Ethnic cleansing back on the agenda at University of California
By Stanley Womack, ResistingDefamation.org
Ever since Proposition 209, the anti-race-preference initiative, was passed by California voters in 1996, various state and local government agencies have sought a means to save race-based government programs.
The opening, true words of an NRO article written in May 2004 by Lance T. Izumi & Sharon Browne (both energetic opponents of affirmative action and, in Browne’s case, a successful litigant).
Well, all those disappointed state and local government agencies need pine after the old days no more. The San Jose Mercury News reports:-
Students recruit minorities to UC in ways institution can’t
By Lisa M. Krieger
California law bans the state’s public universities from recruiting students based on race.
But it can’t stop student volunteers.
Call it the outsourcing of affirmative action. Stepping into jobs made off-limits to university officials by Proposition 209 - the 1996 California ballot proposition that prohibited public schools from targeting students based on race, sex, or ethnicity - students are reaching back into their own communities to boost diversity on campus.
“We feel an obligation to help open the door to allow for more of our brothers and sisters to enter,” said Fuifuilupe Niumeitolu, a Tongan student at the University of California-Berkeley who is a member of the student group Pacific Islanders Higher Education Recruitment Program. “It is a labor of love, rooted in creating social change.”
The passage of Proposition 209 hit UC-Berkeley’s racial and ethnic communities hard. The number of incoming freshmen from under-represented minorities groups - African-American, Latino, Native American and Pacific Islander - shrank by half.
The numbers are just now beginning to recover. But the campus is still far from reflecting the state’s diversity. Although about 47 percent of public high school graduates in California are members of underrepresented minorities, they make up just 25 percent of UC’s incoming freshman class. At UC-Berkeley, the system’s most elite campus, there are only 15.7 percent.
Under-represented minorities groups. That’s a new phrase, even from Lisa Krieger, who we at RD judge to be one of, if not the, most consistent purveyer of anti-white American hate-journalism at San Jose Mercury News. What it signals is a new wedge for ethnic cleansing.
“Under-representation” is pretty hard-left stuff. Of course it’s predicated on the illusion that, say, Tongans - an ethnic group with an average IQ of 87 - must be numerically represented at all levels of the educational system. Because every group has the same potential, right? And if one group (or even three) is “under-represented” we all know who’s to blame and who will have to pay.
In reality, it is white Americans who are seriously under-represented on UC-Berkeley’s campus. UC-Berkeley’s own figure of 31% for whites does not exclude Jews. But College Confidential website lists the Jewish student total at 13%. If we allow for a couple of percent of the Jewish element to be shy about ethnicity (ie, “not stated”), this is probably a more accurate ethnic breakdown:-
African American: 3.4%
American Indian: 0.5%
Asian/Pacific Islander: 41.7%
White American: 20.4%
Not Stated: 4.7%
Bear in mind, also, that the Pacific Islanders are unlikely to account for more than 1% of the near 35,000 students on campus. So Asians account for 40%+.
As you read Krieger’s article note the rhetoric of Tongan love for Tongan: “It is a labor of love, rooted in creating social change.” Note the easy linkage to progressive politics. For Krieger, condemning intelligent white Americans to fewer and fewer educational opportunities is “just” and “fair”.
In its way, her article is a highly professional piece of work. It is also the kind of rhetoric that white Americans need to learn to use - seriously, I mean it - if we are ever to defend against such attacks.
Krieger is still required by the standards of her profession to pursue an appearance, at least, of balance in the article. She quotes Sharon Browne. Briefly.
UC officials can still offer programs to educationally disadvantaged students. But programs must be inclusive, rather than racially targeted. Race and ethnicity can’t be a factor in deciding whom to admit, either.
“Universities can reach out. But they have to reach out to everyone,” said Sharon Browne, an attorney with the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, which supported passage of Proposition 209.
It’s a fundamental change that forced universities to radically rethink how to connect with minority students.
The California State Universities - which are academically and financially more accessible, and therefore more diverse - have faced less of a challenge.
The 10-campus University of California system faced a bigger hurdle. To comply with the law, UC has shifted its focus to academic preparation.
Rather than race-specific outreach, “we’re focusing on students with low income and disadvantaged backgrounds,” said Jamie Vargas, of the UC-Santa Cruz-based Education Partnership Center.
So is it possible, in Jamie Vargas’ estimation, to be an intelligent white American of student age and “disadvantaged”? But we know, because we have already heard the lecture about White Privilege.
Krieger finishes her article in style, returning to “the outsourcing of affirmative action”:-
UC officials cheer the students’ recruitment efforts.
“They are passionate about what they’re doing, because they care,” said Walter Robinson, director of undergraduate admissions at UC-Berkeley. “The students have seen the need for greater diversity and have taken it upon themselves to assist and supplement the university’s effort.
“There are public policy limits to what we can carry out . . .They can go to any population and target any group because they don’t represent the university, but themselves,” he said. “They make the campus a better place.”
For the avoidance of doubt, here‘s a bio and picture of UC-Berkeley’s director of undergraduate admissions.
Welcome to ethnic cleansing, California-style