It has often been said that Berkeley is out of step with the rest of the country, and even the rest of the state. The city exists within its own smug ideological sphere, its residents never pausing to think that several million Americans find their politics completely inane.
Unfortunately, the same goes for the university, where the establishment of liberal elites rivals that of the entertainment industry. But the officials at a public university, and left-minded thinkers who claim to champion the rights of the common man and the value of democracy, would never dream of denigrating the desires of the majority of California voters … would they?
Enter Chancellor Robert Birgeneau.
On March 27, the Los Angeles Times ran an opinion piece written by Birgeneau concerning Proposition 209, in which he suggests the proposition inadvertently fostered an environment of “alienation, mistrust, and division.” He argues that because Proposition 209 decreased the numbers of African-American, Native-American, and Latino students enrolled at the university, this subsequently created a hostile environment for those minorities because they now lack “a supportive student community.”
Unfortunately, Birgeneau does a poor job of drawing a strong causal connection between Proposition 209 and this supposedly hostile environment. He claims that because of the drop in minority enrollment, there is no “camaraderie across cultural lines,” thus leading to the aforementioned “alienation, mistrust, and division.” But what is the mechanism by which this is linked to decreased minority enrollment? The chancellor proves none.
From what we see on campus every day, students of various ethnicities willingly confine themselves to their respective ethnic groups. In this way students alienate each other and divide themselves, and the mistrust occurs because of the proliferation of racial politics. This is indeed a problem socially, and one that the Patriot has argued is perpetuated by the university’s policies of racially segregated dormitories, graduation ceremonies, and resource centers (February 2005 editorial). Birgeneau shows no plausible reason to expect that reversing or somehow circumventing Proposition 209 would alleviate these tensions.
Suppose for a moment that Proposition 209 were no longer in place. Presumably, the enrollment numbers of those minority groups considered underrepresented would rise, thereby decreasing the enrollment of those groups we might call “overrepresented” — specifically, white and Asian students. Does Birgeneau expect us to believe that this would ameliorate race relations? We posit that it would not. If students knew that some of their fellow classmates were being admitted to the university based on the color of their skin, it could in fact exacerbate the existing racial tensions and levels of distrust.
However, Birgeneau’s discussion of Proposition 209 is upsetting for a far more insidious reason. It is not simply that he finds the system flawed, or that he finds fault with the voters of California who overwhelmingly supported the proposition. Everyone is entitled to his opinion.
But what of his intent to fly in the face of democracy? Is our chancellor entitled to that? Birgeneau does not intend his words to be mere ink on paper; he is committed to changing the current system of university admissions, and he’s not going to let a silly thing like the law stand in his way.
Explaining in his article that he plans to conduct further research on Proposition 209, he states, “Our goal is to find innovative ways to make this campus the inclusive and welcoming environment to which it aspires.” These “innovative ways” seem no more than a beautiful euphemism for circumventing existing law through backdoor affirmative action.
Furthermore, in his interview he explains, “I would like to understand more completely what the law allows us to do and what the law does not allow us to do. It may be that we could have more flexibility than we are taking advantage of at the current time.” Yes, where would we be without loopholes?
And at the UC Berkeley Diversity Forum in March, Birgeneau revealed his willingness to defy the law altogether. He urged his colleagues, “we need to test the legal limits, to find what is and isn’t possible under 209 ... we must be prepared to get our hands slapped.”
It seems to us that the chancellor of a public university should be more respectful of the taxpayers who pay the bills for the institution he has the privilege to lead. Snubbing the democratic process to pursue his personal admissions agenda amounts to clear abuse of the powers of the chancellor’s office. As former UC Regent Ward Connerly noted in his own op-ed in the San Diego Union-Tribune, Birgeneau “seems to hold a higher level of contempt for the people than any [other] UC official.”
Birgeneau’s position on Proposition 209 is a perfect example of how this university and its officials are grossly out of step with the rest of the state — and ironically they are the ones who speak of making the university more reflective of the state’s population! But worse than Birgeneau’s ideological incompatibility with the people who pay the school’s bills, is the fact that he feels entitled to flout a law supported by the majority of Californians and enacted through legitimate democratic processes.
Even in his office in Sproul Hall, Chancellor Birgeneau is not above the law.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot