As a lover of controversy, I was excited. Mike Adams, all-American conservative and opening speaker of this week’s Political Correctness series, was coming to enlighten UCLA about political correctness and the ruthless scheme of racial preferences on our campus by the Academic Advancement Program, to which I belong. Turns out, he was not even really informed about the program he was there to deride.
I did my research about Adams. I carefully browsed through the tough-guy pictures of rifles and guns on his Web site, patiently made it through some of his tough-to-read anti-feminist columns, and even found some of his old class syllabi from the department of sociology and criminal justice where he teaches at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington.
In one of them, he promised to deduct two percentage points off the final grade for each time a student’s cell phone rang. That seemed like a juicy classroom policy from an unyielding straight talker. Just what was needed if AAP, a long-standing gem of a program, was going down.
So I went and sat in the back of a half-filled Kinsey Pavilion to hear him out. I have to admit ““ I was let down.
For Reagan’s sake, where was the flaming controversy? If you come to UCLA as a conservative speaker and nobody breaks out into a bilingual chant denouncing hate speech, you are probably weak sauce. In this case, Adams might have been weak sauce by association.
The event, part of a Bruin Republicans’ weeklong series on political correctness, targeted AAP, which last week celebrated 35 years. The promoting flyer did not hesitate to group “AAP” with “race-based programs” and “affirmative action.”
Adams spoke of a “big controversy” about this “politically correct program” that has “some people challenging the legality of it.” That was great; I wanted to know more.
Later he admitted, when asked by an audience member, he “did not know the specifics of the program.” Not that great, and frankly, disappointing.
Despite the letdown, I agreed with his proclaimed mission to “empower students to have an environment where they create the debate.”
Inspired, I approached notorious campus conservative David Lazar, former Daily Bruin columnist and current chairman of the Bruin Republicans. Stating my belief that AAP eligibility is economically based, I asked him whether they would confront the administration.
“We have not decided what steps to take. If eligibility is only socio-economically based, then that’s OK, but from the AAP Web site you can conclude it’s based on race,” Lazar said, sounding lazy about the idea of organizing an actual campaign.
He was pointing to the welcoming statement by AAP Director Charles Alexander that states AAP welcomes students from “underrepresented populations.”
Turns out, we both were wrong. Eligibility is neither race-based nor economically based.
The main criteria for eligibility for AAP is decided by the Office of Undergraduate Admissions and Relations with Schools (UARS), which identifies students who are challenged either because of their academic background or their personal history.
This process includes non-racial criteria such as GPA, availability of Advanced Placement (AP) courses, family income level and level of parental education. Perhaps it did take an unintended path toward racial and economic differences.
Blacks, Chicanos/Latinos and Native Americans make up almost 60 percent of AAP students, according to data provided by Jeff Cooper, director of AAP summer programs, outreach and eligibility.
Then, are the eligibility guidelines racially based? Or are those eligible mostly minorities, perhaps because we live in a world that has not fully overcome the effects of decades of racial injustice?
Methinks it is the latter. There are racial correlations when one looks at who is a first-generation college student, or who goes to a high school with fewer AP courses. Ignoring this reality would be senseless, even in post-affirmative action California.
The work of AAP in ensuring that these students are able to adapt to the pace of work at UCLA should be commended, rather than attacked aimlessly. Cooper agrees.
“This is an unfair attack on AAP, and the records are open for anyone to see,” he said.
Fighting political correctness is one thing, but groundlessly targeting a model retention program is much different. Adams wanted to foster a student debate, and here is one of more than 6,000 AAP students ready to have it.
Discuss the political correctness of “weak sauce” with Ramos at mramos@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments at viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.