Heather MacDonald on the corruption of the new hostile elite that runs the University of California

At TOO we often emphasize that the new elite is not only hostile but corrupt. Usually, our main culprit is Jewish ethnic networking, but it extends far beyond that. Heather MacDonald has a great article on the corruption of the University of California by the new multicultural elite (“Multiculti U.: The budget-strapped University of California squanders millions on mindless diversity programs“).

For an alternative view, which blames Gov. Ronald Reagan’s actions in 1969 for UC’s current problems (!!!), see “Reagan and the fall of UC” by Seth Rosenfeld (LATimes, 5/10/2013.) Rosenfeld ignores the budget crisis since 2008 and the massive diversity bureaucracy and lowered standards for faculty and students targeted by MacDonald. Obviously intended to promote his book (which condemns the FBI’s  role in resisting 1960s student radicalism), Rosenfeld paints a fantasy world where one might be led to believe that UC is being destroyed by a shadowy conspiracy put into motion by Reagan and somehow continuing to the present despite the fact that California is Exhibit A for the dominance of the multicultural left throughout state government. As MacDonald shows, this dominance of the multicultural left is obvious at UC (and, one might add, pretty much every other American university).

There is so much to like in MacDonald’s article, beginning with her comments on Peter Schrag, an op-ed writer for the Sacramento Bee, who claimed that the university needs more money so that it can pass on the tradition of a whole lot of dead White folks. MacDonald responds:

Stingy state taxpayers aren’t endangering the transmission of great literature, philosophy, and art; the university itself is. No UC administrator would dare to invoke Schrag’s list of mostly white, mostly male thinkers [including Madison and Jefferson,  Melville, Dickinson and Hawthorne; Shakespeare, Milton and Chaucer; Dante and Cervantes; Charlotte Brontë and Jane Austen; Goethe and Molière; Mozart, Rembrandt and Michelangelo; Plato and Aristotle, Homer and Sophocles and Euripides,  Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky] as an essential element of a UC education; no UC campus has sought to ensure that its undergraduates get any exposure to even one of Schrag’s seminal thinkers (with the possible exception of Toni Morrison), much less to America’s founding ideas or history.

Rather than requiring a focus on Western civilization, the only undergrad requirement at Berkeley is  a course involving “theoretical or analytical issues relevant to understanding race, culture, and ethnicity in American society” administered by “Berkeley’s ever-expanding Division of Equity and Inclusion.”

MacDonald’s  basic point:

There are two Universities of California: UC One, a serious university system centered on the sciences (though with representatives throughout the disciplines) and still characterized by rigorous meritocratic standards; and UC Two, a profoundly unserious institution dedicated to the all-consuming crusade against phantom racism and sexism that goes by the name of “diversity.”

UC Two is the bastion of the multicultural, anti-White left. It’s a place where

•  deans reject job searches if the short list of candidates only includes White males;
•  “diversity bureaucrats with Masters degrees and no teaching or research responsibilities can earn over $200,000 per year to be ever vigilant for rare instances of diversity-related unpleasantness;
• “borderline but qualified” candidates exhibiting  non-White cultural vibrancy are favored over White males—qualified meaning that you somehow got a Ph.D. and are breathing;
• failing to find even a borderline candidate who is appropriately diverse, the university will create special “excellence” positions (a beautifully Orwellian term, as MacDonald notes) for people who just happen to not be White males;
•  “in 2011, Berkeley’s $200,000-a-year vice chancellor for equity and inclusion presided over an already princely staff of 17; by 2012, his realm had ballooned to 24”;
• there is a huge and costly infrastructure to support the many diverse students admitted through various dodges around California’s law prohibiting discrimination on  the basis of race (i.e.,  race-based affirmative action) and who are unable to deal with even the watered down academic course load in UC Two; e.g.: “UCLA’s $300 million Division of Undergraduate Affairs, with nary a professor in sight, is a typical support-services accretion, stuffed with ‘retention’ specialists and initiatives for ‘advancing student engagement in diversity.’”
•  “campuses are filled … with docile [docile? more like aggressive, hostilely anti-White, morally crusading] administrators whose only purpose is swaddling students in services and fending off imaginary threats to those students’ fragile identities”;
•  courses like “’Lives of Struggle: Minorities in a Majority Culture,’ from the African-American studies department, which examines ‘the many forms that the struggle of minorities can assume’”;
• “every three years, representatives from departmental hiring committees at UCLA must attend a seminar on ‘unconscious bias’ in order to be deemed fit for making hiring decisions”;
• despite the hundreds of millions of dollars spent, there has never been “a scintilla of proof that faculty or administrator bias is holding professors or students back”;
• “UC San Diego hired its first vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion. This new diversocrat would pull in a starting salary of $250,000, plus a relocation allowance of $60,000, a temporary housing allowance of $13,500, and the reimbursement of all moving expenses.

Regarding this last gem, MacDonald notes that the university hired this indispensable, bargain basement addition to its massive diversity bureaucracy using the services of “a pricey but appropriately ‘diverse’ female-owned executive search firm.” This is something that we at TOO have noted before: Diversity entrepreneurs, much in evidence at the recent White Privilege Conference, can make big bucks by advising on job searches in the public and private sectors or hiring themselves out to firms needing to show they have their hearts in the right place, thereby fending off lawsuits from the many classes of aggrieved diversity victims.

Three cheers for UC One. But UC Two is a paradigm of our corrupt new elite, intent on hiring and promoting as many people like themselves as possible and with no concern for academic excellence. White males (apart from openly declared homosexuals) need not apply. (I  rather doubt that Mark Yudoff, who keeps Kosher, loves Israel, and is president of the UC system, identifies as a White male; and check out his outrageous salary and pension deal.) And White females are sure to be far less desirable than non-White women.

The university as a microcosm of the dispossession of White America.