Window on Israel: A test of analytical skill or a political inquisition?

One of the reasons I chose to study political science more than 50 years ago was its eclectic character. Its concerns touch all of the social sciences, and it is hospitable to a range of perspectives.
 
I have worked with, and count among my friends individuals at numerous universities in several countries who have examined a variety of issues and express a range of views. Most of my own writing and teaching has been concerned with understanding how the political process works to determine who gets what. Description and understanding of citizen and official activities have been higher on my priorities than advocacy about what they should be doing.
 
It has been common to mock the notion of a "political science" that cannot be scientific, and is more political than scientific. Yet I continue to value work that employs intellectual tools in a systematic fashion to understand governing. Politics is at the heart of civilization. The essence of dealing with sensitive questions short of violence involves persuasion, voting, seeking allies and advantages in law and procedures, in the forums of government and campaigns for election.
 
Greatest among my recent pleasures is that one of my sons is pursuing graduate study in political science. Currently he is pondering options in Israel, Britain, and the United States.
 
We have talked about the politicization that has affected higher education, especially as it is tainted by the condemnation of Israelis without reference to what they think or what they have done. Until now, it has seemed that the malady is most severe at lesser institutions. Where it is worth the effort to obtain a decent education, one could hope that learning and analysis prevails over demands to comply with whatever is fashionable among political activists.
 
Yet the aspiring academic has sent me an e-mail headed by the question, "Why should I apply to such a place?" Required of all applicants for graduate study at the University of California, Berkeley is an answer to the following:

Please describe how your personal background informs your decision to pursue a graduate degree. Please include information on how you have overcome barriers to access higher education, evidence of how you have come to understand the barriers faced by others, evidence of your academic service to advance equitable access to higher education for women, racial minorities, and individuals from other groups that have been historically underrepresented in higher education, evidence of your research focusing on underserved populations or related issues of inequality, or evidence of your leadership among such groups."

UC-Berkeley scores near the top of world rankings for higher education in general, as does its PhD program in political science. I count among mentors and friends past and present members of the department.
 
Issues concerning opportunity have long standing, affected by different views about who to help and how. Legislatures and courts continue to wrestle with the problems. No doubt they are appropriate subjects for conversations among students or faculty, as well as for reasoned discussion in professional writing and by teachers in class.
 
Perhaps those judging the applicants will use responses to assess knowledge of a contemporary issue, skills in expression, balance and nuance. The question may be a way of inserting affirmative action by the back door where courts have ruled that it cannot be the guardian of the front door.
 
On the other hand, it seems to be testing applicants' political views.
 
It is not one option among several possible lecture topics, but something that all applicants must answer. This gives it the smell of an inquisition engineered by those who think of themselves as politically correct, and who have taken control of who may study.