Replies

Well, good let's spend taxpayer dollars trying to thwart the will of the people.
-----
Standard operating procedure -- the libs have ZERO RESPECT FOR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, or that AA was deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL on the basis it is reverse discrimination. But again, the law does not matter to the libs. The law is there to be broken.

A number of years ago, even before standard present-day affirmative action programs were challenged, Boalt was sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination. Boalt had a quota system where African Americans, Chicanos "certain" Asian groups (euphemistically called "Pacific Islanders," but excluding Chinese and Japanese) were in a separate admissions pool and essentially admitted purely on grounds of race, without having to compete against other candidates. Boalt eventually entered into a consent decree where they agreed to end the quota system for admissions. This was one of the cases that involved the principle that race could be a "factor" in admissions, but not the sole determinant.

The little dirty secret of Berkeley is that for many years it engaged in outright discrimination against Asian admissions, claiming that it would push out the blacks and Chicanos. The rationale was similar to the Ivy League's justification for limiting Jews for many years. After Prop. 209, Asian (not white) admissions at Berkeley sky-rocketed; because of its size and large number of applicants (and thus limited agility to give individualized consideration of applications on other bases) Berkeley traditionally gives heavy weight in admission on pure statistics (GPA and SAT scores). Asians traditionally score at the top in these categories. Berkeley is now something like 60 percent Asian. This drives the lefties at Berkeley crazy, but it would be politically incorrrect to go after Asians so whites continue to be made the scapegoats for "discrimination."

"Some scholars say the 2003 Supreme Court case, Grutter v. Bollinger, has dramatically changed the legal landscape for challenges to affirmative-action bans. In that ruling, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority that "student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions.""

What does that have to do with the constitutionality of Prop. 209? All the Supreme Court said was that racial preferences were allowed under a strict set of rules. It did not do anything remotely like saying that NOT having racial preferences was unconstitutional. Are these people just fooling themselves?

The institute ... will be funded mainly through alumni donations and grants.

Here's one (embarrassed) alumnus who will not be funding this. I often think
California would be better off defunding my "alma mater" and converting the
space to other uses. Except for the possibility of earthquakes using the
Berkeley campus for a nuclear waste dump would help sterilize the place.

Birgeneau, who also arrived on campus last year, has said in the past that Prop. 209 unfairly prevents African-Americans, Latinos and other underrepresented minorities from attending the university.

I agree completely. Prop 209 is positively un-American!! The nerve of Californians to hold minorities to the same standards as everybody else!!!!

/sarcasm