Seemingly nothing so far (as of 7:47 pm Pacific), though Yahoo! News reports the story has been covered not just by the Orange County Register (the newspaper that broke the story), but by the AP and — apparently mostly based on the AP story — by the sites of the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Jose Mercury News, the Fresno Bee, the Las Vegas Sun, and the local CBS and NBC affiliates.
Maybe I'm spoiled by the 24-hour news cycle, but I would think that the Times would at least run the AP story on its site, while it's waiting to either print the story or produce its own — even recognizing that there's a certain other story out in the news today.
UPDATE: The L.A. Times now has a story, which apparently appeared this (Saturday) morning.
Related Posts (on one page):
- The L.A .Times on Prof. Groseclose's Allegations of Possible Malfeasance in UCLA Admissions:
- UCLA's Short Response to Prof. Groseclose's Allegations:
- UCLA Faculty Member Resigns from Admissions Committee, Alleges Possible Violations of the Law by UCLA:
Whites were only 33 percent of UCLA 2007 admits, and thus the stereotype of a "Lily White" campus trying to keep out hard-working "minorities" no longer applies. The new Latino vs. Black vs. Asian tensions in admissions cannot be parsed by the simplistic "white privilege and racismm" worldview of the LA Times.
Hopefully later.
Moreover, the dishonesty at the highest levels in the UC system have been a hallmark of the corrupt Dynes regime, now thankfully ened.
The reality is, affirmative action is, whatever one wants to say about it, quite popular among many academics and especially many college admissions offices and administrations. So it is just not all that surprising that there would be people who would want to undermine Prop. 209. But the law is the law.
It would look more legitimate if Prof. Groseclose did not look like a lone crank:
Lone committee member who opposes holistic admissions wants application data so that he can analyze it to prove that it violates Prop. 209. When committee majority/university counterproposes independent review, lone committee member takes his ball and goes home.
More broadly, any justification for the word "crank"? Or is it the case that whenever one professor on a committee of six -- a professor who had been chosen by the administration in the first place -- claims to be blowing the whistle on possible university malfeasance, and is unhappy with the university's decision to investigate the matter through its chosen investigator (as best I can tell, without releasing the relevant data to any other investigators), that professor must be a "crank"?
I'm talking the appearance of crankdom: The outsider, the one who everyone else is out of step with, the possessor of the truth who is yet unable to persuade one other person of the correctness of his position. These are classic traits of the crank.
Further, the one who believes that no one else can do as good a job of analysis as he can, or who distrusts that the remainder of the committee will hire someone honest and fair. These all add up to the appearance of being a crank.
I don't think the whistleblower should be the evaluator, no matter how competent the whistleblower is at evaluation, because he has an interest in making the results come out a certain way. Pick someone without skin in the game.
There's no reason for the decision to be who "the" evaluator is. Indeed, the whole point of oversight is to have others keeping an eye on things. He's made it abundantly clear that he isn't demanding to be the only evaluator.
Also, can you answer my other questions, please? I recall that Prof. Groseclose actually had an explanation for why he didn't like the UCLA-planned evaluation by the UCLA-chosen evaluator -- and it wasn't "it's got to me or no-one else." Do you have a response to that explanation?
Prof. V., I would like to retract it. But it's not so much the substance of Prof. Groseclose's complaint as the way he presents it. While careful reading reveals the merit of his complaint, most people will get no further than the summary. His tone there is offputting and unpersuasive. He could profitably rewrite it.
Presumption of Malice
Cranks jump to conclusions, presuming malice on the part of their adversary when the same result could be caused without any evil intent.
In the first sentence of his summary, he presumed malice on the part of the admissions evaluators, because he characterized the difference in admissions by race as "cheating," "malfeasance," and even "illegal activity," without acknowledging the possibility of other reasons for the discrepancy. Even if the holistic process were biased, for example, the bias could be wholly unconscious.
He goes on to presume evil intent on the part of "high ranking officials" as well as "a controlling block of his committee" by stating they are engaged in "a coverup," when they could have simply considered Prof. Groseclose's allegations to lack merit.
Lone wolf approach
Cranks are egocentric. They believe that it is they against the world, which is out to get them.
Although later he mentions suggesting other researchers to examine the data, in the summary -- which is as far as most busy people will get -- it's all about him: "Since April, I have made several requests [for data]... I wanted to investigate [his] suspicions... my requests have been denied" In the last paragraph, "I cannot conduct the duties... I have been charged... I am resigning, in protest"
It is Groseclose against the world, because "high ranking officials" as well as "a controlling block of his committee" are preventing me [and unspecified others] from obtaining these data."
Finally, he sounds more pouting than principled when he resigns because he "cannot carry out his duties" as member of the committee. Statistical analysis of admissions data seems an unlikely part of the duties of a committee member.
Ax to Grind
Cranks have a pet notion to defend at every opportunity.
Prof. Groseclose was the sole committee member to oppose holistic grading. Therefore, as the other committee members are motivated to demonstrate its success, Prof. Groseclose is motivated to demonstrate its failure.
Recommendations:
But, if one reads the entire document carefully, although he continues to demand access to the data for his own analysis, he raises the valid point that any analysis must include the holistic startup year of 2007. Further, to achieve transparency, and to avoid allegations of bias from either side, any analysis plan should be reviewed by Prof. Groseclose, who should note his objections and recommendations. These should be incorporated as far as the independent investigator agrees is reasonable, with valid reasons given for any recommendation not incorporated.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.