Editor’s note: Michael Ackley’s columns may include satire and parody based on current events, and thus mix fact with fiction. He assumes informed readers will be able to tell which is which.

Republican students are protesting affirmative action at the University of California, Berkeley. But why would they do this?

In 1996 California voters passed Proposition 209, which said, “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

In point of fact, the higher-education establishment has largely evaded the people’s will in this regard, using a variety of dodges. But simply cheating was not enough for the state Legislature, which has sent Senate Bill 185 on to Gov. Jerry Brown.

The bill says the University of California and California State University systems “may consider race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, geographic origin, and household income, along with other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions, so long as no preference is given.” Hence, the GOP campus demonstrations.

We asked Hernandez aide Doroteo Arango how the marvel of discriminating without discrimination could be accomplished, and he said, “Read the whole bill. It says you can consider such factors ‘to obtain educational benefit through the recruitment of a multifactored (sic), diverse student body.'”

“Pretty cool, eh?” said Arango, raising an eyebrow. “This way, we get affirmative action without calling it affirmative action, and we codify the benefits of diversity.”

Asked to define those benefits, he snapped, “Obviously, you aren’t of the faith.”

Cal’s younger sibling, UC Irvine, saw the end result of its own controversial demonstration with the misdemeanor conviction of 10 Muslim students for conspiracy in shouting down the Israeli ambassador.

The students argued – really! – that drowning out a scheduled speaker was protected by the First Amendment.

After the convictions, Shakeel Syed, executive director of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, lamented, “I believe the heart of America has died today. This is clearly an indication that Muslims are permanent foreigners, at least in Orange County.”

Apparently the Shura Council believes the First Amendment should have been written to say, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech when it is used to abridge another’s freedom of speech.”

More than a coincidence? Mainstream media fear of Rush Limbaugh was demonstrated after the broadcaster laughed about a group photo at the U.N., with President Obama waving and thus obscuring another dignitary’s face. One network news anchor referred to the event as a “light moment” and took pains to report – and to show – that the photographer took another shot without the president waving.

One must cover for the poor president, no matter how slight the slight.

Dave Letterman was first under the wire with a fatty joke about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Unfortunately, in this television age, image matters, and Christie doesn’t have time to shape up – or down, as the case may be.

The president has attributed continued high unemployment to a) the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, b) the “Arab Spring” revolutions, c) economic troubles in Europe, d) weather disasters (global warming/”climate change”), d) the tea party and, of course, e) George W. Bush.

This week, watch the blame extend to falling satellites and solar storms.

Detroit News columnist Daniel Howes reported that the Ford Motor Co. – pressured by the White House – had pulled an ad in which a customer criticized the auto industry bailouts. The Obama administration denied such fascist tactics, and Ford denied it, too. Believe what you will, but we’re reminded of an entry in the Blind Partisan’s Dictionary:

Denial: n. – repudiation of a stated fact or circumstance, or, in matters political, a confirmation thereof.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.