I was just at a rally on Sproul to eliminate the SAT. The rally claimed the SAT was biased and a tool of discrimination to keep low income people and minorities out of college. Organized by BAMN, By Any Means Necessary, it was a standard rally of theirs. All of the usual BAMN suspects were there, like Ronald Cruz who has been around as long as anyone can remember and Yvette Felarca, who graduated two years ago after a ridiculously long time here.

In the words of Ronald Cruz, standardized tests are “degrading and anti-human.” He said they do not measure his leadership, his Filipino heritage, or the struggles he faces as a gay man. What Cruz should know is the SAT does not measure those things for anyone who takes it. No one is awarded an advantage or disadvantage for those factors only how well they can do on the test.

There are two things that mystify me. If BAMN really wants high school students to do well and get into college, why do they hold rallies on a college campus in the middle of the day and encourage high school students to come? Going to a rally in the middle of a school day will not help any student learn any of the subjects necessary to do well in school.

Secondly, why were they chanting in Spanish? With the exception of language classes, all classes at this University are in English. If they want students to get into college and be successful they should be encouraging and using the English language. Yelling “Yes we can” in Spanish is pointless.

BAMN does not have a history of doing what is helpful to anyone but itself. If anyone wants an example of how far BAMN has gone to get what they want, check out what happened three years ago when they took the ASUC to court.

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!

Andrew Quinio reports on today’s union protest on campus for higher wages and against the Diversity Czar:

A group of protesters gathered outside California Hall, the building that houses the office of Chancellor Robert Birgeneau, to decry what they considered “poverty wages” being paid to University of California custodial staff. About 40 people participated in the demonstration, including UC Berkeley students and UC employees represented by the AFSCME Local 3299, the union representing state, county, and municipal employees. Protestors marched in circles during the late afternoon and yelled out several slogans, while others gathered signatures for a petition that expressed support for their cause…

But wages were not the only thing that the crowd was upset about. What initially sparked today’s protest was the announcement of the new Vice Chancellor of Equity and Inclusion position. The new post, announced by Chancellor Birgeneau in late August, will come with a salary of between $182,000 and $282,000 and a budget of $4.5 million. “The 4.5 million budget is appalling,” Schlitz said. According to Schlitz, the Chancellor told the union that there was simply no money to increase the salaries of the custodial staff.

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.

Chancellor Birgeneau:

The second major initiative we have, and this is actually the first public announcement of this, is that at Berkeley we are creating a new leadership position which will be at the highest level other than chancellor and it will be a vice chancellor for equity and inclusion. Right after Labor Day, we’ll be putting together a committee, which I will chair, to begin a national search to fill this position…

This position is relatively new in the United States. I want to emphasize that this is very different from what is at most universities… [where] there’s a single person who’s special assistant, say, to the president or the chancellor, and that this person will have a large organization under them and will act with authority on these matters.

One has to wonder what sort of “matters” the “vice chancellor for equity and inclusion” will “act with authority on.” It all sounds like a waste of time and money, accomplishing nothing but feeding the egos of those who thrive on feel-good positions of power.

The not-so-hidden objective is obviously getting around Proposition 209, the state’s affirmative action ban. That has been Birgeneau’s plan all along. Everything else about sexual orientation, religion, disabilities, etc. is just a smokescreen. It’s about 209.

And even if it’s about more than 209, I still don’t see the point. Birgeneau states:

“to be part of this community, they’re not required to homogenize and assimilate into basically one set of identical people with a single set of views.”

I completely agree, this is what makes us human. So keep it at that. Why set up these wasteful bureaucracies when the only requirement for people to be free is to just let them be? Personally, I think that this “large organization” that can “act with authority” will only serve to make things worse, pitting minority against minority.

Here’s hoping we’ll at least get some good blog fodder from the new V.C.E.I.

Though Ward Connerly has retired from being a UC Regent, he continues to fight against state-sponsored discrimination. His Prop. 209-style Michigan Civil Rights Initiative has a good chance of passing, which terrifies the status quo. As a result, the regressive opposition is trying whatever it takes to torpedo Connerly:

Two Democratic congressmen have asked the IRS to investigate whether affirmative-action foe Ward Connerly’s pay violates federal tax laws on excessive compensation… Connerly receives more than $1 million a year from two Sacramento-based non-profit groups he heads — the American Civil Rights Institute and the American Civil Rights Coalition.

“This compensation package… raises more than a red flag,” said Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan. “IRS rules could not be clearer that a non-profit’s purpose is not to pad the pockets of its executives.”

Connerly said the request by Conyers and Rep. Charles Rangel of New York was a response to his support for a November ballot measure in Michigan that would ban some affirmative-action programs.

“This is so transparently political as to be laughable,” Connerly said.

Connerly said his pay package was reviewed by his accountants and was “fully reported to the Internal Revenue Service in accordance with all applicable regulations.”

I don’t have any comments about the details of the allegations, but I don’t really see any wrongdoing. But it’s so blatantly obvious why these Democrats have decided to take this tactic. They can’t win the argument with reason, so they are resorting to personal attacks. I hope the people of Michigan can see through this game and judge a good idea on its merits instead of damning it by association.

Politics is an ugly thing.

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.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

Via a student mailing list:

The Office of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education is pleased to announce a unique opportunity for Berkeley undergraduates to participate in an action research seminar designed to enhance the campus’s understanding of issues of diversity and inclusion…

The research findings will be presented to Chancellor Birgeneau, senior campus administrators, and other campus and community stakeholders at the end of the semester and will help inform campus policy decisions and initiatives regarding diversity and inclusion.

Chancellor Birgeneau has been pushing his anti-209 agenda since he first arrived at Berkeley. In both speech and action, his intentions are clear: bring back affirmative action. It appears that his latest tactic involves granting university credit to students willing to further his campaign:

Ethnic Studies 198: The Prop. 209 Project

Co-Instructors: Professor David Montejano, Ethnic Studies; Professor Taeku Lee, Political Science
Time: Tuesday 4-6 PM (first class meets on January 24)
Location: Shorb House Conference Room, 2547 Channing Way @ Bowditch
Number of Units: 2
Course Enrollment: 12
Requirements: Students must have completed a minimum of 60 units.

Course Description: In the 1990s, California voters passed a series of “anti-diversity” referenda-the “anti-immigrant” Prop. 187 in 1994, the “anti-affirmative action” Prop. 209 in 1996, and the “anti-bilingual education” Prop. 227 in 1998. Many have interpreted these results as a backlash against the rapid demographic changes taking place in the State. In this research seminar, we will examine this hypothesis-and also speculate about possible antidotes. Taking Prop. 209 as our chief case study, we will explore the various facets that made this campaign a successful one, including looking at the weaknesses of the “pro-affirmative action” campaign. In the first part of the course, you will map out the likely geography of anti-diversity, pro-diversity and swing districts in the State. In the second part of the course, you will use this analysis to craft a political strategy for a successful “pro-diversity” initiative in the State. What kind of voter turnouts would be necessary, what kind of campaign would have to be mounted, what “framings” of affirmative action policies are most likely to succeed, what contextual factors have to be in place, and so forth? This second part of the class will allow for considerable creativity on your part. Projects will be evaluated on an individual basis. A presentation of each project will take place at the end of the semester.

I’m guessing that there won’t be much “diversity” of thought in this purely political course. All the dissenters will be weeded out long before the time comes to craft the “pro-diversity” political strategy. So Birgeneau gets his blueprints for a future initative, and the grunts get two units closer to attaining their Ethnic Studies degree. Everyone wins! That is, except for the people of California.

Our beloved chancellor in the Daily Cal:

“We will not be able to have an environment which I consider non-discriminatory until we repeal 209,” Birgeneau said.

I think that speaks for itself.

On a related note, the following event will be held tonight:

STUDENT PUBLIC HEARING ON RACISM AND HOSTILE CLIMATE FOR UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITY STUDENTS AT UC-BERKELEY

* Students Demand Increase in Underrepresented Minority Student Enrollment *
* Chancellor Robert Birgeneau Will Attend *

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2005, 6:00-8:00pm
Multi-Cultural Center, 2nd Floor of MLK Student Union
Building, UC-Berkeley (near Bancroft and Telegraph)

Choice quote from BAMN leader Yvette Felarca:

“The situation for underrepresented and all minority students at Berkeley is becoming increasingly intolerable.”

The following was sent to one of the student mailing lists that I’m subscribed to. It’s from bridges, a “multicultural resource center” on campus:

Prop 209 Awareness Week!!!

The repercussions of Prop 209 proved detrimental to the bridges community, as numbers of students of color dropped dramatically. [sic]

Tuesday, November 1st:
See what all the hype is about at Visibility on Sproul @ 12pm on Upper Sproul
(in collaboration w/ RAZA Tuesdays at Chicano Corner of MLK student Union near the fountain)
Bring $10 to buy an infamous “209 is fucked” American Apparel t-shirt!
and
Find out how you can get involved at the First Coalition Meeting @ 7pm in Senate Chambers
(in collaboration with Students For Access to Education)

Wednesday, November 2nd:
Get the facts straight and the talking points right at the Prop 209 Teach-in @ 7pm in 251 Dwinelle
(featuring Guy Johnson from the Boalt School of Law)

and so on and so forth, culminating in some good old-fashioned lobbying in Sacramento at the end of the week. The end of the email reads:

PROP 209 LEAVES MANY BEHIND!!!
PROP 209 IS PROGRESS IN REWIND!!!

followed by:

NOT AFFILIATED WITH BAMN

in a tiny font.

But before it seems like I’m doing some free advertising (I guess I kind of am), let’s get to the real point of this post. This email was sent out by Justine Lazaro, one of the leaders of bridges and last year’s CalSERVE presidential candidate. Now sending out this email may have only been a requirement of her position and not an endorsement of the views within, but I seem to recall Justine being against affirmative action… In fact, one of our writers exposed this fact last year:

Lazaro then delivers the crushing, final blow when she expresses her views on affirmative action. The Xanga reads, �No I�m not a Democrat and I�m not for affirmative action. Before you put me on your hit list, ask me why? To be brief, as far as party affiliation, I am a very issue-based person and I don�t like anyone thinking for me. As far as affirmative action goes, I don�t think it helps the right people and I think there are better ways of dealing with institutionalized racism.� This would most likely disappoint anyone supporting the progressive CalSERVE platform.

These are her own words, from her very own blog that was pulled soon after her candidacy was announced. I actually voted for her based on that article. So what went wrong? Let’s list the possibilities: (1) She was against affirmative action a year or so ago, but now she’s not. Fair enough, people change their views for a variety of reasons. (2) She’s opposed to affirmative action, but even more opposed to Prop 209. Strange, but I’m sure there’s some kind of convoluted political philosophy that could account for this. Or (3) she’s still opposed to affirmative action, but she’s willingly hurting her own cause anyway.

Option 3 is both the best and the worst explanation. The best because she’d still be on the right side. The worst because she’d be a hypocrite. But there’s still hope. Maybe she could take a cue from Michael Douglas’ character in the movie Traffic, where he, the drug czar, publicly breaks down when he realizes his own hypocrisy.

Until then, we’ll keep you updated from the frontlines of the War on 209.

From the standpoint of advancing any kind of intellectual argument about the relative benefits and drawbacks of AA last nights debate between Mason Weaver and Shanta Driver of BAMN did not do much in that arena. What it did provide were some nice amusing moments. Drum Roll please:

Most Obnoxious: That Oakland school teacher who used her question time to yell and make declarative statements.

Most Provocative:When Mr. Weaver declared that he wanted to put the public school education system along with that Oakland teacher out of business.

Most Clich�: Mrs. Driver�s comments were dominated by lots of recycled rhetoric.

Rudest #1:The kids seated in my vicinity on the left side of the room. Yelling repeatedly while others talk wins you last place at the kindergarten awards, yet strangely it�s in vogue at a major university.

Rudest #2: Mr. Weaver was fairly rude towards the end but by that point the audience had already instigated it by throwing derogatory remarks his way.

Best Point: Whoever asked the question about Asians and Institutional Racism

Worst Point: Mrs. Drivers continual categorization of underrepresented minorities as ideologically homogenous. Sorry Mrs. Driver you do not speak for me!

Best Quote: �We have a system, it�s called capitalism.�- Mr. Weaver

Worst Quote: �We need to build a new civil rights movement.� Mrs. Driver. Hopefully it gets built in fantasyland.

Worst Attempt at Staying Neutral: Dean Holub� We know how you really feel!

I am thinking of going to go to the �Minorities Oppressed at Cal� event BAMN is hosting to pick a verbal fight with those people. Someone needs to speak up for �underrepresented minorities� who do not feel victimized, do not feel discriminated against, and generally resent civil rights imperialists unfairly grouping them into their misguided struggle.

If anyone wants to come observe, hit me up. It would be nicer not to feel alone in front of what will surely be a hostile crowd!

This just in from the AP, “Blacks Still a Minority at UC Berkeley“:

This fall’s incoming class of 4,000 students at the University of California, Berkeley is expected to include just 129 black freshmen, a disturbing trend to leaders of the socially progressive and academically elite school…

The number of black freshmen this fall is slightly higher than last year but still an extreme minority.

There’s something a bit off with that headline. In fact, even if Chancellor Birgeneau and Co. reach their goal of a racially representative student body, blacks would still be a minority.

The expected freshman class at Berkeley will be about 47 percent Asian-American. Birgeneau says “we all should be extraordinarily proud of” that achievement, but the success needs to spread to other groups.

Translation: let’s get rid of Prop. 209 so others can be “successful” without working as hard.

I haven’t posted much into the War on 209 file this summer, but school is starting up again, and Chancellor Birgeneau and Co. are ready to defend all that is divisive in the name of diversity.

The Contra Costa Times on the latest development:

A new UC Berkeley think tank will research whether Proposition 209, the state ballot measure that ended affirmative action at California universities, could be challenged successfully in court.

Run by the Boalt Hall law school, the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity and Diversity will take on one of the most contentious issues in higher education: whether race should be used as a factor in college admissions…

A written description of the new institute provided to the Times by the law school says the center will research “the legal limits on aggressive efforts to promote inclusion in higher education” and an “agenda to inform future public consideration of revisions or repeal” of Prop. 209.

Wow, an entire institute dedicated to repealing one law. They certainly don’t hold any grudges…

For a UC campus to consider challenging state law is “ill-advised,” said former UC Regent Ward Connerly, Prop. 209’s author.

“This is no longer a proposition, this is the Constitution,” Connerly said.

Boalt Hall Dean Christopher Edley and UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau declined to comment on the institute.

This is your big accomplishment Chancellor, something you’ve been talking about all year. Why so quiet now?

“There’s good reason to believe that a legal challenge to Prop. 209 would be successful,” said Anthony Lising Antonio, a Stanford University higher education professor. “It’s probably a good time to bring these issues back into the public debate.” […]

UC Berkeley is “blowing smoke” by considering a legal fight, said attorney Sharon Browne of the Pacific Legal Foundation, which has defended against past challenges to Prop. 209.

“I don’t know what UC Berkeley would have left to challenge,” Browne said. “What a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

I don’t know what Earl Warren personally believed in regarding affirmative action, but maybe the institute can hang up this quote of his on the wall:

“All provisions of federal, state or local law requiring or permitting discrimination in public education must yield.”