By Dan McLaughlin
Wednesday, February 16, 2022
I am fond of citing Robert Conquest’s Three Laws of politics:
1.
Everyone is conservative about what he knows
best.
2.
Any organization not explicitly and
constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.
3.
The behavior of any bureaucratic organization
can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal
of its enemies.
The old saw about a conservative being a liberal who has
been mugged is a variant on Conquest’s First Law. Something similar is now
happening to the University of California at Berkeley. One would think that
Berkeley, of all institutions, cannot be outflanked from the Left, but in
California, eventually, the bill for leftism comes to everyone. In this case,
the state’s oppressive regime of environmental regulation is threatening Berkeley’s enrollment:
UC Berkeley, one of the nation’s
most highly sought after campuses, may be forced to slash its incoming fall
2022 class by one-third, or 3,050 seats, and forgo $57 million in lost tuition
under a recent court order to freeze enrollment, the university announced this
week. The university’s projected reduction in freshmen and transfer
students came in response to a ruling last August by an Alameda County Superior
Court judge who ordered an enrollment freeze and upheld a Berkeley neighborhood
group’s lawsuit that challenged the environmental impact of the university’s
expansion plan. Many neighbors are upset by the impact of
enrollment growth on traffic, noise, housing prices and the natural
environment. The University of California Board of Regents appealed the ruling
and asked that the order to freeze enrollment be stayed while the appellate
process proceeds. Last week, an appellate court denied that request. The
regents on Monday appealed that judgment to the California Supreme Court. . . .
The furor has left 150,000 first-year applicants to UC Berkeley in the lurch,
just a month before the campus is scheduled to send out admission offers.
Faced with a pincer movement from environmental
activists, neighborhood NIMBYists, and an activist judge, Berkeley is . . .
fighting them and bemoaning the outcome, insisting that the environmental impact is being
overstated:
“This court-mandated decrease in
enrollment would be a tragic outcome for thousands of students who have worked
incredibly hard to gain admission to Berkeley,” UC Berkeley said in a
statement. “If left intact, the court’s unprecedented decision would have a
devastating impact on prospective students, university admissions, campus
operations, and UC Berkeley’s ability to serve California students by meeting
the enrollment targets set by the state of California.”
Even some Democrats are shocked into action when it’s
Berkeley, not some rancher, on the receiving end of this, although it appears
that the proposed solution may protect only the favored state university:
State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San
Francisco) said he would unveil legislation next week related to the state
environmental law that was used by the Berkeley neighborhood group. He declined
to release details but said the state law was never meant to stop public
universities from expanding to meet student needs. “It’s outrageous that a
court is dictating a student enrollment cap for UC,” he said. “That’s a
complete overreach.”
Lots of things done by liberals and progressives sooner
or later reach targets they were “never meant to” harm.
No comments:
Post a Comment