Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Education Science

UC Berkeley Asking Incoming Students For DNA 468

Posted by StoneLion
from the gullibility-gene dept.
peterofoz writes "The students will be asked to voluntarily submit a DNA sample. The cotton swabs will come with two bar code labels. One label will be put on the DNA sample and the other is kept for the students' own records. The confidential process is being overseen by Jasper Rine, a campus professor of Genetics and Development Biology, who says the test results will help students make decisions about their diet and lifestyle." No word in the story on just what "confidential" means — who will have access to the results, how long they'll be kept, or what else they might someday be used for. Will the notoriously liberal Berkeley campus see this as a service or an invasion of privacy?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UC Berkeley Asking Incoming Students For DNA

Comments Filter:
  • Welcome (Score:5, Funny)

    by thijsh (910751) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @11:42AM (#32265820) Journal
    Please leave your DNA with the school nurse...
    • DNA is awesome. We should all know what ours is. Also, please not more patents on genes...
    • Re:Welcome (Score:5, Funny)

      by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @11:47AM (#32265886)

      Please leave your DNA with the school nurse...

      Is she cute?

    • Re:Welcome (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rotide (1015173) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @11:47AM (#32265890)
      I don't see the problem as it appears voluntary. Now obviously they need to disclose what purposes it will ever be used for and exactly how the process of keeping it confidential works but assuming that's all copacetic there really don't seem to be any issues. Again, it's voluntary.
      • by thijsh (910751)
        At least there are strict laws against giving your DNA involuntarily.
        • Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mollog (841386) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @12:09PM (#32266232)
          Privacy used to be expected. Now I no longer expect it. I expect that everything that is done on the internet is viewed by someone, somewhere. In a discussion yesterday about Microsoft's NSAKEY, it was discovered that there was yet another hidden key embedded in Microsoft apps to allow the government access to your data. Brave new world.

          Coming soon to your community; risk assessment of every individual, eugenics, fascism.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by oldspewey (1303305)

            This is only a problem while "one side" has a monopoly on the use of these technologies. If invasive technology is ubiquitous and uncontrollable, then any abuse of that technology should be totally transparent to everybody.

            In short, the answer to "who will watch the watchers" needs to be "everyone ... and records should be kept forever."

          • Re:Privacy (Score:4, Insightful)

            by commodore64_love (1445365) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @12:27PM (#32266480) Journal

            Why did you tell me that? I was living in oblivious happy ignorance until you told me MS has government backdoors in my software. :-( Oh well.

            Is Mac OS any better? (falls over laughing)

            As for the DNA I wouldn't have any problem giving it voluntarily since they don't know who I am (just a barcode). The problem is that voluntary often evolves into compulsory. SSI was originally a voluntary retirement program* but it quickly became mandatory, and Weekly Tax withholding used to be a "convenience" for workers but by the 1950s it became mandatory too.

            *
            * Some communities still have voluntary SS, like Amish Americans and state government workers in Arizona (I think it's AZ - have to double check).

            • by mikael_j (106439)

              Is Mac OS any better? (falls over laughing)

              Well, at least large chunks of OS X are open source (and I don't mean "Pay us lots of money and promise to never even think of what you saw and we'll let you have the source", I mean GPL, LGPL, BSD and a few other real open source licenses. Here you go [apple.com]).

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                You think you've got all the source.

                Remember the story of the hacked compiler which would compile login with a backdoor and create a new hacked compiler if it was compiling unhacked sources?

                You can never be sure. Unless you read machine code and build everything yourself, but there is the BIOS, CPU microcode, etc.

                You can NEVER be sure.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by thijsh (910751)
            A runaway joke just turned interesting... :)
            Do you have any information about this hidden key (I suppose it wasn't just named '_KEY3')?
          • Re:Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)

            by NiceGeek (126629) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @03:15PM (#32268580)

            People still believe in the NSAKEY rumor? How cute.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by carp3_noct3m (1185697)

            [citation and sources please]

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by poetmatt (793785)

        just like the voluntary DNA swabs, giving me all your money or all your accounts and account information is voluntary too! but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

        Also, someone having this information does mean that they could be compelled to give it up by legal authorities or others. So yes, privacy is a concern.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by penguin_dance (536599)

        Voluntary often turns into compulsory eventually. Why would they possibly need anyone's DNA? And if some woman is attacked on campus are they then going to turn samples over to law enforcement or other agency to test for a possible match?

        In Texas, parents recently found out that since 2002, blood drawn from their infants [statesman.com] for routine screening, was being kept and sometimes sold. There was an "opt-out" program, which of course most parents didn't know about. Who wants your kid's DNA floating around?

  • by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary@@@yahoo...com> on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @11:43AM (#32265828) Journal

    Liberals tend to think for themselves, so I imagine we will see many different viewpoints emerge, rather than some lock-step, campus wide consensus.

    • I think it greatly depends on how firmly they are "asked". I personally tend not to mind when people ask for lots of things so long as I'm not bound by law to provide it.

    • by BobMcD (601576)

      Liberals tend to think for themselves, so I imagine we will see many different viewpoints emerge, rather than some lock-step, campus wide consensus.

      No bias here whatsoever.

      • by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary@@@yahoo...com> on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @12:01PM (#32266096) Journal

        Liberals tend to think for themselves, so I imagine we will see many different viewpoints emerge, rather than some lock-step, campus wide consensus.

        No bias here whatsoever.

        You have no bias? We've conversed before, so unless you've changed recently, I don't believe you, sorry.

        • by BobMcD (601576)

          Oh hell no, of course I do. But I would think the obvious difficulty of applying a political label (any political label) to an entire group of people that genuinely 'think for themselves' would have caused you to press 'Cancel' rather than 'Submit'.

          Alas, you were blinded by bias, and I just thought I'd point that out...

    • Re:Both, of course (Score:4, Insightful)

      by commodore64_love (1445365) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @12:08PM (#32266208) Journal

      >>>Liberals tend to think for themselves

      I guess that's why they all share the same talking points: "Let's call them teabaggers." "There are no people of color in the Tea Partys." "Tea partiers are racist." "What he needs is more gravitas." - And so on. I call that mimicking one another, not independent thought.

    • by Robert Heinich (857844) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @12:10PM (#32266238) Homepage
      the Ivy League nude posture photos were taken in the 1940s through the 1970s of all incoming freshmen at certain Ivy League and Seven Sisters colleges, ostensibly to gauge the rate and severity of rickets, scoliosis, and lordosis in the population.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League_nude_posture_photos [wikipedia.org]
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by RobotRunAmok (595286)

      I think you're right. I think Liberals do think for themselves.

      Unfortunately, in the US at least, they are so afraid of appearing politically incorrect or being on record for having an opinion that Jon Stewart might mock that they will parrot whatever the mocha-decaf-latte-frappucino line of thought is on any particular subject. What they think, and what they will say about what they think in mixed company, are frequently at odds. I can't count how many self-professed liberals I have met who become pro-l

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by AndersOSU (873247)

        I don't know who you spoke to, but liberals often think that their opinions don't make for good public policy.

        Many liberals think abortion is morally wrong, would rather not have to deal with gays, and think we should enforce our borders.

        However, they don't think they should legislate what medical procedures women should have, they don't think that gays should be legally second class citizens, and they don't think that Lou Dobbs is right about immigration.

        Conservatives, on the other hand think that all thei

    • Liberals tend to think for themselves, so I imagine we will see many different viewpoints emerge, rather than some lock-step, campus wide consensus.

      Don't make me laugh. Liberals & conservatives both follow the party line. With this absolutely horrible Political Correctness agenda, policies that reward poverty and step on self-employment and small business; thinking for ones self appears to be the last thing on the Liberal Agenda.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by spun (1352)

        Yes, "liberals and conservatives are all the same" is a popular lie put out by conservatives. As is "Political correctness," "Rewarding poverty," and "Stepping on self employment." All of which are actually things conservatives do. Which makes them different from liberals.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ravenshrike (808508)

          The self employment tax was thought up entirely by democrats. Considering that the vast mjority of people who self employ are the type who would gladly give up SocSec and Medicare in return for that extra 15%, I'm pretty damned sure that counts as stepping on self employment.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Troed (102527)

        The GP made the mistake of not clarifying "Liberal". It seems he meant what in the US would be called "Libertarian" (with a small or a big L dependent on whom you ask) - which in large parts of the world is the same thing as meant with "liberal".

        In the US you've managed to make "liberal" mean "socialist" (or at least what you believe to be socialist, which would still be far far right wing in other countries).

        ... and then, when talking about libertarians, the GP is correct.

        (libertarians can be both right a

  • Gattaca? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pojut (1027544) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @11:43AM (#32265830) Homepage

    There's no gene for fate.

  • I'm torn (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @11:47AM (#32265892) Journal

    It's voluntary, so there is no invasion of privacy going on, when you give up your DNA willingly you can't be expected it to be held very strongly in confidentiality. It's kind of like that whole unsecured Wifi debacle. If you don't know exactly what they want to do with your DNA, you'd be a fool to give it to them. That is their mistake to make though, I'm not going to deny them that by saying this kind of action should be illegal.

    If kids want dietting tips, or help on decisions, there are plenty of resources out there. I'm a little more paranoid at the idea of this becoming Comfortable. First its "Let us take your DNA to help you diet". Even if only 10% of people sign up, if they enjoy their results they'll tell their friends to partake in it next year. It will grow, until more schools are doing it. Then the elementary schools will do it. Then that confidentiality agreement will phase away, and there goes the neighbourhood.

    I guess the only course of action is to warn people of the dangers and hope they make the right choice.

    • As long as it is expressed explicitly that this is voluntary and the privacy policy is written, I don't have a problem.

      Unfortunately with most bureaucracies (especially universities), voluntary things have a bad habit of being "required". For example, a student goes in, University bureaucrat just says "and give me your DNA sample." Most students having to go through all the horseshit, including having to give Social Security numbers, probably won't even think to ask if it is in fact voluntary.

      Speaking of S

      • by jittles (1613415)
        California Universities are not allowed to use SSN's for ID purposes. It's not the school that is requiring them, but the IRS. The student does not have to give the SSN but they will face a $50 fine per semester.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TubeSteak (669689)

      It's voluntary, so there is no invasion of privacy going on, when you give up your DNA willingly you can't be expected it to be held very strongly in confidentiality. It's kind of like that whole unsecured Wifi debacle.

      Where did you get the idea that voluntary = weak confidentiality?
      Unlike Wifi, I can negotiate the terms of my DNA's storage and usage.

      • Re:I'm torn (Score:4, Informative)

        by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @12:14PM (#32266282) Journal

        You think the school is going to negotiate with every student on campus? They haven't the manpower or the resources or the time.

        There will be a set contact, and you can either take it or leave it, I imagine. And since we don't know the details of that arrangement, I'd err on the side of caution.

      • by Herkum01 (592704)

        Maybe because it has happened before? [aolnews.com] Once they have your data, negotiated terms are only as strong as the morality of the person you are giving them too. Since large organizations can be amoral you are running a risk regardless of your terms.

    • It's voluntary from the college's point of view. The problem is that things that are voluntary from the school's point of view are things that students who are applying are strongly compelled to do. It's absurd, but higher education admissions are a game of signals, and high school students (And their parents) don't want to risk giving the wrong signals when there are thousands of people competing with them. This means that there's a strong incentive do anything "voluntary" on the application.

      The school

      • Yes, it is (Score:5, Informative)

        by snowwrestler (896305) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @01:25PM (#32267240)

        Read the article, please. The request is in the welcome package for new students, not the application. Thus, "signals" in the application process are not an issue. The only people getting the request are those who already know that they have been accepted.

    • It's voluntary, so there is no invasion of privacy going on, when you give up your DNA willingly you can't be expected it to be held very strongly in confidentiality.

      Well, I'll agree that voluntarily (if it's truly voluntary and not semi-coerced as in 'we won't let you do $desirable_but_not_mandatory_thing until you 'volunteer') providing a sample isn't an invasion of privacy. But your notion that doing so willingly means I can't expected it be confidential is utter hogwash. I willingly and voluntarily gi

    • Re:I'm torn (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kozz (7764) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @12:19PM (#32266378)

      You said:

      It's voluntary, so there is no invasion of privacy going on, when you give up your DNA willingly you can't be expected it to be held very strongly in confidentiality.

      There's an interesting related story here [nytimes.com]. From the article itself:

      Members of the tiny, isolated tribe had given DNA samples to university researchers starting in 1990, in the hope that they might provide genetic clues to the tribe’s devastating rate of diabetes. But they learned that their blood samples had been used to study many other things, including mental illness and theories of the tribe’s geographical origins that contradict their traditional stories.

      We all know what the majority of slashdotters probably think about the tribe's beliefs, origin myths, etc. But the fact is that the researches thought that once they had the material (the DNA/blood), they could crunch the numbers in attempts to answer many questions. But the donors of said material didn't approve all that was done. I'm not trying to say who is right or wrong, but it's a cautionary tale for any organization that wants to conduct research of this kind.

  • by thepike (1781582)

    What is this DNA going to be used for? How is it going to "help students make decisions about their diet and lifestyle." Will they use it for genetic screening? In my opinion, most DNA screening is useless. It's like a full body scan, I'm sure you're going to find something, but is it going to be anything you can change? Or anything you care about? Or will it just make you nervous about a 1% increase in the chance that you'll get some rare cancer? Most gene association studies are weak at best anyway.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by rotide (1015173)

      I realize this is slashdot and all, but if you read the article it states: "Once the DNA sample is sent in and tested, it will show the student’s ability to tolerate alcohol, absorb folic acid and metabolize lactose."

      Not sure if they will test for other things or not, but that's the list provided thus far.

      • Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Pojut (1027544) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @11:55AM (#32266006) Homepage

        "Once the DNA sample is sent in and tested, it will show the student's ability to tolerate alcohol, absorb folic acid and metabolize lactose."

        Not sure if they will test for other things or not, but that's the list provided thus far.

        Frankly, I'm not sure you could survive college without knowing those things about yourself...

      • by qbast (1265706)
        Because for all those years student have not noticed that he or she is lactose-intolerant. Yeah, sure.
        • by saforrest (184929)

          Because for all those years student have not noticed that he or she is lactose-intolerant. Yeah, sure.

          Frequently you only develop lactose intolerance later in life, though the eventual onset of that intolerance can be inferred from your DNA.

        • by Troed (102527)

          A lot of people get lactose intolerant in their 30s, without ever understanding that that's what it is.

          "My stomach cannot tolerate the coffee anymore" is not uncommon to hear - and it's seldom the coffee.

  • It would be curious to know what kind of agreement the student has to sign when voluntarily giving a DNA sample. My guess is that they would have to sign a legal waiver, absolving the UC Berkley of any responsibility should something untoward happen. I am curious to know what is being done to ensure that privacy and protection is being guarranteed. I hate to be a naysayer, but what if the unthinkable happens and law enforcement attempts to get DNA data from UC Berkley and a mistake happens which wrongful
    • by Ichoran (106539)

      You think it's more likely for law enforcement to make a mistake when they get DNA than when they don't? How exactly does that work?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Kreigaffe (765218)

        Pretty easily. If the cops have access to your DNA, and they're searching through DNA for a suspect, there's a chance they'll hit upon your DNA. If it's not in the database, that's not possible. Imagine the DNA database is a phone book. They're looking for Tom Smith, your name is Jon Smith, they misread things and arrest you. If your name was never in the phone book in the first place, that would never have happened.

  • Maybe they just don't give a damn about potential research subjects' rights during recruitment, but permitting the solicitation to go out AS PART OF A FUCKING FRESHMAN ORIENTATION PACKET is beyond the pale. This research subject recruitment strategy is damnably coercive my view. Berkeley's IRB should be ashamed. Or better yet, replaced.

    • by rotide (1015173) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @11:54AM (#32265998)
      Did you notice it was voluntary? It's not a requirement. If a freshman doesn't want to do it, it appears they can just not do it. Not sure if people should be fired for offering voluntary choices to new students. I guess, however, in our coddled child society, choices might confuse and damage the young minds. If we don't spoon feed them and water everything down to the bare minimum, they might not be able to cope!
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by GungaDan (195739)

        There is zero reason why it couldn't be voluntary AFTER the students are settled on campus. Putting it in the orientation packet makes the incoming student vulnerable to parental pressure to "volunteer," and sends a message (regardless of the word "voluntary") that this is something expected of incoming freshmen by the University, not something one clueless researcher somehow conned the IRB into approving. It's an outrageous recruiting tactic that should never have been approved, ESPECIALLY for subjects who

        • by rotide (1015173)

          I'm sorry, but your two points against this seem to be:

          1) Students could be pressured to volunteer by their parents.

          2) Students might infer that this is "required".

          Both are simple ways to say students can't think for themselves and we shouldn't subject them to simple decisions. When you enter college you're usually 18. You're an adult. Part of being an adult is understanding what a voluntary program is and understanding that you do _not_ have to volunteer.

          If you can't read a piece of paper that says to

          • by rotide (1015173)

            Don't you love it when your palm taps the touchpad and you overwrite your own sentence?

            "If you can't read a piece of paper that says this program is voluntary and realize you don't have to follow along, I'm not sure what you're going to learn in college."

    • by Ichoran (106539)

      I don't quite understand what the big deal is. You're acting as though the incoming class is being asked to sign its soul away.

      I think universities should do this sort of thing much more often. If universities turned around and made the results of their research available to students on an accelerated schedule, it would be exciting, inspirational, and motivate learning a lot better than, "Well, read this textbook about stuff that happened 20 years ago while we do a lot of exciting new things that we won't

  • by John Hasler (414242) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @11:53AM (#32265980) Homepage

    > Will the notoriously liberal Berkeley campus see this as a service or an
    > invasion of privacy?

    It's only invasion of privacy if it's done by an evil "corporation" or other capitalist running dog. Everything a liberal organization does is for your own good and only a right-wing wacko would ever suspect one of failing to diligently and effectively safeguarding his privacy (especially when said organization is part of the state of California: you know they have only your best interests at heart and know better than you what you need).

     

    • "It's only invasion of privacy if it's done by an evil "corporation" or other capitalist running dog."

      And its only a liberal loony who would think that any good can come of this type of activity at all. Only a liberal loony believes that any governing agency is only looking after the good of its people. Even a university. Gattica was an interesting story, rent it.

  • The summary emphasized the word "confidential". Really, the important key word here should have been "voluntary". What are the consequences of not giving a sample? If they don't care if you give a sample or not, then why would this be an issue? If you're smart enough to go to Berkeley you should be smart enough to be aware of the current pros and cons of giving a DNA sample.
  • I just thought I'd point out that the whole barcode thing is irrelevant. They may as well put your name on the sample, because as soon as you seek to turn in your code and discover the result, you're mapped back to the sample.

    Unless you can look at all the samples, and you're bright enough to examine several hundred mixing your own in somewhere at random. You'd need a printer of some sort, a free barcode font, and a $70 reader to reverse-engineer the code. It wouldn't hurt to have a handful of friends' c

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by b0bby (201198)

      I just thought I'd point out that the whole barcode thing is irrelevant. They may as well put your name on the sample, because as soon as you seek to turn in your code and discover the result, you're mapped back to the sample.

      From TFA:
      "The results of the test will be put in a secure online database where students will be able to retrieve their results by using their bar code."
      There doesn't seem to be any indication that you'd have to identify yourself to retrieve the results - they give you a code, you enter it in & see the results. If none of the samples are linked to names, it doesn't really matter that you could look at other results. So I don't think you'd be mapped back to the sample.

      • by BobMcD (601576)

        Is it going on the web? And even if via web, are they anonymizing the IP's somehow? Or perhaps in a secure location, which would be monitored?

        The point being, since they know you're coming after the data, they'll have no trouble tracking you if they so desire.

  • by AEton (654737) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @12:07PM (#32266182)

    From the 1940s to the 1970s, Ivy League colleges took naked pictures of every incoming freshman [wikipedia.org], supposedly for use in scientific studies of the students' posture.

    I am not making this up. See, e.g., this Times coverage from 1995 [nytimes.com].

    I'm not going to make any kind of normative statement about whether people should say Yes to Cal's offer, here, but just wanted to point out that weird-ass instrusions into student privacy are nothing new.

  • Once it's recorded, it is recorded for life.

    Be ready to pulled in for questioning with a presumption of guilt when the police get a 90% dna match on the 13 markers sometime in the next decade when the police are using records from that "temporary" database.

  • by jtownatpunk.net (245670) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @12:15PM (#32266310)

    Kids, DO NOT DO THIS!!! Ever! For any reason! Holy shit, do you have any idea how crazy this is? There are sooooo many ways this information could be used against you, both now and in the future that I could type for hours without even scratching the surface.

    Once you give this data away, you can't take it back. You can't control it. You will have no way to know where it goes or who has access to it.

    Berkeley students, you should be out marching and protesting right now. Your protests should make national headlines by Friday. Get to it!

    • by Ixokai (443555) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @01:26PM (#32267244)

      ... umm, did you miss the part of the story where they *aren't* storing the student's identity with the DNA? I could walk outside for an hour or two and get a couple hundred random DNA samples from random strangers for study, and have absolutely no more idea who they belong to. Since our DNA just sort of falls off of us terribly easily.

      The profiles aren't connected to students names, records, SSN, identities, nothing. Just a random number encoded in a barcode. The only way anyone can know that 123456789 happens to be you is if you tell them or show them your barcode.

      Its research. And an interesting service.

      Yes, the tinfoil hat wearing can argue that between IP logs and cookies and such, someone could probably figure out your identity if they really wanted to.

      But then they can also just get your DNA from your *skin cells* that you shed all the time. And if they were going to be nefarious like that, the usage of that DNA sample for any random purpose against your interests would probably be legal: you have no expectation of privacy there.

  • The ultimate narcissism: posting your genome in a social network.

    Dont laugh. Blood types, a very simple version of one's gentic idnetity, is a major pseudo-science in Japan. You cant date someone of the "wrong type".
  • Two words... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by macbeth66 (204889) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @12:47PM (#32266776)

    BITE ME!

    That is the only way they would get a DNA sample from me. And they better hold me down, or, I will use that technique to get a sample of their DNA.

    Damn, how stupid have people become?

  • by couchslug (175151) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @02:43PM (#32268186)

    (cue Charlton Heston voice)

    pour it from my cold, dead keyboard!

  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @02:58PM (#32268362) Homepage Journal

    UC Berkeley's campus isn't liberal. It's got the most stereotypical frat/sorority ghetto I've ever seen. Its budget is stuffed with defense contractor and other giant corporation contracts, especially oil and telecom corps. Its law school hired John Yoo, the Bush lawyer who wrote the US torture regime rationalizations.

    The list goes on. But these "Conservative" (corporatist, or worse) activities are defined by being exclusive, even covert, even secret. While Berkeley's actually "liberal" (or whatever's not "Conservative") activities are usually defined by being public, even extroverted. Then take the mass media's interest in hiding the "Conservative" activities behind a distracting "liberal" show, and you get Berkeley a reputation for being "liberal".

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by PAKnightPA (955602)
      Uhh seriously? Because this comment is so ridiculous I don't even know where to start. I just graduated yesterday after four years at Berkeley. It's a huge campus and so not everyone is liberal, but its overwhelmingly very very far left wing. Both the professors and the students. And have you ever been to the co-ops? It seems for many of them the sixties never ended. I'm quite left of center, but I sometimes feel like a republican relative to many on the campus.

      And the frat/sorority system isn't quite typ

It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?

Working...