UC Berkeley unjustly berates College Republicans over affirmative action bake sale

“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” –Winston Churchill

It takes immense courage to be a conservative activist, especially a conservative activist at an American university.

Expect to make enemies, offend campus leftists, and face scrutiny. Some are lucky to find their niche and succeed, while others have to entirely fend for themselves. Nevertheless, touting conservatism on campus allows one to develop a thick skin and be fearless.

To dispel doubts about what transpires at universities—many of which are funded by tax dollars—take these instances into account.

Northern Arizona University’s conservative club could not hand out flags and correspondent fliers when commemorating the tenth anniversary of 9-11.

University of Maryland—Baltimore County’s conservative group was finally approved after members toiled with campus bureaucracy.

Here at UC-San Diego, political correctness runs rampant–producing instances of abridgement to free speech and anti-Semitism.

There are countless examples of this hostility seen at universities nationwide. This column will examine recent uproar at UC Berkeley over an affirmative action bake sale.

The Berkeley College Republicans (BCR) scheduled an affirmative action bake sale for Tuesday September 27, 2011, to highlight inequality found in affirmative action (reverse discrimination). This came in wake of California Senate Bill 185—which intends to overturn 1996 law Proposition 209, legislation that outlawed quotas in university admissions.

Governor Jerry Brown has yet to sign it into law. If approved, SB 185 would disable Prop. 209:

“This bill would authorize the University of California and  require  the California State University to consider race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin, along with other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions, to the maximum extent permitted by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution, and relevant case law.”

Continue reading at Washington Times Communities