Last year, it was the fashion among campus conservative groups to hold anti-affirmative action bake sales: In such sales, prices are calibrated by the buyer's race, with women and minority groups receiving discounts and white male students paying a presumably "full price" for the same cookie. It was also the fashion for administrators to try to prevent such sales, and, when prevention failed, to shut them down and punish the students who held them. The bake sales weren't great commentary on affirmative action--they convinced no one who was not already convinced, and they angered people who might have been open to reasoned argument. But, inadvertently, they were great commentary on the state of free speech on campus, as group after group succeeded in flushing out the censors in their midst. There is no question that holding such a bake sale falls within the realm of constitutionally protected speech--but administrators persistently refused to see this, and consistently cited their schools' anti-discrimination policies (with no sense of irony whatsoever) as justification for refusing to let the sales proceed and for disciplining those who were holding them.

Tales of anti-affirmative bake sales and the censors who hate them have been comparatively rare this year. There is a classic case brewing at Northeastern Illinois University, however. The College Republicans (it's always the College Republicans) are planning an anti-affirmative action bake sale, and the administration doesn't want the sale to take place. So the administration has threatened to punish the CRs if they hold the sale, even though a campus feminist group recently held an analogous "pay equity bake sale" geared to criticize inequality between the sexes. The other part of the pattern is typical, too--FIRE has stepped in to defend the group, and has today gone public with the details of NEIU's unconscionable refusal to recognize the expressive rights of students whose opinions do not reflect the accepted institutional orthodoxy. Read all about it at www.thefire.org.

UPDATE: FIRE reports that NEIU has agreed to allow the College Republicans to hold their sale. FIRE also reports that an analogous case is brewing at Grand Valley State University.

do the college republicans lack a sense of irony? after all, republicans in my state have been calling for affirmative action to force schools to hire conservative professors--it's acceptable for that, but not when it comes to race?
i'm not against the bake sales; actually, i think they're kind of funny. the problem affirmative action is meant to solve is complex. i'm not sure it's the best solution, but i can't suggest a different one.

No, Jason, I don't believe Republicans have any sense of irony. After decrying "diversity" and "identity politics," the Right now uses both to insideous ends. While complaining about leftwing thought-control on campuses, Republicans try to pass the Constitution Restoration Act, which would make it illegal to challenge any governmental articulation of religiousness -- that's right, an end run around the Establishment Clause!

The Right speaks of a "culture of life," while dismantling Social Security, ignoring the health care needs of Americans, reducing environmental standards, siding with credit card companies over ordinary citizens, teaching absinence (which only leads to an increase in anal and oral sex among young folks), keeping homosexuals from marriage, &c. And Senator Cornyn blames violence against judges on their lack of accountability.

Where are the Fire folks in the face of the CRA? Silent.

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=7569§ionID=104

Item 1:

Acutally I think it would be great for the women's group and the college republicans to get together and have a joint bake sale to get a debate started. That is what both groups want to say they want. It would be good for them to put their mouths where their cookies are.

Item 2:

"Where are the Fire folks in the face of the CRA? Silent."

Uh... Because it's outside of their problem domain and other civil liberties groups are covering it? FIRE is, afterall, limited towards supporting civil liberties of academics. Even with that charge, they delimit themselves from certain areas such as tenure disputes and such.

Never forget that FIRE also has supported LEFT wing causes such as Al-Arain (sp?) before his indictment and got a LOT of heat for it from potential donors. There are people who STILL won't support them becasue of it. They're hardly right wing shills, just look at their staff and their collective vita.

Implying that FIRE isn't serious about civil liberties because they are not covering everyone's pet issue, especially given their already diverse case portfolio and limited staff, is very unfair to say the least.

Bill -- I purposely wrote "Fire folks" rather than "Fire," but I suppose I should have been clearer. I simply meant, "Where are all the Fire-supporters (like this blog) when the entire nation's civil liberties are being undermined?" The tiresome ritual of students pushing the rules and bureaucrats coming down hard has nothing to do with politics or left-wing brainwashing. It's what 18-22 year olds do. And what bureaucrats do. To turn the Republican Bake Sale into a "cause" seems navel-gazing at best, diversionary at worst. And I do believe that Fire is largely, if not consciously, a conservative diversion (like all recent attacks on the academy, which serve only to magnify the minor while eliding the horrors of the Bush regime).

Why NOT turn the bake sales into a cause? Yes, It is clearly street theatre, and they admittedly say so, but that's the point. Partisan street theatre goes on all the time at campuses. Why is this flavor giving admins hissyfits, esp when the liberal equiv gets a nod? AA and gender pay inequity are contentious matters to both university and "civilian" circles (I, myself am not fully resolved on both matters), and that alone should give it a reason to be a focal point of open discussion and debate on campus. Yet all AA can muster is a lame bakesale that, in turn, gives the administratively beautiful people the willies. It's not like they're taking over the telecom building or doing an organized reserve-book checkout raid. They're selling [probably crappy storebought] cookies (the only people who should be complaining are the food service contractors). I've seen far worse "misbehavior" getting a wave and chuckle. Yet the proverbial elephant in the room can't be talked about even in goofy silly ways.

If we can't openly debate heated issues without "viewpoint discrimination" (recall that the women's group got their bake sale), then all there is left to do go about doing is ... well... "navel-gazing." And our relevance to the outside world will continue to decline.

many of the issues that are so polarized are diversionary. can any one really say that abortion, gun control, evloution vs. creation, the death penalty, or gay marriage are the most important issues facing the people in this country? they have some of the biggest mouths supporting them, but i wouldn't say they are important.
yet students know about these debates and not other things like the retirement crisis, the lack of good healthcare for most people, or our foreign policy.
this is one problem of the whole "liberal vs. conservative" mess that we have now. people feel obliged to adopt certain viewpoints without always thinking about the importance of these pet issues. or people see the other side as the enemy instead of people who possibly have well thought out views. (although i have to agree with Luther about some of our current administration's policies.)

Jason:

"yet students know about these debates and not other things like the retirement crisis, the lack of good healthcare for most people, or our foreign policy..."

Were is our sense of imagination? Where there is an issue, there is a street performace to go with it. Say what you will about them, but the Women's group's and College Republicans' silly bake sales are good at awareness building for their pet issues even though they're goofy.

You could always have a Social Security Bake Sale where student fees would be used to buy cookies to be sold only to graduating seniors, or underclassmen with a "personal savings GPA" of 3.5 or higher. They could have a crap table next to the cookie table where their 'share' of student fees could be gambled away and if you don't win, no cookies for you! (You could design the sale to favor the position of your choice! This is great! I want credit for this if it flies!) Likewise, Penn State had a gay awareness week where people in jeans and sneakers were declared to be "gay" (and gits assumed that deviants from the dresscode were homophobes "in the closet" even when they just had a good sense of style, PSU is relatively conservative campus wise but the students are slobs). We could have a terrorists wear baggy pants day, or have a rump stamp, or shorts when it's 30 degrees out (yeah, that's it). I'll warn you, that one didn't work very well if you had to teach or were just shallow. My favorite was the Monty Python Society protesting campus constuction by having a "free the hole" rally where a new classroom building was going in.

(But any student who has been to the campus clinic probably is very much aware of the problems with health care. And graduate students can be very militant about health insurace.)

I'm being silly now, but hey, if it works for the College Republicans enough to get their medicine show supressed by the sherrif, they must be doing something right. The women at NEIU caught on and good for them! (Better still, they jumped on it first on that campus making the CR's look like copycats.) There are plenty of cheeky (not to mention nondestructive!) ways to bring serious awareness to serious issues and open the door for serious debate, and it's sad that campus administrators aren't taking a bite (literally and metaphorically speaking).

"The tiresome ritual of students pushing the rules and bureaucrats coming down hard has nothing to do with politics or left-wing brainwashing. It's what 18-22 year olds do. And what bureaucrats do. To turn the Republican Bake Sale into a "cause" seems navel-gazing at best, diversionary at worst."

This statement implies that the writer would not find it objectionable for the college to punish the holders of the feminist bake sale and not punish the Republican one. After all, the "rule" appears to be nothing more than the selective punishment of free speech. If that's "what bureaucrats do," I think the bureaucrats need to be deterred, myself.

Were = Where.

Sheesh.

I'm afraid FIRE would have much more unofficial influence if they didn't write their letters as if they were coming from the law firm of X, Y, and Z.

What I'd like to hear from the university, and others with similar bent, is how this activity differs from the allowed activity -- what might the college Republicans have done to bring themselves in line with what apparently made one group's efforts appropriate, but anothers inappropriate. If all they had to do was declare it an "inequity bake sale", I'd like to know that too. FIRE went in hell bent for election, and the tone of their missive is quite off-putting.

Bill,
i don't disagree with you--the s.s. bake sale is a hilarious idea. you're right in that these types of demonstrations are good at making a blunt point.

i want to see both aspects of the retirement bake sale--both would be great--which student club will do it? maybe the nontraditional one. although, i suspect creative ideas such as yours would offend administrators or others and still make a fuss. they're great ideas, though--even if you were being silly.

" want to see both aspects of the retirement bake sale--both would be great--which student club will do it?"

Easy: use it as *joint* pre-debate PR between the College Democrats and College Republicans on the subject. Save the debate till later, and use the modest sale proceeds to offset student fee costs for the debate. It then becomes a win win for Student Government which brings them on board with supporting the idea. The only likely problem would be the gambling part which I leave to the students to figure out. Likewise, the AA vs Pay Equity bake sale, and similar "left vs. right" issues could be done. Indeed, it could become a debate "series."

"...i suspect creative ideas such as yours would offend administrators..."

... you haven't heard what we plan on doing about our "revised" Indirect Cost return policy!

Jason, The issue is not whether Republicans have a sense of irony,. It is whether the school should be shutting them down, when they haven't shut down the feminists who were doing the same thing.
Not all Republicans support measures to require colleges to hire conservative professors. Most just want a fair hiring procedure.
As for the irony, I'm afraid I don't see it on the part of the Republicans. Hiring conservative professors doesn't lower standards but increases diversity. Why should colleges just be echo chambers? if the left were more secure about iheir political views, they'd welcome the opportunity to encounter diverse viewpoints. As it is, one of the posters here caricatures Republicans. One can only presume it is due to a lack of familiarity with them.

"As for the irony, I'm afraid I don't see it on the part of the Republicans. Hiring conservative professors doesn't lower standards but increases diversity."

Divering again...

It need not only be about "diversity," but also about "tactical advantage." Consider this. You have a "right leaning" governor who brings in like minded regents. Part of your dean's function is to lobby the state agents (regents, legislators, business, etc) for $upport (along with everything else). Which college is at a "tactical" advantage: The one that screeds constantly about what he/she just read in Z & on the Democratic Underground and thinks that anyone to the right of him/her is a Nazi, or someone who is, if not "conservative," at least capable of talking to mean nasty kkkonservakrats on their own terms. As our director says, show them that you can make them money, live longer, make jobs that pay, etc, and you have their attetion for 5 minutes. Which dean is going to get a foothold on that precious 5?

Think about it over a cookie for your favorite cause. I'm against "AA" in hiring conservatives, but that's been most compelling argument from the other side I've heard so far. Like it or not, we are in a competitive business.

you're right, Allan. it is unfair that the feminist debate wasn't shut down---still i see many people calling for a certain type of diversity in colleges and it is ironic when the same people have been arguing about the evils of other types of enforced diversity. Bill's practical reason makes sense--i don't like it, but it's a fact of life. my institution isn't really known for being radically liberal or conservative. my eng. department has good people with a variety of beliefs and no nutbags of any flavor.

i think most people aren't against students being "brainwashed" in college (though i wonder how many unquestionably buy what their professors say). instead, people are upset that students are being exposed to liberal views instead of conservative.

it's almost funny when you think about it. if the tables were turned, the liberals would be demanding representation in academia. FIRE would be defending college democrats. sorry for the digression.

Jason,

The point was not that it was a shame that the feminist "debate" as you call it wasn't shut down. It was that the college is treating the Republicans differently from the feminists apparently because their point of view is at odds with the administration's I'm glad your engineering dept has a variety of views, but the fact of the matter is that in many places people aren't merely being exposed to liberal views. They are being punished for expressing conservative views. or from deviating from the professor's political views. This has been well documented, so I don't see how you can say that the real problem is that people are being exposed to liberal views.

Allan, the wording on my response was backwards--i don't think either sale should be stopped. you're right that that is a crime. i do agree that when people are punished for conservative views that they are victims of abuse of power. however, i also wonder how many times these students' views are so conservative as to be extreme and that's why they get shut down. how would a geology professor handle a student who believed the earth was only six thousand years old? what do i, as a teacher of composition do when i see a conservative or liberal with such extreme views that logic is thrown out the window. i know what to do, and i've had to do it for students writing papers from both liberal and conservative standpoints. can students then complain they are punished with a bad grade for their beliefs (when it's really their poor logic and understanding of the topic and not their stance)? but you are right when you say (as you are probably thinking as you read this) that many left-leaning professors have the same type of extreme views. these people unfortunately exist because there is an audience that accepts what they publish---it's our job to stop accepting exteme theory that makes the whole profession look bad.

"how would a geology professor handle a student who believed the earth was only six thousand years old?"

from what my geol colleagues say, they hold the student to establish the statement scientifically (going back to the intel design thread that emerged here a while back). If it cannot be evaluated by Scientific Method, it can't fit in that class (any more than the St.Venant Equations belong in an 18th Cent English Lit class). A philosophy class, maybe. A philosphy of science class, also maybe. But not most geology classes. I presume that your end of things would have the student presenting a well rounded argument and if it fails, the paper crashes and burns.

"these people unfortunately exist because there is an audience that accepts what they publish-"

... would that be an internal or external audience? I do have to sympathize a little (just a little) with the idiotarian wing and how the humanities seems to get burdened with them more than sci/eng. It's hard to write the great american novel when you're teaching 3 sections of tech writing (with us whining because you aren't showing them how to write "our" kind of papers/proposals), while we can't get the nobel prize for physics working in the backyard tool shed (it's not the most equal of playing fields) It would seem the only time they get attention from the outside mainstream community when they pull a Ward Churchill or all jump on Summers or misbehave at a conservative speaker event. Standing at the triple point of tenured teenager, enfant terrible and spoiled brat may seem to some the only way to be noticed by the community (not to mention the rest of the university). (Fortunately there are better ways to be recognized and the academic community had better come-to on that one given current actions of certain legislatures.). It's gotta be hard trying to do a steady sane and solid job with someone like that around taking all the attention from your work while your peers defend his academic freedom at the expense of your unit's net credibility.

Jason,

If you are still reading this thread, since you are a teacher of composition, let me ask you this: How much do you think the cultural studies movement influences composition teaching these days? From what I've read, it influences composition courses a lot, (Students have to write about oppression, discrimintaion, or other charged issues.) Apparently the idea is that writing about these types of topics will lead them towards more "enlightened" viewpoints on "social justice" issues.

If this perception is accurate, then don't you think students are going feel pressured to express views that their teachers will approve of, and that the teachers might be a bit biased. I have trouble believing that composition teachers are grading purely on the quality of the writing when they seem to have a social justice agenda that they put into their courses, but would like to hear your perspective.