A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Ron Unz ColumnsAuthor Archive
Asian Quotas in the Ivy League? "We See Nothing! Nothing!"
shutterstock_98546318

Last week I was invited to speak at the annual conference of the Education Writers Association, with the topic of my panel being the perspective of Asian-Americans on Affirmative Action policies in college admissions. Despite having the only white face among the four presenters, I believe my analysis made a useful contribution.

A couple of months ago, the issue had unexpectedly moved to the fore of the national debate. Democrats in the California State Legislature had unanimously backed SCA-5, a proposed 2014 ballot measure intended to repeal Prop. 209 and thereby restore Affirmative Action, banned in 1996. Since the 1990s, California had effectively become a one-party Democratic state, and many expected the voters would roll back that controversial legacy of the Pete Wilson Era. Every Asian in the Legislature is a Democrat and every Asian had supported the repeal without hesitation.

But once word of the proposal filtered out into the general Asian-American community, massive opposition spontaneously erupted, and within three weeks nearly 120,000 Asians had signed an electronic petition denouncing the proposal. Their intense hostility centered on the restoration of racially-conscious admissions policies for the prestigious state university system, reflecting their widespread belief that this would eventually result in the establishment of “Asian Quotas,” denying Asian students an equal chance for admission to public universities.

When over a hundred thousand individuals unexpectedly join a grassroots protest, politicians pay attention and within a few days every Asian legislator had reversed course and declared opposition to the measure. California Asians are a core Democratic constituency, usually backing that party’s candidates in the 75% range, and the stunned Democratic leadership quickly tabled the suddenly divisive proposal, which threatened to split their electoral base.

During the weeks that have followed, liberal advocates of Affirmative Action policies argued that Asian-American fears of a looming Asian Quota were totally mistaken, the product of dishonest conservative propaganda and misleading coverage in the ethnic media. Indeed, these were exactly the arguments advanced by two of my fellow panelists, OiYan Poon of Loyola University and Robert Teranishi of UCLA. But although my presentation did not focus on the particulars of the recent California controversy, I think I demonstrated the underlying roots of the concern that had so galvanized the Asian community.

In late 2012 I had published The Myth of American Meritocracy, a lengthy critique of the admissions policies of America’s elite academic institutions. One of my central points was the overwhelming statistical evidence for the existence of “Asian Quotas” at Harvard, Yale, and the other elite Ivy League schools.

Over the last twenty years, America’s population of college-age Asians has roughly doubled and Asian academic achievement has reached new heights, but there has been no increase whatsoever in Asian enrollment in those elite universities and indeed substantial declines at Harvard and several other Ivies. Meanwhile, other top colleges such as Caltech that admit students based on a strictly meritocratic and objective standard have seen Asian numbers increase fully in line with the growth of the Asian population. These results were summarized in one of my graphs, soon afterward republished in a contentious New York Times symposium inspired by my findings.

AsianEnrollmentTrends

(The public ethnic and gender enrollment history for Harvard and every other American university is now conveniently available on our website).

Ivy League schools admit their students by a totally opaque and subjective process, only somewhat related to academic performance or other objective factors, and leading American journalists such as Pulitzer-Prize winner Daniel Golden have documented the powerful evidence that this system is laced with favoritism and even outright corruption. In recent years, Asian enrollments at all the Ivies have converged to a very narrow range and remained relatively constant from year to year, a remarkably suspicious result that seems strongly suggestive of an implicit Asian Quota. Indeed, the statistical evidence for a present-day Asian Quota is arguably stronger than that for the notorious Jewish Quota of the Ivies during the 1920s and 1930s, the existence of which was widely denied at the time by university administrators but is now universally accepted.

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, there had been widespread accusations of a similar policy of anti-Asian bias in admissions at the University of California system, but the passage of Prop. 209 outlawed the use of racial factors in admissions, and recent statistics indicate that Asian students are now admitted to leading UC campuses closely in line with their academic performance and without any numerical ceiling on their numbers. Asian parents in California can see with their own two eyes obvious evidence of an Asian Quota at most of America’s top national universities leading to their deep concern that a similar policy might eventually return to the University of California campuses.

Furthermore, Asian elected officials, Asian activists, and most Asian-American advocacy groups have kept silent on the likely existence of Asian Quotas at elite universities, thereby squandering any credibility they might have had during the contentious California debate. My own long article ran over eighteen months ago and despite its original publication in a magazine with a tiny circulation, quickly accumulated over 200,000 pageviews while the analysis was soon widely discussed in the New York Times and numerous other prominent publications. Indeed, Times columnist David Brooks ranked the piece as perhaps the best American magazine article of the year. But not a single Asian officeholder or traditional advocacy group took any notice or made any effort to hold the Ivies accountable on a matter of greatest concern to their own community.

In my writings, I have repeatedly noted that although the Ivies freely release their ethnic admissions and ethnic enrollment statistics, they refuse to release their ethnic application totals, data which is freely provided by the University of California and other universities. I strongly suspect that the reason for such reticence is that admission rates for Asians have plummeted relative to all other groups during the last twenty years, a necessary consequence of a determined effort to sharply restrict Asian numbers even while the Asian population has doubled. Asian elected officials or prominent activists could easily apply enormous pressure on the Ivies to release this simple data, but not a single one has chosen to do so.

Such timidity is far from surprising. Most prominent Asian activists are either affiliated with universities or have close ties with individuals who are. Regularly denouncing the perceived misdeeds of “white supremacists,” rightwingers, or even merely Republicans is an easy position to take given that those groups possess negligible influence within the academic community. But Harvard University and its peers dominate higher education like a colossus, and leveling criticism against such targets is hardly conducive to academic career advancement. Thus Asians found in ethnic studies departments readily seek out the most obscure and insignificant examples of anti-Asian discrimination in throughout the wider world but remain totally silent about the massively visible biases in the most prestigious portions of their own academy.

To date, the stonewalling of the Ivies on this issue has largely succeeded and the entire topic has disappeared from the mainstream media and public discussion, although ordinary Asians remain just as unhappy as ever about the obvious racial discrimination their children face in applying to most elite universities. Unless either the media or prominent political figures begin putting pressure on Harvard and its fellow elite universities to reveal their ethnic admissions rates, I see no likelihood that this situation will change. And ordinary Asian families will become more and more doubtful that their interests are being represented either in government or in the media. Hence the backlash over SCA-5.

Meanwhile, most other elected officials seem to pay as little attention to the details of college admissions matters as do their Asian counterparts. For example, Sen. Ed Hernandez, the SCA-5 sponsor, had claimed that his effort to reestablish Affirmative Action in California university admissions was necessary to stem the ongoing erosion of Hispanic enrollment at those institutions. But just a few weeks later, all of California’s leading newspapers carried headlines declaring that Hispanic enrollment had reached an all-time high in the UC system, surpassing white numbers for the first time. Somehow I suspect that Sen. Hernandez would have a very difficult time gaining admission to an elite California university either with or without Affirmative Action.

[ Clarification: In this column I pointed out that most Asian-American advocacy groups, including all the "traditional" ones, have kept entirely silent on the issue of Asian Quotas in higher education. Although this is correct, I should have emphasized that some newer such groups have actually been very vigorous on this issue, including efforts to force the Ivies to release their applicant data and recently helping to organize the grassroots resistance to SCA-5 in California, with the most prominent of these being the 80-20 Initiative and one of its founding members, Dr. S.B. Woo, former Lt. Gov. of Delaware. Indeed, Dr. Haibo Huang, another leading 80-20 activist, had persuaded EWA to invite me to the panel and gave his presentation just before mine. Another relatively new Asian-American organization quite active on the issue of Affirmative Action is The Asian American Legal Foundation. My criticism was entirely directed toward the older and more traditional Asian advocacy organizations]

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Asian Americans, Meritocracy
The Meritocracy Series
Hide 75 Comments

75 Comments to "Asian Quotas in the Ivy League? "We See Nothing! Nothing!""

  1. Anonymous says:

    Quercus, I think the real problems with the passage that you raise [supra] with the divine Miss B. are (a) that the poll that she mentions might be culling merely religious Jews (she fails to state, above, the precise question by which the Harvard poll identified Jews qua Jews), and (b) she implies (to me) that the students polled merely were asked what their own SAT scores were, and their answers then were recorded as gospel!?! If I have learned anything in my overly-long life, whether as a social scientist, a lawyer, or simply a member of society at large, it is that humans often lie– a lot! That goes exponential when (a) their lies make them appear to be better than they really are; (b) there is little chance of their lies being discovered; and, (c) the downside of their being discovered (i.e., the potential punishments) is easily acceptable, vis-a-vis the risks and rewards involved. I would assume that a 56-point difference easily would be a statistically significant one between any two such groups, whether or not it was a practically significant difference (which I also would assume that it would be, by the way), since we are talking about people chosen for their high scores, not randomly distributed across the 600-2400 point scale. If you have large enough samples– e.g., if you test literally everyone in the relevant populations– then any differences found would be statistically significant, irrespective of their practical significance, regardless of how large or small those discovered differences were! It also should go without saying, but (a) Harvard is merely one of eight Ivy League institutions, regardless, and (b) the Harvard Crimson is not a notable publication choice for high-quality social-science research findings (or, at least, it was not one that we aimed for, back when I was a budding social psychologist myself, thirty-some years ago).

  2. NB says:Website

    quercus, as I recall, The Crimson did not report a breakdown by SAT section. Nothing I have said implies that Jews are a “race,” as I have made it quite clear that Jews are a subset of white people. For example, I stated in my rebuttal of Unz’s “Myth of Meritocracy” piece:
    “the Class of 2017 survey conducted by The Harvard Crimson…found that both Jewish and Asian freshmen reported significantly higher mean SAT scores (2289 and 2299, respectively) than the average reported SAT score for white respondents (2233), implying that the mean SAT score of non-Jewish white Harvard freshmen is lower than 2233.”

    The Harvard Crimson’s poll results were based on asking students’ religious affiliation. I don’t recall whether the SAT currently asks students to identify their religious affiliation, but it has in the past:
    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB102003890421804360

    While it is certainly true students could’ve lied while answering the Crimson survey, there is no reason to suppose one ethnic/racial/religious group lied at a greater rate than any other. And as I said earlier, the Crimson survey results are data that are consistent with my argument; they are not the basis of my argument.

  3. D. K. says:

    N.B. [nota bene-- not Nurit Baytch!]: The previous comment by “Anonymous” was (quite obviously, I would think) posted by me (“D. K.”); I did not notice, before posting it, that my moniker and e-mail address were no longer being automatically included, as they previously had been, after my initial comment appeared here, at Unz.com. Mea culpa!

    I, for one, have every reason to believe that some demographic groups lie more frequently, and more flagrantly, than some others, Ms. Baytch. Our prisons are overflowing with residents, both temporary and permanent; and, those millions of residents are not similarly distributed, for their various crimes, across any number of demographic categories– sexual, racial, ethnic, religious, and otherwise. My own personal experience, over the course of several decades, makes those differences unsurprising to me, even if they are veritably incomprehensible to members of the West’s regnant p.c.-addled tabula rasa cult.

    As for your Harvard Crimson study, you not only admit, most recently, that the study was referring to one’s professed religious beliefs, rather than to one’s ethnicity, making those self-identified Jews a subset of all of the ethnic Jews in Harvard’s freshman class– and likely an unrepresentative subset, at that– but you fail to take your own assumptions far enough: If you assume that all Jews belong to the White race (which, obviously, most do– but many, obviously, do not!), and therefore wish to disaggregate them from the White category– lowering its mean SAT score, for just White gentiles, beyond the mere 56-point gap– it seems to me that you also should wish to disaggregate from that category any others who are officially considered members of the White racial category– or, at least, who choose to claim that they are– but who also are reasonably thought of us discernible victims of the White majority. Needless to say, the primary group that I have in mind are Hispanics– the vast majority of whom, here in the United States, choose White as their race, while also proudly claiming Hispanic as their ethnicity! Try disaggregating those Hispanics’ SAT scores from the rest of the White gentiles’, and then get back to us….

  4. Wilkey says:

    My problem with this notion that Asians are being discriminated against by Ivy League schools: when you look around at society’s great movers and shakers, you just don’t see that many Asians. Asians are about 5-6% of the US population, but, except perhaps in science (where many are immigrants who didn’t attend US schools as undergrads), they just aren’t all that overrepresented to a degree that suggests they should be 30-40-50% of the Ivy League. They aren’t overrepresented in politics, in business, in the arts, or pretty much anywhere else. Jews, meanwhile, are heavily overrepresented in all of those fields.

    So the fact that Asians have bumped into some sort of Ivy League enrollment ceiling may simply suggest that these schools have started distinguishing the grinds from those with real promise.

  5. D. K. says:

    P.S. My closing suggestion, re: Hispanics’ SAT scores, was more-or-less rhetorical in nature, Ms. Baytch– because I would assume (a) that most Hispanics in Harvard’s freshman class, last year, were Affirmative Action beneficiaries, with markedly below-average SAT scores, and (b) that, as such, they would be far more likely than other White gentiles to feel impelled to lie about their own scores!?!

  6. quercus says:

    @NB

    “I have made it quite clear that Jews are a subset of white people ……….”

    Isn’t that usually called “ethnicity”?

  7. NB says:Website

    D.K., the Crimson survey disaggregated whites and Latinos, so your claim that Latinos are somehow depressing the mean SAT score of white students is dubious. However, I must say, I’m amused that you describe the gap between the mean SAT score reported by students who identified as Jewish and the average SAT score of white respondents as a “mere 56-point gap” but then go on to say that most Hispanics at Harvard would have “markedly below-average SAT scores.” The gap between the mean reported score of Latino respondents and that of white respondents was 66 points, so…

    In any case, my only interest was in demonstrating that Unz’s theory that Harvard discriminates against non-Jewish whites in favor of Jews is not plausible, so I’m not interested in debating the magnitude of the gap between the SAT scores of Jewish students and white Gentile students. And as I’ve said multiple times, the Crimson’s SAT score data isn’t even my actual argument – it’s just data that’s consistent with my argument.

    While it’s true that not all Jews are white, the % of American Jews who are nonwhite is tiny and of little relevance to my argument. (If there were a lot of nonwhite Jews at Harvard, then shouldn’t you be arguing that the mean SAT score of Jews would be depressed by those “affirmative action beneficiaries”?)

    quercus, I’ve never denied [Ashkenazi] Jews are an ethnicity [that is a subset of the white race].

  8. D. K. says:

    Ms. Baytch, the fact that the Harvard Crimson survey discusses Hispanics separately does not mean that their SAT scores are not still aggregated within those for all Whites, since most Hispanics in the United States, per the Census Bureau, claim to be Whites, as well as of Hispanic ethnicity. (I would expect Harvard’s Hispanic students to be markedly whiter than Hispanic Americans at large, just as I would expect its Blacks to be either lighter-skinned or else from among the elites of Africa itself.) As you have not yet provided any actual link, above, to those survey results, I cannot know, for a fact, whether the Harvard Crimson made the disaggregation that you are asserting. It obviously did not make such a disaggregation of the SAT scores of (religious) Jews, despite its explicitly discussing them as a discernible category– which is precisely what caused you to assert that the gap between Jews [sic] and White gentiles is actually even larger than the stated 56-point gap (which, in turn, is precisely why I, with intentional irony, used the very phrase– “mere 56-point gap”– that so amuses you!). Let me be explicit, for your benefit: Not all people(s) value the truth in equal proportions. That, inter alia, is why I take your asserted SAT gaps– of 56 and 66 points, respectively– with copious amounts of sodium chloride.

    As for those Jews who are either non-White (e.g., actor Yaphet Kotto) or not-only-White (e.g., Mayor Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles), I would assume that they are relatively few and far between, among Harvard’s recent freshman class, much as they are among the Jewish-American population at large, let alone the overall American population at large. My point in mentioning the fact that it was obvious that not all Jews are White (or merely White) was not to call into question the adduced SAT average of Harvard’s (religiously) self-identified Jewish freshman, this past academic year, but rather to highlight explicitly the inherent ambiguity of just whom one is talking about, statistically or otherwise, when talking about “the Jews” or “American Jews” or “Jewish Americans”– which can become something of an argumentative shell game, as, indeed, it has above, with your asserting that a group of religiously self-identified Jews should be treated as if they were essentially the same thing as “Jews” per se; or, at the very least, as if they were nonetheless reasonably representative of all of the Jews in Harvard’s recent freshman class, irrespective of religious beliefs (if any), in terms of academic potential, as measured by the SAT– which, as noted above, I, for one, would find a highly unlikely happenstance.

  9. NB says:Website

    I provided a link to the Crimson survey in my rebuttal, which I had mistakenly assumed you had actually read. The mean SAT score of Latino Harvard respondents was 2167; for whites, it was 2233:
    http://features.thecrimson.com/2013/frosh-survey/admissions.html#sat-ethnicity-tab

    Most Jewish millenials identify as religiously Jewish, and I doubt the minority of Jewish students who are agnostic/atheist would depress the mean SAT score of Jews:
    https://sites.google.com/site/nuritbaytch/#_edn12

    In fact, in the Nyborg study Unz cited in his “meritocracy” piece, atheists and agnostics had higher mean IQs than all religious groups except Episcopalians/Anglicans and Jews, implying that atheist/agnostic Gentiles have higher IQs on average than religious Gentiles. So if you’re trying to argue that agnostic/atheist Jews would depress the mean SAT score of ethnic Jews, then you’d have to present some evidence to support your claim.

    And, for the zillionth time, the Crimson’s survey data is NOT the argument I used to debunk Unz’s “statistical analysis,” so if you’re trying to claim that Unz is actually correct – that Harvard discriminates against white Gentiles in favor of Jews – you’re going to have to try harder.

  10. Anonymous says:

    “I provided a link to the Crimson survey in my rebuttal, which I had mistakenly assumed you had actually read.”

    Why in the world would you have assumed such a thing, Ms. Baytch? Nowhere above have I stated as much, nor implied it. If I had read it, do you not suppose that I would have critiqued it, by now, or, at the very least, alluded to it, at some point during my many responses to you? I neither have read your rebuttal nor reread Mr. Unz’ original article. I feel no compelling need to do so, however– because, as I stated in my very first reply to you, a full thirty days ago:

    “Even if Mr. Unz’ conclusions about Jewish over-representation were wrong, non-Hispanic White gentiles still are clearly discriminated against in admissions at the Ivy League schools, based on the other data supplied in Mr. Unz’ article. The entire point of Affirmative Action– and all other such unconstitutional preferences– is to take away opportunities from non-Hispanic White gentiles, especially us males, and give those opportunities to lesser-qualified others, including females, based upon those others’ otherness!”

    If you would like for me to reread Mr. Unz’ article, followed by your own rebuttal, and then provide everyone, here, with a critique of their competing arguments, feel free to ask nicely (if that is even possible…); and then, perhaps, your request might be granted. (Unlike some people, I am not paid by some foreign-and-hostile government to spend my time posting comments here and elsewhere.)

    As for the Harvard Crimson study– which you have told us all a zillion times “is NOT the argument” that you used to “debunk” Mr. Unz’ claims (but which you keep flogging here, nonetheless)– now that you have provided us all with the link to its on-line results, I will be only-too-happy to respond.

    Its Preamble: “Scroll through the graphs and charts on the following data pages for a visual representation of the Class of 2017. The data was [sic] collected in an email survey conducted by The Crimson during the month of August. Nearly 80 percent of the class responded, though not all of them finished the survey. The Crimson did not adjust the data for any possible self-selection bias.”

    As I suspected, there was a built-in selection bias, combined with its taking the respondents at their own respective word for their SAT scores (inter alia).

    As for the class’ ethnic make-up (with ethnic Jews not identified as such, at all):

    “White students make up the largest portion of the Class of 2017—62 percent of respondents identified as such. Twenty-nine percent of respondents identified as Asian or Indian, the second-greatest subset of the population. The College reported last spring that the admitted Class of 2017 is 19.9 percent Asian-American, 11.5 percent African-American, 11.5 percent Latino, 2.2 percent Native American, and 0.5 percent Native Hawaiian, with foreign students making up 10.3 percent of admitted students.” [The accompanying interactive graph has the Crimson's own ethnic breakdown of the class, in full, to one decimal place.]

    Here the Crimson mixes its own results with the official statistics from the College itself. Its own results have 91% of the entire class being either White (61.7%) or Asian / Indian (25.2% / 4.1%)– leaving only a possible 9% for Blacks, Hispanics, et al.! Since the College’s own results show fully 25.7% being in the latter categories, without even including the foreign students, the two data sets do not match up– even if one assumes, as one virtually must, that Hispanics have been included in the Crimson’s White category, unless they are both Hispanic and of some other race than White. When one looks at the interactive graph for ethnicity, the stated percentages sum to 114%! Even subtracting out the entire “Hispanic or Latino” category, at 10.8%, one still has an extra 3.2%. This is apparently because of those checking more than one racial / ethnic category– but, anyone doing so, obviously, is counted as an ethnic minority, not as a non-Hispanic White!

    If the White category, at 61.7%, contains both Hispanics / Latinos (10.8%) and (those self-identified religious) Jews (9.5%), then one is down to 41.4% for non-Hispanic Whites– but only because ethnic Jews who do not claim Judaism as their religion (if any) have yet to be subtracted out from that already heavily depleted figure! (We are not told what the ethnic make-up of the foreign students is, according to the College, nor whether they are included in the Crimson’s own figures and interactive graph for the ethnic breakdown of the class, undifferentiated from American residents!?!) So, what portion of that 41.4% needs to be subtracted out because they consider themselves to be ethnically Jewish, in whole or in part, but not at all religiously Jewish?

    “Most Jewish millenials identify as religiously Jewish….” Fine, Ms. Baytch! Would that be 99% or 51%? What about those from mixed marriages who subscribe to another faith, but who consider themselves to be ethnically Jewish, at the same time? In this day and age, such children are not at all rare. I can name any number of famous people who have been raised in a wide variety of different faiths, but who are nonetheless proud to consider themselves Jewish. I find it very hard to believe that ethnic Jews who subscribe to Judaism, of whatever branch, constitute the vast majority of young Jewish Americans, these days. (My own brother-in-law, who is a Harvard alumnus, is a Jewish atheist.)

    Although I did not read your exegesis on Mr. Unz’ hypothesis, I did read Dr. Gelman’s update (cited in your original comment, above), at his own Web site, and then perused the comments. The prolific Steve Sailer said it best, I think: There are plenty of people at Harvard University who are quite capable of doing a simple survey to find out just how Jewish Harvard’s student body actually is– by, for instance, asking a random sample of sufficient size how many of their respective four grandparents were ethnically Jewish, irrespective of their religious beliefs (if any). Apparently, no one at Harvard University, nor in the organized Jewish community, finds that question quite as interesting as Steve Sailer and some others of us would.

    “So if you’re trying to argue that agnostic/atheist Jews would depress the mean SAT score of ethnic Jews, then you’d have to present some evidence to support your claim.”

    No, Ms. Baytch, for at least the third time, now: I am saying that I, as a trained social scientist and a former longtime attorney, would expect different demographical groups to lie to researchers, for the purpose of self-aggrandizement, at markedly different rates!

  11. D. K. says:

    N.B. [nota bene]: That midnight ramble, above, was (obviously) mine. Once again, I hit the “Publish Comment” button before noticing that I had not typed in my moniker and e-mail address. Mea culpa!!

    P.S. (While I am at it,) I should have made explicit, above, that the virtually necessary assumption that almost all of those (self-selected and self-identified) Hispanics / Latinos who answered the Harvard Crimson’s (social-scientifically dubious, to say the least) freshman-class survey checked themselves off as both “Hispanic or Latino” and “White” (accounting for the bulk of the extra 14% above 100%, for the class as a whole, in the ethnic breakdown) means that, as I also had explicitly suspected, the purportedly median SAT score for all Whites actually contains the scores for most, if not indeed all, Hispanics / Latinos– meaning that the purported gap of 66 points between non-Hispanic Whites and Hispanics / Latinos would actually be markedly larger still!

  12. D. K. says:

    P.P.S. Likewise, of course, disaggregating the scores of Hispanics / Latinos from those of other Whites, in the Harvard Crimson’s (social-scientifically dubious, to say the least) freshman-class survey, would markedly lessen the alleged gap between non-Hispanic Whites and (religiously self-identified) Jews to well below 56 points!

  13. NB says:Website

    D. K., a few things:
    1. No foreign governments (or any Israel Lobby groups) pay me.

    2. I haven’t kept flogging the Crimson survey; most of the critiques of my rebuttal here have focused on the Crimson survey rather than my statistical analysis, so I’ve been responding to those comments.

    3. The conclusions you draw from the fact that the enrollment %ages add up to 114% (a fact which I discussed in my rebuttal) are unsupported. In fact, students who are half-white/half-Asian often identify as white rather than Asian or biracial on their college applications:
    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2011-12-03/asian-students-college-applications/51620236/1
    You also seem to assume that all Latinos identified as both white and Latino, which is a dubious assumption.

    4. I provided a link to support my claim that most Jewish millenials identify as religiously Jewish, but rather than look at it, you decided to write a rant about your personal opinions on the matter when I provided an actual survey of American Jews to support my assertion. “religious disaffiliation is as common among all U.S. adults ages 18-29 as among Jewish Millennials (32% of each)”
    http://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/jewish-american-beliefs-attitudes-culture-survey/

  14. D. K. says:

    “1. No foreign governments (or any Israel Lobby groups) pay me.”

    I did not accuse you of being a paid lackey of the Israel Lobby, nor of any foreign government(s), Ms. Baytch. I am perfectly content to assume– as, indeed, I had, prior to your most-recent reply– that you are simply a run-of-the-mill Jewish Supremacist, and a typically rabid Zionist zealot! I merely stated (and parenthetically so, at that) that “[u]nlike some people, I am not paid by some foreign-and-hostile government to spend my time posting comments here and elsewhere”– which was and is absolutely true. It was intended as an explanation that my own time here is unremunerative to me, and to imply that my patience for debating ideological, let alone theological, drones is, therefore, not unlimited. (If you should wish to dispute my implied claim that there actually are those who are paid by foreign-and-hostile governments to comment on sites such as this, as well as on the more-conventional, and much-more-well-traveled, mass-media Web sites, I would be only-too-happy to accept your challenge….)

    “2. I haven’t kept flogging the Crimson survey; most of the critiques of my rebuttal here have focused on the Crimson survey rather than my statistical analysis, so I’ve been responding to those comments.”

    Ms. Baytch, with all due respect, in reviewing the tape from these past thirty-three and a half days, since your first comment here (second only to my own initial comment), only a single individual– one ‘DWBudd’– even has attempted to critique your self-styled rebuttal; and, as far as I can know, or may otherwise assume, ‘DWBudd’ is the sole person here who has had either the surfeit of available time, the inscrutable inclination, or the necessary intestinal fortitude to slog through your endlessly self-promoted exegesis of Mr. Unz’ 2012 article, “The Myth of American Meritocracy”! This current comment string was intended to be about Mr. Unz’ recent post, above, not about your self-satisfied rebuttal of that earlier article. Those of us who have attacked your interpretation of the Harvard Crimson survey as supporting your supposed rebuttal, as I myself have done here at length, have done so because you perpetually try to resuscitate that survey as support for your argument. The survey is social-scientific garbage, Ms. Baytch! If you are either unable to understand and appreciate that simple and rationally undeniable fact, or else are constitutionally incapable of admitting your own imprudence in citing as a source of confirmation for your own beliefs (e.g., that a mere 9.5% of Harvard’s freshman class, last year, was discernibly Jewish, because that was the percentage of self-selected respondents to the Harvard Crimson survey who confessed to a personal belief in Judaism as their religious faith) such a social-scientifically worthless piece of amateur journalism, than you yourself are quickly approaching worthlessness as a debating foe, even within the relatively debased context of a mere on-line comment string, such as this!

    “3. The conclusions you draw from the fact that the enrollment %ages add up to 114% (a fact which I discussed in my rebuttal) are unsupported. In fact, students who are half-white/half-Asian often identify as white rather than Asian or biracial on their college applications… You also seem to assume that all Latinos identified as both white and Latino, which is a dubious assumption.”

    Ms. Baytch, the notion that any student who is half-White and half-Asian is intentionally going to identify him- or herself on his or her college applications as “White” alone, rather than as “Biracial,” is so utterly preposterous, it takes one’s breath away! Any applicant who claims to be “White”– and only “White”– goes to the back of the line, demographically speaking; any applicant who claims to be “Biracial,” on the other hand, is administratively categorized as an underrepresented minority, and thereby goes to the front of the line, demographically speaking, courtesy of Affirmative Action (not to mention, political correctness). Regardless, the number of such applicants is relatively small, and the numbers who actually would mark “White” rather than “Asian” (or “White” and “Asian”), even assuming that a simpler choice of “Biracial” or “Multiracial” were absent on the application, has to be tiny, compared to the number of Hispanic applicants, let alone to the entire pool of applicants.

    From Wikipedia: “According to the 2007 American Community Survey, 92% of Hispanic and Latinos were White.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans#Race]

    In the 2010 United States Census– which frankly confused many American residents, Hispanic and otherwise, by its mix of (supposedly) racial categories (e.g., “Asians”– a laughable geographical proxy for race, let alone for any distinct ethnicities!) and the separate ethnicity question (“Is this person of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?”)– here is the breakdown of Hispanics by (supposed) race(s) [with the Census' category titles simplified by me, and their relative percentages also added]:

    Total: 50,477,594 [100.00%]

    White (only): 26,735,713 [52.97%]

    Black (only): 1,243,471 [2.46%]

    Native (only): 685,150 [1.36%]

    Asian (only): 209,128 [0.41%]

    Pacific (only): 58,437 [0.12%]

    Some other race (only): 18,503,103 [36.66%]

    Multiracial: 3,042,592 [6.03%]

    As the 2010 Census Brief on “The Hispanic Population: 2010″ itself explains:

    ***

    For the 2010 Census, a new instruction was added immediately preceding the questions on Hispanic origin and race, which was not used in Census 2000. The instruction stated that “For this census, Hispanic origins are not races” because in the federal statistical system, Hispanic origin is considered to be a separate concept from race. However, this did not preclude individuals from self-identifying their race as “Latino,” “Mexican,” “Puerto Rican,” “Salvadoran,” or other national origins or ethnicities; in fact, many did so. If the response provided to the race question could not be classified in one or more of the five OMB race groups, it was generally classified in the category Some Other Race. Therefore, responses to the question on race that reflect a Hispanic origin were classified in the Some Other Race category.

    ***

    [http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf]

    In other words, Ms. Baytch, Hispanics in America, especially those who are immigrants (of whatever status), and likely many of their first-generation American offspring (e.g., “anchor babies”), view themselves ethnically based upon their respective country of origin or descent, rather than by any discrete, or more generally recognized, racial group, or even by a genetically based ethnicity (e.g., Amerindian tribal groupings from within their native Latin American countries). These, in turn, have been re-categorized by the Census Bureau as “Some Other Race”– when, obviously, most of these same people must have told the 2007 American Community Survey, if and when they were polled, that they considered themselves to be of the White race (from among the generally recognized choices presented to them by the Survey)! Furthermore, as I have stated above, I am quite sanguine that White Hispanics are grossly disproportional, in terms of plausible Ivy League applications, compared to Mestizo Hispanics, let alone to pure Amerindian Hispanics. If you have any credible statistics to the contrary, in that regard, feel free to cite your statistics and their source(s) here, the next time that you deign to favor us with one of your definitive portraits of contemporary reality in your old stomping grounds.

    “4. I provided a link to support my claim that most Jewish millenials identify as religiously Jewish, but rather than look at it, you decided to write a rant about your personal opinions on the matter when I provided an actual survey of American Jews to support my assertion. ‘religious disaffiliation is as common among all U.S. adults ages 18-29 as among Jewish Millennials (32% of each)’ [sic]”

    You, again, are assuming, Ms. Baytch, that there is no such thing as an American (inter alia) who considers him- or herself to be Jewish, but who professes a religious faith other than Judaism! There are lots of such people, these days– most, but certainly not all, of whom are the products of mixed marriages, and were raised as Christians, or in some other religion, rather than in any branch of Judaism, but who consider themselves to be ethnically or culturally Jewish, nonetheless. The very source that you yourself cite for your contention that Jewish Millennials are roughly one-third unaffiliated religiously and two-thirds Jewish religiously has a significant discussion about mixed marriages and secular Jews, and about how many of the children are being raised as religious Jews– i.e., not many! The number of such children– religiously unaffiliated or religiously affiliated-but-not-with-Judaism– continues to mushroom. Furthermore, if you are contending that there are no appreciable differences between secular Jews and devoutly religious Jews, like the Hasidim, in terms of their respective intellectual capacities and educational attainments and aspirations, especially at the elite levels generally required for Ivy League admissions, then I think that you, like ‘Dave’ above, need an intervention!?!

    You might not consider the like of Harvard alumnus Dr. Daniel Ellsberg– whose Ashkenazi-Jewish parents had converted to Christian Science, and raised young Daniel and his sister in that faith– to be a Jewish American; however, I most certainly do. I could go on here for a long time citing famous people who are similarly Jewish, but neither religious Jewish nor outright religious unbelievers, as you seem to think any real ethnic Jew must be.

  15. NB says:Website

    D.K., lots of words, very little content as usual. And as usual, you didn’t even look at the sources I provided. You exclaim, “the notion that any student who is half-White and half-Asian is intentionally going to identify him- or herself on his or her college applications as “White” alone, rather than as “Biracial,” is so utterly preposterous, it takes one’s breath away!”
    And yet I provided evidence of exactly such a phenomenon in my previous comment. That you thought it “utterly preposterous” speaks volumes about your understanding of the matter at hand.

  16. D. K. says:

    ERRATUM: My closing (obviously) should read “. . . but neither religious Jews nor outright religious unbelievers, as you seem to think any real ethnic Jew must be.” Mea culpa!

  17. David says:

    I went to NYU in the early 90′s. My Asian fellow students were staggeringly bland and non-committal. If one imagines a college education to include intellectual debates with fellow students, he should avoid schools with high Asian enrollment, as they are green wood on that fire, burning only with others’ heat.

    I hired actuaries for a reinsurance pricing unit for ten years. Asian actuaries are like really well programed user interfaces. If you are lucky to run a transaction based business, great, just press run. If you have to structure each deal, and research the risk in a novel way, prepare to watch some seriously consternated inaction.

  18. Cahokia says:

    “I went to NYU in the early 90′s. My Asian fellow students were staggeringly bland and non-committal.”

    Comments such as the above are beside the point.

    Whatever the character of Asian intelligence, the point that Unz has repeatedly made still holds – even as the number of Asian Americans has burgeoned, the percentage of Asian American students at elite American universities has remained capped, under what is transparently a quota.

    Even if every Asian high-achiever was, let’s say, 3/5ths the human that a Caucasian gentile or Jewish high achiever, we would expect their number to swell in pace with their share of the population.

    That this is not happening confirms Unz’s point and, as I said, makes comments such as the above irrelevant. I should add, parenthetically, that similarly sweeping judgments were made of Jewish intellectual caliber to justify academic quotas of yesteryear.

  19. D. K. says:

    “D.K., lots of words, very little content as usual.”

    I am fully content to let the gallery decide for itself which of us two has provided the more valid and reliable social-scientific data, and the more cogent and convincing arguments about them, over these past five weeks, Ms. Baytch.

    “And as usual, you didn’t even look at the sources I provided.”

    Did I not, Ms. Baytch? How, then, did you explain to yourself the following curious comment by me?

    “The very source that you yourself cite for your contention that Jewish Millennials are roughly one-third unaffiliated religiously and two-thirds Jewish religiously has a significant discussion about mixed marriages and secular Jews, and about how many of the children are being raised as religious Jews– i.e., not many! The number of such children– religiously unaffiliated or religiously affiliated-but-not-with-Judaism– continues to mushroom.”

    If it requires an actual verbatim quotation to alert you to the fact that your own source is being used in argument against you, Ms. Baytch, try this ample sample on for size:

    ***

    “More than 90% of Jews by religion who are currently raising minor children in their home say they are raising those children Jewish or partially Jewish. In stark contrast, the survey finds that two-thirds of Jews of no religion say they are not raising their children Jewish or partially Jewish – either by religion or aside from religion.

    “Intermarriage is a related phenomenon. It is much more common among secular Jews in the survey than among Jews by religion: 79% of married Jews of no religion have a spouse who is not Jewish, compared with 36% among Jews by religion. And intermarried Jews, like Jews of no religion, are much less likely to be raising their children in the Jewish faith. Nearly all Jews who have a Jewish spouse say they are raising their children as Jewish by religion (96%). Among Jews with a non-Jewish spouse, however, 20% say they are raising their children Jewish by religion, and 25% are raising their children partly Jewish by religion. Roughly one-third (37%) of intermarried Jews who are raising children say they are not raising those children Jewish at all.

    “Moreover, intermarriage rates seem to have risen substantially over the last five decades. Among Jewish respondents who have gotten married since 2000, nearly six-in-ten have a non-Jewish spouse. Among those who got married in the 1980s, roughly four-in-ten have a non-Jewish spouse. And among Jews who got married before 1970, just 17% have a non-Jewish spouse. [footnote omitted]

    “It is not clear whether being intermarried tends to make U.S. Jews less religious, or being less religious tends to make U.S. Jews more inclined to intermarry, or some of both. Whatever the causal connection, the survey finds a strong association between secular Jews and religious intermarriage. In some ways, the association seems to be circular or reinforcing, especially when child rearing is added into the picture. Married Jews of no religion are much more likely than married Jews by religion to have non-Jewish spouses. Jews who have non-Jewish spouses are much less likely than those married to fellow Jews to be raising children as Jewish by religion and much more likely to be raising children as partially Jewish, Jewish but not by religion, or not Jewish at all. Furthermore, Jews who are the offspring of intermarriages appear, themselves, to be more likely to intermarry than Jews with two Jewish parents.

    “The survey also shows that Reform Judaism continues to be the largest Jewish denominational movement in the United States. One-third (35%) of all U.S. Jews identify with the Reform movement, while 18% identify with Conservative Judaism, 10% with Orthodox Judaism and 6% with a variety of smaller groups, such as the Reconstructionist and Jewish Renewal movements. About three-in-ten American Jews (including 19% of Jews by religion and two-thirds of Jews of no religion) say they do not identify with any particular Jewish denomination.”

    ***

    In my earlier reply, on Monday afternoon, I then went on to say (perhaps uncharitably):

    “Furthermore, if you are contending that there are no appreciable differences between secular Jews and devoutly religious Jews, like the Hasidim, in terms of their respective intellectual capacities and educational attainments and aspirations, especially at the elite levels generally required for Ivy League admissions, then I think that you, like ‘Dave’ above, need an intervention!?!”

    I would be happy to go marshal some appropriate on-line sources to substantiate my observation, as to its intellectual-and-academic repercussions for the Jewish-American community, in the years and generations to come; but, here is what your own chosen source had to say, last year, about the future demographic implications of current trends:

    ***

    “Though Orthodox Jews constitute the smallest of the three major denominational movements, they are much younger, on average, and tend to have much larger families than the overall Jewish population. This suggests that their share of the Jewish population will grow. In the past, high fertility in the U.S. Orthodox community has been at least partially offset by a low retention rate: Roughly half of the survey respondents who were raised as Orthodox Jews say they are no longer Orthodox. But the falloff from Orthodoxy appears to be declining and is significantly lower among 18-to-29-year-olds (17%) than among older people.

    “Within all three denominational movements, most of the switching is in the direction of less-traditional Judaism. The survey finds that approximately one-quarter of people who were raised Orthodox have since become Conservative or Reform Jews, while 30% of those raised Conservative have become Reform Jews, and 28% of those raised Reform have left the ranks of Jews by religion entirely. Much less switching is reported in the opposite direction. For example, just 7% of Jews raised in the Reform movement have become Conservative or Orthodox, and just 4% of those raised in Conservative Judaism have become Orthodox.”

    ***

    While I thank you, of course, Ms. Baytch, for going to the trouble of providing me with that source, it does happen to be one that I read, last autumn, after it was newly released. I try to keep abreast of such things, for both intellectual and personal reasons. As to the latter, it gives me ideas and facts with which to impress my sister’s mother-in-law, when the four of us have holiday meals together.

    “You exclaim, ‘the notion that any student who is half-White and half-Asian is intentionally going to identify him- or herself on his or her college applications as “White” alone, rather than as “Biracial,” is so utterly preposterous, it takes one’s breath away!’ And yet I provided evidence of exactly such a phenomenon in my previous comment. That you thought it ‘utterly preposterous’ speaks volumes about your understanding of the matter at hand.”

    What your own closing perhaps bespeaks, at its highest volume, Ms. Baytch, is how little reading comprehension counts for in the vaunted halls of Harvard University– reading comprehension in English, I mean! I was stating that no intelligent applicant, in contemporary America, including an Amerasian operating under the popular delusion that non-Hispanic White gentiles are favored by Ivy League admissions officers over either so-called Asians or biracial Amerasians, is going to play the “White” card on an application when he or she has a plausible opportunity to play the “Biracial” or “Multiracial” card, instead– hiding from the admissions office, altogether, what his or her two or more constituent races actually are! This you apparently misread to assume that I was saying that no such Amerasian applicant would list him- or herself on an application as simply “White” rather than as either simply “Asian” or as both “White” and “Asian”– i.e., when no “Biracial” or “Multiracial” box is actually available to hide the specific racial components of that applicant’s background.

    Contrary to your assumption, yet again, Ms. Baytch, I did, in fact, look at your source on this issue. The proximate source was “USA Today”– a national newspaper from Gannett that is best known, no doubt, for being given away for free, by the millions, each day, primarily by hotels and airlines. The ultimate source, however, was the Associated Press– the leading American news cooperative, which is now somewhat to the left of “The New York Times” (one of its many cooperative owners) in its leanings. The purpose of the story, in keeping with AP’s undisguised leanings, was to show that even the successful Asian minority– the so-called “model minority” in America– is a victim of bottomless White (i.e., non-Hispanic White gentile) bigotry and discrimination, such that some Amerasians are, in desperation, availing themselves of their respective lesser halves to claim the offsetting benefit of the all-powerful “White Privilege” card.

    You claim that “students who are half-white/half-Asian often identify as white rather than Asian or biracial on their college applications”– citing the AP story in “USA Today” as your evidence. That story– rather longish, by contemporary newspaper standards– cites a total of six such Amerasian students– all of them, oddly, female!?! (Perhaps the unnamed reporter was a female who was wary of the well-known rape epidemic on American college campuses, especially at the Ivy League schools; and, perhaps she waived her much-deserved byline out of her credible fear of death threats from the well-known white-supremacist gangs that control most such college campuses, these days!?!) Here is the story’s sixth paragraph, in its entirety, setting up the interviews with students and experts:

    “Now, an unknown number of students are responding to this concern by declining to identify themselves as Asian on their applications.”

    How much more proof does someone like yours truly need before agreeing with you that it actually is all of those half-White Amerasians– comprising all of 0.5% of the resident population of the United States, according to the 2010 Census [http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-11.pdf]– who were (however understandably, in the face of such virulent White bigotry, discrimination and hatred (when not otherwise interbreeding with non-Whites) confounding the otherwise pristine social-scientific database of the Harvard Crimson’s own freshman survey, last year, rather than the Hispanics in the Class of 2017, whose elders otherwise told the American Community Survey, in 2007, that they almost all are of the White race? Surely the fact that the AP interview subjects themselves noted that their Asian halves generally were otherwise given away within their own applications– a Yale junior with an obviously Chinese surname chose to write her application essay on Asian-American identity!– and the fact that the story itself closes by noting that fully one-tenth of Yale’s freshman, that year, had won admission without marking any racial or ethnic box on their applications, at all, should not dissuade any truly open-minded reader, here, from accepting your own opinion that half-White Amerasians “often” get into Ivy League schools only by posing as all-White; because, as everyone knows, in America, “All-White is alright!”

    And so, we have come full circle: “D.K., lots of words, very little content as usual.”

    In the immortal words of the Bee Gees, however:

    ***

    You think that I don’t even mean
    A single word I say
    It’s only words and words are all I have
    To take your heart away

    ***

    [http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/b/bee_gees/its_only_words.html]

  20. David says:

    I don’t see how eroding any animated intellectual environment is irrelevant to higher education. Might as well enroll hard drives and tape recorders. I would love to be a fly on the wall as a room of Korean and Chinese Americans discuss Madame Bovary. Prepare for some riveting insights! Patronize you later…

  21. “the notorious Jewish Quota of the Ivies during the 1920s and 1930s, the existence of which was widely denied at the time by university administrators but is now universally accepted.”

    No, not universally accepted. What’s been *demonstrated* is that there was ‘disparate impact’ of certain admissions policies (in particular the emphasis on “the whole boy” and especially on athletic accomplishments) which redounded to the detriment of Jewish applicants. The motives for these and other ‘preferences’ are open to question, and I don’t doubt that some administrators wanted to prevent a flood of ‘grinds’ (bookish, nerdy, calculating types) from swamping their schools. Yes, I read Karabel cover-to-cover, among many others.

    What’s worth noting is that this same ‘prejudice’ could readily apply to the current stereotype of the successful Asian student. Their partisans (as well as those of Jews of the previous era) claim “meritocracy” can only be measured numerically.

  22. Cahokia says:

    As can be judged from the comments above, the Asian quota is a very ingenious racket from the perspective of Jewish elites, for the following reasons:

    1. Asian Americans are too politically passive and culturally fragmented to engage in a struggle against the quota.

    2. Should the quota even be raised by Asian Americans and others, white Americans will be apt to see it as a case of just desserts. After decades of affirmative action worked against white interests, a systematic policy against Asians inspires shrugs among conservatives and liberals alike.

    3. Finally, the Asian quota serves to distract attention from the white gentile quota. The vast majority of the media coverage of Unz’s original article on The Myth of American Meritocracy has focused solely upon the question of an Asian quota.

  23. Anon says:

    @Wilkey

    Asians in this country do quite well, but they are not overrepresented in the high echelons of business, politics, and culture to a degree that would suggest the Ivy League is discriminating against them. I suspect Ivy League admissions policies have been altered to help weed out the large numbers of Asians who are really great grinds but not as smart and ambitious as their scores and grades suggest. From my perspective, Jewish numbers in the Ivy League better reflect their actual success in society than those of Asians.

    Until Kennedy’s immigration changes in the mid-60′s, Asians were a rounding error in the US population. The minimal number of Asians in the the US were kept down by systematic discrimination for over a century. There have been more Jews than Asians combined since the first European settlements in Manhattan. How many centuries did it take before Jews became the titans of industry they are today? Was JP Morgan Jewish? Was Andrew Carnegie?

  24. To be honest, as a Chinese in the US, I do not feel that non-refugee Asian students like my future children should be eligible for affirmative action. I feel the solution for catching the kids rejected from Ivy schools would be to increase public university honors programs, as well as specialized health sciences programs in second-tier private and state colleges. This could be funded through higher tuition rates on health science and specialized engineering focused programs.

    That way, Asian (and African / Caribbean) parents will be satisfied and there’ll be enough prestige – in the word ‘Honors’, and raising the 25-75 SAT and GPA requirements to match or surpass Ivies – without shortchanging white Anglo and Jewish students from Ivies and without shortchanging low-income and minority students in public colleges’ mainstream programs.

    This is because there will be severe social problems if a group perceived as largely immigrant is dominant in society. Whether it is correct or not, it will be viewed as shortchanging the majority of the population, particularly people who have been in the US for hundreds of years. Although some Asian and Hispanic Americans have been here for a long time, most have not.

    The US needs to take care of its original stock – both black and white – first. This is like preferred as opposed to common stock holders.

  25. Wilkey says:

    “Until Kennedy’s immigration changes in the mid-60′s, Asians were a rounding error in the US population. The minimal number of Asians in the the US were kept down by systematic discrimination for over a century. There have been more Jews than Asians combined since the first European settlements in Manhattan. How many centuries did it take before Jews became the titans of industry they are today? Was JP Morgan Jewish? Was Andrew Carnegie?”

    What’s that have to do with anything? So an early (1795) immigration law restricted naturalization to whites. So we restricted Chinese immigration in 1882. So we didn’t let many Asians immigrate here.

    So what? Were we under some obligation to let in lots of Asians, or let in lots of any other group? We were perfectly within our rights to limit immigration to any group(s) we chose to.

    When Jewish immigrants arrived they succeeded quite quickly. Their low representation in higher echelons of society was a function of the low numbers of Ashkenazi Jews who were coming here.

    Today’s Asians arrive here under much more advantageous circumstances than Jews of a century ago. Most of them come bearing college degrees, for example. They do quite well, relative to Americans on average, yet they are not mindbogglingly successful to the extent that Jews are, and their contributions in art, culture, business, etc., while respectable, certainly don’t suggest they should be half the student body of the Ivy League.

  26. Wilkey says:

    “Whatever the character of Asian intelligence, the point that Unz has repeatedly made still holds – even as the number of Asian Americans has burgeoned, the percentage of Asian American students at elite American universities has remained capped, under what is transparently a quota.”

    Asians are about 5-6% of the US population. They are maybe 15-20% of the Ivy League.

    But turn on the Oscars, or the Tonys; pick up a copy of the Forbes 400, or a list of the Fortune 500 CEOS, or pick up a random scholarly journal, whether science, history, or anything else. What are the odds some successful person – business, cultural, academic, political, etc. – is Asian? How much more greatly represented are Asians among people of note than they are among the general population?

    Probably the only field Asians outperform in dramatically is science and technology, and many of those Asians come to the US after attending undergrad in their home countries.

    The Ivy League is not the sole incubator of American talent. Lots of successful people don’t attend Ivy League schools, so it’s hard to know, exactly, what fraction of the Ivy League student body should be Asian. But we can look at Jews, who do far better than Asians in terms of real world success, and guess that there should probably be fewer Asians than Jews at Harvard. And that appears to be what has actually happened.

    My guess is that the Ivy league has come to realize that Asians have gamed the system and have adjusted their admissions policies to account for the phenomenon of the Asian grind.

  27. Wilkey says:

    Anon: “How many centuries did it take before Jews became the titans of industry they are today?”

    Well, first we had to invent the concept of industry. To have lots of Jewish titans of industry we had to have lots of (Ashkenzi) Jews, and also lots of titans. Prior to 1900 there weren’t many of either, but Jews still held their own. The same cannot be said of Asians who (again) do quite well, but not mindbogglingly so. In the US there are about twice as many Asians as Jews, but they are not nearly so prominent.

  28. Hacienda says:

    @David

    I haven’t read Madame Bovary. Is she a fat white woman? Not interested.

  29. @Wilkey

    “Probably the only field Asians outperform in dramatically is science and technology”

    Asian and Asian-American parents push their kids to enter these fields. Jewish-American parents appear to allow their kids to choose their own fields and THEN encourage them to do well in whatever they choose. Jewish-American parents are more open and liberal-minded that way. That’s why you you see Jews excelling in a broad range of fields in the US, much of it creative.

  30. Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


Remember My Information 

Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
Subscribe to All Ron Unz Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What the facts tell us about a taboo subject
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
A thousand years of meritocracy shaped the Middle Kingdom.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?