Wen Ho Lee
Hall of Shame
Staving Off the
Yellow Peril: The University of
California regents vote to reduce the number of Asian Americans students
6 are women, 3 are Hispanic, 2 or 3 are African American, 4 may be Jewish.
They all voted to discriminate against Asian Americans. "All animals
are equal but some animals are more equal than others." See Stop
being a sap
William De La Pena
Russell S. Gould
Leslie Tang Schilling
(Office of the Secretary and Chief of Staff to the Regents)
Odessa P. Johnson
Joanne Corday Kozberg (California Strategies, LLC)
Sherry L. Lansing (Film producer)
Monica C. Lozano (La Opinion)
George M. Marcus (Marcus & Millichap Co.)
Norman J. Pattiz (Westwood One)
Frederick Ruiz (Ruiz Foods Inc.)
D'Artagnan Scorza (UCLA student)
Bruce D. Varner (Varner & Brandt, LLP)
Paul D. Wachter (Main Street Advisors)
(Judith L. Hopkinson abstained)
6/23/09 Investors Business Daily: “The Viciousness
Of Academic Liberals,”
by Walter E. Williams
Ward Connerly, former University of California regent, has an
article, "Study, Study, Study — A Bad Career Move" in the June 2,
2009, edition of Minding the Campus that should raise any decent American's
level of disgust for what's routinely practiced at most of our universities.
Mr. Connerly tells of a conversation he had with a
high-ranking UC administrator about a proposal that the administrator was
developing to increase campus diversity.
Connerly asked the administrator why he considered it
important to tinker with admissions instead of just letting the chips fall where
they may. His response was that unless the university took steps to
"guide" admissions decisions, the UC campuses would be dominated by
When Connerly asked, "What would be wrong with
that?", the UC administrator told him that Asians are "too dull —
they study, study, study." Then he said to Connerly, "If you ever say
I said this, I will have to deny it."
Connerly did not reveal the administrator's name. It would
not have done any good because it's part of a diversity vision shared by most
With the enactment of
's Proposition 209 in 1996, outlawing racial discrimination in college
admissions, Asian enrollment at UC campuses has skyrocketed. The UC Berkeley
student body is 42% Asian students; UC Irvine 55%; UC Riverside 43%; and UCLA
38%. Asian student enrollment on all nine UC campuses is over 40%. That's in a
state where the Asian population is about 13%.
When there are policies that emphasize and reward academic
achievement, Asians excel. College officials and others who are proponents of
"diversity" and equal representation find that outcome offensive.
To deal with the Asian "menace," the UC regents
have proposed, starting in 2010, that no longer will the top 12.5% of students
based on statewide performance be automatically admitted. Students won't have to
take SAT subject matter tests. Grades and test scores will no longer weigh so
heavily in admission decisions.
This is simply gross racial discrimination against those
"dull" Asian students who "study, study, study" in favor of
"interesting" black, white and Hispanic students who don't
"study, study, study."
This is truly evil and would be readily condemned as such if
applied to other areas lacking in diversity.
With blacks making up about 80% of professional basketball
players, there is little or no diversity in professional basketball. Even at
college-level basketball, it's not unusual to watch two teams playing and there
not being a single white player on the court, much less a Chinese or Japanese
I can think of several rule changes that might increase
racial diversity in professional and college basketball. How about eliminating
slam dunks and disallowing three-point shots? Restrict dribbling? Lower the
These and other rule changes would take away the
"unfair" advantage that black players appear to have and create
greater basketball diversity.
But wouldn't diversity so achieved be despicable? If you
answer yes, why would it be any less so when it's used to fulfill somebody's
vision of college diversity?
Ward Connerly ends his article saying, "There is one
truth that is universally applicable in the era of 'diversity,' especially in
American universities: an absolute unwillingness to accept the verdict of
Hypocrisy is part and parcel of the liberal academic elite.
But the American people, who fund universities as parents, donors or taxpayers,
should not accept this evilness and there's a good way to stop it — cut off
the funding to racially discriminating colleges and universities.
Williams is a professor of economics at
4/25/09 Associated Press: “New UC admissions
policy angers Asian-Americans,”
by Terence Chea
San Francisco (AP) — A new admissions policy set to take
effect at the
system in three years is raising fears among Asian-Americans that it will
reduce their numbers on campus, where they account for 40 percent of all
University officials say the new standards — the biggest
change in UC admissions since 1960 — are intended to widen the pool of high
school applicants and make the process more fair.
But Asian-American advocates, parents and lawmakers are
angrily calling on the university to rescind the policy, which will apply at all
nine of the system's undergraduate campuses.
They point to a UC projection that the new standards would
sharply reduce Asian-American admissions while resulting in little change for
blacks and Hispanics, and a big gain for white students.
"I like to call it affirmative action for whites,"
said Ling-chi Wang, a retired professor at UC Berkeley. "I think it's
extremely unfair to Asian-Americans on the one hand and underrepresented
minorities on the other."
Asian-Americans are the single largest ethnic group among
UC's 173,000 undergraduates. In 2008, they accounted for 40 percent at UCLA and
43 percent at UC Berkeley — the two most selective campuses in the UC system
— as well as 50 percent at UC San Diego and 54 percent at UC Irvine.
Asian-Americans are about 12 percent of
's population and 4 percent of the
The new policy, approved unanimously by the UC Board of Regents in
February, will greatly expand the applicant pool, eliminate the requirement that
applicants take two SAT subject tests and reduce the number of students
guaranteed admission based on grades and test scores alone. It takes effect for
the freshman class of fall 2012.
Some opponents have charged that the university is trying to
reduce Asian-American enrollment. Others say that may not be the intent, but it
will be the result.
UC officials adamantly deny the intent is to increase racial
diversity, and reject allegations the policy is an attempt to circumvent a 1996
voter-approved ban on affirmative action.
"The primary goal is fairness and eliminating barriers
that seem unnecessary," UC President Mark Yudof said. "It means that
if you're a parent out there, more of your sons' and daughters' files will be
Yudof and other officials disputed the internal study that
projected a drop of about 20 percent in Asian-American admissions, saying it is
impossible to accurately predict the effects. "This is not Armageddon for
Asian-American students," Yudof said.
, one of the top public schools in the country, about 70 percent of the
students are of Asian descent and more than 40 percent attend UC after
"If there are Asian-Americans who are qualified and don't get
into UC because they're trying to increase diversity, then I think that's
unfair," said 16-year-old junior Jessica Peng. "I think that UC is
lowering its standards by doing that."
Doug Chan, who has a teenage son at Lowell, said:
"Parents are very skeptical and suspicious that this is yet another attempt
to move the goal posts or change the rules of the game for Asian college
One of the biggest changes is scrapping the requirement that
applicants take two SAT subject tests. UC officials say the tests do little to
predict who will succeed at UC, no other public university requires them, and
many high-achieving students are disqualified because they do not take them.
The policy also widens the pool of candidates by allowing
applications from all students who complete the required high school courses,
take the main SAT or ACT exams and maintain a 3.0 grade-point average. Under the
current policy, students have to rank in the top 12.5 percent of
high school graduates to be eligible.
Students still have to apply to individual campuses, where
admissions officers are allowed to consider each applicants' grades, test
scores, personal background, extracurricular activities and other factors but
The policy is expected to increase competition for UC
admission. This year the university turned away the largest number of students
in years after it received a record number of applications and cut freshman
enrollment because of the state's budget crisis.
"I'm getting all sorts of e-mails from parents, alumni
and donors who are quite upset by the action UC took," said state
Assemblyman Ted Lieu, chairman of the Legislature's 11-member Asian-American
National Review.com: "Staving Off the 'Yellow Peril': The University of
California regents attempt to curtail Asian admissions,"
by Stephan Thernstrom
In 1995, the regents of the
California, at the urging of Ward Connerly and Gov. Pete Wilson, voted to bar
racial preferences on all nine of the system's campuses. A year later, the
state's voters passed Proposition 209, an amendment to the constitution that
extended that ban to state and local governments. But today, the regents are
approve major changes in admissions policies that represent the most recent of
many misguided attempts to circumvent Prop 209.
The move is breathtaking. It will drop the requirement that
applicants take two SAT "subject tests"; if the students the school
wants tend to do poorly on such tests, then it is best not to know just how
poorly. The plan also sharply lowers the academic standards that
applicants must meet to be eligible for a "full admissions review."
This review is where their distinctive "personal qualities" can be
discerned and made to count for more than the weaknesses in their academic
These changes are manifestly driven by the desire to bring in
more black and Hispanic students. Remarkably, though, the university's own
indicate that the plan will do almost nothing to expand black enrollment and
will be of very modest benefit to Hispanics. Even more remarkably, the prime
beneficiaries of the changes will be non-Hispanic whites, whose share of total
enrollments is predicted to rise by 20-30 percent.
And the big losers will be Asian Americans, whose numbers
will be reduced by 10-20 percent. The net effect will thus be to make the
"whiter" than it has been.
That's ironic, because when the battle for race-blind
admissions began, opponents worried that Prop 209 would transform UC into a
"lily white" institution. This dire prophecy proved ludicrously far
from the mark.
The big gainers were not white applicants; they were Asian
Although only 12 percent of the state's population, Asians
accounted for 37 percent of UC admissions in 2008.
Also, while black and Hispanic enrollments at the most
selective campuses (Berkeley and UCLA) did fall sharply, rises at places like
more than offset the declines. In fact, the Hispanic share of total UC
enrollments has risen dramatically over the past dozen years, from 14 to 22
percent. Black students made gains too, though slight ones. More important,
minority graduation rates have improved substantially, now that these students
are no longer "mismatched" as a result of racial double standards.
Although these numbers indicate that blacks and Hispanics,
particularly the latter, have fared well under race-blind admissions,
university officials have long been tinkering with the rules in an effort to
bring in more
"underrepresented minorities." Standardized tests have counted for
less and less, and admissions have become more "holistic"-i.e.,
Demonstrating that an applicant has "overcome
disadvantage" has become more important than demonstrating that he grasps
quadratic equations and can write a literate essay.
It's hard to believe that, as part of this mission, the
regents are deliberately trying to do their bit to stave off the "yellow
But proponents of racial preferences have let slip some
highly unsavory attitudes on occasion. My wife, Abigail, appeared on Crossfire
many years ago and was asked by liberal co-host Bob Beckel whether she would
"like to see
80 percent Asian." In a 1995 interview, President Clinton said that
"there are universities in
could fill their
entire freshman classes with nothing but Asian Americans." In 1998, a
writer for Newsday asked, "Since Asians outscore everyone, would we accept
an all-Asian class?"
Nasty stuff, and not aberrational. If you truly believe that
it is unjust that some groups are "underrepresented" at elite
institutions, it follows
inexorably that no groups may be "overrepresented."
Mathematically, when no one is underrepresented, no one is
overrepresented. Since Asians have more than triple their "proper
share" of places at the
California, and quadruple their share at
Berkeley and UCLA, they are the chief obstacle to "equity" in higher
A high-school counselor interviewed by Inside Higher
Education denied that the university officials who dreamed up the new plan were
motivated by anti-Asian prejudice. He contended that the drop in the number of
Asians admitted is just "collateral damage." The metaphor misleads.
The new admissions policy is likely not motivated by a
desire to cut back on Asian enrollments but by a desire to expand the
enrollments of other groups. But if you can't do much of the latter without a
lot of the former, this is a distinction without a difference.
- Stephan Thernstrom is Winthrop Research Professor of History at Harvard
University. His books include America in Black and White: One Nation,
Indivisible and No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning,
both co-authored with his wife, Abigail.
2/5/09 Inside Higher Ed: “Unintentional Whitening of
by Scott Jaschik
For several years now, the
has been debating plans to drop the SAT Subject Tests (formerly called the SAT
II or achievement tests) and to find ways to consider more minority applicants.
The debate has focused on the relative merits (or lack thereof) of the SAT and
how to promote diversity while not violating the state’s ban on affirmative
In the past few days, however, a new issue has started to
attract attention: concerns that the admissions policy changes that are expected
approved by the Board of Regents today could lead to a significant drop in the
numbers of Asian-American applicants who are admitted —
with the major gains going to white applicants.
According to data prepared by the university and just
starting to receive attention, 36 percent of those admitted to the university
system in 2007-8 were Asian Americans. Applying the new admissions standards,
that percentage would drop to 29-32 percent. In contrast, white applicants made
up 34 percent of those admitted in 2007-8. Under the proposed reforms, they
would have made up 41 to 44 percent of the entering class. The bottom line
is that Asian Americans would shift from being the largest group gaining
admission to the
to the second.
Some Asian American groups are calling on the Board of
Regents to hold off on any vote today, raising questions about the fairness and
wisdom of the changes being considered. (A board subcommittee
approved the plan Wednesday, unanimously.)
“All of us share the goal of trying to preserve excellence
as well as to promote diversity. But the gains for Latinos and African Americans
in these projections are very small, while the decreases for Asian Americans and
the gains for whites are quite large,” said Vincent Pan, president of Chinese
for Affirmative Action, a national group based in California.
“There’s almost a swapping out of Asian students for white students. Let’s
not rush this thing.”
But university leaders are playing down the demographic
projections and defending the admissions plan, which emerged from the Academic
Senate, a system-wide faculty group. Mark G. Yudof, president of the university,
said in a statement of the proposal: “It also sends a clear message to
high school students that if they work hard, take challenging courses and do
well, they will get to make their case for admission to UC.” The university
system has been praised by faculty and student groups for the planned shift.
Admission to the
of California is enormously competitive, and families in the state long to be
able to send children to its prestigious campuses, where they can be educated at
top research universities at a fraction of what they would pay for a private
California, race and admissions have been tangled and divisive for years. The
success of Asian American students in winning admission to UC campuses has meant
that those institutions are in many ways more diverse than much of American
higher education. But the state’s ban on affirmative action in public
university admissions has depressed the admission of black and Latino students.
The proposal before the Board of Regents today would do the
End the requirement that applicants submit two SAT Subject
Narrow from the top 12.5 to the top 9 percent of high school
graduates the percentage who will be guaranteed admission to the university
(although not necessarily to the campus of their choice).
Expand the definition of applicants eligible for a full
admission review to include all who complete 11 of 15 required high school
courses by the end of their junior year, and achieve a grade-point average of at
The last shift is expected to greatly expand the pool of
those entitled to a full admissions review, where personal qualities and other
factors may help
some win admission. Indeed those deemed eligible for a full review would go up
in all racial and ethnic groups. But the gains in eligibility are not
necessarily going to translate into gains in admissions for all groups —
into gains that reflect the gains in those eligible for a full review.
Projected Impact of Admissions Changes on Different Racial
and Ethnic Groups
Increase in Eligibility for Review
of 2007-8 Admits Under Current Policy
of Percentage of 2007-8 Class Admitted Under New Rules
Numbers do not add to 100 because of “other” and students whose ethnicity is
There are various theories about why the numbers could change in these ways. The
thinking behind dropping the SAT Subject Tests, according to the faculty panels
that came up with the idea, is that they provide little information that helps
admissions officers, but many black and Latino students appear less likely to
take the exams, and have therefore been losing a shot at admission.
While some testing critics have welcomed the skepticism about
the SAT Subject Tests, other educators have questioned whether the university
is poised to drop the right test. A report out of the Center for Studies in
Higher Education (part of the university’s
campus) last year found that the
subject tests were better at predicting academic success and more equitable in
treatment of minority students than the main SAT, which the university is
Pan, of Chinese for Affirmative Action, cited another
possible explanation for why the changes could exclude Asian Americans. They, on
average, do very well on the SAT Subject Tests. Defenders of those tests say
compared to the primary SAT, the subject examinations more closely relate to the
high school curriculum. “We think they are much better tests than the aptitude
tests, and they provide an incentive for schools to focus on course
performance,” Pan said.
He added that he believed students would do well on the
subject tests only if they took rigorous courses in high school, and worked
hard. “This leaves behind the SAT, which many companies use to make money on
test prep,” he said. “It’s the wrong direction for UC.”
A spokesman for the university system said that at a meeting
today, President Yudof stressed that the estimates about impact on enrollment
were just rough estimates, and shouldn’t be seen as definitive. The
university is much more confident about the figures about those who will be
eligible for admission than those who would be admitted, the spokesman said.
Mary Croughan, an epidemiologist at the university’s
campus and chair of the systemwide Academic Senate, said that the
apparent disadvantage for Asian Americans is actually a result of their success.
Such a large share of Asian American high school students already are eligible
to be considered and win admission that their numbers couldn’t go up as much
as those of other groups, she said.
“There is absolutely no desire to cut their numbers,” she
said. “What we want is a
more accessible to all students.”
Asked about the charges of Asian groups that their students
were following the rules, taking the right courses, demonstrating their course
mastery and were now losing admissions slots, Croughan said that
“parents know how to read the rules for admission and they do what they need
to do.” She predicted that Asian Americans would continue to do well. She also
said it is hard to predict exactly what will happen under the new system because
the new rules could change student
behavior in high school.
Pan said that the real problem is that faculty at the
university would like to restore affirmative action, but can’t say that.
Repealing Proposition 209, which barred the consideration of race in admissions,
makes a lot of sense, Pan said. “But that’s very difficult, and to some,
unachievable. Because they can’t politically say they want that, they are
trying to accomplish something with this plan.”
Croughan strongly disputed that. “This is not a work-around
on 209 by any stretch of the imagination,” she said. While adding that
“there are significant reasons to repeal 209,” this is a different issue.
Jon Reider, director of college counseling at San Francisco
University High School, a private institution known for having a top-notch
student body, said that when University of California officials presented
information about the planned changes at meetings of high school guidance
counselors, they focused on how these changes would expand opportunities for
disadvantaged students, and did not discuss a possible impact on Asian
He said that any Asian students at his high school who lose a
spot because of these changes would end up doing well elsewhere, as these
students would learn about other good options. He said, however, that
he worried that plenty of Asian students at other high schools wouldn’t have
access to that kind of information.
Reider also noted that Asian American leaders have “a
history of being suspicious of UC admissions,” because of a sense of many that
Asian applicants are held to a higher standard. Reider doesn’t think
anti-Asian feeling is at play in these changes. “The intention is to broaden
black and Latino eligibility,” he said. As for the white increases and Asian
decreases, he added, “that is what in the military they call collateral
cbs5.com (KPIX TV San Francisco Oakland San Jose): Asian American Leaders Call
on UC Regents to Delay Action on Freshman Eligibility Proposal
Asian-American leaders gathered today at Chinese for
Affirmative Action headquarters in
to call on the University of California Board of Regents to delay action on a
new proposal to alter freshman
The leaders, including UC Berkeley professor emeritus L.
Ling-Chi Wang, CAA executive director Vincent Pan and
Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting, argued that if approved, the proposal would cause
the most significant structural changes to UC freshman admission policies since
the establishment of
California's Master Plan for Higher Education
Changes under the plan would include a reduction in statewide
eligibility from 12.5 percent to 9 percent of
high school graduates. However, local eligibility, or the percentage of
students accepted from each high school in the state, would increase from 4
percent to 9 percent.
The selection of the remainder of the eligibility pool would
be based on campus review, and the SAT II achievement test would no longer be
required as part of the admission process.
The leaders argued that the proposal, scheduled for review by
the regents on Wednesday, should not be considered until it is thoroughly
researched and subjected to public and legislative examination.
Moreover, they believe the new proposal is especially
disadvantageous to Asian American applicants.
Henry Der, former chairman of the California Postsecondary
Education Commission, claimed that in-depth studies on the impact of the
changes have not been conducted but that early indications show the changes
would not significantly increase the enrollment of underrepresented
minorities and that furthermore, the proposal would negatively impact Asian
That sentiment was echoed by Ting, a graduate of UC Berkeley,
who said the proposal would hurt diversity on UC campuses.
Calling the new proposal "very troubling" and the
regents' efforts to expand the enrollment pool "fraudulent," Der said
the study shows that the
percentage of Hispanic and Asian American applicants will decrease.
"It is not fair or just to change the rules of the game at this
point," Der said. Der claimed that the elimination of the SAT II is
the most problematic aspect of the proposal because it gives students the wrong
signal. "We need to signal that what they have studied is
important," Der said.
Wang said that along with grade point averages, the SAT II is
the best predictor of college-level performance.
The regents will vote on the proposal at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday
Community Center, located at 1675 Owens St.,
Daily Planet: "Reader
Commentaries: What We Don’t Know About Changing UC’s Admission
By Doug Ose
The University of California Board of Regents is considering
a set of sweeping changes to the UC system’s admissions criteria. Among the
proposed changes is the elimination of SAT Subject Tests as an admissions
requirement. Unlike the more comprehensive SAT, subject tests are focused on one
of 20 different academic areas ranging from physics and chemistry to languages
and fine art.
Critics of subject tests argue for maintaining high academic
standards and promoting diversity. A closer look tells a different story, one
the regents and the UC Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS),
which proposed the changes, aren’t talking about.
A September 2008 report from the National Association for
College Admission Counseling noted that, “there are tests that, at many
institutions, are more predictive of first-year and overall grades in college
and more closely linked to the high school curriculum, including the College
Board’s AP exams and Subject Tests.” Eliminating subject tests in light of
this research defies common sense.
Further confounding common sense is a 2001 report by
researchers who studied some 80,000 student records and concluded that SAT
Subject Tests combined with high school grades were among the best predictors of
Some call subject tests a “barrier” to admission in the
UC system. What we’re not told is the main reason cited for getting rid of
them is that some students don’t know the tests are required. This
staggeringly simplistic rationale raises legitimate questions about the wisdom
of the regents’ willingness to consider admitting to the UC system students
who cannot understand the most fundamental step of entering college which is to
apply for it. The answer is for UC to better communicate its admissions
requirements, not eliminate them.
Diversity is also used as an argument for eliminating subject
tests. The facts show that subject tests play a critical role in admitting
thousands of deserving minority students. Data compiled by the College Board,
which administers SAT Subject Tests, shows that 10,010 students were admitted to
the UC system in 2007 as a direct result of subject tests. These students had
marginal scores on their SATs yet scored 700 or more on their subject tests,
demonstrating tremendous knowledge and merit.
Among these students last year were more than 4,800 children
of Hispanic, Mexican-American, or other Latino heritage, and more than 3,700
students from Asian, Asian-American or
backgrounds. To say that eliminating subject tests will improve diversity
simply does not hold water.
Another goal of the proposed changes is the desire for a
“more holistic admissions system.” However, eliminating empirical measures
like SAT Subject Tests could produce disastrous results. A “more holistic”
admissions program is underway at UCLA with potentially illegal fallout amid
allegations of violating Proposition 209, which banned race-based admissions to
’s public colleges.
Professor Timothy Groseclose resigned from UCLA’s Committee
on Undergraduate Admissions and Relations with Schools in August citing evidence
that, “strongly suggests that UCLA is cheating on admissions,” and claiming
the committee is engaged in a “cover-up” to prevent disclosure of illegal
activity. Why would the Board of Regents even contemplate changes that invite
similar mischief at other campuses? A system-wide scandal of this nature would
plunge UC into chaos and degrade its reputation.
Changes to the UC admissions standards affect the lives of
thousands of students, the integrity of the institution and will have an impact
for years to come. Revising these standards demands thoughtful deliberation, not
the approach of UC regent and former Paramount Studios CEO Sherry Lansing who
confessed during the Sept. 18 regents meeting, “I became a regent to get the
SATs eliminated.” If this is the new standard for determining admissions to
the UC system, we all have reason to be concerned for the future of the
and its legacy of excellence.
For more information and ways to help please go to www.saveucstandards.com.
Doug Ose is a former U.S. Congressman, representing
’s District 3.