Ever since the adoption of Proposition 209, which banned the use of affirmative action in admissions decisions at California’s public universities and colleges, various campuses and departments have devised ways to increase minority enrollment without blatantly violating the law. Methods have included giving special preferences to applicants who have faced certain circumstances in their lives, such as poverty, being raised by a single parent, debilitating injury, and similar hardships. The expectation is that because minorities often experience these circumstances at a higher rate than non-minorities, the proportion of minorities at campuses will increase without the explicit use of racial preferences.

Of course, when you skirt a law you will oftentimes face accusations that you have indeed broken it. Such is the lesson being learned by the Cal Extension Campus known as UCLA, which in addition to stealing UC Berkeley’s fight song also adopted an admissions policy that is very similar, one that looks heavily at applicant’s life experiences with the non-stated goal of increasing minority enrollment. Professor Tim Groseclose, a former member of UCLA’s committee on Undergraduate Admissions, has published a scathing report that alleges the campus did in fact use race as a factor in violation of Prop 209. The full report can be read here but the professor’s main allegation is that when a minority applicant happened to mention their race in the personal statement section of the application (aka the essays) they were generally advantaged.

In order to further investigate his suspicions, Professor Groseclose asked the university to provide him with information regarding students who mentioned race in their statements. UCLA has refused his request, citing privacy concerns. Even after the Groseclose pledged to use the findings for the sole purpose of improving the admissions process at the campus and not to release them publicly, he was rebuffed.

UCLA may or may not have been illegally considering race in the application process. There is not enough evidence in the professor’s report or elsewhere that would prove such a finding. That said, there is certainly more than reasonable basis for suspicion. We know that UCLA was under tremendous political pressure to admit more minority applicants. We know that they created the new “holistic” admissions system with the all but stated goal of increasing diversity on campus. And we know that a professor who was once involved in such admissions decisions believes impropriety has occurred and his efforts to further investigate have been snuffed out.

If UCLA is truly following the law and not in any way considering race in admissions decisions, it has no reason to hide. The claim that the release of admissions information would jeopardize student privacy rights is ridiculous. The only real number that would need to be known is the percentage of students who mentioned race in their personal statements who were eventually admitted. Such numbers are routinely, often eagerly, provided by admissions offices, such as the SAT scores of entering freshmen and demographic breakdowns of students. There is no reason this data cannot be provided not only to Professor Groseclose, but to the owners of UCLA: The people of the State of California.

Perhaps UCLA is not in fact guilty of considering race in admittance. Maybe the only thing they are guilty of is considering hardships when evaluating applications, a completely acceptable practice if done in an unbiased manner. But the campus, and all public colleges and universities, had better start answering to the people of California and shine some light on this very suspicious process that can make or break a student’s dreams.

…the Attack of the Clones.

Who isn’t one? As I showed before, CalSERVE candidates offer little variation in their platforms. But like CalSERVE, Student Action has its share of diversity mongers. You may be wondering why I haven’t included the Defend Affirmative Action Party in the Race for the ASUC series, but it really goes without saying that DAAP’s entire existence is centered on racial conflict. It’s blatantly obvious in their party name so I’m not going to spend a separate post on them. Besides, when a party is pulling elementary school kids out of class to campaign for college students, you’ve got something way more interesting to talk about.

But back to Student Action. First up is Meghana Dhar, #108. Her platform includes a plan to “Engage cultural communities”

As a senator, I will promote an active and involved campus and cultural community through intergroup networking and relations that allow for more campus-wide events and multicultural coalition-building. Specifically, I want to bring together the South Asian community in order to grant greater access to university funding and provide more opportunities for community-building events.

What she is really saying: I want to bring the campus together, and by “campus” I mean the students who identify as South Asian, and by “bring together” I mean give them more money. I would have preferred that she cut to the chase like a CalSERVE candidate and just say she was primarily concerned about South Asian students.

Tara Raffi, #117, will use the ASUC to enhance Jewish community life.

The Jewish community is a large and active component of our diverse campus. I will work closely with JSU leadership and its subsidiary groups to develop and enrich cultural life for the Jewish community. As a senator, I will work diligently to foster cross-cultural interactions through continued support for funding and activities.

Again, the issue is not individuals maintaining strong ties to their cultural identities, but individuals using government to favor some groups over others. Even at the lowly level of the ASUC, government should not grant special privileges to any group or individual.

For Sarah Cho, #118, an ASUC Senate seat is small potatoes compared to the very prominent position of power she already holds.

Cultural Solidarity
As a representative of the Korean-American community, I realize the importance of cohesion in fighting for common goals on our campus and beyond. As a senator, I will collaborate with students active within different cultural groups to form ties between communities (through multicultural events), and thus better represent the wide variety of students that Berkeley proudly embodies.

When were the elections for Korean-American community representative? Do other Korean-Americans know Sarah is their representative? Hopefully I can cast a provisional ballot in the next election, since I missed the election for the Filipino-American community representative.

Will Smelko, #183, managed to combine Diversity with Entertainment, thus demonstrating that he has the political intuition to make it through an ASUC election.

Diverse Entertainment
The ASUC can provide the student body with a diverse array of quality entertainment. It is my goal to bring in bigger bands at lower prices, and also to open up space to allow for an expansion of events like multicultural art shows and film festivals. Also, I want to increase the students’ voice, allowing them to influence what kind of entertainment is provided to them.

He is clearly more concerned about the Entertainment part of his platform, but throws a bone to the multiculturalists just in case he comes off as too culturally unaware for the Senate. That is the work of a true politician; he feels your pain and is thinking of the children even when he is talking about something totally unrelated.

One could argue that the diversity peddling in these candidate’s platforms isn’t a big deal. But the ASUC’s bias toward achieving diversity at all costs isn’t imagined; we’ve been there before. And if we don’t pay attention, we just might be there again.

Since my freshman year, I have been promised “representation” for my community, but I’m still not sure what my community is. At first, I thought my community was UC Berkeley, but then some ASUC candidates insisted that I was underrepresented. Imagine, for all these years, I naively thought that UC Berkeley students had 100 percent representation at UC Berkeley. I guess I was wrong.

Of course, the communities to which these candidates are referring are racially and ethnically defined. ASUC Election Season gives future Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons the opportunity to tell you how bad you have it at Berkeley, and why you need them to make your Berkeley experience much better. For those of you who have already been drowned in the sea of eager candidates on Sproul Plaza, the one word that was probably peddled to you the most was, “Diversity.” No candidate, especially the ones from CalSERVE (though Student Action is just as guilty), can leave racial appeal out of their platforms. Some are delightfully more explicit than others. Thus, I present to you the senate platforms of the worst race-baiters of the ASUC election, starting with CalSERVE:

First up, we have Allen “Fo Sho” Cho, #161. His Agenda:

Development Of A Korean-American Caucus
The Korean community on campus is very divided; we don’t have a UNIFIED voice to represent the issues our community faces in the ASUC.

So if you’re a student of Korean descent at Berkeley, get ready to fall in line! Stop dividing the community with your independent, individual thinking and start thinking like a Korean, whatever that means! To create solidarity, Allen plans to create a Korean Community Caucus. This seems odd, considering the rationale for his next item:

Establishment Of A Multicultural Center
Even though UC Berkeley is rich in history, culture and social movements, it is currently one of the few campuses without a multicutural center. In order to continue pushing for positive change, we need to continue bridging community. As your ASUC Senator, I will advocate for a permanent multicultural center to encourage cross cultural solidarity and dialogue.

So let’s divide the campus along race, and then struggle to bring it together again. I’m sure Allen is fully aware of this conundrum, as exploiting it gives him more power and clout in his “community.” We probably wouldn’t need a multicultural center to fix the problem of groups not interacting with each other if people like Allen weren’t busy creating separate caucuses for racial groups in the first place.

Next is Anurati “For Health” Mathur, #162. Anurati promises change through Coalition building. Did she mention that this coalition only includes South Asian students?

An Empowered You: The Power of Coalition Building
Through successful campaigns such as the Count Me In initiative, the Asian Pacific American Coalition has shown the power of coalition building. Based upon the success of this coalition and others, I will work with South Asian student organizations to create a coalition so that we will then have the ability to make change together.

She forgot Poland.

Claudia “si se puede” Rodriguez, #154, doesn’t beat around the bush. Her Spanish nickname is a dead giveaway, but her platform is still worth examining. Her platform seems to indicate that if you aren’t Chicano or Latino, you’ve got to find yourself another senator:

Increasing Academic Resources for Chican@/Latin@ Communities
There are few Chican@/Latin@s moving into graduate level work at Cal. As Senator, I will work to improve and increase the academic resources needed for current students moving into graduate-level work, by advocating for retention and professional development programs that will support and benefit the campus community at large.

I could make the whole role-reversal, double standard argument, but that’s just too easy and too obvious. What is most insulting is Claudia’s attempt to make this part of her platform appear non-racial. She complains of the lack of Chicano’s entering graduate school, but argues that increasing academic resources will help all students in the undefined “community at large.” If she really wanted to help all students, she would have omitted the opening tidbit specifically targeting Chicano and Latino students.

Then there’s Jenab-i “count me in” Pareja, #149,who really only has one issue, but describes it in three different ways to make it seem like he has a full platform, so it is not worth examining in detail. The main legs of his platform: Increasing Diversity, Building Community, and Creating Accountability. All you have to know is that Jenab-i really cares about diversity. He cares about it so much, that it is the only thing he is running on, and he promises to do a bunch of things to make diversity reign supreme. However, judging from his experience, Jenab-i isn’t exactly Mr. Diversity himself; his extra-curricular involvement has been limited to Asian student groups.

Jeremy de Nieva, #151, wants to be “a voice for silenced communities.” That voice seems to include a back door affirmative action plan:

I will be a voice for marginalized populations by increasing the presence of underrepresented populations through recruitment and retention funding, securing funds for philanthropic organizations to focus more on their activities than on fundraising, and advocating collaboration between different groups in order to achieve a more integrated campus community.

Lyell Sakaue, #163, not only wants us to recognize multiculturalism, he wants us to give it a big hug.

Embracing Multiculturalism
Groups and spaces dedicated to raising awareness and promoting multiculturalism on campus need more funding and greater visibility. I will advocate for existing and ermerging opportunities for promoting multiculturalism, including culture shows, student groups, conferences and the creation of a permanent multicultural center.

Mary June “MJ” Flores, #164, wants to learn more about her ethnicity, and wants you to pay for it.

Enriching The Ethnic Studies Department
Every year, the Ethnic Studies Department suffers through budget cuts, which in turn severely affects the collection and number of classes offered. As senator, I will work with faculty, staff, and administration to advocate for more funding for the department’s needs and the creation of more diverse classes. I will also work with students to take steps towards establishing a Pilipino/Pilipino-American Studies program by advocating for more Pilipino tenured professors.

So Mary June’s assumption is that if you have a tenured Filipino professor, he will automatically be working in the Pilipino Studies department. Never mind that Filipino academics can also be found studying Economics, Biology, Astronomy, and many other subjects. But hey, a Filipino is a Filipino. Mary June seems to think that all Filipinos will have the same academic interests anyway, so if you get more of them, you’re guaranteed to have a Pilipino-American studies program!

Obiamaka “Obi” Ude, #147, wants to give us “An ASUC for Every Student.” As a conservative, Southern-Californian, left-handed, patriotic American of Filipino descent that wants more left-handed desks, I wonder what Obiamaka can do for me. Probably very little, as her platform states:

As Senator, I will continue the fight for a multicultural center, create an ASUC-sponsored women’s forum for different women’s groups to come together, and increase publicity and outreach efforts to students from marginalized communities.

Like many of her colleagues, Obiamaka wants the ASUC to be all things to all students. Based on her platform, some students will get a little more.

Oscar “Oski” Mairena, #153 is just the male version of Claudia Rodriguez (or Claudia is the female version of Oscar), placing at the top of his platform the goal of “Increasing Retention Services for Chican@/Latin@ Students.”

Finally, Stephanie “Strawberry” Yang. #148, wants to defy stereotypes, and she can only do this as an ASUC senator.

Challenging The Model Minority Myth
Last fall, the Regents released a report that they would increase diversity on campus by admitting more non-Asian students. However, the “Asian” label does not do justice to the diversity of communities that are represented under that term. As Senator, I will work to peel off the “model minority” myth by making sure that the institution recognizes the diverse backgrounds of people grouped under the Asian-American term.

To minimize the model minority myth, I believe Stephanie’s first act as senator will be to fail all of her classes. She will then drop out of UC Berkeley, meet with the Regents wearing a t-shirt displaying her abysmally low GPA, and beg for an affirmative action program that is designed solely for increasing Asian enrollment. Victimhood, of course, is true progress for Asian students.

Many of these senate candidate complain of communities not working together, yet they seek to magnify the divide by catering to distinct racial niches within the campus. Without campus division, CalSERVE would have nothing to run on, so I’m not too confident that a Berkeley united beyond racial distinction will exist under CalSERVE auspices.

As I wrote before, Student Action is equally guilty of diversity-pandering. Part II will look at their worst offenders.

Last night was the affirmative action debate. BAMN, By any means necessary, brought their national spokesperson Shanta Driver while the Berkeley College Republicans brought Star Parker.

I think almost everyone walked into the room with a solid position on affirmative action. Most people went to cheer on their own side. During the evening, the talk moved away from the policy of affirmative action and its merits.

When Ms. Parker said, capitalism leads to wealth and redistribution leads to poverty, Ms. Driver laughed. Then I remembered the connections between BAMN and the communist group the Revolutionary Workers’ League. Check out this and its many links.

Ms. Driver put words into Ms. Parker’s mouth, claiming she thought black people were biologically inferior. Ms. Parker was called a “self-hating minority,” which later prompted a question from the audience (toward Ms. Driver) “How can I be a self-loving minority?”

During the question period, BAMN’s hearings on hostile climate toward minority students were brought up as evidence that racism still exists in a large way on the Berkeley campus. To me this was laughable. I went to one of their hearings on hostile climate. Two people I knew gave testimony about the discrimination they received. They were called “the puppet of the white man” and an “Aunt Jemima.” However, BAMN turned their cameras off, struck their testimony from the record, and laughed at them when they learned they were politically conservative.

Some of the people for affirmative action are willing to use children to advance their cause. During the question and answer period, a little kid got up to ask a question. The question he asked was not one he came up with himself, it had been written down for him to ask. The kid even had to ask the person next to him what one of the words was.

Does anyone have a favorite quote or point to share?

By now most of you have seen the chalk and flyers around campus advertising tonights debate. It’s hosted by BCR and BAMN, who have brought respectively Starr Parker and Shanta Driver. (Ms Driver debated Mason Weaver at the last such event.)

The event is happening at 6pm in 155 Dwinelle.

I’ll open it up to commentary on this/past/future debates on this topic. Is affirmative action right/necessary/ethical etc? Why is diversity important? IS this issue systemic, and why should we care about it? Go for it.

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.

On the same vein as my previous posts, “Your Black Muslim Bakery” has been the subject of investigation. Via Michelle Malkin, the establishment is bankrupt and apparently owing quite a bit of money.

According to court documents and public records, Your Black Muslim Bakery owes about $200,000 to the IRS; $100,000 to a creditor, Richard Stovall; and $11,000 to another creditor, Patricia Hill. In 2005, the bakery borrowed $625,000 from an Oakland mortgage company, Davis Mortgage Investment Fund.
The bakery did not file W-2 forms to the IRS in 2005 or 2006, and other filings showed discrepancies in wages paid to employees, Patricia Montero, an IRS attorney, told the judge Thursday.

Barbara Lee rescinds support:

“At the request of representatives of Your Black Muslim Bakery, my office provided a letter to a federal agency related to the bankruptcy,” Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, said in a statement issued Thursday. “Like many people, I historically supported the bakery because it has been an important institution in the community, but it is clear that is no longer the case. Knowing what we know now, we would not have provided such support, and we are reviewing our casework intake process in an effort to avoid any such circumstance in the future,” Lee said.

What Lee and others’ “support” constituted (from LGF):

Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums and Rep. Barbara Lee of Oakland found themselves in the unwelcome spotlight this week over the letters of support they wrote on behalf of the notorious Your Black Muslim Bakery, but they aren’t the only politicos who have supported the group over the years.

At the height of its power back in 1996, the splinter Muslim group - whose members were implicated in last week’s slaying of newspaper editor Chauncey Bailey - got the city to approve an advance on a $1.2 million federal redevelopment loan to launch training program for health care jobs. Within three months, the group had burned through $275,000 without turning out a single graduate.

They did, however, spend $650 a month to lease a Cadillac.

When asked to explain what was going on, the Black Muslim Bakery cadre - in one of their typical tactics - marched in unison from the bakery to City Hall, then entered the council chambers like a precision drill team, lining up along the room’s back walls.

“The message was very clear - we are watching you,” said City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente, who cast one of the votes against the group’s request.

Sorry for all the blockquoting, but it’s better if I don’t introduce typos in trying to transfer all this information. My elementary analysis is that this is indicative of corruption in Oakland. If police had to wait on a year-long investigation when this sort of information was readily available, they don’t have enough resources (this is a given). The result of this being a murder after so much other legal trouble surrounding the bakery shows that there isn’t enough enforcement, or the consequences aren’t severe enough. And that the officials don’t think to research the diverse groups they support (or just don’t care) shows that their priorities are off. The waste of so much money (from the taxpayers) is lamentable seeing as it should go towards law enforcement so that ordinary people who pay it can be safe from this sort of preventable violence.

(caveat: most of this is blindingly obvious. Apologies.)

The US has lots of religious communities, none of which are exempt from the law. The Mormon communities around the US, predominantly in Utah, obey our laws and are prosecuted when they don’t. Hence the manhunt for Warren Jeffs.

There are Menonite communities around the country who practice their own customs, and it doesn’t interfere with the laws of the country they live in.

Other non-mainstream groups like cults are brought to justice (if we can catch them before they catch the comet) or investigated if we can do so without being big brother.

The Amish are probably one of the most famous religious communities in the US, and even though violence does happen there occasionally (last year’s schoolhouse shooting) they abide by our laws too.

Then how is this ok? I had never heard about it before, nor the fact that there are two in California and one in my homestate of Washington. For those of you too lazy to click the link, there is a Muslim-only compound in upstate New York that runs itself on laws “considered above that of local, state, and federal authority”. The gate is marked by a manned sentry booth: they won’t let visitors or authorities in, even the local undertaker has to leave the bodies at the front gate. Locals (who won’t allow their names to be used for fear of retribution, mind you) regularly hear explosions and gunfire. Before joining the compound, members must take an oath: “that reads: “I shall always hear and obey, and whenever given the command, I shall readily fight for Allah’s sake”.

But wait, you say, can’t we do what we want on our own property, like hunt? Of course. But with mortars or c4? Places like these exist, as the article states:

In the past, thousands of members of the U.S. branches of Jamaat ul-Fuqra traveled to Pakistan for paramilitary training, but encampments, such as Islamberg, are now capable of providing book-camp training so raw recruits are no longer required to travel abroad amidst the increased scrutiny of post 9/11.

And I respond to that, if there is nothing to hide in this community, why can’t people visit? Even Amish country gives tours.

So the last post about France really got people commenting! I had no idea y’all were interested in France….er Israel so much. Anyway, this might interest you, being in slightly a similar vein (international things). And don’t worry, I won’t talk about how photogenic anyone is.

In this first article, Japan has opened a “baby hatch” so that parents can drop off unwanted children as an alternative to abortion which the article says has become commonplace. The Prime Minister is opposed to it, but the analysis of the article I rather agree with. Japan has a zero or negative population growth, characteristic of that type of post-industrial society. (The US might have the same problem if not for immigration). Dropping off children for adoption later will grow (if slightly) the population rather than if they children were aborted.

Next up to bat: apparently, the divorce rate is the lowest it’s been since 1970. This was a bit of a suprise to me, considering how the media hypes up these stats in the “culture war” or whatever you want to call it. The article says that more couples live together without marrying, and “other researchers have documented what they call “the divorce divide,” contending that divorce rates are indeed falling substantively among college-educated couples but not among less- affluent, less-educated couples”. So there’s some more incentive to graudate!

This article talks about another episode of religious appeasement, removing hospital crosses in Milan to “please muslims”. The article seems extreme, but later corrections (from people who could read the original italian) said it was one instance of a cross being removed. I picked this article as significant because of the stat: “Some 7,000 women give birth at the Mangiagalli each year. Of these, about 30 per cent are foreign immigrants, many of whom are not Catholic.” Rather than get all outraged and argue about Muslim or Christian sensibilities, consider the growing immigrant demographic in Europe which may save the countries from zero or negative population growth, and what that might mean.

Ok, go! comment!

My internet has been working sporadically, we are still here.

A few days ago an op-ed appeared in The Chronicle by Patriot Editor in Chief Andrew R. Quinio. He talked about race and its use in college.

Today in the Daily Cal there was an article about the latest buffoonery of the ASUC. Seven weeks after their eight week deadline they finally have an elections council chair. Jessica Wren will be running the elections for a second year. The important stuff has already been said by Beetle and in the comments.

The elections will proceed smoothly even with the late planning start. Last year Ms. Wren worked a miracle by getting the job done in the record time of a few weeks while implementing the new online voting system. Last year she even had to deal with senators who did not want to give her what she wanted because it might make her put less effort into her job.

The delay came from the Graduate Assembly. They failed to supply graduate students to help in this process in a timely manor. Last year the GA insisted on more control in the elections process and forced through a memoranda of understanding. After they demanded and won this power, they can’t even find graduate students to fill the committee.

The one suggestion I have for the Senate is find some people who will be around for a couple of years and have them learn how to run an election and be trained this cycle. Last year just about all the elections council experience had graduated and that made the job harder and more expensive.

If you want to read about last year’s election planning for old times sake check here.

From the pages of the New York Times comes this article, the latest salvo in the battle against meritocracy in college admissions. The campus discussed is our very own, and the problem? Apparently there are too many Asians.

That’s right. Forget the supposed underrepresentation of other minorities, the substandard public schools that lead to differing educational opportunities, or any of the other myriad reasons cited in arguments for the reintroduction of affirmative action. The biggest problem caused by Proposition 209 seems to be that it has increased the number of Asians on campus. After a few paragraphs of reminiscing about the good ol’ days of protests, pot, and Peoples’ Park, the author describes today’s Cal as something more like a “small, industrious city of über-students” due in large part to its ever-increasing share of Asians. Yeah, that’s not stereotypical or anything.

And, of course, if we’re not careful, this demographic nightmare could happen at other schools too!

“IF Berkeley is now a pure meritocracy, what does that say about the future of great American universities in the post-affirmative action age? Are we headed toward a day when all elite colleges will look something like Berkeley[?]”

I’m not one to cry “racism” needlessly, but seriously, why is it okay to talk about there being too many Asians on a college campus (or mock Asian languages) and not okay to do this for other people? Oh, that’s right, because there aren’t any prominent Asians who make a living by telling people that it’s not okay.

This double-standard aside, it’s yet another example of how the proponents of racial preferences seem to think that race is a truly defining characteristic of a person. Diversity is hard to achieve if 41% of the people on your campus are all exactly the same…again, that’s not at all racist to think along those lines.

Now, okay, hyperbole aside, let’s take a long hard look at this reasoning.

“The oft-cited goal of a public university is to be a microcosm — in this case, of the nation’s most populous, most demographically dynamic state — and to enrich the educational experience with a variety of cultures, economic backgrounds and viewpoints.”

That’s all well and good to say, but if we want to be truly representative of all of California, shouldn’t we be taking people who aren’t academically qualified at all for Berkeley? People who haven’t completed high school? People who didn’t pass the high school exit exam? Reminds me of G. Harrold Carswell, the supposedly mediocre nominee for the Supreme Court who was defended by a couple Senators who argued that mediocre Americans deserved representation too.

Obviously a university isn’t trying to be truly representative of its state, not in all senses. Why then is race a special category? Diversity’s nice, but a school looking for students should try and pick the best *students*, whatever racial mix that process yields.

From the NY Times:

To celebrate the 10th anniversary of his best-known achievement, the friends of Ward Connerly, a crusader against affirmative action, did not buy him a cake, give him a party, or pop some Champagne.

They filed a lawsuit…

It is a role that earned Mr. Connerly, a wealthy black businessman, no small number of critics, as well as ardent supporters like the Pacific Legal Foundation, which filed suit on Wednesday against the Berkeley Unified School District. The suit accuses the district of using race to determine which elementary schools students attend and whether high school students have access to certain classes.

More coverage from the SF Chronicle.

Way to celebrate!

Sad news from Truth Caucus (via Wonkette):

Justin Zatkoff, the executive director of the Michigan College Republicans, was brutally beaten after leaving a party in Ann Arbor on Saturday night. The Oakland University junior from Bloomfield Hills, Mich. was rumored to be targeted by militant leftist groups. Zatkoff, pictured above, did not know his attacker, and no money was stolen.

A source close to Zatkoff reports:

Justin may have been 1. randomly attacked (but not robbed??), 2. attacked by BAMN (well known for violence andstrong in Ann Arbor), or 3. attacked by a homosexual rights group (Justin received an ‘odd/threatening’ email from a gay rights group about a day before the attack.)

I’m not one to jump to conclusions. I go with the assumption of random violence unless there’s credible evidence otherwise. There’s something unsavory about using a personal tragedy to score political points, especially when a connection is pure speculation.

I blogged about another case of violence in Michigan last year, where a BAMN member was murdered and a BAMN supporter tried to place the blame on their political opponents. He quickly retracted.

In any case, let’s hope that the victim recovers and that the criminals are found and punished.

In case you avoid the Daily Cal, just wanted to point out this great article by Cal Alum Cameron Huey about affirmative action:

Affirmative action itself is an amplification of the myth of the model minority. Most people are acquainted with the idea that because Asian Americans are succeeding, they seldom face discrimination and have comparatively few predicaments in society.

Affirmative action is an appendage of this abominable myth that takes it one step further: Because Asian Americans have no predicaments, they should be amenable to sacrificing themselves for the greater good of “diversity.” Other minority groups necessitate a handout. Asian Americans, being docile followers, will easily succumb to the erosion of their civil rights for whoever’s interests are more important. Our rights are secondary to “diversity” and the interests of other minorities and whites.

Our challenge is to craft an alternative to affirmative action but not demarcate us based on race and not exclusively prevent Asian Americans from receiving equal opportunity.

Check the whole thing.