UCLA Bureaucrats Subvert Anti-Quota Law. But Where Is GOP?


Ask John McCain to free associate
and in response to
"illegal aliens"
he`ll blurt "God`s
children,
"
and

vice versa.
This apparently irresistible combination
surfaced again in his convention

address
:
"Everyone has something to contribute and deserves the
opportunity to reach their God-given potential,"

McCain

bleated
. "[F]rom the boy whose descendents[sic]
arrived on the

Mayflower
to the [
likely illegal] w:st="on">Latina daughter of migrant
workers. We`re all God`s children and we`re all
Americans."

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
has
not been in the good graces
of government for quite
some time. The
Latina

daughter of illegal migrants is another matter entirely.
She`s
benefiting big time
—at least at a top government
school like the w:st="on">University of California,
Los Angeles:

"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
cold-eyed  Report
on Suspected Malfeasance in UCLA Admissions and the
Accompanying Follow Up
.
[ year="2008" w:st="on">August 28, 2008]

In August this year, Groseclose

resigned
from the admissions committee after the
university refused to release the data he requested in
an attempt to prove
UCLA
was flouting the will of Californians
.


California
`s Prop. 209 was
supposed to ensure that race would no longer be a
deciding factor in who gets into top government schools.
When voters passed the Proposition, the
California

state government was supposed to ban any race or gender
considerations in its hiring, contracting or educational
policies.

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, Orange w:st="on">County
Register
month="8" day="28" year="2008" w:st="on">August 28, 2008]

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 w:st="on">University of California`s
sclerotic system to admit minorities with low scores
while denying admission to

whites and Asians with top grades and test scores
.

"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."

Consequently,
"[t]he
median SAT score of blacks and Hispanics in

Berkeley`s liberal arts
programs was 250 points
lower (on a 1,600-point scale) than that of

whites and Asians
."

Due to the

high drop-out rate
of affirmative-action admits—and
to prevent further attrition—UCLA had created a bunch of
BS majors. Examples are

Critical Race Theory
and

Black Studies
.

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:
Ward
Connerly
, president of the American Civil Rights
Institute. The libertarian Connerly is the

force behind
the drive to rid
America

of the invidious
"race
preferences, set-asides, and quotas
,"
and the
man who has

placed the issue on the ballot
in states such as
Nebraska
,
Arizona, and w:st="on">Colorado. Connerly`s aim
is to restore the primacy of

individual merit
to American institutions.

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.
While the w:st="on">California courts, surprisingly, upheld Prop.
209,
California
`s byzantine college
bureaucracy, and the UCLA scheming machine, worked
overtime to thwart the popular will.

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
Boalt
w:st="on">Law School
.
Similarly, students graduating with top marks from
failing schools that award As for showing up were deemed
as eligible—if not more so—than students graduating with
honors from highly competitive secondary schools. In an
attempt to net yet more minorities, "all
students in the top 4 percent of their high school
class, regardless of their standardized test scores
,"
in Mac Donald`s words, were accepted.

But UC Berkeley was not quick
enough to adopt bush-college standards. The measures
taken by
California

university campuses failed to yield the critical mass of
minorities ethnic lobbies were clamoring for.

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.

These
days McCain, a Johnny-come-lately to conservatism,
disavows affirmative action—sort
of
. But in 1998 he

supported it.

And in
2003, the Bush administration filed a brief challenging
racial preference in student admissions at the
University

of Michigan
.
The university was awarding candidates

20 points out of 150
for having the right
complexion
(non-white)
and only 12 points for the right mind (a perfect
SAT score).

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