The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Robert Weissberg Archive
The Intellectual Costs of Diversity
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The quest for campus diversity seems to be everywhere–the website currently lists 75 schools where students are clamoring for diversity. Barbara Wilson, the interim Chancellor of the University of Illinois even called diversity central to the university’s mission and such embarrassing nonsense is typical. People familiar with today’s academy know full well why otherwise sensible folk have, after centuries of neglect suddenly discovered the lofty benefits of diversity—the threat of campus mayhem (see here regarding its alleged benefits). It is inconceivable that Ms. Wilson honestly believes that spending millions to hire black faculty enhances the university’s reputation for scholarship and teaching or that recruiting more academically challenged black undergraduates will improve classroom discussions. Such groveling clearly resembles big-city firms paying off the Mafia to keep the peace; in a word, extortion.

This is a costly enterprise: newly established faculty positions that can only be filled by blacks, more bloated bureaucracies whose only purpose is supervising affirmative programs, and more legal staff to obscure the university’s illegal racial preferences.

Unfortunately, such budgetary items are the least costly items in this crusade. Far worse, and almost invisible to non-academics is the intellectual price of diversification and these costs far exceed constructing diversity’s Potemkin Village. Put bluntly, interim Chancellor Wilson and her ilk willingly engage in a horrible trade-off of undermining intellectual excellence to placate those racial egalitarians who equate skin color with knowledge. A frank translation of her celebration of diversity is that skin color and genitalia outranks scholarly accomplishment.

Let me catalogue a few hidden intellectual costs. Most obvious are the thousands of smart undergraduate white males who grasp that setting aside faculty slots for the disadvantaged (including women) means that the already small number of academic job openings, particularly in the no-growth social sciences and humanities, will be even smaller. So, why waste a decade and thousands of dollars on graduate school to pursue a non-existent tenure track position or having to settle for a low-paying, no benefit adjunct post? Better to find employment in the private sector, think tanks or government or, if the life of the mind is an irresistible lure, specialize in diversity-proof fields, e.g., teach statistics. Think of these never-to-be-hired high IQ white males as collateral damage in the war to achieve “fairness.” Just as harmful is the narrowing of permissible scholarship and teaching. Rule Number One in today’s academy is never offend grievance groups and truth is no defense. A savvy careerist in the social sciences and humanities must relentlessly self-censor and just to be sure, avoid teaching potentially troublesome subjects (e.g., urban politics). This also includes scrutinizing in advance all assigned reading to insure that they do not even cite anything “controversial” such as The Bell Curve. A wise professor will become an expert liar, for example, with a straight face enthusiastically insist that crime is caused by poverty, racism, inequality etc. etc. regardless of the plain-to-see contrary evidence.

Then there’s risking being socially ostracized if one fails to accept the party line on diversity and inclusion. Trust nobody, not even would-be friends and forget about making jokes that could possibly offend some thin-skinned member of a protected grievance group. Further assume that nothing is eternally beyond the reach of the Thought Police—don’t even admit your opposition to affirmative action in German in an obscure German blog since this could be traced back to you and you’ll be forced to publicly humiliate yourself (and forget about your colleagues defending you). If you yearn for camaraderie and a decent social life, seek these pleasures outside the academy.

But of all the intellectual casualties in this diversification, the greatest loss is the honest give-and-take of intellectual life. These interchanges are among the great pleasures of the academy and diversity can kill this joy.

These are discussions that once occurred in faculty colloquiums, job interviews, graduate student dissertation presentations, informal “brown bag” lunches and anywhere professors assembled. Like playground pick-up basketball games, these exchanges can be bruising and participants typically show-off by conspicuously flaunting arcane knowledge or launching sarcastic killer asides. But, and this is critical, intellectual bravado ceases when the discussion ends and the unspoken norm is no enduring hard feelings. After all, today’s sharp-witted loudmouth is scheduled for next week’s weekly faculty seminar so he better not alienate colleagues. Moreover, as in the pick-up game, participants often socialize afterwards and all is immediately forgiven lest intellectual life deteriorates into vindictive cliques.

Not only is the give-and-take fun, but participants also realize that it is vital for top-flight scholarship. Better to suffer the discomfort among helpful coworkers than present the flawed paper at a professional meeting where one’s blunders can destroy a reputation.

Unfortunately, this affection for spirited intellectual back-and-forth is hardly universal. Among Chinese, Japanese and Arab societies, for example, one would never openly belittle a superior no matter how brainless their utterance. Elsewhere, e.g., Israel, even underlings can criticize their bosses without too much harm. However, at least in a university setting, this animated argumentative style is characteristic of white males, especially smart ones.

It has been my experience that adding women and African Americans to the mix more often than not eviscerates these free-wheeling exchanges. That is, in today’s hyper-sensitive university environment, better to keep mum than tell a black job candidate that his research is flawed or explain to a female colleague that her accusations regarding the pernicious impact of sexism is invalid scientifically since they cannot be falsified.


Biting one’s tongue makes perfect sense since what was once deemed a helpful (though unpleasant) intellectual critique has evolved into a politically charged, personal assault if not an attack on the colleague’s racial or gender identity. These prickly colleagues may even judge the criticism as micro-aggression or harassment and that this slicing and dicing is performed in front of others only exacerbates “disrespect.” Worse, even a friendly argument in private may result in the offended, angered high-value diversity hire taking jobs elsewhere and woe to those responsible for this institutional loss. It is no wonder, then, that much of the research emanating from today’s universities is deeply flawed—nobody dares to bell the cat and errors thus go uncorrected (but on the other side, this escape from close scrutiny benefits those intent on using “research” to advance an ideological agenda). .

All of the above makes cost/benefit sense since absolutely no career downside exists for embracing diversity über alles. In fact, the over-the-top admonitions for the orthodoxy now certifies the highest commitment to social justice. A University President who cynically called for (illegal) racial quotas in all faculty appointments would be celebrated even if everyone suspected he was lying. By contrast, a Dean who expressed honest doubts about quotas would be judged “a trouble-maker” and risks never being appointed Provost. Promoting diversity is lie-friendly.

In the final analysis, abandoning intellectual excellence is best explained by physical intimidation and what is most remarkable is the inconsequentiality of this threat. What interim Chancellor Barbara Wilson and others face is at most some fleeting verbal abuse, not fear for one’s life. We might commiserate with a terrified Dean of Admissions who approved the application of Mafia Boss Vito Corleone’s dumb nephew but to capitulate to a bunch of airhead adolescents to escape some ill-informed haranguing gives cowardice a bad name. The guardians of intellectual inquiry should be court-marshaled for desertion.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Academia, Diversity, Political Correctness 
Hide 65 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    “Among Chinese, Japanese and Arab societies, for example, one would never openly belittle a superior no matter how brainless their utterance. Elsewhere, e.g., Israel, even underlings can criticize their bosses without too much harm. However, at least in a university setting, this animated argumentative style is characteristic of white males, especially smart ones.”

    This is a positive among Jews vis-a-vis other groups… but only AMONG Jews.

    Jews may value free-wheeling debate among themselves and against others, but Jews get awful paranoid when gentiles challenge Jews in like manner.
    Jews love their own chutzpah but cannot stand goy chutzpah against Jews.
    Ask Helen Thomas, Jason Richwine, Stephanie Grace, Steven Salaida, and Rick Sanchez.

    Jews surely don’t like Trump’s chutzpah.

    Maybe white goy chutzpah should be called Trumpah.

    • Replies: @mark miller
    , @Bill
  2. John Derbyshire has commented that perhaps the university is reverting to its older model of teaching and enforcing religious orthodoxy; the free inquiry model was a temporary aberration. The religious orthodoxy of today is, of course, diversity and multi-culturalism. And dissent is not mere disagreement–it is heresy to be rooted out!

    • Agree: JEC, dfordoom
    • Replies: @bomag
    , @JEC
    , @Jeff77450
  3. JEC says:

    Objective empirical evidence that ‘diversity’ improves academic outcomes doesn’t exist. Claiming that it has nebulous psychological benefits, is another exercise in virtue signalling.

  4. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    What about hiring teachers or recruting students just because they are jewish, affirmative action that may attract funding from wealthy jews, and on the understanding that criticising jews or making ‘anti-semitic’ statements (note that Arabs are also semites) may sign your death warrant? Do you therefore realise that diversity that favours jews can also be costly? Or are you referring only to ‘diversity’ that seeks affirmative action in favour of people of color? Racists usually suffer from bearing such huge logs close to their eyeballs.

  5. JackOH says:

    Prof. Weissberg hits all the marks here. Perhaps one measure of how starved for oxygen the humanities and social sciences are, at least in my opinion, is that the articles in “Unz Review” appeared startling to me at first. Very rarely do you read editorials or feature articles written by journalists, who are taught by those oxygen-deprived academics, that even hint that the questions asked in many “UR” articles even exist. Yet, a century ago, it’s my guess, it would simply not have been extraordinary at all for men of good will to talk freely about race, ethnicity, nationality, and the like.

    The phrase ” . . . narrowing of permissible scholarship and teaching” pretty much hits it. Add to that that your local Podunk Tech may also be under pressure to serve as a plaything for wealthy donors, a locus for patronage, crony, and nepotism jobs, and a crowd-pleasing sports factory, and you may have a $250 million university that actually delivers maybe $50 million in education.

    • Agree: Percy Gryce
  6. Rdm says:

    The obvious lack of the picture is “Where the FK is Asian guy?”

    I mean Indian guy? EA guy? SEA guy?

    Everytime I see a Black guy with a gown suited on, I can’t help but just think of Affirmative Action and ugly “Black Lives Matter” chant.

  7. bomag says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    I was thinking that this might portend the academy going the way of the organized church: empty pews staffed by hanger-ons. People will go elsewhere (internet?) for scholarship.

  8. Ollie says:

    This is all true, and nicely put. The trouble is, it was known to sensible people from the beginning of the whole “affirmative action” campaign, who expressed similar concerns at the outset. To no avail. Why won’t people focus more on why this was and continues to be the case?

  9. Hubbub says:

    I picked this up at another site:

    Even those who do manage to graduate often end up taking less challenging majors and ultimately learn less. Mismatch Theory suggests that these students would have been better off attending a less competitive school where they would have excelled.

    Justice Scalia even stated the same sentiment a week ago during oral arguments in the University of Texas affirmative action (I prefer the more accurate Positive Discrimination of the Brits) case.

    “…attending a less competitive school where they would have excelled.” Is this possible; is the quality and excellence of the student going to be better by the ‘miraculous’ attendance at some school of lower rank? Will we get ‘excellent’ graduates or simply more low achieving graduates who are foisted off on us as scholars?

    Seems to me we will still have the problem but simply pass it from Yale down to Podunk. Universities should be for those who can achieve and have the mental wherewithal to do so.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  10. Rehmat says:

    The Toronto-born author and former speechwriter for Dubya Bush, David Frum, admitted in an article published in Jewish magazine ‘The Beast’ on February 13, 2013 that Jewish students are overrepresented in the Ivy League institutions.

    Hillel, a leading pro-Israel international campus advocacy group’s 2009 data indicated that Jewish students at Harvard, Brown, Columbia and Penn made up 25 percent of respective undergraduate populations, and at Yale and Cornell, the number was 22 percent. The lowest Jewish enrolement was found at Princeton (13%) and Dartmouth (11 %).

    Rabbi Julie Roth, the executive director of the Center for Jewish Life (CJL) has been leading a campaign to see the percentage jump to 20% at Princeton and Dartmouth.

    On May 3, 2013, The Bilzerian Report, said: “Contrary to popular opinion, the most important criteria for admission to the Ivy League is not grades, nor SAT, nor recommendations, or even essys. The most important criteria is actually race/religion. By claiming to be Jewish, an applicant can increase his chances of admission by upto 15 fold“…..

    • Replies: @Sherman
    , @vinteuil
    , @Avi
  11. Sherman says:

    And Muslims are what percentage of the Ivies?

    I would imagine the Ivies would bend over backwards to accommodate an Arab or Iranian with an iota of intelligence.

    • Replies: @Rehmat
  12. vinteuil says:

    So Rehmat can write reasonably good English, when he wants to.

    Too funny.

    • Replies: @Rehmat
  13. Puffdaddy says:

    Not to mention IQ differences….

  14. How much dead-weight loss can an economy handle before collapsing?

    How much dead-weight is now carried (and tolerated) because of a once-in-three-centuries asset mania is still deluding people into thinking America (and the West) can provide an infinite amount of Guns and Butter simultaneously?

    Recently I watched a young black woman who CHOSE to be a terrible, intolerable employee extort what I must assume was a $50,000 settlement from a small business when she turned her justified dismissal into an EEOC/DOJ-enabled crime. One of my sons related a story about an ex-coworker, a black man who was abysmal in his performance, whose exit from the firm came with a $200,000 “payoff” to prevent the crippling bad publicity of a race discrimination suit. This, he said, was the going rate to terminate a black employee for cause.

    Add all this “paying blacks to do nothing productive” (or even paying them to spread poison, which is what the academy is actually doing) and I wonder how much longer this mutual and universal parasitism can last.

    I’ve met blacks who were clearly intelligent and capable. But now I see there is no exception to the threat each and every single one poses when “the law” hands them an irresistible pathway to rob, threaten and assault others. Affirmative action and welfare render every single individual in the group so tainted that there is no longer any means to trust their honor or capability.

    This is the sort of poisonous well from which pogroms emerge, where discrimination between innocence and guilt becomes so meaningless that every single member of a particular group faces extermination.

    Is this the ultimate ethos that arrived with the import of Africans to North America? If the current asset mania (and its attendant (mis)perception of wealth) collapses and people who worked hard and obeyed the rules are cast into a pit of poverty and hardship, does anyone have any clue how much rage will wash over the continent?

    At whom will that tsunami of rage be directed (rightly or wrongly)? Click over to Colin Flaherty’s youtube channel for one possible Poster Boy or another.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  15. @Priss Factor

    “Jews surely don’t like Trump’s chutzpah.”

    Leftist Jews don’t. But I think in the Orthodox camp, you’d find more mutual respect/recognition.

    I don’t think Ivanka is doing this out of self-promotion:

  16. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    abandoning intellectual excellence is best explained by physical intimidation and what is most remarkable is the inconsequentiality of this threat. What interim Chancellor Barbara Wilson and others face is at most some fleeting verbal abuse …

    Complete rubbish, this.

    If interim Chancellor Barbara Wilson were so stupid as to ignore the rule of Political Correctness, she would suffer the certain and horrendous penalty of of exclusion from consideration for any further advancement in her career as an academic bureaucrat.

    Why else are the useless drones in academia paid so much? Obviously, because, just like the JEBs and Rubios and other scum who rule in Congress and the White House as proxies for a hidden elite, so the top academic administrators are bought and paid for at taxpayer expense to impose the rule of Political Correctness on all who pass through their hollowed halls.

    • Replies: @Anon7
  17. Rehmat says:

    If one go by population – Muslims should be double than the Jews at Ivy League institutions – but your brother David Frum says they’re not.

    Why don’t you ask Zionist Jewish Orientalist Dr. Bernard Lewis, who has higher IQ – Jews or Arabs who liberated them in Spain in 711 CE – and educated those SERF (slave) Jews?

    On November 29, 2015, Greek foreign minister Nikos Kotzias delivered a speech at the University of Tehran in which he called the Islamic Republic and China the new emerging powers.

    “We live in ever-changing world extending from the Atlantic to Pacific Ocean. The shift of power is happening from the West to the East to a degree today, new powers and countries with long histories like Iran and China are emerging in the world,” Kotzias said…..

    • Replies: @rec1man
  18. Rehmat says:

    Yes darling – Rehmat can even write in Hebrew – can you Moshe?

    How interesting!

  19. nickels says:

    I have an idea for an American experiment:

    Lets randomly select students that have grades, test scores and achievements in, say, the 60th quantile.
    Lets fill our schools with these people (at the expense of those in the top quantile).

    Lets do the same in industry, choose the lamo’s for jobs, and let the intelligent roast.


    What do we expect such a plan would do to the productivity and living standard of every American?


    Why would diversity have an effect that was in any way different**?


    ** hint, all contrary answers will be racist.

  20. Bill says:
    @Priss Factor

    Jews may value free-wheeling debate among themselves and against others, but Jews get awful paranoid when gentiles challenge Jews in like manner.

    Only on taboo subjects, though. Jews tend to be as receptive to criticism from goys as from Jews about, say, the technical merit of their work or of the technical merit of another Jew’s work. Off limits tend to be criticism of Jews as Jews and anything racist. Depending on the Jew, it may be dangerous to explicitly defend whites, Christianity, Europe, etc.

    There is also ethnic nepotism, both positive and negative, which goys are absolutely not allowed to notice. Jews have a tendency to overestimate the quality of other Jews’ work and to underestimate the quality of rival ethnic group memebers’ work—currently, I notice that academic Jews really don’t like academic Indians. They tell me these stories about how Indians are devious, clever but not really smart, and ethnically self-promoting, not like “us.” Keeping a straight face in these discussions is mandatory. I think it’s possible that they don’t even know they are doing it.

  21. Bill says:

    This is good stuff:

    These are discussions that once occurred in faculty colloquiums, job interviews, graduate student dissertation presentations, informal “brown bag” lunches and anywhere professors assembled. Like playground pick-up basketball games, these exchanges can be bruising and participants typically show-off by conspicuously flaunting arcane knowledge or launching sarcastic killer asides. But, and this is critical, intellectual bravado ceases when the discussion ends and the unspoken norm is no enduring hard feelings. After all, today’s sharp-witted loudmouth is scheduled for next week’s weekly faculty seminar so he better not alienate colleagues. Moreover, as in the pick-up game, participants often socialize afterwards and all is immediately forgiven lest intellectual life deteriorates into vindictive cliques.

    I’ve watched this die over the course of my career as an economist. Actually, it’s more undead than dead. It is more or less mandatory to adopt the outward form of this kind of discussion while suppressing the content. It kind of sucks. And, of course, the young people don’t even know what a functional scholarly community looks like. They think the tiresome, rote interactions we are left with are how scholars talk to one another.

    In the case of the academy—or at least in the more difficult fields—it is more the influx of women than any influx of blacks that is to blame. There have been many sex discrimination cases involving women denied tenure. These women argue by pointing to some man who recently got tenure with worse teaching evaluations and fewer publications on his cv. The reason these women typically didn’t get tenure is things like “she sucked in seminar” or “she trained her students badly” or “she isn’t smart: she’s on a lot of papers, but she didn’t contribute much to them.” These are not winning arguments in court. They are, however, excellent reasons not to give someone tenure.

    As a result, tenure review (which, along with job searches, is the only important thing in the academic labor market) has become, defensively, an exercise in box-checking and mindless publication-counting (and grant-counting). But, once you are evaluating people on this kind of superficial crap, there’s no reason for them to care whether they are advancing knowledge. That’s not what they are evaluated or promoted on. So, it’s only academics who care about knowledge as a kind of hobby who are bothering to chase it.

    On the other hand, this is not good stuff:

    In the final analysis, abandoning intellectual excellence is best explained by physical intimidation and what is most remarkable is the inconsequentiality of this threat.

    That’s not what’s going on at all. Universities have their own police forces, mutual aid agreements with surrounding communities’ police forces, and, ultimately, call on the national guard to keep order. Universities have no difficulty whatsoever expelling unwanted individuals from their campuses.

    What’s going on here is that affirmative action and the deranged ideology which justifies it is government policy. It’s a policy designed to buy off the talented tenth in order to keep blacks from being an organized nuisance. Universities are organs of the government (even the ones that appear not to be). So, they implement their part of this policy.

    • Replies: @JackOH
  22. Anon7 says:

    My son the honors math major often receives exciting email messages begging him to apply for research opportunities. When he clicks through, however, he invariably learns that these opportunities are only available to women and minorities.

    It must be difficult for program administrators to impose diversity on a field in which advanced classes are 90% male. But they keep trying.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  23. Svigor says:

    Mean IQ in the Muslim world is low.

  24. Rehmat says:

    Cary Nelson (a Zionist Jew), professor of English at the University of Illinois who was president of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) for six years (2006-2012) has always criticized academic boycott of Israel in the name of academic freedom. Some of AAUP’s past victims in addition to Kevin Barrett, have been Norman Finkelstein, Joseph Massad and Nadia Abu El-Haj. Read more here.

    Professor Nicholas Kollerstrom was chased by the organized Jewry for making a political wrong statement, saying World War One was a Banker’s War. Pat Buchanan has come to a similar conclusion on WW II in his book, ‘Churchil, Hitler and the Unnecessary War’.

  25. Anon7 says:

    “Why else are the useless drones in academia paid so much? Obviously, because, just like the JEBs and Rubios and other scum who rule in Congress and the White House as proxies for a hidden elite, so the top academic administrators are bought and paid for at taxpayer expense to impose the rule of Political Correctness on all who pass through their hollowed halls.”

    I hope that by pulling this paragraph out, I will increase the chances that it will be seen.

    My daughter has her degree from one such institution, and I can tell you that I can no longer speak frankly to her about any intellectual or political subject. Her feminine privilege is now ironclad.

  26. JackOH says:

    “Universities are organs of the government . . . . [s]o, they implement their part . . .”. Yeah, I think you got it there.

    The consequences of this “deranged ideology” are, I suspect, much worse than we yet know. E. g., I know several profs at our local Podunk Tech who’ve casually raised questions about the 12% six-year graduation rate for blacks at our open-admissions university. The only permissible answer seems to be something like more needs to be done to ensure minority student success. The idea that faculty seem to get, I think, is that unprepared and poorly motivated blacks who might do better outside college nonetheless enjoy a sort of “essentialist veto” over more challenging teaching and engagement with students. Social promotion of poorly qualified students is the answer, although no one dares mention the practice, nor its demoralizing consequences for the scholarly enterprise.

  27. Avi says:

    Kevin MacDonald has done an interesting analysis of Jewish over representation in the Ivies, controlling for the the IQ differential between Ashkenazim and European Americans. His conclusion is there’s been a gaming of the admission criteria that gives Ashkenazis an unfair advantage. IQ alone doesn’t explain the rates of admissions you cited above.

    • Replies: @Rehmat
  28. MarkinLA says:

    Not necessarily. No the seemingly dumber guy who would flunk out of the top flight school but graduate from Podunk U probably won’t win a Nobel Prize or Fields medal but by graduating and getting a job in the field he studied for he might find he really enjoys what he is doing and that is enough to cause him to put in the extra effort to do well. If he puts in effort reading the journals in the field he might actually get quite good at what he does – enough to rise to a significant position in his field. Effort sometimes means more than smarts.

    • Replies: @JackOH
  29. MarkinLA says:

    Tell him to apply anyway. Gender is a social construct. He is a lesbian with a penis.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  30. MarkinLA says:

    Back when Affirmative Action was a very big deal in defense contracting there was almost no blacks to hire yet the government still wanted more. In addition, they wanted blacks in management. The company I worked at resorted to hiring them to positions of HR and public relations. Since they wanted managers, the company made the decision to fast track these people (whose real job was to cash their pay checks on Friday) by making them paper superstars so they could be promoted quickly if necessary.

    The defense wind down came. The company made the decision to ride it out by laying off non-engineering positions first and keep the projects running. Obviously these AA hires were the first to go. They sued for 12 million dollars (there was a black and Hispanic). Those wonderful performance reviews were used as proof the company was discriminating against these superstars on the basis of race. They won. The company appealed. I don’t know what the final settlement was.

    Every black engineer in the company was cheering when the verdict was announced. They probably knew what a scam it was but were likely thinking about their potential lawsuit when they got laid off.

  31. timothy says:

    It has been my experience that adding women and African Americans to the mix more often than not eviscerates these free-wheeling exchanges.

    Honestly, speaking as a graduate student, women are far more detrimental to these types of intellectual sparring sessions than racial minorities. They usually don’t enjoy them the way men do, and they have a harder time compartmentalizing them: men can ridicule each other mercilessly while play-arguing and then forget all about it five minutes later. With women there’s a sort of argumentative half-life, or hangover, that tends to linger.

  32. MarkinLA says:

    Damn why didn’t I think of that 25 years ago when I wandered into that lesbian bar and the bartender refused to serve me. Now they are called lipstick lesbians, back then femmes but some sure were drop dead gorgeous.

  33. Rehmat says:

    Dr. Kevin McDonald is a White racist who is obsessed with Jews and Muslims. He, like Abraham Foxman, is a habitual whino. I left some comments on his “Occidental Observer” debunking some of his “Whites are always victimized” crap. Instead of proving me wrong using some sensible logic, he banned me.

  34. JackOH says:

    Agree 100%. I have a relative who received a chemistry degree from our local Podunk Tech, then went on to a challenging career in laboratory medicine during a period when it went from manual to automated testing. She’d worked in NYC for a decade at hospitals and reference labs that were early adopters of some of the most complex equipment then available. After returning to the Midwest, she was often the point person for training, and performance and compliance audits, and finished her career as a lab manager. Was she a failure because she didn’t go to a highly selective university where she might have been at sea academically and socially for a while, and where her classmates enjoyed high-end secondary educations and held ambitions for academic teaching and research?

    I’ve pretty much interpreted Justice Scalia’s comments commonsensically and benignly. If the best you can run is a 7-minute mile, does that mean you’re an athletic flop if the guys with Olympic ambitions who can run 4-minute miles don’t want you on their team? I flip it around, too. If the best I can do is a 7-minute mile, and I insist through litigation on being part of the Olympic team, am I actually diminishing the capability of that Olympic team? If my litigation is successful, am I actually an Olympic-quality runner?

    I’m okay with strong academic outreach to gifted blacks, Hispanics, and poor whites. But, I don’t see the whole affirmative action thing as being of much social and institutional benefit except, maybe, for the corporate, political, and individual hustlers who really know how to work it.

    • Agree: dc.sunsets
    • Replies: @Anon7
  35. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    One crucial difference between conservatives and libertarians is in the nature of their approaches to the modern state and political correctness.

    Conservatives react with call for less individual liberty & freedom, whereas libertarians always call for more individual liberty & freedom. Conservatives view many facets of Liberalism as decadent, destabilizing, demoralizing, and degrading; even degenerate. They see the dangers to community, values, morality, and order. So, they invoke the need for religion, family, community, national borders, and shared values & themes. Conservatives fear that more individual freedom(unmoored from traditional moral precepts and social taboos) will leads to more stupid behavior among the young, more boorish behavior among the men, more slutty behavior from the women, and more wantonly shameless marketing by profit-hungry businesses. The ultra-conservative social order of Saudi Arabia doesn’t even allow women to drive. And there are limits to youth freedom in many conservative societies where young people must heed the authority of parents, teachers, and spiritual authorities.

    If classic liberalism had preserved its core themes, it would hardly be different from libertarianism. But liberalism went from purist individualism to individualism + statism, a contradictory synthesis.

    Modern Liberals believe in individual liberties but believe that the power of the state is necessary to secure and guarantee the rights of ALL individuals. This made good sense against the American South’s invocation of “states’ rights” to deny full individual rights and equality to blacks. For black individuals to have the full measure of individual freedoms, the federal government had to prevail over the power of southern states that denied full rights to individual blacks. (As it turned out, the issue was far more complicated due to racial differences. If indeed blacks were merely white people with black skin, the civil rights movement made good sense. But blacks are different in fundamental ways that make them a real threat to whites. They are stronger, more aggressive, and wilder. So, giving them equality didn’t lead to equality of white and black but whites being whupped by blacks.)

    Also, Liberals started to believe that distribution of wealth through ‘progressive taxation’ and redress of past wrongs via ‘affirmative action’ were necessary for the well-being of ‘disenfranchised’ individuals. While such measures undermined the principles of purist individualism, they upheld the positive right of every individual to be guaranteed the basic necessities of life.

    After all, what was the use of being a free individual if one was starving and without a roof over one’s head? A libertarian might argue that, in a free society, every individual could earn his way and purchase whatever he needs on his own, but the Great Depression put a big damper such a perspective.

    Also, if society were still effectively discriminatory due to malevolence of prevailing prejudices of the majority or due to legacy of past wrongs, then individuals of certain groups needed ‘affirmative action’ to gain ‘equal’ access and footing in society.

    Also, since power is never equal among all groups in society, even something like politically correct speech controls might be necessary to protect the well-being and mental health of ‘less privileged’ individuals.

    Of course, there is some degree of validity to such views. If a society is made up of 1000 A people and 10 B people, surely the insults of A people aimed at B people are gonna sting more and carry more threat than insults by B people aimed at A people. The hatred of a 1000 against 10 is more dangerous than the hatred of 10 against 1000. Surely, whites in South Africa aren’t too enthused about the free speech of blacks to sing songs about butchering whites.

    So, Liberals see this as protection of individualism through statist intervention. Besides, without Rule of Law enforced by the state, there can be no individual rights or freedom. Where Liberals and Libertarians differ is that the latter believe Rule of Law is sufficient for everyone to be individually free and secure, whereas Liberals believe the state must play a more active role to ensure equal rights and freedom for everyone, especially minorities and women.

    But as the white share of the population continues to decline in the US and as Political Correctness becomes ever more pervasive and threatening against the very principles of property, free speech, and individual conscience, a clear break between Liberalism and libertarianism took place, and in time, libertarianism and conservatism became odd bedfellows with Modern Liberalism as their common enemy.

    But their ways of confronting PC and Liberalism are fundamentally different from one another. Patrick Buchanan, an arch-conservative, has argued that there must be bans or serious taboos against stuff like pornography, blasphemy, illicit drugs, illegal immigration, and vice industries such as gambling. Buchanan believes in moral freedom than individual freedom, i.e. for a society to be free within bounds of shared morality, it must censure, at times even censor, that which is foul, obscene, degenerate, and filthy. Also, to maintain social order and national security, there must be strict citizenship laws that limit the mobility of people in and out of the US.

    In contrast, libertarians argue that the main threat of modern Liberalism isn’t so much its decadence and degeneracy but its statist power to control our lives with all sorts of regulations, laws, dogma, and indoctrination. So, if we are to resist and defeat Political Correctness, we should be calling for more freedom in everything: drugs, sex, movements of peoples, expression, and etc. It is Camille Paglia’s position.

    Conservatives decry that Liberal version of freedom is excessively ugly and demented; they argue that such freedom should be banned or denounced. Libertarians say the only way to defeat statism and political correctness is by defending total individual freedom despite its risks because any call to censorship or state control is a slippery slope to totalitarianism.

    Sometimes, especially because Political Correctness has become so out-of-control, we hear conservatives making the libertarian argument, if only selectively. Pat Buchanan, who’d long defended Joseph McCarthy’s blacklisting campaigns and denounced pornography & blasphemy, complained when he was let go by MSNBC that all views, no matter how controversial, should be aired and discussed in the media. Would he have defended communists’ right of free speech in the 50s?

    At any rate, neither conservatism nor libertarianism can stave off the power of Liberalism, especially as the latter is controlled by powerful Jews that have a near-total lock on the media, academia, government, finance, entertainment, and technology.

    Liberalism is now a strange creature. It once used to argue that even decadents and degenerates should have the freedom to be nutty and that their power should be defended by the state. But today, Liberals believe that the power of the state should be used to push and force the ideas, idols, & images of decadence and degeneracy on all of us through schools and government. We went from ‘let homos be free to do their homo stuff’ to ‘government must force all of us to believe that homosexuality is wonderful and healthy, and if you disagree, you must be blacklisted’.

    When the White House lit up with fruitcake colors after Supreme Court bent over to the homo agenda, we are indeed living in strange times. Big Brother Is Butt-Fuc*ing You.

  36. rec1man says:

    Has list of California, National Merit for 2016

    Total = 2200

    East Asian = 1140

    Jewish = 120

    Hindu = 300

    Muslim = 31 ( including South Asian, Iranian, Turkish, Arab, etc )

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  37. How many complainers here vote for or want government? You realize that government is causing this, right?

    From dumb matter they arose and as dumb matter they lived. Congrats!

  38. JackOH says:

    Thanks. I actually know a black guy at one degree of separation who’s a senior executive at Raytheon’s missile division. If he’s at all like his brother, whom I’ve met, he’s a genuinely talented, management sort of guy.

    FWIW-I suspect that affirmative action’s costs, both quantitative and in demoralizing qualitative “organizational distortion”, are a secret contributing factor to some businesses’ decisions to outsource, off-shore, sell their operations, liquidate, etc.

    • Replies: @E. Rekshun
  39. malachy says:

    Diversity has t affected jewish over-representation at top schools. Indeed, jews are 7-10 times over-represented. ‘Diversity’ plainly has meant keeping out equally or better qualified non jewish whites and asians while protecting and entrenching disproportionate jewish admission explained much more by wealth and ethnonepotism than merit.

    But to criticize the exemption of this group from the dictates of ‘multiculturalism’ would be ‘hate’ – or so we are demanded to believe.

  40. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Presumably he banned you for inane trolling, rehmat.

  41. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Diversity has not come at the expense of jews who are wildly over-represented at top schools well beyond merit.

    The fact is we are brainwashed to fear duscussing the fact ‘diversity’ has not at all displaced jews, only equally or better qualified non jewish whites and asians.

    THEY, but not jews, have been displaced by under-qualified blacks and latinos.

    Diversity is fairly plainly a tool to entrench yet obfuscate wildly disporoportionate Jewish power. Ditto ‘white privilege’ – an analysis and rhetoric curiously never applied to the most privileged and poweful ethnic or religious group in the US.

    Pure merit would harm admissions of blacks and latinos until their education ghettoes and cultures of resentiment are addressed… But would also seriously diminish Jewish power, as wealth and ethnonepotism ensure their admissions at rates well over the over-representation that would certainly occur, to a lesser extent, anyway.

    But I dont expect to ever see the media cover this. No, speaking truth to Jewish power, we are assured, is ‘hate.’

  42. Anon7 says:

    Although there may have been some incidental benefits to affirmative action, it’s been mostly a disaster. I worked my way through college working in a hospital, and I had a number of women (black and white) as supervisors and managers in the era before affirmative action. I heard plenty of complaints from fellow employees, but I never once heard “she only got that job because she’s female” or “that guy’s black, and that explains why he’s now a supervisor”. Not once.

    By the 1990’s you heard it all the time. “So, you’ve got a new supervisor. Of course, she’s female. Wonder how she got that job.” “There’s only one explanation for the hiring of that new gal – she’s black.” Women who are actually competent at a particular level have no chance of being accepted for their actual abilities. It’s a disaster all the way around.

    • Replies: @JackOH
    , @Jeff77450
  43. @MarkinLA

    I worked for Johnson & Johnson, a PC-obsessed company if ever there was one.

    It was often openly stated that a managerial job was reserved for a “diversity candidate.”

    My worst district manager EVER in a long sales career was a black guy fast-tracked to management. Unlike others, he never was part of the development program, never took any of the required training and just jumped from a different division of the company.

    His manager was a black woman; she was absolutely ghastly as a director, but at her level of the company she was typical…they were all vicious animals in the business sense, people whose very presence at a meeting made everyone’s skin crawl.

    During one reorganization early in the aforementioned black guy’s managerial days he was tasked to phone a subordinate to tell her she still had a job. When he also told her she would remain in his district she replied, “nope” and quit on the spot. She would not continue to work for such a cretin.

    This is what passes for Fortune 50 corporation SOP today. To suggest that a mighty fall is baked into the cake would be a monumental understatement. America’s Corporate Behemoths are nothing but ancient, giant oak trees…majestic-seeming but utterly dead and hollow right under the surface.

  44. JackOH says:

    We likely won’t find an academic or investigative journalist willing to get anywhere close to toting up the costs of affirmative action/diversity because to do so would mean professional suicide. The party line is there are only benefits, without costs. Like, I guess North Koreans, we’re supposed to smile and pretend we don’t see what we in fact do see.

    • Replies: @bomag
  45. bomag says:

    And it is to the point where it is just an ingrained part of life. I’m helping set up a quasi-government/cooperative organization, and we openly discuss how many positions we need for affirmative action; positions that will have no expectation of contribution. Just a cost of doing business.

  46. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Among Chinese, Japanese and Arab societies, for example, one would never openly belittle a superior no matter how brainless their utterance.”

    Nonsense Robert – the Analects of Confucius enjoins criticism of one’s superiors, and Chinese literati culture has traditionally lionised ministers and men of letters who were willing to rebuke the emperor.

    Chinese youths also proved extremely willing to belittle their elders and nominal superiors at the behest of Mao during the Cultural Revolution.

    I’ve worked in China since the turn of the century – I haven’t noticed an attitude of sedulous deference to be any more prevalent in that country than amongst Westerners of Anglosphere origin.

  47. Eustace Tilley (not) [AKA "Schiller/Nietzsche"] says:

    Smart man.

  48. Jeff77450 says:

    Worked at a place for twelve years where a common refrain was, “He didn’t get the promotion because he was too male and too pale.”

    • Replies: @Anon7
  49. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I didn’t find the break down by ethnicity. How many Blacks? HOW many American Blacks?

  50. Dr. X says:

    I cannot even BEGIN to tell the readers how true this article really is.

    I’m a white male who holds a doctorate in the social sciences. I had the unfortunate experience of being thrown out of a tenure-track position at a junior college on my ass by females with far lower qualifications. (The female Vice-President for Academic Affairs who threw me out had no Ph.D. Neither did my department chairwoman.) I have personally witnessed administrators attempting to hire a black — who had not yet completed a Master’s — to teach college courses. Presently I teach at three locations as an adjunct. My combined course schedule is an overload schedule. I make about minimum wage — $16,000 for nine classes this year.

    I am seriously thinking about becoming a truck driver. If I could make $15 an hour, that would be fantastic!

    • Replies: @JackOH
  51. JackOH says:
    @Dr. X

    Dr. X, we have profs with their terminal degrees teaching full-time as adjuncts year after year at my local Podunk Tech for $30,ooo annually. A local proprietary college has instructors earning as little as $15 per class hour actually taught. (I think most have second incomes from pensions, primary employment, etc.)

    One lard-ass tenured prof explains some of this away by saying adjuncts have less time for research, and, therefore, fall further behind than full-time, tenure-track folks who are expected to publish. Sounds plausible, but a local newspaper expose showed that several of our departments had already tenured faculty leaving because they were strongly discouraged from publishing. No explanation was given, but it’s pretty much common knowledge at open-admissions Podunk that senior profs don’t want intellectually aggressive junior profs upsetting their featherbed.

    Don’t know much about trucking, although I’ve heard that good jobs that pay okay and get you home regularly are increasingly difficult to find.

    • Replies: @Dr. X
  52. Anon7 says:

    I worked at one of the US automakers as a white collar contract employee in the 1990’s. At one point, a rumor went around that the division I worked for had been given permission to hire 20 people.

    Then, I heard about a memo given to management that their entire annual bonus would be given based on how much they increased the diversity of their workforce. The result? The new hires turned out to be 19 women and one middle eastern guy.

    Several pale twenty-something guys (who were employees!) I knew who were obviously up-and-comers coincidentally quit within six months. Why stay in a place that tells you so clearly you aren’t wanted and will never be promoted?

    • Replies: @JackOH
  53. JackOH says:

    I’ve also seen talented folks decline advancement or a desirable transfer because they fear they’ll end up playing the high-talent chump for one of the skin ‘n’ genitalia crew. Having to cover for a less able supervisor or weak department can tax all your organizational skill. Having to cover for people who got their position because the power of the state demanded it? Not for me. (I once covered for an alcoholic, a white guy, because I thought I had to. Drunks get sober, and will wreak vengeance on those who remind them of when they weren’t doing so well.)

  54. Dr. X says:

    $30K? God, that’s a FORTUNE for an adjunct. At the junior colleges where I have worked publishing isn’t a requirement. I have, however, published widely-read stuff, but not in peer-reviewed journals, which are almost entirely B.S. (e.g., “An Oral History of Lesbian Farmers in the Antebellum South,” etc. That’s a parody — but not by much).

    “Education” is a racket — a government-subsidized, tax-exempt racket. That’s what it is. But instead of having Mafia dons mutter orders in back rooms of Italian restaurants to “take care of troublemakers” you have gays, lesbians, women and blacks secretly conspiring to not grant tenure to whites, heterosexuals, males and independent thinkers — and Title IX officers and “diversity officers” railroading conservative, or white, or male professors on false or contrived charges while Leftist professors get away with every imaginable outrage under the cloak of “academic freedom.”

    Professors no longer emulate Socrates — to the contrary, the academy has become the Athenian jury.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  55. Believe it or not, I don’t like political correctness. In fact, I loathe it. Yet, as much as I’d like to, I just can’t swallow this article.
    Simply, there is not one “fact” in it. Oh yes, we ALL KNOW it’s true. But, perhaps, we could have the odd statistic ? You know, how many non-whites actually have been hired under affirmative action policies ? How many of those were objectively less qualified than the white candidates ? OK, perhaps, such statistics don’t exist…? Could we have some anecdotal comments from respected (anonymous) academics ?
    I really don’t think I’m asking for THAT much…

    • Replies: @Discard
  56. Discard says:

    You don’t really expect the vermin who carry out these illegal policies to document their crimes and publish the evidence, do you?

  57. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. X

    I have, however, published widely-read stuff, but not in peer-reviewed journals, which are almost entirely B.S.

    Aside from the problems of diversity, have you considered the possibility that you are just mediocre against the competition?

    • Replies: @Mark2
  58. Mark2 says:

    You forgot to use the phrase “man up.” That’s how we can really know we’re dealing with an intelligent criticism.

  59. @MarkinLA

    Every black engineer in the company was cheering when the verdict was announced.

    Yep, both of them.

  60. @JackOH

    In the mid-80s, I knew of exactly one black software engineer at Raytheon Missile Systems. He was polite, but did nothing and slept at his desk.

  61. Cut the funding at the Federal and State level for useless studies and useless professors and staff. Simply state that no money is to go for these activities and these people. The majority of tax payers do not want the presence of the imbeciles and childish fantasy curriculum

Current Commenter

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

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Robert Weissberg Comments via RSS
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.