UCSD Racism Story: Complete Fake MSM

[Christopher Marlowe]

Holy Crap! This is the most insane story ever.
In Short: A comedian from Compton paid for a party in San Diego to promote his new comedy DVD. The party was called "Compton Cookout" and invited people of all races to dress in a ghetto theme.

Afterwards, the campus humor paper, the Koala, did a segment of the Campus television channel that made fun of the cookout. [I am unable to comment on the exact nature of show because the youtube clip I saw did not have any audio. Historically, the Koala paper has always failed at being funny.]

Then a hangman's noose was found in the UCSD Geisel library.

The campus was awash with false rumors of subsequent nooses being found. Rallies against racial hatred were held, and the Black Students Union held a sit in at the Chancellor's office. They gave a list of demands to the University.
 
CNN and other MSM fed the flames of fear, and described the Barbecue as being sponsored by a white fraternity.

A female Visual Arts student came forward and took responsibility for the noose, along with two accomplices. She has not been charged with any crime, but has been suspended from the University.

The story has been run in the NY Times, The Washington Post, the LA Times, etc...

Essentially, they are not only making a mountain out of a molehill, but out of an IMAGINARY MOLEHILL.

From the LA Times:

UC San Diego is in the hot seat after an off-campus student party, dubbed the "Compton Cookout," mocked Black History Month.

Campus administrators said they were investigating whether the party, held Feb. 15, and its Facebook invitation violated the university's code of conduct and whether its sponsors should be disciplined.

Members of the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity were identified as being some of the organizers, but the fraternity president has criticized the event and said his club didn't sponsor it.

Here's the dress code for the party, according to the invite:

   

For girls: For those of you who are unfamiliar with ghetto chicks -- Ghetto chicks usually have gold teeth, start fights and drama, and wear cheap clothes -- they consider Baby Phat to be high class and expensive couture. They also have short, nappy hair, and usually wear cheap weave, usually in bad colors, such as purple or bright red.

    They look and act similar to Shenaynay, and speak very loudly, while rolling their neck, and waving their finger in your face. Ghetto chicks have a very limited vocabulary, and attempt to make up for it, by forming new words, such as "constipulated", or simply cursing persistently, or using other types of vulgarities, and making noises, such as "hmmg!", or smacking their lips, and making other angry noises, grunts, and faces.

    The objective is for all you lovely ladies to look, act, and essentially take on these "respectable" qualities throughout the day.

In an e-mail to students and staff, UC San Diego Chancellor Marye Anne Fox said the party showed "blatant disregard of our campus values." She said the university would hold a teach-in Wednesday "to discuss the importance of mutual respect and civility."

AP Story that Ran in Washington Post:

San Diego students storm offices after noose found
By ELLIOT SPAGAT
The Associated Press
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04263.html
Saturday, February 27, 2010; 12:21 AM SAN DIEGO -- Anger boiled over on the University of California San Diego campus Friday, where students took over the chancellor's office for several hours to protest the hanging of a noose in a campus library.

Students wearing red handkerchiefs over their faces blocked the doors to Chancellor Marye Anne Fox's offices for hours, while more students inside chanted "Real pain, real change."

They left the office peacefully at sundown, about the same time that leaders of the university's Black Student Union ended talks with administrators in a nearby conference room over demands that include more boosting the African-American curriculum and campus activities. A university spokesman, Jeff Gattas, said there were no arrests and no property was damaged during the takeover.

The noose found dangling from a light fixture on the seventh floor of Geisel Library on Thursday night was the latest in a string of racially charged incidents in the university community, authorities said Friday. Less than two weeks ago, an off-campus party mocking Black History Month ignited racial tensions.

A University of California statement said a student admitted she and two other people were responsible. The statement did not identify the students or their race or include a motive.

In a news conference Friday afternoon, Fox said the student has been suspended but declined to discuss her motive or other students involved.

"This person admitted her involvement in what we consider to be an abhorrent act," said Fox.

Hundreds of students rallied for several hours outside the university administration building Friday, where speakers denounced the noose as an example of intolerance on a campus where less than 2 percent of students are black.

UC and campus authorities did not indicate whether the students would be charged with a hate crime. Under state law, hanging a noose to terrorize is punishable by up to a year in jail.

"Whatever the intent of the authors of this act, it was a despicable expression of racial hatred, and we are outraged," the UC statement said. "It has no place in civilized society, and it will not be tolerated."

To blacks, a noose recalls the days of widespread racism and lynchings.

"How am I supposed to walk into that building? How am I ever going to be safe there?" said ethnic studies major Cheyenne Stevens, who is black.

Mustafa Shahryar, 21, said he had seen the noose as he left the library.

Shahryar, who is from Afghanistan, told the crowd he grew accustomed to racial slurs while growing up in Southern California but was stunned to see the noose.

"Nothing phased me until last night," he said. "I just took that noose as an attack on all of us."

Leaders of the Black Student Union said they were disappointed with the administration's response to their list of 32 demands. The school agreed to many, such as funding a vacant position for program coordinator for an African American Studies minor.

But the administration said requiring undergraduates to take courses in African-American, ethnic and gender studies was beyond its scope of authority. Funding the Black Student Union, it said, depended on state funding and decisions of the student government.

The administration plans to resume talks with the students Monday, said Danny Widener, a history professor who supports the Black Student Union and participated in Friday's discussions.

The school - where about 2 percent students are black - has been in turmoil over an off-campus "Compton Cookout" party organized by some students that urged people to dress as ghetto stereotypes and promised there would be chicken, watermelon and malt liquor.

Fox condemned the party, and the school began an investigation to determine if any students might face discipline. The school also initiated a campus-wide "Battle Hate" campaign.

Campus administrators held a "teach-in" against intolerance on Wednesday. The same day, hundreds of students from UCSD and other universities staged a campus protest, demanding that officials make more efforts to combat racism.

Some students countered that the reaction to the party had been overblown.

Last week, the Associated Students president pulled funding from a student-run TV station after The Koala - a campus media outlet with a reputation for being offensive - came out in support of the party, called black students ungrateful and used a derogatory term for African-Americans during a program.

Here's another AP story that ran in the WP:

Student party prompts anti-racism school campaign
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05889.html
The Associated Press Wednesday, February 24, 2010; 9:20 PM SAN DIEGO -- The University of California, San Diego has initiated a campus-wide campaign against racism in the wake of a student party that used a ghetto theme to mockingly commemorate Black History Month.

A school Web site outlines the "Battle Hate" campaign that aims to ensure that all students feel "safe, supported and respected." A teach-in at the university Wednesday discussed the importance of mutual respect.

The off-campus party on President's Day outraged some of UCSD's black students, who comprise only 2 percent of the student population.

The party was condemned by the school and a fraternity. UCSD officials are investigating whether anyone can be disciplined.

OK. Now here's WHAT REALLY HAPPENED as told by the comedian who sponsored the barbecue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y95G-LH885Y

Apparently no one at AP or the NY Times or Washington Post is able to access youtube!

The fact that the young lady who put the hangman's noose in the library was not arrested and charged with a hate crime has caused some to speculate that she is not white. The university has not released any information as to her race.

SAN DIEGO — Campus police at the University of California San Diego are questioning a student who admitted she hung a noose on the seventh floor of the university library Thursday night.

The incident is the third racially charged episode on the campus in two weeks, and has spurred a new round of rallies.

"This is truly a dark day in the history of this university," Chancellor Marye Anne Fox told students gathered along Library Walk. "It's abhorrent and untenable."

The noose was found hanging from a bookcase of the Geisel Library at 10:30 p.m. Thursday, and the student called at 9 a.m. Friday to confess, according to vice chancellor Gary Mattews.

"It's someone who didn't think that leaving a noose was an issue," he said....

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010 ... test-ucsd/

In Short: A black comedian sponsored a party. The campus newspaper mocked the party. A visual arts student hung up a noose in the library. The University of CA, San Diego and the media are in an uproar.

[scorpio]

Essentially, they are not only making a mountain out of a molehill, but out of an IMAGINARY MOLEHILL.

CM - You are very insensitive. You should be offended!!!  :lol:  :lol:
Perhaps you should attend a sensitivity training seminar  :shock:  

Good post - It's pathetic how the ziotribe and mindless liberals always try and gin up racial division  and white guilt.

I used to live in San Diego for many years, near UCSD....Believe me, it's hardly a racist place.

[Christopher Marlowe]

I agree Scorpio. I went to UCSD. I am well acquainted with the area.  SD is not a racist town. Sure, can find racism anywhere if you look hard. But I don't remember seeing any racism on the campus.  

You used to live near UCSD? Interesting. We may have both attended sensitivity training sessions and not recognized each other.

I spoke to a young lady who is going to UCSD now, and I informed her that the whole thing is bogus. She is young and didn't understand that her feelings had been manipulated. She is still under the impression that her indignation is a valid reaction. Maybe when people get older, they realize that their actions are really based on tiredness or an empty stomach. I know that my feelings are often just in my belly.

Some of this racial strife is caused by prop 209 and the resulting racial gerrymandering by the University of California.

From Wikipedia:

Proposition 209 (also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative) is a California ballot proposition which, upon approval in November 1996, amended the state constitution to prohibit public institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity. It had been supported and funded by the California Civil Rights Initiative Campaign, led by University of California Regent Ward Connerly, and opposed by affirmative action advocates and supporters. Proposition 209 was voted into law on 5 November 1996, with 54 percent of the vote.

Sounds good to me. Don't discriminate by race, sex or ethnicity. Isn't that what we teach children?

What the UC did as a result is well covered by an article I read on VDARE:
http://vdare.com/sailer/090720_ap_tests.htm

Ever since Proposition 209, UC administrators have searched for sneakier ways to admit more Latinos and blacks. The  California Latino Legislative Caucus made clear to the UC Board of Regents that they'd better manipulate the system to admit more Hispanics or they'd have their budget cut.

In response,...the UC schools downplayed absolute test scores in favor of relativistic high school grades: "Once affirmative action was outlawed, UCs made GPA ever more important, and it now represents 75% of admissions decisions."

Berkeley education professors Saul Geiser and Maria Veronica Santelices confirmed that in a 2007 study, Validity of High-School Grades in Predicting Student Success beyond the Freshman Year:

"After California voters approved Proposition 209 in 1995, former UC President Richard Atkinson ... instituted several major changes in admissions policy that became effective in 2001. UC introduced 'comprehensive review,' an admissions policy that more systematically took into account the impact of socioeconomic factors, such as parents' education and family income, on students' test scores and related indicators of academic achievement."

By the way, Richard Atkinson was the chancellor of UCSD when I went there. He was always involved in some minor scandal, and most students had come to think that Atkinson was something of a sh*thead. It came as quite a shock when he became president of UC.  

UC's purpose, of course, was to let in more  Non-Asian Minority students (NAMs). It's easy to earn a high GPA at inner city high schools because students are graded on the curve and there's so little competition. Some NAMs attend schools where the valedictorian's  SAT score (Math plus Verbal) might not reach 1000, which is roughly the minimum level at which it's plausible to consider a four year degree anywhere—much less at the notoriously unaccommodating UC campuses.

In 2004, for instance, among the 1041 seniors at the three high schools in Compton, CA.... a grand total of fourteen 12th graders scored 1000 or higher (which is the equivalent of 890 under the tougher scoring system used before 1995):

Moreover... UC adopted

"... a new policy called 'Eligibility in the Local Context', which extended eligibility for UC admission to the top four percent of graduates from each California high school."

So Compton's three high schools automatically get 42 students admitted to UC schools—even though 28 of them have three-digit SAT scores and will likely flunk out.

Yet this California policy of automatically letting in the top four percent of each school isn't as bad as the top ten percent policy in Texas. That was pushed through in the 1990s by Gov. George W. Bush (where have we heard that name before?) to sleaze around a court ruling banning quotas.

Inevitably, UC's decision to give more weight to grades led to schools engaging in a grade inflation arms race. The main trick: classes designated "AP" by the high schools come with a "bonus point" when calculating GPA. That makes an A in an AP class worth 5 on the traditional 0 to 4 scale. Thus, freshmen admitted to UC Berkeley in 2003 averaged an absurd GPA of 4.31 on a 0 to 4 scale.

[T]here's no evidence that giving AP classes a bonus point helps UC make better admissions decisions. Geiser and Santelices found in 2004 [The Role Of Advanced Placement And Honors Courses In College Admissions [(Source)]] that a multiple regression model counting bonus points for AP classes did a worse job of predicting college freshmen's GPA than one that simply ignored bonus points.

But, again, the UC administrators don't want better students—they want minority students.

Moreover, the University of California admissions process gives no weight to getting a good score on the actual AP Test. Hence the rush by many high schools to rig the system by sticking the "AP" label on sundry mediocre classes.

 Here's a chart summarizing report card grades awarded by the school in its official AP classes versus the scores earned by these same students on the actual College Board AP Tests.
   

AP Class Grade  /  Class %  /   AP Test Score  /    Class %

A ......................../ 30% /............../ 5 / ................./ 3% /

B ......................../ 31% /............../ 4 /................../ 5%/

C ......................../ 26% /............../ 3 /................../16%/

D ......................../  9%  /............../ 2 /................../ 27% /

F ......................../  4% /............./1 or Not Taken /..../ 49% /

In other words, this public school bestowed As (counting as 5s for UC admissions purposes) upon 30 percent of its students taking AP classes. Nonetheless, only three percent scored 5s on their AP Tests.
 Only 8 percent scored 4s or 5s. And only 24 percent simply passed the AP tests with a 3 or better.

Similarly, only 4 percent of report card grades were Fs. On the other hand, 49 percent of the school's AP students either scored the minimum 1 on the AP Test (33 percent) or didn't even attempt it (15 percent)

The average GPA in this high school's AP classes was a 3.7. In contrast, the average AP score, counting AP students who didn't take the test as 1s, was 1.7 on the 1 to 5 scale, or the equivalent of a D- in a typical college intro class.

Paradoxically, the big winners from the UC's attempt to discriminate in favor of Non-Asian Minorities are...Asian Minorities....

"Once GPA became increasingly important in UC admissions, the strongest kids started taking all the AP courses they could, because of the bonus points. The irony, of course, is that grades became important because of the low achieving kids, but the public universities have to be consistent, so it rippled up. The emphasis on GPA after affirmative action was banned is the reason for the explosion of Asian students—Asians have much higher GPAs than whites (but not much higher test scores, for the most part)."
...
"Fifteen years ago, a student with outstanding test scores and a high 3.8 GPA in AP courses could get into UC Berkeley. Today, a student who doesn't have higher than a 4.0 doesn't have a chance at Berkeley unless he's a NAM or an athlete."

The ethnic breakdown of the class entering UCSD in 1995 was:
White: ...............46% ... (1,295)
Asian: ............... 43% ...(1,200)
Hispanic: ........... 10% ...(278)
African American....1% ...(42)

Graduating Rates (after Five years)
........................Class of 1988.........Class of 1989
White ................ 71%....................76%
Asian.................. 67%....................72%
Hispanic.............. 48%....................50%
African American....41%....................41%

SAT & Rate of Graduation
35% of those with combined SAT scores of 800 or less graduated in five years
58% of those with combined SAT scores of 801-1,000  graduated in five years
73% of those with combined SAT scores of 1001-1200 graduated in five years
74% of those with combined SAT scores of 1201-1400 graduated in five years
79% of those with combined SAT scores of 1401 or more graduated in five years

GPA & Rate of Graduation
53% of those with GPAs of 3.29 or less graduated in five years
64% of those with GPAs of 3.30 -- 3.49 graduated in five years
71% of those with GPAs of 3.50 -- 3.69 graduated in five years
72% of those with GPAs of 3.70 -- 3.89 graduated in five years
78% of those with GPAs of 3.90 or higher graduated in five years

The variation in graduation rates moving from low to high SAT scores is greater than the same kind of variation in GPAs.  The larger size of the former difference relative to the latter means that it is liely that combined SAT scores are a better predictor of completion rates than are grades.
Earlier we showed that UCSD's admissions policies weigh grades more heavily than SAT scores, as evidenced by the higher correlation between admission status and GPA than between admission status and SAT scores. We have also shown that this policy cannot be for the purpose of maximizing success rates, because SATs are a better predictor of academic success than are grades. These results then, support our view that these findings are the consequence of UCDS's policies of racial preferences in admissions.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/co ... o=ED418191
CAMPUS ENROLLMENT, FALL 2008
Asian/Pacific Islander: 48.6%
White: 26.7%
Chicano/Latino: 12.2%
African American: 1.5%
American Indian: 0.4%
Other: 1.6%
Not Stated: 5.8%

AVERAGES (Freshman 2009)
High School GPA 4.08
ACT Composite Score 29
SAT Critical Reading 637
SAT Mathematics 677

GPA Range
4.00 and above..........74.4% (12,840/17,250)
3.70–3.99.................29.6% (3,486/11,771)
3.30–3.69.................8.5% (949/11,226)
3.00–3.29.................2.0% (83/4,061)
Below 3.00...............0.8% (16/2,012)

SAT Critical Reading Range
700–800..................73.3% (4,554/6,215)
600–690..................47.8% (7,411/15,495)
500–590..................26.6% (3,948/14,867)
400–490..................16.9% (1,051/6,224)
Below 400................8.4% (97/1,158)

SAT Mathematics Range
700–800..................63.8% (7,621/11,943)
600–690..................38.2% (6,672/17,477)
500–590..................21.6% (2,144/9,911)
400–490..................14.9% (567/3,814)
Below 400................7.0% (57/814)

Of the 17,582 admitted freshmen, 7,007 were identified as Eligible in the Local Context (ELC), meaning that these are UC eligible students who were identified as the top four percent of their high school graduating class. The average GPA of these ELC students is 4.19 and on average their SAT Reasoning scores were 632, 667 and 642 respectively for Critical Reading, Math and Writing.

Graduation Rate
Freshman Year/ Black%/ Am Indian%/ Asian(PI)%/Latino%/White%/
1998............/67%...../74%........../79%........./77%..../79%...../
1999............/79%...../58%........../82%........./76%..../80%...../
2000............/64%...../62%........../83%........./87%..../82%...../
2001............/73......./67%........../82%........./75%..../80%...../
2002............/71......./65%........../82%........./71%..../82%...../
2003............/55......./86%........../84%........./71%...../81%...../

Graduation Rate GPA- 5 Year
3.90-High
1998.....82%
1999.....82%
2000.....84%
2001.....83%
2002.....85%
2003.....84%
3.70-3.89
1998......77%
1999......77%
2000......80%
2001......78%
2002......79%
2003.......76%
3.50-3.69
1998.......74%
1999.......72%
2000........73%
2001........76%
2002........72%
2003........74%
3.30-3.49
1998.........68%
1999.........64%
2000.........60%
2001.........63%
2002.........66%
2003.........71%
Low-3.29
1998..........53%
1999..........62%
2000..........71%
2001..........46%
2002..........47%
2003..........48%

Graduation Rate SAT
1401-1600
1998.........79%
1999.........79%
2000.........81%
2001.........82%
2002.........84%
2003.........81%
1201-1400
1998.........79%
1999.........81%
2000.........83%
2001.........82%
2002.........84%
2003.........85%
1001-1200
1998.........78%
1999.........79%
2000.........80%
2001.........79%
2002.........79%
2003.........78%
801-1,000
1998.........69%
1999.........65%
2000.........64%
2001.........67%
2002.........61%
2003.........53%
Low-800
1998.........***
1999.........***
2000.........***
2001.........50%
2002.........32%
2003.........60%
University of California, San Diego
Office of Student Research & Information
Student Affairs
http://studentresearch.ucsd.edu/

[Christopher Marlowe]

Averages for numbers presented above

Graduation Rate: 5 Year
Freshman Year/ Black%/ Am Indian%/ Asian(PI)%/Latino%/White%/
'98-03 Avg....../68%..../69%............./82%.........../76%...../81%...../
'88-89 Avg....../41%..../***............../70%............/49%...../74%...../

Graduation Rate GPA- 5 Year
3.90-High....................3.70-3.89.........3.50-3.69..........3.30-3.49..........Low-3.29
'98-03 Avg:83%..............74%.................74%....................65%...................55%
'88-9 Avg: 78%...............72%.................71%....................64%...................53%

Graduation Rate SAT
.............1401-1600..........1201-1400..............1001-1200.............801-1,000......Low-800
'98-03 Avg:81%..................82%(!?!)...................79%.........................63%.................47%
'88-9 Avg: 79%...................74%........................73%.........................58%.................35%

Conclusion:
First of all, congratulations to UCSD on the VAST improvement in graduation rates all around.

But the findings of the report on graduation statistics in 1988-9 still holds true today:

"The variation in graduation rates moving from low to high SAT scores is greater than the same kind of variation in GPAs.

SAT Variation
.............1401-1600....................................Low-800.....................Variation
'98-03 Avg:81%............................................47%............................34
'88-9 Avg: 79%.............................................35%............................44

GPA Variation
..........3.90-High............3.30-3.49.................Low-3.29....................Variation
'98-03 Avg:83%................65%(Var: 18).............55%...........................28
'88-9 Avg: 78%.................64%(Var: 16).............53% ..........................25

The SAT Variation from high to low decreased from 44% to 34%. The Variation of GPA has increased, but there is still a significant difference in the SAT/GPA variation. As noted below, removing the 2.8% of those entering freshmen with GPAs below 3.29 leaves 97% of the class, and a high to low GPA variation of only 18. Which means the SAT variation (34) is nearly double that of the low to high variation in GPAs. 18/34 (53%) This also matches more closely to the difference in GPA/SAT low-high variation recorded in '88-9: 25/44 (57%)

Taking into account the grade inflation that has transpired over this same time period, the GPA Variation has actually been exaggerated: the high grades are commonly well above 4.0, and the low grades have been raised by a larger percentage of AP courses, whose grades are boosted by one full point.

The larger size of the former difference relative to the latter means that it is likely that combined SAT scores are a better predictor of completion rates than are grades....UCSD's admissions policies weigh grades more heavily than SAT scores, as evidenced by the higher correlation between admission status and GPA than between admission status and SAT scores.

GPA Range
4.00 and above..........74.4% (12,840/17,250)
3.70–3.99.................29.6% (3,486/11,771)
3.30–3.69.................8.5% (949/11,226)
3.00–3.29.................2.0% (83/4,061)
Below 3.00...............0.8% (16/2,012)
Which means that only 2.8% of the freshmen admitted have GPAs below 3.29. It is unclear how many of the incoming freshmen have SATs below 800, but this number could be as high as 15%. Removing the those 2.8% with GPAs below 3.29 from the variation in graduation rates between high and low GPA, leaves the GPA variation of 97% of the incoming freshmen at 18, which is only HALF that of the variation in SATs (34). (It makes me wonder if UCSD admits those with GPAs below 3.29 ONLY because it makes the heavily weighted grades seem twice as significant as a predictor of success.)  

SAT Critical Reading Range
700–800..................73.3% (4,554/6,215)
600–690..................47.8% (7,411/15,495)
500–590..................26.6% (3,948/14,867)
400–490..................16.9% (1,051/6,224)
Below 400................8.4% (97/1,158)

SAT Mathematics Range
700–800..................63.8% (7,621/11,943)
600–690..................38.2% (6,672/17,477)
500–590..................21.6% (2,144/9,911)
400–490..................14.9% (567/3,814)
Below 400................7.0% (57/814)

We have also shown that this policy cannot be for the purpose of maximizing success rates, because SATs are a better predictor of academic success than are grades. These results then, support our view that these findings are the consequence of UCDS's policies of racial preferences in admissions.

[Christopher Marlowe]

Sh*t.....Made an error in math. :oops:
Now I've corrected it.