have been coaxed into believing that by giving preferential treatment andhiring based on race, they will absolve their guilt over the past treatment of blacks in America.  

You know what I found really funny about the presidents comments about the display of the bake sale?  HE refered to the event and divisive, hurtful and tasteless.  This is simply because they provided a very suscint and persuasive opposing viewpoint to the AA arguement.  These kids did good.  You know your winning an argument with a liberal when they start to label you as a raceist or become violent.  You must respect their rights, but should you not agree with them, they have the right to label you a racist and cause violence...nice, huh?

Unfortunately, this only looks to get worse and I fear there isn't much we can do to stop it.

Actually, DK, the protest is quite accurate in [b]illustrating AA as implemented by college campuses[/b]...

[b]It's not the theory that does the damage (esp since there are NEVER two people with the EXACT SAME qualifications, EXCEPT IN THEORY). It's the way people use the theory that does the damage, and draws the protest[/b]

They should be able to sale to whom they want and any price they want.

It gets the point across as to how screwed up it is, and some people get up set about the truth.  

Here's a buck, I'll take a cookie.

I helped to run one of these in the UC (University Center) at the University of Wisconsin - Whitewater when I was a student there.

We got some disapproving looks and some QUALITY debate, but no violence.

(shakes head)  I'm glad it's stirring up trouble, but this is RIDICULOUS.

Mike

Yep. Especially the gay community that decries "intolerance." The news won't cover it, but those people get downright nasty when enforcing their "tolerance."

University of Michigan Law School, a state owned university, and their method of AA that was just upheld:

A 'strict goal', later called a 'critical mass' for public consumption after the first term failed to go over big with the students, is used to govern who gets in. Always, no matter what, about 12 percent, plus or minus 1 percent, is minority (black, hispanic, indian is what counts at U of M law). This means 12 percent of the class is reserved. No crap about fair or level or any of that shit, just plain reserved.

Money is then handed out as an enticement for those black, hispanic, indians with high scores (the same level as whites or asians) to actually attend. One of my classmates got offered a free ride in order to come, and his scores and grades were the same as mine. We laughed long and hard about that.

Then we get to testing. Law school tests are given once (sometimes twice) a term. The majority (or sometimes all) your grade is based on that test. There are no quizes or practice exams. Oh, there are. If you are b,h, or i you are, by virture of your race, entitled to the MAP program and are placed in it as a matter of course. Under MAP the bhi's are given a 'pre-test' written by their professors for each class and covering, by rule, the same questions that will be on the real test. The bhi's are instructed to not tell the whites and asians what will be on the test. The bhi's then have their pre-tests graded and they sit down with the professor to discuss how to improve their scores on the real tests.

Let's not even begin to get into the quotas for law review and journals. Let us just say I was on the student senate and there was a huge problem with people discovering their indian roots while applying to law review. The school at last went to background investigations to see what racial preference folks should be claiming.

This is all at a state university, and clearly violates the 14th amendment (clear to all but federal judges).

Please don't yank our chains about AA and 'fair' again.

Happy Shooter,
DKProf works in Academia and I am sure you are completely wrong.
Funny how minorities like asians and jews don't get protection, eh?
Oh that's right, jews and asians have never been discriminated against[rolleyes].
Funny how in law school you are learning the most important lesson of all unintentionally.  The law is not just and justice is rarely legal.

What Bullshit!! [rolleyes]

That's a PERFECT description, of Racism!!

If the law mandated hire the white candidate, what would ya have to say???

How long must we pay reparations to the parasites among us??
The conservative protestors, are absoulutly correct.....

Two points:

1.  When JFK coined the term, Affirmative Action, it was meant that employers were to take an affirmative action to give women and minorities an equal chance to in the hiring process.  It was not meant to give them a "more equal" shot at the same job as a white male.

2.  If you are a hiring manager, or in a position to hire; you are doing a piss poor job of screening and interviewing if you have two applicants that are equal in your eyes.  If you have two candidates that are equally suited for the job, you need to dig deeper and find one that stands out.

It's not very funny when you are the parents and have to be the one writing the checks.

My step-daughter is a freshman at a public university here in Florida.  Her black roommate in the dorm grew up in a similar middle-class environment as my daughter did (Actually it may have been better as she is from Boca Raton).  Same SAT scores, high school grades, ect.  Just because she is black she gets a free ride - tuition, housing, books, everything even though her parents could have afforded it.  Every semester she recives a check from the state and you know what she spends it on? - clothes, shoes and extra food (above and beyond the meal plan the state pays for already).

AA in higher education is a joke for some but not the parents who have been saving for 12 years to provide an education for their kids.

That's not true, DK-Prof.  Some colleges give pad the criteria for a student's admission on nothing more than race. At the University of Michigan, they have a point scheme to determine admission.  A perfect SAT score gets you 6 points, being black gives puts 20 points on your score.  The result is that a lot of white kids who are MORE qualified than some black kids are shunted aside in the name of "diversity".

Also consider how it's ok to have Black Student Unions, Afruican-American student associations, et cetera.  But everyone knows what would happen if somebody started a Caucasian Students' Association, even if they extended membership to anyone who wanted to join regardless of race, creed, or color.

University authorities and minorities would rather silence and marginalize groups that point out the gross hypocrisy and doublestandards of multicultualism and diversity ethos in the modern academia.

My guess is that these minorities are reacting so violently to the affirmative action bake sale because it deeply wounds their pride.  They'd like to think they got into college on their own merits, that they didn't need to have the system rigged in order for them to compete against white and Asian students for admissions.  But the truth is that that's probably not the case.

When thiese attitudes towards lowering standards for unqualified employees simply because they're black, the results can be disastrous.  Just ask Howell Raines.  He hired Jayson Blair who didn't even have a BA and rapidly promoted him up into the national bureau. Blair's immediate supervisors knew he was a disaster waiting to happen, but Raines was so consumed with white guilt and multiculti/diversity dogma, he didn't do anything.  Ended up costing Raines his job and badly hurting the reputation of the NY Times.

About 8 years ago the EEOC came through the larger companies in the 'burbs and told them they had to go recruit in the city and provide bus service for their new hires. All this because, even though the Co.s had hired all the minorities who applied, they still didn't have a "proper" representation of minorities.

"The only problem is that all it really illustrates is how these people really don't understand affirmative action."

No, I think they TOTALLY understand affirmative action, and you're taking a totally unrealistic view of the reality of how affirmative action IS descrimination - against whites, that is... Oh wait, THAT doesn't really bother the media, or academia(liberal institutions, both) - now does it???


  - georgestrings

If they are equally qualified then the playing field IS LEVEL. You have no idea what it is you are talking about. Tell me how its fair or equal to give someone a job based on their skin color. PURE FOOLISHNESS!

Provide bussing? Can they take the cost out of the employees paycheck. Never mind, it's a rhetorical question.

It costs me over $4,000.00 a year to commute to the city. Maybe I should ask my employer to "pick that up".

Let me be clear about this.


I am NOT in favor or affirmative action, but I am in favor of accuracy and facts.  I prefer to leave arguing with inaccuracies and emotions to people like Sarah Brady.  



It is patently untrue to suggest that companies hire based on quotas - the courts have repeatedly ruled that quotas are illegal.  Affirmative action also doesn't say that you have to hire people - just that you have to CONSIDER them in your applicant pool.  You cannot get in trouble for not hiring blacks - but you can get in trouble for not considering them for your poistion if they do apply.

I work in a university, and the past 5 years we've hired tall white men (except last year, where we hired a short white man).  We're TOTALLY an affirmative action employer - and that means that we LOOKED AT THE APPLICATIONS of the minorities and the women.  We still didn't hire them, but we met the affirmative action burden by looking at their applications.

Nothing more is required.  How bad is that?

It is true that some universities shamelessly abuse AA - I don't disagree with that.  (I have SEEN those abuses myself - including a doctoral student from Minnesota who changed his name to a hispanic one, faked an accent, got a tan and dyed his hair - and got a great job that he was unqualifed for).  If students have a problem with it, they should protest their university's admissions system, not affirmative action - since the university is not really implementing affirmative action, but is implementing an unfair system that violates the principle of affirmative action.

I did pay for it myself. I still pay off my rather large loan every month.

The joke was that my friend, who was the same student as far as the college numbers were concerned, got a free education at a top 5 law school just because he was somewhat (and I mean a spec of mexican blood, this guy was italian) hispanic in his family tree.

I think affirmative action got side-tracked in between the time it was forumulated and today. I know this for a fact personally, my friend's daughter who attends UCBerkley HAD an affirmative action roomate who was just barely qualified to be there. This woman all the free everythings, tutors and books etc, but she still couldn't cut the mustard and washed out at the end of the year. What a waste of time for the University and the taxpayers of Calif.

My sister works at the UW, she writes grants. I am intimately familiar with the Seattle liberal scene, thru many contacts in the community, with both family and friends.

I watched the WTO riots without a TV. I've watched the Machinists Union strike against Boeing over and over again, until Boeing just sent all their jobs overseas to asia. I've watched the community repeatly vote down the money they need to eliminate our nearly 24/7 traffic gridlock, shutting down our economic growth. Over the course of my working life, I have been:

sexually harrassed by a female supervisor, then fired when I was unresponsive,

beaten by a ethnically exclusive gang at a professioanl baseball game, while the cops looked the other way,

sued by a drug dealer, for acting to stop him,  who won when his clients testified for him.

I am not objective. I can't look at issues from an distant, academic point of view. I have felt too much physical and emotional pain not to take social issues personally.

I have black friends I would take on the KKK to protect. I have white white friends I would take on the New Black Panthers to protect. I have mixed race and foreign born, adapted cousins I would take on anybody to protect.

To hell with how things SHOULD be. I vote against any program that works against me. To hell with the "greater" good, it's an illusion.

My rebellious nature dooms me to be a convervative in a very liberal community. I think those business kids are brilliantly directing attention to the injustice of our system, [b][u]as it is practiced.[/b][/u]