The University of Southern California (USC) is under fire after canceling the California gubernatorial debate with less than 24 hours’ notice. The reason? None of the polling candidates are people of color. It was a crushingly revealing moment in a state where universities have long defied voters who demanded an end to affirmative action in admissions.
USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future and ABC/KABC Los Angeles were scheduled to co-host the debate at Bovard Auditorium on Tuesday evening. Then it was canceled on Monday.
Former Biden Health and Human Services Secretary and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra had sent a letter to President Beong-Soo Kim, alleging “election rigging” and objecting “you disqualified all of the candidates of color from participating.”
For many, USC succeeded in beclowning itself by first defending USC Professor Christian Grose’s “data-driven” selection process and then abruptly canceling the debate lineup selected through that process. If that seems incomprehensible, welcome to American higher education.
The cancellation is only the latest unexpected turn in the election, where the two top vote-getters will face each other in a runoff election.
California Democrats are in a panic as two Republicans currently top the polling: Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and commentator Steve Hilton.
At the same time, the leading Democrats include controversial candidates such as Rep. Katie Porter and Rep. Eric Swalwell. Porter is best known nationally for spewing profanity and abuse at staff members. Last year, Swalwell was outvoted by Rep. Raul Grijalva, who died in March 2025. However, they are still doing markedly better than Becerra with voters.
USC insisted that it “vigorously defends the independence, objectivity, and integrity of USC Professor Christian Grose, whose data-driven candidate viability formula is based on extensive research and enjoys broad academic support.”
That “data-driven system” produced a lineup of Bianco and Hilton as well as Democrats Tom Steyer, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, former Rep. Katie Porter, and Rep. Eric Swalwell.
Advocates then went into full rage, calling the process racist and rigged. Becerra declared:
“USC goes to great lengths to justify its exclusionary candidate formula. But you can’t escape the detestable outcome: you disqualified all of the candidates of color from participating while you invited a white candidate who has NEVER polled higher than some of the candidates of color, including me.”
However, the methodology considered both polling percentage and fundraising with the polling given greater weight.
Becerra has been shown at 3 percent, notably within the statistical margin of error for most polls. In other words, he could be closer to zero. (He is shown as tied with Mahan, who Becerra appears to be referencing in his letter as lacking higher polling).
USC then yielded after trying to expand the number of participants to appease objectors. In a statement, USC stated:
“We recognize that concerns about the selection criteria for tomorrow’s gubernatorial debate have created a significant distraction from the issues that matter to voters. Unfortunately, USC and [debate co-sponsor] KABC have not been able to reach an agreement on expanding the number of candidates at tomorrow’s debate. As a result, USC has made the difficult decision to cancel tomorrow’s debate and will look for other opportunities to educate voters on the candidates and issues.”
Becerra took a victory lap: “We fought. We won! … Thank you to everyone who stood up, raised hell and demanded justice. Never give up when you’re fighting for fairness!”
At least Becerra’s position is comprehensible. He has long defended affirmative action in California. Indeed, despite statewide votes against the practice, California universities continue to be accused of applying racial criteria in admissions. Becerra is effectively demanding such action for himself as a “candidate of color.”
USC was left stumbling in search of a place to hide. USC scholars defended the process that USC affectively scuttled:
“All of us expect and welcome critical engagement from inside and outside the academy. What Professor Grose has faced, however, is not substantive or methodological debate. Attacks and insinuations from members of the political classes include completely baseless allegations of election-rigging, inconsistency, bias and data manipulation. These are harmful character assassinations, not substantive debate. They are of a piece with other attempts to strong-arm or malign scholars that have become all too common in America.
Whatever their intent, the effect of these attacks is to diminish academic freedom and chill scholarly willingness to add their voices to the public square. It is imperative that universities defend their faculties’ integrity when it is unfairly attacked.”
That is a powerful statement if one does not then consider that the university caved, cancelled the debate, and meekly said that it will “look for other opportunities to educate voters on the candidates and issues.” The “strong-arming” succeeded.
What is particularly disappointing is that I just spoke at USC and was impressed with the members of the USC community seeking to restore a diversity of viewpoints. The event was sponsored by The Center for the Political Future, which was the sponsor of the debate. It was also organized by the USC Open Dialogue Project and the USC chapter of the Heterodox Academy. Both have written in defense of this process.
Professor Morris Levy with Heterodox wrote: “[USC’s] message is unmistakable: USC was allowing “concerns” and a public “distraction” to override its own institutional conviction that the selection formula was data-driven and backed by research.”
So Heterodox, The Center for the Political Future, and ABC7 issued statements indicating that they were prepared to go forward and also defended the process of selection. That left only USC.
In this controversy, USC succeeded in finding the least defensible ground to make its stand. It denounced the cancel campaign but then effectively yielded to it.
The alternative is to stand by your race-blind, data-driven process and hold the debate for all invited candidates willing to attend.
Where USC was criticized recently for its fake punt in the game with Northwestern, it actually punted in this play and left the field.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
N.B: This column was altered to change the attribution of a quote to Mr. Levy.
“The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
– Alexander Hamilton
“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?”
“If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”
– Thomas Jefferson, 1802
“We the People of the United States…secure the Blessings of Liberty TO OURSELVES and OUR POSTERITY….”
– Preamble to the Constitution of the American Founders, 1789
Isn’t it time for 50 governors to meet and begin discussions about splitting up. Reds can keep the constitution and blue states can do whatever. Move republican capitol to another state out of Maryland with monuments in tow. Maryland and others clearly blue states.
There really isn’t anything in common. Blue states are peedoughs so why pretend anymore.
Adieu
^^^ There isn’t reconciliation because Americans have been murdered and children. It’ll never be. Those supporting policies that resulted in murder will never be forgiven. Don’t ever expect it. Only the laws requirement of civility will be obeyed forward on. Don’t expect more.
Nothing like leaving a bad first impression with ALL the potential governors.
Future Governor: “I have a line item veto with USC Dornsife Center’s name on it.”
Pretty tired of this one. People of color? Sorry, our blood is all red. As has been stated ad nauseam, there is only one side pushing this sheet. Spare me, and spare the ‘people of color’, you white idiots presume to represent. The DNC has not changed a whit since they fought to keep their slaves.
That’s kinda all there is to it. You remaining stalwart dems were fleeced in the 1960s. Sorry if that hurts but it’s true. It’s time to move on.
So much for a colorblind society.
Now that skin color is all important can we rate demographics by Waffle House/Cruise Ship brawls? How about random attacks on strangers? How about murder rate? How about brain size? How about IQ?
Maybe these folks are making a big mistake by putting skin color above all else.
It is being noticed.
USC and UCLA became infected, politically, once the new bleeding heart Dems took control. After Darrell Gates, after Tom Bradley— and here we have proof they’re infected academically.
If I were an alumnus, I’d pull all current and future donations.
USC stated that they would “look for other opportunities to educate voters on the candidates and issues.” I have a, I think, helpful suggestion for them that I hope will advance their goal in the most profound way. From this incident, it appears that a major (if not the only) issue within the California Democratic primary is the quantity of melanin in a candidate’s skin. Perhaps in future debates, the melanin metric for each candidate could be helpfully posted. And Prof. Christian Grose’s “data-driven” selection process could be enhanced by the inclusion of that all important melanin metric. (It should be included and not the sole metric because after all the algorithm needs to anticipate that other issues such as roads, schools, public safety, popularity, personal integrity,… might impinge on the minds of the party faithful.) The California state could assist the Democratic party by systematically implementing this metric through the measurement of it at the DMV and including it on any future driver’s license. That way voters would be assured of the integrity of this metric as well as enabling voters to find out which candidate has a metric closer to their own.
All of this reminds me of a group of children (KIDS) standing around hoping they are picked, PICK ME, PICK ME, and when there are not enough spots to pick everyone those not chosen, stomp their feet and whine why not me. The answer for today’s issue, the denied didn’t show political prowess sufficient to meet the bare minimum in the judgment of the computer model, and the candidate may not have inquired what the model was comparing. It’s not the computer or the program that’s at fault.
Top ten presidents according to various Ai returns:
16, 1, 32, 26, 3, 33, 34, 36, 40, 44 per duck.ai
32, 16, 1, 26, 3, 34, 33, 35, 40, 44 copilot.bing
16, 32, 1, 26, 33, 34, 3, 35, 40, 42 grok
16, 1, 32, 26, 3, 33, 34, 35, 40, 42 gemini
These numbers show program anomalies within Ai research, glaring where #36 [Johnson], # 42 [Clinton], # 44 [Obama].
I believe that colloquial statement about Garbage holds true across the board and particularly with Ai at this early adaption, as in this request, what data was used and in what timeframe where comparisons made.
GPT-5 [?]= most dangerous political party in America?
No single major U.S. political party can be labeled “the most dangerous” as a whole — but the best available evidence shows politically motivated violence and domestic-terror incidents in recent years have come predominantly from right wing extremists and anti-government actors, rather than from the institutional Democratic or Republican parties.
Would I trust this statement when daily evidence is broadcast across the airways showing no such thing? So, Ai is no more trustworthy than the average Joe you’d meet on the street when it comes to opinion.
Now asking Ai a science or math question it will return facts, like 500 light seconds to the Sun, [8minutes 20seconds], but ask a hypothetical and you’ll most likely get programmers opinion.
The answer you get from an AI Large Language Model (LLM) is determined by what data it was trained on. If the people training it tried to be unbiased by training it on all available data, then you’d expect it to end up having a left-leaning bias about recent history, as the majority of what you can read now is written by progressive leaning people (teachers, media, etc.). If instead, they curate the training data (leave out MSNOW or Fox), then they’ll be accused of biasing the results to suit their opinions, as you’ve suggested. So getting a politically unbiased answer out of AI is probably no more possible than it is of getting it out of a real person.
The top two with Hussein Obama being in, are jokes. Obama fundamentally transformed America into the riotous ghetto that you are seeing today….
And also avoiding the Minnesota lawsuit on the DOJ for refusing to turn over evidence in the ICE/CBP murders.
All of this is just a way to avoid Piggy Crimewave’ catastrophic Iran choices and the gigantic insider trading op running out of the White House.
Bro, what? Get your head out of your ass and smell a rose or something. Not everything is related to the White House! This is about your side eating their own in their attempt to appease the LCD, nothing to do with the Trump admin’s lightning record success in disarming 90% of a terrorist regime!
Also, please respond truthfully, where are your sources on “catastrophic Iran choices”? WITHOUT mentioning schools. Whether that was us or the Iranians is up for debate, but is there anything else?
And, still responding truthfully, where are your sources on “the gigantic insider trading op running out of the White House”? Trump’s son’s business dealings have nothing to do with him personally, the plane gifted from Qatar won’t be available until the end of his term (and will be used by presidents until it retires, at which point it goes to a museum/pres. library of Trump’s choosing), and the administration has been sidelined by everyone else at every turn, and are still acting within the bounds of our laws, even as unelected judges change those laws on the daily. No one has proven anything that the people of the Administration are part of some ‘insider trading op’, but I’m curious as to what proof you have.
Closing of the Straight and Iran attacking neighboring countries as a result of U.S. bombing is beyond catastrophic…
And trump’s market manipulation over tariff extortion taxes and Iran bombing news releases is a classic insider trading set up. Just because DOJ is owned by his admin doesn’t change that…
Time for you to get YOUR head out of your butt.
no nukes 4 u, iran
Trump’s entire corrupt business model boils down to extort on the front end, market manipulate on the back end.
u prefer a nuclear armed iran
Watch…, if a non corrupted DOJ ever returns, an investigation will show that insider trading is a major channel for money to bribe trump. Bribe him on the front end, get notified of future statements beforehand, probably involving trading through Kushner’s Daudi bribe find. Get in, get out.
Pelosi is the recognized world champion
gold medalist
OT
Apparently judges Boasberg and Howell secretly colluded with Jack Smith.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/03/newly-released-documents-show-judges-beryl-howell-boasberg
At what point does this type of cooperation become criminal tampering with justice?
These judges may end up more concerned about prison than impeachment.
And about half the country would be glad to see it. Surely some of the cases against them, if any, could be filed in Florida.
You know Bozoberg would find a way to weasel onto the bench for his own trial, just to push it in our faces that he is above the law.
Roberts would maybe assign himself to the trial and dismiss the charges with prejudice and hold the DOJ in contempt so that he could, you know, preserve the reputation of the judiciary.
It would preserve it because right now the Third Branch stinks.
Hey, Is Woody Harrelson’s father dead?
Is Becerra a Latinx or a BIPOC? Before today, I would’ve supposed neither. Anyway he scored a tactical victory like a Ukrainian general sinking a Russian cruiser with a drone.
Recently (Yesterday March 24th 2026) I had an experience that opened my eye to how a Computer Algorithm steers outcomes.
re: An algorithm is
a precise, step-by-step set of instructions or rules followed by a computer to solve a specific problem, perform calculations, or process data. They act as a “recipe” for automation, transforming inputs into desired outputs through logical, finite steps.
I was with a Realtor in the process of bidding on a House, after touring the property we sat down to talk Offer Price.
I had previously did the due diligence on through the Internet (County Tax Appraisal, Deed, etc. – research), in addition prior to the Property tour, I drove the area around the property and made self assessments as to area and value of the City and Neighborhood.
Both areas City and Neighborhood were in decline and properties reflected homes built in the 1950s (76 yrs old.)
In my calculus I took the Assessed Value, then add a 20K markon plus the calculated Real Estate Commission (6%) the Seller would pay.
I was pretty certain that the Offer Amount was a Fair Market offer – dead on considering the the actual situs of the property .
The Agent than opened up here Company’s Web Listing and showed me the Sale Price generated by the Computer Algorithm, of which the Agent said was a functions of the Comparable Homes in the area. The difference was staggering. Granted I realized the Agent ‘works’ for the Seller, but as a Buyer that is willing to work with the Agent so that that they would be inclined to work with Seller & Buyer together and make a full commission, the Algorithm (Listing Price) was definitely a turn-off and bias in respect to the reality of the property. It isn’t “Steering” in the sense of Real estate Redlining, but Steering in terms of maximizing Commission-Profits for the agency.
The Point is these Computer Algorithm are not in-touch with what the actual reality is at ground level. USC Professor Christian Grose’s “data-driven” selection process, may or may-not have been employed to insulate the University from Legal Suits or to simplify the process (Blame the outcome on the “Computer”). But the reality was self evident that the outcome appeared bias in respect to the makeup of the Candidates.
The wide use of these Computer Algorithm is producing a division, separated from reality. Have and Have-Not is being created by Computer Algorithms that are generally accepted. It is know wonder why the Young Generations can not afford a House, they have been left behind due to an Algorithm that judges Them as unqualified Loan Candidates or unqualified to live in economically viable areas (Thriving Cities).
We have become to dependent on the Computer Algorithms of Internet Databases and subsequent A.I. summations, instead of using our own God given Eyes to see the reality of the Would.
Don’t let the “Smart Phone” out-smart You,
DO the Math, Go see it for Yourself – Witness
A couple comments if I may. Assessed values rarely are related to the fair market value. Assessments are tax related and they generally don’t change from the base year, after which properties appreciate. Plus some states have fractional asssessment.
Second, market price is determined by market forces, primarily demand. That is true with most things sold on the open market, not just real estate. When selling a house, the agent does not decide on the price, the seller does, albeit with advice from the agent. I’ve sold several houses in my lifetime, and that’s how it always works. The seller sets the price at the highest he thinks the market will bear, and that’s usually done through looking at comparable sales in the recent timeframe. Fair market value for a house is: in an arms-length transaction, a price at which a willing buyer and a willing seller agree to, neither being under compulsion to act.
And if you think the asking price is too much, you can always offer the price you believe is fair. The seller may accept, in which case that’s fair market value. But if not, then your price is lower than fair market value.
OMFK, great answer. I too have sold a handful of homes and I also worked in title end of RE for many years and the biggest issues I see today are sellers that add in their attachment to their homes in the property’s value that has them giving their home too high of a value and on the other side of the coin you have buyers that neglect the fact that some areas, mostly around cities or water, have values appreciating faster than they imagine.
One other issue I see is after a market peaks sellers have a hard time coming to terms with the fact that a few years ago their home was valued at say $600,000 and today it is at $525,000. They cannot let go of that $75,000 that they lost by not acting at peak.
Bobby – interesting points. I once tried to FSBO, and I set the price too high. After little success, I hired a realtor friend who set the price lower and held an open house. He sold it by the end of that day at a price that I then realized was the FMV.
OMFK
Property taxation
You’re still being taxed on what you own, not on what you buy.
Property owned is not commerce, selling and buying property is.
It’s unconstitutional and is state tyranny.
If my guy is last and can’t play, he’ll make certain no one else can either!
Is this the latest iteration of American higher education: play to the gutter?
Sort of like….I’d rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.
Why is there any surprise when the spineless that comprise the academy repeatedly prove they have no spine?
If DEI is to make things equal, then color should not be involved, invoked or a part of the decision process of any issue. If the criteria used for who would participate in this case, was truly blind (mathematical), then what is the issue. I for one am tired of people screaming about skin color. That is racist. People are people not a color. Decisions on qualifications for a position should be factual experience and competence (you can have someone with experience but not competent).
By the logic of these activists I would expect them to be shutting down every football game, basketball game, swim meet etc until there were an equitable share of short, out of shape hispanics, ans asians in basketball, small-framed and slight soyboys, delicately framed and muscled asians and transmen on football teams. Do these prog morons not see the inconsistency that they clearly and openly display in this instance? They are only caring about getting a share of power for their group even though they cannot produce a qualified candidate with enough popular appeal to merit a seat at the debate. That isn’t discrimination, that is the democratic process but they are so indoctrinated into victimhood that when they do not get what they want they scream racism or whatever else works at the time.
Folks, this is another instance of the raging hate there geriatric here spew.
Logic you say? You reek of hate. America doesn’t want you or need you.
I wonder what this one did to save the USA from liberals.
Answer: absolutely nothing.
What a wasted existence.
Meanwhile, you are posting all hours of the day on this site, under various anonymous posts and pseudonyms, contributing nothing to society as well. Me? I just browse during the 5 minute breaks I get between teaching future sailors how to do IT on our warships. At least I am contributing more to society than you.
Pot meet kettle, as it were. Go find another reddit page to moderate.
The ideology of hate – you spew vitriol here daily; and for what purpose? Your indoctrinated prog mind offers nothing of value to any discourse. Repeatedly dealing with your deranged hatred is both wearisome and a waste of time. For all of this it must be worth your time (how much are they paying you? per word or per post – by the ungodly length of some of your posts, it must be by the useless word. Keep posting, it just paints an ever more detailed indication of the sad state of prog minds everywhere.
whimsicalmama,
Well said!!
Karl would be proud, though.
If only they had stipulated a free buffet line all problems would have been averted…
not all of the problems, there would still be fights at the bacon tray and mac & cheese tray.
Eh, I don’t think there would have been either. Remember, we’re dealing with insane progressives. Can’t have bacon because there might be a Muslim, can’t do M&C because cheese is an animal product, which offends vegans.
They’d have to fight over organically-sourced kale bowls and (bottled) mineral spring water.
That might be true for the angry white aged feminists, but other demographics did not get so round, so firm, so fully packed as they appear. Either way, there WILL BE a fight over something – you cannot maintain your victimhood without complaining at least once a day.