This week’s Daily Cal Counterweight brought to you by Andrew Quinio.

Here’s an update on the lawsuit filed by Patriot News Editor Andrew Quinio. The Judicial Council has just ruled on the matter:

ASUC Judicial Council

Direct Judgment

Quinio v. Alvarez
—
It is alleged that Ms. Alvarez used an ASUC resource, specifically an ASUC logo, to enhance the design of a Facebook group profile. As this Facebook profile was specifically created for campaign purposes, use of the ASUC logo constitutes a clear breach of Title IV Article 13.3.7 of the By-laws wherein it is explicitly stated that use of ASUC resources for campaign purposes is illegal . Incontrovertible evidence presented by the plaintiff, Andrew Quinio, showed that Ms. Alvarez did use an ASUC logo as a part of her Facebook design. As such, it is the opinion of the Council that Ms. Alvarez did indeed violate Title IV Article 13.3.7 of the By-laws.
—
Thus, in light of the facts, the Judicial Council hereby orders that ASUC Senate Candidate Josie Alvarez be issued three censures.

While this case was infinitely less interesting than some others, we can all sleep well knowing that justice has been served. Now release the results.

The SF Chronicle has an extended piece on Bob Avakian, a Berkeley native with quite a past. His new book is coming out: From Ike to Mao and Beyond: My Journey from Mainstream America to Revolutionary Communist.

Bob Avakian has devoted his life to the one ideology that he believes holds the promise of massively releasing human freedom and dignity. The ideology is communism.

Berkeley-bred Avakian’s new memoir, “From Ike to Mao and Beyond,” leaves a breathtaking impression. Having deepened and purified his convictions over 40 years of personal and political struggle, Avakian sounds a high, sustained cry for complete social transformation almost as if he were the trumpet of Lenin himself.

I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry while reading this article. It’s like a caricature of a communist come to life. Is it too good to be true? Does this man really exist? I was especially amused by his transformation from Young Republican to America Hater:

Young Avakian’s religious beliefs and patriotism were deeply felt. He tells of saying the Pledge of Allegiance as a 9- or 10-year-old and wanting to fall to his knees in gratitude for “not living in one of those awful countries that so many people seem to have had the misfortune of being born in.” Sticking with Eisenhower even though his parents went over to Adlai Stevenson, he was absorbed in TV coverage of the 1952 Republican presidential convention.
—
But devotion to mainstream values gave way to skepticism. A milestone on the way to Avakian’s transformation to radicalism was discovering that President Kennedy lied when he used the U.N. Charter to justify a naval blockade in response to the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962. Classmates at UC Berkeley wondered why he was so aloof the day the president was shot.

You have to read the entire article, it’s chock full of good stuff. The conclusion is classic communist comedy:

In the book, Avakian is at his most provocative when he assesses Stalin and Mao. He applauds Stalin for leading the first historical experience in building socialism, the Soviet Union, under difficult circumstances. Although he refers to Stalin’s mistakes, he makes no mention of the millions who died under the Soviet dictatorship and insists upon a balanced view.

“If the bourgeoisie and its political representatives can uphold people like Madison and Jefferson,” he writes, “then the proletariat and its vanguard forces can and should uphold Stalin, in an overall sense and with historical perspective.”

Stalin = Jefferson. I’ve never heard that one before… I wonder if “Uncle Joe” is a contender in this race?

While we’re all waiting for the ASUC Election results to be released (and CalJunket has word that we may have to wait a little while longer…), let’s enjoy this recent ruling from the Judicial Council. It concerns Presidential candidate Rebecca C. Brown (of CalJunket), an unsolicited email, and, well… click “more” to read on.

(more…)

Three months after elections, Iraq has finally approved its Cabinet:

Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari assumed his post with the creation of his government.

The approval of the Cabinet represents the end of a major political impasse in the country.

On Wednesday, al-Jaafari told a news conference that he had submitted his proposed Cabinet to President Jalal Talabani, who had to approve the names before the transitional National Assembly voted on them.

The cabinet consists of 17 Shiite Arabs, eight Kurds, six Sunni Arabs and one Christian.

On a sad note, one of the female assemblymembers was gunned down in front of the Parliament today. My thoughts and prayers are with her friends and family, and I hope those involved will be brought to justice.

But finally we see democracy beginning to work in Iraq. A free and democratic Iraq is crucial to achieving peace in the Middle East, and everyday, we are taking larger and larger strides toward that goal. I’m a bit disappointed with the fact that the Sunni’s aren’t all that well represented in the Cabinet, but that’s how democracy works.

Regardless, today is a historic day for Iraq as their representative democracy is virtually complete. Today is a day of rejoicing for the Iraqi people, a day of glory for the American military and coalition forces, and a day of triumph for any civilized person who cares about human rights, freedom, and peace.

If Howard Dean and his Democratic Party had their way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, not awaiting justice, and the world would be a more dangerous place. Granted, WMD’s haven’t been found, but the Duelfer Report doesn’t say that they weren’t there before the war, that they were destroyed, or that they won’t ever be found.

And for that matter, if the liberal left had their way we’d not only have Saddam still in power, but also Uday, Qusay, rape rooms, torture chambers, systematic executions of Shi’iites and Kurds, mass graves, and more. It’s such a shame that the media, primarily because it’s almost all liberal, doesn’t acknowledge what a success Iraq has been. Every American should know the truth about Iraq.

Well, maybe not the world… But the nationwide debate on affirmative action is heating up, on this, the 56th day of battle.

1. UCLA Daily Bruin: State should pass bill recognizing diversity

   The big news that the UCSD Guardian covered last week is making its way throughout the UC system. Yesterday, the Daily Bruin reported on AB 1452, otherwise known as the Prop. 209 Killer. Today, they posted their editorial in support of the bill:

   The state Legislature and governor should pass the bill as the first of many steps necessary to ensure California’s universities are proactive about accessibility and diversity.
   —
   The University of California has acknowledged the bill won’t change current selection policies, and its opponents are quick to point out that Proposition 209 fully limits its impact.

   But, it is still a worthy bill – if for no other reason than that it is the first expression of concern from the state since it ruthlessly halted momentum on increasing the diversity of university students in California.

   “Ruthlessly halted momentum”? The only paper that can be more overly dramatic than this, is… the Daily Cal. If I know my Daily Cal, then I expect an article on this bill sometime this week. Followed shortly by an editorial urging its passage, though stating that it does not go far enough. Man, this is too easy.

2. The Badger Herald: Two Articles

   This paper is by the fine students of the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

   Article 1: “California legislators to consider race-based admissions“

   Yeah, this one is also about AB 1452. I told you this bill would be Big News. Props to the Badgers for covering this before the Daily Cal…

   While the affirmative action debate shows no signs of slowing down, the state of California may soon begin using race as a characteristic for admission to California’s public universities.
   —
   The bill passed through the Higher Education Subcommittee with a 5-1 vote and currently sits waiting to be addressed by the Appropriation Committee. The Committee must make their decision on the bill before June 3.

   Despite Nunez’s claim that AB 1452 is not affirmative action, the debate is still going strong, and many have kept their eyes turned to California.

   Article 2: “Institute critical of affirmative action“

   Double props for even mentioning this recent Cato Institute study detailing the great harm of affirmative action. I haven’t seen this study receive much play in the mainstream media. The Daily Cal has not mentioned it, even though Berkeley is quickly becoming ground zero in this debate.

   Many have hailed the question of whether affirmative action hurts or helps students of color as the next great argument in the affirmative-action debate.

   “The effectiveness of racial preferences is absolutely the next battleground for this issue,” Gryphon said in an e-mail. “Now that it is clear the courts will allow preferential policies, it is important to take a long look at whether they achieve their intended goals.”

3. The UW Daily: Affirmative Action Bake Sale

   This is a different UW, the University of Washington at Seattle. Today is looking to be a controversial day for their campus, as their College Republican group is holding an “Affirmative Action Bake Sale.” The Berkeley College Republicans held a similar event a few years back.

   The newspaper includes dueling opinion pieces. Weighing in against the Republicans: “Misinformation for sale“:

   Let’s set the record straight: Affirmative action is not in practice at the UW or at any other campus in this state. Since the UWCRs have no need to fight affirmative action policies that don’t exist, what is it they’re concerned about? Diversity in general? The presence of minority populations on campus?

   Admissions policies do not take race into account, so I wonder on what grounds — or due to what fears, insecurities or stereotypes — are the College Republicans so concerned about race?

   What a great argument, “it’s not happening here so why complain?” Isn’t this the same kind of passivity demonstrated when the developed world failed to prevent totalitarian regimes from murdering tens of millions of innocents during the 20th century? Martin Luther King, Jr: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

   The Republicans respond, “Treat people as equals“:

   Those on my side of the affirmative action debate believe in the same principles that motivated the abolitionist and civil rights movements — the government should treat all people equally, regardless of their skin color.
   —
   There is nothing wrong with helping people who come from difficult beginnings, but a person’s race is not his or her origin. If a person wants to find out about someone’s background, this person should ask the man or woman in question. Don’t assume you know someone’s background because of the color of his or her skin.

   The UW College Republicans also have the honor of hosting Ward Connerly, later tonight. I’ll post the follow-up article if he has anything new to add.

On this article on Drudge, Ted Kennedy continues to play the blame game on the current adminstration:

These images are seared into our collective memory. The reports of widespread abuse by U.S. personnel were initially met with disbelief, then incomprehension. They stand in sharp contrast to the values America has always stood for-our belief in the dignity and worth of all people-our unequivocal stance against torture and abuse — our commitment to the rule of law. The images horrified us and severely damaged our reputation in the Middle East and around the world.

On December 4, 2003, President Bush had proclaimed to the world that the capture of Saddam Hussein brought “further assurance that the torture chambers and the secret police are gone forever.” The photos of Abu Ghraib made all too clear that torture continued in occupied Iraq.

Where are we a year later? Has this problem been resolved? Has the moral authority of the U.S. been restored? Have we recovered from what is perhaps the steepest and deepest fall from grace in our history?

Sadly, the answer is no, because at every opportunity, the Administration has tried to minimize the problem and avoid responsibility for it.

The conservative senator from Massachusetts, maybe because he’s been drinking again, fails to note that the Bush Adminstration has made every effort to bring to justice those responsible for these horrific acts. In fact, Secretary Rumsfeld offered to resgin twice: “I submitted my resignation to President Bush twice during that period and told him that … I felt that he ought to make the decision as to whether or not I stayed on. And he made that decision and said he did want me to stay on … These events occurred on my watch … As secretary of defense, I am accountable for them and I take full responsibility.”

President Bush chose to keep Rumsfeld on as he knew we can’t afford to hire someone knew in the midst of a war. Quite frankly, I think Rumsfeld has been a poor secretary of defense, not only in this regard, but because he CLEARLY didn’t send in enough ground troops into Iraq to begin with and we could’ve certainly prevented insurgents from taking over places like Fallujah, Mosul, Baghdad and other areas within the Sunni Triangle. Senator John McCain even publicly expressed this problem, saying he had no confidence in Rumsfeld, and that if he were president we wouldn’t have been seeing the problems we were seeing.

As for Abu Ghraib, we have taken punative action against those responsible:

The report by Antonio M. Taguba lists six suspects: Staff Sergeant Ivan (Chip) Frederick II, Specialist Charles A. Graner, Sergeant Javal Davis, Specialist Megan Ambuhl, Specialist Sabrina Harman, and Jeremy Sivits (now demoted to Private). A seventh suspect is Private Lynndie England, who became pregnant and was reassigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The six are facing charges that include conspiracy, dereliction of duty, cruelty toward prisoners, maltreatment, assault, and indecent acts.

On May 19, 2004, a special court-martial (less severe than “general”; confinement sentence limited to one year) sentenced Sivits to this maximum sentence, in addition to being discharged for bad conduct and demoted, upon his plea of guilty.

On September 11, 2004, Specialist Armin Cruz of the 325th Military Intelligence Battalion was sentenced to eight months confinement, reduction in rank to private and a bad conduct discharge in exchange for his testimony against other soldiers.

Spec. Roman Krol, and Spec. Israel Rivera who were present during abuse on October 25 are under investigation but have not been charged and have testified against other soldiers.

On October 20, 2004, Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick pled guilty to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault and committing an indecent act in exchange for other charges being dropped. His abuses included making three prisoners masturbate. He also punched one prisoner so hard in the chest that he needed resuscitation. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, forfeiture of pay, a dishonorable discharge and a reduction in rank to private. [3] (http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=939300&tw=wn_wire_story)

Ambuhl was convicted on October 30, 2004, of dereliction of duty and sentenced to reduction in rank to private and loss of a half-month’s pay.

On January 14, 2005, Graner was found guilty of all charges, including conspiracy to maltreat detainees, failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty, and maltreatment, as well as charges of assault, indecency, adultery, and obstruction of justice. On January 15, 2005, he was sentenced to ten years in federal prison.

The arraignments of Javal Davis and Ivan Frederick were postponed until June 21. They are expected to face general courts-martial. Charles Graner is to stand trial January 7.

The others, the three women, are awaiting arraignment.

There are still more cases to be tried and more dishonerable servicemembers to be brought to justice. This is only the beginning. Ted Kennedy talks of how we narrowly defined torture but fails to acknowledge that some forms of torture, including sleep deprivation, are perfectly legal as the Geneva Conventions should not apply to terrorists, not representing a nation-state, who deliberatly target civilians. I made clear in a California Patriot Article in December’s Print Issue. Sexual abuse, however, is not merely a violation of international law. It is an outrage, and like I said, we need to prosecute those behind such embarassing acts.

And besides on a more humerous note, as Jon Stewart said on a Daily Show episode on Abu Ghraib that I can’t link, what’s happened over there isn’t all that bad considering the fact that “All they do in American prisons is TOSS SALAD!”

Yeah right. Yesterday, the Contra Costa Times wrote “Cal may be starting to look a lot like Stanford,” in reference to the possibility that UC Berkeley may be privatized. The Daily Cal has more on the issue, with additional comments from Boalt Dean Edley.

Things get even more interesting when we take a look at this article from yesterday’s Stanford Daily, “Tuition to be waived for low-income admits“:

Of the students Stanford admits each year from Logan High School in Union City, some end up on the Farm while others choose less-expensive University of California schools. But Sharon Hope, program manager for the public high school’s college and career center, says that many talented students from low-income families don’t even consider Stanford because of its $40,000-a-year price tag.

University President John Hennessy recently announced a financial aid policy intended to change that. By 2010, families earning less than $45,000 per year will not be expected to contribute any money toward their child’s undergraduate education at Stanford. The student may still have to do work-study and take out loans, but Stanford will cover everything else, from tuition to books to toothpaste.

Stanford trying to make the UCs less attractive?

“If you have a student who’s admitted to Stanford and they’re also admitted to UC-Berkeley, and cost is an issue, they’re going to go with the one they can afford,” she said. And though Stanford does offer financial aid to middle-class families, “the plan involves loans — that’s the scary thing for kids, and parents too.”

Is this a role reversal? Berkeley discusses plans to go “private,” while Stanford acts to be more “public”? Are we at a turning point in public education, where we have come to understand that maybe the market can serve the “public good” better after all?

Sorry about the delay. But at least our audio quality is gradually improving. We’ve decided to host our recordings on Ourmedia/Internet Archive, so downloads should be faster. Highlight of the night: the very exciting (…) impeachment proceedings of Jessica Unterhalter. Enjoy.

• Part 1, 36.9 MB, Real Video Format
• Part 2, 41.7 MB
• Part 3, 27.5 MB
• Part 4, 42.4 MB

You might want to right click and save as, to download it to your hard drive.

An MSNBC Article released two days ago, claims that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as a potential Presidential Candidate in 2008:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich conceded Wednesday that he might run for president in 2008, but said he will spend the coming years focusing on changes needed in the nation and less time talking about his own political ambitions.

By mixing in a series of political appearances during the trip, Gingrich raised questions about his own future. Asked if he would be a candidate in 2008, he said, “I might be, I don’t know.”

Gingrich has recently published a book entitled Winning the Future, which discusses a true conservative agenda for the 21st century, including plans about balancing budgets, privatizing Social Security, partially privatizing health care, winning the war on terror, and preserving the environment. I’ve read about 3/4 of the chapters in the book (not in order as each chapter focuses on a different issue), and think he has a great plan for America’s future. And furthermore, he’s more of a true conservative, unlike President Bush who is, for all intensive purposes, a liberal (or at least spends like one).

The one thing that suggested to me that Gingrich was mulling over a presidential bid was that over the span of the last several months, he’s been doing book signings in Iowa and New Hampshire.

When I chatted with former Congressman Jim Rogan in Santa Barbara a few months ago about his experiences in the house, he told me that Newt Gingrich was one of the smartest people he’s ever met.

If Gingrich wins in 2008, he’ll be the first former speaker to be President since John Quincy Adams. I think he’ll be a great president, bringing true conservatism back to Washington.

I found this little piece by Tibor Machan. I thought it had a good message, so I felt like sharing it. It’s titled “Being Among the Few Who are Right”:

When she was about 16, my older daughter and I were sitting in my small house in Auburn, AL, and she turned to me to ask, “How do you deal with the fact that so many people think you are wrong?” She knew. They did, and still do.

Just yesterday I took part on a panel discussion at Boalt Hall, UC Berkeley’s School of Law, organized by the branch of the Federalist Society there, a group with a largely conservative membership in the legal profession. Of the three of us on the panel, I was clearly the most radical—or if you will, outrageous. The topic was “Is America Post-Democratic?” That meant, as I gathered, whether the United States of America is still something of a democracy or has this changed, if it ever was.

Machan was up against a a leftist polisci professor and a leftist Greenie. They gave the standard leftist talking points while he gave his libertarian/classical liberal point of view.

As expected, no one on the panel and the audience appeared to agree with any of this, although to my surprise several law students did come up to me afterwards to ask me very friendly questions about my position. The unpopularity of my views might put me in a funk, you could speculate, but I have had a pretty long history of similar responses from colleagues and people in general for over 40 years of thinking as I do…

So, what did I answer my daughter who, incidentally, shares most of my convictions on political matters? My response went along the lines of, “Well, sweetie, I like being popular, I like having friendly colleagues, but I must say I like truth even more.” Later I learned that this is a bit like what Newton scribbled in his Cambridge notebooks: “Amicus Plato, amicus Aristotles; magis amica Veritas” (Plato is my friend, Aristotle is my friend, but truth is a better friend).

Here’s to Truth.

I’m posting an email that the Republican National Committee just sent out because I think every Cal student NEEDS to understand what is going on:

To whom it SHOULD concern:

Hypocrite - noun, one who pretends to be what he is not or to have principles or beliefs that he does not have.

The Democrats’ efforts to block President Bush’s qualified judicial nominees are not only hypocritical but are examples of partisan politicking at its worst.

Republicans in the Senate are working to ensure that all of President Bush’s judicial nominees receive a fair and final up-or-down vote. Despite Senate history and tradition, Democrats are aggressively trying to prevent qualified judges from receiving what’s been afforded every judicial nominee for over 200 years.

During the Clinton Administration, Democrats demanded up-or-down majority votes on judicial nominations, but, now that they are in the minority, they have become the party of obstructionism and double standards.

The Constitution guarantees an up or down vote, but the Democrats don’t want to perform their duty. You can make a difference! Call Senator Dianne Feinstein at 202-224-3841 and Senator Barbara Boxer at 202-224-3553 and tell them to do their job - give these judges an up or down vote.

On July 25, 2003, President Bush made history by nominating Janice Rogers Brown to the federal bench. Brown is the first African American elected to the California Supreme Court and was reelected by California voters with 76% of the vote.

The daughter of Alabama sharecroppers who grew up in segregated schools in the midst of Jim Crow policies in the South, Brown is a single mother who worked her way through college and law school.

Despite her sterling personal and legal credentials, during the 108th Congress, Senate Democrats used a hypocritical double standard to block her nomination. Judge Brown is not alone. Senate Democrats obstructed an up-or-down vote on 9 other well-qualified judges. Some of these judges have been waiting for a vote for four years.

It seems Democrats have changed their tune on giving all judicial nominees a fair up-or-down vote. They now claim the filibuster is a sacred tool of the Senate. But in 1995, Democrats, including nine who still serve, voted to rid the Senate of this tool.

That’s right, nine current Democratic Senators voted to get rid of the filibuster. Now that it suits their needs, they praise it. What’s worse than this hypocrisy is these same Senators now lead the obstruction and threaten to shut down the Senate. Their claims of loyalty to, and reverence for, Senate traditions are just another sham designed to hide their hypocrisy.

To learn more about how the Party of Nine has become the obstructionist party of no, click here! See how these members used to demand fair up-or-down votes on judicial nominees, but now want to block nominees and hold the Senate hostage.

Call Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Barbara Boxer today and tell them you’re tired of the hypocrisy and double standards. Call and tell them these judges deserve and up-or-down vote.

Sincerely,
Ken Mehlman
Chairman, RNC

You can see it right there — Senator John Kerry isn’t the only flip-flopper the Democrats have; NINE of them are going back on their word and attempting to take advantage of fillibusters and break an age-old precedent of giving nominees fair treatment and room for debate. We can’t allow this to continue …

What does it mean to be a public or private school in this day and age? Berkeley’s looking into the issue:

It’s perhaps the most horrible thing a UC Berkeley person can hear: Cal may be starting to look a lot like Stanford.

But before breaking out the Stanford tree costume, UC Berkeley professors want to know just how close they are to becoming a private university. After all, with state funding being stretched increasingly thin, private donations have sometimes saved the day.

The university’s Academic Senate will discuss the issue Monday at the prompting of retired physics professor Charles Schwartz, who said he just wants scholars to be aware of the possible effects of a reliance on private money.

“This issue is bubbling around in the background,” Schwartz said. “This is a live issue.”

Boalt Dean Edley has brought up the issue before. I disagree with him on many issues, but he may be right on this one:

UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau has expressed his distaste for the idea of the school’s privatization, but has said the university may need to rethink its funding process.

One of the most vocal supporters of bringing more private money to UC Berkeley has been Christopher Edley, dean of its Boalt Hall School of Law. If the state can’t afford to support quality higher education, then plenty of donors can, he said.

Too many in higher education dismiss the idea of increased privatization before understanding it, Edley said. Corporate donors and others don’t have to be the enemy, he said.

“It’s naive to think that private money is necessarily problematic,” he said. “Public and private and nonprofit donors all have agendas. More often than not, it’s fairly easy to be clear to everyone concerned what the expectations are, and that’s advancing the university’s mission.”

So does it even matter where the money is coming from? Is there something intrinsically special about being a public institution? If we became a private school tomorrow but everything else remained the same, would you have a problem? Things to think about.

Speaking of the number 54, we need to bring Prop. 54 up for another vote. But that’s another battle for another day.

1. SF Chronicle: Campus diversity easier to invoke than to implement

   John H. Bunzel wants to know what exactly is this War being fought for:

   Is the goal of diversity to achieve an ethnic mix of undergraduates that matches the applicant pool? The state population? The national population? None of these?

   The all-out push for diversity has reopened questions about affirmative action’s purpose in higher education: Should it be geared toward groups such as African Americans, who have suffered pernicious discrimination and perhaps should be given preference in college admissions?

   Or should it be geared toward promoting diversity across the racial and ethnic board, even at the expense of blacks?

   These are not rhetorical questions. Affirmative action, initially regarded as a remedy for centuries of cultural deprivation, has been trumped by diversity. Originally intended to be a secondary benefit of affirmative action, diversity has now become the primary objective.

   Questions, questions, questions…

   What many observers question instead is the kind of “identity politics” that foster suspicion and create misunderstandings.

   Some of the most troublesome concerns have arisen not only from the splintering of student groups along racial and ethnic lines, but also from the frequent emergence of separate academic departments dominated by race, departments that often have not met sound academic standards.

   These are among the developments that on too many occasions have been rationalized away by administrators invoking diversity without openly acknowledging that diversity has become untethered from integration to the point of becoming integration’s rival.

   This is true, is it not? The people who go on and on about diversity and integration are the ones who prefer to associate with only their own racial groups.

   But other important questions remain that the chancellor will need to discuss publicly. Is racial diversity a proxy for educational achievement? How much diversity does it take to enrich a campus environment?

   Are the academic benefits of diversity significantly greater in a student body that is 8 percent African American as opposed to 4 or 5 percent? Does racial diversity in the classroom foster intellectual development and motivation or prepare students better for future career opportunities?

   The Chancellor has many questions that he needs to answer. We’re waiting.

2. San Diego Union-Tribune: Academic isolation

   This is a lengthy article focusing on the UCSD perspective. It’s worth a read.

   For a combination of reasons, UC San Diego has the smallest population of black students among the university system’s eight undergraduate campuses. Blacks represent about 1.5 percent of students at UCSD despite constituting 7 percent of California’s public high school graduates. This year’s freshman class includes only 57 blacks out of nearly 3,900 students.

   “Students don’t feel welcomed at UCSD,” said Chaka Campbell, vice president of the Black Student Union. “People experience homesickness, and a lot of it’s because they don’t see people who look like them here.”

   I was surprised to find out that Berkeley has the second highest percentage of blacks enrolled, after Riverside. It’s funny that that Birgeneau or the Daily Cal never seems to mention this little detail. Also, half of the articles on this issue always seem to include a sob-story about how “there’s not enough people that look like me.” Just something that I’ve noticed.

   Pressure is one thing black students say makes the UCSD campus climate uncomfortable.

   “Fair or unfair, I represent the African-American race to some people here,” said Eryck Suttles, a fifth-year sociology major. “It adds a lot of pressure. It’s important for me to do well here, not just for myself, but for the people coming here after me.”

   I’ve commented about this before (item #3). If people just worried about themselves a little more, the world would be much better off. But it’s in the interest of the neo-segregationists (a.k.a. the underrepresented minority student groups) to make sure that people continue to be viewed as members of a group rather than as individuals. They’re the ones that Suttles should be complaining about.

   Although Akpa made many friends on campus, she was always curious about how her college experience would have differed if she had chosen a historically black college. Last year, Akpa fulfilled that urge and enrolled in a student exchange program at Spelman College, where the student body is 98 percent black. Dozens of UCSD students have participated in the program.

   Akpa felt empowered by professors who tied their lectures to the African-American community. She was impressed by the steady stream of prominent black leaders who visited and spoke on campus. For example, Elaine Brown, a former Black Panthers leader, spoke at Spelman after the presidential election about what the results meant for African-Americans.
   —
   “I think people are needed at the historically black colleges, and black students are needed at the majority institutions as well,” Akpa said. “We have to fight for it.”

   What do people want? Do they want an education or a “community”? This is what the writer in the previous article was talking about. People claim they want “diversity,” but they really don’t. They just want people that look like themselves, and think like themselves. And if “diversity” is key to a well-rounded education, then the folks at the historically black colleges must be getting the worst educations, right? The hypocrisy of all of this is stunning. I think this whole thing is just about politics (of the leftist variety).

   At the root of the issue is the question: Does diversity matter?

   Some say no.

   Universities should challenge students to look beyond skin color, says Ward Connerly, a former UC regent who led the campaign to pass Proposition 209. Connerly’s 12-year term as a regent ended in March.

   “So there is only one black in my class, as opposed to three. So what?” Connerly said. “Are you going to find your comfort zone based on people who share the same skin color?”

   Apparently, for some people, yes.

   Each UC campus implements comprehensive review in its own way, and San Diego, unlike the system’s two other most selective campuses, UCLA and Berkeley, has adhered to a strict point system.

   “San Diego has a terrible record,” said Bob Laird, a former director of admissions at UC Berkeley and author of the book “The Case for Affirmative Action in University Admissions.”

   “A lot of the problem at UCSD is it has insisted for many years on a formula-driven admissions process.”
   —
   Joseph Watson, UCSD’s vice chancellor for student affairs, defends the school’s admissions process, saying it’s more important to be perceived as fair than to boost numbers.

   “I’ve always been pleased that, when a student comes to us and asks why he or she wasn’t admitted, we were able to show them why,” Watson said.

   What I’m going to take home from this, is the belief that Berkeley’s “underrepresented minority” enrollment numbers have been boosted. Yes, Prop. 209 passed, but our administration is still doing its best to make sure that people still have doubts about who actually deserves to be here. With Birgeneau in command, expect the doubts to grow even larger.