The Unz Review - Mobile

The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection

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

Email This Page to Someone


 Remember My Information



=>
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

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

Commenters to Skip
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. D. K.
    says:
         Show Comment

    What your own study also clearly demonstrated, as I recall, Mr. Unz, was that the majority demographical grouping– non-Hispanic White gentiles– was even more discriminated against, from a strictly meritocratic (not to mention demographic) perspective, than were the so-called Asians (which is a ludicrous grouping of many widely different ethnicities, from two of the three global racial groups), with the gross over-representation of Jews, Blacks and Hispanics, from a meritocratic perspective, essentially being subtracted from the spots made available for Whites who are neither Hispanic nor Jewish. This greater injustice did not seem to raise any protest, or even any discussion, in the mainstream media outlets, like “The New York Times”, that did take notice of your important and troubling findings.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. NB
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    DK, there is no evidence that Jews are overrepresented at Harvard (in relation to academic “merit”) or that non-Hispanic white gentiles suffer discrimination. Unz substantially overestimated the percentage of Jews at Harvard while grossly underestimating the percentage of Jews among high academic achievers, when, in fact, there is no discrepancy. In addition, Unz’s arguments have proven to be untenable in light of a recent survey of incoming Harvard freshmen conducted by The Harvard Crimson, which found that students who identified as Jewish reported a mean SAT score of 2289, 56 points higher than the average SAT score of white respondents.

    I have posted a critique of Unz’s article here:

    http://alum.mit.edu/www/nurit

    Columbia statistician Andrew Gelman discusses it here:

    http://andrewgelman.com/2013/10/22/ivy-jew-update/

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. D. K.
    says:
         Show Comment

    NB, I do not know where you attended law school, but they taught you Evidence differently from how I was taught Evidence by my [Jewish] Evidence professor. Mr. Unz’ article is evidence. You apparently wish to discredit that evidence, which is all well and good. The credibility of any given piece of evidence, and the weight which a trier of fact ought give to it, are always issues. Evidence is evidence, however, regardless of either its overall credibility or its relative probative value. I am more persuaded by Mr. Unz’ work, in this regard, than you were. I admittedly am not myself a professional statistician; but, in piling up four university degrees, including two master’s degrees, I did happen to take four academic semesters (toward my M.S. degree in Personality and Social Psychology), as well as an additional two academic quarters (toward my M.B.A.), of graduate-level Statistics; and, I also tutored, substitute taught (at the university level), and served as a teaching assistant (at the college level) for dedicated courses in Statistics (for use in the social sciences). 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!

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. That’s right DK, if you can’tt Harvard’s student newspaper, who can you trust?

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Timothy
    says:
         Show Comment

    Data for high school students nationally such as the College Report’s publicly available statistics on programs like AP Calculus (a very good benchmark for overall merit of high school students) suggests that Jewish students are about 10% of high-performing whites who would be qualified to attend institutions like Harvard. This does mean Jewish students perform at higher levels than the raw percentage of the population they make up, much like Asians. However, if Harvard is in fact more than 10% Jewish, that simply would be a significant overrepresentation compared to academic merit. Legacy and athletic favoritism might factor into admittance for both Jewish and non-Jewish whites, accounting for some discrepancies. (Of course the same measures are relevant for males vs females but one can at least plausibly defend the policy of Ivy League institutions like Harvard to be close to 50-50 male female rather than the roughly 70-30 they would be by merit).

    So the only debate on that matter is how Jewish Harvard actually is. It could simply not be true that students of Jewish ethnicity are anywhere close to 20% of students at Harvard or similar Ivy League institutions, but if so then they are being shown favoritism. Harvard refuses to officially gather or release statistics on demographics like that and anyone’s estimates produced so far are shoddy at best so it’s premature to call it concluded.

    The same data still strongly indicates Asians are being discriminated against as Asian Americans really should be 25-30% of Harvard and similar institutions unless significant causes of differing application rates can be proven to exist.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. D. K.
    says:
         Show Comment

    NB: Would you happen to be the same “Nurit Baytch” who tweeted the following . . .

    “b/c when I walk into US bookstores, I see stacks of Mein Kampf, as Mein Kampf is unpopular in the US. right, BBC?”

    . . . just this past Sunday, May 25? If so, do you have any on-line photographs that you would care to share with us that you might have taken with your cell phone, whenever you see one of these supposed stacks of “Mein Kampf” cluttering the floors of America’s bookstores?

    I am a native-born American who has lived his entire life (b. 1956) in the United States– save less than a fortnight, in total, on a few vacations– and I have spent a fair amount of time in American bookstores, including my being a one-time department manager, many years ago, for Barnes & Noble Bookseller, near the Jersey Shore, a short drive from New York City. I have never in my life seen such a stack of “Mein Kampf” at any bookstore, anywhere in the United States– and, I have lived in and near a large number of America’s major cities, from New York to Los Angeles, and from Anchorage to New Orleans. In short, I think that the “Nurit Baytch” who tweeted that claim was either hallucinating or lying; and, as a former lawyer, who also was trained in Personality and Social Psychology, inter alia, I lean very heavily toward one of those conclusions, rather than the other….

    The reason that I mention any of this here, of course, is that I find it highly pertinent to any reasonable evaluation of the credibility of the evidence that you yourself cite, supra, for your contention that Mr. Unz’ article from 2012– “The Myth of American Meritocracy”– not only is insufficient evidence, in support of his own hypothesis and conclusions, but, indeed, “no evidence” whatsoever of the claimed anti-meritocratic discrimination.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. NB
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    D.K., your reading comprehension skills call into question your ability to evaluate any argument. My tweet was obviously sarcastic (and was a continuation of my previous tweet), as Mein Kampf is nowhere to be seen in US bookstores, whereas the BBC reported on the “stacks of Mein Kampf in Arabic” at the Baghdad book market and then suggested that perhaps there were so many copies of Mein Kampf in Baghdad b/c sales are low – which I consider to be an attempt by the BBC to whitewash anti-Semitism:

    The “evidence” Ron Unz presented was predicated on his subjective ability to identify Jews on the basis of their names, which proved spectacularly wrong for the one data set on which there exists confirmed, peer-reviewed data about the ethnic background of the students: US International Math Olympiad (IMO) team members since 2000, among whom Unz underestimated the percentage of Jewish students by a factor of 5+. I used an objective methodology (Weyl Analysis) to debunk Unz’s claims.

    Timothy, on what data are you basing your claim that “Jewish students are about 10% of high-performing whites who would be qualified to attend institutions like Harvard” and that the male:female ratio should be “roughly 70-30…by merit”? Unz quantified merit on the basis of SAT scores, and females represent ~47% of students scoring 2200+ on the SAT:

    http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/sat-percentile-ranks-composite-cr-m-w-2010.pdf

    Also, you are not taking into account the geographic distribution of Harvard students, which is heavily weighted toward the Northeast, where a high proportion of American Jews live. I discuss how to account for this here:

    https://sites.google.com/site/nuritbaytch/#geography

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. D. K.
    says:
         Show Comment

    Well, Ms. Baytch, while it is true that I cannot identify articles of clothing in Hebrew ["Nurit can identify clothing in Hebrew." (Harvard-Radcliffe Society of Physics Students Minutes, Meeting of February 11, 1999, at Lowell House)]; but, when it comes to English, which I have been speaking with reasonable fluency since the late 1950s, and in which subject (along with General History, with a former major in Social Studies, and minor in Mass Communications) I earned my own B.A. degree– perhaps in the very same year that you yourself were born!?!– I can “hold my own,” so as to speak, reasonably well, thank you very much, just the same.

    As for my ability to evaluate “any argument” at all, which you question, in your inimitable style, if my earning three advanced university degrees– not to mention my earning admission to the Bar, and then practicing law for years– does not settle that question for you, I will put it into a quantitative form that might (or might not) have any meaning for you, as someone apparently trained in the pure science of Physics, and who obviously fancies herself a statistical whiz (inter alia): +3.0 SD [i.e., c. 99.865%-ile].

    As for your tweet, it would have made (at least better) sense, in English, if you had written: “b/c when I walk into US bookstores, I never see stacks of Mein Kampf, as Mein Kampf is so popular in the US. right, BBC?” That, at least, I, as a native English speaker, with a reasonably high I.Q. [supra], and a fairly well-developed sense of humor (for a goy, I mean!), would have taken for an obvious case of sarcasm. Then again, we goys being goys, as we must, I actually assumed that the BBC line itself was a joke– one which, quite evidently, went right over your upstanding Zionist head!

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. D. K.
    says:
         Show Comment

    ERRATUM: The “while” in my previous comment (which I rushed into the ether of cyberspace, yesterday evening, in the midst of doing something else) should have been deleted by me, when I substituted a subsequent independent clause for a dependent one, after retrieving and inserting that quote from the SPS minutes. Mea culpa!

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. D. K.
    says:
         Show Comment

    P.S. By the way, there was another quote, from the SPS minutes of a later meeting, that I found far more intriguing than the one I quoted, above:

    “9. Nurit returned from an excursion into the food area with ‘pink lemonade.’ This lemonade was obviously not pink, attaining instead a rather crimson hue.” (Harvard-Radcliffe Society of Physics Students Minutes, Meeting of November 27, 1999, at Currier House Dining Hall)

    Personally, when I was an undergraduate, I used to save money by using the economy-size bottles of Tang that my mother would send to me, as a part of her periodic care packages, to make my own mixer. Crude, no doubt, but effective– and, cheap! I draw no inferences from the color of one’s preferred beverage, however; I, for example, was by no means pro-Ulsterite. “Erin go bragh!”

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Dave
    says:
         Show Comment

    What about people of a white protestant background? On a per capita basis, do they not face more discrimination than even Asians? None on the Supreme Court either. Is importing an Asian elite good for them?

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. Asian opposition to affirmative action will be easily bought off by giving them a slice of the action. This is why the SBA programs give preferences to Indian-Americans even though they have twice the median US income already.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Truth Teller
    says:
         Show Comment

    I have posted a critique of Unz’s article here:

    http://alum.mit.edu/www/nurit

    “Unz’s arguments have proven to be untenable in light of a recent survey of incoming Harvard freshmen conducted by The Harvard Crimson, which found that students who identified as Jewish reported a mean SAT score of 2289, 56 points higher than the average SAT score of white respondents”

    I perused your review, and it’s not very convincing – filled with your own inflated assertions and conclusions extrapolated from them. The above is an example. What you cite doesn’t actually disprove anything Unz asserted. It would only be relevant if it applied to total applicants, not admitted students.

    Here’s another example:

    “Indeed, Unz’s assumptions have proven to be unfounded in light of The Harvard Crimson’s Class of 2017 Freshman Survey: 46% of whites identify as Christian, while only 15% of whites identify as Jewish (9.5% of freshmen overall identify as Jewish); Unz’s calculations assumed that Jews constitute the majority of white students at Harvard, while non-Jewish whites comprise only 19% of Harvard undergrads.”

    You’ve distorted the source you cite here. This survey was specifically about religious affiliation, a point which you conveniently edited out when discussing it. The survey did not ask students about either their own ethnic identification or about their parent’s religious affiliation, which could’ve increased the overall Jewish percentage.

    It also noted:

    “A combined 32 percent characterized themselves as atheist or agnostic, several points above the national average”

    Within that group, it is likely that many identify themselves as ethnically Jewish or have Jewish parents.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Dave
    says:
         Show Comment

    How many identified as non-Catholic Christian?

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. DWBudd
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    NB:

    I read through your analysis (as well as several others on Andrew Gelman’s site). Unlike most of the readers here (I estimate) I actually am a statistician. Much of your points seem correct, though a couple (non-statistical) ones strike me as a bit of boot-strapping.

    First, the argument that HYP select for a diverse, liberal arts class vs., say, Cal-Tech, is a bit of a stretch. One typically selects a concentration AFTER enrollment, not before. So how does Harvard’s admissions team know who is going to the humanities vs. STEM? Unless of course, they are presuming that Asian applicants are just naturally going to do so.

    Second, weighting the state population samples by Harvard’s existing balance seems to me a tremendously biased means by which to adjust the populations. Sort of a chicken and egg approach, don’t you think? As I see it, logically, one wishes to presume Harvard is not biased in its admissions because of NMS data distributions by state, but because we do not know the actual distributions, we adjust the populations based on the existing balance at Harvard by ‘race’ (forgive me, but “Jewish” is not a race, IMHO). Lo and behold, we see that Harvard has a balanced distribution. My background is in mathematics, so maybe I just failed to grasp the specific method by which you performed your adjustment, but please do defend why you would select the existing distribution as a weighting scheme when trying to estimate the bias of the distribution.

    All of this is interesting, given that Harvard just published data for the 2014 graduating class. Identifying “Jewish” students is, I imagine, extremely difficult. For one, as I said, I do not believe that “Jewish” people are a race. But how do you define a Jewish person – based on his religious faith? Customs? Given that a large number of Harvard’s students are irreligious, that obviously presents a challenge, no?

    Finally, one thing Unz is undeniably right on is this: the whole argument could be ended quickly if Harvard would simply release the relevant statistics. The initial premise – does Harvard (and Yale, Princeton, and other select colleges for that matter) have a quota on Asian and Asian-American students? If they simply released their data on applicants, admissions, SAT and class ranks, etc., we could very quickly get the answer.

    They choose not to do so for reasons that are known only to them.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. Despite many decades of anti-Jewish discrimination in elite university admissions Jews managed to survive and do very well indeed. So will the Asians eventually. A temporary halt to Asian admission in large numbers may be temporarily desirable, as perhaps it was earlier with the Jews.

    The Jews have come to dominate many areas of our intellectual, business, and scientific life; the same will be true of Asians, if it is not already true.

    The Jews have also come to dominate our foreign policy through the Israel Lobby and its cultivation of evangelical bible-thumpers. Perhaps the Asians will also come to have inordinate influence over our Asian foreign policy.

    One thing is certain, however. With or without Affirmative Action blacks will never reach these levels. The fault is not in the stars, nor in the evil deeds of non-blacks. It is in the blacks themselves. They may get high office, like Obama, through white guilt. Asians tend not to have guilt about blacks, nor should they. But a few blacks in high office will not the Black Millenium bring. Blacks in Camden, NJ and Detroit, MI benefit not at all from the Obamas, the Eric Holders, or the Oprah Wimphreys. Indeed, it is my contention they were better off on the ante-bellum plantations — no drugs, no vice, no crime.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. randallr
    says:
         Show Comment

    Of course Jews are overrepresented. Jews are overrepresented in many institutions. It’s long past time to begin a serious examination of how the Jews use their power for inter-ethnic nepotism and control of institutions to benefit their group. The facts at Harvard speak.

    For those of you who might not be aware, NB is a Jewish Supremacist who specializes in Jewish victimology and virulent hatred of white gentiles. What NB supports for his fellow Jews, aggressive and coordinated ethnic action, NB opposes for other groups.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. I wouldn’t mind Jewish power and privilege so much if Jews(the most privileged and powerful people in America)would just shut about ‘white privilege’.
    It smacks of billionaire and millionaire Jews bitching about white gentiles living in trailer parks.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Dave
    says:
         Show Comment

    Aren’t Catholics also nepotistic, Randall? There are 6 of them on the Supreme Court after all. People of a White Protestant background make up around half the country.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. D. K.
    says:
         Show Comment

    N.B. [nota bene]: N. B. [Nurit Baytch] is a she, not a he! [She is even a fairly cute she, for those of us who are attracted to that kind of phenotype: https://www.facebook.com/nurit.baytch.3 Unfortunately, she reminds one [i.e., me!] of an old girlfriend, both looks-wise and ideology-wise.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. D. K.
    says:
         Show Comment

    Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States are appointed by the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States– not by the sitting (nor former) member(s) of the Court itself, Dave. It might have escaped your notice, but in the 225+ years since George Washington was elected to be the first President of the United States, under the then-new Constitution, only one professed adherent of the Roman Catholic faith ever has been elected President– and, even that was by a very narrow (and highly dubious) margin! For his trouble and/or accomplishment, in that regard, he literally had a part of his head blown off, in public, with his wife at his side, tending to his discomfort, well shy of a full three years into his only term in that exalted office. Considering that Roman Catholics are the single largest religious denomination in the nation– closing in on a quarter of the population, thanks to heavy Latin-American immigration, over the past half century– a lone Catholic president does not seem to be too outsized, in the direction of overrepresentation. For the record, President Kennedy appointed two Supreme Court justices during his truncated term: Byron ‘Whizzer’ White (an Episcopalian) and Arthur Goldberg (a Jew).

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. Dave
    says:
         Show Comment

    Who gets appointed? Why? Why does the media like some potential justices and rail against others? Remember Harriet Myers? How was she any worse than Sotomayer? Are White Protestants fairly represented as owners and decision-making executives in Big Media? Why is the Speaker of the House Catholic? It is the House of *representatives* after all? Who do the Protestant presidents get their money from and owe their allegiance to? Is there not another reason for under-representation besides aptitude? Massive under-representation has the appearance of impropriety. Catholic is not a denomination. Baptist is a denomination. People of a White Protestation background are the single largest ethnic group in the United State,s and they have no representation on the Supreme Court. What else explains it but group mindedness? White Protestants, who are primarily of British stock, are the most individualistic people in the world, according to everybody who tracks this stuff.

    • Replies:
    Reply
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. D. K.
    says:
         Show Comment

    Dave, with all due respect, if you see the United States of America as being run by some Roman Catholic cabal, you truly need an intervention!?! Justice Sotomayor was chosen because she is a left-wing Hispanic woman– not because she is a titular Catholic! The other five Catholic justices all were chosen by Republican presidents– Reagan and the Bushes– because archly paleoconservative jurists, these days, tend to be Roman Catholics, since Protestant elites tend to be Establishment liberals. With anti-abortion credentials being a virtual litmus test for any Supreme Court appointment by a Republican president, for these past forty years, conservative Roman Catholics are front and center among the plausible lists of such candidates, whenever a Republican president is in a position to choose a new Supreme Court justice. Jews are the most dependable leftists for a Democratic president to choose to fill such an opening, and there are plenty of Jews with both high IQs and stellar professional qualifications– something which neither Blacks nor Hispanics can claim, with a straight face, about their own kinds! The mass media fawn on most Democratic picks because they are mostly Establishment liberals, and denigrates most Republican picks because they are not. Q.E.D.

    From the introduction of the Wikipedia entry on “Christianity in the United States”:

    ***

    Christianity is the most popular religion in the United States, with around 73% of polled Americans identifying themselves as Christian in 2012.[1] This is down from 86% in 1990, and slightly lower than 78.6% in 2001.[2] About 62% of those polled claim to be members of a church congregation.[3] The United States has the largest Christian population in the world, with nearly 247 million Christians.

    All Protestant denominations accounted for 51.3%, while Roman Catholicism by itself, at 23.9%, was the largest individual denomination. A Pew study categorizes white evangelicals, 26.3% of the population, as the country’s largest religious cohort;[4] another study estimates evangelicals of all races at 30–35%.[5] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) is the fourth largest church in the United States, and the largest church originating in the U.S.[6][7]

    ***

    [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_States

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. Dave
    says:
         Show Comment

    Alright, guy. You’re smart enough to know the difference between a denomination of Protestantism, like Baptist of Presbyterian, and a whole different religion. Maybe you want to call Catholicism a denomination of Christianity so that they will be less group minded towards Protestants, and Protestants won’t have any reason to complain. Oh, it’s themselves they’re discriminating against. They’re all Protestants. Catholic is just a Protestant denomination! It doesn’t matter that Protestants are excluded because they’re actually not! I don’t know your endgame, but I do know you are twisting the meanings of basic words. I like Ron Unz though. He puts it out there. He let’s the truth fall where it may.

    Showing the discrimination of White Protestants is a powerful tool against mass immigration. We still haven’t healed from the last influxes. “Look!” Americans could say, “assimilation never fully occurred.” By denying the discrimination against the founding stock, you take away your strongest most effective tool to close the floodgates.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. D. K.
    says:
         Show Comment

    The endgame obviously will be Bingo– just as soon as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church purifies all of your heretical souls at the stake, Dave. Don’t forget the marshmallows!

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. Karen Myers
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    My father, Yale ’42, well remembers the Jewish quota. It was very real, and very similar.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. D. K.
    says:
         Show Comment

    P.S. By the way, Dave, this is full the definition of “denomination” from my Apple Dictionary app:

    ***

    1 a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church.
    • a group or branch of any religion : Jewish clergy of all denominations.
    2 the face value of a banknote, a coin, or a postage stamp : a hundred dollars or so, in small denominations.
    • the rank of a playing card within a suit, or of a suit relative to others : two cards of the same denomination.
    3 formal a name or designation, esp. one serving to classify a set of things.
    • the action of naming or classifying something : denomination of oneself as a fat woman.
    ORIGIN late Middle English (sense 3) : from Latin denominatio(n-), from the verb denominare (see denominate ). Sense 1

    ***

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. D. K.
    says:
         Show Comment

    ERRATUM: “Sense 1 dates from the mid 17th cent.”

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. Dave
    says:
         Show Comment

    Catholicism is not a protestant denomination. Whatever. I don’t care. When I speak of Whites of a protestant background, I’m not referring to people who go to church. I’m mainly referring to the people who come from the protestant regions of Europe verses the people who come from the Catholic regions of Europe. It doesn’t matter if Catholics are 23.9% of the population. They are not 66 percent. White Protestants should have 4 or 5 justices on the Supreme Court.

    Assimilation is a myth. Any group-minded ethnic group can come here and become an elite that rules over the individualistic protestants. That’s why you have to defend the protestants if you want to close the borders. Americans couldn’t even adequately assimilate people from the Catholic and Jewish regions of Europe. What makes them think they can assimilate non-Westerners?

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. D. K.
    says:
         Show Comment

    According to “The New York Times”: “Jewish enrollment [at Yale] was held to about 10 percent for four decades [i.e., from the early 1920s until the early 1960s].”

    [http://www.nytimes.com/1986/03/04/nyregion/yale-s-limit-on-jewish-enrollment-lasted-until-early-1960-s-book-says.html

    Here are the estimated percentages of Jews, among the total United States population, decade by decade:

    1790 0.04%
    1800 0.04%
    1810 0.04%
    1820 0.03%
    1830 0.05%
    1840 0.09%
    1850 0.22%
    1860 0.48%
    1870 0.52%
    1880 0.51%
    1890 0.64%
    1900 1.39%
    1910 1.93%
    1920 3.20%
    1930 3.43%
    1940 3.61%
    1950 3.30%
    1960 2.99%
    1970 2.89%
    1980 2.51%
    1990 2.22%
    2000 1.97%
    2010 1.76%

    [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_United_States

    If the Jewish quota at Yale [inter alia] was “anti-Semitic” per se, it was not a terribly effective tool, since it allowed Jewish admittance at roughly three times the Jewish presence among the American population at large. Since such discrimination was, to the best of my knowledge and recollection, not illegal whatsoever, during the four decades at issue, Yale, which was founded as a school to train Christian ministers, could have simply banned Jews altogether– as, indeed, it did co-eds, until 1969!

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Jack
    says:
         Show Comment

    I remember reading Unz’s article. It’s incomplete. He basically only uses math-related criteria for showing academic prowess, which matter for Caltech and MIT, but are woefully inadequate for well-rounded liberal arts universities like the Ivies. I think he also uses the PSAT, which is relevant, but estimating Jewishness from names is not an exact science. More than half of Jews intermarry. many Asians intermarry.

    I wish Ivies would release applicant statistics but there’s no pressure for that to happen. I’d like to see what kind of bump legacies, and laxers, and field hockey chicks, and blacks get. It would be interesting.

    I frankly doubt that there is much “discrimination” against Asians at Ivies. They don’t select students based only on SAT scores. they have preferences for athletes, legacies, blacks, and Hispanics. obviously, these preferences will decrease populations of others, notably Asians. If there were no athlete and legacy preferences, the white gentile population at Ivies would likely be tiny. Nobody has shown yet that white or Jewish students get preference over Asians, ALL else being equal.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. According to this over 10 year old study and consistent with an intermarriage rate of over 50%, more or less half of all self-identifiying Jewish students report having one gentile parent. And this doesn’t count whites with significant Jewish ancestry who don’t identify as Jewish. This means Jews from non-intermarried families are only 10-15% of the Ivy League.

    If Jews from mixed parentage are to be counted as fully Jewish, then the correct reference population Unz should use should be combined population of whites with full or partial Jewish ancestry. 5% of white Americans are at least a quarter Jewish, the minimum needed to qualify for Israeli citizenship.

    http://www.hillel.org/about/news/2004/jan/20040121_involved.htm

    That is one conclusion from National Jewish Population Survey 2000-01 data released by the United Jewish Communities (UJC), the survey’s sponsor, at the recent Hillel international professional staff conference. Addressing the Hillel Conference in Princeton, NJ, NJPS Project Manager Lorraine Blass and NJPS Research Director Laurence Kotler-Berkowitz estimated that there were 268,300 Jews age 18-24, and 91,300 Jews age 25-29 on campuses in 2000-01, for a total campus Jewish population of 359,600. An estimated 232,600 Jews age 18-24 were not on campus, some of whom were still in high school and a majority of whom reported that they were working full or part time. NJPS was conducted from August 2000 through August 2001 and included interviews with 217 Jews, ages 18-29, who were in college at the time of the survey. UJC’s PowerPoint presentation on Jewish college students is available at ujc.org and hillel.org.

    snip

    The NJPS data reveal that the college-age Jewish population is almost evenly split between those who have two Jewish parents (48 percent) and those who have only one Jewish parent (45 percent). Students with two Jewish parents tend to be more religiously observant and Jewishly connected than those with only one Jewish parent. For example, 80 percent of those with two Jewish parents felt very positive about being Jewish compared to 65 percent among those with one Jewish parent. Both groups demonstrated an interest in Jewish studies, with 43 percent of those with two Jewish parents and 24 percent of those with one Jewish parent taking at least one Jewish studies course during their time in college.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. A better link to the NJPS study:

    http://www.hillel.org/about/news-views/news-views—blog/news-and-views/2004/01/21/jewish-students-involved-connections-vary

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. NB
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    Truth Teller, you seem to be conflating my argument (that employing an objective methodology on the names of both NMS semifinalists and Harvard students indicates there is no evidence to support Unz’s claims) with data I presented that is consistent with my argument, i.e. the data from the Harvard Crimson survey. This data is not the basis of my argument.

    However, I will still address the points you raised:
    In response to the survey, which found that Harvard freshmen who identified as Jewish reported a mean SAT score that was 56 points higher than the average SAT score of white respondents, you stated, “It would only be relevant if it applied to total applicants, not admitted students.” For your objection to stand, you would have to address why Harvard would deliberately not admit the best qualified non-Jewish white applicants. Unless you have a plausible explanation, the most reasonable assumption is that Harvard admitted the best qualified non-Jewish white applicants, just as it admitted the best qualified Jewish applicants, etc.

    I did not omit the fact that the Harvard Crimson survey was specifically about religious affiliation. In the summary, I did not clarify that point, but I specifically stated in section 1 that “according to The Harvard Crimson’s Class of 2017 Freshman Survey, only 9.5% of Harvard freshmen identify their religious affiliation as Jewish.” In footnote 12, I then explicitly addressed the objection you raised:

    https://sites.google.com/site/nuritbaytch/#_edn12

    “It is likely that some ethnic Jews who are atheist or agnostic did not identify their religious affiliation as Jewish. According to The Crimson’s freshman survey, 29% of white Harvard students identified as atheist or agnostic, among whom we would expect to find both ethnic Jews and non-Jewish whites. Hence, it is reasonable to expect that ~29% of ethnic Jews identified as atheist or agnostic, meaning that ~13% of Harvard freshmen are ethnically Jewish. According to the Pew Research Center, “religious disaffiliation is as common among all U.S. adults ages 18-29 as among Jewish Millennials (32% of each),” which is consistent with The Crimson’s survey results.”

    Recall that Unz assumed that non-Jewish whites constituted merely 19% of Harvard undergrads, while Jews comprised 25% of Harvard undergrads; that is, non-Jewish whites represent only 43% of white Harvard students, while Jews constitute a whopping 57% of white Harvard students. The Harvard Crimson survey found that 46% of white students identify their religious affiliation as Christian, while only 15% of white students identify their religious affiliation as Jewish. i.e. the % of white Harvard students who actually identify as Christian is higher than the % Unz assumed for all non-Jewish whites. And again, if you’re going to propose that the 29% of white Harvard students who identify as atheist or agnostic are disproportionately ethnically Jewish, you’ll have to present arguments to support such a claim in light of the fact that the Pew Research center found that religious disaffiliation is as common among young Jews as among all young Americans.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. NB
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    DWBudd states “the argument that HYP select for a diverse, liberal arts class vs., say, Cal-Tech, is a bit of a stretch. One typically selects a concentration AFTER enrollment, not before. So how does Harvard’s admissions team know who is going to the humanities vs. STEM?”
    Applicants are supposed to indicate their intended major on their applications, and it should also be clear from the HS courses they take, their extracurricular activities, their SAT subject tests, etc. My claim that HYP select for a diverse, liberal arts class (as opposed to Caltech) is uncontroversial.

    Regarding your second point, I addressed this objection here:

    https://sites.google.com/site/nuritbaytch/#_edn39

    Basically my point is that the geographic distribution of Harvard students is consistent with the trend I saw at all the universities I looked at – i.e. the home state is typically the most overrepresented, etc.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. GetALife
    says:
         Show Comment

    I have zero facts, but plenty of opinions on the subject. A lot from a single semi tiger mom.

    1. Over 50% of the angst is focused on a handful of ultra prestigious Ivy’s. HYP account for maybe 5,000 freshman admissions per year. That is 100 per state. Combined SAT or now ACT scores aren’t the be all and end all of qualifications. Especially math scores for those that are interested in humanities. And there seems to be an Asian bias toward STEM majors. Maybe they should show an interest in Classics or less popular majors which these schools need to support their less popular departments. Exactly how does this account for a huge social injustice. If Asians are 10% underrepresented, that is 500 students.

    2. There is also a bias toward the schools that are known in China. I have never heard of a complaint about bias regarding the top small schools — Williams, Swathmore, Carleton. One hypothesis is that they aren’t known in China. A lot of the Big 10 schools and similar research universities are ranked in the top 100 global universities. Ohio State is ranked 65th in the WORLD UNIVERSITY RANKINGS. Ohio State is even more highly ranked in math and some sciences. Has anyone heard a single complaint about Asian quotas at Ohio State?

    3. The top 5 through 10 top ranked engineering schools — does anyone talk about them. Carnage Mellon, Georgia Tech,, Purdue, University of Illinois, University of Texas, University of Michigan (not to mention, Texas A&M. None of the Ivy’s are highly ranked in engineering. I suppose MIT, Cal Tech and Stanford are exception. Internationally known. Purdue and Texas A&M aren’t going to get much traction as elite schools.

    4. Most of the Asians in the US are economically elites. Is this a huge social justice issue? China has maybe 1.3 billion people. Currently they have an even more unequal distribution of wealth than the US. Can’t find the article, but 15 to 20% of Chinese wealthy are leaving China because of pollution, educational opportunities for their children, rule of law/freedom of speech, over crowding in cities, memories of the cultural revolution, global diversification of families. And most of them go to the US (50%), Canada, and other nations with British colonial roots. And, since China has 1.3 billion people or so, the top 5% is 65 million. Add in the top 1% of India, Pakistan, Japan, Korea, etc. and that is a lot of people.

    5. The amount of true affirmative action at schools ranked outside the top 100, much less the next 1,000 is pretty modest, especially financial aid, which is more important than admission — especially for truly underrepresented minorities. Money trumps prestige in many of these cases.

    7. The name brand schools have not significantly raised their freshman enrollments in decades. When the US had a population of 130 million in 1940, for example. Overall — and for a number of reasons — this has had a negative effect on higher education in the US as a whole. Given the supply/demand situation, HYP could add another 100 slots, auction them, and eliminate under graduate tuition. I would bet that they would go for $1 million a piece. I also think that would result in a huge surge of applications and admissions from upper middle class suburban whites of European descent. It would be much more honest than a ‘development’ candidate with a little indicator on the top of their application.

    8. The biggest scam in under representatives at highly elite colleges is the definition of Hispanic. The child of parents who both have PhD’s and from Argentina is an underrepresented minority?

    There are 1 billion or more people on earth living on $2 a day. That and similar global problems are mere statistics. 500 Asians who have to settle for attending a top 100 global university rather than a top 10 US college is a tragic social injustice?

    OK. In America, it is wrong. But we live in the only country on earth where our president, the single most powerful man on earth, gets impeached for a blow job. I guess we are extremely lucky that a lot, if not most of the most talked about issues are trivial.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. news | The Common Room
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    […] Asian Quotas in the Ivy League? “We See Nothing! Nothing!” […]

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. The most DIFFICULT public universities to enter based on MERIT are UC BERKELEY & UCLA…AND…they each have an ASIAN ( Chinese to be specific) plurality. They are the ONLY 2 Top-ranked Public Universities within the TOP 15 WORLD UNIVERSITIES according to “The Times Higher Education World Universities Rankings”. It has been known for a LOOOOOOOOOONG time that the Ivy League schools and others like Stanford DO indeed enforce ASIAN quotas…”THE PRICE OF ADMISSION” by Daniel Golden very specifically elaborates on the hypocritical/unfair practices of these “elite” universities… In fact, his evidence does evince the fact that “Asians have become the ‘New Jews’ at these ‘elite’ universities. ( The term ‘Jews’ in this case refers to the fact that in the earlier part of the 20th Century, it was very well established POLICY to limit the number of Jews who were allowed admission into these ‘elite’ universities….) As a CALIFORNIAN Democrat, I am damn glad we “deep-sixed” SCA-5!

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. DWBudd
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    I wrote:

    the argument that HYP select for a diverse, liberal arts class vs., say, Cal-Tech, is a bit of a stretch. One typically selects a concentration AFTER enrollment, not before. So how does Harvard’s admissions team know who is going to the humanities vs. STEM?”

    NB Wrote:
    Applicants are supposed to indicate their intended major on their applications, and it should also be clear from the HS courses they take, their extracurricular activities, their SAT subject tests, etc. My claim that HYP select for a diverse, liberal arts class (as opposed to Caltech) is uncontroversial.

    I would respond on a handful of counts. First, the claim that HYP “select for a diverse, liberal arts class” may not be controversial to you, but I would say it is far from a settled fact. How do you define “diverse?” The data for the class of 2014 were just released, and on virtually all of the definitions of “diverse” I would consider, Harvard is far more monolithic than the US is.

    If Harvard really were looking for an intellectually diverse (i.e., a mix of STEM, literature, arts, etc. majors), I would agree. Maybe this is your definition of “diverse.” If it is, then for the sake of argument, I am willing to accept that Harvard wants a good distribution of concentrations, and it is reasonable for them to desire one.

    Second, I applied to Harvard 25 years ago; it was not mandatory for me to declare my “concentration” – that could be different now. We had to write personal essays, and suppose one could from these infer a concentration. I checked Harvard’s current application requirements, and it seems they accept the so-called “Common Application” with “Harvard supplement.” I could have missed it, but I nowhere saw anything requiring applicants to state a likely concentration.

    Third, do you really believe that one can surmise a concentration based on HS extra-curricular activities? In an objective way? I reject the idea that looking at the fact that someone played piano, was on the tennis team, and in student government that that applicant is more likely to be a maths major. I could be convinced, but I strongly suspect that what is going on here is post-hoc justification. That is to say, “Asians all major in STEM, so we better not let too many of them in.”

    That of course could be close to the truth, and if – again for the sake of argument – we presume that every admitted Asian student would go into STEM, then it would make sense to cap their admission as a proxy for having a wide-range of majors. Harvard MIGHT be doing this, but of course cannot and would never admit it.

    NB further commented

    Regarding your second point (on sample weighting based upon Harvard’s existing state distribution), I addressed this objection here:

    https://sites.google.com/site/nuritbaytch/#_edn39

    Basically my point is that the geographic distribution of Harvard students is consistent with the trend I saw at all the universities I looked at – i.e. the home state is typically the most overrepresented, etc.

    I would argue first that Harvard is not in New York; it is not in New Jersey. It’s in Massachusetts.

    I understand the point about proximity, but as a mathematician, using as a weight to correct for representation, the prior student body is not something I would recommend. It’s an obviously biased sample.

    And there is an obvious potential confounder.

    Two solutions I would suggest (well, sensitivity analyses more than solutions).

    First, instead of weighting by admissions, weight by applicants. The applications should reflect geographic preferences – i.e., the “back yard” desires of teens. Surely, these data are available.

    Second, if your argument on proximity is correct, how does New York compare to Texas (or Utah, for that matter) in the student body at Stanford? Texas is much closer to California than New York.

    Again, I am not arguing that, in the end, your analysis is wrong. Only that you’ve not really done the heavy lifting to prove it is right – relying instead on the sort of “and it follows that” hand-waving I used to get from my undergrads when I was a grad student (yes; in maths).

    It’s a shame, because a lot of what you argue is on very solid ground; it’s disappointing to see you fall back on the sort of post-hoc logic on display that seem thinly-veiled justifications of biases and not real argument.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. Ben Cohen
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    Whenever this topic comes up, the commentary always switches to Jews, and how Jews are getting an unfair leg up in admissions. While it is possible that their is some broad bias toward Jews as a group in Ivy league admissions, there is in my opinion a more like explanation: wealth. Private College’s shamelessly discriminate in favor of well off applicants. Jews, including Ron Unz, are grossly overrepresented among the 1%. If Jews are overrepresented it is likely because very wealthy Jews have bought their kids acceptance into the ivy league.

    My brother knew two Jewish applicants to Harvard (both 100% Jewish), one was the son of a College professor with close to a perfect SAT score, and the other was the son of a hedge fund manager. The hedge fund guys kid got in despite mediocre SAT scores, and grades, while the professor’s son didn’t.

    Does it matter? The fact that this is now a matter of debate reflects the dark side of the civil rights movement. Prior to the civil rights era private entities like Harvard could legally discriminate, against anyone for any reason. The civil rights era placed their decisions in the public domain, made these private decision everyone’s business. And in the process of doing this made it our business.

    The civil rights act, along with the educational amendments, created unrealistic expectations in people’s minds. It made people expect that private institutions would treat them fairly. We all know that isn’t the case, and never will be. If the professor’s kid had applied knowing that Harvard operated like a country club, he wouldn’t have taken his rejection as badly as he did.

    Regards,

    Ben Cohen

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. NB
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    DWBudd, indeed I meant that Harvard is seeking a student body with a diverse distribution of concentrations. I don’t know where you apparently viewed Harvard’s current application, but it is clear from both a link I provided in my critique and a recent Crimson story that Harvard does ask its applicants to indicate their intended concentration:

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014/3/27/regular-admissions-class-2018/

    Are you implying that I was arguing the following? “Asians all major in STEM, so we better not let too many of them in.”
    This is not the argument I made, and also I took no position on whether or not Harvard discriminates against Asians, although it is clear the evidence is far more suggestive that Harvard may discriminate against Asians than against non-Jewish whites (for which there exists no evidence).

    The most over-represented state at Harvard is Massachusetts, not New York.

    DWBudd claims, “instead of weighting by admissions, weight by applicants. The applications should reflect geographic preferences … Surely, these data are available.”
    Surely Harvard has this data, but this info is not in fact public, and I do not have access to it. More broadly, you appear to have misunderstood my critique. I do not claim to have “proved” that Harvard does not discriminate in favor of Jews; I have simply shown there exists no evidence suggestive that Harvard discriminates in favor of Jews. It is Ron Unz who claimed that Harvard is discriminating against non-Jewish whites and Asians in favor of Jews, and I showed that he did not prove his claim. In particular, you have misinterpreted the conclusions I drew from my calculation of enrollment ratios weighted by the geographic distribution of Harvard students. I was demonstrating the importance of accounting for geography, as Harvard College students are disproportionately drawn from the Northeast, which supplies almost half of Harvard’s American undergraduates and is over twice as Jewish as the rest of the US (5% vs 2%). (For a graphic illustration of how “Jewish” the Northeast is, see this recent WaPo article:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/06/04/the-second-largest-religion-in-each-state/ ) I stated (emphasis added): “when we weight the NMS results by the geographic distribution of Harvard students, we obtain results that are opposite those of Unz: Jews are the most underrepresented group at Harvard (in comparison to their “academic merit”), followed by Asians, and then non-Jewish whites. Of course, it would be entirely inappropriate to deduce any bias from these results, just as it was invalid for Unz to deduce bias from his enrollment ratios.[41]” In footnote 41, I wrote: “I would like to emphasize that, like Unz, I’ve made no attempt to quantify the statistical significance of my enrollment ratios, and I am not actually claiming that Jews are the most underrepresented group at Harvard in comparison to their academic “merit.”…I’m sure one can quibble with my methodology, but I’m not drawing any conclusions from these numbers other than that there is no evidence that Harvard discriminates in favor of Jewish students as Unz claims.” i.e. I was aware of the issue you raise, and I was careful to limit my conclusions to those supported by the evidence. I realize that it’s possible that the geographic distribution of Harvard students could reflect an admissions bias, but I did what I could with publicly available data: I presented data indicating that the geographic distribution of Harvard students is consistent with the trend I saw at all the universities I looked at (i.e. the home state is typically the most over-represented state), and I showed that accounting for geography has a substantial impact on the calculation of enrollment ratios.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. NB
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    Also, DWBudd, to be clear, I anticipated the argument you are making (in the footnote to which I linked a few days ago):

    https://sites.google.com/site/nuritbaytch/#_edn39

    “Since Unz seems quite convinced that the Jewish provosts of Harvard are favoring their brethren seeking admission, perhaps he might claim that the overrepresentation of students from MA, NY, NJ, etc. is simply more evidence of this favoritism, as those states have high Jewish populations. However, if you look at the 2010 IPEDS data for any university, you are likely to find that the most overrepresented state is that where the university is located. At both Harvard and MIT, Massachusetts supplies the 2nd greatest number of students after California, meaning Massachusetts (which is allocated only 2% of NMS semifinalists) is the most overrepresented state at both institutions.”

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. Wilkey
    says:
         Show Comment

    “My father, Yale ’42, well remembers the Jewish quota. It was very real, and very similar.”

    Jewish politicians, and the party supported overwhelmingly by Jews, support affirmative action for the sake of “equality” and “diversity.” So why shouldn’t they be subject to quotas limiting their share of college admissions, corporate executives, and so on? And that quota should limit them to the 2-5% of the population which Jews comprise, and NOT lump them in with the ~65% of the “white” population.

    I am saying that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it’s hard for me to care much about the long-dead numerus clausus policies of various *private* universities founded by WASPs, when so many Jews support a far more onerous policy they would impose not only on private universities, but on public universities, private businesses, and government.

    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.

    • Replies:
    Reply
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Via Appia
    says:
         Show Comment

    As an Indian-American born and raised in the US, I appreciate all that Ron Unz has done regarding this matter.

    And before posters jump all over me, I do not support the statutes that proceed to give Asian-Americans preferential treatment regarding SB loans.

    I have tried engaging those in the I-A community who are in places of power or influence with no avail regarding this matter. I think other Asian-American communities are easier to mobilize over this issue.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. quercus
    says:
         Show Comment

    @NB.

    ” The Harvard Crimson, which found that students who identified as Jewish reported a mean SAT score of 2289, 56 points higher than the average SAT score of white respondents.”

    Hardly seems statistically significant. Do you have a further breakdown of that score based on the individual components of the SAT, which I believe are Critical Reading, Math, and Writing?

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. quercus
    says:
         Show Comment

    @NB

    Furthermore, I seem to remember that in an earlier post you wrote that you did not consider Jews a race; nonetheless, in a prior comment you compare ‘Jewish’ mean SAT scores with those of ‘white’ respondents. As white refers to race then logically your use of Jew seems to indicate you accept Jewishness as a ‘race’. Would it not have been more accurate for you to refer to the other group as ‘gentiles’ a term referring to a non-Jew rather than white. Also, I don’t believe one indicates ethnic/religious affiliation when registering for the SAT; one does indicate gender, so how was the mean score for Jews separated out from the scores of all others?

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. Anonymous
    says:
         Show Comment

    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).

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. NB
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    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.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. D. K.
    says:
         Show Comment

    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….

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. Wilkey
    says:
         Show Comment

    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.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. D. K.
    says:
         Show Comment

    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!?!

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. quercus
    says:
         Show Comment

    @NB

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

    Isn’t that usually called “ethnicity”?

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. NB
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    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].

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. D. K.
    says:
         Show Comment

    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.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. NB
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    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.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. Anonymous
    says:
         Show Comment

    “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!

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. D. K.
    says:
         Show Comment

    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!

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. D. K.
    says:
         Show Comment

    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!

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. NB
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    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/

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. D. K.
    says:
         Show Comment

    “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.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. NB
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    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.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. D. K.
    says:
         Show Comment

    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!

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. David
    says:
         Show Comment

    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.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  64. Cahokia
    says:
         Show Comment

    “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.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. D. K.
    says:
         Show Comment

    “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

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. David
    says:
         Show Comment

    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…

    • Replies:
    Reply
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. “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.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  68. Cahokia
    says:
         Show Comment

    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.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. Anon
    says:
         Show Comment

    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?

    Reply
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. 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.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. Wilkey
    says:
         Show Comment

    “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.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  72. Wilkey
    says:
         Show Comment

    “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.

    • Replies:
    Reply
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Wilkey
    says:
         Show Comment

    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.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  74. Hacienda
    says:
         Show Comment

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

    Reply
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. “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.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Wilkey
    says:
         Show Comment

    “Asian and Asian-American parents push their kids to enter these fields.”

    Asian parents also push their kids to study music, but we don’t see Asians taking over the music biz. Not many rock stars or Broadway composers are Asian. Robert Lopez of “Avenue Q,” “Book of Mormon,” and “Frozen” is Filipino, but he seems to be the exception. For every Robert Lopez there are 10 or 20 major Jewish Broadway composers.

    • Replies:
    Reply
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. “Asian parents also push their kids to study music”

    As a hobby, not as a career.

    Asian parents make it clear what they expect of their kids and the music business isn’t it. Its seen as unreliable.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Mike
    says:
         Show Comment

    Dave, you’re absolutely right about the lack of White Protestants on the U.S. Supreme Court but you have answered your own question, and I quote, “White Protestants, who are primarily of British stock, are the most individualistic people in the world, according to everybody who tracks this stuff.”

    That’s the reason! White Protestants are INDIVIDUALISTIC. They are not “company men. ” Catholics ARE company men/women. Catholics are taught to “do as they’re told.” (I’m Catholic myself so no slights are intended; that’s what the Baltimore Catechism is all about –”do as you’re told.”) For example: The last two White Protestants on the U.S. Supreme Court were both appointed by Republicans: David Souter and John Paul Stevens. Both turned out to be the EXACT OPPOSITE of what their Republican Presidents wanted. They were TOO individualistic and became extremely liberal. They were NOT ” company men.” George H. W. Bush (41st President) put Souter on the Court. In the infamous case of Bush v. Gore regarding the 2000 Presidential election, Souter took the Gore side! Even though Souter owed his job to a Bush, he individualistically went out of his way to vote against the Bush family’s interest. Likewise, President Gerald Ford put Stevens on the Court only to find out Stevens was more liberal than anyone else on the Court. In Bush v. Gore, Stevens ALSO took the Gore/ Democratic side, not the side of the Republican candidate.

    MAKE NO MISTAKE: I’m not being partisan. I’m pretty liberal myself. It goes both ways: Republican or Democrat. But if I’m a President , I want a “company man” or “company woman” who is gonna toe the line for my beliefs. If I’m George H.W. Bush (41st President) the last guy I want is a Souter who votes against my son (George W. Bush, 43rd President) in Bush v. Gore. Catholics are taught to toe the line. They obey hierarchy. They kneel, and say “mea culpa, mea ultima culpa”. I’m a Catholic myself, and I don’t recall the Catholic Church ever telling me to “think for yourself.” You’re to obey. Same goes with Democratic Presidents: Pick a Catholic and they’re used to toeing the line and being company men/women. Pick a Protestant and who have an individualistic loose cannon who’ll “think for himself/herself” and WON’T do what you want.

    Reply
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Neo-Fascism on the Politics of Victimology: Victimology Is Not the Problem. Consideration of Our Victimology vs Other Victimology. Part 1. | Andrea Ostrov Letania's Blog
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    […] from Jews and bark at ‘white racism’ on command from their Jewish overlords. It’s like what Ron Unz wrote: “…Asian elected officials, Asian activists, and most Asian-American advocacy groups […]

    Reply
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
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
 Email Replies to my Comment

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.
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
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”?