Bruin Alumni Association
Diversity@UCLA: By Any Means Necessary

Chapter 1 - An Exquisitely Devious Plan

Chapter 2- Justifying the Unjustifiable

Chapter 3 - Diversity in Black and White

Chapter 4 - Making UCLA 'Look like L.A.'

Chapter 5 - Where Intellectual Diversity Is a Dirty Word

















Diversity@UCLA: By Any Means Necessary

Chapter 5
Where Intellectual Diversity Is a Dirty Word


    Given the abundance of so many false diversities, UCLA’s silence about intellectual diversity speaks volumes.  Unlike racial, gender, economic, or geographic diversity, intellectual diversity is related to the actual goal of higher education – ideas.  It is also the one diversity that dare not speak its name.  An exhaustive search for any mention of intellectual diversity at UCLA turns up few examples indeed.

    One of the few, the Diversity@UCLA “Statement on Diversity,” insists “We are fundamentally committed to including and integrating within the campus community individuals from different groups as defined by such characteristics as race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic background, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, and intellectual outlook.”[1]

    Unfortunately, these bold words have not been met by bold action.  As documented in two exhaustive studies, UCLA, like most other elite schools in the country, is not intellectually diverse in general faculty composition[2], faculty hiring committees, or in representative choices like commencement speaker.[3]  But UCLA’s administration takes a hear no evil, speak no evil approach to this decay.  Former Chancellor Charles E. Young claimed in his 1996 “Vision Statement” shortly before retirement, that “The social, ethnic, national, and intellectual diversity within the ranks of our students, faculty, and staff makes UCLA one of the most diverse major research university in the nation.”[4]

    Current Chancellor Albert Carnesale is similarly blind to the truth.  Author Ajay Singh, in the Winter 2004 issue of UCLA Magazine, summarized Carnesale’s contention that UCLA “prides itself on its role — one that is essential to all public universities — as a venue for the free exchange of ideas representing the full spectrum of political, societal and cultural thought.”[5]  Any conservative student could attest to the free exchange of liberal ideas among a 93% Democrat-affiliated faculty.  But Carnesale is only correct about a “full spectrum,” if the range to which he refers runs from center-left to Marxist.

    More hypocritical by far is that in the article, Carnesale then “notes that UCLA has hosted speakers ranging from filmmaker Michael Moore on the left to former U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett on the right.”[6]  Michael Moore, the notorious left-wing hackteur, appeared at UCLA in 2004, and received thousands of dollars of mandatory student fees from the Campus Events Commission (part of the undergraduate student government).  CEC Staff member Donovan Daughtry responded to charges of partisanship by claiming “We've tried to program with conservative speakers in the past. It's not as interesting to the campus community.”[7]  Whatever community disinterest Daughtry gauged did not come from actually hosting a conservative speaker – student government has not aided such an effort for at least six years.  But Daughtry’s dismissive attitude does mirror Carnesale’s more artful deception, his claim that UCLA “hosted” William Bennett.

    In 2003, William Bennett’s Americans for Victory Over Terrorism organization organized a national series of teach-ins.  As the then-chairman of the Bruin Republicans, I was delighted to host the series’ UCLA stop.  What followed was an amazing event, featuring not only Bennett but L. Paul Bremer, and R. James Woolsey.  Woolsey was rumored that day to become the Presidential Envoy to Iraq; in the end, Bremer received the position.  Even more amazing was the total lack of institutional support from UCLA.  No undergraduate student fees provided honoraria – all participants spoke for free.  Nor did UCLA even completely cover venue rental or advertising costs; AVOT shouldered significant costs on both.

    No significant UCLA administration figure attended the event; there were no proclamations or warm congratulations for any of the speakers or the Bruin Republicans.  Carnesale himself evinced no pleasure or even notice of the event.  In short, “UCLA” did nothing to host this influential group of conservatives.  This, as well as any example, sums up UCLA’s approach to issues like intellectual diversity – deny the obvious, do nothing unless forced, and when history is written, claim cooperation with the ideas and groups you ignored or resisted.

    Despite Diversity’s manifold flaws, it has been enshrined at UCLA, becoming a regular – if intellectually bankrupt – part of daily life.  A high priest of Diversity, the Executive Chancellor on Diversity, oversees the worship by entire administrative groups - the Chancellor’s Committee on Diversity, the Academic Senate’s Committee on Diversity and Equal Opportunity, and the UCLA Library’s Committee on Diversity.  Even alumni cannot escape the tentacles of diversity – the UCLA Alumni Association boasts a Diversity/Outreach Council.

    The pervasive nature of diversity is testament to its success.  But despite its success, diversity exists only by deception.  For now, the public believes that diversity is another name for equal opportunity and the presence of a diverse set of participants in any competitive setting.  At the point that the truth gets out – that diversity pursues popular goals through immoral methods – there will be another Proposition 209 moment in California – and hopefully elsewhere.


[1] http://diversity.ucla.edu/cagd_statement.html

[2] http://www.frontpagemag.com/Content/read.asp?ID=55

[3] http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9738

[4] http://www2.saonet.ucla.edu/Strat_Plan/Budget/bottomframe3.htm

[5] http://www.magazine.ucla.edu/year2004/winter04_04_02.html

[6] Ibid.

[7] http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?ID=30290