‘Baking With Fire’

April 18, 2005

by Greg Lukianoff

Last week, John Leo wrote a great article in U.S. News and World Report about the attempts to suppress latest round of affirmative action bake sales. He illustrates one of the most interesting facets of these cases:

Opponents of these bake sales will use almost any argument to shut them down. At the University of Washington, the administration said the sponsor had failed to get a food permit. At Grand Valley, the university counsel argued that the sale of a single cupcake would convert political commentary into forbidden campus commerce. At Eastern Washington, the varying prices were denounced as unfair marketing. At Texas A&M, the athletics director argued that a satirical bake sale would damage the sports teams by making it harder to recruit minority players. Apart from the complaint that opposition to affirmative action is evidence of bias, the most common tactic used against the sales is the “heckler’s veto”: Disruptions may occur, but instead of protecting the cookie sellers, the colleges decree that sales must be banned.

This has certainly been FIRE’s experience in our previous cases bake sale cases. At UC Irvine and the University of Colorado, both administrations claimed the bake sales constituted “discrimination,” while at William and Mary the administration shut down a bake sale by citing “administrative requirements.” After FIRE became involved, however, those schools relented and allowed the protest to proceed.

Leo concludes:

In terms of the hothouse campus culture, suppression seems normal. But the censors can't justify in public what they do in private. The lesson for pastry rebels is to get in touch with FIRE and take the issue public as early as possible.

Thank you, John! We appreciate the plug and hope to bring all of the latest bake sale cases to a successful conclusion.