Shakespeare is deemed to be racist, sexist, and classist--a product of the ultimate evil, Western civilization. French writer Elisabeth Burgos-Debray is, on the other hand, politically correct. One of Burgos-Debray's works, now part of the Stanford curriculum, describes a Guatemalan woman's struggle against capitalist oppression. She rejects marriage and motherhood, becomes a feminist, a socialist, and finally a Marxist, arguing politics with fellow revolutionaries in Paris. According to the author, this simple Guatemalan woman speaks for all the Indians of the American continent.

Yat-pang's qualifications were considerably above the Berkeley average. His only real problems were his race and what chancellor Ira Michael Hayman called "a little social engineering." Under Hayman the university began to devalue the importance of merit and achievement in admissions in order to achieve a racially balanced student body, one that reflected the population at large.

As a result, this family of immigrants from Hong Kong found that their son could not go to Berkeley, although ten other students with lower qualifications had been accepted from his high school. The policy of racial balance that seemed so fair to Hayman was anything but fair to the Au family. If Yat-pang had been Hispanic or black he would have had no problem attending Berkeley. Asians, many of them immigrants, were being excluded from Berkeley because they were too successful. Unfortunately, Berkeley is not the only place one can find this type of discrimination. Harvard, UCLA, Stanford, Brown, and others have been charged with discrimination towards Asians. As Dinesh D'Souza writes, "Quotas which were intended as instruments of inclusion now seemed to function as instruments of exclusion."

A new policy was approved on discrimination and discriminatory harassment. It defined as punishable "any behavior, verbal or physical, that stigmatizes or victimizes an individual on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, handicap, or Vietnam-era veteran status." Debate on these topics was to be restricted for fear someone might be stigmatized by the discussion. The so-called marketplace of ideas that colleges are supposed to represent had been shrunk down to convenience-store size.

Since one cannot be certain that even the most balanced discussion of a topic like gay rights or the cults might not stigmatize a fellow student, one must refrain from entering into that territory. The result of this type of policy is to guarantee a monopoly to the radical Marxist and feminist ideas now being promoted by the faculty and administration on many of our campuses. Fortunately, this policy was successfully challenged by an unnamed psychology professor who realized that most of the subject matter he dealt with in class might stigmatize someone. In a strange twist, the ACLU was on the right side of this issue and represented the professor. Eventually a U.S. District Court struck down even a modified version of the code. But there are still codes in effect at Emory, Middlebury, Brown, Penn State, Tufts, the Universities of California, Connecticut, North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and others. Many more schools are considering implementing codes.