THAT INTELLECTUAL FLACCIDITY.

The College Republicans at Berkeley hold an affirmative action bake sale, and the Diversity Boondoggle holds its nose and attempts to distinguish political speech from Campus Conformity.

Last week an incident occurred that was contrary to the Principles of Community we espouse as a campus. The Berkeley College Republicans (an ASUC sponsored organization) publicized an “Increase Diversity Bake Sale” that prices baked goods according to a person’s ethnicity, race, or gender. This event has moved the campus community into dialogue, because it was hurtful or offensive to many of its members.

Illustrating the breadth of the offense taken, last night the ASUC Senate unanimously passed a resolution condemning the methodology used by BCR and urging respectful conduct by all student organizations. The administration firmly endorses those sentiments. It is our sincere hope that the strong reactions generated by the proposed bake sale provide a vivid lesson that issues of race, ethnicity, and gender are far from resolved, and very much a part of lived experience here and now.

The Principles of Community are not about political positions. They require a consciousness of the potential effect of words or deeds on others: a positive intent not to hurt, offend, or denigrate others while expressing a reasoned position. Regardless what policies or practices one advocates, careful consideration is needed on how to express those opinions. The issue is not whether one thinks an action is satirical or inoffensive, the issue is whether community members will be intentionally – or unintentionally – hurt or demeaned by that action. The same applies to the way we interact with each other, whether academically, professionally, or socially.

If we, as a community, do not live with these expectations, then our Principles of Community (which the community authored) are just words on a page. The administration can urge, but not mandate, a person to behave with civility. We can express our disappointment or condemnation when respectfulness is abused. It is the community who must hold each other accountable for behaviors that do not reflect our communal values.

Forbearance and consciousness of how one’s actions may affect others should always be a strong consideration. We celebrate the exchange of ideas through the freedoms we share as a nation, but intelligent debate is based on mutual respect. Freedom of speech is not properly exercised without taking responsibility for its impact. Taking that responsibility does not negate the freedom, it brings an enhanced humanity to it.

Welcome to the Quaker Meeting. Dialogue. Hurtful. Offensive. Issues.  Celebrate.  Demean.

And get that "intelligent debate is based on mutual respect."  It's not quite Shut Up and Go Away, but it's language George Orwell might have fun mocking.

The statement, however, might not be for the edification of the students, or the chastisement of transgressive conservatives bent on subverting the dominant paradigm.  It's a recitation of the Creed.

Let me suggest that the true purpose of the outrage is not to stamp out opposition to racial preferences. Rather, the overreaction is best understood as a reaffirmation of a faith that is slowly (but inevitably) going wobbly. And, I suspect, this includes most Berkeley students. If beliefs about the value of legally imposed racial preferences were rock solid, the over-the-top indignation would be unnecessary.

Begin by recognizing that nearly all Berkeley students were born in the late 1980s or early 90s, and grew up in a world profoundly different from us senior citizens who can actually recall when the playing field was really tilted against women, blacks, and other minorities. In fact, even people in their 60s’ and 70s’ today probably had little direct experience with earlier discriminatory policies. Yes, as a 10-year old (I was born in 1941) living in New York City I heard about “colored only” drinking fountains but this knowledge only came from schoolbook pictures and what my liberal parents told me. Still, convincing my generation (and even baby boomers) that affirmative action was necessary to rectify past injustices was an easy sell, since inequality was indisputable and no serious effort had been made to reverse it. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Great Society, compensatory measures and all the rest made perfect sense.

Compare that era to what today’s Berkeley students see with their own eyes—blacks and Hispanics (and to a far lesser extent, women) enjoying immense privilege. More than a few, I suspect, had teachers who clearly owed their jobs to affirmative action versus the old adage about a black having to be twice as good as a white to get the job. And they certainly had textbooks that went out their way to celebrate black history, the contributions of women and minorities while apologizing for past white racial discrimination.

The Pettis Bridge. The New Deal. The Bloody Shirt.

Critically, at least for some—maybe most—Berkeley students, this correction of past injustice enterprise may have gone too far. For them “racial injustice” may mean knowing high school classmates with perfect SAT’s turned down by UCLA so as to help an Hispanic kid with slightly above average SAT’s but who spent a year organizing a boycott of Korean-run grocery stores to achieve social justice. In fact, defenders of affirmative action relentless point out that blacks and Hispanics cannot compete unless given a leg up on the white and Asian competition, and this leg up is plainly visible.

This politically inconvenient reality understood, it is no wonder that those still defending compensatory measures must take every opportunity to reaffirm the faith, trot out the historic tales of crushing injustice and punish heretics who question the racial orthodoxy. The parallel is the faith restoring commemorations of past oppression often ritually recounted in religious observances, for example, the Jewish Passover.

Indeed.