Because celebrating Israel’s 60th Birthday is so unacceptable at Berkeley, some people decided to fly the Palestinian Flag on the university flag pole, located between VLSB and California Hall. I’m celebrating with alliteration.

All this week, the pro-Zionist student group Tikvah will be celebrating Israel’s 60th year of sovereignty. So it was no coincidence that the Palestinian flag was hoisted above campus. I also recognized some members of the Students for Justice in Palestine on sproul today wearing keffiyehs around their necks, which was probably not in recognition of Cinco de Mayo.

The Patriot’s own Ben Chapman took these photos of the Palestinian flag raised at half mast:

According to Chapman, UCPD took down the flag at around 2:40 pm because the flag was flown without the university’s permission.

Tikvah’s first event of the week, a special lecture from talk radio host Dennis Prager, drew no protesters. The topic of Prager’s talk was “Why Berkeley should be celebrating Israel’s 60th birthday.” Nearly all of the seats in 145 Dwinelle were filled for tonight’s presentation. Prager came with his usual on-air wit, straight-forward wisdom, and a few good stories.

He argued that universities, Berkeley included, are teaching students to hate Israel. One particular example came from a female UCLA student, whom Prager confronted on his radio show. The student had written an op-ed in the Daily Bruin that Prager described as “venomously anti-Israel.” She told Prager that her family was strongly pro-Israel, and so was she…until she got to her university.

Colleges have little reason to hate Israel, Prager contended, since the values of Israel are the same values cherished by our colleges. Israel, unlike its neighbors, is egalitarian, democratic, supportive of liberty, free speech, women’s rights, equal treatment of gays, and overall the type of society a school like Berkeley should be celebrating.

One of the most important points that Prager made was during the Q&A session. When asked if he was further polarizing the opposing sides by ignoring the alleged wrong-doings of Israel, Prager said, “Ask yourself this question: If Palestinians announced that they will put down their weapons today, what would the Israeli response be? And if Israel announced that they will put down their weapons today, what would the Palestinian response be? If Palestinians put their arms down, there will be peace. If Israelis put their arms down, there will be Holocaust.”

Celebrate Israel’s 60th birthday with Tikvah this Thursday at noon on Sproul Plaza. There will be free food, dancing, and music. Check out their Facebook group for info on other events taking place this week.

College Republicans in California are in a unique position to deliver a meaningful blow to special interests and hypocrites everywhere by praising Governor Schwarzenegger for his fiscal responsibility, even though his intended actions come at our own personal cost. The governor’s proposed budget for 2008-2009 includes an across-the-board 10% cut in spending. This would naturally include a roughly $1 billion cut to higher education.

Students who marched on Sacramento yesterday demanded that higher education be given special treatment over all other state expenditures. I would like to ask protesting students from where they think the extra funds should be extracted. Should the money come from a reduction in the quality or number of teachers for primary education? Perhaps we could stop paying our social workers, or rescind programs aimed at protecting the environment. The causes behind these expenditures have their own special interest groups that will be feeling just as disenfranchised as students once the cuts take effect. To serve all of the special interests would require spending money that simply does not exist unless we want to leave massive debt for future generations of Californians.

As a college student, I regret the real effects that budget-cuts to this University will have on me and my peers. Still, I recognize that subsidized education is a privilege and not a right; it is only available to me at the cost of others. I urge all campus Republicans, along with any other champions of reason, to remind other students that these cuts are the result of fiscal responsibility, not a de-emphasis of the importance of higher education.

Update: The East Bay Express reports some harassment at researchers’ homes.

There is a story in the San Jose Mercury News about some action against animal researchers.

Since August, activists have visited the homes and offices of several Berkeley researchers. An October protest at the El Cerrito home of toxicology professor Leonard Bjeldanes led to several arrests, although prosecutors declined to file charges.

Several researchers declined to speak about the harassment, which has become a problem across the 10-campus University of California system. Campus chancellors released a joint statement in December decrying the protests, saying the university supports free speech but that some actions “have crossed the line.”

“They’re not above putting bombs under people’s cars,” said UC Berkeley spokesman Bob Sanders, referring to an incident at the home of a University of California, Los Angeles professor. “They’re domestic terrorists.”

The chancellors’ statement is available on the UC website. The article reported yesterday was to be “a day of action” by the animal activists, but the papers this morning did not record any incidents.

I have not seen much action against animal research on campus. The most I remember is a random non-student looking person outside VLSB last spring who handed me a big packet about the evils of dissection in biology classes.

Last time I checked, people engaged in civil discourse about issues instead of threats.

The Los Angeles Times covers a program where some University of California campuses receive money for referring students to an online college. According to the LA Times, Capella University operating out of Minneapolis has paid $12,000 to UC Irvine for the students it has received from there. This program is being ended for “appearance of an ethical breach.”

UC Berkeley has a similar agreement, but has not profited from it:

Three of the eight University of California campuses that have extension programs — UCI, UC Santa Cruz and UC Berkeley — have credit-transfer agreements with Capella, said Chris Harrington, a spokesman for the UC president’s office. Santa Cruz does receive payments. Berkeley, which set up an arrangement similar to UCI’s in 2004, has not received any per-student fees because no one taking a class eligible for referral has transferred.

Berkeley also is ending the program because of the public perception of ethical problems, said Ann Guy, spokeswoman for the university’s extension program.

Shameless plug for Education Debate
If you like talking about education, the Cal Dems and BCR are having a debate on Thursday at 7 PM in 145 Dwinelle. The topic will be K-12 education in California and moderated by the Informal Debate Society.

This article on race, 209, and UC admissions by Ward Connerly doesn’t really have anything we haven’t seen before. Essentially a piece on how officials (of UCLA specifically) are narrowly skirting breaking the law and vaguely praising those who do in the name of diversity, it contained a phrase I found particularly sound.

The irony is that in a formally “colorblind” admissions structure - no race “boxes” on the application, no encouragement to applicants to convey their racial background in essays, no intent on the part of admissions officers to find proxies for race - U.C.L.A. could admit the Francis Harris’s of our society with few complaints from hardly anyone.

While no breath-taking stretch of logic, I’m suprised this doesn’t get mentioned more. The less you focus on race, the less it becomes a divisive issue.

Yesterday I went to an event sponsored by the University of California Irvine College Republican. As my ticket said, to hear the confessions of three former terrorists. The three speakers were Walid Shoebat, Zak Anani, and Kamal Saleem. They talked about their experiences growing up as Muslims in the Middle East and the hatred that was engendered in them against Jews and America.

A local newspaper The Daily Pilot covered the event. The article reports a response to the speakers.

Marya Bangee, the spokeswoman of UCI’s Muslim Student Union, didn’t attend the 3 Ex-Terrorists’ appearance but said she was dismayed that the College Republicans had invited them to campus.

“I think it’s a disturbing event,” she said. “The College Republicans should know better. From what I hear, the Ex-Terrorists are against Islam, and they try to equate Islam with terrorism.”

While the speakers did equate their experiences as Muslims to militant hatred toward Jews and often America, I think it would be more disturbing if the event was cancelled due to fear of people getting upset.

It was an interesting event. I hope we can get some similar speakers at Berkeley next year. A debate between the three speakers and opposing people would be even better, but I don’t think that would happen.

In another way I was disappointed. From what I had heard about the happenings at UCI I expected to see some kind of disagreement about the event. I did not see any protesters, only one random guy holding an anti-Bush and Cheney sign. Outside the Bren Center security wanded and patted everyone down before entering.

Yesterday there was an interview (linked here) on Fox News with Walid Shoebat and UCI student Reut Cohen. It lets you see Shoebat in action speaking and talks about other activities at UCI. I would also recommend Reut Cohen’s blog for a firsthand account of the continuing controversies in Irvine.

Today as I was going to a review for my Roman archeology class I saw some people sitting near Wheeler with some signs. They were “fasting for a nuclear free UC.” Their signs directed me to ucnuclearfree.org. As if it is not enough to see their signs and people who looked like they descended from the trees, they have a blog at nonukeshungerstrike.blogspot.com. According to their blog, 41 people statewide are on a hunger strike to stop the UC’s involvement with nuclear weapons. Beetle has some commentary here.

I do not remember seeing a continued hunger strike like this in my time at Berkeley so it will be fun to watch, except I have 5 finals and get to move in the next week.

I don’t understand how the protesters think pushing nuclear research out of the UC will help create a better situation. Nuclear weapons research will occur. If it is not at the public institute of the University of California, then it will be at private corporations that are less open and accessible to the public. There is also the relevance of the issue. The last time a nuclear weapon was used to attack another nation was over sixty years ago.

Unfortunately, I do not have pictures of this. My hard drive died last week and I have not been able to restore internet to my computer or reinstall the photograph downloader yet. I will post some pictures if I get them before the strike is over.

This year’s spring CCR was held in Santa Clara, hosted by the Santa Cruz College Republicans. Prominent speakers included Tony Strickland on behalf of Mitt Romney, Abel Maldonado, Larry Greenfield of the Republican Jewish Coalition, internet mogul Andrew Breitbart, a video appearance of filmmaker Evan Maloney, Shawn and Michelle Steel, and others. Voting for the new state chairman took place on Sunday, and resulted in a sweep of “Team Activate”, the slate headed by Ryan Clumpner, defeating the “Take Back CCR” slate, headed by BCR’s own Josiah Prendergast. Here’s some photographic evidence of the good times enjoyed by all!

Voting during the convention

Myself and Breitbart

My highlights: enjoying the Mr Maloney’s presentation-via-video regarding his upcoming movie “Indoctrinate U” that deals with censorship and discrimination of conservatives on college campuses. Also, the amusing albeit random/rambling speech given by Breitbart about meeting Matt Drudge and being a part of the internet’s early boom during the Lewinski era. And of course, the socializing. I enjoyed both’s slate’s hospitality suites. I didn’t know until that weekend that Bennigan’s was an actual restaurant!

Some of the men of BCR

Some of the women of BCR

From an AP report on today’s meeting of the UC Board of Regents:

Acting on a request from Regent Frederick Ruiz and student regent Maria Ledesma, the board decided to reconvene a task force of students, staff and faculty to look at how the university was complying with Proposition 209.

Details of the group’s new charge and a timeline for its work still have to be worked out, but several regents said they hoped it would delve more deeply into whether the initiative that required the university to abandon its traditional affirmative action programs undermined efforts to improve student diversity.

“African-Americans are disappearing from the UC at an alarming rate,” said Regent Eddie Island. “If 209 brought about this result, we ought to lay it on the table, and we ought to know it. The public ought to know it.”

The UCLA Daily Bruin has further coverage of the meeting:

Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante said the UC should look for a way to increase admissions of underrepresented minority students while still remaining inside the restraints set by Proposition 209.

“Perhaps we’ll be able to find how Proposition 209 was interpreted by the university. Is there a way to implement 209 in the university that will allow us to admit minorities along with the voters’ intent?” Bustamante said.

In other words, is there any way to screw 209 and get away with it?

Meanwhile, supporters of the proposition are in a celebratory mood:

“The 10th anniversary of Proposition 209 is cause for celebration, not consternation, because it enshrined the principle of equal rights in California law, including at the UC system,” [Pacific Legal Foundation spokesman Howard Johnson] said. “That’s Prop. 209’s bedrock rule, and any tinkering with UC admissions that would depart from that rule would be immoral and illegal.

Governor Schwarzenegger has appointed two Cal alums to fill the vacant spots on the Board of Regents of the University of California. As part of the position, they will have influence over the policies of the UC system as a whole, from affirmative action to student fees. Who knows whether these new regents will stay in the background or take an activist role like former regent Ward Connerly. Whatever they choose to do, they might be around for a long time to come, as their terms expire in 2017. A press release from the Office of the Governor is available. Here’s a brief bio for each of the new regents:

Russell Gould is senior vice president for Wachovia Bank, where he supports the Bank’s investment, banking, trust, custodian and investment management services in California… He served as a member of the Regents of the University of California from 1998 to 1999, as a member of the Governor’s Council of Economic Advisors, on California’s Constitution Revision and Performance Review Commissions and is currently a member of the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles Board. Gould, 55, of Los Angeles, earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of California, Berkeley. Gould is a Republican.

Leslie Tang Schilling is president of Union Square Investments, Inc., a commercial real estate investment and management firm she founded in 1981… In addition, she is co-founder of Toys for the Tenderloin and director of the Asia Foundation and the Committee of 100. Schilling, 50, of Woodside, earned a Master’s degree from American Graduate School of International Management and a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of California, Berkeley. Schilling is registered American Independent.

UPDATE: The LA Times has posted an article with a little bit more info. One item of note is that Schilling is replacing Haim Saban, creator of the Power Rangers and billionaire Democrat donor.

The UC and CSU systems have partnered up with an online media company, Cdigix, to provide legal audio and video downloads for its students. The move is seen as a way to entice students away from the “less legal” p2p transfers that they have become accustomed to. As such, the colleges are prepared to subsidize the service:

Cdigix generally charges $3 per month to access its music downloading service, but Rubenstein said several of the 24 Cdigix-partnered universities subsidize the fees, making the services free for students.

In these cases, the school or anonymous donors cover the costs instead of individual students.

�We see the university�s role as a facilitator of a marketplace where vendors can establish a business relationship with the students,� Ward said. �We feel we have a responsibility to steer them in the right direction.�

Staying on top of things, the major UC student newspapers have decided to weigh in. In today’s Daily Cal, the editorial is surprisingly positive. “Facing the Music“:

While the deal would only cover 600,000 students across both systems, it�s an important first step to reducing illegal file sharing.

File sharing has become a problem for both students and the university… Offering these services is a way to avoid litigation…

The music and movie world has changed, shifting away from CDs and DVDs to downloads. But the industry has been slow to catch up with the digital age and unable to exercise power over this expanding empire. It�s fitting that college campuses are recognizing it first and working toward a viable long-term solution. With any luck, it�ll catch on.

Their only concern is with the subsidy:

The charge for this program�$3 a month for music and $5.99 for video services�is another draw, but UC Berkeley should not subsidize the service with increased fees. Students should choose whether they want to participate or risk illegal behavior, not have another fee foisted on them.

The UCLA Daily Bruin is more critical of the program. And less creative in its titling. “UC-backed file-sharing service unnecessary“:

UC students have not been clamoring for subscription music services. They’ve been protesting fee increases, budget cuts and diversity on campus. So why is the university bringing a service to students they aren’t even asking for?

Cdigix touts its discounted rates, but saving a few dollars isn’t likely to swing many to the legal side of the tracks if they aren’t there already. Subscription music services don’t have the complete volume of music available on file-sharing networks, and often have limited ability to transfer files to portable music players.

The university is pandering to the interests of the business world � specifically the recording and motion picture industries � over the interests of its students. It is spending its time and resources to investigate and negotiate discounted rates on music when it could and should be using its energies on addressing other issues.

Ouch.

As for me, my opinion is more along the lines of the Daily Cal’s, which is pretty amazing. Change is in the air, and services like these are going to be the wave of the future. I am concerned about the subsidies, but what isn’t subsidized here? Along with your reduced price gym membership and free condoms, you might as well grab a couple of tunes.

I signed up with the Real Rhapsody music service that Berkeley is currently offering. It’s $2 a month, but I don’t have to start paying until October, since you get a couple of months free. My first hand opinion after using the service for a couple of weeks? It rocks. It has over a million songs and is growing everyday, so you can’t go wrong. The Daily Bruin touts that the p2p networks have the “complete volume” of music, but let me call BS on that. While it’s easy to find popular tracks, try and search for something a little rarer and you’ll know what I mean. On the other hand, Rhapsody and other services make it easy to find Top 40 hits as well as albums from bands that may only have 40 fans. Things that you’d never be able to find on a file sharing service, unless one of the 40 happens to be online. I exaggerate with my numbers, but I’m essentially correct. This is The Long Tail in action.

It isn’t for everybody though. I personally listen to all of my music while on the computer, but if you want to burn a cd or transfer to an mp3 player, you’ll have to pay a small fee per song. Some of the very big artists are missing (the Beatles for instance) or offer only 30 second samples. However, this is sure to change as the library gets bigger. Rhapsody is Windows only, not sure about the other programs. Finally, some genres are terribly underrepresented (more trance please!), but I chalk that up to America’s poor taste in music. Just kidding.

Wow, now I feel like a whore for these media services. I just wanted to share my thoughts on this particular issue. So in essence: great idea, bad subsidy (possibly). Your thoughts?

The University of California has released their data on Fall 2005 Freshmen SIRs. Statement of Intent to Register (SIR) is the step between admission and enrollment. So until we get the final enrollment statistics next year, this data is the best that we have if we want to examine trends. The UC has released three tables full of data:

• Table 1: Fall 2005 freshmen admission and anticipated enrollments
• Table 2: Distriution of intent to register by campus and ethnicity (Fall 1997-2005)
• Table 3: Yield (intent to enroll/admits) for freshmen (Fall 1997-2005)

The tables are in PDF format. There’s a lot of numbers to look at, so I suggest you check them out. But I have a few observations (note, Fall 1997 was the last year before Prop. 209 banned affirmative action):

• Systemwide, the number of “underrepresented minorities” is at its highest point (percentage-wise) since 1997, with 18.9% of the registrants.
• At Berkeley, this figure has improved since last year (14.4% vs. 13.2%) and is in line with post-209 numbers (13-15% vs. 21.8% in 1997).
• The number of URMs who intend to register at a UC, however, continues to fall (51% vs 59.9% in 1997). Giving credit to the theory that URMs would rather attend private schools that provide more attractive offers.
• URMs who get into UCLA are more likely to register than URMs that get into Berkeley: 46.9% versus 39.9%. Which brings up questions such as what kinds of URMs are being admitted to the top two UCs and which of the two do URMs prefer and why.
• 49.7% of Asians who get into Cal intend to register, but only 38.8% who get into UCLA choose to do the same. Asians are the only group where Cal registration rates are significantly higher than UCLA rates.
• Systemwide, Asians are most likely to attend a UC, with 64.9% filling out a SIR in comparison with 51% for URMs and 47.1% for whites.
• 4,124 students intend to register at Cal this year, which is 500 more than the yearly average of 3,620 since 1997. Looks like those new dorms finished just in time.
• A large portion of that growth will come from Asians, who make up 47.8% of Berkeley registrants (highest percentage ever and 3% higher than 2004). At 1,971 students, this is almost 350 more than last year. This continues a post-209 trend upwards (41.7% in 1997).
• UC Irvine continues to be majority Asian (>=50% for 8 of the past 9 years). For the first time, Asians will also make up the majority (50.6%) of UC San Diego incoming freshmen. If the trend continues, will Berkeley be the 3rd?
• Systemwide, Asians will make up 40.7% of the incoming class, breaking the 40% barrier for the first time (36.2% in 1997).
• Also systemwide, whites will make up 33.8% of the incoming class (lowest ever), continuing a yearly fall (38.9% in 1997).
• Whites are least represented at UC Riverside (17.9% of incoming class), and most represented at UC Santa Cruz and UC Santa Barbara (51.9% and 52.0% respectively).
• 870 students intend to register at UC Merced, the newest UC campus.

Very interesting stuff. Does anything surprise you? Bug you? There’s a lot to discuss, and I’m sure this will be a hot topic once school starts in Fall. And as always, we’ll be there to cover it.

The Chronicle has a followup to a story we posted on back in March. It concerns the National Merit Scholarship Program and whether or not the UC should continue to award students on that basis:

A key faculty committee recommended unanimously Wednesday that the University of California stop giving scholarships to high-achieving students recognized by the prestigious National Merit Scholarship Program.

The committee urged abandonment of the scholarship program because it uses a single test score to select eligible students, saying it is a determination of “merit” that conflicts with UC’s “comprehensive review” admissions procedure. Under comprehensive review, merit is determined by evaluating grades and test scores, as well as a student’s extracurricular activities and life challenges, said committee chairman Michael Brown.

Berkeley no longer provides aid to National Merit Scholars, but the other UCs still continue to do so as a way of attracting top students. So it is not so much an issue for us, except in how it reveals the UCs perspective on touchy issues:

In addition, Brown said, the committee was concerned that the qualifying exam favors white and Asian American students. At UC in the 2004-05 school year, whites received 39.8 percent of the awards and Asian Americans received 45.3 percent of the awards while African Americans received just 1 percent and Latinos 2 percent.

Jennifer Lilla, president of the University of California Student Association said the student group favors pulling out of the program.

“A substantial amount of money is going to students who by and large don’t need it,” Lilla said. “It seems unfair and unwise, given the context of decreasing money going to financial aid.”

Which brings up the question of whether aid should be distributed on the basis of merit or social/racial considerations. As well as the old favorite: whether the (P)SAT is racially biased or not.

Another Prop. 209 article in the UC Davis newspaper, the California Aggie:

College is often touted as a place full of potential for personal growth and educational immersion, however, a recent study shows universities across the nation might not be as accessible to racial minorities as they once were.

UC Davis sociology professor Eric Grodsky and graduate student Demetra Kalogrides found the acknowledgment of race-based admittance practices in both public and private universities decreased from the mid-�90s to 2003.

Using data from the responses of over 1,300 institutions to an annual survey conducted by the College Board from 1986 to 2003, Grodsky and Kalogrides contrast the recent decline in race-based affirmative action policies with the increase that occurred from 1986 to the early-�90s.

First of all, let’s let out a collective groan in response to that wonderfully biased introduction. *groan* Now, here’s what the study told us about affirmative action: there used to be a lot, and now there’s not. Any BAMN member could convey that fact by yelling at your face. Tell us something we didn’t already know.

Rahim Reed, associate executive vice chancellor for campus community relations, said various state legislation has made it more difficult to enable postsecondary institutions in California to target racial minorities.

Reed cited Proposition 209, passed by California voters in 1996, as having an adverse impact on UCD�s ability to enroll underrepresented minority students.
—
�It is difficult with Proposition 209 [to enroll minorities], but it is not impossible,� Reed said.
—
�I would say that the numbers speak for themselves,� Reed said. �We could do a much better job at enrolling minorities.�
—
[H]e would like to see the racial composition of college students in the state mirror that of high school students.

Say ‘minority’ one more time… I wonder what Reed’s original quote was. Maybe it was this: “It is difficult with Proposition 209 [to enroll anyone who does not meet the minimal requirements to be a student at an institution of this caliber. I mean seriously, should we be expected to enroll someone with a subpar GPA and SAT score just because there aren’t that many people who share his skin color here? Because if we did, someone with higher scores, and most likely also a minority, would have to find somewhere else to go. And how fair is that? So really, this whole thing isn’t about minorities at all. It’s about acknowledging that colleges have certain standards, and if you can’t meet those standards don’t point at your skin as an excuse. Maybe you should’ve studied more? Seriously.]” No, that would have been too honest.