UCSD Guardian Fails to Uphold Principles of Unbiased Journalism

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.


New Republican Congress Must Uphold Its ‘Pledge to America’

Featured on SFPA and in The California Review December 30th, 2010.

President Ronald Reagan once noted, “[The] government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.” Both the Republicans and Democrats have worked against the American people for too long by endorsing policies and legislation that support Big Government. The government should not dictate every matter in a person’s life, as it fashions dependency, leeching, and lazy tendencies. It is imperative that the newly-elected Republican Congress accord themselves with Reagan’s vision of limited government mentioned above. If Republicans behave like their Democratic compatriots, they will face their untimely undoing unless they return to their conservative roots. That is where the ‘Pledge to America’ comes in.

In comparison to other presidencies, Obama’s has been met with the greatest usurpation of individual rights imaginable. With attacks to free speech, borders, American well-being, and the like, the United States is being attacked by those eager to destroy and pervert it. No prior president opted to radically transform the United States into a third-world nation. No prior president felt inclined to go on a world apology tour and renounce American Exceptionalism.

Unfortunately for Obama, the American people have rejected his socialist agenda and all that emanates from it. Following Obama’s coronation into the White House, the American people formed the Tea Party Movement after seeing err in his policies and conduct as president. Additionally, they grew dismayed with the Democratic Party run by ringleaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid because members of the incumbent party continue to be reluctant when listening to their constituents. The Tea Party Movement burgeoned after continued discontent with Democrats and establishment Republicans continued to ignore their constituents as they clung to ObamaCare, innumerable bailouts, and wasteful spending.

Dismayed with establishment politicians, Tea Party candidates and several Republicans set the precedence for the ‘Pledge to America.’ If elected to office during the 2010 midterm election cycle, successful candidates molded themselves after this pledge and work to restore conservative principles encompassed in limited government, reverence for the Constitution, and respect for the will of the American people.

While many Democrats continue their lackluster ways, Republicans are working to implement the ‘Pledge to America.’ In such, they want to ensure that Obama’s harmful policies are defeated and that the country gets back on the right track. These politicians cannot take America for granted again and be frivolous in their responsibilities. As a result, this pledge vows to uphold the principles mandated by the Founding Fathers to put our elected officials in check.

The Republican ‘Pledge to America’ begins: “America is more than a country. America is an idea – an idea that free people can govern themselves, that government’s powers are derived from the consent of the governed, that each of us is endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. America is the belief that any man or woman can – given economic, political, and religious liberty – advance themselves, their families, and the common good.”

Incoming House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and his colleagues championed this pact to outline their agenda for the 112th Congress. Plans to completely repeal ObamaCare in exchange for lower health costs, as with intent to protect and promote American jobs, comprise this pledge. Since the Democrats have failed to uphold and respect the Constitution, the Republicans must take heed on preserving “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” as explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence.

“And you’ll find plans to return power in the House back to the hands of the people. No more flagrant disregard for the Constitution; no more kickbacks and backroom deals; no more passing massive bills that no one has had a chance to read.”

Boehner continues by highlighting the need for accountability to the American people. Historically, the House of Representatives has been regarded as the “People’s House.” The passage of ObamaCare, stimulus bills, and other heinous legislation evinced carelessness and complete disrespect for citizens. When the ‘Pledge to America’ goes into effect, congressmen and women will be inclined to listen to their constituents, read every piece of legislation handed to them, and not jam taxes down our throats. The carelessness and downright elitist mentality that has clouted Congress must be suppressed, as politicians have grown too comfortable with being permanent agents in Washington, D.C. These representatives work for us, and not the other way around.

“With this document, we pledge to dedicate ourselves to the task of reconnecting our highest aspirations to the permanent truths of our founding by keeping faith with the values our nation was founded on, the principles we stand for, and the priorities of our people. This is our Pledge to America.”

The Republicans in Congress must uphold the virtues and principles laid out by the Founders. They must return to their conservative roots vested in upholding traditionalist viewpoints, limited government, free-market principles, strong national defense, and accountability to individualism. When politicians stray away from these and neglect upholding the Constitution, we get one of the most unabashed anti-American presidents in American history.

The ‘Pledge to America’ provides confidence that the incoming Congressional class will uphold the Constitution and respect those they serve. If they renege on this pledge, such a failure will be evidence of why Americans cannot trust either party. The Republicans promised change for the better during the midterm elections; let us hope they deliver it.

Gabriella Hoffman is the Advertising Manager at The California Review. She studies at the University of California, San Diego, and is a member of the Student Free Press Association.

Illegal immigrants entitled to in-state tuition, CA Supreme Court rules

Taken from SFPA and The California Review on November 18th, 2010:

California has a number of big problems: illegal immigration, budget deficits, tuition hikes for already strapped families. All these problems combine into one: in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.

The California Supreme Court has affirmed the state program granting in-state tuition to “undocumented students,” all while tuition hikes are imminent the University of California and the California State University systems (8 percent and 15 percent, respectively). As a California public university student, all I can do is watch our the continued budget difficulties and our growing appeasement to those without U.S. citizenship.


Opposition to this ruling will be viewed by some leftists as a racist attack against minorities. Americans do not hate immigrants, contrary to the image leftists seek to craft on a daily basis. Our nation was established upon the efforts and contributions made by immigrants that fled to the United States in search of better opportunities. The land of opportunity welcomes each person with open arms, regardless of any skin color or country of origin.

However, granting amnesty to people entering our country by illegal means—as the DREAM Act purports to do if it were passed—will prove deleterious to the state of California and our nation. Amnesty in the form of affirmation action is no excuse for undermining our education system further. Nevertheless, National Public Radio reports:

The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously this week that illegal immigrant students can continue to pay in-state tuition rates at public colleges and universities. The controversial ruling makes higher education in California more affordable for students who don’t have legal status. Critics of the ruling say they are precisely the students who should not be in the United States in the first place.

Unfortunately, many people in the state of California are suffering from increased hardships. No one group should be entitled to special treatment just because they boast a certain national origin. Nevertheless, leftists will go to any means to pass this type of legislation. The L.A. Times elaborates on that notion in the following:

Federal law prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving college benefits based on residency and not provided to all citizens. A lawyer for the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, which sided with the challengers in the case, said the ruling failed to acknowledge “clear tension between federal law and the state’s special financial benefits for illegal immigrant students.” The case is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. “California is not in sync with the federal mandate against giving Brownie points for being an illegal immigrant,” said Ralph Kasarda, an attorney with the foundation.

Yet, supporters of the ruling cite that it will not supersede federal law due to California’s nonresident tuition exemption of 2001, which offers in-state tuition to those who attended California high school for a minimum of three years. Students that qualify are either illegal or those that live out of California who met the minimum addressed above. The California Nonresident Tuition Exemption of 2001 is addressed here:

Any student, other than a nonimmigrant alien, who meets all of the following requirements, shall be exempt from paying nonresident tuition at the California Community Colleges, the University of California, and the California State University (all public colleges and universities in California).

  • Requirements:
    • The student must have attended a high school (public or private) in California for three or more years.
    • The student must have graduated from a California high school or attained the equivalent prior to the start of the term (for example, passing the GED or California High School Proficiency exam).
    • An alien student who is without lawful immigration status must file an affidavit with the college or university stating that he or she has filed an application to legalize his or her immigration status, or will file an application as soon as he or she is eligible to do so.
  • Students who are nonimmigrants [for example, those who hold F (student) visas, B (visitor) visas, etc.] are not eligible for this exemption.
  • The student must file an exemption request including a signed affidavit with the college that indicates the student has met all applicable conditions described above. Student information obtained in this process is strictly confidential unless disclosure is required under law.
  • Students eligible for this exemption who are transferring to another California public college or university must submit a new request (and documentation if required) to each college under consideration.
  • Nonresident students meeting the criteria will be exempted from the payment of nonresident tuition, but they will not be classified as California residents. They continue to be “nonresidents”.
  • AB540 does not provide student financial aid eligibility for undocumented alien students. These students remain ineligible for state and federal financial aid.

Continual efforts to undermine legal immigration will prove costly. If you follow American laws and have legitimate state residency, then and only then should you be allowed the privilege of in-state tuition — no exceptions.


Politically Conservative, Culturally Jewish (and Catholic too) and No Way in Favor of Divesting From Israel

Gabriella Hoffman is the chair of the UC – San Diego chapter of Young Americans for Freedom. She reported through a live blog for the conservative publication “California Review” during a recent student government meeting on her campus related to a  radical measure to divest from Israel’s military, which has been sweeping through the UC System.

After hearing about the incidences of attacks to Jewish students at UC Berkeley with etchings of swastikas and later, various bills that underminded Israel going before the student government, I never thought that my university, UC-San Diego, would have to toil with a divestment bill.

As a Jewish student and conservative activist, I felt inclined to jump on board to help my friends and cohorts in Tritons for Israel-the pro-Israel group at UCSD-combat this tyrannical, ineffectual, and nuanced bill.  To even consider this bill, which indirectly calls Israel an occupier and an entity that violates human rights, is outrageous!

When time came for the ASUCSD meeting on April 28th, 2010, I wanted to do my service to the pro-Israel community by blogging during the meeting everything from public input and from the special presentations made to those on council and those in attendance. I did not feel the desire to speak because frankly, I would have spewed more information and would spare no mercy to the Students for Justine in Palestine group for offending me and other Jewish students afflicted by this horrendous piece of legislation. It was better that I blogged and left this avenue to my cohorts to deal with. So, then came time to jot down everything that was said or retorted to the best of my ability…

As I divulged this awful measure with fellow TFIers, we came across talking points that epitomized this bill. One, AS has no business in dealing with matters that directly coalesce with international affairs. Two, the bill indirectly implies that Israel is an occupier (in respect to Gaza). Three, the bill was not neutral and was targeted for one group’s agenda (the SJP). And four, this bill will alienate the pro-Israel community found here at UCSD.

When recording during public input, certain things were revealed that were conducive to my beliefs and those of TFIers or pro-Israel peers, while other comments and speeches were downright appalling and best representative of that held by the SJP. In this issue, it is hard to be objective. It is between right and wrong (as most cases should be), and to be wrong entails classifying Israel as a violator of human rights. To denounce Israel is simply un-American!

So onto public input and the comments from there.

BSU President David Richardson – He is saying this is a political move. They aren’t picking sides and mocked Adam Teitelbaum talking about claiming we feel alienated.

Janelle Babbitt, BSU member: “AS has no power to invest, so it’s essentially a political vote. This is greater than what AS is a part of. …Fragmented three groups I’m in on campus. Voting in a political stance. Don’t be swayed by emotional appeal. Students are first but this not a student issue.”

Dafna Barzilay, President of TFI: “My job is to support and protect my community but I’m fearful for community of pro-Israel students. This is extremely unfair. Although it never directly mentions Israel it makes offesnses against Israel by taking sources form UN and anti-Israel orgs. It has anti-Israel bias. Peace incorporates talks and negotiations, not to be done overnight, and will take years to do. Reconsider it, but not as a source to peace, Help me foster a cohesive community.”

Israel Grad School at UCSD: “IDF is army of the people where everybody participates. Fights to minimize pain and casualties. Some things are bigger than us. Israeli/Jewish people have no other country but Israel. Jews can live free there, although minority in US but Jews can’t maintain identity except in Israel. In Gaza they elected Hamas, which is a terrorist organization that deprives its own people of human rights.”

Ben Bathlezar, Jewish Voices for Peace: “Is this good for the Jews? Resolution is good for the Jews. Goldstone is someone who needs to be listened to. I urge you to pass this resolution.”

Noam Cadouri, On-Campus Outreach of TFI: “I’m appalled on two things. Conflict is competition of whose awfulness is worse to judge that occupation of Gaza/West bank is treacherous. I acknowledge problems of everyone. To divest from all war worldwide. This is not neutral, if it were really neutral it would bring both sides, not competition. This bill alienates us.”

Brian Pyle, UCSD Student: “Measure to talk about US corporations to not accept status quo anymore. Never had bomb go off near me, why do we want student fees to build more bombs.”

Matt Zillber, Student Policy Director: “Not one penny goes to UC investment fund. You’re lying if you think your money goes to it. GE capital created to lose money to get tax benefits and put out Twilight. Readers’ Digest not responsible for weaponry. Issue blown way out of proportion.”

(This is a fact that SJP fails to grasp, believing that Israel is a human rights violater and evil Zionist nation).

Adam Teitlebaum, TFI Member: “My reputation proceeds me. I’m confused. AS meeting about peace and neutrality profiting from occupation as recommendation to UC Regents to divest from conflict in Jerusalem and Gaza. Two different resolutions. Not discussion about resolution but a debate about Middle East policy. This resolution talks about an issue that is emotionally driven. Fight broke out with a senator last night, regarding event: Apartheid Week. There they’re calling me a Zionist and Nazi with their wall.”

Gaby Abhoot, TFI: “Elevated levels of hate at Berkeley. Swastikas and physical assault. My parents value education and considered moving me from this campus. UC community at whole will be jeopardized.”

Max Hopper, Senior at Muir: “Lack of talking about resolution. ASUCSD widely recognizes inability of a body to adjudicate matters. Deny resolution on these grounds. Two suggestions this resolution is making: that Israel is causing violation of law, or adjudicating action on international law resolution cannot be passed.”

Daniel Desta, TFI Advisor: “I’m here because I’m proud Israeli. Fled Ethiopia and Israel provided home for me. In Israel, everyone is equal. When I lived in Jerusalem, I had to take two buses to get to school to avoid suicide bombers. Would you let them play roulette with my life. But our voice not heard here, bomber killed 26 people in a night club. What are we divesting from?”

Sixth College Senator Leena: “Israel apartheid of our time. Unpopular because against status quo. Support Justice. Institutionalized bias is a vote for no.”

Gabi Tripolsky, Off-Campus Outreach Officer of TFI: “Why do I oppose this bill? Israel is a country where politically and culturally different views are accepted and appreciated.I can associate with community where voice and opinion can fly and be with people who may be Republican or Democrat, gay or straight, european or persian. In Israel, we’re all together, and Israel believes in equality and social justice, because look at Israel, gay marriage is legal, Women’s rights are protected. Thse do not exist anywhere else in Middle East. I’m proud to represent Israel community. Bill singles out Israel and Jewish community. I don’t want my voice suppressed, If passed, repercussions will be something my peers and I will have to face. I don’t want to face Berkeley here. Make my future cohesive.”

As you can see, it was an interesting forum during the AS meeting. Fortunately, this bill was not passed but moved to a committee with 3 TFI offiers, 3 SJP officers, and two mediating AS members to vie for a bill ensuring REAL neutrality. Then again, the Israel-Palestinian conflict will always be embroiled and one where it will be impossible to reach a compromise. Rest assured, I hope this never comes about again at my university, but I have a feeling I will have to brace this problem again.

You will be hearing a lot from UCSD in the next couple of weeks with the heavy bout of liberalism and anti-Israeli sentiments surface. I will keep you posted with David Horowitz (who we’re bringing), Van Jones, Norman Finkelstein, Angela Davis, and Israel “Apartheid” Week come Week 7 here at UCSD (May 10th through 13th). Oy ve! Nevertheless, I will fight for the Conservative Movement through thick and thin.

The Progressives Are Coming! The Progressives Are Coming! Oh Wait, They’re Already Here

I do not think there has been a week where I have not been bombarded by a CALPIRG representative on Library Walk at UCSD. It seems like I’m quite the appropriate prey for them: a student minding their own business, not giving a care, and just trying to get to her classes without any distractions. Just as I have hopes that they will attack another unsuspecting student, the CALPIRG representative and I cross paths. Little do they know that I am aware of the tactics they pull: putting on a nice façade to give off an approachable edge, making the endless plea for education reform on campus, and the fact that I, the student, can make such a wholehearted difference if I contribute five dollars of my precious, albeit nonexistent, personal savings to their “worthy” cause. Yet, I have built up great defenses against these vermin. The solution: politely tell them to bug off and say that my funds do not support progressivism.

Why does this rather annoying organization exist in the first place, and for what premise really? Well, CALPIRG is first and foremost an organization. They have various outlets in universities, like the chapter here at our campus, nationwide. Their mission statement entails the following sentiment: “When corporate wrongdoing threatens our health or our safety, or violates fundamental principles of fairness and justice, CALPIRG stands up for the public.” By the looks of it, CALPIRG obviously finds capitalism in the form of corporate “mishandling” wrong and will seize the opportunity to rid of capitalism and vie for redistribution of wealth. Additionally, CALPIRG is tailored to various progressive aspects spelled out through so-called health care reform, transforming Wall Street, the California high-speed rail system that will waste California taxpayers billions of dollars, so-called budget reform, and other shady maneuvers labeled efforts that will better our state and nation. At this rate, this nonprofit wants to make students into their puppets arguing for Obama’s change that many Americans so ardently do not like. By appearing to be avid about change and making California a better, more radically transformed place, they will sadly achieve their objective and undermine America further.

You never hear of a conservative or Republican college student or person getting involved in CALPIRG. It is obviously a liberal organization appealing to liberal sentiments. BigHollywood.com contributor Steven Crowder “applied” for a position with CALPIRG, where after doing investigative work, he found it to promote its cause on the worst liberal premise imaginable. He exposed the liberal entity as a hypocritical one, where it was uncovered that those trained and retrofitted with the nonprofit organization are fully compensated for their “generous, selfish efforts to better society.” Liberals claim that conservative efforts epitomize “Astroturf,” although they are the ones who espouse this quality by masquerading their mission statement of cultivating activists when they rather brew left-wing lobbyists.

CALPIRG should not go uncovered. Be aware of its guiles and traps for it will make any conservative or right-leaning individual go nuts!

Liars & Deceit: Resolution by the Associated Students on Wednesday

Alec Weisman, Editor-in-Chief

The AS is full of liars. They really are trying to defund all media organizations. How are media organizations supposed to compete with other types of student organizations, especially if they call out the Associated Students on their actions. This is just asking for lawsuits.

As for the sponsor of this bill, it is none other than the #2 LIAR in the Associated Students, Vice President of Finance, Peter Benesch.

Why aren’t you waiting for the media review board to come up with suggestions, or waiting until 10th week to reopen funds as you swore to do on paper?

Signed by Peter Benesch on 2/25/10.

I urge everyone to come to the AS meeting at 6 pm on Wednesday at the Price Center Forum (4th Floor of PC East) to oppose this madness.


Resolution Regarding Print Media Funding Revision

WHEREAS the Associated Students of UC San Diego (hereafter referred to as the AS) recognizes that there are several fundamental institutional and structural inadequacies in the current print media funding process, as enumerated in Section 2.2 (d) and Section 2.3 (l) of the Standing Rules;

WHEREAS the AS is concerned that the current print media funding process does not advance the stated objectives of the AS, including but not limited to Article II of its Constitution;

WHEREAS the AS is concerned that the current print media funding process has allowed a small number of media organizations to monopolize a disproportionate amount of the total funding available;

WHEREAS the AS is concerned that the disclaimer it requires in all media publications is not sufficient to defeat the community’s perception that the AS does endorse the content of student media which it financially supports;

WHEREAS the budget of the AS is under increasing pressure due to the competing demands and has an obligation to allocate its limited resources to activities that in its judgment best promote student life at UCSD;

BE IT RESOLVED that the AS discontinue its current print media funding and all unexpended funds allocated for that purpose be reallocated to the AS general fund.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that nothing herein shall be construed as preventing print media organizations from applying for and receiving funding on the same basis and under the same terms and conditions as other registered student organizations.


Attachments below:
March, 3 2010 AS Agenda

Attachment 1

Attachment 2

Attachment 3

Events That Will Take Place at UCSD in Regard to “Compton Cookout” and Resultant Mess

Protest The UCSD Crackdown Against Free Speech

Wednesday, Mar. 3, 2010
There will be a protest on Wednesday, March 3rd at 12pm beginning at Chancellor Fox’s Office at the Chancellor’s complex and then we will be walking to the Associated Students offices (4th floor PC East) regarding the student government’s decision to close down funding all 33 campus media organizations.

We will not be emotional, we will not cause mass disruptions, but we will gather to calmly attempt to discuss with the Administration how the situation has gotten out of hand.

We intend to present both the Chancellor and Utsav (or whoever is present at the AS offices) with the ACLU & FIRE letters. If you have your own letter to present to Utsav and the AS then bring them, or if you have suggestions for other documents to present to the Chancellor, send me a message at aweisman@ucsd.edu.

NOTE: This event is not intended to be solely sponsored by the California Review. If your student organization would like to sign on, I will make your organization a sponsor and the president/editor of the club an administrator for the event as well.

BSU Events
Monday, Mar. 1, 2010

• 9:00am: Rally in front of Chancellor’s complex to follow up on their response to the BSU’s demands.
• 2:00-4:00pm: Ethnic Studies Dept. Town Hall on Campus Racial Emergency (NOTE: LOCATION HAS BEEN CHANGED TO GREAT HALL, ELEANOR ROOSEVELT COLLEGE), Description: The Department of Ethnic Studies invites you to attend a town hall meeting to continue the discussion that you have initiated on the degrading racial climate on campus.  We applaud the paradigm-changing protest that you have waged this past week and want to work with you to make sure that the momentum that you have built will result in  meaningful and lasting change on campus.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

• 12:00-2:00pm: SPACES will be holding an informal hangout titled “Reclaiming our University” wherein they plan to “continue the amazing and Powerful Active Community momentum that was felt on the great day of action Feb. 24. 2010″ although they claim this is NOT a protest. We’ll have to wait and see what happens.
• 7:00-9:00pm: Asian & Pacific Islander Student Alliance (APSA) Forum on the current racial emergency (Cross Cultural Center, 2nd Floor, Price Center East).

Thursday, MARCH 4, 2010!!!
Let’s continue the momentum. March 4 is the National Day of Action for Education. We will be demanding that the state government and the UC administration provide true accesibility and educational funding for all. Join us on our struggle to reverse the privatization and corporatization of our public university.
Why March 4 connects perfectly with last week’s struggle against racism/sexism/homphobia at UCSD:

1. The administration’s current plan to solve its partly self-made economic crisis is to import more out of state wealthy students willing to pay out of state tuition (they want to raise the amount of out of state students from 5% up to 20%). This means less accessibility for students that are already underrepresented (including even less black and brown students in each entering class). There is nothing that Chancellor Fox can say or do to increase diversity at UCSD if this happens.
2. Higher fees (+32% this year and +300% in the last ten years) means that even less working and middle class students will be able to afford an UC education.
3. It’s going to be even harder to hire more faculty and staff of color with the current total hiring freeze and defunding.
4. UCSD is already cutting programs that were set up to increase diversity on campus and there are people in positions of power that are looking into the possibility of closing down departments. Guess which departments are first in line to be nixed?
5. Budget cuts also mean less classes which means that you are getting less of an education for your money and it might take you longer to graduate to satisfy your requirements, meaning more $$$ or more student debt. This is especially difficult for 1st gen. students from underrepresented groups.
6. We want the UC to do more to educate about diversity and foster it. That means that we need them to put more money into making this happen. With the state taking money away from the UCs and with the UC admin’s reluctance to spend its own money on things that matter, that’s going to he hard. We need to show Sacramento and the UC administration/regents that we want them to spend money on education, including not just on instruction on how to make money but an education that teaches people to be critical thinking, compassionate, and understanding human beings.
7. Also, if we want all UCSD students to take at least one mandatory Ethnic Studies class, we need to hire more professors and teach more course. Right now, ES has been forced by the budget cuts to cut down on their classes and freeze hiring of new professors.
8. If we also want UCSD to build up the African American Studies program, they’re going to need more investment as well.
9. Finally, we must all step out and protest on March 4 because an almost fully privatized university that cares more about making things for private corporations than about teaching people how to be productive, creative, critical thinkers is not good for anyone. The only way that we’re going to be able to stop the UC from fully becoming this type of place is by protesting. That’s the only thing that’s worked in the past, and it’s the only remedy for our current crisis.

UPDATE: Commenter “Zoom” has posted an excellent response to the BSU’s nine points; read the whole thing. Just a few more quick observations:

• Interesting that this is now supposed to be about “racism/sexism/homophobia” rather than just racism. What evidence is there that UCSD is noticeably sexist or homophobic? To the extent that it is, how is, say, the black community not far worse? Why isn’t the BSU working on taking the plank out of their own eye before railing against the rest of us?

Are they even trying to make sense any more? This is a cynical and utterly unjustified bid for wider support.

• They keep talking about insufficient accessibility for “minorities”… at a school where other historically oppressed minorities (consider the Chinese Exclusion Act, Japanese-American internment, and anti-miscegenation laws, for starters) are spectacularly successful, to the point that whites are not only seriously underrepresented relative to their population fraction, but they’ve even been surpassed by Asian-Americans in total numbers. What kind of pathetic dialogue on race at UCSD fails to grapple with this fact, one of the most striking sociological outcomes of the last century, at all? How can they possibly succeed, if they refuse to understand or even think about how other groups have worked their way out of circumstances not entirely dissimilar to their own?

The BSU asks for critical thinking, but could they recognize it when it hit them in the face? Or would they just tar it as “racist” because they find its conclusions inconvenient?