The UC system prides itself on providing quality higher education for residents of California. However, it currently lacks the ability to meet this goal because it is not responsive enough to its customers: the students. Intellectuals and pundits have argued over the reasons for California’s sagging educational performance for the better part of a decade, but they tend to ignore input from the students for whom the educational system exists.

If the self-pronounced education experts consulted with students, they would find solutions to the real issues that need be addressed. The flaws range from complex national issues like book prices, to institutional shortcomings like tenure policies that prioritize research over teaching ability, and often lead to vague, standardized lectures and over-reliance on Power Point presentations.

In the case of the college textbook market, supply and demand are controlled by professors and major publishing companies, not the actual customers. The publishing companies have a natural interest in selling as many new books as possible. Professors, who can earn hundreds of thousands of dollars per contract, have an incentive to continue renewing with the publishing companies. In order to prevent resale, the companies and professors collaborate to make minor adjustments to the old edition, forcing students to buy the newest version each year or else risk compatibility issues with the lesson plan. The result is a never ending cycle. It’s what many economists have dubbed a “broken market”. Sadly, the “broken” theme isn’t restricted to textbooks.

Tenure policies at many institutions of higher education can be a good way to retain professors who might not be very well paid. However, many schools have prioritized the standing research of their faculty over the ability of professors to efficiently pass on knowledge to students. This prompts the question: What does it mean to be a high ranking university? Unfortunately, intellectual accomplishments and groundbreaking research bolster the perceived prestige of an institution and garner more attention than world-class instructors. After all, it’s much flashier for a university to claim to be home to the professor who discovered time-travel than it is to claim that your professors did the best job of educating students on the discovery. Again, the students’ interests are not adequately addressed by a policy that seeks to protect entrenched interests in education.

The issue of declining quality of education boils down to conflicts of interest like these. Administrators, politicians and countless education boards have convinced the public that the problem lies in the underfunding of education. There is enough money to maintain a system of quality education, but only if the students hold universities accountable.

While Elena Kagan’s confirmation this summer didn’t change the balance of political power on the Court, it will shift the Court’s legal philosophy. Kagan, a long-time supporter of the Administrative State, revealed in her testimony that she doesn’t think much of the idea of checks and balances in the Constitution. She posited that, while the Constitution expressly states that all legislative power resides in – you guessed it – the legislature, it is sufficient for Congress to simply lay out a broad policy objective and then delegate the actual legislating to federal bureaucrats, reducing the three branches down to two. But then she went on to assert that there are no limits on what the Executive branch could do, declaring that a “federal eat-your-vegetables” law “might” be Constitutional. Her readiness to emasculate the Legislative and Judicial branches, and empower the Executive, does not bode well for liberty.

2. Unequal Protection

Franklin D. Roosevelt once remarked that the national government’s central planners should not be afraid to experiment, but should instead be given unlimited license to use citizens as guinea pigs. If a social engineering experiment failed, planners should admit their mistakes and try something new. Obama has taken that message to heart, but, like any good scientist, has added control groups. Title II of Obama-care, which deals primarily with Medicaid, directs the Health and Human Services Secretary to create no fewer than four “demonstration projects,” selecting multiple sets of states and subjecting each to different regulations! At least when FDR experimented with people’s lives, he honored the constitutional principle of equal protection of the law.

3. Not-So-Regular Joe Falls Afoul of Campaign Laws

While the Left has traditionally supported restricting political speech through campaign finance reform, Biden is coming to see some of its effects firsthand: the Vice President has been ordered by the FEC to pay $219,000 for violations of finance laws. Spokeswoman Elizabeth Alexander noted that “…repayment is commonplace after presidential campaign audits.” It seems the public should have no problem entrusting the enforcement of these laws to the same politicians who regularly violate them. What could possibly go wrong with the ruling class having the authority to decide what speech shall or shall not be permitted?

4. Ron Paul 2012?

Insider Matt Collins reports that 2008 Presidential contender Ron Paul is preparing to run again in 2012. A poster boy for “Constitutional Conservatism,” the Texas Republican is a foil for Obama. Paul, whose nickname “Dr. No” references both his occupation and the fact that he refuses to vote for legislation not authorized by the Constitution, has earned a reputation advocating sharp foreign policy changes, sound money, and subsidiarity – the principle of radical decentralization.

Many incoming freshmen to the University of California were made aware of the issue by a series of angry riots throughout the 2009-2010 school year. However, the protesters inaccurately characterized the situation as a stark “good guy, bad guy” conflict between the students and the administration, and gave incoming freshmen a false view of an important issue: their tuition. Students should know the facts of the matter, which were generally absent from the shouts and signs of the protesting masses.

Of course, nobody likes to pay more, but the plan approved by the Regents came about due to state spending cuts made necessary by a bad economy and plummeting revenues. Consequently, the University of California is expected to encounter a $1.2 billion budget gap this year. In order to bridge that gap, the administration has had to make several difficult but necessary choices. This has meant furlough days, increases in out-of-state enrollment, and program cuts. Despite these efforts, the University still could not sustain its prestige without making further adjustments. The recent student fee increase will generate an additional $913 million in order to prevent additional cuts that would adversely affect the quality of education. As UC President Mark Yudof stated, “We’re being forced to impose a user tax on our students and their families.” Although it is painful for a student to see his tuition increased by 32% from the previous year, this change is vital for our underfunded university.

Protesters often claim that poorer students will be hit hardest by this new development and will no longer be able to continue their education. This argument is a result of an apparent lack of research and knowledge on the part of the protesters, who hear the words “fee increase” and immediately raise their signs, interrupt classes, take over university buildings, and block streets and highways. In fact, a new financial aid program known as the Blue and Gold Opportunity Plan will offset the cost of the fee increase for resident students whose family income is less than $70,000. Additionally, half of the fee increase will be covered for resident students with a family income below $120,000. This is made possible by an additional $175 million budgeted towards financial aid.

Despite the widespread protests against the tuition increase, students at UC Berkeley voted in favor of the expensive “B.E.A.R.S. Initiative” 70-30 during the 2010 student elections. According to the initiative’s website, the $220 million project aims to “revitalize Lower Sproul, emphasize sustainability, and promote student interests,” and will retrofit Eshleman Hall, renovate the Student Union building, and create a meditation space, among other unnecessary additions and modifications. Roughly half of the project will be funded by the University, with the remaining $110 million supported by new student fees in the next few decades. The approval of the B.E.A.R.S. Initiative reflects an inconsistency among the vast number of students who were protesting tuition increases throughout last year. It shows how quickly many students at UC Berkeley turn against their own alleged opinions and it reveals a lack of realism concerning the financial issues facing students.

Students are free to believe what they want, but when large numbers of protesters misrepresent the issue of tuition increases, it significantly skews the views of other students who haven’t had the time to research the matter. The incoming freshman class at UC Berkeley should explore all the facts before constructing an opinion. An informed opinion is the best immunity against the ignorant groupthink of a protesting mob.

Land for peace has never worked in history except for one exception: Israel’s relinquishing of the Sinai to Egypt in 1979. However, the peace with Egypt was more of an exception to the rule rather than the norm, as other Arab states have not made any attempts for peace such as Jordan and Egypt. In 1993, when Israel yielded sovereignty over the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinians never followed through with their promise to end propaganda attacks and recognize Israel’s right to exist. The Palestinian National Charter still calls for Israel’s destruction.

History does not need another Neville Chamberlain. In 2005, Israel removed all Jews from the Gaza Strip without condition except for one: Gilad Shalit, an Israeli held by the terrorist organization Hamas. In return, Israel received an onslaught of terrorist attacks with over 8,000 rocket attacks launched from evacuated Jewish communities. We cannot allow the Arabs to call for more of Israel to be declared a Judenrein. We also cannot afford sacrificing another six million Jews at the hand of present-day dictators who preach hatred for the Jewish people and the Jewish State.

The truth is that the Arabs have not done enough to seek peace. The PA continues to glorify terrorists by naming town squares after “martyrs” and spreading propaganda in school textbooks. Israel recognizes all Arab countries but they have yet to do the same with Israel as a Jewish State. Israel has continuously sought direct talks rather than indirect proximity talks. The Palestinians continue to demand preconditions for direct negotiations, however these stipulations should be agreed upon by both parties.

Meanwhile, Israel has constantly shown its commitment. For the first time, a right-wing government has accepted and is determined to negotiate a two-state solution. Prime Minister Netanyahu has put in a place a moratorium on new construction in the West Bank and has removed approximately 409 checkpoints and roadblocks since April 2008. Within the month of June 2010, Israel dismantled 52 alone. The Arabs and Palestinians are reversing the progress made in the past, as neither Yasir Arafat nor Mahmoud Abbas have ever made preconditions about settlements, Jerusalem, or borders before their direct negotiations.

Pressure on Israel impedes progress, as Israel will not negotiate when it feels like it is endangered. Israel has sought the security and peace of both its people and its neighbors since its founding in 1948. Campaigns to delegitimize Israel, a lack of normalization and diplomacy, and unreasonable preconditions only serve to continue the conflict. Israel has shown it is ready to make peace. When will the Arabs and Palestinians do the same?

First, it is important to recognize exactly what is being proposed. First of all, the online UC will essentially function as a separate, virtual campus. Any degrees earned will not be from a specific campus. For example, I could not move back to Sacramento and earn my UC Berkeley political science degree from my couch. Furthermore, contrary to what some seem to think, the classes will still be taught by full rank professors and supplemented with GSI contact, exactly as they are now.

So let’s look of the claim by the faculty and graduate student unions, that the quality of a UC degree will be cheapened by the online campus. Upon examination, this argument is ludicrous and those who are promoting it probably shouldn’t be teaching at any UC, online or otherwise, if they actually believe it. The University of California currently has ten campuses and each issues its own degrees. A degree from UC Berkeley is different from a degree from UC Riverside and any employer or graduate school knows it. The online campus presumably would also have its own degrees. The quality of a UC Berkeley or UCLA degree won’t be hampered by the opening of an online university any more than it was diminished by the opening of UC Merced.

The real reason that faculty and graduate students oppose the online university is that they fear it would make them less needed. This may be true – it would seem likely that an online university would need less instructors since a lecture could be viewed by an infinite number of students (though Edley disagrees with this, nothing that instructors would still be needed for grading and answering student questions). While instructors losing jobs certainly is not a good thing, it is important to note that the argument is based on self interest, not concern for students or the institution as a whole.

The other group that has been screaming and howling about the “cyber UC” has been the left wing activist contingent. They claim that it is a furthering of the “privatization” of the UC, the label attached to just about anything they disagree with. The logic behind this claim is a mystery. I suppose the argument might be that they believe the university should demand more money from the legislature instead of looking for other creative sources of revenue. This of course is absurd – even if the legislature was prepared to give more money to the UC system (earth to protesters, they aren’t – that’s supposedly why you are in the streets, remember?) that would be no excuse for the university to not look at other sources of revenue and for ways to cut back.

I am guessing the real motivation behind the activist wing is that they are concerned about the jobs that might be lostand are sticking up for their union buddies. Ultimately however, the university is not a jobs program. Like any other institution, it cannot give people jobs just for the sake of them having jobs. That’s the quickest path to bankruptcy (or actual instead of imagined privatization).

While there are still a lot of details left to be revealed, plans for an online UC should not be derailed by the concerns brought forward so far. Almost exclusively, they seem to show more of a concern for union jobs then the overall health of the institution.

Compatriots! It is my pleasure to head off the new school year as the Patriot’s Editor-in-Chief, and I look forward to leading an excellent staff.

This issue features a Point-Counterpoint – the first in a long time! – on Proposition 19, an initiative that would drastically reshape California drug policy. Opinion Editor Charlie Deist writes the Point in favor of ending drug prohibition, while I assess how Prop 19 will fall short.

Included is a poll asking for your input on the matter – be sure to go and vote and check out our blog. Over this summer, Managing Editor Andy Nevis rebooted the blog, and our staff will be regularly adding content. Andy has also written on Cal’s rendition of the national anthem and the innovative virtual UC program.

Our articles for this issue also include: Romik Barseghian on last year’s fee increases; Rick Chen on Israel; myself on California’s prison system; Casey Given on race relations in Berkeley; and new staffer Robert Williamson on conflicts of interest in the UC system. Enjoy!

Your Compatriot,

Andrew Glidden

Foremost among the public policy objectives of Prop 19 is improving the criminal justice system by reducing criminalization. The intent is to stop wasting resources prosecuting largely victimless activities and divert police attention to more serious offenses. Prop 19 does no such thing. While it would legalize the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana, this amount is already decriminalized and is not an arrestable offense, and possession is also already being downgraded to an infraction. The California Police Chiefs Association admits that they do not enforce the law in cases involving under an ounce. Taken together, these factors make the effects of legalization on reducing arrests for possession trivial.

The law would actually exacerbate many of the enforcement problems we currently face by creating new demographics of groups to jail. The law would make it expressly illegal to give marijuana to anyone under 21, under penalty of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine, yet the current penalty is only a $100 fine. Even smoking in the presence of minors can result in arrests – even for those who use the drug medicinally. By reclassifying minor offenses into more serious ones, Prop 19 would actually result in more enforcement and higher costs. The initiative would make it illegal to possess marijuana purchased from anyone other than a State-licensed dispensary. That removes the presumption of innocence from the court system, shifting the burden of proof onto the citizen, and allows the State to create legal monopolies, which would remove competition and advance corporate rather than consumer interests. That’s bad jurisprudence and bad economics.

The second main purpose, revenue generation, is just as more problematic. Like any tax, it would shift resources away from useful economic activity toward the already bloated California government. If a person is going to be buying marijuana whether or not a tax is in place, the amount paid as tax would have instead gone to other things, such as consumer goods. And while proponents claim it will reduce the efficacy of cartels, the tax rate of $50/oz currently being recommended will maintain a black market and all the other crimes that come with it; because the black market would dodge the tax, the projected $1.4 billion in revenues will never materialize. Because the initiative lends itself to corporatization of the marijuana trade, it will also generate a new kind of cartel – a small set of corporations with strong vested interests in manipulating public policy. Perhaps worst of all, it creates a government addiction to vice: the State will have a financial interest in citizens lighting up, which will conflict with the broader objective of sobriety (or at least restraint).

The proposal to tax marijuana relies on two very dangerous presumptions: that California’s fiscal problems are the result of insufficient taxes, rather than exorbitant spending, and that the State should treat politically marginalized groups – those who consume cigarettes, alcohol, gasoline, and now weed – as beasts of burden, to support the ever expanding government bureaucracy.

The consequences of Prop 19 are clear: less freedom and more government controls. If Californians want to legalize marijuana, Prop 19 simply won’t do it. We need an alternative that will very simply remove possession, consumption, and trade of marijuana from the penal code, which would reduce costs for the criminal justice system and promote competition. If Californians also want to tax marijuana, they should do so by including it in the sales tax, not by imposing additional excise taxes.

It’s a Cal football tradition. After the band concludes playing its traditional pump up pregame show, it leads the stadium, Cal and visiting fans alike, in a rendition of the national anthem: “And the rockets’ BLUE glare, …, For the land of the freeeeee, and the home of the BEARS!!!” Okay, not quite what Francis Scott Key intended. But it is what many Cal fans, the student section in particular, recite when the Golden Bears prepare to take the field. It is also a feature at basketball games, volleyball, rugby, and any other event where a critical mass of Cal fans are on hand for a rendition of the national anthem.

As an avid Cal fan, this is one tradition that has troubled me ever since I arrived on campus two years ago. It just doesn’t seem right to change the words to the national anthem. My sentiments are not shared by most of my fellow rabid Cal fans, however. They inform me that the alterations are in good taste, and indeed quite patriotic. The fact that we care enough to change the words means that we still care enough about the song to pay attention to it, one said. Another said that it is better to sing an altered version than none at all. Yet another, a pyrotechnic fanatic, informed me that it is likely the rockets Francis Scott Key saw on that fateful September 1814 night in Baltimore were actually blue, not red. Apparently he was colorblind.

I agree that there is no intent to disrespect the nation, the flag, or those who serve it. It’s simply Cal students’ way to have a little fun. However, intending to cause no disrespect doesn’t mean that others may not perceive it as such. I have heard from numerous opposing fans, casual Cal fans, and even some Old Blues who are shocked and offended upon hearing the Cal anthem for the first time. Consider this comment posted on a UCLA message board after last year’s Cal-UCLA game at the Rose Bowl: “I used to actually respect that university [Cal] but after seeing their fans chanting or whatever they were doing that was not singing the national anthem while the rest of the stadium was I have lost most if not all the respect I had for them,” wrote Bruin fan “Ed.”

Keep in mind that this was following a game in which the Bears spanked UCLA 45-26, which included an epic 93 yard touchdown run by Javid Best. It was no surprise that Bruin fans were annoyed. Yet instead of simply being peeved at the Bears for being so much better than his beloved team, Cal fans gave this fan a legitimate reason to attack our university.

But more than that, the alterations ignore the true purpose of the national anthem. It is sung or played at sporting events to remind players, coaches, and spectators of the reason they can play the game in a safe andfree country – our brave men and women in uniform. It is a time for unity, a time for both sides to come together and celebrate our nation and our freedom. It’s a subtle reminder that sporting events are merely entertaining distractions – the truly meaningful competition takes place on battlefields around the world, with much more than a trophy (or an Axe) at stake.

The Star Spangled Banner should never be a Cal spirit song. While seemingly creative and harmless, doing so undermines the one moment of unity among the crowd (unless it is the annual rugby game against the University of British Columbia, in which case all bets are off). The rest of the game will pit the teams and fans against one another – surely the competition can pause for just a minute to honor our country.

On September 11, the ninth anniversary of that terrible day, the Cal Bears will take the field against the Colorado Buffalos. How special would it be if 70,000 Cal and Colorado fans alike could join in a stirring rendition of our nation’s greatest song on that tragic day.

The so-called Noble Experiment, or National Prohibition Act of the 1920’s offers a historical case study of what happens when a highly demanded product is made illegal. Alcohol prohibition created a brand new market for criminal services in bootlegging, racketeering and, above all, violence. The same social ills exist today as a result of unnecessary drug prohibition. Californians have an opportunity to participate in another experiment this November, by allowing a legal market for marijuana to replace the current black market.

Many opponents of Proposition 19 believe that the inherent nature of the drug trade lends itself to cartelization and violent gang activity. However, history has shown that organized crime groups were never involved in the alcohol business until it was prohibited and have not been involved again since its repeal in 1933. The logic behind this is simple. Prohibition creates substantial risks of prosecution for producers who are looking to make a profit by satisfying consumer demand for the drug. As a result, only those with a criminally high tolerance for risk or a supportive criminal network will enter the trade, bringing a criminal culture into the market with them. Rather than expand the market for criminal activity, legalization of marijuana would eliminate the high risk and high profits that draw criminals into the market in the first place.

The cost of the criminal activity resulting from prohibition is staggering, in terms of both law enforcement resources and the ruined lives of the thousands of inmates incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses. The benefits associated with prohibition, ostensibly lower rates of drug use and abuse, are vague and unproven. There is little evidence that criminalization reduces substance use in adults or children. From 1920 to 1923, in the early years of alcohol prohibition, the average age at which males began drinking dropped from to 20.4 years old, down from 21.3 in 1914. For females, the average age dropped by over two years over the same period, from 27.9 to 25.8. Additionally, numerous surveys have found that teenagers report that it is easier to illegally purchase marijuana than to buy alcohol, which is legal and regulated. This is unsurprising, given that a drug dealer is not required to ask a minor for photo ID.

Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. For some, the lessons of prohibition have yet to be fully internalized. The passage of Proposition 19 would be a major step towards sanity in our state’s drug policy. Eventually, marijuana prohibition will come to be seen as equally pointless and destructive as alcohol prohibition was.