I don't think it says that at all. You can't cherry pick two particular institutions and draw some sort of conclusion about "society". In this particular case it seems like the entire conclusion is based on nothing other than preconceived notions of what reactions "Stanford" and "Oakland" trigger in the reader. There doesn't seem to be any particular details about the actual situation at either location and how those institutions are managed.
If anything his comment reinforces negative stereotypes about the two regions. So many people in the Bay Area look down on Oakland like itβs a blighted disease-ridden wasteland and think the peninsula is some kind of haven for the rich and well off.
For reference, one of those institutions is in Palo Alto and the other is in Oakland. While Oakland has been massively gentrified it's still much more affordable to live in compared with Palo Alto.
