Request to transfer Prop. 209 case denied
Gov. Pete Wilson’s request to transfer the Proposition 209 case
away from the judge who has blocked its enforcement was denied
Wednesday by a federal appeals court.
Wilson’s request does not present the "exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances" needed to justify intervention, said
the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The ruling means the case will remain with Chief U.S. District
Judge Thelton Henderson. Wilson’s lawyers had argued that Henderson
improperly reassigned the case to himself after it was first
assigned to another judge.
The same three-judge panel scheduled an early hearing for Feb.
10 to hear a request by sponsors of Proposition 209 to suspend
Henderson’s ruling and allow the initiative to take effect.
Opponents of Proposition 209 had asked the appeals court to
delay a hearing on the request until after Henderson has decided
whether to suspend his own ruling. Henderson has scheduled a
hearing on the issue Feb. 7.
Wilson spokeswoman Lisa Kalustian said the governor "knew it
would be an uphill battle to get the 9th Circuit to intervene" in a
judicial assignment.
The issue can still be raised in a future appeal, according to
Kalustian.
American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Mark Rosenbaum,
representing opponents of Proposition 209, said that although the
hearing will be earlier than his side preferred, "it would be
genuinely surprising to see (Henderson’s ruling) overturned."
Accusing opponents of judge-shopping, Wilson asked the appeals
court last week to remove the case from Henderson. Opposing lawyers
countered by accusing Wilson of trying to find a friendly court
after losing repeatedly in front of Henderson.
By artificially manufacturing an issue as a vehicle to transfer
the Proposition 209 case, the opponents’ action "impugns the
integrity of the courts and taints the principle of blind and
impartial justice," wrote Deputy Attorney General Linda
Cabatic.
Colleges debate Taiwanese grant
Debate at UC Berkeley over naming a research center after a
controversial Taiwanese president is drawing national
attention.
However, faculty at Berkeley, as well as Northwestern and the
University of Chicago, say the discussion generated by recent "New
York Times" and "Washington Post" articles has been
exaggerated.
The issue revolves around Chiang Ching-kuo, the Taiwanese
president who served from 1978 until his death in 1988. While
Ching-kuo is credited with introducing democracy to Taiwan, he was
also the minister of defense during a time of political
repression.
Now the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation for International Scholarly
Exchange has invited Berkeley, Stanford, Columbia and the
University of Chicago to compete for a $3 million grant to study
ancient Chinese culture in exchange for naming a new research
center after the controversial leader. Many professors and students
at Berkeley have questioned whether or not the university can
accept the money while keeping separate the worlds of academics and
politics.
"It’s tricky naming these centers after people who come with a
lot of political baggage," said Orville Schell, head of Berkeley’s
Graduate School of Journalism.
However, a controversy at one school does not necessarily
translate into big news at another. Anthony Roberts, a senior at
the University of Chicago said no debates over the grant have
occurred at his school.
"If the great great grandchildren of some oppressive leader
wanted a building named after them, I might frown on that," Roberts
said. "We wouldn’t want to see a Hitler Hall. But if they just
wanted to donate money … well, money is money."
Despite all the discussion in the media and at the four schools,
the details of the situation are still in doubt. Neither Johnson
nor Mena know when the foundation will announce its decision, and
the final purpose of the money will not be clear until a school is
selected.
Compiled from Daily Bruin wire reports.