Divestment Defeated at UCSD

April 28, 2011 2 Comments

Due to delays and support behind efforts to rally against anti-Israel bias, we here at UCSD successfully defeated divestment!

Read about this feat from StandWithUs below:

StandWithUs salutes the Tritons for Israel for their strategy and dedication to defeating BDS on their campus.

On April 13th, 2011, the Associated Students (AS), the official student representatives at UC San Diego, passed a resolution authored by Academic Senator Adi Singer, stating that it was not the place of the Associated Students to pass resolutions that will divide the campus community and alienate specific groups. The resolution called for neutrality of the student senate, and reinforced the mission statement of building a cohesive campus community, and representing a diverse but unified voice. Two weeks ago, Student for Justice in Palestine (SJP) submitted a resolution calling upon the UC Regents to divest the retirement and pension funds from General Electric and Northrop Grumman, specifically because of their business dealings with the Israeli Defense Forces. Through intense lobbying of elected representatives and direct, peaceful dialogue with SJP,  the Tritons for Israel, a pro-Israel student group at UCSD, were able to achieve great success when last night, April 27th, SJP actually withdrew their divestment resolution, and it was not raised for consideration at the student senate.

In an opinion piece published in the campus paper today and authored by Tritons for Israel student leadership, “Tritons for Israel has always and will continue to stand for peace, dialogue, and justice. Divestment is not the way to a durable peace. Only by speaking to one another can we achieve a true understanding, and build the bridges necessary for a sustainable coexistence. Tritons for Israel hopes that we will someday have a willing partner in the struggle to achieve a sustainable end to the conflict, both in the Middle East and here on our campus.”

StandWithUs campus professionals and Board of Directors are very proud of the Tritons for Israel for this tremendous effort and achievement.

Thank you for being excellent role models for other campuses!

Read the statement of the Tritons for Israel Executive Board here

Read more divestment coverage from the perspective of the UCSD student newspaper here

Related Articles

Filed under America, Islamofascism, Israel, Israel-Palestinian Conflict, News, Political Correctness, ucsd, University of California Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

UCSD Guardian Fails to Uphold Principles of Unbiased Journalism

April 21, 2011 Leave a comment

Cross-posted from the California Review blog on April 4th, 2011.  It is also featured in the April 2011 print edition:

Once championed as the “marketplace of ideas,” American universities are now overrun by liberal, anti-American, and anti-Semitic bias. Campus Reform reports, “According to campaign finance data from the Huffington Post, of the UCSD faculty and staff who contributed to 2008 presidential campaigns, 96% gave to Democratic candidates and just 4% to Republicans. In total, UCSD donated $48,966 to Democrats and $2,192 to Republicans.”

UCSD is allegedly mired by “political apathy” according to students. This phenomenon is rooted in the idea that political activities on campus are minimal and that students are too focused on consolidating their careers to be involved. With the intent of combatting this “challenge,” the “official” newspaper at UCSD, the Guardian, seeks to fill this void.

While the Guardian is typically seen as UCSD’s official paper, it is not representative of all student viewpoints. Leftist, anti-Israel, anti-American, pro-alternative lifestyle, pro-illegal immigration, and pro–big government biases comprise many of the published articles. As UCSD students routinely hide from politics on campus—unless they are personally afflicted by Associated Student (AS) rulings or campus incidents—the Guardian should uphold its journalistic integrity and maintain neutrality in its reporting.

Nevertheless, statistics compiled from articles printed Winter Quarter 2011 debunk assertions that the paper upholds journalistic principles of fact-based reporting and neutrality. Our analysis found that the Guardian’s six sections (opinion, news, Hiatus, Focus, sports, and Letter to the Editor) are all infested with some type of bias—particularly a leftist bias.

Of approximately 307 articles printed from January to March 2011, almost one-third displayed some form of bias. Of those biased articles, 78 percent boasted a left-leaning bias compared to 22 percent with a right-leaning bias. The least leftist section was Sports, which had only one politically biased article out of 67 they published. On the other hand, both the letter-to-the-editor and opinion sections were tied with 75 percent total bias and 75 percent leftist bias, respectively, but this is to be expected.

However, it is their news section that bears the most disheartening “news.” Of the 107 articles published, one-third displayed the slant of the Guardian staff and the abandonment of their principles of neutrality and unbiased reporting. Many of their news articles paint a picture specifically designed to generate support for a certain perspective. They also often focus only on one side of a news story, while completely ignoring possible alternatives or opposition.

Some of the most egregiously biased articles were “Chicano Mural Will Become Permanent Mosaic in April,” “Students Rally Against Prop 23 Supporters in Rancho Mirage,” “UC Students Campaign for D.R.E.A.M. Act,” and “New Diversity G.E. Approved for Fall.” This leftist slant is also reflected in the number of articles covering the same topics. Five news articles cover the UAW 5810 union and the deportation of postdoctoral researcher Wilda Helen, three news articles cover support for the D.R.E.A.M Act, and eight news articles advocate for increased spending and for fighting the budget cuts. In all of these articles, they present one-sided portrayals of the story they are covering.

In their article regarding the Chicano Mural on Peterson Hall, the Guardian ignores the blatantly political bias presented within the mural and possible critiques of the administration’s decision. Instead, however, it features glowing statements of support by the UCSD administration, the artist, and a member of MEChA.

Similarly, in an attempt to cast the Koch Brothers as evil billionaires, in “Students Rally Against Prop 23 Supporters in Rancho Mirage,” the writer wrote that the prominent conservative-libertarian donors secretly met with others to set aside “hundreds of millions of dollars” to take over elections. According to Open Secrets.com, Koch Industries only invested $11,002,235 dollars into campaigns from 1989-2010 and ranked number 83 of 140 “Heavy Hitters.” Nevertheless, Open Secrets.com reveals that Democrats—who are so-called champions against “evil billionaires” and “greedy rich folks”—ironically got the most donations from 1989-2010. Most pointedly, this “news article” also lacks any quotes or statements to balance the 8 anti-Koch quotes by the Director of the California Student Sustainability Coalition and the Director of the UCSD Student Sustainability Collective.

In all three of their articles about the D.R.E.A.M. Act, no arguments are presented or sought by students who do not support California tax dollars to go to illegal immigrants. Rather, they solely present quotes in support of the D.R.E.A.M Act. Then in their article, “New Diversity G.E. Approved for Fall,” they discuss the additional diversity requirement being added at UCSD, and they continue the trend of bias by only citing sympathizers and supporters of these new requirements. Most outrageously of all, they cite that “The new requirement has generally garnered a positive response from students” without providing any evidence to support their claim. At least we at the California Review have the decency to admit our political point of view

As is to be expected from their opinion section, the Guardian doesn’t even pretend to be unbiased most of the time. From editorial board statements such as “Moving Back the Goalposts” and “Growing Diversity,” to “point/counterpoints” which present sham defenses for the controversial topics they address, such as “Chick-Fil-A Anti-Gay Support,” “Arizona Immigration Crackdown,” and “South Carolina’s New Currency,” the Guardian penchant for leftist ideology runs rampant. Also, in the “Props and Flops” section of the opinion section, they give Obama “props” for not enforcing DOMA and they give the TSA “props” for their enhanced body scanners (i.e. pornoscanners). At the same time, they give “flops” to Republicans for repealing Obamacare and to Gov. Rick Perry (TX) for supporting students in their right tocarry concealed weapons on campus.

In “Moving Back the Goalposts” the Guardian laments that even though holistic review is “big step toward leveling the playing field and acknowledging applicants’ privilege” it does not do enough for affirmative action, and does not do enough to increase UC diversity based on skin color.

In their point/counterpoint segment, the Guardian ignores the common sense defense for controversial topics and instead presents students with straw man arguments. In their discussion of Chick-Fil-A’s decision to offer free catering to a Traditional Marriage conference, the Guardian presents their choice as either bigoted, or as a choice by wealthy executives out of touch with society. If the Guardian wants to bash Chick-Fil-A’s decision to support traditional marriage they have that right, but they should at least present a legitimate counterpoint. The same situation occurs in their discussion of the Arizona bill to repeal birthright citizenship. Two of the three arguments presented cast this bill in a negative light, while the third offers a weak defense of it. The only valid point made is that this bill likely violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, and one of the arguments even calls this bill “a regressive step in the direction of a pre-Civil Rights era.” Sadly, the pro argument portrays the bill as a step toward a solution while simultaneously bashing opposition to illegal immigration, incorporating language into their discussion such as when they write “children of undocumented immigrants, [are] pejoratively called ‘anchor babies’.” Then, both arguments about South Carolina’s desire for an alternative currency support the Federal Reserve and bash the idea of competing state currencies (even though these were the norm prior to the establishment of the IRS and the income tax).

Finally, in “Growing Diversity,” the Editorial Board asserts that engineering diversity through General Education (GE) requirements is the only means to combat “racism” on campus. The article unabashedly claims that UCSD is racist, stating, “…it’s important to remember the root of this proposal: irrefutable evidence that our campus is not nearly welcoming enough to minority students.” The Editorial Board ignores the idea that intellectual diversity—rather than reverse discrimination— is what should be encouraged on a college campus, and it is the merit of a student that should be rewarded rather than the color of their skin or their gender.

Although the Guardian claims to be UCSD’s student voice, it is merely an outlet that trashes any viewpoints that do not fit into their “politically correct” worldview. This paper tramples over “unpopular” beliefs, providing both misinformation and the narrow range of opinions representated by the Guardian. It is imperative to write Letters to the Editor and challenge the Guardian whenever they violate their own principles of neutrality.

Gabriella is a sophomore in Eleanor Roosevelt College majoring in political science.

Guardian Investigation Chart

Filed under The California Review, ucsd, University of California, Women with Intellectual Integrity, Young Conservatives Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Prospect Blog Vilifies UCSD Professors, Denies Anti-Semitism Exists

April 7, 2011 2 Comments

Oh no he didn’t…This guy first went after me and The California Review. Now, he’s going to mess with well-respected professors here at UCSD. This means war.

Check out the rants from the latest UCSD MSA/SJP  apologist here.

UCSD Professors Accuse Student Groups of Hypocrisy, Anti-Semitism

By admin in Culture, Middle East, Politics, United States

By Taylor Marvin

On April 4th 28 UCSD professors and faculty purchased and published a full-page letter in The Guardian, UCSD’s leading campus newspaper. The letter’s authors accused UCSD student organizations critical of Israel of hypocrisy- while these student groups have historically criticized Israel’s human rights record in the Occupied Territories, the letter’s signatories allege that they have turned a blind eye to abuses by Arab autocratic governments. This allegation is framed in harsh terms, with signatories accusing UCSD student groups of, in effect, anti-semitism:

“On our campus the muted reaction to this volcanic eruption of civil unrest and the ensuing horrific slaughter of thousands of civilians by their own leaders has been quite revealing. Sadly, it has confirmed strong suspicions of many students and faculty that the highly vituperative activism spearheaded by the Muslim Students Association (MSA), the Arab Student Union (ASU) and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and directed relentlessly against a single Mideast country, Israel, is driven less by positive impulses of fraternity toward fellow Arabs and Muslims than by hateful impulses to destroy the world’s only sovereign Jewish nation.”

This is an extremely strong allegation. For faculty members at one of the nation’s leading universities to publicly accuse students of racism is noteworthy and disturbing. However, despite their aggressive wording the authors’ claims are unsupported, deeply misleading and intellectually dishonest.

In contrast to the letter’s claim, in the January and February 2011 UCSD student organizations hosted many events and protests designed to draw attention to the humanitarian situation in Tunisia, Egypt, and the rest of the Arab world. Case in point: Prospect’s own Perspectives event on February 28th that hosted discussion and debate about the significance and future of Egypt’s revolution by a number of student and faculty speakers. While Prospect was not mentioned in the letter, Prospect’s partners Students for Justice in Palestine and Arab Student Union were explicitly criticized.

Source: Prospect.Source: Prospect. 

The UCSD student body’s enthusiasm for this event could hardly be termed “a muted response.” Roughly 250 students attended this event for no academic credit:

Source: ProspectSource: Prospect 

Prospect’s event was not the only panel discussion organized by UCSD students. On February 10th the Arab Student Union, Students for Civil Rights in Iran, Students for Justice in Palestine, and Student Sustainability Collective hosted a teach-in to draw attention to the developing situation in the Arab world:

Source: The Guardian, February 14, 2011.Source: The Guardian, February 14, 2011. 

This event was organized in part by the ASU and SJP, two groups the letter’s authors specifically targets for their “highly vituperative activism.” It’s also worth remembering that the above image is from the front page of The Guardian- the authors’ allegations are specifically contradicted by the front page of the very publication they chose to publish their letter.

The authors also criticize these student organizations for alleged online inaction, specifically through social media. From the letter:

“Why haven’t the websites and Facebook pages of the MSA, ASU and SJP been abuzz with plans for social activism and moral outrage over the murder of civilians who are fighting to gain liberty in Arab countries?”

This is untrue:

Source: Prospect Facebook page, image posted February 18.Source: Prospect Facebook page, image posted February 18. 

Students for Civil Rights in Iran, the Arab Student Union, and Students for Justice in Palestine clearly utilized social media plan social activism over the murder of Arab civilians fighting to gain liberty. Students for Civil Rights in Iran’s participation in this event is noteworthy: the authors do not mention this organizations’ role in anti-autocrat protests and events, because it does not fit their narrative of student organizations obsessed with criticizing Israel. The fact that the letter’s authors did not bother to research this unambiguously false claim is indicative of their disrespect for their readers, and cast significant doubt over the rest of their accusations.

However, one element of the authors’ argument is understandable. Justice in Palestine Week, which the letter terms a “weeklong hate-fest,” is a large event that is highly visible to the student body- displays erected by student organizers dominate Library Walk, the center of the UCSD campus. If student activities critical of Arab governments were limited to indoor events the authors’ allegations of a bias would be justified. However, this is also untrue:

Source: The Guardian, February 3, 2011.Source: The Guardian, February 3, 2011. 

Protests held on Library Walk February 2nd were attended by over a hundred students- a respectable number at a largely apolitical campus- who loudly demanded the removal of autocratic leaders in the Arab world. While this event did not display the same degree of preparation as Justice in Palestine Week, this is understandable- Justice in Palestine Week is the product of months of planning by organizing student organizations, while the February 2nd protests were held only 8 days after January 25th’s ‘Day of Rage’ that sparked the revolution in Egypt.

The letter does not simply accuse student organizations of bias- in the eyes of the letter’s authors UCSD students are deliberately targeting Israel and motivated by hate:

“Or is it possible that human rights and social justice have been hijacked by these groups for use as expedient intellectual weapons in the service of a culturally driven agenda—to bludgeon the Jewish state?”

It’s hard to overstate just how strong of an accusation this is. A number of UCSD professor are unambiguously accusing their students of racism. These are words that can’t easily taken back, and have the potentially to permanently break the bond of trust between students and teachers. These serious claims require correspondingly strong support- however, the letter’s authors decline to offer evidence to substantiate their assertions, instead choosing to rely on empty accusations that hide behind their severity.

The accusations advanced in the Guardian letter fail basic investigation and are disproved by a brief examination of the same news outlet where its authors published their message. No one is disputing that Israel is a democratic nation that offers its citizens freedom and human rights rare in the Middle East. Similarly, aspects of the authors’ allegations are valid- Justice in Palestinian week does offer “deliberately one-sided and selective information” that often neglects the deeply complex nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and both sides’ refusal to accept the meaningful political sacrifices need to achieve peace. However, the authors’ criticism of Justice in Palestine Week’s bias ignores the deep pro-Israel bias in American culture. As of last month, 63 percent of Americans self-identified as sympathizing with Israel compared to 17 percent that identify with the Palestinians, a disparity that is increasing. Given this disparity, the biased nature of Justice in Palestine Week is not a significant threat to Israel’s perception in the United States and does not justify grossly inappropriate personal attacks on students by their professors, a serious abuse of their respected status in the eyes of their students.

However, the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are aside the point. The letter’s authors chose to spend roughly $1,000 to criticize student organizations, accusations that are clearly false and deeply unprofessional. The degree of intellectual laziness in the signatories’ argument is insulting- the letter’s authors take it for granted that readers will accept their claims, rather than undertake the very basic research needed to disprove their claims. This level of disrespect for the UCSD student body is not acceptable in university faculty, and its faulty reasoning is profoundly unscientific. The authors of this letter owe their students better, and as UCSD students we should demand it.

Faculty signatories of the letter are listed below. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of provided contact information.

David Feifel, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Psychiatry: (619)543-2827, dfeilfel@ucsd.edu

Joshua Fierer, MD, Professor of Infectious Diseases: (858) 552-7446, jfierer@ucsd.edu

Ami Berkowitz, PhD, Professor, Department of Physics: (858) 534-5627, aberkowitz@ucsd.edu

Joseph L. Witztum, MD, Professor of Medicine: jwitztum@ucsd.edu

Seth M. Pransky, MD, Clinical Professor of Surgery: (858) 309-7708, spransky@rchsd.org

Sidney Zisook, MD, Professor, Department of Psychiatry: (858) 534-4040, szisook@ucsd.edu

Larry Millstein, PhD, Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering: (858) 534-3096, milstein@ece.ucsd.edu

Ron Evans, PhD, Professor, Department of Mathematics: (858) 534-2635, revans@ucsd.edu

Eyal Raz, MD, Professor, Department of Medicine: (858) 534-5444, eraz@ucsd.edu

Gary Frost, PhD, Founding Dean, Earl Warren College

David J. Printz, MD, Associate Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry

Nora Laiken, PhD, Assistant Dean for Educational Support Services, UCSD School of Medicine: (858) 534-2131, nlaiken@ucsd.edu

Alex Groisman, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Physics: (858) 822-1838, agroisman@ucsd.edu

Howard Taras, MD, Professor of Pediatrics: htaras@ucsd.edu

Pamela Cosman, PhD, Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering: (858)822-0157, pcosman@ucsd.edu

Herbie Levine, PhD, Professor, Department of Physics: (858) 534-4844, levine@herbie.ucsd.edu

Brian G. Keating, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Physics: (858) 534-7930, bkeating@ucsd.edu

Neal Swerdlow, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Psychiatry: (619) 543-6270, nswerdlow@ucsd.edu

Shlomo Dubnov, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Music: (858) 534-5941, sdubnov@ucsd.edu

Sonia Ancoli-Israel, PhD, Professor, Department of Psychiatry: (858) 822-7710, sancoliisrael@ucsd.edu

Ruth Covell, MD, Clinical Professor, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine: (858) 534-4842, rcovell@ucsd.edu

Mort Printz, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Department of Pharmacology: (858) 534-4227, mprintz@ucsd.edu

Murray B. Stein, MD, MPH, Professor, Department of Psychiatry: (858) 534-6400, mstein@ucsd.edu

Vitaliy Lomakin, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering: (858) 822-4726, vitaliy@ece.ucsd.edu

Daniel M. Tartakovsky, PhD, Professor, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering: (858) 534-1375, dmt@ucsd.edu

Ivan Schuller, PhD, Professor, Department of Physics: (858) 534 2540, ischuller@ucsd.edu

Yeshaiahu Fainman, PhD, Professor, Jacobs School of Engineering: (858) 534-8909, fainman@ece.ucsd.edu

Daniel Arovas, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Physics: (858) 534-6323, darovas@ucsd.edu

Related Articles

Filed under College, Islamofascism, Israel, Israel-Palestinian Conflict, Jews, News, The California Review, ucsd, University of California Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

UCSD Prospect Calls Guardian “Right-Wing,” Spews Lies

April 4, 2011 3 Comments

In response to my article in the California Review, UCSD’s Prospect has attempted to prove me wrong in my analysis and debunk my assertion that the Guardian is liberal. The Prospect is, “the international studies journal at University of California, San Diego. News, politics, and culture from the US and around the world.” I’d love to see them try. Get ready for some chuckles.

From the Prospect on April 4th:

Adventures in Journalistic Rigor with “The California Review”

By admin in Culture, Politics, United States

By Taylor Marvin

UCSD’s The California Review has an article that discovers- surprise- that UCSD’s campus newspaper The Guardian leans left. In pretty unconvinced by the basic metric of the article- attempting to score Guardian articles by their political bias is inherently subjective and dependent on the author’s definition of conservatism, and I’m confident that I could repeat author Gabriella Hoffman’s methods and prove The Guardian to be a mildly right-wing paper. Also, the revelation that the student-run paper of a caucasian-minority, University of California campus that draw most of its students from Democratic counties leans editorially left isn’t exactly worthy of a Pulitzer. Most politically-active UCSD students tend to the left, so it isn’t surprising that The Guardian’s writers do as well. If The California Review’s editors want to advance a conservative perspective within The Guardian’s editorial content, they should join The Guardian. Given the UCSD student body’s appreciation for on-campus publications, I’m sure The Guardian could use the enthusiasm.

The California Review’s metric for ranking left vs. right leaning articles is particularly ridiculous. Since when do conservatives have a monopoly on “fiscal responsibility?”  Has Ms. Hoffman never heard of the Reagan or second Bush administrations? Couldn’t I claim that, given the mainstream and throughly disproven Republican position that national tax-cuts raise revenue, that pro-fiscal responsibility editorials lean left? It gets worse. An “anti-Islam” slant is conservative, rather than just bigoted? Being “pro-military” is ranked as conservative, which probably explains all the Democrats in Congress who don’t support the troops. And I’m sorry, if you disparage “alternative lifestyles” in 2011 you look like a bigot, and also someone who doesn’t realize it’s 2011. Please. The phrase “alternative lifestyles” is only acceptable if you’re a mid-1960s parent worried about your son becoming a hippie. The best part? The sample size: “At least 305.” That’s statistical rigor.

Update: Ms. Hoffman’s response can be found here. What’s unfortunate is that while I don’t dispute her core thesis that the Guardian tends to the left, her method of demonstrating this is entirely unconvincing. Editorial slants and political beliefs in general are so hard to quantify that bias is extremely difficult to demonstrate in anything by the most obvious cases, which, combined with her loose definition of a liberal bias, substantially weakens The California Review’s argument.

Update II: And wait, I call The Guardian “right-wing?” I though it was obvious I was arguing that Ms. Hoffman’s method was subjective enough that another author using the same procedure could claim The Guardian is a conservative paper, not that The Guardian is actually right-wing. I’m also going to steal the name “The Prospect,” it’s much more important sounding than what we have now.

Update III: Interesting. When I first viewed the California Review piece last night at about 10:00pm, it prominently displayed a disclaimer by the editor reiterating the author’s views were her own and not necessarily those of the publication as a whole. As of 8:00am this morning this disclaimer has been taken down.

Filed under California, College, Communism, conservatism, San Diego, University of California, Young Conservatives Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , ,

UCSD Guardian Fails to Uphold Principles of Unbiased Journalism

April 4, 2011 2 Comments

Once championed as the “marketplace of ideas,” American universities are now overrun by liberal, anti-American, and anti-Semitic bias. Campus Reform reports, “According to campaign finance data from the Huffington Post, of the UCSD faculty and staff who contributed to 2008 presidential campaigns, 96% gave to Democratic candidates and just 4% to Republicans. In total, UCSD donated $48,966 to Democrats and $2,192 to Republicans.”

UCSD is allegedly mired by “political apathy” according to students. This phenomenon is rooted in the idea that political activities on campus are minimal and that students are too focused on consolidating their careers to be involved. With the intent of combating this “challenge,” the “official” newspaper at UCSD, the Guardian, seeks to fill this void.

While the Guardian is typically seen as UCSD’s official paper, it is not representative of all student viewpoints. Leftist, anti-Israel, anti-American, pro-alternative lifestyle, pro-illegal immigration, and pro–big government biases comprise many of the published articles. As UCSD students routinely hide from politics on campus—unless they are personally afflicted by Associated Student (AS) rulings or campus incidents—the Guardian should uphold its journalistic integrity and maintain neutrality in its reporting.

Nevertheless, statistics compiled from articles printed Winter Quarter 2011 debunk assertions that the paper upholds journalistic principles of fact-based reporting and neutrality. Our analysis found that the Guardian’s six sections (opinion, news, Hiatus, Focus, sports, and Letter to the Editor) are all infested with some type of bias—particularly a leftist bias.

Of approximately 307 articles printed from January to March 2011, almost one-third displayed some form of bias. Of those biased articles, 78 percent boasted a left-leaning bias compared to 22 percent with a right-leaning bias.. The least leftist section was Sports, which had only one politically biased article out of 67 the published. On the other hand, both the letter-to-the-editor and opinion sections were tied with 75 percent total bias and 75 percent leftist bias, respectively, but this is to be expected.

Continuing reading more at The California Review blog and in the April 2011 print edition.

 

Filed under California, The California Review, University of California, Women with Intellectual Integrity, Young Conservatives Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Folgers Jingle from Past, Current UCSD Guys–Watch!

March 2, 2011 Leave a comment

Some lovely friends of mine from UCSD–including recent grads Jake Alexander and Aron Korney, as with graduating senior Omer Ben-Zvi–have entered into a contest to have their song featured in an upcoming Folgers Coffee commercial.

Watch the video below:

 

Related Articles

Filed under America, Fun Videos, ucsd, University of California Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , ,

UCSD Students Attend Anti-Koch Rally, Endorse Marxist Views!

February 3, 2011 6 Comments

It’s no surprise that UCSD students flocked to the anti-Koch rally in Palm Desert this past weekend. We are SUCH a politically apathetic school, if you recall. Our apathy definitely shows when the administration coddles with the Muslim Student Association, reverse affirmative action, and anti-Semitism.

Again, here’s the video from my fellow activist Christian Hartsock, who exposed progressives and Marxists that day:

Remember, philanthropists and TEA Party members are EVIL in their eyes. And interestingly enough, that’s all The Guardian will cover. Talk about fair and balanced reporting. Read the article from Laira Martin of The Guardian:

UCSD was one of several universities represented at a rally against oil company executives held on Jan. 30 in Rancho Mirage, where a secret meeting was held by energy conglomerate Koch Industries and Tea Party members.

The rally was organized by the California Student Sustainability Coalition, an organization that works with universities across the state to increase sustainability and awareness. About 2,000 protestors, including 50 San Diegans, showed up with only a handful of peaceful arrests made.

“The goal of the protest was to really expose that the Koch brothers were having this secret meeting and continue to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to take over our democratic elections,” CSSC Campaign Director Gabriel Elsner said.

Andrew Breitbart, a frequent guest commentator for “Fox News,” attended the secret meeting held by the Koch brothers.

“He was on roller skates trying to rile up the crowd and insult them,” Elsner said. “It was uncalled for.”

The rally began at around 1 p.m. Participants marched in front of the Rancho Las Palmas Resort, where the Koch Industries meeting was held.

“Getting the Koch brothers into the light and showing the American public what these brothers are doing is one of our strategies to get corporations and dirty money out of our elections,” Elsner said.

Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were in attendance at the executive meeting— two of the justices who voted in favor of protecting corporations, allowing unlimited spending on elections.

The Koch Industries meeting was to discuss approaches to the 2010 elections in light of last year’s Supreme Court ruling, which protects their unlimited spending.

“[The Koch brothers] are funding far-right wing politicians and groups that spread misinformation about our government so that they can elect politicians who want to deregulate and defund our governments institutions that safeguard the public,” Elsner said.

The New York Times received a leaked invitation to the meeting, according to Elsner.

“[The Koch brothers] keep their company private by owning 51 percent of it, so they can do whatever the heck they please,” UCSD Student Sustainability Collective Director Jared Muscat said.

Muscat organized buses to the meeting in Palm Springs from San Diego. Protestors were also bused in from Los Angeles and Santa Barbara.

“The Koch brothers do a really good job of keeping everything they do behind closed doors,” Muscat said. “But they do an extra special job of never having to answer to anyone but themselves.”

The Koch brothers invested at least $1 million to support Prop 23, which would have suspended the “Global Warming Act of 2006,” but was defeated in the Nov. 2010 election.

“The Koch ideology is more private profits at the expense of the health and prosperity of the American people,” Elsner said.

Students from the CSSC are also working with partner organizations including Greenpeace and ACLU.

“We’ve never been too big of fans of the Koch brothers,” Muscat said, “They’ve never really cared about the environment.”

Related Articles

Filed under America, College, Criticism, Double Standards Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31,346 other followers