Attention! Attention! Black people are getting cookies cheaper than you wholesome, hard-working white folk! That was the message the Boston University College Republicans delivered last week when they sold baked goods in the George Sherman Union and set their prices based on the buyer’s race in order to mock current affirmative action policies. Cookies for whites cost $1.25, cookies for blacks cost 25 cents and there were other assorted prices for other races.

Pretty clever right?

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t have a problem with a student group setting up shop in the GSU and trying to present an argument to their peers. I don’t even mind a little flair. But what the College Republicans did was just ridiculous. There were no flyers stating their position, no debate or any semblance of intelligent argumentation. There was nothing but smug smiles and bombast on display. Nothing but talk and well … cookies – lots of cookies. And from what I heard, they weren’t even that good.

So in light of the bake sale and its reliance upon gimmick and sarcasm rather than true political discourse, I wanted to take this opportunity to show the College Republicans what real social commentary looks like. So here it is: The following is a column about affirmative action. Take notes.

The most striking aspects of the affirmative action debate today are the questions we never seem to ask. Everyone criticizes race-based admission policies. Yet no one points out that other equally unfair practices are just as widespread.

One of the biggest myths in American history is the idea that our nation is a true meritocracy. If this were the case, then why do the wives and children of military veterans receive bonus points on civil service exams that help them get competitive government jobs? After all, they aren’t the ones who are risking their lives for this country. If our nation was a true meritocracy, then why is nepotism such a common practice? Just because your uncle owns a large company doesn’t mean that you’re the most qualified intern. If our nation was a true meritocracy, then why does legacy matter in college admissions? Just because your father went to Harvard doesn’t make you a good candidate.

The paradoxes don’t end there. In “The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values,” authors James Shulman and William Bowen point out that in terms of favoritism in college admissions, athletes often profit the most. At Williams College, a highly selective liberal arts school that admits about 500 students per year, athletes take up more than a third of their slots for incoming freshman. At one particular unnamed college, which does not offer athletic scholarships, black male students were 18 percent more likely to be admitted than white students with the same SAT scores. Male athletes regardless of race, however, were 48 percent more likely to be admitted than non-athletes with the same scores. And female athletes (also regardless of race) were 53 percent more likely. Contrary to popular stereotypes, not all athletes are minorities. In fact, at some schools, the majority of scholarships are used on sports like squash or crew, which are dominated by whites.

In the face of such practices, one has to wonder why there is so much brouhaha over the use of race in college admissions. The answer lies in our cultural assumptions. For the majority of Americans, minorities are often seen as less deserving than veterans, athletes and people who have longstanding social connections to various institutions. And thus, it’s of no surprise that affirmative action’s most virulent critics never question any other violations of the principles of this so-called meritocracy – for one reason or another, only minority groups seem to arouse their anger and discontent.

In saying this, I admit that just because this country isn’t an exclusively meritocratic nation doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be. Indeed, this alone is not a sufficient defense of affirmative action. If I had more room in this column, I could have explained why diversity is so important in a classroom environment or note that de facto slavery didn’t really end until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I could even have mentioned that parts of Georgetown County in South Carolina didn’t desegregate their school system until the 1990s. And let’s not forget about the arbitrary nature of the SATs and other skeptical criteria for determining a student’s qualifications. But let’s stop here. I think you get the point. College Republicans, please put your pens and pencils down.

Some readers out there may have read the above column and disagreed with me. That’s fine. But the point is that unlike the College Republicans’ bake sale – which relied on shock value and skeptical logic – this column is an actual example of constructive political commentary. When you appeal to an audience with reason, logic and intelligent argumentation, you force them to think and consider. You spread awareness and create an environment in which people have to challenge their assumptions.

So for all the members of the College Republicans or anyone else, for that matter: If you disagree with me, write into the paper. Explain why. Offer a well-researched rebuttal or a litany of morally-compelling arguments. Some students have even done this already. But by all means, don’t just talk smack. Don’t become the next Bill O’Reilly or Anne Coulter and choose style over substance. That doesn’t help anyone. If anything – like the shameless little cookie sale in the GSU – it just embarrasses us all.