Does Pomona's Student Life Ignore the Real Quotas?

I'm no fan of identity-based quotas, but even I can realize that some identity-based quotas are worse than others.

In a deceptive, October 19, 2007 article entitled "Women Face More Competition in Admissions Process," for The Student Life, the lead reads as follows:

In order to maintain the 50-50 gender balance on campus, the Pomona College Office of Admissions must reject female applicants at a higher rate than their male counterparts. This is a growing trend at Pomona, as well as at other institutions like Boston College, Wesleyan University, Tufts, and the College of William and Mary. [emphasis mine].

Way down in the article, they bury the very significant details that "[i]n all three subject areas on the SAT, male applicants for the class of 2011 earned consistently higher scores than female applicants" and "for the class of 2011, [Pomona] admitted 466 men and 498 women."

Instead of pursuing the real story, which becomes clear in a dicussion with Dean of Admissions Bruce Poch, who notes the real quotats:

that it can be misleading to look at these data without understanding the context and explained that there are varying admission rates when other factors—like ethnic background, financial aid status, and even major—are taken into account.

Had Pomona's Julie Trescott read Claremont McKenna's Claremont Independent's "Admission Suspicions Confirmed," (11/06/06), she would have wondered if Pomona had a racial quotas (they do), instead of gender quotas (they might). Here's the quotation from last year's Claremont Independent:

While CMC does not discriminate based on political leaning, it does discriminate on race. Statistics provided by the admissions office show that it admitted roughly 45 percent of both black and Hispanic applicants, versus 22 percent of the white applicants and 17 percent of the Asian applicants. The gap suggests an agenda on the part of CMC admissions, though, according to Vos, no such agenda exists.

Claremont Institute's Seth Leibsohn on War on Terror and Journalists

Seth Leibsohn, writing with the ever-intelligent and analytical, Andrew C. McCarthy in National Review Online argues against the press shield law making the rounds in Congress. The effect cannot be underscored: It would extend Fifth Amendment protections to journalists, embolden illegal leakers who undermine national security, and score a public relations victory for those domestic enemies who would let the terrorists win.

Leibsohn, a fellow at the Claremont Institute and McCarthy, one of the first to realize the threat posed by radical Islam, understandably suggest that the press has less freedom than it professes. And though I hate to admit it, I think they are right. Through a solid analogy, they point out that leaking public records is a federal crime and those who witness a crime and do not report become an accessory:

The first is when a member of the press witnesses a crime. Let’s say a reporter happens to be standing on line in a bank when it is robbed. It would be ridiculous to suggest that the reporter’s mere status as a journalist should relieve him or her, unlike the other citizens on line, of the obligation to testify as a witness to the robbery.

As a sometimes- aspiring journalist myself, I wonder whether my duty is to protect the public's right to know or their right to safety. The problem is that a lot of the media doesn't care about anything except advancing their own agenda -- be it personal or partisan. Or as they write:

The First Amendment is not a license to violate the law. The prosecution of a journalist would be a very momentous step, one that should be approached with the greatest of caution. But questioning journalists about which government officials are leaking information that can so badly damage national security should be a no-brainer — especially during wartime and under circumstances where the enemy has already accomplished one devastating strike against the homeland and desperately seeks a reprise. It is simply mind-boggling that Congress would take what is very likely criminal behavior and turn it into immunized behavior — encouraging more top-secret disclosures and putting all of us at greater risk.