'The greater the truth ...'

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.

Events of last month disclosed a schism in the governing board of the greatest public university in the world.

Regents (really, that's what we call them in the Golden State) of the University of California voted 8 to 6 to censure their chairman for pointing out disparities in the admission of minority students.

TRENDING: GOP senator joins in the narrative twisting

Object of the board majority's ire was a Forbes magazine article in which Chairman John Moores noted that the university's flagship campus in Berkeley was admitting some minority students – hundreds, actually – with SAT scores of 1,000 or less, while rejecting other minority students with SAT scores of 1400 or more.

We decline to repeat which minorities were getting in with substandard scores and which minorities, with excellent scores, were being rejected. The unfortunate fact is, even if you haven't read the Forbes article, you can guess. Based on the past performances of institutions of higher education, you have a 99 percent chance of being correct.

I had several questions about this matter that I could not pursue until I returned this week from an important international mission on the high seas that entailed the periodic consumption of large quantities – alternately – of flapjacks and prime rib.

On my return, I was distressed to find yet another thorny issue pertaining to my alma mater: More than 3,000 eligible California high-school graduates would not be admitted to U.C. campuses this year, but thousands of foreign and out-of-state students would be welcomed.

As soon as I could, I contacted Howard Bashford, Ph.D., an assistant to University of California President Robert Dynes, to see what light he could shed on both matters.

Ever affable, Bashford first explained the foreign students issue.

"It's about diversity," he said. "You see, foreign students are mainly foreigners, from foreign cultures, who help broaden our students' outlook and improve the nation's balance of payments."

I must have looked perplexed, for Bashford went on, slowly, "They ... pay ... four ... times ... as ... much ... tuition."

"But wasn't the university established to educate Californians? And haven't some argued that the state already is sufficiently diverse?" I asked.

Bashford repeated, "They ... pay ... four ... times ... as ... much ... tuition."

"Let's move on to this censure matter," I said, giving ground. "Why shouldn't a member of the Board of Regents express his concerns about admission policies?"

"Well, as Regent George Marcus said, 'We have an obligation to enhance the reputation of the university.' Mr. Moores was besmirching that reputation."

"What about his First Amendment rights?" I asked.

"When one becomes a member of a public agency, one must subordinate one's opinions to the good of the organism ... I mean ... institution," he said. "We can't have public officials going around criticizing the agencies they are appointed to run."

I asked, "Where is that written?"

"It's in the CEO's manual, under the heading 'Rubber Stamp,'" he said. "I'll show you, if you like."

"Never mind," I countered. "Wasn't Moores just decrying the fact – and it is a fact – that students who worked hard and excelled academically were being denied admission, while less-able students were being welcomed?"

Bashford looked uncomfortable.

"There's more to academic ability than grades and test scores," he said. "We also consider leadership, economic hardship, challenges overcome."

I pointed out it was likely that some of those minorities denied admission despite their academic achievement also showed leadership, experienced economic hardship and overcame challenges.

"Maybe," he said, "but that doesn't obviate the case against Mr. Moores. I repeat: He besmirched the university's reputation."

"By telling the truth," I added.

"Yes," Bashford answered angrily, "and in doing so he demonstrated a principle that used to be firmly rooted in English common law, a principle that clearly applies in this case."

"What principal is that?" I queried.

And he replied, "The greater the truth, the greater the libel."