<p>Yes, I know this is the UCLA thread, but I wanted to see what you guys thought about the whole thing. In case any of you guys don't know about this, here's what happened: the Berkeley College Republicans threw a bake sale where white people had to pay $2 for a cupcake, Hispanics paid $1 for a cupcake, African-Americans paid 75 cents, and Native Americans paid 25 cents. The whole point of this was to mock affirmative action (response to SB185 bill which could be passed) and show how it is racist. Basically, there's a whole bunch of protests about this.</p>
<p>Now I, for one, thought this was a brilliant idea. People called this racist, insensitive, and offensive (insert facepalm here), when in fact, that was the whole point. The whole point is to show how affirmative action based on race is racist and unfair. What makes even less sense is that many of the people that were protesting this bake sale are probably pro-affirmative action, and this makes no sense at all considering that the bake sale is almost like affirmative action itself. IMO, the fact that the bake sale was this controversial shows that affirmative action is a bad idea.</p>
<p>If anyone has a problem with the bake sale because it’s racist, then they ought to also have a problem with affirmative action. Same principle. “Affirmative action” is just a fancy term for racism.</p>
<p>The Berkeley Republicans club is doing a great job showing people how idiotic affirmative action is. It’s good that Berkeley has some taste of reason.</p>
<p>The legislative bill in question would be an outright violation of the Bakke verdict.</p>
<p>Before I start, I should say that I am opposed to affirmative action on the basis of race. (I support other types of affirmative action, but that is neither here nor now).</p>
<p>However, the discussion that the Berkeley College Republicans generated ceased to be about affirmative action the moment they decided that it was appropriate to assign a specific dollar value to different ethnic groups. </p>
<p>Price is something that is typically associated with economics, i.e. when considering supply and demand, price is a reflection of both the value of a product and the ability/willingness of the consumer to pay. With that in mind, equating this bake sale with affirmative action is a non sequitur, as ethnicity is never a direct determiner of material wealth. Nor does material wealth have a causal effect on academic achievement. Therefore, the use of a tiered pricing system as a means of protest does not make sense outside of an economic context. Want to have a bake sale to protest tuition increases subsidizing need-based aid? That’s fine. Charging rich kids $5 and poor kids $.25 for cupcakes would certainly draw the ire of social justice proponents, but it doesn’t cross any obvious lines.</p>
<p>Instead, the use of a tiered, ethnicity-based pricing system invoked an incredibly dangerous set of assumptions. White people, as a monolithic group, were assigned a value. This value was twice that of Hispanics. It was eight times that of indigenous Americans, and so on.</p>
<p>The implication, and it is so obvious that there should be no need to spell it out, is that white people are worth twice as much as Hispanics. I do not mean “worth” in the material sense, but rather in the sense that white people are twice as “superior” as Hispanics. Every non-white ethnic group was valued at a fraction of the value of white people, and these groups were framed as being literally unworthy of paying the “premium” price that white people pay. </p>
<p>This has nothing to do with affirmative action. This is a wholesale, calculated devaluation of entire ethnic groups. The idea that ethnic groups can have a particular value assigned to them is a principle that has preceded every episode of genocide and mass dehumanization in world history. Prior to Abolition, black slaves were assigned a value of 3/5 of a white person. This was not some crackpot’s opinion—it was the exact language of the U.S. Constitution. Once blacks were formally devalued in the eyes of the law, whites achieved absolute superiority over them, further justifying their enslavement and dehumanization.</p>
<p>Michael Dillon asserts:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By “zero point of the holocaust,” Dillon refers to the systemic devaluation of the Jewish peple by the Third Reich. Once expunged of intrinsic worth in the eyes of Germans, the Jews were then shipped off to the ghettos and death camps with minimal resistance. Please do not invoke Godwin’s Law. It is a very real, serious issue that BCR does not understand the implications of what they have done. </p>
<p>Do I think BCR was cognizant of these implications when they came up with this idea? No. Nor do I believe that they intended any malice. That does not absolve them of their representations, however.</p>
<p>i’m pro affirmative action. As Rawls notes, we can have inequality as long as it’s to the benefit of the most disadvantaged people. (usually women and racial minorities)</p>
<p>The ruling is essentially trying to reverse prop 209. It all depends on how you view things. Some places don’t care that there universities are essentially dominated by one racial group (e.g. UCI is like 50% asian) </p>
<p>Generally, diversity is always better than non-diversity. People can say ‘well you have some rich minorities’ but those are so few that they serve only as anecdotes. The statistics are about as objective as they come (which, in the vast majority of universities i’ve seen, esspecially in UofC, is dominated by whites and asians)</p>
<p>I think that AA, including that done by race, is meant to level the playing field for people who don’t have the advantages/resources that their more affluent peers have (e.g. parents who graduated high school, income above the poverty line, etc.) No one gets to choose the parents we’re born to, and it’s completely determined by luck whether someone is born to an affluent family or not, but that doesn’t mean we just have to let the same groups of people clearly dominate the higher education system just because they were lucky.</p>
<p>@TheHutt
No statement of proportional worth is implied. All that is stated is that there is inequality in the amount of labor (translate to “money available” in case of the bake sale) required to obtain a college education (translate to “cookie” in case of the bake sale). Neither AA nor the bake sale says such a group is worth a certain amount, whereas another group is worth a different amount. But AA (sincerely) and the bake sale (sarcastically) both show that certain groups should be treated more favorably, regardless of whether or not there is a stated proportionate amount–they would not say that the groups themselves have differences in intrinsic worth–that’s an entirely different matter.</p>
Just because you can find someone to say it, it doesn’t mean that they’re right. And nowadays, there aren’t any “disadvantaged people” so your point is moot. Everyone in America has an equal shot at whatever they want. And you say women too? You’re fighting a battle that you already won. Women aren’t disadvantaged.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The “resources” that you went on to list are not limited to those of affluent birth. Anyone can get an education at public schools. Don’t tell me they’re lesser quality than private schools–I have personally attended both types and am certain that it is actually public schools (in high school, at least) that have much greater opportunities. Parents who didn’t get an education? So what? There are always teachers and such who can help in that realm. The “playing field” is already level, so helping one group over another is just prejudice, plain and simple. Lincoln said it plain and simple, “You cannot push one man up by pulling another down.” Yes, if you want, go ahead and say I’m hypocritical for previously saying something isn’t true just because someone says it–I’m guilty of it now.</p>
<p>
[quote=beyphy]
Generally, diversity is always better than non-diversity.[/beyphy]
That’s just your opinion. It’s not fact. And it’s un-American. America stands for “E pluribus unum”–regardless of your background, when you come to this country, you become an American and we have (or have had, at least) tremendous greatness because of that. But if you talk about “valuing other cultures” and “a melting pot”, then you are advocating a resistance to unity.</p>
<p>UCLAEE, are you really being serious when you say everyone gets the same chance, that public schools and private schools are no different? I personally know a friend who went to a high school in downtown L.A. and his high school did not hold any honors class or AP classes. The high school did not even offer a foreign language, and the dropout rate for that high school was nearly 62%. My friend did not get into any college besides the nearby community college simply because his application did not look “competitive” enough. What’s so “competitive” when his high school did not even offer any honors/AP or simply even a foreign language? By the way, this high school was like 95% Hispanic, and that is the point of SB 185. Please tell me youre joking when everyone has the same chance because obviously the people from that high school, and many other dirt-**** high schools do not get the same opportunity as I did, let alone even take a single Honors/AP/foreign language class because they simply did not offer any.</p>
<p>TheHutt, your post has some flaws. Let’s assume that a college acceptance letter from Berkeley is worth an amount of money, value, etc. Let’s say $1. Let’s say a rejection letter is worth 0. Therefore, if you discriminate by race through AA and give out acceptance letters to people of color with “lesser stats” then you are showing that you value them more than the people you reject by giving the people of color something that is worth $1 more. This shows that affirmative action by race directly does make whites and Asians “worth less” by valuing their similar accomplishments less and giving them no recognition of value (and giving them a 0 value rejection letter) as apposed to the colored individual who you designate as “worth more” by giving them a valuable piece of paper (the acceptance). So yes, while not the best of examples I agree, the bake sale does actually directly and very accurately parallel affirmative action.</p>
<p>I’m all for affirmative action based on economic/financial background. If someone was truly disadvantaged, didn’t go to a good high school, or came from a very poor family, then they should by all means get extra attention in admissions.</p>
<p>But affirmative action based on race is ridiculous. The intentions of it are good, but the logic is bad. It assumes all Hispanics and African-Americans are poor and come from disadvantaged backgrounds while all white people and Asians come from rich, well-to-do families when neither of these are true. There are many Hispanics and African-American applicants whose families make more than $100,000, and there are many Asians and white people who come from financially disadvantaged and/or abusive families. </p>
<p>Yes, a higher percentage of URMs may be disadvantaged compared to white people and Asians, but it doesn’t mean that all of them are, and it doesn’t mean that no white people or Asians are disadvantaged. Giving someone special attention and extra help just because they are Hispanic or African-American isn’t very logical. Why on earth should African-American or Hispanic applicants who come from well-to-do families get extra help and special attention in admissions?</p>
<p>@ theespy, who says they do. I come from a black family with an income of over $200,000. And I don’t
expect or want a special look by admissions officers. Colleges look at the whole picture, and they can see I’ve been blessed with oppurtunities others haven’t. But in my experience I’m usually one of the only blacks in my higher level classes, and I get the feeling that teachers are suprised when they see an articulate well mannered black kid like me. So put it however you may, but in my experience advantaged blacks are the exception, not the rule. Now I also get that not all whites are given good oppurtunities and colleges know that, my guess is they’ll look at a white or asian kid from an inner city the same as a black, hispanic, or NA one. But, all in all, I support AA, but only because I think income level and oppurtunities given are just as important as race when judging an applicant.</p>
<p>what fantasy world are you living in? Things like unemployment rates are higher for minorities than their white counterparts; women make less money than their male counterparts for doing the same job. There’s still plenty of inequality out there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>let’s start with the obvious: if public schools were of equal quality to private schools, then why on earth would anyone pay to go to a private one?</p>
<p>Sure, some public schools are the same quality as private schools (like Palos Verdes High school) but i guarantee you that the vast majority does not. I was reading an article recently on Manual Arts High School which said that, not only were their resources severely limited, they had too many students, and were understaffed, but they’d also been through 10 principles in 10 years. LAUSD has long been synonymous with inferior public education. (which is why its drop out rates are like 60%)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>there aren’t always such teachers. I had one in maybe 12 years of public school (who i’m sincerely indebted to and was extremely lucky to have access to.) The system as a whole is broken though.</p>
<p>if the playing field were level then why do asians and whites overwhelmingly outrepresent their black and hispanic peers in colleges? if things were truly level, wouldn’t the statistics reflect that? i mean, that is, unless these people, as races with millions of people, just decided altogether that most of them weren’t going to go to college.</p>
<p>the truth is, you’re just arguing your preconceived notions, which have been refuted by evidence, and which you refuse to accept.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A huge part of what it means to be American means equal opportunities. It’s inevitable that some people may not have them. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything about it. </p>
<p>It’s only ‘un-american’ if you think that all we’re doing is giving these people a free pass. We’re not. You still won’t see a 1.4 GPA student at UCLA. But you might see students with a 3.3. This wouldn’t even be an issue certain groups weren’t overly represented in colleges, but they are, and as a result of that some people think we should do something about that.</p>
<p>@dragonslays
That’s just talking about the constituent students, not the school itself. Being a serious student at a “rotten” school presents unique opportunities. I can elaborate if you want, but don’t want to right now. Same with offerings of APs–reflects the students, not a lack of funding or anything like that. Personally, I went to a high school with a very bad reputation that was known for gang violence. There were great opportunities. There was AP Cal AB but not BC. The teacher said that if there was sufficient demand, the district could easily get a BC teacher in addition to the already-existing AB class. (This was LAUSD). It’s not a matter of a disadvantaged school, it just reflects the students themselves.</p>
<p>@ThisCouldBeHeavn
All you said was that my words were ridiculous and absurd. You didn’t give any cogent arguments, so your post is merely an ad hominem and hence worthless.</p>
I’m living in reality. I was talking about equality of opportunity (from childhood), not equality of result. Equality of opportunity is an American value; equality of result is a Marxist value. Unemployment rates reflect result, not opportunity. </p>
<p>Same job title and different salaries does not mean discrimination. Women often make less than men with the same job title and company because they work fewer hours/week or hours/year. Statistics that attempt to show discrimination there are highly misleading because they do not factor that in–all they go by is job title (or something equivalent) and gender.</p>
<p>
because they BELIEVE that privates are higher quality. or they may want the religious affiliation of a particular private school. or any of several reasons. Public schools have certain opportunities that privates simply can not offer. I need to get back to class soon, but we can go on further if you want.</p>
<p>
If you care enough to make something happen, you can make it happen. It’s unfortunate that you had such a sour evaluation, but that doesn’t matter. In my time at a public high school, I had had so many good teachers, and I can guarantee you that my school was a “far worse” one than the one you went to. We were in the news for gang violence, over the course of my time there there were two shootings, one on campus, one slightly off. There were usually police on campus.</p>
<p>
because some folks work hard and take advantage of their opportunities, some squander their opportunities. Your statement would only make sense if all people made equal utilization of the opportunities available to them.</p>
<p>Asians have “overrepresentation” because Oriental cultures collectively value education and professional success much more than Blacks and Hispanics. This is not a statement of individual people, just aggregates.</p>
<p>Gee, I’ve had enough of this. If neither of us can convince the other, let’s just stop.</p>
<p>I am pro diversity, and don’t mind some thoughtful AA to get there. I am still having trouble wrapping my head around the original bake sale analogy. I aslo don’t understand this one;</p>
<p>Let’s assume that a college acceptance letter from Berkeley is worth an amount of money, value, etc. Let’s say $1. Let’s say a rejection letter is worth 0. Therefore, if you discriminate by race through AA and give out acceptance letters to people of color with “lesser stats” then you are showing that you value them more than the people you reject by giving the people of color something that is worth $1 more. This shows that affirmative action by race directly does make whites and Asians “worth less” by valuing their similar accomplishments less and giving them no recognition of value (and giving them a 0 value rejection letter) as apposed to the colored individual who you designate as “worth more” by giving them a valuable piece of paper (the acceptance). So yes, while not the best of examples I agree, the bake sale does actually directly and very accurately parallel affirmative action. "</p>
<p>Do you know how many URM’s got rejected? Maybe it doesn’t matter if it is worth 0 points. If not many of a group apply, how does that get factored in? If we just added up how many of each race got accepted, wouldn’t that mean thousands of Asians and whites and hundreds of blacks? Even if you decided a white or Asian admission letter was worth a negative value, wouldn’t the points STILL add up to way more for whites and Asians? No, I guess not.</p>
<p>I think the analogy works better if you think of it as supply and demand as there is in any other business. There just aren’t enough chocolate cup cakes to go around. Even if you include the “good enough” ones.</p>