You are here: Home » General » If You Insist on Being a Douche, Could You at Least be Original About It?
1991 would like its lame racist College Republican gimmick back.
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
It will be a great day when schools get all the money they need and the Pentagon force will have to hold racist bake sales to fund their programs.
P.S. In grand larval reactionary style, the joke’s on the Latino and African-American customers who think they’re getting a sweet deal: their cookies have all been poisoned.
Except, you know, if you think about it, the military protects our land, which means it protects our property, so an accurate apportionment of the price based on the value received for that defense of those baked goods would fall heavily on the white folks.
At least CNN added this near the end:
Tim Wise, author of the book “White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son,” calls the bake sale a “sarcastic and rather smarmy slap at people of color.”
“There are a lot of ways to make a point about your disagreement with affirmative action,” Wise told Lemon Saturday night.
“I get the joke,” he continued. “How very original. It’s been done for 15 years. The point that I think needs to be made … is that by the time anyone steps on a college campus … there has already been 12- to 13-years of institutionalized affirmative action for white folks, that is to say, racially embedded inequality, which has benefited those of us who are white. And it’s only at the point of college admissions that these folks seem to get concerned with color consciousness.”
Actually, they are the beneficiaries of more than two centuries of affirmative action for white people, but in their world that does not count.
That is one long-lived person.
(I’m pretty sure he means 12 to 13 years for any individual, going through the our school system, as opposed to 12 to 13 years of racism ever, before which there was never any because Reagan.)
I fully realize what he is talking about, but they are also the heirs and beneficiaries of over two centuries of white affirmative action, whose impacts are still felt throughout the system, which is my point. Federal subsidies and policies (especially residential redlining) from the 1930s are a central factor in the huge wealth differential between white and minority households.
For conservatives, history matters — in some cases.
For conservatives, imaginary, made up history matters
Fixorated for accuracy.
You really do not expect College Republicans to be original do you? They are called conservative assholes for a reason.
What, no discount for closeted gay-hating gay men?
I guess they don’t want to be accused of favoratism…
Ross writes for the Times, and can afford to pay full freight.
This was pointed out by a commenter on another blog: if you notice, Native Americans can buy goods for as low as 25 cents. In addition, women get a 25 cent discount. So that means a Native American woman pays nothing. Since there’s no limit advertised, someone should get a Native American woman to go to their sale, get all their baked goods, and end the whole thing.
Of course, they’d probably spin that as, “see, affirmative action allows someone to take all your shit!”
I love how the organizers of these stunts always claim that they’re just trying to “make a statement” about affirmative action, and aren’t really engaging in racial discrimination. That’s why I’d like to see someone convert an affirmative action bake sale into an eminent domain bake sale, paying the organizers 25 cents and confiscating their entire inventory of baked goods. After all, they’re just doing it to make a point about governmental overreach, see? It’s not really theft!
I agree with your first paragraph. And your second one.
Except that as noted above slightly differently, the baked goods charitably given to Native Americans would be laced with smallpox.
Why is CNN covering this stupid stunt?
Because some people say that this is important. Questions are being raised. Both sides differ.
It’s out there!
Too, it fits the corporatocracy’s narrative better than “peaceful protestors on Wall Street against Big Business”
I think the on-campus response should give us all hope. Not only was it repudiated, it was vigorously repudiated.
Anyone who is a Republican in his/her teens is fucking doomed anyway. It’s an all-volunteer organization, unlike the Hitler Youth.
I don’t know about that. I was 13 in 1979, and believed the whole “Jimmy Carter is making America unmanly” narrative. I was happy when Reagan won. I remember my seventh grade classroom cheering, when the Iranians released the hostages 20 minutes into Reagan’s term, which was totally about his bad-assedness, and not at all a really sordid, somewhat treasonous deal. I’m willing to admit that, now.
By 15, I knew I had been very, very wrong…
You’re perfectly normal (well, as normal as anyone on this blog I guess). By contrast, a College Republican stops conquering his id at the age of four.
Have some pity for them.
Do the other kids hate them because they’re conservative assholes?
Or, are they conservative assholes because other kids hate them?
Shorter Lemieux: “Waah! This makes the morally and legally indefensible policy I support look bad! Waah!”
To be specific: yes, it’s unoriginal. And yet, after about 10 or 15 years of these, you still don’t have a rebuttal better than “You’re a racist.” Which is pretty telling.
Well, we could point out examples like George W “Fail Upwards” Bush as indicative of affirmative action for rich white dudes, but you have already shown that you are not interested in examples that conflict with your ideology.
Jeez, two words says a lot more than that: Paris Hilton
Why would one need a rebuttal more telling than “You’re a racist.” Given that it is true. Evidently it is true of David Nieporent as well.
It depends on what you mean by “racist.” Yes, the affirmative action bake sale suggests that people other than white men really don’t belong at (insert name of college here), and are attending (name of college) only because they are getting preferential treatment. However, none of the College Republicans have shot Medgar Evers. So they’re not racists in that sense.
Well, maybe, but only for lack of opportunity.
Yes, the affirmative action bake sale suggests that people other than white men really don’t belong at (insert name of college here), and are attending (name of college) only because they are getting preferential treatment.
It “suggests” that people other than white men are getting preferential treatment. Since that’s the actual operation of affirmative action, it’s hard to deny that; that’s how it works. (Based upon the sign shown in the accompanying article, however, the specific bake sale we’re talking about was misleading, in that it suggests that Asians are getting preferential treatment, when in fact Asians are the racial group most screwed by affirmative action.)
The supporters of affirmative action are the ones who routinely argue that minorities are attending the colleges only because they’re getting preferential treatment, as its said supporters who routinely argue that ending such preferential treatment will prevent minorities from going to these schools.
As for “don’t really belong there,” if that’s the conclusion you draw, then you should probably examine your premises rather than attacking the messenger.
That wounds, coming from an economically illiterate “labor historian.” But since you use “racist” as a garden-variety epithet for everyone to the right of Fidel Castro/you, it doesn’t wound very much.
the fact is, there’s nothing to respond to. as guerilla theatre, this is a complete fiasco: differential prices for baked goods by race has absolutely nothing to do with affirmative action for college admissions.
you still don’t have a rebuttal better than “You’re a racist.”
What else do you need other than the truth? You on the other hand would appear to support the ongoing morally and legally indefensible” affirmative for white people, and accompanying dispossession, exploitation, and oppression of non-white people, that has characterized this country for 400 years.
I’m just wondering when you’ll get around to realizing the title of the post is directed at you, DP?
Killer Fact: the surname Nieporent was originally “Nieportent”, meaning “completely lacking in significance.”
The “shorter” is supposed to be a witty and accurate reductio of a post. It is also supposed to be “shorter” than the post in question, hence its name, the “shorter.” Clearly, you are not aware of all Internet traditions.
You have forgotten: libertarian theory clearly shows that the market will deliver a more efficient, hence shorter, information flow. From this, we can safely conclude that Lemieux’s original, statist post contains numerous invisible words, rendering Nieporent’s comment both shorter and more pithy.
Shorter Nieporent: “I didn’t read the article.”
I especially like the “legally indefensible.” I’m still waiting for Thomas and Scalia to cite the evidence showing that the 14th Amendment was originally understood as prohibiting any and all racial classifications (or, even better, that the 5th Amendment was understood in 1791 as forbidding all racial classifications, which apparently they also believe.) Somehow I’ll keep waiting.
People who want my thoughts on affirmative action can consult our easily searchable archives…
I’m still waiting for Thomas and Scalia to cite the evidence showing that the 14th Amendment was originally understood as prohibiting any and all racial classifications
Be careful what you wish for…
Oh, I’m quite confident that they will maintain their silence on that issue.
That’s right; when they said “equal protection” they meant “equal” in the Animal Farm sense.
With notably few exceptions, affirmative-action policies are legally indefensible and have been struck down in court.
Morally: “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro” – Martin Luther King.
Legally: Desegregation of segregated educational institutions is a compelling public interest. As we all learned from Brown vs. Board, it is the separate and unequal social and economic networks that come from segregated schools that are the legal justification for desegregation efforts, such as affirmative action in hiring and admissions.
That was the easiest thing I’ve done all day.
As we all learned from Brown vs. Board
Rarely is the question asked, are conservatarians capable of learning from anything?
The question is rarely asked, because we know the answer almost 100% of the time: no.
To paraphrase Scott’s quote which started this thread: the 1960s called; they want their rationalizations back. Scott mocks the bake sale for being from twenty years ago (*); King was speaking from fifty years ago. None of the people harmed or helped by these policies were alive back then; many of their parents weren’t even alive back then (and of the ones who were, many weren’t in this country).
Legally: Desegregation of segregated educational institutions is a compelling public interest.
There are no segregated educational institutions. They were desegregated a long time ago. This is about racial balancing, not “desegregation,” and there’s no compelling public interest in that.
(*) Which seems to be made up anyway.
Prop. 209. Never forget. Passed when these little wankers were still coloring outside the lines.
Good thing CNN didn’t mention it. Wouldn’t want readers to be informed.
So, over the last 25 years or so, the virus has managed to bleed from Dartmouth, in NH, all the way to the Pacific Ocean.
i believe douches, by definition, aren’t original. no doubt this bunch thinks they’ve hit on some high concept to “really piss off the libs!”. sadly, no.
Perhaps they heard all the Nevermind nostalgia, and thought they, too, would take part of that era.
Yes, a double standard: white people hate minorities. You’ve given much evidence to this truth,
This post and the previous one cry for some more general explanation of Young Fogies: why they exist, how they came to be, what keeps them going, and how they can be prevented from reproducing when their inherent lack of apparent sexual attractiveness and competence doesn’t get the job done.
Expecting undergraduates to be original AND aware of something that happened 20 entire years ago?
You’re dooming yourself to disappointment before you even get to the part about them being Republicans.
So if your parents come and donate $50 or more, all baked goods are free for you, right?
Dartmouth 1976 – the young conservatives are celebrating the Oxfam Day of Hunger by not fasting and donating the savings to Oxfam. Instead they are having a lobster dinner, and donating the same amount to Oxfam. Very cute – they donate handsomely and refuse to suffer.
I pass by on the street and see them through the window. I know one of them and he waves. I quickly scale the wall (second story, old masonry, lots of handholds) and climb in through the window. I am wearing nothing but tattered cutoffs, long hair, beard, barefeet (1976, remember) and look slightly insane.
I could have lectured them, or licked their lobsters, or acted like a starving populace, but I just smiled and hung out for a while, letting them get weirded out. One of them finally said, “I say, you must leave or we shall call the police!” (more or less). So I hopped out the window and went on my way.
I’m not sure what my point is, but I think I made it pretty well. My lame political theater might just have changed a few minds! But probably not.
If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Subscribe via RSS Feed
Paul Campos, Above the Law 2011 Lawyer of the Year
Erik Loomis, HNN Cliopatria 2011 Best Series of Posts
Who are we?
For administrative, advertising, or other inquiries, please e-mail here.
Switch to our mobile site