Student Politics Or Coerced Speech?

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the University of California is cracking down on student governments actively taking sides on political issues or candidates. The occasion is objection to the Associated Students of UC Berkeley having spent about $35,000 helping to defeat Proposition 54, the Racial Privacy Initiative. (Thanks to Dave Huber.)

Student leaders respond that this is muzzling, censorship, etc. I suspect there must be some students who object to part of their mandatory student fees being spent in behalf of political causes they oppose.

As I argued here recently, however, I would be more impressed with the sincerity of these anti-RPI/pro-racial data student advocates if they followed through on their arguments and demanded that their own institution release all the racial data it collects. Where, for example, can the public go to examine UC data that breaks down entrance test scores (SAT, LSAT, etc., etc.), grades, graduation rates, etc., by race?

Say What? (3)

  1. Sarah February 25, 2004 at 4:50 pm | | Reply

    If an institution does not collect ethnic, gender, age data, then discrimination can take place (or not) depending on the character of the people who occupy the positions of trust and decision. Any challenge to their decisions cannot be validated or disproven because no hard data has been collected.

    I prefer the idea of collecting demographic data (individuals remaining anonymous) and making the results totally public, including the methods used to collect the information and the statistical methodology used to analyze it. That’s what an open society does.

  2. Tung Yin February 25, 2004 at 4:53 pm | | Reply

    Perhaps surprisingly (do your readers think I am a strong leftist?), I totally agree that the data should be made public on some sort of aggregate or anonymous basis that respects the privacy rights of individual students. I don’t think a meaningful discussion about the successes and failures of AA can take place without this data. If there is a marked disparity in graduation rates, that might mean the program is too flawed to work on a practical basis; or it might mean that schools committed to diversity through AA need to make more of a commitment to the students they admit through preferences.

    (All of this assumes the legality of AA, which, I realize your readers do not concede, but which the Supreme Court — whose opinion counts — recognizes, for now.)

  3. Zach February 26, 2004 at 10:42 pm | | Reply

    “I don’t think a meaningful discussion about the successes and failures of AA can take place without this data. ”

    This assumes that there can ever be a meaningful discussion of the merits of AA without charges of racism being lobbed.

Say What?