But Antifa isn’t the only form of left-wing lunacy at UC Berkeley. One professor wants the school to stop using student evaluations because white male professors score higher, according to Campus Reform.

UC Berkeley history professor Brian DeLay tweeted “Over the next few weeks, students will get the chance to evaluate their professors and TAs. They’re going to get it wrong. They’ll be harder on women and people of color than on white men. Tenured white male faculty, in particular, should help their students understand this.”

Brian pointed to a study purporting to show that students rate white male professors higher than professors of other races and genders. The professor says “I’ve often gotten valuable feedback in student evals, feedback that has improved my teaching. We have a lot to learn from our students, obviously. But given the well-documented shortcomings of [student evaluations of teaching], we shouldn’t be using them for hiring, tenure, or promotion decisions.”

Now there are a few concerns here. One: correlation is not causation and students could be rating white male professors higher for factors unrelated to their genitalia and melanin level. Two: it kind of undermines your whole racism/sexism thesis when male professors are getting higher ratings despite there being more females than males enrolled in higher education. And three: aren’t professors supposed to be the ones preventing the wrongthink with things like implicit bias tests? It’s like, “hey, let’s stop student evaluations that prove to us what a bad job we’re doing at doing a bad job!”

Here’s the thing: students are the most important stakeholders at a school. Professors will be more inclined to ram left-wing talking points down students’ throats if they know these same students can’t hold them accountable. Plus, if students suffer from implicit bias, wouldn’t it stand to reason that faculty members would, too? Seems like they aren’t thinking things through at Berkeley.

Isabella Chow was the only UC Berkeley student senator not to vote “yes” on a resolution condemning Trump’s proposal to change Title IX so that gender is the same as biological sex, according to Campus Reform.

She didn’t vote against the resolution, but simply abstained from voting, saying “I cannot vote for this bill without compromising my values and my responsibility to the community that elected me to represent them. As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right and true.”

Now Isabella said she opposed discrimination and harassment and, provided that’s true, this seems to be a case of actions speak louder than words because think about it: what exactly is the proposed Title IX change going to do? Cut down bureaucracy. The government typically only keeps track of people’s immutable characteristics or things that can be objectively determined, like race, age, income, etc. Biological sex is one of those; you’re either a man or a woman. Asking the government to account for self-determined gender identity is kind of like asking it to account for personality: it’s messy and open to interpretation.

But back to Berkeley. Isabella’s own party, the Student Action group at UC Berkeley, wasn’t too pleased with the student’s choice to sit that vote out. It said “as a party, we are committed to ensuring that the rights and dignity of the Queer and Trans community on this campus are guaranteed. As a party, we are committed to establishing and defending access to reproductive health services….That is why we, as a party have resolved to part ways with ASUC Senator Isabella Chow.”

There have been calls for Isabella to resign from student government. The student senator refused and tried to submit an op-ed to the campus paper to explain her point of view. But The Daily Californian said her piece “utilized rhetoric that is homophobic and transphobic by the Daily Cal’s standards.” When Isabella asked how she could modify it, the paper said that “the submission as a whole doesn’t meet the newspaper’s editorial standards.”

You know, standards like providing a platform only to progressive orthodoxy.

Police charged UC Berkeley student Ismael Chamu with felony vandalism after he and another student allegedly defaced cars and fences with messages like “f*** the police,” “f*** white people,” “class war,” “kill cops,” “kill yuppies,” and “eat the rich,” as reported by our friends over at Far Left Watch.

“Private property must be destroyed; bars and hipster shops need to be removed; Google satellite offices must be burned, and Google buses need to be slashed,” said Chamu in an April 2017 blog entitled Dialogue Will Not Save Our Hoods.

Chamu found himself the subject of a flattering LA Times article Sunday entitled “He attends elite UC Berkeley but lives in a trailer with no heat or sewer hookups. Soon, he’ll be scrambling to find new shelter.” Forty-plus paragraphs and no mention of his vandalism charges or Antifa endorsement. LA Times and New York Times journos took to Twitter, calling Chamu “a remarkable young man” and saying his “grit and determination” “is jaw-dropping.” LA Times updated the piece Monday with a short segment on his vandalism charges and their spokeswoman told me “the arrest was not intentionally left out of the story.”