City Journal Winter 2016

Current Issue:

Winter 2016
Table of Contents
Tablet Editions
Click to visit City Journal California

Readers’ Comments

Heather Mac Donald
Half Baked « Back to Story

View Comments (109)

Add New Comment:

To send your message, please enter the words you see in the distorted image below, in order and separated by a space, and click "Submit." If you cannot read the words below, please click here to receive a new challenge.

Comments will appear online. Please do not submit comments containing advertising or obscene language. Comments containing certain content, such as URLs, may not appear online until they have been reviewed by a moderator.

Showing 109 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
I don't see what the big fuss is about. It seems to me only fair for the bake sale to charge lower prices to minorities to compensate for the years during which they were denied fair access to cookies and cupcakes.
University of California Berkeley: the need for transparency has never been so clear. Chancellor Robert J Birgeneau ($500,000 salary) displaces qualified for public university education at Cal. instate Californians for a $50,600 payment and a foreign passport.

UC Berkeley, ranked # 70 Forbes, is not increasing enrollment. Birgeneau accepts $50,600 FOREIGN students at the expense of qualified Californians.

UC Regent Chairwoman Lansing and President Yudof agree the policy of discriminating against instate Californians for foreigners. Birgeneau, Yudof, Lansing need to answer to Californians.

Your opinion makes a difference; email UC Board of Regents
The oddness of the diversity rhubarb is that the so-called minorities self-select themselves into their own groups and don't diversify it up. Nope, they want to be with their own 'kind'. Colleges and universities are some of our most segregated places.
I love the University of California (UC) having been a student and lecturer. But today I am concerned that at times I do not recognize the UC I love. Like so many I am deeply disappointed by the pervasive failures of Regent Chairwoman Lansing, President Yudof and the ten campus Chancellors from holding the line on rising costs.
Californians are reeling from19% unemployment (includes those forced to work part time, and those no longer searching), mortgage defaults, loss of unemployment benefits. And those who still have jobs are working longer for less. Faculty wages must reflect California's ability to pay, not what others are paid.
Pay increases for generously paid Faculty is arrogance.
UC Berkeley (ranked # 70 Forbes) tuition increases exceed the national average rate of increases. Chancellor Birgeneau has molded Cal. into the most expensive American public university.
President Yudof and Chancellor Birgeneau have dismissed many much needed cost-cutting options. They did not consider freezing vacant faculty positions, increasing class size, requiring faculty to teach more classes, doubling the time between sabbaticals, cutting and freezing pay and benefits for all chancellors and and reforming the pension system.
They said faculty such reforms “would not be healthy for University of California”.
We agree it is far from the ideal situation, but it is in the best interests of the university system and the state to hold the line on cost increases. UC cannot expect to do business as usual: raising tuition; granting pay raises and huge bonuses during a weak economy that has sapped state revenues and individual Californians’ income.
There is no question the necessary realignments with economic reality are painful. Regent Chairwoman Lansing can bridge the public trust gap with reassurances that salaries and costs reflect California’s economic reality. The sky above UC will not fall

Opinions? Email the UC Board of Regents

Chancellor Robert J Birgeneau ($500,000 salary) of University of California Berkeley displaces qualified for public university education at Cal. Californians for $50,600 payment by FOREIGN students.

The University of California Berkeley, ranked # 70 Forbes, is not increasing enrollment. $50,600 tuition FOREIGN students are accepted by Birgeneau at the expense of qualified instate students.

UC Regent Chairwoman Lansing and President Yudof agree discriminating against instate Californians for admission to UC Berkeley. Birgeneau, Yudof, Lansing need to answer to Californians.

Your opinion makes a difference; email UC Board of Regents
Dan in Oklahoma City September 30, 2011 at 2:11 PM
To make the analogy perfect, shouldn't they put a limit on the number of white students who can purchase the baked goods at the $2.00 price? Once the quota is reached, only the minorities can continue to purchase.

“There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-kid’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs.”
“There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-kid’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs.”
Harvard students now sign a "kindness pledge" that basically equates "the exercise of kindness" as being on a par with intellectual

Students report that a social norm has emerged in which students avoid saying anything that might make others look bad in class, even if that restraint means stifling discussion.

Having attended Harvard, I can tell you that students there are not unkind, or lacking in compassion for others. And, this is not the first time I have seen something this ludicrous interfere with academic achievement.

We need to take back our education systems, and end ten decades of Progressive insanity and the indoctrination of our young.

Oh, but wait: Ayn Rand discussed this fifty years ago, with chilling accuracy. She talked about college professors not valuing academic achievement, or critical thinking, and the long term effects on our youth, of scorn for learning, and its replacement by left-wing ideology. Atlas Shrugged.

The state is broke, the UCs are in serious financial trouble, and the rampant, divisive left-wing lunacy so prevalent in this state, is no where more worrisome than on college campuses where "diversity"will trump academic achievement, and where students are not being taught to think.

The free tuition, by the way, that the California tax-payers provide illeagls, along with every other benefit, amounts to about $30,000 per year, per illegal, at the UCs.

It is shocking to read that Brown plans to push through a new bill to trample on the voters wishes about Affirmative Action college admissions.

He just signed two bills that gives illegals full access to all public and private financial aid sources, including free grants, paid for by the taxpayer, such as the Cal Grant.

In the last election, it did not seem to occur to my fellow voters in this state, that giving complete legislative control to the Progressives, left us with no opposition to even try to stop the disastrous agenda of the left.

This won't stop until California can't borrow any more money from the U.S. taxpayer, and voters finally wake up. We, in fact, borrow $40 Million per day from the U.S government, just to pay our unemployment claims. These, of course, are the result of the Progressives endless campaign to drive businesses out of state.
The College Republicans should hold another bake sale next week charging Blacks $2, Latinos $1, Whites 75 cents, women a 25 cent premium. Not sure what to do about "queer people".
Great analysis as always, Ms. MacDonald. Sad to see a great school go stupid, but it's inevitable when political correctness takes over. PC means never having to think any new thoughts, consider any opposing viewpoints, or engage in self-examination. Just use the handy phrases: That's racist! That's sexist! I'm offended.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Liberalism is a mental disorder and a life long excuse to not use ones brain.
Liberals want THEIR "rights", but when someone they dont like exercises the same right they scream racism and unfairness.
Liberals who claim to want fairness actually want a system that simply puts them in power so they can feel good about themselves. It creates an excuse to feel legitimate without ever doing anything other than being a professional victim.
The tantrum thrown by students and administration shows the lengths to which left-wingers will go to stifle dissent.

They have no legal, statutory basis for suppressing their opponent's piece of political theater. So in order to defend their cherished pieties, they resort to idiotic sophistries. They babble like infuriated idiots as a rebuttal to their opponents' plea for equality before the law.
Ironies abound in this situation, but add to the ironies the fact that minorities already have a huge advantage in admissions to the UC campuses ever since they all marginalized the importance of test scores in the admissions process. UCSD was the last holdout, but they caved this past year. At least, the scores became marginal for those most likely to have high scores. Instead, admissions officers place a very high value on hardship as demonstrated in the student essays when making admissions decisions. In essence, your best qualification for admission is a sob story along with decent grades. The upshot of this is that the universities have ditched the ONLY objective measure they have in admissions, standardized tests. Grades, after all, are subjective in many ways. As for the essays--these tell you nothing about a student's writing ability because they are heavily edited. In addition, students have tremendous incentive to exagerate or lie outright about challenges or hardships in order to gain admission. Universities certainly don't have the resources to investigate claims made in admissions essays and you can bet the students know it! There are many students who truly deserve to be at the best campuses, but another irony is that their accomplishments are greatly cheapened by the process as it now stands.
Heather, this is a great article. Oh, my, are we in the land of idiocy in California. It boggles the mind to think that there is a need for a 'vice-chancellor of equity and diversity', much less that the position would pay almost 200K AND require 17 staffers! I could figure out the purpose of this exercise and I don't even have a college degree.
what does one gain with diversity other than having a "colorful" parade of people? is not ability and intelligence instead of skin color or gender a more appropriate standard by which to apply diversity?
A couple of comments. Asians should have had to pay a higher price since they have to out perform whites to get into the top schools. Wouldn't be surprised if Indians (dot,not feather) are in the same situation.

A better reaction from an insulted student would be to start a competing bake sale, have the lowest price minority buy all the items at the bake sale and then resell them for a profit.
Henry, that sounds like racism to me.
Wow! Heather MacDonald is good. Her interpretation and explanation helped me understand the situation on a more complex level.
This bake sale is a terrific idea. The UC is addicted to racial and ethnic quotas. They can't give them up. They fought tooth and nail against Prop. 209, and have been searching for ways to get around that law even since it was passed.
The voters have spoken loud and clear that they don't want public university admissions to be based on racial or ethnic identity.
The liberals don't care about the views of voters or the views of taxpayers. They believe themselves to be above the law. They think they have the right to disregard laws they don't like. In a democracy, no one has that right.
The liberals are becomming fascists who disregard democratic elections and established law, and impose their will by force. It's an ominous development.
Don't you get it. The whole point of using race as a selection criteria is not to select the best students. The progressives view minorities as less than the best who cannot get ahead via their own efforts. Obama and Cain are exceptions to this reality.
All leftists are racists? Since when is it racist to use skin color as a criteria for deciding who is best qualified to be admitted Berkeley? After all we wouldn't want too many white and asian folks to get admitted just because they have higher grades and test scores than blacks and Hispanics. Besides California needs more ethnic study and social study type grads. Asian are into math and engineering and who needs that? Opps. Strike the last two sentences. It is a well known fact that blacks and Hispanics will mostly major in math and engineering and that is why they should all be given preference over whites and asians who tend to major in ethnic and social studies. Bottom line, racial discrimination is a good thing when the tax payers educate more people with job skills that will help California prosper. Hmmm
All leftists are racists. That's what their whole belief system is all about. That is why when it is exposed for what it really is by selling donuts based on skin color they get all bent out of shape. The truth hurts.
What's the difference between a Diversity Vice-Chancellor and a Diversity Vice-Provost? The dude has 17 staffers? I just want one sentient human to explain what, PRECISELY, these people do every day. What's their output? Papers? Speeches? Sit-ins? Hand wringing? Please help me understand what they do every day when they get to work. 17 staffers?!?! Can we get a cage match between Damon and Basri?
absolutely outstanding article.

it's hard for me to believe that the Berkeley community is so removed from reality that they didn't already know all about these bake sales. was anyone really that offended? that's sad.

and 'an emergency resolution...condemning “the use of discrimination whether it is in satire or in seriousness by any student group”'? yikes. my parents went to used to be a good school...what the heck happened?
This is an endemic condition in academia. I teach at a (private) law school, where the same myopia about "diversity" exists. There is constant fretting about the aesthetics of diversity, that is, whether there is the sufficiently high representation of identity group members to meet the approval of the ABA. The grail is diversity of race, but not, Heaven forbid, thought. The result is the predictable difference in performance of groups based on the scope of the affirmative action applied. For faculty hires, the emphasis is on race, sex, and sexuality, but once again not on thought. The chairman of the board of trustees once told me that diversity of thought was not a criterion since conservatives were not a "protected" group. And, yes, we have the obligatory associate dean for diversity affairs and the ubiquitous Race and the Law, and Women and the Law courses that teach 1970s and '80s-era dogma.
I is an authentic person of color because I is a Dumocrat. I needs racial preferences because my daddy's daddy's daddy was a slave, and I is trying to catch up with whitey whose daddy's daddy's daddy was a slave owner. I hopes Governer Brown signs this here bill so I can keeps pursuing my studies at Berkeley.
@Zoom: I doubt that any one of those highly paid administrators could run a lemonade stand or change a tire. Their sinecures have to be maintained with taxpayer dollars, for nothing they can do would have any value whatsoever in free market.

College presidents, deans, and administrators have replaced used-car salesmen and "slip-and-fall" lawyers on the bottom rungs of the ladder of trustworthiness and integrity.

These servants of higher education were at one time greatly respected; they were usually installed in their positions because of their past scholarship and their high moral and ethical standards. They understood the value of true education and served as worthy examples to both faculty and students. They did not indoctrinate.

Today, they comprise the most mendacious, two-faced, spineless cowards in the country. (Sometimes I suspect that they operate in an alternative reality, since at times they even seem to believe their own BS.) I've had dinner with several of them, and they certainly know how to glad-hand and plead for the annual fund. But I guarantee they couldn't mow a lawn if you started the mower for them.
Dumb people who think they are smart. I deal every day with their work product. Whine, bitch, complain, demand. When they show up.
Why must Califonia taxpayers continue to subsidize a sewer like Berkeley. Would society be that hurt if the place was closed down and used for housing or manufacturing or other socially useful endeavors?
The stunning ignorance of the vice chancellor for equity and diversity must be reviewed by the administration. Regardless of which side of the issue people may be on, the foolishness of Basri's statements draws into question his ability to perform the job.

Confused students that could be trying to learn from Basri, are clearly embarking in a futile effort.
By overreacting to this obvious parody, UCB and its diversity coordinator have turned themselves into a parody of a serious educational institution.
Chancellor Birgeneau gets around $390,000 a year (based on a 2004 article) to violate the rights and defame the reputation of Republican students at UC Berkeley. Now, think about how many other UC schools California taxpayers fund - and how many overpaid Chancellors, Vice Chancellors (including probably an Equity/Diversity one at each campus), Associate VCs, Assistant VCs are all being paid to basically indoctrinate rather than educate & promote a biased agenda. The numbers and pay of these sorts of upper management positions has increased dramatically in the past few decades - well beyond the growth of student enrollment. Basically, Californians are funding a very expensive, growing political advocacy group. And that's not even including all the leftist "social engineering" professors. Think about this the next you hear the UCs claiming that universities are under-funded, and that taxpayers and students need to pay more.
The Vice Chancellor gets 194,000. What does the Chancellor get?
Completely misrepresent another's opinion as "offensive"; demand money; repeat. It's that cycle keeps the parasitic diversity machine growing.
"the student senate passed an emergency resolution on Sunday condemning 'the use of discrimination whether it is in satire or in seriousness by any student group.'"

I think my Irony Meter just broke. Aren't these the same folks who are demanding racial preferences? (Of course, the bill at issue says "no preference shall be given," yet it newly re-allows consideration of race. Because any factor can be the deciding factor in a close decision, like any basket in a basketball game, of COURSE race will often end up being the decisive, preferential factor.)
Very scary stuff and hard to believe these loonies don't recognize a good parody when they see one. Oh but they do and just want to use the incident to limit someone else's free speech.
Out of Money in Calif September 29, 2011 at 6:42 PM
Gibor Basri, Berkeley’s vice chancellor for equity and diversity

Really, lets start be getting rid of the position.
If those students are representative of the "education" system at Berkeley, their not getting their money's worth.

But on the bright side, they've proven their taking their PC indoctrination very well.
Nobody says it better than Heather!
As you certainly know; victimology is the largest industry in America today and growing.
Being a victim is easier and more lucritive,
than having a sense of humor.
I'm a swedish social democrat, and it's beyond me how any american can be a republican, but I must say I thoroughly enjoy Ms MacDonalds writing, in this matter as well as when she's writing about opera. Superb language and excellent arguments.
What I find strange is that so few of the enthusiast for affirmative action see the paradox that you cannot at the same time define equality in the traditional way - or the M L King way - as equal opportunities, rights and responsibilities regardless of race, gender etc, and at the same time make race, gender etc the determining factor.
Also, whereas it is to simpleminded to just 'blame it on the family' or to disregard that people growing up under underpriviliged circumstances have a much lesser chance of getting the quality of education needed to equally compete for admission to a prestigious university, it's their prior living conditions one should focus on. Better gradeschools and highschools. Affirmative action is throwing in the yeast after the bread is already in the oven.
Man, I would hate to be discriminated against in favor of an illiterate POS! When this former refugee from a communist hell arrived here after 5 years of waiting for a conditional visa, I decided that I would need an American engineering degree, since my employer had difficulty in understanding European degrees. So I applied to the graduate school at UCLA; the dean there was not imppressed with my mainly B grades with a few A's here and there; I tried to explain to him that in Europe an A is given to somebody as a sign that the guy knows as much about the subject as the professor - in other words there is no relative grading (no atter how bad a clas is, there will always be 10% A's, 40% B's, 40% C's, and 10% D's; no F's if you just showed up. The dean then gave me his conditions: 5 A's in graduate extension courses, and at least 95% in the SAT. Why was not there a program favoring refugees from communism?
What I find most disturbing - even beyond policies like this - is how the admission of inferior students is justified while they persist in deluding themselves that the credential nonetheless carries equal weight. It's almost surreal to witness the continual assertions that Obama is a brilliant man purely because of his academic pedigree.
"The president of Berkeley’s student government, which sponsored the pro-SB 185 phone bank, explained to CNN that the bake sale 'humorized and mocked the struggles of people of color on this campus.'”

The notion that people of color have to "struggle" on the campus of Berkely is a gross insult to their grandparents (not to mention the intelligence of most sentient beings). I live in the same California this knuckledhead does (for longer than he's been alive), so who does he think he's fooling? The only racially based "struggles" in California are turf battles between black and Latino gangs.

Also, there's this: Life is a Struggle, you Morons!
Here's a wild idea. If these students who were so offended had possessed even an ounce of ingenuity or critical reasoning ability, they would have realized that the most effective sabotage tactic they could have employed by far would have been to simply buy up all the items as quickly as possible so that there would have been nothing left to sell. No baked goods, no political theater.

But did any of them have the intellect to make even that elementary deduction? Of course not. Instead, they just shouted at the top of their lungs unthinkingly, because that's all they know how to do. And that lack of creativity reveals something about the collective stupidity of the grievance activists.
I've been watching the T.V show listings and commercials. It is sad to see that Hollywood has produced at least 90-93 ish % of their shows all white this year like most...
Hollywood "talks a lot of talk" but that seems to be it. Berkeley seems to do a lot of talking but actually comes up with "nothing" SO Sauntom... that "free speech movement" is only what retsubcpo say's-- their dogma and agenda. Do as I say, not as I do.
The diversocratic L.A. Times ran an article claiming that though the consideration of race, ethnicity or gender in admissions has indeed been banned, the proposed new law wouldn't violate the old because the trinity above would be taken into consideration in admissions only in the way extra-curricular activities currently are. WHAT? If this isn't a disingenuous attempt by Berkeley diversocrats to sneak in through the back door what has been kicked out the front, I'm otherwise at a loss to explain its convoluted "thinking."
Look around the world. Whites in the US are being reminded daily that there is no initiative, no law, no constitutional amendment that will stop them from being discriminated against in every facet of life in favor of non-whites. Leftists, who base their entire program on ignoring normal human nature, can't imagine the ultimate response to this, which is to eliminate non-whites. But check the Balkans, Africa,or 'Palestine'. Ethnic cleansing is a rational response to ethnic conflict, just as locking up criminals is a rational response to crime.
Half baked indeed. Didn't someone (an Anglo-Irishman of a favored minority persuasion if memory serves) once make a crack about the pursuit of the inedible by the unspeakable.But old Giborish got his name up in lights and you can't do better than that.
Pretty insightful. Thanks!

My site:
rachat de credit
I live near San Francisco, so there was plenty of local TV news coverage about the bake sale. A couple of students were featured:
One told the bakesalers to "go to hell." Another mentioned how he was "ashamed to be on this campus." No rational argument, no room for other points of view. The two speakers were pretty well trained in grievance; unfortunately, there aren't many careers waiting in that field. Whoever's paying their tuition isn't getting value for their dollars.
While decrying the bake sale as hurtful and offensive and blithely devising an admissions policy that is a blatant end run around Proposition 209, UC Berkeley somehow approved a two unit student-run course sponsored by By Any Means Necessary, a militant anti-affirmative action group. The purpose of the course--train activists to overturn Proposition 209, with credit to be gained by organizing or going to rallies.
Another sign of the University's surrender of academic principles to political expediency
Thank goodness I attended the University of California before liberals invented affirmative action whose premise is that "people of color" need extra and undeserved assistance. I am the son of Mexican immigrants and did it all myself (with the earned help of the GI Bill).I graduated with honors, made Phi Beta Kappa and have a BA, an MA and a JD. Best of all I can hold my head up high.
and, by the way, didn't Berkeley once pride itself on being the home of the "free speech movement" on college campuses in the 1960's?
Devonte Jackson says the bake sale leads to ...“reducing their communities to a cheaply priced good.”

I say that gender and racial preferences do that already, regardless of how a bake sale is interpreted by the diversocrats (love that term, by the way).
I guess Dr. Martin Luther Kings heart felt idea of judging not by the color of one's skin but by the content of one's character is no longer valid. But I guess in this day and age... if a person in high school voluntarily does not take their homework home with them, does not study and gets poor grades then society is supposed to enact "social justice" and lower the entrance requirements or just give those individuals a right of passage and not actually reward those that did study and get good grades (Thus judging by the content of one's character). I'm sorry Dr. King but your most ardent followers have put emphasis on "making things right" instead of making people responsible for "their content of character". Put blame where it belongs... on the family!
Joel: ""(Indeed, so desirable is this alleged threatened status that a gender and women’s studies major held a sign during Tuesday’s protest of the bake sale decrying the exclusion of “queer people” from the Republicans’ pricing structure.)"

The Republican group should indeed listen to this student and add to their price list a grouping for "queer people" with an appropriately satirical price. As well as, in nice bold letters, advertise that this addition is in response to the sign, and with a note that they are always eager to expand to server their customers' needs."

But, Joel, what about Berkeley's under-represented Gypsy population? And what about the Eskimos?
alas, UC Berkeley "teaches" students WHAT TO THINK NOT HOW TO THINK
This is the typical reaction of the hypocritical left. They belive in "diversity" of everything. As long as that "diversity" conforms completly to their dogma and agenda.
Offensive, maybe. Truthful, most definitely. Loved the bake sale...

I can't get anything, I AM THE WRONG COLOR..

True. :( ;)
If UC Berkely is so committed to increasing diversity on campus, perhaps they should set targets to increase ideological diversity, as well? I am sure it will be no problem to quickly have a faculty that is ideologically reflective of the United States. In other words, they will need about 40% conservatives, 30% center-right, 20% center-left, and 15% liberal. I am sure that UC Berkely will not mind the EEOC oversight "assisting" them to take affirmative action to meet these goals because Berkely's current makeup is a prima facie case of discrimination.
Don't you wish we could reincarnate H.L. Mencken and send him on a speaking tour to Berkeley?!
But if schools educated rather than propogandized, there would/could be no Democrat Party of today; it'd rever to the party of JFK and Truman - you know, adults.

If Basri worked to diffuse racial and ethnic tensions, he'd work himself out of a job.

If Brown signs clearly anti-Constitutional legislation.... who'll defend the Constitution? Brown's AG? Sure.

Democrats: Doing everything they can to overturn democracy, liberty, freedom and the Rule of Law.
The academic-political Left consists of a competition for virtue, and nothing is more virtuous than being a victim. Thus, victimhood über alles. Sad, but all too true in our higher education system.
@kent: Excellent post. My two nieces are recent Harvard graduates. Both immediately landed (ridiculously) high-paying jobs, even in this moribund economy.

You are correct that the prestigious universities accept only superior applicants. However, they do so within a racial-ethnic-gender-whatever framework.

They admit the brightest Asians, whites, blacks, women, and so on. But to end up with "proper" proportions of the various groups, they have to admit applicants with extraordinarily disparate academic qualifications and abilities.

One of the Ivy League professors I work with tells me that his university rejects hundreds of Asian applicants whose raw academic qualifications far exceed those of (1) most of the whites accepted, and (2) all the blacks accepted. He says that if the admissions office operated truly "color blind," the freshman class would be more than 90 percent Indian and Chinese.

This might horrify some readers, but to get enough black students, the admissions office accepts some applicants unlikely to be able do the work.

Interestingly, a study showed that the applicants this university turns down are just as successful in life as the ones accepted. But the discriminatory admissions practices are not without consequences. For example, in physics and mathematics, black students who are very bright, and who could succeed at excellent but less-rigorous institutions, are forced to compete with Asians and whites who have world-class, mind-bending talent in those fields. (This professor teaches statistics. He attended that university as an undergraduate, but as a fledgling math major found that he simply could not keep up with the prodigious brains in the class, so he switched majors.)

This prestigious university does not boast about the fact that exactly zero of its black students major in physics or mathematics, or that there are very few in the other hard sciences. However, Old Ivy certainly does boast about its "diversity."
Utter absurdity aside, I'm delighted to know there are Young Republicans on Berkeley's campus. Way to go, youngsters. Keep it up.
UC BERKELEY has succeeded in scaling the peak of politically correct idiocy. In a circumstance where the Administration resorts to a policy "holistic admissions policy" (a cover for circumventions of Prop. 209), it is difficult to see how the bake sale (an interesting parody of the illegal and unconstitutional policy) can be said to be anything but cleverly informative. Proposition 209, made law by a vote of the people of the State of California, is being subverted on a daily basis, with serious repercussions, by an Administration that "knows better." Ah, there's the rub!
all the liberal students of berkley should be sent hiking in the iranian mountains.
UC's reaction to the incident-a mirror held up to the UC in daylight-is a major reason public support for UC funding has deteriorated in the past few decades.

Whites and particularly Asians are expected to be good sports and "go along" with an admissions process everyone KNOWS has reserved slots for some. UCLA panelists at a Los Angeles high school as much as told minority students to allude to their skin color in essays submitted with the admission packet. Asian and white parents looked at each other with bitter "I knew it" expressions.

And now the UC's chancellor insists that the truth should never be discussed because it is "hurtful." Rejected students are supposed to accept it, like all people demeaned by the process, for the higher good of diversity.

To most of American academia, "diversity and tolerance" means building an institution in which leftists, ultra-leftists and socialists, no matter what their race, creed, color, gender or sexual orientation, can all coexist in peace and harmony. (Conservatives, moderates, and mainstream liberals can attend too, of course, provided they fork over their cash and keep their opinions to themselves.)

When the University of California system appoints a Vice Chancellor for Diversity of Thought for each of its campuses, and gives them 17 full-time staff members apiece to do their jobs properly, I'll take the Berkeley left's objections seriously. Until that time, they should probably cut down on their saturated fats anyway.
Heather hits the bulls-eye once again.
Odd how these diversity worshipers have an issue with satirical racial and ethnic preferences, but NO problem with real preferences in selecting students. Real mental giants, these fake, "we care" pseudo intellectual snobs.
Brilliant take on the reality of the situation, enough said.
"(Indeed, so desirable is this alleged threatened status that a gender and women’s studies major held a sign during Tuesday’s protest of the bake sale decrying the exclusion of “queer people” from the Republicans’ pricing structure.)"

The Republican group should indeed listen to this student and add to their price list a grouping for "queer people" with an appropriately satirical price. As well as, in nice bold letters, advertise that this addition is in response to the sign, and with a note that they are always eager to expand to server their customers' needs.
Perhaps what Berkeley needs are a few traditional hippies who recall the importance of humor in political protest. It's sad to see the conservatives leading the liberals in questions of freedom of speech and political theatre.
The authoritarian mind at work. Thanks Mr. Goldstein for sharing Chancellor Birgeneau’s tissue of Orwellian double-speak. A kindly face, a gentle voice. This way to the ovens.
Who in their right mind would pay any serious attention to a bunch of social misfits such the Berkely crowd. They have been associated with civil disobediience for over 50 yrs.40 yrs. ago Berkely was a circus and nothing has changed.
Excellent article, politely brutal in its takedown of these pretentious hypocrites who promote and earn a healthy living off the discrimination they're supposedly concerned about. And the GOP's bakesale was utterly brilliant. Anyone who complains about its discrimination is completely missing the point, giving us all a hearty laugh.
'Michael' - what are you talking about? Preferences for blacks relative to whites are large in magnitude, pervasive in extent, and national in scope. Race/ethnicity dwarfs alumni status by FAR in predicting the probability of one's admission.

However (as you unwittingly represent), ignorance of this pervasiveness contradicts the conventional wisdom.

Heather, thank you for picking up on this story of peculiar, thoroughly depressing iniquity. I noticed it buried within yesterday's NYT and had to re-read the statement by UCB's 'vice chancellor for diversity and inclusion' multiple times to actually believe the printed words on the page: this bake sale was immediately interpreted preferential towards white students. So, let me get this straight: the price for a pastry at $2 for white students, $1.50 for Asian students, $1 for Latinos, 75 cents for African-Americans and 25 cents for Native Americans is 'offensive' and 'unwelcome'?! How fitting that the so-called Conscious Cupcakes Giveaway was just that - a giveaway. Shades of Maggie Thatcher (the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money) in fullest bloom.

Future research (and hopefully, subsequent articles here at CJ) should be devoted to tracing out the consequences of these preferential policies for the institutions that have adopted them, as well as for the individuals affected.
It might help to understand that the entire reason that prestigious universities turn out superior graduates s that these universities only accept superior applicants. The "learning effect" of different universities, from state to private varieties, does not significantly vary. So don't waste your money on high priced institutions of higher learning if your goal is knowledge. However, a more prestigious institution will help garner a job more easily -corporations know that, generally speaking (excluding minority folks like Obama), anyone able to get accepted to Harvard is a pretty smart person.
I notice that no one comprehends the fact that
claiming "diversity" on the basis of skin color is pretty silly, not to mention a thoroughly racist attitude - that one can peg a person simply by the color of his skin. I also note that apparently diversity of thought (which is the true meaning of diversity) is not allowed on this campus. People claiming to be big on diversity apparently don't understand the term very well.

Michael, admissions should be based on merit, wherever that leads. If that means Yale's freshman class would be made up entirely of handicapped black transsexuals, then that's the way it should be. Mandating quotas and preferences to serve some airhead notion of appropriate balance or to atone for perceived injustice is wrong.

It is also wrong to silence speech through intimidation and violence. But for you, I guess whatever hurts "non-minorities" is necessary and acceptable, because somehow "our society" favors them.
I've never understood why "people of color" is OK but "colored people is racist. It sounds silly if I say I have a "car of red" instead of "red car". How about we knock off all this nonsense and actually try for color blind neutrality?
Gibor Basri, Berkeley’s vice chancellor for equity and diversity

That this position exists should provoke mockery in itself.
Heather MacDonald continues to write the best and clearest observations of today's issues,cutting through the BS of political correctness.
Thanks for your efforts and keep it up!
Their solution to discrimination is more discrimination. Black is white, up is down, right is wrong, 1+1=3. Way to "educate" the youth Berkley, with a little more training they should make fine progressive drones.
Oh, for the good old days, when legacy admissions were the way to make sure that Sonny Boy got it, no matter how much of a ding dong he was. Oops, right wingers never, ever complain that those days are STILL HERE.
Here's where you're wrong, Heather. Please explain how, without affirmative action, our society DOESN'T favor non-minorities. I know, I know, you'll say the government shouldn't do it. Oops, without affirmative action, it already does, simply by numbers. Try as you might, it's undeniable.
I suspect the next bubble to burst will be that of higher education, in which second-assistant deputy diversity coordinators take in six-figure salaries and students take out enormous loans to spend four years "studying" preference agitation. If engineering graduates can't get jobs in today's economy, what do you do with your expertise in "queer studies"? (Well, you could become a cop. Many municipalities now ludicrously require that applicants have a "four-year degree," whatever it supposedly proves.)

Berkeley is only the tip of the iceberg. Most American universities have long enforced political correctness with Stalinist zeal. Merely to question the liberal orthodoxy is to invite discipline, ostracism, harassment, re-education programs, forced apologies and recantations, "hate speech" charges, banishment from fields of study, and even violence. It is ironic that in the very places where speech should be most free, it is most scrutinized, regulated, and punished. I read recently of a college that prohibits "political speech" at its "First Amendment Square." One wonders whether anyone at that institution has noticed the irony.

Proponents of preferential treatment have abandoned efforts to defend the indefensible through debate. They have learned that the most effective strategy is to feign deep outrage, accuse their enemy of the basest motives, describe their hurt feelings in hyperbolic terms, and demand reparations for the terrible injury wrought upon them.

It's BS, and deep down everybody knows it. The market for it grew large, but as times get tougher it will wither and eventually die. The sixties radicals and race-gender-whatever hustlers who control American universities won't live forever. In the meantime, look on it as yet another example of man's folly.
Excellent analysis, Heather. I think universities should be required to list administrator-to-student ratios in addition to faculty-to-student ratios. I graduated from Stanford in '93 and have since looked back on my experience as a strange dream where wonder and rigor were crushed in a misguided effort to instruct socially rather than intellectually. That was the time to read the great books -- and to ask without embarrassment the big questions. Instead, we tiptoed fearfully around each other and found common ground only in pop culture and beer consumption. In other words, we chose (were compelled, even) to set our sights low. At the prices we were paying, we should have been given a truly trusting and safe environment where people could wonder aloud about things without fear of being silenced. We were all deprived of a great opportunity, women and minorities especially.
The situation at our universities will get worse before it gets better. Indeed, it may never change. They are closed systems and self-perpetuating. Candidates are passed over in hiring if they show even a hint of skepticism about identity based policies. And new hires, should they possibly get through that process, are weeded out quickly for the same reason. Once in the classroom, radical professors have complete control over the ideological climate of the classroom. The same weeding out process happens to the students. Some conservative undergraduates happen to make it through relatively unscathed, but their chances of getting a graduate fellowship and perhaps a professorship (if that's their goal) are nil.

This was a great and courageous article, by the way.
My son, a white male, applied to Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD, Davis and USC last spring. His profile is as follows:

2200 SAT
34 ACT
4.6 GPA
790 SAT II World History
710 SAT II physics
Key Club VP
Salutatorian of his class
An accomplished and award winning pianist
Has completed several internships

All of this was accompanied by thoughtful and articulate essays.

All of these schools rejected him. He was crushed, of course. When we looked at the profiles of the accepted students, we understood the problem. The acceptance rate for white male students is far below the rate for minorities of any sort. Most of these schools even have a preponderance of women--55% or more--and yet rejected a stellar male student like my son! Imagine how bad it will be if Brown signs this legislation, as he surely will. These schools will enter 'caucasions need not apply' territory.
What idiocy - so if the present price structure "devalues" people of color - apologize and reverse it and ask them if that's better.
Emanuelle Goldstein September 29, 2011 at 9:32 AM
You want to see ridiculous? Read this:

From: "Robert J. Birgeneau, Chancellor"
Date: September 26, 2011 6:13:57 PM PDT
To: "Academic Senate Faculty, Staff, All Academic Titles, Other Members of the Campus Community, Emeriti, Students, "
Subject: An Open Letter to the Campus Community

Last week an incident occurred that was contrary to the Principles of Community we espouse as a campus . The Berkeley College Republicans (an ASUC sponsored organization) publicized an "Increase Diversity Bake Sale" that prices baked goods according to a person's ethnicity, race, or gender. This event has moved the campus community into dialogue, because it was hurtful or offensive to many of its members.

Illustrating the breadth of the offense taken, last night the ASUC Senate unanimously passed a resolution condemning the methodology used by BCR and urging respectful conduct by all student organizations. The administration firmly endorses those sentiments. It is our sincere hope that the strong reactions generated by the proposed bake sale provide a vivid lesson that issues of race, ethnicity, and gender are far from resolved, and very much a part of lived experience here and now.

The Principles of Community are not about political positions. They require a consciousness of the potential effect of words or deeds on others: a positive intent not to hurt, offend, or denigrate others while expressing a reasoned position. Regardless what policies or practices one advocates, careful consideration is needed on how to express those opinions. The issue is not whether one thinks an action is satirical or inoffensive, the issue is whether community members will be intentionally - or unintentionally - hurt or demeaned by that action. The same applies to the way we interact with each other, whether academically, professionally, or socially.

If we, as a community, do not live with these expectations, then our Principles of Community (which the community authored) are just words on a page. The administration can urge, but not mandate, a person to behave with civility. We can express our disappointment or condemnation when respectfulness is abused. It is the community who must hold each other accountable for behaviors that do not reflect our communal values.

Forbearance and consciousness of how one's actions may affect others should always be a strong consideration. We celebrate the exchange of ideas through the freedoms we share as a nation, but intelligent debate is based on mutual respect. Freedom of speech is not properly exercised without taking responsibility for its impact. Taking that responsibility does not negate the freedom, it brings an enhanced humanity to it.


Robert Birgeneau, Chancellor
Gibor Basri, Vice Chancellor - Equity & Inclusion
Harry LeGrande, Vice Chancellor - Student Affairs
They are lucky I'm not still there; the Left Loonies would be on the wrong side of some amazing stuff lol. In my day the most egregious monstrosities were on the other side...but we did things like took over an entire city central business district, set up a revolutionary government with some international recognition, a revolutionary broadcaster with an international audience, stole the US launch codes and sent real launch orders, which out of the goodness of our hearts we aborted, began negotiations for military assistance with nuclear-armed foreign powers, and generally gave the US Government a run for its money. I think they, the BBC, the Soviet Politburo all took us pretty seriously as it took the best US front line Divisions backed by the US Airforce and over 20,000 police to retake our territories. Hundreds of thousands were taken away by the military to concentration camps; I personally stopped the unconstitutional detention of a prominent US Congressman. His offense? Speaking on the steps of the Capitol.

Malcolm X had the answer to these left loonies as well as to the other sort: Any Means Necessary. The militia in their drills know this too. “The Price of Liberty is the Blood of Martyrs”.
Basri is not so clueless that he cannot understand the bake sale was satire. When he and the liberals cannot stand is someone exercising their fundamental human right of dissent. The first thing that liberals do when they get power is to crush dissent.
Just another episode in the ongoing sitcom that is California, and another good example of the detachment of the affirmative-action crowd from reality.
Why do women get a discount? They can make their own cookies, so they should pay more if they want to be lazy. MEN should get the discount as it is not OUR job to cook.
Berkeley's response continues the parody.
"If he really is incapable of understanding such a simple satire, he does not belong in an institution of higher learning"

----- Of course he understands. Basri is just being intentionally dishonest, That is why he fits in so well as a senior administrator at an institution of higher learning.
I attended a community college and even I get that the price variance was intended to highlight the injustice (one perspective) of having lower (or higher) bars based simply on race or gender. It had nothing to do with a value comparison of the races or gender.

These kids are supposed to be our brightest?
How does charging white men higher prices than everyone else "place a higher value on white students"? Basri has it bass ackwards. By allowing price preference to minorities and women, the campus Republicans are highlighting the fact that affirmative action reduces the value of those who do NOT receive the preference.
If the intolerance at universities applied only to bake sales, it wouldn't be so disturbing. However, I teach at an university and intolerance of any speech that questions or criticizes the diversity agenda is treated the same way. Try pointing out the fundamental contradiction in hiring or admission policies that claim fairness while giving preferential treatment to less qualified, "targeted" candidates and see what happens. The policies won't be evaluated. Instead, the messenger will be punished for the message.
There's a reason some students can't compete based upon academic performance alone. Who wants to go to Berkely anyway??
Liberals dont need facts...they make them up. If colleges are supposed to be "anti-establishment" then why are all the school run by liberal radicals. If this was true all the students would be deeply conservative. Colleges these days educate idots to become even more stupid.
University of California Berkeley (Cal) picks the pockets of Californian students and their parents clean. (The author has 35 years’ consulting experience, has taught at Cal where he observed the culture, way senior management work and was not fired)

University of California Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau ($500,000 salary) has forgotten that he is a public servant, steward of the public money, not overseer of his own fiefdom. Stunning misguided waste: Tuition fee increases exceed national average rate of increase; Recruits (using California tax $) out of state $50,600 students who displace qualified Californians from Cal; Spends $7,000,000 + for consultants to do his senior management work (prominent East Coast university accomplishing same 0 cost); Pays ex Michigan governor $300,000 for lectures; Procuring $3,000,000 consulting firm failed to receive proposals from others; Latino enrollment drops while out of state jumps 2010-11 (M Krupnick Contra Costa Times); Ranked # 70 USA best universities Forbes; Tuition to Return on Investment drops below top 10; QS academic ranking falls below top 10; Only 50 attend Birgeneau all employees meeting; Campus visits down 20%; Absence Cal. senior management control NCAA places basketball on probation.
It’s all shameful. There is no justification for violations by a steward of the public trust. Absolutely none!
Governor Brown, UC Board of Regents Chair Lansing must vigorously enforce stringent oversight over Chancellor Birgeneau who uses Cal. as his fiefdom.

Email opinion to