Posted on 09/28/2003 12:07:56 PM PDT by Alia
Responding to protests by Hispanic and Asian student groups, Dean of Students Sally Peterson shut down a bake sale that criticized affirmative action policies on Thursday, September 25. The bake sale, which the College Republicans at UCI held during the Welcome Week Club Carnival on Ring Road, charged higher prices for white customers.
The bake sale offered Krispy Krème donuts to students at different prices depending on their race or nationality. The prices ranged from $1.00 to $.10 for whites, Asians, Hispanics, blacks, and Native Americans, with the prices varying for each gender within those groups.
Peterson claimed that the bake sale violated the university's anti-discrimination code which states, "the University of California, in accordance with applicable Federal and State law and University policy, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, [or] age.this nondiscrimination policy covers admission, access, and treatment in University programs and activities."
According to Peterson, the bake sale falls under "activities" which are prohibited by the UC policy.
Peterson approached Bryan Zuetel, president of the College Republicans, and explained to him that the club was in violation of the nondiscrimination policy.
"First [she] told me this was discrimination and we weren't allowed to charge different prices to different races, she then instructed us to take down the posters and remove the price list," Zuetel said. "I said I was going to call my lawyer and get his opinion on whether or not we could have that price list in place in accordance with our free expression rights. He suggested that we change the prices to be suggested prices. The Dean of Students said we couldn't even sell the donuts at suggested retail prices because it's still discrimination.
"We talked, I told her my position, she told me hers, then we took down the signs with the prices," said Zuetel.
Zuetel defended his club's bake sale.
"The purpose of the affirmative action bake sale is to point out the racial classifications still in use by government institutions, such as universities," he explained.
According to Zuetel, one of the main motivations behind the bake sale is the upcoming October 7 election, during which voters will be asked to vote on a controversial ballot measure known as the Racial Privacy Initiative. The measure, Proposition 54 would prohibit the state from "classifying any individual by race, ethnicity, color or national origin in the operation of public education, public contracting or public employment."
Zuetel's group supports the measure.
"This bake sale showed how certain minorities, i.e. blacks and Hispanics, are required to meet lower standards for university admittance and government jobs than Asians or whites," Zuetel said.
The problems began when Mexican-American College Republican members were challenged for their alliance with the College Republicans by members of the Hispanic student organization MEChA, which stands for Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán.
Eric Roig, the College Republicans' fundraising director, and Francis Barraza, the club's director of freshman outreach, were both harassed by students from MEChA. Barazza believes she was targeted because she is Mexican.
According to Barraza, there was one girl in particular who challenged her: "She was trying to appeal to me based on our common heritage and was trying to say a lot of people like us don't have the same opportunities as white people have."
Barraza said that she was also told, "by saying no to 54 we can continue the programs that target Latinos."
Barraza alleges that she was also called a "coconut," a racial epithet which means "brown on the outside, white on the inside."
In addition to MEChA, the Asian Pacific Students Association (APSA), the Latino Business Students Association, and the fraternity Sigma Alpha Epsilon protested the bake sale. The leaders of MEChA and APSA refused to comment on this story.
"First [she] told me this was discrimination and we weren't allowed to charge different prices to different races, she then instructed us to take down the posters and remove the price list," Zuetel said. "I said I was going to call my lawyer and get his opinion on whether or not we could have that price list in place in accordance with our free expression rights. He suggested that we change the prices to be suggested prices. The Dean of Students said we couldn't even sell the donuts at suggested retail prices because it's still discrimination.
"We talked, I told her my position, she told me hers, then we took down the signs with the prices," said Zuetel.
Gee, let's think about this... Even when the student representative offered to make the prices non-binding, the Dean of Students still said no.
Ms. Peterson's actions speak for themselves. She objected to the bake sale not because of your vaunted "illegal trade practices," but because she objected to the statement they were making. If it were simply a matter of objecting to the selling of Krispy Kreme donuts, she would've told them that was the issue and would've allowed them to bring their own baked goods to sell instead. If it were simply a matter of objecting to the differing prices, then changing the poster to read "suggested" would've solved the issue. No, instead she shut it down wholesale as "discriminatory."
Displaying a poster with "suggested" prices that are not actually binding on the sale itself- an alternative the student representative was willing to abide- is pure speech. And the fact that Ms. Peterson wouldn't even agree to this alternative shows that it is the speech, not the trade, that she was shutting down. Thus, I believe it was an appropriate incident to share with my list. UCI is a public institution to my knowledge, and thus the First Amendment applies.
I don't know who you think you are, troll, but I have thought about this, obviously a great deal more than you.
.
You've now descended into the realm of the demented. Are you suggesting that public universities are empowered to ignore the first amendment of the US Constitution at their whim?
From my vantage point, you are the one who refuses to see the light.
Is the College Republican club is business?
Is the College Republican club required to collect sales taxes while fundraising?
Is the College Republican club allowed to engage in controversial free speech using "performance art"?
Is the College Republican club allowed to charge $100 for a chocolate bar while fundraising or will the College Republican club be charged with price gouging like any other business?
It's obvious you were never a member of the College Republican club, and you have no idea about the fundraising and political performance art.
As other posters have already suggested, you insist in being obtuse, trying to fight a "strawman."
Everybody agrees that it is illegal for a business to have different prices for customers of various colors, but that's not what happened here.
This was an act of successful political speech that raised awareness about the injustices of affirmative action in business contracts, jobs, and college admissions.
The College Republicans had more publicity than expected, and their goal to call attention to this unfair practice succeeded tremendously, extending well beyond the local college campus.
I've also saw in the paper that people in the Manhattanville area (Columbus and 100th?) on the UWS have indicated that "crack is back."
Things will only get worse before they get better, especially in my neighborhood as the "element" moves in. :-(
That is, all this, if you live anywhere near the blue zone in CA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.