Bake sale
Philosophy and ethics are admittedly abstract concepts.
But the recent “affirmative action” bake sale by theYoung Conservatives of Texas is a concrete example of an ethicaldilemma.
The good part is that it created a dialogue about a topicrelated to the public good. Yet there are several aspects of thebake sale that aren’t being discussed, at least, by most ofthe media.
Before I get in too far, I must qualify myself. I’m notmajoring in philosophy or theology, nor do I intend to. I’masking these questions from a different perspective; all citizensin a given society should be concerned with ethics and howapplications of these ethics affect their everyday life.
Obviously, the Young Conservatives were interested in ethics inone manner: They believe that affirmative action is wrong.
But they glossed over the unethical means by which they raisedawareness.
The university thought they were hosting a bake sale, or elsethe conservatives would have been relegated to the front steps ofHughes-Trigg.
If they were protesting affirmative action, as was their claim,then they also got the prices wrong; blacks, Hispanics and womenare all considered equal in the process. Preference isn’tgiven to blacks over white women and Hispanics, and their cookiesshouldn’t have been cheaper.
The Young Conservatives either knew that they should have fileda protest application or they didn’t. If they did know, theywere just being dishonest. If they didn’t, is ignorance avalid excuse? If they truly thought they should’ve signed upfor a bake sale, shouldn’t they have at least mentioned inpassing the fact that it was going to be about affirmativeaction?
If they truly believe in their cause, then they should go aboutraising awareness in a responsible manner. It’s hard forothers to respect opinions of a dishonest and irresponsiblegroup.
The problems pertaining to SMU are entirely different. Theuniversity chose not to follow the rest of the colleges across thenation that have allowed this type of protest, and it’sarguable they knew shutting it down would create a controversy. Howcredible is it, then, to argue that they dispersed the protest forsafety reasons?
What we have is a case of two moral ambiguities.
On the one hand, SMU should encourage speech on the part of itsstudents, even if it’s inflammatory. Once the universitydecides to censor certain kinds of speech, it’s hard to drawthe line.
And it’s insulting to think that college studentscan’t handle a conservative stance on affirmative action andwould resort to physical violence.
On the other hand, the Young Conservatives were deceitful abouttheir true objectives and brushed aside the protocol for freespeech that the university has established. They shouldn’t beable to protest wherever they please, while other groups have tofollow the rules.
This brings up an interesting question: Is the protocol in placefor student protests a hindrance for affecting political dialogue?It’s certainly probable that, had the Young Conservatives setup their protests according to rules (and not been shut down) thenit wouldn’t have caused nearly as much dialogue.
And the whole point of college is to learn about new ideas, newways of thinking, new opinions; students need a free flow of ideasto do this. However offensively they’d like to frame theirargument, the Young Conservatives are contributing to this flow ofideas. It’s just unfortunate they had to do it in such adevious manner.
