And notice how they consider Detroit and Gary, Indiana, to be "diverse" even though over 80% is black.
I'm going out on a limb here and say this guy wouldn't call a town with over 80% white population diverse.

Diversity never meant what it said it meant, and it doesn't mean it now. In the Supreme Court case on affimative action, diversity orginally was cited as one reaon that blacks could be "reached out to" to maintain the permissable goal of having "minority" (meaning blacks) students along with alumni and student athletes in the student body. The Left immediately hijacked this phrase and used it to justify governemnt sponsored racial discrimination against white people and men who have been forced to the "back seat of the bus" ever since. That is what "diversity" really means.

I'm always amused when I hear someone refer to a specific individual as "diverse," as in "he's a diversity student," or some such nonsense (a student of diversity). Basically they mean to say that the person is a minority student without having to say it. While an individual can be diverse, in the sense of having diverse interests or being of a diverse ethnic background, the word "diversity" in the above context generally refers to groups not individuals.

Now the word gets thrown about with such wild abandon that it no longer means much of anything. Just like "progressive" apparently means, in my city at least, a jobless stoner who sits around local bars discussing political and economic ideas that are only slightly older, and less ridiculous, than their clothing. If a bunch of 20 year olds trapped in the culture of the sixties is "progressive", I'm not sure I can begin to understand what "regressive" is.

On the other hand, they're also diverse, if by "diverse" you mean "all look the same."

Since Berkeley and Oakland are cheek by jowl, it works out that all the real, working poor, of various colors, live in Oakland, and come over the border to Berkeley to shop safely. The population of Berkeley, when Cal isn't in session, consists of normal people, who own houses and have jobs, and the barking moonbat population, who live in rent-controlled housing, get government money, attend protests and take drugs.

The students divide along the exact same lines as the resident population. Barring a little heavier on the barking moonbat side.

I'm only exagerating a little. I really, really hate Berkeley.

Madneo, you might want to read that again. The column said Berkeley was *more* diverse than Gary or Detroit. And it is: although Berkeley has a not-insignificant black ghetto area, its ethnic makeup is fairly varied (I don't think blacks are more than 15%).

I saw something or other about a similar "revolt" by lefties against charitable donations, justified (to them, anyway) by the argument that by donating to charity, they'd just be enabling the Republicans' cutting of social programs.

Berkeley has significant ghetto areas. Remember, this is basically an urban city of over 100,000 people. The university only has about 40,000 (including employees), and many of those commute from neighboring cities.

"NickS also wants to know how 'diverse' is a city that goes 90% for one candidate? "

Tell NickS that the backing of one particular candidate has no relevance to "diversity."

There have been elections in the past where the scales were tipped to one side. That doesn't indicate a lack of diversity so much as a shared opinion on a large scale.

Past presidential elections have had results with over 60% to one party through the entire population and over 90% in various geographical areas. Does it mean that geography lacks diversity by any definition? The District seems to vote Dem nearly every election. DC is the most diverse area probably in the entire world.