Social Justice means not having to respect free speech rights of others

I was appalled this morning as I was reading an article in the San Francisco Chronicle to find that the President of the UC (University of California) Students Association appeared before the UC Regents and defended the Irvine Eleven for shouting down the Israeli Ambassador as he tried to deliver a lecture on the UC Irvine campus.

Calling it an intolerable attack on free speech, Irvine Chancellor Michael Drake told the regents that "a great university depends on the free exchange of ideas. This is non-negotiable."

Yet, one by one the students disagreed.

Victor Sánchez, president of the UC Students Association, called the attempt to silence Oren "a social justice issue."

Here's a video of the disruptions. You might think, "Do I have to watch the whole thing?" Well, no, but it really does go on and on, interruption after interruption.

I was glad to see the reporter, Nanette Asimov, put a social justice issue in quotation marks. Who determines what is a social justice issue and when the social justice issue trumps free speech?

I had previously been moved almost to tears as I read the article in the Wall Street Journal in which we learned that Sergei Brin had been the motivating factor behind Google's refusal to participate in China's effort to silence dissidents.

Google Inc. co-founder Sergey Brin pushed the Internet giant to take the risky step of abandoning its China-based search engine as that country’s efforts to censor the Web and suppress dissidents smacked of the “totalitarianism” of his youth in the Soviet Union.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Brin, who came to the U.S. from Russia at the age of 6 in 1979, said the compromises to do business in the world’s largest Internet market had become too great. Finally, a cyberattack that the company traced to Chinese hackers, which stole some of Google’s proprietary computer code and attempted to spy on Chinese activists’ emails, was the “straw that broke the camel’s back.”

China has “made great strides against poverty and whatnot,” Mr. Brin said. “But nevertheless, in some aspects of their policy, particularly with respect to censorship, with respect to surveillance of dissidents, I see the same earmarks of totalitarianism, and I find that personally quite troubling.”

I am sure that the Chinese officials view their behavior as socially just and the efforts of the dissidents as efforts to undermine the social justice institutionalized by them.

Then I started reading through the blogs I follow and found Greg Griffith at Stand Firm had posted an article on some gay activists in Boston trying to silence an ex-gay meeting in a church.

Tuesday afternoon, April 28, several major homosexual activist figures, including a prominent state employee, led a screaming demonstration to terrorize a downtown Boston church while it was holding a peaceful ex-gay religious training event inside. Using a bullhorn, they illegally trampled through an adjoining Revolutionary War-era cemetery in order to be directly outside the church's windows. Despite numerous apparent violations of the law, the Boston Police talked with them but refused to make any arrests.

Greg directed as to watch the video at "2:10 when activist Chris Mason holds up a bullhorn to a window with its siren at full blast." But the whole video is instructive as to the tactics of this gay group in Massachusetts.



I am connecting these three, what may seem as disparate, events because to me they show the movements towards and against totalitarianism occurring now in our country. I feel angry at the Irvine Eleven for their behavior but even more so at the UC Student Association President for excusing their behavior because he agrees with their cause. I so admire Sergei Brin for getting Google to stand up to the Chinese government for attempting to silence dissent. And I see the behavior of the gays in Boston as coming from the same place as the Irvine Eleven.

They think that since their cause is just, their tactics are acceptable -- Social justice by any means necessary. But if we lose our rights, like free speech, to implement "social justice", their is no guarantee that future leaders will agree with what is social justice. And those future leaders will not have to give those who see an alternative vision of social justice the free speech to articulate it.

This way leads to totalitarianism. And then won't these "useful idiots" with their utopian ideals of "social justice" be the next to go?

Anyway, that's what I was thinking as I read the news today.

Berkeley High: Close racial achievement gap by cutting science labs classes

The East Bay Express has an interesting report on the recent progress of Berkeley High School's "High School Redesign Plan", tasked with the goal of closing the racial achievement gap. One item in the Redesign Plan that won "virtually unanimous" approval by the School Governance Council is to eliminate five science teachers and the labs they teach so that the money can be redirected to the lowest achieving students.

Paul Gibson, an alternate parent representative on the School Governance Council, said that information presented at council meetings suggests that the science labs were largely classes for white students. He said the decision to consider cutting the labs in order to redirect resources to underperforming students was virtually unanimous.

The item will go before the Berkeley School Board at their upcoming meeting scheduled for January 13th.

This is actually a brilliant way of "closing the racial achievement gap". It is very difficult to raise up the bottom achievers. Eliminating the opportunities for achievement works directly in that the achievement gap no longer can measure the top levels; If there are no science lab classes, then the differential in science achievement has been reduced. This also works indirectly by driving out the top achievers, whose families move them to other high schools. Driving out the high achievers is fine with those who seek to close the racial achievement gap because they believe that those high achievers are from families who can afford to sell their houses and move to different school districts or put their children in private schools.

Thomas Lifson at American Thinker has some interesting comments on the selective racism of this:

The sheer racism of identifying science as something primarily for whites seems not to penetrate the addled minds of those who fancy themselves advocates for black and Latino students. The absence of any consideration of Asian students is also striking. The city of Berkeley has more Asian households (12,641) than black households (10,874) or Latino households (8,466).

Consider that the university which makes its home in Berkeley and dominates both local employment and community's character has a majority undergraduate population of Asian students, thanks to the fact that California voters approved a state law eliminating racial preferences in state institutions. The science majors at the University of California, Berkeley overwhelmingly comprise Asian students. U.C. Berkeley also boasts 21 faculty members who have won Nobel Prizes, primarily in the sciences. The list of laureates includes two Asians and one Latino, all three science winners.

and Lifson also questions how much money should be allocated to raise up underachievers versus funding the willing achievers/ future contirbutors:

Aside from the repulsive racism of this move, the broader issue to be considered is whether society is better-served by cutting down the achievers and investing in the stragglers -- or whether everyone benefits from the achievements of those who apply themselves enough to excel. I have no hesitation in saying that I am in the latter camp. How does it benefit anyone to have an America made up of mediocre minds?

Bomb Factory on Grizzly Peak in Berkeley a Teachable Moment, Too?

Two weekends ago, the Berkeley police arrested a man at 976 Grizzly Peak Blvd. who had the house set up with bomb making materials. The man, Emoru Oboke Obbanya, was subsequently released on $121,500 bail. So, far, there has been no further news about this case and we are wondering what the bombs were for. (Yes, this is just a few blocks from the Berkeley professor's house targeted by Code Pink earlier this summer, but ...)

In the mean time, I post the story to contribute to the current teachable moment in the dialogue about race and the police that has been requested. In this example, a man living in an expensive house in a university community also refused to identify himself when the police arrived at the house in response to a 911 call. This man also became verbally abusive to the officer. In this case he was in fact covering up illegal activity in the house.

Police Find Bomb-Making Materials In Berkeley Home
CBS 5 CrimeWatch
BERKELEY (BCN) ―

A Berkeley man has been arrested on explosives and weapons charges after police officers who responded to a 911 "hang-up" call in a quiet neighborhood in the Berkeley hills found chemicals and other items that could be used to manufacture explosives.

Berkeley police Lt. Andrew Greenwood said patrol officers responded to a house in the 900 block of Grizzly Peak Boulevard, near Forest Lane, around 12:30 p.m. Saturday after someone in the house dialed 911 and then hung up.

Greenwood said officers attempted to contact anyone inside the residence and could hear movement inside the house but no one responded when they knocked on the door.

He said after a while a man emerged from the house but then quickly closed the door behind him.

Greenwood said the officers became increasingly concerned about the welfare of anyone inside the house because the man "appeared to be extremely nervous, angry, agitated and confrontational."

The man repeatedly cursed the officers and for a period of time refused to provide any evidence that he in fact lived in the residence, according to Greenwood.

He allegedly refused to cooperate with officers' efforts to insure no one inside the residence was injured, in distress, or in need of aid, Greenwood said.

The man, who later was identified as 27-year-old Emoru Oboke Obbanya, was then arrested for a misdemeanor charge of obstructing a peace officer in the course of their duties, according to Greenwood.

The officers then went inside the house to make sure no one inside was injured or in need of aid in light of Obbanya's unusual and suspicious behavior, Greenwood said.

Although officers didn't find anyone who needed assistance, they observed a number of indications of possible criminal violations during the check of the home, he said.

Officers next obtained a search warrant authorizing a search of the house for weapons and located chemicals and other items which could be used in the manufacture of explosives and a quantity of explosives, Greenwood said.

Officers evacuated the house and adjoining homes and the Police Department's bomb squad was called in to safely conduct the search and safely seize illegal materials, he said.

The Berkeley Fire Department's hazardous materials team, the University of California at Berkeley Police Department's bomb squad and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were also called to assist in the operation and the safe removal of materials.

The UC Berkeley Police Department's blast transport vessel was used to remove a number of volatile items and the items subsequently were rendered safe, Greenwood said. The incident didn't conclude until Sunday night, he said.

In addition to the misdemeanor charge of obstructing a peace officer, Obbanya is in custody in lieu of $121,500 bail on felony charges of possession of an illegal firearm, prohibited possession of a firearm, possession of a destructive device, possession of material with the intent to make an explosive or destructive device and prohibited possession of ammunition.

Greenwood said Obbanya is expected to be charged by the Alameda County District Attorney's Office Tuesday morning and arraigned that afternoon.

Greenwood said Obbanya does in fact live at the house on Grizzly Peak Boulevard but it's unclear if he's the owner.

He said there may have been one other person at the house when police arrived on Saturday afternoon but that person wasn't injured and isn't believed to be connected to any wrongdoing at the house.

from here

California initiative on illegal residents and US born children in signature gathering stage

The Los Angeles Times has an article today on a new California initiative in the signature gathering stage. This will qualify for our June 2010 ballot if it can get 488,000 verified signatures. California is in a financial shambles and the cost to California taxpayers of public benefits to illegal immigrants and their US born children is estimated at $4-5 billion a year. The cost savings from this initiative is estimated at $1 billion per year, of which more than half comes from cutting off state welfare benefits to illegal immigrants:

The measure's most controversial provisions would take aim at the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. It would end state welfare to an estimated 48,000 households and 100,000 children, aid that now costs the state $640 million a year.

Currently, children of illegal immigrants can receive CalWorks benefits if their parents are poor enough to qualify for welfare. About 42% of "child only" cases in the CalWorks program involve illegal-immigrant parents, state officials say.

If this becomes a ballot initiative and is passed by the California voters, it will go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here's the whole article:

Activists push ballot initiative to end state benefits for illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children

The measure would end public benefits to illegal residents, challenge the citizenship of their U.S.-born children, cut welfare payments to those children and impose new birth certificate requirements.

By Teresa Watanabe
July 13, 2009

In a stretch of desert just north of the U.S.-Mexico border, men and women in khakis and the colors of the American flag recently gathered at a border watch post they call Camp Vigilance and discussed their next offensive in the nation's immigration wars.

The target: Illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children who receive public benefits.

The plan: a California ballot initiative that would end public benefits for illegal immigrants, cut off welfare payments for their children and impose new rules for birth certificates.

"We will be out in full force to qualify this initiative," said Barbara Coe, who helped develop Proposition 187, the 1994 measure that would have ended benefits to illegal immigrants but was ruled unconstitutional. "Illegals and their children are costing the state billions of dollars. It's invasion by birth canal."

Supporters of the initiative, recently unveiled by San Diego political activist Ted Hilton, hope to challenge the citizenship of children born in the United States to parents who are here illegally.

The 14th Amendment states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." Backers of the initiative argue that illegal residents are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and that, as a result, their U.S.-born children should not be citizens.

Before Hilton, Coe and their allies can argue that point in court, however, they have many hurdles to overcome. Whether the initiative will even make it to the ballot remains to be seen. Organizers have just begun to collect the 488,000 voter signatures required to qualify the measure for the June 2010 election. So far, Hilton said, they have raised about $350,000 -- far short of the $4 million generally needed to pay signature gatherers to get a statewide initiative over that hurdle.

But illegal immigration was a powerful political issue in the economic downturn of the early 1990s, and the initiative's backers hope it will be again. Hilton said the group is enlisting an "enormous volunteer base" for the signature gathering. His organization, Taxpayer Revolution, has gathered endorsements from elected officials, including Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach), the American Legion California chapter and immigration restrictionist groups such as NumbersUSA, Save Our State and Coe's California Coalition for Immigration Reform.

The drive coincides with decisions in several states -- including Oklahoma, Colorado Virginia, Arizona and Georgia -- to curtail medical care, mortgage loans, homeless shelter relief and other benefits for illegal immigrants amid the national economic downturn.

Officials estimate that California's 2.7 million illegal residents account for $4 billion to $6 billion of the state's roughly $105-billion budget. Most of those costs are associated with schools, prisons and emergency healthcare.

"Are we going to continue asking taxpayers to pay for these services when the state is completely out of money?" asked Hilton, who first rallied against illegal immigration two decades ago.

Most illegal residents contribute to the state through taxes and labor, but research indicates that the costs to state and local governments outweigh the additional tax revenue, at least in the short term.

The nonpartisan state legislative analyst's office says the measure could reduce costs by more than $1 billion a year if it survives legal challenges.

Peter Schey, a Los Angeles attorney who successfully challenged Proposition 187, said courts would almost certainly strike down the measure.

"This proposal . . . has no chance of surviving a constitutional challenge," he said. "It is plainly driven by racism and a desire to whip up xenophobia during difficult economic times for U.S. citizens."

Backers say, however, that they have carefully crafted the measure to avoid the legal pitfalls that doomed Proposition 187, which would have barred illegal immigrants from receiving any public social services, education and nonemergency medical care. Voters approved it, 59% to 41%, but a federal judge ruled that the measure unconstitutionally usurped federal jurisdiction over immigration.

This time, backers worked with attorneys who have helped craft successful efforts to curtail benefits in other states.

The new measure does not claim any state authority to regulate immigration, said Mike Hethmon, an attorney with the Washington-based Immigration Reform Law Institute who advised the initiative's authors. Instead, he said, it is based on federal authority delegated to the states to restrict access to benefits and verify applicants' eligibility.

Under the 1996 federal welfare reform law, illegal residents are barred from welfare, public housing, food assistance, unemployment aid and other federal benefits. California laws, however, allow illegal residents to receive some state and local benefits, including nonemergency medical care.

The initiative would require all applicants for public benefits to verify their legal status. And unlike Proposition 187, it would not attempt to curtail access to education.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that states could not bar illegal immigrant children from schools.

The measure's most controversial provisions would take aim at the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. It would end state welfare to an estimated 48,000 households and 100,000 children, aid that now costs the state $640 million a year.

Currently, children of illegal immigrants can receive CalWorks benefits if their parents are poor enough to qualify for welfare. About 42% of child only" cases in the CalWorks program involve illegal-immigrant parents, state officials say.

The measure would also cut off CalWorks payments to the children of citizens or legal residents who fail to meet eligibility requirements for state aid because they are unwilling to work, addicted to drugs or absent, among other reasons.

The initiative would require that applicants for birth certificates verify their legal status.

Those who could not would have to present official identification from a foreign government, a record of any publicly funded costs for delivering the child and other information before receiving their child's birth certificate, which would be marked with the notation "foreign parent."

The records would be sent to Homeland Security officials.

Kristina Campbell, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund in Los Angeles, said that provision is legally vulnerable. "You can't deny a U.S. citizen child a birth certificate," she said.

"They are entitled to equal protection of the law."

The views were different at Camp Vigilance, where many of the 300 people gathered for a Fourth of July program on illegal immigration flocked to sign the petition.

"Coming here in violation of our laws is an act of disrespect," said Tony Dolz, a native Cuban and campaign volunteer. "Those who break our laws should not benefit from it."