No, I am saying that just because someone is a white male does not make them more privileged than a black male at Cal. The black male could be the heir to fortune, and the while male could be working 3 jobs to pay for room and board.
I think you have misunderstood the purpose. The point is that people should pay the same price for cakes regardless of race and they should be admitted to college on the same admissions criteria regardless of race.
Also, I’m not sure what privilege has to do with it. Socioeconomic status does not cause SAT results and SES does not predict college success, SAT does.
What if we throw the cupcakes at them afterwards?
That’s not the question I asked. I didn’t ask if you can find a black person who is better off than a white person. I asked if you think that black people are better off than white people in modern America.
I’ll point out that the bake sale sign didn’t say “People who work three job to pay for room and board - 2.00" and "People who are heirs to a fortune - .75”. Those guys weren’t complaining about how poor people were being unfairly treated in comparison to rich people.
The only reason you are hung up on this question is because you are defining people based on their skin colour instead of as individuals. That’s racist.
This bake sale isn’t supposed to be funny, it’s supposed to raise awareness for the fact that discriminating on the basis of race is wrong. Unfortunately, supporters of affirmitive action are quite capable of letting that sail right over their heads.
I can totally see an IKEA table named OFEY.
I think the general idea is that some people would prefer things like actual socioeconomic status or historical educational opportunities to be used in admissions decisions, rather than using race as a proxy.
So, if someone is a poor person from a bad school district, they could get preferential treatment.
This system would most likely favor black and Hispanic people over white people - but it would also help whites, Asians, or whomever else who just happened to be poor as shit and from a place where getting a good education is just really hard. It would also not help a rich black person whose father went to Stanford.
The effect would be similar to that racial preferences, but a little more focused on the impacts of the history of (and continued) racial prejudice in America - rather than focusing specifically on the race itself.
It does, of course, assume that all of the obstacles to equal education stem from things like school districts and wealth, rather than specifically arising from race itself. If one assumes that merely being black presents hurdles beyond that of class, wealth, access to resources, facilities, good teachers, etc. - than the proposed alternative falls short of the purported goals, and race specific considerations are necessary or desirable. Of course, even with that assumption one could still make the argument that also considering the aforementioned would be wise.
It appears to me that those organizing the bake sale, and those who “agree” with it, take the position that it is that, at most, wealth and opportunities should be considered - and reject the idea that race itself presents a burden to equal education given equal socioeconomic status. Alger’s response kind of highlights that, and your question kind of sails by the point - a little talking past each other is hardly surprising in these situations 
But it would hard;y make sense for the organizers to single people out by wealth rather than race, when that distinction, or lack therefore, is precisely at the crux of the argument.
My opinion is that viewing race as a proxy is probably unwise. I would prefer the system be more individualized - it does make for more work of course. But, then again, including race a s a discrete criterion, apart from socioeconomic condition, may not be entirely unjustified - if detached form those other implications, and not standing in for them - as it may still be properly viewed as a factor in itself. Even so, I would prefer to have it ‘unbundled.’ Assuming that racism is dead in America is as unwise as assuming that race is the best proxy for wealth and opportunity, if not more so.
Did you read the article? Or even look at the picture?
I’m not the one who grouped people up by race here. We’re discussing the fact that these students grouped people up by race. (Which I guess means you think those students are racist - a claim I never made.)
As I’ve already pointed out, they weren’t complaining that poor people were being oppressed to help rich people. They were complaining that white people were being oppressed to help non-white people.
I’d have no problem with a socioeconomic based system rather than a race based one. But, as I’ve said, that’s not what the students were talking about - they were talking about race.
Or, to add a bit more nuance, since we’re digging on that in this thread, it’s “I’m not saying that I’m not privileged, I’m saying that other people becoming more privileged than they once were dilutes my privilege and that’s unacceptable.” It’s a mindset that grows out of an idea that access and success are available only in finite qualities, and how dare the balance of who has those things ever change?
This is an important point. We can’t presume that the representation of any group in a college student body is equivalent to who was admitted, and also doesn’t represent those who would be qualified for admittance but did not apply.
That’s individual privilege. That’s an entirely different issue than the inherent systemic privilege that comes along with being a part of various privileged demographic groups. A poor white person doesn’t have the same financial privilege as a rich white person, but they have more racial privilege than a much richer black person. A white woman has more racial privilege than a black man, but he has *gender *privilege.
In some aspects, having more financial privilege offsets less racial privilege, but in other aspects, racial privilege will trump financial privilege, and in some cases, gender is the determining factor. You can’t always say, for example, that Ursula Burns has privilege over Steve Grant; in some aspects she does, in others, she absolutely does not.
To be fair, the reason the bake sale was done by well educated, financially successful white men may be because the poorly educated, financially unsuccessful white men were not able to get into the school.
Moreover, most of the minorities at Berkley aren’t poor by any stretch of the imagination.
The beneficiaries of AA to elite schools tend to be middle-class blacks and sometimes wealthier African-Americans not ghetto kids from the projects.
The bake sale is funny. Just as funny as anything ever seen on the Half Hour News Hour.
Offensive? Only about as offensive as a pig grunting. What do you expect from young activist conservatives but petty narcissistic tearfulness?
And the reason they used race is that the the Governor of California has a bill on his desk to once again use race in admissions to the California public schools, and the student government of Cal was running a phone bank encouraging the students to call and tell the Governor and others to once again use race for admissions at Cal and other public universities.
Indeed. It’s a political protest intended to make a point about racist discrimination against Asians and whites. Whether it is funny or not is neither here nor there.
I’m gonna get me some cupcakes and feed all the whities I see!
I was confused by the bake sale. I assumed it was to protest tuition or scholarships based on race/sex. If it was about (and I assume this is the case) preferential admissions, then it would have been more relevant to offer a free movie with limited seating and minorities and women get to cut to the front of the line.