Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
UCLA Bureaucrats Subvert Anti-Quota Law. But Where Is GOP?
Ask John McCain to free associate
and in response to
he'll blurt "God's
vice versa. This apparently irresistible combination
surfaced again in his convention
"Everyone has something to contribute and deserves the
opportunity to reach their God-given potential,"
bleated. "[F]rom the boy whose descendents[sic]
arrived on the
Mayflower to the [likely illegal]
God, no doubt, moves in mysterious
ways. But McCain needs to be reminded that the boy whose
forefathers settled the country he professes to love
not been in the good graces of government for quite
some time. The
"A growing body of evidence strongly suggests that UCLA is cheating on admissions. Specifically, applicants often reveal their own race on the essay portion of the application. This allows admission staff members to learn the race of the applicants; then, in violation of Proposition 209, readers use such information to evaluate applicants. To the extent that this happens—an extent which can only be assessed with systematic data on admissions—such practices are de facto implementation of racial preferences."
So wrote Professor
Tim Groseclose, a political scientist at UCLA, in a
on Suspected Malfeasance in UCLA Admissions and the
Accompanying Follow Up.
But the decades-old race racket just went underground. Undaunted, university administrators proceeded to fashion an admissions process that utilized "stealthy surrogates for race." As Heather Mac Donald has documented in rich detail, "Tutors in the university's outreach programs [teach] students to emphasize their social and economic disadvantages in their application essay." [Elites to Anti-Affirmative-Action Voters: Drop Dead, City Journal, Winter 2007] Minority applicants have become adept at belaboring the pigment burden in the essay section of the admissions process. Evidently, administrators are equally good at picking up cues that help them color-pick candidates.
The Orange County Register's Marla Jo Fisher, who broke the story, provided the backdrop to Groseclose's resignation and the blistering report he issued:
"Campus officials have been under
intense pressure to increase numbers of black students,
particularly since a 2006 public outcry over the fact
that only 96 of the nearly 5,000 freshmen who enrolled
at the prestigious campus were African American. This
year, 235 black freshmen plan to enroll for the fall
term, about 5 percent of the freshman class and more
than double the 2006 number." [UCLA
official resigns over admissions concerns | He
suspects cheating in racial admissions, which are banned
by state law. By Marla Jo Fisher,
The subterfuge that Tim Groseclose
has stumbled upon was unnecessary until 1996, which was
when Californians passed Proposition 209. Before Prop.
209, it was standard practice in the
"For several decades," Mac Donald chronicled, "the university had divided its applicants into two categories: it admitted one half only by objective tests of academic merit, such as standardized test scores and honors classes; it evaluated the other half subjectively, weighing such factors as race, economic status, or leadership. From this tier, where racial preferences had free rein, the vast majority of blacks and Hispanics were drawn."
This racial spoils system is a testament to the tenacity of diversity devotees. Preachers and practitioners of "benevolent" discrimination have institutionalized this collectivist quota culture in the teeth of popular opposition and legal injunctions against such practices.
Fortunately, affirmative action has
offended the sensibilities of one black American:
Connerly, president of the American Civil Rights
Institute. The libertarian Connerly is the
force behind the drive to rid
Or, as he told an unsympathetic correspondent for the PBS program NOW: "to do what's best for the country."
After Prop. 209 passed, the number
of "underrepresented minorities" accepted at UCLA dropped by half. As
is their wont, energetic ethnic advocates framed this
retreat from equal bean-counting as a grave injustice.
To increase the
Lilliputian number of minorities, admission
standards were thus lowered for all students. For
example, the importance of LSAT scores was diminished in
the admission to UC Berkeley's
But UC Berkeley was not quick
enough to adopt bush-college standards. The measures
So, Mac Donald reported, the university began ignoring all together "its applicants' objective academic rankings", and considering a "holistic" method of assessment. Academic scores are currently "contextualized". To wit, an applicant with a lower SAT score who mentions having taken a bullet or quit a gang will be given preference over a high-scoring applicant burdened by a two-parent family.
Surprisingly, Groseclose, a scholar who has produced rigorous research on bias in the media, is said to favor the bias he uncovered at UCLA. Or, as he put it, "the idea of offering preferences to bring in more black students." He just disapproves of the secretive nature of the selection process.
However, if a system that pays tribute to a type, not to the individual, doesn't irk the good professor, one wonders why he went to all the trouble.
The accommodation of elites to racial preferences has been studied by Frederick R. Lynch, the author of Invisible Victims: White Males and the Crisis of Affirmative Action. When polled, corporate, political and academic elites mostly foreswear quotas/affirmative action. But they seldom resist its implementation.
Republicans, the consummate drag queens of politics (no offense to drag queens), are no different.
2003, the Bush administration filed a brief challenging
racial preference in student admissions at the
Bush's was a most unusual brief because, as it transpired, the administration's challenge was a cover for the very system Professor Groseclose has exposed at UCLA. Race, the administration's Solicitor General conceded, could be a factor in admissions under certain conditions. Racial cue cards in the form of "a statement people can make about whether they've overcome hardship" were quite kosher.
Barack Obama's honest support for affirmative action may be more irritating. But is there really a dime's worth of difference between the parties?
Ilana Mercer (email her) is a weekly columnist for WorldNetDaily.com, a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies,. and the author of Broad Sides: One Woman's Clash With a Corrupt Culture, the Foreword to which was written by Peter Brimelow. Her website is www.ilanamercer.com; her blog www.barelyablog.com