In previous installments of this "Campus Follies" Series, we have examined the sensitivity training for white males at "orientation," and the persecution of the politically incorrect in university run star chambers. We have witnessed the rewriting of history to accommodate the feelings of minorities. We dealt at length with the new sexual Darwinism enforced by the campus date rape scare and the date rape guidelines.
In several of these lessons, we have asked whether this might all be a racially motivated attack. After all, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the only reason for ranting about "dead-white-males" is to vent hatred and disdain for the young, live ones who are still around.
Every year, at about this time, I get numerous inquiries from parents in Southern California. The inquiry is always similar.
"My son (or daughter) was rejected by Berkeley (or UCLA) but had GPA and SAT scores that were well above average for that school. What is going on?"
Now people who live in Newport Beach are much too polite to say what is really on their minds.
Affirmative action is supposed to bump the bottom 10% or so of whites to make some room for underperforming minorities. So as long as affirmative action leaves whites free to compete for 70% or 80% of the slots, they feel their children will not be significantly harmed.
Because of this thinking, many of these people accept quotas and preferences. After all, blacks comprise a mere 9% of the population of California and Hispanics 22%.
It is only the rejection of their child, with qualifications that place him or her in the top half of all "others", that causes doubts to creep in.
With that as background, and an invitation to launch, I reply to these inquiries as follows:
You know, when it comes to the UC System, race preferences have diverted your attention from the obvious.
Forget about affirmative action and look at the admissions criteria themselves. First they say that the top 12% of California high school graduates will be admitted. The typical suburbanite feels terrific. Surely their children are in the top 12% of all in the state!
But then you examine the admissions criteria and you see nothing about 12%. Rather, you see that all the U.C. schools take the GPA, maximum 4.0, multiply it by 1000 and then add the combined SAT score. When you do the math, you quickly realize that the difference between a 3.6 and a 3.9 will overwhelm a 200 point SAT advantage.
In addition, they cap the GPA at 4.0 thereby disregarding the effects of advanced placement courses typically offered in the competitive suburban schools that can boost the GPA to 4.25.
And that should trigger alarm bells.
Upon reading these criteria, the average suburbanite falls victim to the classic "fallacy of composition." They assume that all schools are just like their own neighborhood school, and that any student in any other school who has not learned as much as their child (and scores lower on the ETS achievement tests) will have a lower GPA.
The problem, of course is that all you have to do to get a 4.0 in Compton or L.A. South Central is to refrain from stabbing the teacher and read at a level that allows you to understand commercials on TV.
Any criteria that treats a 4.0 from Compton the same as a 4.25 from Palos Verdes, Encino, or Newport Beach will severely disadvantage the "very good" students from the highly competitive suburban schools. The admissions criteria have Willie Brown's scent all over them. (Willie "we sure fooled those white boys" Brown was Speaker of the California Assembly for 2 decades and is now the mayor of San Francisco.)
The purpose of the admissions criteria, put baldly, is to ensure that suburbanites are forced to go to private schools, and pay $30,000 tuition instead of $4000.
They nail most of the middle-class suburban whites with the admissions criteria. But they don't stop there. Special treatment is meted out to the truly exceptional students of the upper- middle-class.
Twice in the past 10 years, valedictorians from Newport Harbor High, with 4.2 GPAs and combined SATs above 1400 were rejected by Berkeley. Now Berkeley publishes a scale. At this level, admission is automatic. They are not following their guidelines.
Interviews are not allowed in the U.C. System. So many parents assume it must have been the essay. Parents and students have visions of Nobel prize winners and tenured professors sitting around reading admissions applications essays, and deciding the fates of their children. But there are approximately 200,000 essays filed with the system each year. As the UC System admits, most essays are not read at all. If they are, it is by a clerical employee who would not qualify if applying as a student.
But there are two short, easily understood lines on the U.C. admissions application that are pregnant with import. They are the lines for "race" and "income".
Most suburbanites are simply too naive to connect the two until their own child is rejected. But the connection is obvious. Any suburban white who answers the race question "white" and then admits that his parent's annual income is, say, $250,000 has a near certainty of being rejected at Berkeley or UCLA no matter what his or her qualifications.
Besides, it is much easier to make judgments based on two short entries on a form, than to slog through those horrible essays.
The system will honor its 12% commitment by admitting such a student to UC Riverside (if he or she applies). (It is the campus with the lowest SAT average in the system and is 50% hispanic.)
(Parenthetically, I should confess that Ygg Jr. was admitted to the impacted computer science - electrical engineering major at Berkeley, but he left the "race" and "income" lines blank. He and I were just dying to see if the application would be rejected as incomplete. It was not. He decided not to attend when he sat in on an engineering class and the professor cracked a joke in Japanese. Everyone in the room laughed except Ygg Jr.)
The ironies in all this multiply. Our prosperous upper-middle classes want to believe that, as part of an elite, they benefit from the system. No official has ever told them directly that they are part of any elite, nor that they benefit. Most successful people just assume its true. It is just one of those handy excrescences of egalitarian propaganda.
Despite the obvious signposts, they refuse to believe that they are the sheep being sheared by the system. They refuse to admit that the bureaucracies spawned by Liberal Democracy, staffed disproportionately by minorities, have infinite quiet ways of achieving their hostile agendas.
But of course, the attack does not stop with the admissions office. It extends to campus culture and activities as well.
There are two schools within the U.C. system that have nearly identical SAT averages, but are cultural "polar opposites." I speak of U.C. Irvine and U.C. Santa Barbara. Both, however, have disciplinary bureaucracies staffed and managed by minorities.
U.C. Irvine is (according to official statistics) 70% Asian. (However, a stroll across campus gives the impression that the campus is 90% Asian). U.C Santa Barbara is 67% white.
For years, U.C. Santa Barbara has had a reputation for being a party school. And indeed, on a return trip from Stanford and U.C Santa Cruz several years ago I can recall saying to Ygg. Jr. that there was probably no point in stopping at UCSB on a Friday night because all the students would be gone home. (Boy is Dad dumb!)
Of course, when we got there at about 7:00 PM there was a line of cars backed up on the freeway ramp for a mile waiting to get _in_ to U.C.S.B.!
Reputation apparently corresponds with reality.
For years, UCSB has been famous for its Halloween party in the off-campus neighborhood of Isla Vista. Gradually, the administration and the state police have shut the party down.
In 1995 there were 1700 police called in to patrol Isla Vista. As one wag quipped in the student newspaper, "would have been a great party, but everyone wore the same damn cop costume!"
At Berkeley (30% white, according to the official statistics), students are allowed to smoke marijuana in public. At UCSB, hundreds of students are arrested and prosecuted each year (by campus cops) for the possession of beer. There is a mandatory fine of $200 and a mandatory driver's license suspension of one year. It is one of those laws passed by the state legislature to mollify Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
Apparently, none of those Republican "white boys" in the Assembly realized that this law would be selectively enforced only against white students who are not driving at all, but have prudently decided to party on foot. Most local police departments refuse to arrest the under-age children of voters when caught with beer because of the pressure from the parents at the loss of a driver license. In the ghettos, where possession of beer is the very least of anyone's problem, such laws are simply ignored by police more worried about armed robbery and murder.)
The State Police squad at UCSB is four times as large as the squad at UC Irvine, even though the campuses have the same number of students (15,000 each).
At UCSB, the state police have roving squads of plain clothes detectives who enter local bars, get students to admit they are under age, and then arrest them on minor-in-possession charges. Bar owners are not arrested.
At UCI there is a club on campus that serves alcohol. IDs are only lightly scrutinized, and there are no patrols of undercover state police checking for false IDs. There are no such patrols visiting any of the bars down on Balboa Peninsula, were many UCI students live and party.
In fact, when you walk the campus at UCI, police are seldom visible. You can trespass on the athletic fields, use the all- weather track, pee in the bushes when the johns aren't open on Sunday, and the police will never bother you. You get the feeling of freedom from intrusion that was typical of a real university back in the sixties.
Now 1700 police is quite a resource allocation. They do not show up at Halloween by accident. It is the administration in Berkeley that makes these decisions and implements them through the kings and queens of discipline on the various campuses. (The community of Isla Vista is on state owned land).
Is Isla Vista really dangerous? Is there any objective reason for having so many civil servants attending the youngsters at UCSB and not at UCI? Or Berkeley, for that matter?
The easiest way to check is to call your auto insurance company. Higher crime areas always have higher auto insurance premiums. Drug use, auto theft, and high arrest rates for violent felonies correlate with high auto accident rates.
You guessed it! Rates are lower in Isla Vista than they are in Irvine California. Repair costs are the same. Insurance rates are certainly a great deal lower in Isla Vista than they are in Berkeley California. In fact, auto insurance rates are lower in Isla Vista than they are in neighboring Santa Barbara.
The truth is that kids are safer walking the streets of Isla Vista than they would be walking the streets of Santa Barbara or the San Fernando Valley. Safe, that is, from everything but state police looking for beer.
Is UCI really that much safer than UCSB?
You know its interesting. There was a female UCI student named "Rosa" who was dumped by a white male a few years back. She called a few boys from the old "hood." 20 showed up with base ball bats and killed 2 white students by beating their brains out (the involved white male was not harmed).
On another occasion, a UCI student of Vietnamese ancestry fired several rifle rounds through the dorm wall of another student of Japanese ancestry.
During Thanksgiving vacation, after a track workout, I happened to disturb a tailgate party of about 17 Samoan gang members, complete with loud boom boxes and mock violent challenges to one another in the parking lot of the Bren Center, not 200 yards from the police station. The croud fell silent on my approach. "Just passing through gents!" Not a state policeman in sight, anywhere.
The disciplinary "problem" at U.C. Santa Barbara is being filtered through minority tinted glasses. According to a deputy district attorney and recent graduate, the war against the majority has been going on a long time. It started in the mid- 1980's with a crackdown on fraternities with expulsions for "hate speech" and "harassment". When the bureaucrats lost a few court cases, they fixed upon the new minor-in-possession penalties as a way of pursuing the same objective.
Apparently, dope smoking at Berkeley and Santa Cruz (20% lesbian, by reputation) is just fine with the U.C. administration. Ditto queer sex in the libraries, and minority racial demonstrations. But let a few heterosexual whites have a little fun on the beach and its "Call in the cops!"
A veiled attack based on race?
A chaotic accident?
Does California lead the nation?
You be the judge!
© 1996-1998 Yggdrasil. All rights reserved. Distribute texts freely.