California Supreme Court Orders UC-Berkeley to Freeze Enrollment, Siding With Neighborhood Activists
“the result of a legal battle with a residents group called Save Berkeley Neighborhoods that sued the university for failing to address the effect of increased student enrollment on housing, homelessness, traffic and noise”
The University of California-Berkeley has been forced to scale back enrollment for the fall of 2022 after a ruling from the California Supreme Court.
At the heart of the issue is a lack of adequate housing. Residents of the area argued that the school has not expanded enough to take on thousands of new students and have also complained about noise, traffic, homelessness, and crime.
We touched on this in a recent quick take but the ruling from the CA Supreme Court makes it a much bigger story.
CBS News in San Francisco reports:
California Supreme Court Orders UC Berkeley To Freeze Enrollment At 2020 Levels
The University of California, Berkeley was ordered by California’s Supreme Court on Thursday to freeze its undergraduate enrollment at 2020-21 levels, meaning it will have to accept at least 3,000 fewer students than planned for the upcoming academic year.
Thursday’s decision is the result of a legal battle with a residents group called Save Berkeley Neighborhoods that sued the university for failing to address the effect of increased student enrollment on housing, homelessness, traffic and noise.
In a statement from the university, officials said they were “extremely disheartened” by the ruling, which leaves intact a lower court’s order and rejects the university’s request to lift the enrollment cap while it appeals the original lawsuit by the neighborhood group…
Freezing enrollment at the 2020-21 level means that the university is capped at a student population of 42,347, and not be able to offer an additional 3,050 seats for incoming first-year students and transfer students as planned for the fall of 2022.
People on the left are up in arms over the decision. Take a look at this tweet from a Democrat state senator in California:
It’s tragic that California allows courts & environmental laws to determine how many students UC is allowed to educate.
This ruling directly harms thousands of young people.
We must never allow this to happen again. We must change the law. And we will. https://t.co/v4Sikg9JQs
— Senator Scott Wiener (@Scott_Wiener) March 3, 2022
Yes, it is tragic when courts and environmental laws prevent people from doing things. Just ask the thousands of people who used to work for the Keystone XL pipeline.
UC-Berkeley released this statement:
UC Berkeley statement on court ruling that leaves student enrollment freeze intact
We are extremely disheartened by today’s ruling by the Supreme Court of California, which leaves intact a lower court order that will reduce and then freeze enrollment at 2020-2021 levels and prevent thousands of students who would have been offered in-person admission to the University of California, Berkeley, this fall from receiving that offer.
This is devastating news for the thousands of students who have worked so hard for and have earned a seat in our fall 2022 class. Our fight on behalf of every one of these students continues.
Seeking legislative relief
Looking ahead, we are engaged with state leaders to identify possible legislative solutions that could address the significant impacts of the lower court’s ruling on enrollment decisions at UC Berkeley and other campuses. We know that access and opportunity for prospective UC students remains a priority, not just for the university, but also the state’s policymakers, as reflected in the recent state budget proposal for enrollment at UC.
Doesn’t the community have every right to object? Doesn’t everyone at Berkeley support community activism and the environment?
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
CA activists should now use the same tactic, lack of compliance with CA environmental statues requiring various studies on the impact of policies, to engage in lawfare v ‘sanctuary cities’ and cities who welcome ‘homeless encampments’.
Either the CT say yes, in which case these destructive policies are halted or they so no, in which case the environmental statue is undermined, allowing businesses to complete projects.
You never EVER want to be on the wrong side with environmental statues. They are even worse than statues of limitation when angry.
Berkeley is a company town.
Leftists champion the environment except when they don’t.
Like everything else to the Left, the environment is a rhetorical tool, not a genuine concern.
“We must never allow this to happen again. We must change the law. And we will.”
The conservative view of government law is hierarchical: every law is authorized by some superior law, and all flow from a single unifying principle. And when that isn’t the case, it’s an error that should be corrected.
The progressive view of government law is that you return to your hotel room to retrieve your appointment book, and walk through the door to find that it has been thoroughly tossed by the FSB. You lift and then drop item after item to find your appointment book. When you finally find it under a random item, you exit, considering your work done.
Where will the school trim the prospective freshman class? Will they trim off some of the students that would be accepted at the margin? Will they decide the more qualified applicants will have the best chance of being accepted other places? Will they use a racial quota to move some of the students to the waitlist? I’m assuming this early in the “season” they won’t have already sent acceptances to many students so no one is going to see his offer rescinded, and the admissions process should have already designated the group that will be turned down if the university lost its court case. But it would be interesting to know who those kids are.
“the admissions process should have already designated the group that will be turned down if the university lost its court case.”
Fie, sirrah! Planning ahead is white cultural supremacy!
“As many as 398,041 Chinese students came to the U.S. to study at American colleges and universities. From this pool of 398,041, UC Berkeley is home to approximately 3,104 Chinese students.”
“Over the last several years the total Chinese population of students on campus at UC Berkely has grown at an average rate of 27.3%.”
It’s a crazy thought, but maybe they could cut back on Chinese students. Or India or Korea or………..
The Chinese. Send the enemy home.
Not a chance. The rejections will all consist of males of pallor.
Maybe those rejected will be saved from lib indoctrination.
It’s give and take. We give and they take.
Whoa, when paradigms collide.
There are the “unfairly competent” native US Asians who are losing deserved placements due to AA and “equity.” We support them.
There are the “non-native guest” Chinese who are by default sus, even if they have no agenda at this time. We don’t support them.
Let’s not even consider the native but potentially sleeper Chinese.
(Tinfoil hat? Two words: Zhu Yi.)
You hit the nail on the head—several times.
popcorn please.
The neighbors sued, did they? Sounds like a classic NIMBY operation — they want to preserve homelessness, traffic and noise.
Them Berkeley students do have a reputation for noise.
Especially when a bunch of them occupy somebody’s office.
Reading the reactions in the story you’d think they were consigning students who don’t make the cut to a life without a college education. They do realize there are schools in the UC system besides Berkeley, right?
The sardine effect is a known first-order forcing of dysfunction and adversity, which is favored by politicians seeking votes, businesses seeking capital, and activists seeking leverage.
I thought one of the leftist cornerstones was save the planet? I guess indoctrination is more important.
For decades, the left has weaponized “environmental” review laws to stifle activities they do not like. It’s high time the far-left bastions of extremism are forced to take their own medicine. Berkeley can use some of its $5 billion endowment to pay for an environmental and cultural impact study, after which there should be public comment, a range of remedy options presented, further study and review, and finally a stakeholder meeting in which a decision is made that will cost the university a fortune and take years to implement. They can also pay dearly for compliance monitoring. Treat this just like a NEPA compliance issue.
“Senator Weiner, this is Dr. Karma at the veterinary clinic.
I’m sorry to have to tell you, but your ox has been gored.”
🙂
meaning it will have to accept at least 3,000 fewer students
——————————–
meaning it will have to accept at least 3,000 fewer CHINESE students and the bribes their families and country send along with them.
Fixed it.