The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Harvard Wins Again
🔊 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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
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

From The Chronicle of Higher Education:

Harvard’s Race-Conscious Admissions Policy Is Constitutional, Judge Rules in Closely Watched Case
By Nell Gluckman OCTOBER 01, 2019

Harvard University does not discriminate against Asian American students through its use of race-conscious admissions, a federal judge ruled in a decision released on Tuesday. Writing that the university’s system “passes constitutional muster,“ Judge Allison D. Burroughs added that she would “not dismantle a very fine admissions program … solely because it could do better.”

The verdict closes the first chapter in a case that was filed against Harvard in 2014. The university was sued by Students for Fair Admissions, a membership organization that says Harvard’s admissions policies discriminate against Asian American applicants. The organization’s founder is Edward J. Blum, the same activist who was behind the case that claimed the University of Texas at Austin’s admissions policy discriminated against a white student.

That case made it up to the U.S. Supreme Court, where UT-Austin’s policy was upheld in 2016. Legal scholars say the case against Harvard could wind up there as well, and if it does, it will be decided by a much more conservative bench. A new ruling could have serious implications for how and whether colleges can consider a student’s race when making decisions about whom to admit.

Harvard, which has a $39 billion endowment, tends to get its way.

Don’t bet against Harvard has been a pretty good rule for the last 383 years.

 
Hide 139 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Harvard and its peer institutions are absolutely flooded with Asian and Jewish students, along with a deliberate cohort of ~10% Negroid, mostly immigrants. Along with the rest of the foreign admits, we’ve just described the vast majority of the student body. Which means certain other group(s) must be under-represented, but I’ll be danged if I can remember who those might be…

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    I have zero issues whatsoever with Harvard being 100% Asian for two reasons:

    1) It's right. If college admissions were remotely fair in the United States, most prestige schools would be overwhelmingly Asian, predominantly East Asian with a handful of subcontinentals, former Warsaw Pacters, and the odd Igbo. Just look at NYC test scores: working class East Asians are the poorest group there. Yet still...

    2) It screws with the toxic branding culture that is omnipresent in the United States, all over our economy. Best to hit it at the source, because if it happens with Harvard, it'll happen pretty quickly with other schools. See, it makes everything even more embarrassingly transparent for our elites when they suddenly start hiring from whatever school they send their kids to get away from all those icky Asian grinds who can't offer them good network potential, and the upper-middle class SWPL types will scramble over themselves to follow them there.

  2. How long before a College of Merit is established?

    I’d guess within ten years.

    • Replies: @Thulean Friend
    That's Caltech. It is very meritocratic. That's why its Asian share is already well above 40%.
  3. I believe a lot of the point here was to get this case to SCOTUS. For that purpose a loss at the trial court level is probably fine. In fact, if the plaintiffs had won now, Harvard might not have appealed in order to avoid a precedent-setting SCOTUS decision.

    • Agree: Thulean Friend
    • Replies: @Barnard
    Nothing John Roberts has done as Chief Justice so far makes me think he is willing to take on the Ivy League on this. It would be stunning if he ruled against them.
    , @Lot
    So the mostly Harvard/Yale grad Supreme Court is going to rule that those schools should only consider tests scores and let themselves become 0.5% black and 60%+ asian?

    Well anything is possible. I wouldn’t bet on it.

    So many better potential test cases. Ed Blum made a big mistake throwing his hat in with Hsu’s Asian Supremicism and Unz’s ethnomasochism.

    Harvard was also a poor choice of defendant for a test case.

    I predicted before that Harvard would win completely and was right. Here’s my further prediction: Harvard wins again on appeal and the Supreme Court doesn’t take the case.

    My alternate less likely prediction: Supreme Court takes another AA case during the appeal of this case, the judge’s order is possibly vacated to reflect the new decision, and then Harvard wins again.

    So two paths to the same result.

    Ed Blum has done so much good with his activism on AA and redistricting and voter ID laws. Hope he finds a way to extricate himself from this case before it sucks up more of his energy and time.
  4. Wait until it gets to the US Supreme Court. This was one Obama appointed District Court judge in a hotbed of leftism, Massachusetts.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    They’re terrified on pulling the plug on the blacks. If the affirmative action free ride stops, riots will occur. Ferguson was a demonstration of the potential threat of violence to other cities. You better think twice white boy.
  5. That ruling is pure sophistry, Rechtsstaat at its finest!

  6. https://www.unz.com/isteve/asians-sue-harvard-over-affirmative-action-in-admissions/#comment-1955599

    Some ‘sploitation director like Eli Roth should make a movie about an Asian dude obsessed with getting into Harvard but has to settle for nearby Tufts and one day snaps and goes all Seung-Hui Cho in and around Harvard Yard.

    Possible titles:

    The Prestige

    It Came From The Kong

    Massacre-Chusetts Avenue

    Park The SCAR In Harvard Yard

    Crouching Crammer, Hidden Quota

    Derek Bok Choi: Vengeance Of The Namesake

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    Derek Bok Choi: Vengeance Of The Namesake

    That's the one I'd vote for.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Funny stuff, Gen-Am.

    I'd like to add: Long Duck Dong: First Brood
    , @HammerJack
    Pretty epic. Definitely worth repeating.
    , @Neil Templeton
    The Yellow, the White, and the Black.

    How the West was Kwonned.
  7. That ruling is pure sophistry…

  8. In: Intersectionality enforced by law
    Out: Equality under the law

  9. The last 30 years of policy should be enough proof that when Harvard wins, usually America loses.

  10. Blacks and hispanics are royalty.

    Whites and Asians are serfs.

    So ruleth the Court!

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    I don't think it is that simple. "Asian" can be anything from Khmer to Korean: to say nothing of the South Asians, who come from an absolutely, totally different cultural and racial construct.

    (One can say the same about "Muslims". An Iranian physicist and a Jordanian shopkeeper and a Somali refugee aren't the same, folks, racially or otherwise.)

    I'd say that South Asians are shaping up to do pretty well in an SJW-fied America, in part because they, like the Jews, have better verbal skills than the East Asians. Although it is a much more risky gambit to use them as the go-to socially left-wing minority group because they can't rely off the bizarre Judeophilia of conservative American whites protecting them from antagonistic feelings from the Deplorables, in the short run, they are a lot more likely to be on the "royalty" end of the ledger, despite being an extremely well-off, affluent group. Upwardly mobile Hispanics, on the other hand, are a lot more likely to mix with downwardly mobile whites, which can lead to interesting results.

    That in their own lives they can be quite conservative and insular, often insisting their children marry within the ethnic group, is irrelevant: the Jews were the same in the 1950s before America made them softer and dumber like all the other whites. Hell, I've met Indians who support the Democrats and the BJP simultaneously without blinking an eye.

  11. Harvard University does not discriminate against Asian American students through its use of race-conscious admissions, a federal judge ruled in a decision released on Tuesday.

    Hah.

    So the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t exist for Harvard, eh? Just let some proletarian white landlord refuse to rent to blacks, though, and Judge Allison D. Burroughs will re-discover it pretty damn quick.

    The conservative Fudds need to get over their “Constitution” fetish. There is no Constitution. The judges make it up on a case-by-case basis to suit the needs of the elites.

  12. Middlebury College graduate, check, Massachusetts federal judge, check, female Obama appointee, check. You expect something different? Also wouldn’t it go to the Court of Appeals ( which has a slight Republican composition edge ) and then the Supreme Court?

    • Replies: @Alden
    Supreme Court must accept appeals and very few cases submitted to the SC are accepted.
    , @Hail

    Judge Allison D. Burroughs
     

    Middlebury College graduate, check, Massachusetts federal judge, check, female Obama appointee, check.
     
    Here she is speaking at the "Boston white-collar crime conference, 2018":

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EF1muBFWoAAODH4.jpg

    Judge Allison D. Burroughs
    - Born April 1961, Boston;
    - Likely of full White-Christian ancestry, though a wiki troll has added the category "Jewish American judges" to her page today which stands as of this writing;
    - JD, 1988, University of Pennsylvania;
    - Legal career started under tutelage of Norma Levy Shapiro, 1988-'89 (law clerk);
    - Listed as Waban, Mass., resident: "In the Washington Post's 2013 study of the most affluent and well-educated zip codes in America, Waban (02468) ranked third in the nation."

    Demographic snapshot of Judge Allison Burroughs' zip code:

    - College Degree: 81.4% [99th percentile]
    - Professional: 75.2% [99th percentile]

    - Married: 70.6%[95th percentile]
    - Divorced: 5.0% [3rd percentile]

    - White: 91.5% [55th percentile]
    - Black: 0.1% [18th percentile]
    - Asian: 6.1% [92nd percentile]
    - Hispanic: 0.4% [15th percentile]
     
    "Diversity is great! Enforce it! Enforce it, I say! Just, err, not in my neighborhood, Thx."

    "In her decision, Judge Allison Burroughs gave an eloquent defense of the benefits of diversity, and said while the time might come when it would be possible to look beyond race in college admissions, that time was not yet here."
     
    "The time to put in Somali quotas in my neighborhood is -- not here yet."
    , @James Bowery
    It is one of the most charming aspects of our legal system that an individualistic population can be picked off one by one through simple legal expenses of civil suits long before an appeal can even be heard by a court, let alone a court of appeals let alone the Supreme Court. This means, for example, that even if Trump manages to completely replace the judiciary, Red Flag Laws can disarm all who might resist a commie takeover of the Federal government and if they fight at all, the gene pool can be culled of those objecting to be turned into sterile worker bugmen .
  13. Anon[399] • Disclaimer says:

    Yeah, like that time when Lee Rubin, another (((bright prof who singlehandedly cured cancer))), had his Harvard lawyers humiliated by his student, Gustavo German. Gustavo, presumably an immigrant for whom English was second language, and a biologist by training, defended his case without the help of any lawyer. The judge wrote in her decision it is likely Rubin had arranged his lab in a setup ideal for falsifying research, and forbade Rubin from being in the building while his grad student was working.

    The only way Rubin got to see his office again during working hours was through (((classic))) methods. Harvard expelled the student. Since the decision has never been overturned, it is now a legal precedent in Massachusetts that NIH oversight cannot prevent a Lee Rubin from cheating.

  14. @Mr McKenna
    Harvard and its peer institutions are absolutely flooded with Asian and Jewish students, along with a deliberate cohort of ~10% Negroid, mostly immigrants. Along with the rest of the foreign admits, we've just described the vast majority of the student body. Which means certain other group(s) must be under-represented, but I'll be danged if I can remember who those might be...

    I have zero issues whatsoever with Harvard being 100% Asian for two reasons:

    1) It’s right. If college admissions were remotely fair in the United States, most prestige schools would be overwhelmingly Asian, predominantly East Asian with a handful of subcontinentals, former Warsaw Pacters, and the odd Igbo. Just look at NYC test scores: working class East Asians are the poorest group there. Yet still…

    2) It screws with the toxic branding culture that is omnipresent in the United States, all over our economy. Best to hit it at the source, because if it happens with Harvard, it’ll happen pretty quickly with other schools. See, it makes everything even more embarrassingly transparent for our elites when they suddenly start hiring from whatever school they send their kids to get away from all those icky Asian grinds who can’t offer them good network potential, and the upper-middle class SWPL types will scramble over themselves to follow them there.

    • Agree: Cortes
    • Replies: @Ghost of Bull Moose
    If Harvard was 100% Asian, they wouldn't want to go there anymore.
    , @Kylie
    "I have zero issues whatsoever with Harvard being 100% Asian for two reasons:

    1) It’s right. If college admissions were remotely fair in the United States, most prestige schools would be overwhelmingly Asian...."

    Strongly disagree. Asian students belong in Asian schools in Asia. If college admissions were remotely fair in the United States, all schools would be overwhelmingly white.
    , @HammerJack
    Yet another person insisting that "test scores" are the only possible measure of "merit". Say, you wouldn't happen to be Asian would you?
    , @216
    Harvard is supposed to be a Protestant institution, Boston College is supposed to be a Catholic institution.
    , @Wilkey

    I have zero issues whatsoever with Harvard being 100% Asian for two reasons...
     
    I'll summarize my other post that you can also find here: if Asians deserved to be anything remotely like 50% of undergrads at elite colleges (let alone 100%) then they would be far more dominant in culture, politics, business and science than they are. They are overrepresented, to be sure, in most of these places, but not to a degree that suggests they should be 100% or even 50% of Harvard students.
    , @Lot
    “ I have zero issues whatsoever with Harvard being 100% Asian”

    Bro at your age smarting over than rejection letter is kinda unseemly. Time to move on.

    :D
  15. @Justvisiting
    Blacks and hispanics are royalty.

    Whites and Asians are serfs.

    So ruleth the Court!

    I don’t think it is that simple. “Asian” can be anything from Khmer to Korean: to say nothing of the South Asians, who come from an absolutely, totally different cultural and racial construct.

    (One can say the same about “Muslims”. An Iranian physicist and a Jordanian shopkeeper and a Somali refugee aren’t the same, folks, racially or otherwise.)

    I’d say that South Asians are shaping up to do pretty well in an SJW-fied America, in part because they, like the Jews, have better verbal skills than the East Asians. Although it is a much more risky gambit to use them as the go-to socially left-wing minority group because they can’t rely off the bizarre Judeophilia of conservative American whites protecting them from antagonistic feelings from the Deplorables, in the short run, they are a lot more likely to be on the “royalty” end of the ledger, despite being an extremely well-off, affluent group. Upwardly mobile Hispanics, on the other hand, are a lot more likely to mix with downwardly mobile whites, which can lead to interesting results.

    That in their own lives they can be quite conservative and insular, often insisting their children marry within the ethnic group, is irrelevant: the Jews were the same in the 1950s before America made them softer and dumber like all the other whites. Hell, I’ve met Indians who support the Democrats and the BJP simultaneously without blinking an eye.

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    "an Iranian physicist and a Jordanian shopkeeper and a Somali refugee aren't the same, folks"

    Yes they are. Yes they absolutely are the same, FOR OUR PURPOSES. And that is, or should be, the only relevant criterion here: what matters to US, what is useful to US.

    If you want a fully-stocked candy machine with Snickers bars and Kit-Kats and Hershey bars (and they aren't the same, folks!), go do it in Uttar Pradesh. We're trying to run a country here, not a full-service petting zoo.
    , @jimmyriddle
    Everyone is conservative about the things they really care about.

    Hence, lots of Democrat-in-the-US-Likudnik-in-Israel, folk.
  16. “Race-conscious”, nice euphemism there.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Like Harvard, I'm race conscious as well.
  17. @nebulafox
    I have zero issues whatsoever with Harvard being 100% Asian for two reasons:

    1) It's right. If college admissions were remotely fair in the United States, most prestige schools would be overwhelmingly Asian, predominantly East Asian with a handful of subcontinentals, former Warsaw Pacters, and the odd Igbo. Just look at NYC test scores: working class East Asians are the poorest group there. Yet still...

    2) It screws with the toxic branding culture that is omnipresent in the United States, all over our economy. Best to hit it at the source, because if it happens with Harvard, it'll happen pretty quickly with other schools. See, it makes everything even more embarrassingly transparent for our elites when they suddenly start hiring from whatever school they send their kids to get away from all those icky Asian grinds who can't offer them good network potential, and the upper-middle class SWPL types will scramble over themselves to follow them there.

    If Harvard was 100% Asian, they wouldn’t want to go there anymore.

    • Agree: Hail
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Yeah, but these things take time to catch on. And by the time it does, Harvard's brand name and influence network would be more worse for the wear, to nobody's great loss. It can then be a nice irrelevant finishing school where we can safely channel princelings. The exports can be given fancy titles if they demand them, but no real power. You don't say that explicitly, of course, but most humans tend to confuse image and reality enough that it is a pretty safe bet.

    (Really should do this with all of them-except MIT and Caltech, those are strictly off limits-as a new, better elite is created, one a little less dominated by MBA hacks and lawyers. If you can't get into the club, answer is to build your own: or crash the party and change the rules, preferably both.)

    , @Autochthon
    Were – if Harvard University were full of Asians, they would be even worse at understanding conditional subjunctive verbs than Theodore Roosevelt. Bully.

    (Shitty beef or shitty chicken?)

  18. @International Jew
    "Race-conscious", nice euphemism there.

    Like Harvard, I’m race conscious as well.

  19. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/asians-sue-harvard-over-affirmative-action-in-admissions/#comment-1955599

    Some ‘sploitation director like Eli Roth should make a movie about an Asian dude obsessed with getting into Harvard but has to settle for nearby Tufts and one day snaps and goes all Seung-Hui Cho in and around Harvard Yard.

    Possible titles:

    The Prestige

    It Came From The Kong

    Massacre-Chusetts Avenue

    Park The SCAR In Harvard Yard

    Crouching Crammer, Hidden Quota

    Derek Bok Choi: Vengeance Of The Namesake
     

    Derek Bok Choi: Vengeance Of The Namesake

    That’s the one I’d vote for.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Good choice. I arranged the titles in order of increasing length and quality.
  20. Judges named Allison, newscasters Katy and Brooke, what do you expect? They should be driving their kids to soccer practice, not pathetically unmanning positions of authority.

  21. It took a lot of scrolling, but here is the first J-sighting on that Twitter feed:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/UpAndOv3r/status/1179161664324718592/photo/2a

    Dartmouth’s physical isolation really “sticks” out. MIT and Caltech stick out in other ways.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    The tweet should clarify: working/middle class white and Asian kids. Above, you are a lot more likely to have a chance at being a legacy, or at least have the ability to do stuff like go volunteer in Africa or whatever is the new, ridiculous standard for a 17 year old to be considered "impressive". We live in weird age where we demand teenagers applying to name-brand colleges be impressive but Presidential candidates are often required to be the opposite.

    Or your parents can donate money. Just ask President Kushner.

    , @Hibernian
    Physical isolation only by Northeastern elitist standards. They're 100-150 miles from Boston.
  22. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    If Harvard was 100% Asian, they wouldn't want to go there anymore.

    Yeah, but these things take time to catch on. And by the time it does, Harvard’s brand name and influence network would be more worse for the wear, to nobody’s great loss. It can then be a nice irrelevant finishing school where we can safely channel princelings. The exports can be given fancy titles if they demand them, but no real power. You don’t say that explicitly, of course, but most humans tend to confuse image and reality enough that it is a pretty safe bet.

    (Really should do this with all of them-except MIT and Caltech, those are strictly off limits-as a new, better elite is created, one a little less dominated by MBA hacks and lawyers. If you can’t get into the club, answer is to build your own: or crash the party and change the rules, preferably both.)

  23. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/asians-sue-harvard-over-affirmative-action-in-admissions/#comment-1955599

    Some ‘sploitation director like Eli Roth should make a movie about an Asian dude obsessed with getting into Harvard but has to settle for nearby Tufts and one day snaps and goes all Seung-Hui Cho in and around Harvard Yard.

    Possible titles:

    The Prestige

    It Came From The Kong

    Massacre-Chusetts Avenue

    Park The SCAR In Harvard Yard

    Crouching Crammer, Hidden Quota

    Derek Bok Choi: Vengeance Of The Namesake
     

    Funny stuff, Gen-Am.

    I’d like to add: Long Duck Dong: First Brood

  24. I don’t know in which direction to move the care-o-meter, if at all?!? (Harvard should be free to be ethnically sterilize as it sees fit, too). Help!

    The “Asian American” here is .. “Dot-Indian American” rather than “Hong-Kong American” (Honkamerican?) or “Chinese-American” or “Japanese-American” or “Vietnamese-American” or “Korean-American”?

    Also +1 on “infection” (from AnechoicMedia post)

  25. @Reg Cæsar
    It took a lot of scrolling, but here is the first J-sighting on that Twitter feed:


    https://mobile.twitter.com/UpAndOv3r/status/1179161664324718592/photo/2a



    Dartmouth's physical isolation really "sticks" out. MIT and Caltech stick out in other ways.

    The tweet should clarify: working/middle class white and Asian kids. Above, you are a lot more likely to have a chance at being a legacy, or at least have the ability to do stuff like go volunteer in Africa or whatever is the new, ridiculous standard for a 17 year old to be considered “impressive”. We live in weird age where we demand teenagers applying to name-brand colleges be impressive but Presidential candidates are often required to be the opposite.

    Or your parents can donate money. Just ask President Kushner.

  26. This was 100% expected with this judge. This is set to go to the SCOTUS. The attorney in the case is a hard charging conservative (one of the few we have). He makes his money in pharmaceutical litigation and takes conservative causes on the come.

    To the extent that this issue even matters to “the future of the country,” this case is it–right fact pattern, right attorneys. If this SCOTUS doesn’t act here, I’d consider this issue moot for the foreseeable future.

    • Replies: @HammerJack
    Funny thing is, I bet at least half the SCOTUS already knows how they'll vote, and most of their clerks already have the supporting material to hand. This is why they make the big bucks.
  27. Two words: Pyrrhic Victory.

  28. A federal judge ruled that Harvard does not discriminate against Asian American applicants*

    If a Federal Judge says so, well, then … So let it be written, so let it be done.

    Really, I don’t care and agree very much with NebulaFox’s ideas above. The Orientals and .Indians (to get specific) have this hard-on for the special piece of paper, connections, and privilege that come with entry to the Ivy Leagues. I don’t give a crap … coulda’ gone in fact (woulda cost some serious dough though).

    Let these place turn into institutions that nobody else cares about anymore. I do wonder what will become of that 39 billion big ones in that case. Donors ought to get their money back.

    .

    * except with respect to grades and stuff. Gotta read that fine print.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    I think in 1970 the acceptance rate of Penn was about 70%, although usually only really good students applied. Generally, if you were remotely qualified you got in. Nobody wanted to go to college in West Philadelphia. The colleges in the suburbs were considered better and were more selective.

    Now the acceptance rate at Penn is 7%. Why? Because it’s an Ivy. There used to be some just okay schools in the Ivy League, but now anything with the Ivy brand MUST be good. 3 billion Asian Indians and Orientals can’t be wrong.
  29. Even if you agreed with the usage of race conscious admissions in order to achieve diversity, I cannot comprehend how someone who took a real look at the evidence against Harvard could rule that their actions were non discriminatory.

    How does this judge explain the lower personality scores given for no apparent reason?

    How does this judge explain that Harvard’s official policy is to send out invitations to apply with completely different SAT cut offs for different races? Clearly this is a policy of a priori believing that some races can be more qualified at lower SAT thresholds without even evaluating the individual applicant first, holistically or otherwise.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber

    How does this judge explain the lower personality scores given for no apparent reason?
     
    Have you met any?
  30. @nebulafox
    I don't think it is that simple. "Asian" can be anything from Khmer to Korean: to say nothing of the South Asians, who come from an absolutely, totally different cultural and racial construct.

    (One can say the same about "Muslims". An Iranian physicist and a Jordanian shopkeeper and a Somali refugee aren't the same, folks, racially or otherwise.)

    I'd say that South Asians are shaping up to do pretty well in an SJW-fied America, in part because they, like the Jews, have better verbal skills than the East Asians. Although it is a much more risky gambit to use them as the go-to socially left-wing minority group because they can't rely off the bizarre Judeophilia of conservative American whites protecting them from antagonistic feelings from the Deplorables, in the short run, they are a lot more likely to be on the "royalty" end of the ledger, despite being an extremely well-off, affluent group. Upwardly mobile Hispanics, on the other hand, are a lot more likely to mix with downwardly mobile whites, which can lead to interesting results.

    That in their own lives they can be quite conservative and insular, often insisting their children marry within the ethnic group, is irrelevant: the Jews were the same in the 1950s before America made them softer and dumber like all the other whites. Hell, I've met Indians who support the Democrats and the BJP simultaneously without blinking an eye.

    “an Iranian physicist and a Jordanian shopkeeper and a Somali refugee aren’t the same, folks”

    Yes they are. Yes they absolutely are the same, FOR OUR PURPOSES. And that is, or should be, the only relevant criterion here: what matters to US, what is useful to US.

    If you want a fully-stocked candy machine with Snickers bars and Kit-Kats and Hershey bars (and they aren’t the same, folks!), go do it in Uttar Pradesh. We’re trying to run a country here, not a full-service petting zoo.

    • Agree: Kylie
    • LOL: Charon
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Right. And I believe the physicist is more useful for the purposes of the United States than a pure stock meth-head. Softcore eugenics, it is a thing that will come into fashion when the Baby Boomers die.

    Think it'd be better for the world too if, say, we were the ones figuring out how to engineer biology than the PRC, whatever our faults as a society.

    , @Spangel
    How exactly is a somali goat herder as useful as an Iranian physicist to the US in your mind?
  31. Burroughs said Harvard’s program was not perfect, and that the school could improved bias training for admissions officers

  32. Allison D Burroughs = A Bulldog onrush, sir!

  33. @nebulafox
    I have zero issues whatsoever with Harvard being 100% Asian for two reasons:

    1) It's right. If college admissions were remotely fair in the United States, most prestige schools would be overwhelmingly Asian, predominantly East Asian with a handful of subcontinentals, former Warsaw Pacters, and the odd Igbo. Just look at NYC test scores: working class East Asians are the poorest group there. Yet still...

    2) It screws with the toxic branding culture that is omnipresent in the United States, all over our economy. Best to hit it at the source, because if it happens with Harvard, it'll happen pretty quickly with other schools. See, it makes everything even more embarrassingly transparent for our elites when they suddenly start hiring from whatever school they send their kids to get away from all those icky Asian grinds who can't offer them good network potential, and the upper-middle class SWPL types will scramble over themselves to follow them there.

    “I have zero issues whatsoever with Harvard being 100% Asian for two reasons:

    1) It’s right. If college admissions were remotely fair in the United States, most prestige schools would be overwhelmingly Asian….”

    Strongly disagree. Asian students belong in Asian schools in Asia. If college admissions were remotely fair in the United States, all schools would be overwhelmingly white.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Look, we can discuss whether the mass immigration wave of the last half-century was wise or not until the cows come home, but it doesn't really matter. The fact is most of these kids-and I'm guessing the children of illegal Salvadoran migrants mostly aren't applying to top-tier colleges-graduating our high schools are Americans. They aren't disappearing. It's time to accept that and focus instead on assimilation at all costs, which is doable if your society has some spine, some breathing room, and is willing to put in the time. Even with the fanatical anti-assimilation sentiment of today's left, it still goes on. Imagine what we can get done in a society where the baizuo have no cultural influence.

    Unless you are talking about no-kidding foreign students? In which case, I think Derbyshire's "salt in the soup" metaphor is quite apropos. You'd do well to poach whatever geniuses you can, but the overwhelming, absolute majority of people are not geniuses. And even the situation for the former is changing in some countries. The best in the PRC no longer study in the United States, at least as undergrads, for example: parents who know their kids can't compete on the gaokao will save up the money to buy a US degree.

  34. Ron Unz would presumably have something to say about this. A few years ago, my friends were sharing an article he wrote about Harvard enrollment, where he showed convincingly that Asians and Gentile whites were the big targets of discrimination.

  35. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    If Harvard was 100% Asian, they wouldn't want to go there anymore.

    Were – if Harvard University were full of Asians, they would be even worse at understanding conditional subjunctive verbs than Theodore Roosevelt. Bully.

    (Shitty beef or shitty chicken?)

    • Replies: @Ghost of Bull Moose
    That's a Yogi Berra-ism, but you might have been too busy admiring the margin notes in your '26 MEU to catch that.
  36. @anonymous
    I believe a lot of the point here was to get this case to SCOTUS. For that purpose a loss at the trial court level is probably fine. In fact, if the plaintiffs had won now, Harvard might not have appealed in order to avoid a precedent-setting SCOTUS decision.

    Nothing John Roberts has done as Chief Justice so far makes me think he is willing to take on the Ivy League on this. It would be stunning if he ruled against them.

    • Agree: Hibernian
  37. @kaganovitch
    Derek Bok Choi: Vengeance Of The Namesake

    That's the one I'd vote for.

    Good choice. I arranged the titles in order of increasing length and quality.

  38. @Kylie
    "I have zero issues whatsoever with Harvard being 100% Asian for two reasons:

    1) It’s right. If college admissions were remotely fair in the United States, most prestige schools would be overwhelmingly Asian...."

    Strongly disagree. Asian students belong in Asian schools in Asia. If college admissions were remotely fair in the United States, all schools would be overwhelmingly white.

    Look, we can discuss whether the mass immigration wave of the last half-century was wise or not until the cows come home, but it doesn’t really matter. The fact is most of these kids-and I’m guessing the children of illegal Salvadoran migrants mostly aren’t applying to top-tier colleges-graduating our high schools are Americans. They aren’t disappearing. It’s time to accept that and focus instead on assimilation at all costs, which is doable if your society has some spine, some breathing room, and is willing to put in the time. Even with the fanatical anti-assimilation sentiment of today’s left, it still goes on. Imagine what we can get done in a society where the baizuo have no cultural influence.

    Unless you are talking about no-kidding foreign students? In which case, I think Derbyshire’s “salt in the soup” metaphor is quite apropos. You’d do well to poach whatever geniuses you can, but the overwhelming, absolute majority of people are not geniuses. And even the situation for the former is changing in some countries. The best in the PRC no longer study in the United States, at least as undergrads, for example: parents who know their kids can’t compete on the gaokao will save up the money to buy a US degree.

    • Replies: @XYZ (no Mr.)
    A voice of reason. Most -- actually all -- of the 'they have to go back' crowd are worthless, if 'they' is a term that includes any American citizens of any race. Nationalists -- and I'm one -- have only managed to slow illegal immigration. I do think the tide is slowly turning, but until I see the border wall built, owners and managers of businesses that employ illegals routinely heavily fined and jailed, sanctuary cities sued and held liable for releasing dangerous illegal immigrants, chain migration ended, H-1B and OPT ended, green cards reduced by at least half... there's no reason to continually make mastorabatory comments about sending anyone anywhere.

    If we do manage to significantly reduce immigration, hardcore and unapologetic assimilation efforts will work with East Asians and Hispanics, at least. And America will be just fine.

    But that's a big 'if'. Harvard doesn't matter nor affirmative action -- conservatives should have spent a lot more time defending the value of citizenship and national community in non-economic terms, instead of bitching about affirmative action or unions. Harvard being 0 percent Asian or 100 percent Asian or 100 percent Jewish doesn't matter to me. The composition of my own community does.

  39. @nebulafox
    I have zero issues whatsoever with Harvard being 100% Asian for two reasons:

    1) It's right. If college admissions were remotely fair in the United States, most prestige schools would be overwhelmingly Asian, predominantly East Asian with a handful of subcontinentals, former Warsaw Pacters, and the odd Igbo. Just look at NYC test scores: working class East Asians are the poorest group there. Yet still...

    2) It screws with the toxic branding culture that is omnipresent in the United States, all over our economy. Best to hit it at the source, because if it happens with Harvard, it'll happen pretty quickly with other schools. See, it makes everything even more embarrassingly transparent for our elites when they suddenly start hiring from whatever school they send their kids to get away from all those icky Asian grinds who can't offer them good network potential, and the upper-middle class SWPL types will scramble over themselves to follow them there.

    Yet another person insisting that “test scores” are the only possible measure of “merit”. Say, you wouldn’t happen to be Asian would you?

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    No.

    In all seriousness, if I had my way, I'd reserve maybe about 15, 20% of the seats in these colleges for the no-kidding prodigy types. Usually, you know whether you have one of these kids long, long before 18 because they should probably be applying earlier.

    The rest are open to anyone who achieves a minimum "qualification" score on the SAT or ACT by lottery. The elite colleges could easily triple enrollment and not decrease student quality in the slightest as things stand. So, rather than relying off the whims of internal committees to make an impossible judgement, why not leave it up to chance? Not only is it fairer and saves families fortunes on applicant arms races, it would make life a lot more pleasant for your very bright but clearly non-prodigy kid (aka, the overwhelming majority of contemporary applicants) who doesn't have to spend his or her adolescence fretting about what extracurricular to occupy their remaining free hour on Sundays. Furthermore, this would also be more pragmatic for older students, which is a good thing, as heavily incentivizing *everybody* to go to college at 18-as opposed to going whenever they are mature enough and know what they want to do-is proving to be not such a wise idea.

    If this were explicitly showcased, though, it would demolish the "meritocratic" facade of our elite's justification for their continued prominence, and also would wreak havoc on branding culture. Don't expect it to happen.

    Was this originally Ron's idea, BTW? Can't remember.

  40. @Polynikes
    This was 100% expected with this judge. This is set to go to the SCOTUS. The attorney in the case is a hard charging conservative (one of the few we have). He makes his money in pharmaceutical litigation and takes conservative causes on the come.

    To the extent that this issue even matters to "the future of the country," this case is it--right fact pattern, right attorneys. If this SCOTUS doesn't act here, I'd consider this issue moot for the foreseeable future.

    Funny thing is, I bet at least half the SCOTUS already knows how they’ll vote, and most of their clerks already have the supporting material to hand. This is why they make the big bucks.

  41. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/asians-sue-harvard-over-affirmative-action-in-admissions/#comment-1955599

    Some ‘sploitation director like Eli Roth should make a movie about an Asian dude obsessed with getting into Harvard but has to settle for nearby Tufts and one day snaps and goes all Seung-Hui Cho in and around Harvard Yard.

    Possible titles:

    The Prestige

    It Came From The Kong

    Massacre-Chusetts Avenue

    Park The SCAR In Harvard Yard

    Crouching Crammer, Hidden Quota

    Derek Bok Choi: Vengeance Of The Namesake
     

    Pretty epic. Definitely worth repeating.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Thanks! :)
  42. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    "an Iranian physicist and a Jordanian shopkeeper and a Somali refugee aren't the same, folks"

    Yes they are. Yes they absolutely are the same, FOR OUR PURPOSES. And that is, or should be, the only relevant criterion here: what matters to US, what is useful to US.

    If you want a fully-stocked candy machine with Snickers bars and Kit-Kats and Hershey bars (and they aren't the same, folks!), go do it in Uttar Pradesh. We're trying to run a country here, not a full-service petting zoo.

    Right. And I believe the physicist is more useful for the purposes of the United States than a pure stock meth-head. Softcore eugenics, it is a thing that will come into fashion when the Baby Boomers die.

    Think it’d be better for the world too if, say, we were the ones figuring out how to engineer biology than the PRC, whatever our faults as a society.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    Disagree. Physicists, no matter their value, will always be a very small fraction of the total population in a functional society. I wouldn't want to live in a society composed of narrowly focused theorists any more than a world of moment-driven tweakers. Supplementing meth-heads with docile laborers will only exacerbate underclass turmoil and accelerate development of de jure stratified class distinctions.
    , @ben tillman

    Right. And I believe the physicist is more useful for the purposes of the United States than a pure stock meth-head.
     
    The purpose of the United States is to be a home and source of sustenance to that methhead, so. no , you are mistaken.
  43. Here’s what “no discrimination” looks like. https://t.co/VHrbPw6aBU pic.twitter.com/JnJiWnIwn9 — A New Radical Centrism (@a_centrism) October 1, 2019

    If the stats posted are correct then only whites are underrepresented at Harvard, and dramatically so. Are whites only 37.6% of the current student body? Possible, but I doubt it.

    Furthermor, the same Twitter account, A New Radical Centrism, post a chart claiming that Asians are 30% of students in the “Top 9 deciles.”

    Eh?

    That would mean that of the top 90% of students nationally, Asians are 30%, and whites are only 43%.

    Something about those numbers is way off.

  44. @nebulafox
    I have zero issues whatsoever with Harvard being 100% Asian for two reasons:

    1) It's right. If college admissions were remotely fair in the United States, most prestige schools would be overwhelmingly Asian, predominantly East Asian with a handful of subcontinentals, former Warsaw Pacters, and the odd Igbo. Just look at NYC test scores: working class East Asians are the poorest group there. Yet still...

    2) It screws with the toxic branding culture that is omnipresent in the United States, all over our economy. Best to hit it at the source, because if it happens with Harvard, it'll happen pretty quickly with other schools. See, it makes everything even more embarrassingly transparent for our elites when they suddenly start hiring from whatever school they send their kids to get away from all those icky Asian grinds who can't offer them good network potential, and the upper-middle class SWPL types will scramble over themselves to follow them there.

    Harvard is supposed to be a Protestant institution, Boston College is supposed to be a Catholic institution.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Harvard has been totally secular for a long time. Boston College being Jesuit is likely as secular as Georgetown and Notre Dame, both of which are almost as secular as Harvard.
    , @Bill P
    Harvard is traditionally Unitarian Universalist. Not really Christian, because UUs are anti-trinitarian and deny the divinity of Christ.

    This is one reason why Harvard was and is so popular with Jews. In the 19th century a lot of Christian parents refused to send their children to Harvard because of its theology.

    The Unitarians are responsible for what Harvard is today -- not the Puritans who founded the school. The Puritans lost control of their creation very early on. In fact, one could say that the Puritan project was an abject failure as a religious movement, because it barely lasted more than a couple generations before it was overcome by liberalism.
  45. The expected result, giving the evidence overwhelmingly showed Harvard treated whites and Asians as equally as possible and the entirety of legal precedent being against the plaintiffs.

    It remains surprising how few discrepancies there were to see at all in the data, especially since there was no attempt by anyone in the courtroom to even remotely understand the level of discrimination by gender, sexuality and more; probably, plenty of other factors like Harvard’s discrimination against public school students and in favor of private school students weren’t’ fully accounted for.

    Still, Blum appealing to the Supreme Court to try to abolish all affirmative action for blacks is also likely, the only purpose of his Trojan horse all along, but I don’t think that will pan out.

    It was impressive to see the judge tear into the more deranged lies and direct contradictions of prior case law from Blum/Arcidiacono. Not that it wasn’t obvious, I just wasn’t sure the judge would care. The plaintiffs’ case in this particular courtroom was patently insane when after submitting all sorts of written documents about African Americans they turned around and argued orally that the case should have nothing to do with blacks.

    Of course Harvard does have lots of discrimination in favor of blacks, and females, but there is really no moral, logical, or legal foot to stand on for the weird argument that all of that is fine but for disparate impact on Asian Americans.

  46. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/asians-sue-harvard-over-affirmative-action-in-admissions/#comment-1955599

    Some ‘sploitation director like Eli Roth should make a movie about an Asian dude obsessed with getting into Harvard but has to settle for nearby Tufts and one day snaps and goes all Seung-Hui Cho in and around Harvard Yard.

    Possible titles:

    The Prestige

    It Came From The Kong

    Massacre-Chusetts Avenue

    Park The SCAR In Harvard Yard

    Crouching Crammer, Hidden Quota

    Derek Bok Choi: Vengeance Of The Namesake
     

    The Yellow, the White, and the Black.

    How the West was Kwonned.

  47. Well obviously the judiciary would rule in favor of Harvard, seeing as how the judiciary is Harvard. They created America’s legal system.

    I don’t know why anyone expected any other outcome.

  48. @Spangel
    Even if you agreed with the usage of race conscious admissions in order to achieve diversity, I cannot comprehend how someone who took a real look at the evidence against Harvard could rule that their actions were non discriminatory.

    How does this judge explain the lower personality scores given for no apparent reason?

    How does this judge explain that Harvard's official policy is to send out invitations to apply with completely different SAT cut offs for different races? Clearly this is a policy of a priori believing that some races can be more qualified at lower SAT thresholds without even evaluating the individual applicant first, holistically or otherwise.

    How does this judge explain the lower personality scores given for no apparent reason?

    Have you met any?

  49. @HammerJack
    Yet another person insisting that "test scores" are the only possible measure of "merit". Say, you wouldn't happen to be Asian would you?

    No.

    In all seriousness, if I had my way, I’d reserve maybe about 15, 20% of the seats in these colleges for the no-kidding prodigy types. Usually, you know whether you have one of these kids long, long before 18 because they should probably be applying earlier.

    The rest are open to anyone who achieves a minimum “qualification” score on the SAT or ACT by lottery. The elite colleges could easily triple enrollment and not decrease student quality in the slightest as things stand. So, rather than relying off the whims of internal committees to make an impossible judgement, why not leave it up to chance? Not only is it fairer and saves families fortunes on applicant arms races, it would make life a lot more pleasant for your very bright but clearly non-prodigy kid (aka, the overwhelming majority of contemporary applicants) who doesn’t have to spend his or her adolescence fretting about what extracurricular to occupy their remaining free hour on Sundays. Furthermore, this would also be more pragmatic for older students, which is a good thing, as heavily incentivizing *everybody* to go to college at 18-as opposed to going whenever they are mature enough and know what they want to do-is proving to be not such a wise idea.

    If this were explicitly showcased, though, it would demolish the “meritocratic” facade of our elite’s justification for their continued prominence, and also would wreak havoc on branding culture. Don’t expect it to happen.

    Was this originally Ron’s idea, BTW? Can’t remember.

  50. So an Obama appointed judge on Harvard’s hometurf just told us that it’s okay to discriminate by race in America. Is anyone surprised?

    Middle class whites have been turning away from the Ivy League in droves for some time now. Neither of my kids are applying to any of the elite privates, though both are top students. They are aiming straight for the state flagship. Need based only aid means we are full pay. We are not interested in shelling out $300k per kid to have our kids brainwashed into pompous elitist dogmatic hypocritical brain dead liberals.

    The only people who hunger for these elite schools are Jews, rich legacy whites and first/second generation Asians.

    Jews are overwhelmingly favored thanks to their social activism and that whole whining about holocaust thing; rich legacy whites have legacy status and connections. Middle class Asians are experiencing what middle class whites have experienced for so long we no longer bother with these schools. Hopefully these supposed smart Asians will smarten up soon and stop applying to these schools. If only the social activist Jews, dull rich kids, blacks and hispanics get in, their standards esp. in STEM will plummet in no time.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Harvard is a university and its prestige is generated in an 80/20 split between its reputation and its output, with more than nine-tenths of that 20 coming from graduate and doctoral studies products and the research produced by the university. Harvard is among the nation’s elite undergraduate institutions, but the whole thing (the college) is mostly a sham so the right people can meet each other. I wonder if they play as fast and loose with their standards between applicants and applicant groups at the post-graduate level. I doubt they do.
  51. However imperfect and/or biased Harvard’s admission process, keeping a cap on the number of Asian students seems fair to me.

    First, it’s a private school. Private schools. even those as rich as Harvard, are still private money, and they should have the right to admit whomever they want, even if lots of Harvard-trained lawyers would disagree, and even if they receive government money for research. Otherwise what would be the point of your money belonging to you instead of the government. If the government can dictate to you how your charitable dollars must be spent then it isn’t really your money.

    Second, and perhaps as importantly, while Asians certainly do much better than average in the US economically, academically, etc., there is absolutely nothing in their post-collegiate careers which suggests they should comprise 50% of elite college student bodies.

    Are 50% of top writers and musicians and television/movie/theatre producers and directors Asian?

    Are 50% of corporate CEOs Asian?

    Are 50% of top *US-born* engineers and scientists Asian (i.e., not counting all the Asians let in on H-1B visas or as grad students)?

    Are 50% of top political leaders Asian?

    Are 50% of military admirals and generals Asian?

    Not even close with regards to any of those. Whatever else you can say, SAT scores appear to overpredict Asian success. Our culture, our science, our government, our military, and our industry aren’t nearly as dominated by Asians as they would be if Asians actually deserved to comprise half the top spots at Harvard and elsewhere. So jiggering the admissions process to account for that doesn’t strike me as in any way a racist decision on Harvard’s part.

    • Replies: @Peterike
    “Are 50% of top writers and musicians and television/movie/theatre producers and directors Asian?

    Are 50% of corporate CEOs Asian?

    Are 50% of top *US-born* engineers and scientists Asian (i.e., not counting all the Asians let in on H-1B visas or as grad students)?

    Are 50% of top political leaders Asian?

    Are 50% of military admirals and generals Asian?”

    They will be in about 15 years. Except maybe for the military.
    , @Alden
    Harvard and other private colleges apply for, beg, scam and get federal money for research and other purposes. Harvard and other colleges accept federal and state government funded scholarships for tuition payments. Harvard and other colleges accept tuition payments made by federal student loans.

    Once any entity accepts a dime of federal state city or county money or has any kind of government license such as a liquor license in a private club

    The 14th amendment applies and the private entity cannot discriminate on the basis of race ethnicity religion sex gender sexual preference transgender ism or anything else.

    Therefore, any college that accepts government money for any purpose cannot discriminate.

    Plus, Harvard like every other college in the country, hates Whites and wants us all dead and gone. .
    , @Semperluctor
    Hmmm..fair point, but follow it through to its logical conclusion. Regular old whites dominate in politics, the military and non finance/entertainment fields. By this reasoning, admissions for whites should be 60 plus percent. I agree that SAT etc numbers overestimate later success in life.. but, wouldn’t a neo Marxist assert that white dominance is a legacy power structure and should be dismantled? The Court in effect stated the same thing as SCOTUS said 25 years ago: we need race based admissions for now and we expect one day..real soon.. no longer to need them. Nothing has changed, Courts will be repeating the same mantra in another generation’s time.
    , @Semperluctor
    Hmmm..fair point, but follow it through to its logical conclusion. Regular old whites dominate in politics, the military and non finance/entertainment fields. By this reasoning, admissions for whites should be 60 plus percent. I agree that SAT etc numbers overestimate later success in life.. but, wouldn’t a neo Marxist assert that white dominance is a legacy power structure and should be dismantled? The Court in effect stated the same thing as SCOTUS said 25 years ago: we need race based admissions for now and we expect one day..real soon.. no longer to need them. Nothing has changed, Courts will be repeating the same mantra in another generation’s time.
  52. anonymous[546] • Disclaimer says:

    Steve, could you do all of us a favor and just not print the comments of evil losers who use a few paragraph marks to say

    I HATE THE JEWS

    as if their ethnic group were any better?

    Feel free not to do that but all of us see through those evil-hearted Jew-haters.

    And yes I know everything there is to know about every ethnic group and none of those groups are good enough that a little internet-addled creep from that group has the right to post those three paragraph marks, in the vicious way they want …

    Well maybe the Riders of Rohan, but they are SPECIAL in a way none of your commenters are special.
    and the Riders of Rohan are not spending their time making nasty negative aspersions on comment sections on the internet …. trust me on that ….

    just saying.
    Thanks for taking my advice into consideration.

    By the way , where has little Svigor been lately? Has he given up on his Jew-hating comments because the shekels from Tel Aviv stopped arriving in his mail-box, with the clear instructions to make Jew-haters like him look as stupid as haters of Englishmen or haters of the Dutch or haters of the Zulus?

  53. @Achmed E. Newman

    A federal judge ruled that Harvard does not discriminate against Asian American applicants*
     
    If a Federal Judge says so, well, then ... So let it be written, so let it be done.

    Really, I don't care and agree very much with NebulaFox's ideas above. The Orientals and .Indians (to get specific) have this hard-on for the special piece of paper, connections, and privilege that come with entry to the Ivy Leagues. I don't give a crap ... coulda' gone in fact (woulda cost some serious dough though).

    Let these place turn into institutions that nobody else cares about anymore. I do wonder what will become of that 39 billion big ones in that case. Donors ought to get their money back.

    .

    * except with respect to grades and stuff. Gotta read that fine print.

    I think in 1970 the acceptance rate of Penn was about 70%, although usually only really good students applied. Generally, if you were remotely qualified you got in. Nobody wanted to go to college in West Philadelphia. The colleges in the suburbs were considered better and were more selective.

    Now the acceptance rate at Penn is 7%. Why? Because it’s an Ivy. There used to be some just okay schools in the Ivy League, but now anything with the Ivy brand MUST be good. 3 billion Asian Indians and Orientals can’t be wrong.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Was it an Ivy League school back in 1970, P.L. (serious question)? I mean, if all you have to do is get ivy growing up all the exterior walls, then it's worth paying for a 100 Mexican landscapers out of the "computer fees" account.

    Who decides what's an Ivy League school, anyway? I assume you said it facetiously, so yeah, the Orientals and Indians, in general, have this fixation on the piece of paper over the integrity of the learning process. It'd be nice to leave all these Ivies behind. Could one just make a deal with the frat boys to cut all those vines down in the middle of the night for 5 kegs of Bud? Imagine waking up in the morning and having to text your Tiger Mother:

    "Mom. Wll not gradiate fm I.V. Leeg. Don't tl Dad. Good nws is I got accept to Del. hse. Room stl spin round. Call after noon."
  54. Asians don’t care about Whites. So why should Whites care about Asians or any other group but bad White race realists.

    • Replies: @anon
    Whites don't care about Whites either. So why should Asians care about Whites?
  55. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    "an Iranian physicist and a Jordanian shopkeeper and a Somali refugee aren't the same, folks"

    Yes they are. Yes they absolutely are the same, FOR OUR PURPOSES. And that is, or should be, the only relevant criterion here: what matters to US, what is useful to US.

    If you want a fully-stocked candy machine with Snickers bars and Kit-Kats and Hershey bars (and they aren't the same, folks!), go do it in Uttar Pradesh. We're trying to run a country here, not a full-service petting zoo.

    How exactly is a somali goat herder as useful as an Iranian physicist to the US in your mind?

  56. @Wilkey
    However imperfect and/or biased Harvard's admission process, keeping a cap on the number of Asian students seems fair to me.

    First, it's a private school. Private schools. even those as rich as Harvard, are still private money, and they should have the right to admit whomever they want, even if lots of Harvard-trained lawyers would disagree, and even if they receive government money for research. Otherwise what would be the point of your money belonging to you instead of the government. If the government can dictate to you how your charitable dollars must be spent then it isn't really your money.

    Second, and perhaps as importantly, while Asians certainly do much better than average in the US economically, academically, etc., there is absolutely nothing in their post-collegiate careers which suggests they should comprise 50% of elite college student bodies.

    Are 50% of top writers and musicians and television/movie/theatre producers and directors Asian?

    Are 50% of corporate CEOs Asian?

    Are 50% of top *US-born* engineers and scientists Asian (i.e., not counting all the Asians let in on H-1B visas or as grad students)?

    Are 50% of top political leaders Asian?

    Are 50% of military admirals and generals Asian?

    Not even close with regards to any of those. Whatever else you can say, SAT scores appear to overpredict Asian success. Our culture, our science, our government, our military, and our industry aren't nearly as dominated by Asians as they would be if Asians actually deserved to comprise half the top spots at Harvard and elsewhere. So jiggering the admissions process to account for that doesn't strike me as in any way a racist decision on Harvard's part.

    “Are 50% of top writers and musicians and television/movie/theatre producers and directors Asian?

    Are 50% of corporate CEOs Asian?

    Are 50% of top *US-born* engineers and scientists Asian (i.e., not counting all the Asians let in on H-1B visas or as grad students)?

    Are 50% of top political leaders Asian?

    Are 50% of military admirals and generals Asian?”

    They will be in about 15 years. Except maybe for the military.

    • Replies: @Wilkey

    They will be in about 15 years. Except maybe for the military.
     
    Unlikely, unless immigration gets even more out of control than it already is.

    Look, if Asians were really *that* talented then Asia would be doing far better than it is.

    So Asians aren't that dominant in the USA despite the fact that they "deserve" to be 50-100% of the Harvard student body. Asian countries aren't any richer than Europe despite the fact that their emigrants "deserve" to be 50-100% of the Harvard student body.

    Being an excellent grind in high school is not the same as having real talent.
  57. @Unladen Swallow
    Middlebury College graduate, check, Massachusetts federal judge, check, female Obama appointee, check. You expect something different? Also wouldn't it go to the Court of Appeals ( which has a slight Republican composition edge ) and then the Supreme Court?

    Supreme Court must accept appeals and very few cases submitted to the SC are accepted.

  58. @nebulafox
    I have zero issues whatsoever with Harvard being 100% Asian for two reasons:

    1) It's right. If college admissions were remotely fair in the United States, most prestige schools would be overwhelmingly Asian, predominantly East Asian with a handful of subcontinentals, former Warsaw Pacters, and the odd Igbo. Just look at NYC test scores: working class East Asians are the poorest group there. Yet still...

    2) It screws with the toxic branding culture that is omnipresent in the United States, all over our economy. Best to hit it at the source, because if it happens with Harvard, it'll happen pretty quickly with other schools. See, it makes everything even more embarrassingly transparent for our elites when they suddenly start hiring from whatever school they send their kids to get away from all those icky Asian grinds who can't offer them good network potential, and the upper-middle class SWPL types will scramble over themselves to follow them there.

    I have zero issues whatsoever with Harvard being 100% Asian for two reasons…

    I’ll summarize my other post that you can also find here: if Asians deserved to be anything remotely like 50% of undergrads at elite colleges (let alone 100%) then they would be far more dominant in culture, politics, business and science than they are. They are overrepresented, to be sure, in most of these places, but not to a degree that suggests they should be 100% or even 50% of Harvard students.

    • Replies: @Lot
    “then they would be far more dominant in culture, politics, business and science than they are”

    The Asian underperformance starts before they even graduate.

    Here’s a list of individuals who had the highest GPA in their class at Harvard.

    For 2000-2011, I see 9 Jewish surnames. 2 unknown whites, 1 Iranian, 1 east Asian.

    For the 90s, 3 gentile whites, 1 unknown white (aaron brown), 3 Jews, 2 east asians, 1 indian, 1 romanian with a mostly non-jewish surname.

    So it appears East and South Asians both underperform both Jewish and non-Jewish whites

    2011 *Sophie Cai [US, chemical physics ; Harvard Medical School], *Zachary Frankel [US, physics; Rhodes Scholar], *Darius Imregun [UK, chemical physics]
    2010 Jeremy Aron-Dine [US, linguistics]
    2009 ???
    2008 Seth Philip Herbst [US, English & American literature, music; doctoral student in English at Harvard]
    2007 Alexandra Harwin [US, history; Yale Law School JD, works in family law]
    2006 Kirsten Frieda [US, chemistry & physics; Stanford biophysics graduate student]
    2005 David Camden [US, classics; Harvard PhD candidate in classical philology]
    2004 Andrew Goldstone [US, physics and mathematics; Yale PhD in English literature]
    2003 *Elias Reinhold Sacks [US, comparative religion; Princeton doctoral student in religion] and *Lisa Beth Schwartz [US, government; Yale Law School JD, Harvard MBA, lawyer at Wachtell]
    2002 Stephen Sachs [US, history (medieval Europe); Yale Law School JD, Oxford MA; lawyer, Mayer Brown]
    2001 Kevin Schwartz [US, government; Oxford MBA+PhD (Marshall scholar); Yale Law School JD, lawyer at Wachtell]
    2000 Matthew Strahl Levine [US ; Yale Law School JD, lawyer at Wachtell Lipton Rosen Katz]
    1999 Chelsea Helen Foxwell [US ; art history professor at U. Chicago]
    1998 Daniel Philippe Mason [US, biology; novelist]
    1997 Aaron Brown [US, computer science; Berkeley PhD in computer science, Google] and Jeffrey Gell [US, economics; Marshall scholar, Boston Consulting Group VP]
    1996 Yeoh Yong Yeow [Singapore IMO medalist; DE Shaw]
    1995 Reshma Jagsi [US; Rhodes Scholar, MD, doctor]
    1994 David Liu [US, chemistry; Harvard Chemistry dept professor]
    1993 Jason Jacobs [US, physics; MD, ophthalmologist]
    1992 Noah Feldman [US, Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations; Rhodes Scholar, Oxford PhD, Yale Law School JD, Harvard Law School professor]
    1991 Constantin Teleman [US/Romania, mathematics; math professor at UC Berkeley]
    1990 Jonathan Bolton [US; professor of Slavic studies]

    1985 Christopher Landau [US, history; lawyer, Kirkland & Ellis]
    1983 Amy Remensnyder [US; Berkeley PhD in history; medievalist at Brown]
    1972 Robert Waldinger [US, history and science; Harvard Medical School MD, psychiatry]
    1971 Claude Bernard [US, physics; physics professor at WUSTL]
    1970 Scott Boorman [US; Junior fellow upon graduation from College, Yale Law School JD, mathematical sociologist at Yale]
    1966 David Kelly Campbell [US, physics and chemistry; PhD, Cambridge (theoretical physics, math), physics professor at Boston University
  59. @Unladen Swallow
    Middlebury College graduate, check, Massachusetts federal judge, check, female Obama appointee, check. You expect something different? Also wouldn't it go to the Court of Appeals ( which has a slight Republican composition edge ) and then the Supreme Court?

    Judge Allison D. Burroughs

    Middlebury College graduate, check, Massachusetts federal judge, check, female Obama appointee, check.

    Here she is speaking at the “Boston white-collar crime conference, 2018”:

    Judge Allison D. Burroughs
    – Born April 1961, Boston;
    – Likely of full White-Christian ancestry, though a wiki troll has added the category “Jewish American judges” to her page today which stands as of this writing;
    – JD, 1988, University of Pennsylvania;
    – Legal career started under tutelage of Norma Levy Shapiro, 1988-’89 (law clerk);
    – Listed as Waban, Mass., resident: “In the Washington Post’s 2013 study of the most affluent and well-educated zip codes in America, Waban (02468) ranked third in the nation.”

    Demographic snapshot of Judge Allison Burroughs’ zip code:

    – College Degree: 81.4% [99th percentile]
    – Professional: 75.2% [99th percentile]

    – Married: 70.6%[95th percentile]
    – Divorced: 5.0% [3rd percentile]

    – White: 91.5% [55th percentile]
    – Black: 0.1% [18th percentile]
    – Asian: 6.1% [92nd percentile]
    – Hispanic: 0.4% [15th percentile]

    “Diversity is great! Enforce it! Enforce it, I say! Just, err, not in my neighborhood, Thx.”

    “In her decision, Judge Allison Burroughs gave an eloquent defense of the benefits of diversity, and said while the time might come when it would be possible to look beyond race in college admissions, that time was not yet here.”

    “The time to put in Somali quotas in my neighborhood is — not here yet.”

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    "What I say makes me feel good, even though I know it's bullshit. I'm addicted to it, like an alcoholic or a tweaker."
    , @Known Fact
    She looks a little like Bill Clinton in drag
    , @Anon
    Waban is part of Newton, and very Jewish. Asians aspire to live there and some do. Somalis, not so much, they enrich Portland, ME with their vibrant diversity.
  60. @nebulafox
    Right. And I believe the physicist is more useful for the purposes of the United States than a pure stock meth-head. Softcore eugenics, it is a thing that will come into fashion when the Baby Boomers die.

    Think it'd be better for the world too if, say, we were the ones figuring out how to engineer biology than the PRC, whatever our faults as a society.

    Disagree. Physicists, no matter their value, will always be a very small fraction of the total population in a functional society. I wouldn’t want to live in a society composed of narrowly focused theorists any more than a world of moment-driven tweakers. Supplementing meth-heads with docile laborers will only exacerbate underclass turmoil and accelerate development of de jure stratified class distinctions.

  61. @nebulafox
    I have zero issues whatsoever with Harvard being 100% Asian for two reasons:

    1) It's right. If college admissions were remotely fair in the United States, most prestige schools would be overwhelmingly Asian, predominantly East Asian with a handful of subcontinentals, former Warsaw Pacters, and the odd Igbo. Just look at NYC test scores: working class East Asians are the poorest group there. Yet still...

    2) It screws with the toxic branding culture that is omnipresent in the United States, all over our economy. Best to hit it at the source, because if it happens with Harvard, it'll happen pretty quickly with other schools. See, it makes everything even more embarrassingly transparent for our elites when they suddenly start hiring from whatever school they send their kids to get away from all those icky Asian grinds who can't offer them good network potential, and the upper-middle class SWPL types will scramble over themselves to follow them there.

    “ I have zero issues whatsoever with Harvard being 100% Asian”

    Bro at your age smarting over than rejection letter is kinda unseemly. Time to move on.

    😀

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Lol, man, it was MIT. ;)

    In all seriousness, considering what I was like as a teenager, I was fortunate to be thinking about college at all. I couldn't even communicate properly until my mid-20s.

    (I'm still not capable of expressing myself like I do here in writing. Astronomcally better, though. Had to teach myself.)

  62. Anonymous[270] • Disclaimer says:

    Unsurprisingly, the judge that decided the case lives on a block that is 100% White (population 137), with neighboring blocks all at over 90% white (the balance is almost entirely Asian). Apparently, judges do not need “live and learn surrounded by all sorts of people, with all sorts of experiences, beliefs and talents”.

  63. @Hail

    Judge Allison D. Burroughs
     

    Middlebury College graduate, check, Massachusetts federal judge, check, female Obama appointee, check.
     
    Here she is speaking at the "Boston white-collar crime conference, 2018":

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EF1muBFWoAAODH4.jpg

    Judge Allison D. Burroughs
    - Born April 1961, Boston;
    - Likely of full White-Christian ancestry, though a wiki troll has added the category "Jewish American judges" to her page today which stands as of this writing;
    - JD, 1988, University of Pennsylvania;
    - Legal career started under tutelage of Norma Levy Shapiro, 1988-'89 (law clerk);
    - Listed as Waban, Mass., resident: "In the Washington Post's 2013 study of the most affluent and well-educated zip codes in America, Waban (02468) ranked third in the nation."

    Demographic snapshot of Judge Allison Burroughs' zip code:

    - College Degree: 81.4% [99th percentile]
    - Professional: 75.2% [99th percentile]

    - Married: 70.6%[95th percentile]
    - Divorced: 5.0% [3rd percentile]

    - White: 91.5% [55th percentile]
    - Black: 0.1% [18th percentile]
    - Asian: 6.1% [92nd percentile]
    - Hispanic: 0.4% [15th percentile]
     
    "Diversity is great! Enforce it! Enforce it, I say! Just, err, not in my neighborhood, Thx."

    "In her decision, Judge Allison Burroughs gave an eloquent defense of the benefits of diversity, and said while the time might come when it would be possible to look beyond race in college admissions, that time was not yet here."
     
    "The time to put in Somali quotas in my neighborhood is -- not here yet."

    “What I say makes me feel good, even though I know it’s bullshit. I’m addicted to it, like an alcoholic or a tweaker.”

  64. @Reg Cæsar
    It took a lot of scrolling, but here is the first J-sighting on that Twitter feed:


    https://mobile.twitter.com/UpAndOv3r/status/1179161664324718592/photo/2a



    Dartmouth's physical isolation really "sticks" out. MIT and Caltech stick out in other ways.

    Physical isolation only by Northeastern elitist standards. They’re 100-150 miles from Boston.

  65. “Allison Burroughs is 58 years old today because Allison’s birthday is on 04/25/1961. Allison’s Reputation Score is 4.35. Before moving to Allison’s current city of Waban, MA, Allison lived in Brookline MA and Wayland MA. Other names that Allison uses includes Allison D Burroughs. We have lots of information about Allison: religious views are listed as Jewish, ethnicity is Caucasian, and political affiliation is currently a registered Democrat.”

    https://www.mylife.com/allison-burroughs/e91806618780

    “Early Sunday morning, that independent streak was on full display, as Burroughs, now a federal judge in Massachusetts, blocked an executive order issued by President Trump meant to bar entry to the United States for refugees and immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries.”

    • Replies: @Tired of Not Winning

    Allison Burroughs...religious views are listed as Jewish,
     
    Harvard is for Jews and blacks only, get it you stupid Asians? Stop applying!
  66. @HammerJack
    Pretty epic. Definitely worth repeating.

    Thanks! 🙂

  67. The biggest left wing liberals always live in the whitest neighborhoods. Never fails. They love blacks until they accidentally drove into a black neighborhood, then they wouldn’t even get out of the car.

    Limousine liberals a.k.a. champagne socialists are the biggest effing hypocrites.

  68. @216
    Harvard is supposed to be a Protestant institution, Boston College is supposed to be a Catholic institution.

    Harvard has been totally secular for a long time. Boston College being Jesuit is likely as secular as Georgetown and Notre Dame, both of which are almost as secular as Harvard.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  69. @Wilkey
    However imperfect and/or biased Harvard's admission process, keeping a cap on the number of Asian students seems fair to me.

    First, it's a private school. Private schools. even those as rich as Harvard, are still private money, and they should have the right to admit whomever they want, even if lots of Harvard-trained lawyers would disagree, and even if they receive government money for research. Otherwise what would be the point of your money belonging to you instead of the government. If the government can dictate to you how your charitable dollars must be spent then it isn't really your money.

    Second, and perhaps as importantly, while Asians certainly do much better than average in the US economically, academically, etc., there is absolutely nothing in their post-collegiate careers which suggests they should comprise 50% of elite college student bodies.

    Are 50% of top writers and musicians and television/movie/theatre producers and directors Asian?

    Are 50% of corporate CEOs Asian?

    Are 50% of top *US-born* engineers and scientists Asian (i.e., not counting all the Asians let in on H-1B visas or as grad students)?

    Are 50% of top political leaders Asian?

    Are 50% of military admirals and generals Asian?

    Not even close with regards to any of those. Whatever else you can say, SAT scores appear to overpredict Asian success. Our culture, our science, our government, our military, and our industry aren't nearly as dominated by Asians as they would be if Asians actually deserved to comprise half the top spots at Harvard and elsewhere. So jiggering the admissions process to account for that doesn't strike me as in any way a racist decision on Harvard's part.

    Harvard and other private colleges apply for, beg, scam and get federal money for research and other purposes. Harvard and other colleges accept federal and state government funded scholarships for tuition payments. Harvard and other colleges accept tuition payments made by federal student loans.

    Once any entity accepts a dime of federal state city or county money or has any kind of government license such as a liquor license in a private club

    The 14th amendment applies and the private entity cannot discriminate on the basis of race ethnicity religion sex gender sexual preference transgender ism or anything else.

    Therefore, any college that accepts government money for any purpose cannot discriminate.

    Plus, Harvard like every other college in the country, hates Whites and wants us all dead and gone. .

    • Replies: @Wilkey

    Harvard and other private colleges apply for, beg, scam and get federal money for research and other purposes. Harvard and other colleges accept federal and state government funded scholarships for tuition payments. Harvard and other colleges accept tuition payments made by federal student loans.
     
    So in theory you have your freedoms (private property, freedom of speech and all that) but the more the government gets its hands into everything the more those freedoms don't really exist, because you can't do without the money and that money comes with strings attached.
  70. Time to make Harvard 100% black, get it over with.

  71. @Peterike
    “Allison Burroughs is 58 years old today because Allison's birthday is on 04/25/1961. Allison's Reputation Score is 4.35. Before moving to Allison's current city of Waban, MA, Allison lived in Brookline MA and Wayland MA. Other names that Allison uses includes Allison D Burroughs. We have lots of information about Allison: religious views are listed as Jewish, ethnicity is Caucasian, and political affiliation is currently a registered Democrat.”

    https://www.mylife.com/allison-burroughs/e91806618780

    “Early Sunday morning, that independent streak was on full display, as Burroughs, now a federal judge in Massachusetts, blocked an executive order issued by President Trump meant to bar entry to the United States for refugees and immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries.”

    Allison Burroughs…religious views are listed as Jewish,

    Harvard is for Jews and blacks only, get it you stupid Asians? Stop applying!

    • Replies: @Hail
    I doubt that Judge Allison Burroughs is Jewish, or has substantial Jewish ancestry, or is even necessarily more pro-Jewish than the avg. American is compelled to be in public. (Never be the first Congressperson to stop applauding when someone says 'Israel.')

    Whoever edited that public profile was probably an Alt-Right troll responding to her late January 2017 decision to declare the six-country 'Muslim Travel Ban' illegal. (Yes, the very same woman.)

  72. @Lot
    “ I have zero issues whatsoever with Harvard being 100% Asian”

    Bro at your age smarting over than rejection letter is kinda unseemly. Time to move on.

    :D

    Lol, man, it was MIT. 😉

    In all seriousness, considering what I was like as a teenager, I was fortunate to be thinking about college at all. I couldn’t even communicate properly until my mid-20s.

    (I’m still not capable of expressing myself like I do here in writing. Astronomcally better, though. Had to teach myself.)

    • Replies: @anonymous
    nebulafox - what is your yearly income?

    people are not all that good at communicating with each other and for a few hundred bucks a week
    (let's say 30 bucks an hour)

    I could easily train you into being someone who is, while not as good as Trump, good at communication with people, and I guarantee you that,

    at say, 30 bucks an hour a few times a week for a few weeks, you will be a much better communicator than the wife of the guy who went to Epstein's Island almost 20 times, a much better communicator than the lying Bushes, a much better communicator than the phony Christian and pro-abortion loser Carter who still has not publicly repented, and a much better communicator than Obama, who is not liked by anyone very much anymore.

    I hope you see what I am doing here.
    Nobody cares about the sad people who work so hard so long only to be objects of ridicule, in their thirst for power (well, not Trump or Reagan, they both were decent people)
    and nobody cares about anybody all that much

    except for people who tell you they can make you be someone who knows how to be the person God wants them to be, and to be the sort of person who can communicate when communicating the truth is important.

    Wake up, be the man God wants you to be.

    You are welcome for the good advice, it was free, all I ask is that you really take it to heart.

    People like you are the sort of people who are going to make this world a better place long after I am gone, and this is my world, and I want you to take care of it.

    Trust me, and, as always (I remember) you are welcome for the good advice.

  73. @Hail

    Judge Allison D. Burroughs
     

    Middlebury College graduate, check, Massachusetts federal judge, check, female Obama appointee, check.
     
    Here she is speaking at the "Boston white-collar crime conference, 2018":

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EF1muBFWoAAODH4.jpg

    Judge Allison D. Burroughs
    - Born April 1961, Boston;
    - Likely of full White-Christian ancestry, though a wiki troll has added the category "Jewish American judges" to her page today which stands as of this writing;
    - JD, 1988, University of Pennsylvania;
    - Legal career started under tutelage of Norma Levy Shapiro, 1988-'89 (law clerk);
    - Listed as Waban, Mass., resident: "In the Washington Post's 2013 study of the most affluent and well-educated zip codes in America, Waban (02468) ranked third in the nation."

    Demographic snapshot of Judge Allison Burroughs' zip code:

    - College Degree: 81.4% [99th percentile]
    - Professional: 75.2% [99th percentile]

    - Married: 70.6%[95th percentile]
    - Divorced: 5.0% [3rd percentile]

    - White: 91.5% [55th percentile]
    - Black: 0.1% [18th percentile]
    - Asian: 6.1% [92nd percentile]
    - Hispanic: 0.4% [15th percentile]
     
    "Diversity is great! Enforce it! Enforce it, I say! Just, err, not in my neighborhood, Thx."

    "In her decision, Judge Allison Burroughs gave an eloquent defense of the benefits of diversity, and said while the time might come when it would be possible to look beyond race in college admissions, that time was not yet here."
     
    "The time to put in Somali quotas in my neighborhood is -- not here yet."

    She looks a little like Bill Clinton in drag

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    She looks a little like Bill Clinton in drag
     
    Probably sounds like Julia Child, too.
  74. anonymous[546] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    Lol, man, it was MIT. ;)

    In all seriousness, considering what I was like as a teenager, I was fortunate to be thinking about college at all. I couldn't even communicate properly until my mid-20s.

    (I'm still not capable of expressing myself like I do here in writing. Astronomcally better, though. Had to teach myself.)

    nebulafox – what is your yearly income?

    people are not all that good at communicating with each other and for a few hundred bucks a week
    (let’s say 30 bucks an hour)

    I could easily train you into being someone who is, while not as good as Trump, good at communication with people, and I guarantee you that,

    at say, 30 bucks an hour a few times a week for a few weeks, you will be a much better communicator than the wife of the guy who went to Epstein’s Island almost 20 times, a much better communicator than the lying Bushes, a much better communicator than the phony Christian and pro-abortion loser Carter who still has not publicly repented, and a much better communicator than Obama, who is not liked by anyone very much anymore.

    I hope you see what I am doing here.
    Nobody cares about the sad people who work so hard so long only to be objects of ridicule, in their thirst for power (well, not Trump or Reagan, they both were decent people)
    and nobody cares about anybody all that much

    except for people who tell you they can make you be someone who knows how to be the person God wants them to be, and to be the sort of person who can communicate when communicating the truth is important.

    Wake up, be the man God wants you to be.

    You are welcome for the good advice, it was free, all I ask is that you really take it to heart.

    People like you are the sort of people who are going to make this world a better place long after I am gone, and this is my world, and I want you to take care of it.

    Trust me, and, as always (I remember) you are welcome for the good advice.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    >nebulafox – what is your yearly income?

    If that's you, Corvy, I can safely say: more than yours.

  75. Physical isolation only by Northeastern elitist standards. They’re 100-150 miles from Boston.

    126 mi by Interstates that haven’t been around all that long. To the traditional “Northeastern élitist”, rural isolation is a feature, not a bug, and it shows in Dartmouth’s (relatively) high percentage of white goyim.

    While William Dwight Whitney was teaching Sanskrit at Yale, brother Josiah was sending out the first team to scale and measure the mount that bears his name. William’s grandson Hassler was a noted mathematician.

    That’s my kind of élite!

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
    Mine too, and their mother was a Williston. I was only reading yesterday about my ancestral uncle the Reverend Solomon Lyman (Yale 1822) who was one of the founders of the Williston Academy (which is of course in Northampton) and a trustee of the same for some forty years.

    But since the Whitney brothers didn't attend Dartmouth I don't quite see why you are mentioning them here?
  76. @Known Fact
    She looks a little like Bill Clinton in drag

    She looks a little like Bill Clinton in drag

    Probably sounds like Julia Child, too.

    • Replies: @Hail
    Despite exercising immense power the past few years, overruling the president on major policy (the essentially immediate revoking of the Travel Ban in late Jan. 2017), you'll find something curious here:

    There is no video of Judge Allison D. Burroughs anywhere on YouTube.

    No interviews, no conference talks, no appearances at an alma mater or the like; nothing from her years as a prosecutor, nor during her nomination to be a federal judge in the second half of 2014 (confirmed, Dec. 2014). Just nothing.

    Judge Burroughs is a ghost, a hidden hand operating behind the curtain in Oz.

  77. People are so stupid. Why must we entertain this noise?

  78. @anonymous
    nebulafox - what is your yearly income?

    people are not all that good at communicating with each other and for a few hundred bucks a week
    (let's say 30 bucks an hour)

    I could easily train you into being someone who is, while not as good as Trump, good at communication with people, and I guarantee you that,

    at say, 30 bucks an hour a few times a week for a few weeks, you will be a much better communicator than the wife of the guy who went to Epstein's Island almost 20 times, a much better communicator than the lying Bushes, a much better communicator than the phony Christian and pro-abortion loser Carter who still has not publicly repented, and a much better communicator than Obama, who is not liked by anyone very much anymore.

    I hope you see what I am doing here.
    Nobody cares about the sad people who work so hard so long only to be objects of ridicule, in their thirst for power (well, not Trump or Reagan, they both were decent people)
    and nobody cares about anybody all that much

    except for people who tell you they can make you be someone who knows how to be the person God wants them to be, and to be the sort of person who can communicate when communicating the truth is important.

    Wake up, be the man God wants you to be.

    You are welcome for the good advice, it was free, all I ask is that you really take it to heart.

    People like you are the sort of people who are going to make this world a better place long after I am gone, and this is my world, and I want you to take care of it.

    Trust me, and, as always (I remember) you are welcome for the good advice.

    >nebulafox – what is your yearly income?

    If that’s you, Corvy, I can safely say: more than yours.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    What a loser thing to say.

    I am a grad from a top 14 law school and when I was in the military I was a member of extremely elite units.

    And I was just trying to help you, and you lashed out like a little kitten that never knew what it was to be cared for.

    Don't call me by a nickname again, until you shape up.

    And no I am not Corvinus. I believe in God and God believes in me, and Corvinus has never been able to say that. That being said, please reconsider my advice, I want you to succeed in life.

    And for the love of God I gave you priceless advice, and I still hope you take it, I like you even though you messed up by insulting me.

    Not your fault, you had no idea how good-hearted I am, and how powerful I am when I pray for people who are unkind to me (or kind to me, for that matter).

    This is my world, not yours, and don't mock me again.

    Thanks for reading.

  79. @nebulafox
    Look, we can discuss whether the mass immigration wave of the last half-century was wise or not until the cows come home, but it doesn't really matter. The fact is most of these kids-and I'm guessing the children of illegal Salvadoran migrants mostly aren't applying to top-tier colleges-graduating our high schools are Americans. They aren't disappearing. It's time to accept that and focus instead on assimilation at all costs, which is doable if your society has some spine, some breathing room, and is willing to put in the time. Even with the fanatical anti-assimilation sentiment of today's left, it still goes on. Imagine what we can get done in a society where the baizuo have no cultural influence.

    Unless you are talking about no-kidding foreign students? In which case, I think Derbyshire's "salt in the soup" metaphor is quite apropos. You'd do well to poach whatever geniuses you can, but the overwhelming, absolute majority of people are not geniuses. And even the situation for the former is changing in some countries. The best in the PRC no longer study in the United States, at least as undergrads, for example: parents who know their kids can't compete on the gaokao will save up the money to buy a US degree.

    A voice of reason. Most — actually all — of the ‘they have to go back’ crowd are worthless, if ‘they’ is a term that includes any American citizens of any race. Nationalists — and I’m one — have only managed to slow illegal immigration. I do think the tide is slowly turning, but until I see the border wall built, owners and managers of businesses that employ illegals routinely heavily fined and jailed, sanctuary cities sued and held liable for releasing dangerous illegal immigrants, chain migration ended, H-1B and OPT ended, green cards reduced by at least half… there’s no reason to continually make mastorabatory comments about sending anyone anywhere.

    If we do manage to significantly reduce immigration, hardcore and unapologetic assimilation efforts will work with East Asians and Hispanics, at least. And America will be just fine.

    But that’s a big ‘if’. Harvard doesn’t matter nor affirmative action — conservatives should have spent a lot more time defending the value of citizenship and national community in non-economic terms, instead of bitching about affirmative action or unions. Harvard being 0 percent Asian or 100 percent Asian or 100 percent Jewish doesn’t matter to me. The composition of my own community does.

  80. @Peterike
    “Are 50% of top writers and musicians and television/movie/theatre producers and directors Asian?

    Are 50% of corporate CEOs Asian?

    Are 50% of top *US-born* engineers and scientists Asian (i.e., not counting all the Asians let in on H-1B visas or as grad students)?

    Are 50% of top political leaders Asian?

    Are 50% of military admirals and generals Asian?”

    They will be in about 15 years. Except maybe for the military.

    They will be in about 15 years. Except maybe for the military.

    Unlikely, unless immigration gets even more out of control than it already is.

    Look, if Asians were really *that* talented then Asia would be doing far better than it is.

    So Asians aren’t that dominant in the USA despite the fact that they “deserve” to be 50-100% of the Harvard student body. Asian countries aren’t any richer than Europe despite the fact that their emigrants “deserve” to be 50-100% of the Harvard student body.

    Being an excellent grind in high school is not the same as having real talent.

    • Agree: Lot
    • Replies: @HammerJack

    Unlikely, unless immigration gets even more out of control than it already is.
     
    The rejoinder here is too obvious to type.
    , @eagles

    Being an excellent grind in high school is not the same as having real talent.
     
    Example: Sarah Jeong of the NY Times and Harvard
  81. anonymous[546] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    >nebulafox – what is your yearly income?

    If that's you, Corvy, I can safely say: more than yours.

    What a loser thing to say.

    I am a grad from a top 14 law school and when I was in the military I was a member of extremely elite units.

    And I was just trying to help you, and you lashed out like a little kitten that never knew what it was to be cared for.

    Don’t call me by a nickname again, until you shape up.

    And no I am not Corvinus. I believe in God and God believes in me, and Corvinus has never been able to say that. That being said, please reconsider my advice, I want you to succeed in life.

    And for the love of God I gave you priceless advice, and I still hope you take it, I like you even though you messed up by insulting me.

    Not your fault, you had no idea how good-hearted I am, and how powerful I am when I pray for people who are unkind to me (or kind to me, for that matter).

    This is my world, not yours, and don’t mock me again.

    Thanks for reading.

    • LOL: William Badwhite
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    My apologies.

    I suppose I'm at a crossroads...
    , @William Badwhite
    " Top 14" law school was awesome.
    , @HammerJack
    You sound like an angry Korean.
  82. Here’s another troll sign for you:

    “Asians deserve to be overrepresented at Harvard.”

    • LOL: Hail
  83. I just briefly skimmed the decision. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1865-harvard-admissions-process/fcb2b57c15f154b139df/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

    It’s about 200 pages but the vast majority is filler about procedural history, summaries of expert reports and long discussions of old Supreme Court precedent. For what it’s worth, here’s my take on the highlights.

    Myth of American Meritocracy Gets a Shout Out.
    Ron’s Myth of American Meritocracy article that kicked this whole mess off gets an entire subsection at page 31. The court felt compelled, however, to gratuitously virtue signal against Ron’s general political incorrectness by noting that it contained “language that suggested certain unsavory biases” and includes “data based on perceptions about the proportion of national merit scholarship semifinalists from California whose names seem to be Jewish.” [Footnote 25]. Thus, it was quite reasonable for “Harvard admissions officials to view the article as ‘profoundly anti-Semitic and, as a result, to view it as less than serious scholarship.” Tsk Tsk, Ron.

    Luckily, Official Respectable Person, “David Brooks of the New York Times published an article that promoted the Unz Article.” So it was saved from the memory hole. The rest is history.

    The Fix Was In to Uphold Harvard’s System
    It was always pretty obvious that this judge (a very liberal Democrat), was going to uphold the Harvard system. It is equally obvious that this is the first stop before appellate review with a good chance of going all the way to the Supreme Court eventually. So the only question was how would she justify her conclusion to avoid doing harm to affirmative action generally, while creating the best record for appeal.

    Holding # 1: It’s Always OK to Discriminate Against White in Favor of Black and Brown.
    This was the easy part, Harvard admits that it considers race in order to get the “diversity” it feels it needs. The court said “no problem,” because “diversity is our strength” you may go forth and discriminate. “Just don’t get caught using anything that looks too much like a ‘quota.’” (To paraphrase about 50 pages of legal blather pretending to analyze all the convoluted facts and legal standards).

    Holding # 2: Smart Asian Nerds are Different But Equal to Charismatic White Jocks.
    Under the incoherent legal standard created by the U.S. Supreme Court (to paraphrase): racial discrimination in college admissions is legal if it is only used as a “plus” in a multi-factor system that also considers the “whole person” and doesn’t “unduly burden” the non-preferred group. (Note: It has always been assumed that everybody except whites would be eligible for the racial “plus;” and nobody ever cared that this the same outcome as just giving whites a racial “minus”).

    But the problem in upholding Harvard’s discrimination scheme under this standard is that Asians must have much higher grades and SAT scores to get admitted as compared to all other groups, including whites. So that sure doesn’t look like a “plus” for being Asian. In fact, that looks a lot like a racial “minus” for a minority group, which would be illegal. Uh-Oh.

    At this point, the Court could have found that this racial disparity occurred because Harvard gave a racial “plus” to everyone except Asians, and that this was justified to avoid having Asians swamp the school and mess up the precious levels of racial “diversity” sought by Harvard. It’s pretty obvious to everyone that this is exactly what Harvard is intentionally doing. But recognizing this reality would not work as it would set a precedent that white people could be eligible for a racial preference if its necessary to preserve “diversity.” We can’t have that.

    So the Court had to default to Plan B: Just pretend Whites and Asians are actually being treated the same. It did this by finding that: (a) The particular Asians who apply to Harvard just happen to be smarter than the Whites; (b) The particular Whites who apply to Harvard just happen to be more athletic and have better personalities than Asians; and (c) These factors just happen to cancel each other out so that both groups are really being treated the same by Harvard.

    The court therefore held that there is no “undue burden” in requiring Asians to have higher SATs and grades because lower scoring Whites are nevertheless “similarly situated” to their smarter Asian counterparts by virtue of their superior athletic prowess and better personalities.

    So this is a really interesting holding. The NYT crowd will no doubt spin it as a victory for affirmative action. But it also kind of holds that you can give a preference to whatever group you like — including whites — if you just do it on the down-low by rigging the factors in the good old “multi-factor” “whole person” test.

    It’s also a little awkward to have an official judicial finding on the books that Asians have no personality.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    A typically magisterial contribution from you Mr Toad. Thanks.
    , @Hail

    Myth of American Meritocracy Gets a Shout Out.

    Ron’s Myth of American Meritocracy article that kicked this whole mess off gets an entire subsection at page 31. The court felt compelled, however, to gratuitously virtue signal against Ron’s general political incorrectness by noting that it contained “language that suggested certain unsavory biases” and includes “data based on perceptions about the proportion of national merit scholarship semifinalists from California whose names seem to be Jewish.” [Footnote 25]. Thus, it was quite reasonable for “Harvard admissions officials to view the article as ‘profoundly anti-Semitic and, as a result, to view it as less than serious scholarship.” Tsk Tsk, Ron.
     

    @Ron Unz, consider publishing a response to this court decision('s remarks about you and your work) -- Soon.
    , @Lot
    “ The court therefore held that there is no “undue burden” in requiring Asians to have higher SATs and grades because lower scoring Whites are nevertheless “similarly situated” to their smarter Asian counterparts by virtue of their superior athletic prowess and better personalities.”

    What part of that do you think is wrong?
  84. My class at Boston Latin highschool (87) sent 30 kids to Harvard,I believe the record at the time.Im not sure of the racial breakdown.
    Boston Latin itself has been sued for racial discrimination by a white girl who had a much higher entrance exam score than others that DID get in with the right color.I cant renember the result.

  85. Anonymous[154] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon2020
    So an Obama appointed judge on Harvard's hometurf just told us that it's okay to discriminate by race in America. Is anyone surprised?

    Middle class whites have been turning away from the Ivy League in droves for some time now. Neither of my kids are applying to any of the elite privates, though both are top students. They are aiming straight for the state flagship. Need based only aid means we are full pay. We are not interested in shelling out $300k per kid to have our kids brainwashed into pompous elitist dogmatic hypocritical brain dead liberals.

    The only people who hunger for these elite schools are Jews, rich legacy whites and first/second generation Asians.

    Jews are overwhelmingly favored thanks to their social activism and that whole whining about holocaust thing; rich legacy whites have legacy status and connections. Middle class Asians are experiencing what middle class whites have experienced for so long we no longer bother with these schools. Hopefully these supposed smart Asians will smarten up soon and stop applying to these schools. If only the social activist Jews, dull rich kids, blacks and hispanics get in, their standards esp. in STEM will plummet in no time.

    Harvard is a university and its prestige is generated in an 80/20 split between its reputation and its output, with more than nine-tenths of that 20 coming from graduate and doctoral studies products and the research produced by the university. Harvard is among the nation’s elite undergraduate institutions, but the whole thing (the college) is mostly a sham so the right people can meet each other. I wonder if they play as fast and loose with their standards between applicants and applicant groups at the post-graduate level. I doubt they do.

  86. @Wilkey

    I have zero issues whatsoever with Harvard being 100% Asian for two reasons...
     
    I'll summarize my other post that you can also find here: if Asians deserved to be anything remotely like 50% of undergrads at elite colleges (let alone 100%) then they would be far more dominant in culture, politics, business and science than they are. They are overrepresented, to be sure, in most of these places, but not to a degree that suggests they should be 100% or even 50% of Harvard students.

    “then they would be far more dominant in culture, politics, business and science than they are”

    The Asian underperformance starts before they even graduate.

    Here’s a list of individuals who had the highest GPA in their class at Harvard.

    For 2000-2011, I see 9 Jewish surnames. 2 unknown whites, 1 Iranian, 1 east Asian.

    For the 90s, 3 gentile whites, 1 unknown white (aaron brown), 3 Jews, 2 east asians, 1 indian, 1 romanian with a mostly non-jewish surname.

    So it appears East and South Asians both underperform both Jewish and non-Jewish whites

    2011 *Sophie Cai [US, chemical physics ; Harvard Medical School], *Zachary Frankel [US, physics; Rhodes Scholar], *Darius Imregun [UK, chemical physics]
    2010 Jeremy Aron-Dine [US, linguistics]
    2009 ???
    2008 Seth Philip Herbst [US, English & American literature, music; doctoral student in English at Harvard]
    2007 Alexandra Harwin [US, history; Yale Law School JD, works in family law]
    2006 Kirsten Frieda [US, chemistry & physics; Stanford biophysics graduate student]
    2005 David Camden [US, classics; Harvard PhD candidate in classical philology]
    2004 Andrew Goldstone [US, physics and mathematics; Yale PhD in English literature]
    2003 *Elias Reinhold Sacks [US, comparative religion; Princeton doctoral student in religion] and *Lisa Beth Schwartz [US, government; Yale Law School JD, Harvard MBA, lawyer at Wachtell]
    2002 Stephen Sachs [US, history (medieval Europe); Yale Law School JD, Oxford MA; lawyer, Mayer Brown]
    2001 Kevin Schwartz [US, government; Oxford MBA+PhD (Marshall scholar); Yale Law School JD, lawyer at Wachtell]
    2000 Matthew Strahl Levine [US ; Yale Law School JD, lawyer at Wachtell Lipton Rosen Katz]
    1999 Chelsea Helen Foxwell [US ; art history professor at U. Chicago]
    1998 Daniel Philippe Mason [US, biology; novelist]
    1997 Aaron Brown [US, computer science; Berkeley PhD in computer science, Google] and Jeffrey Gell [US, economics; Marshall scholar, Boston Consulting Group VP]
    1996 Yeoh Yong Yeow [Singapore IMO medalist; DE Shaw]
    1995 Reshma Jagsi [US; Rhodes Scholar, MD, doctor]
    1994 David Liu [US, chemistry; Harvard Chemistry dept professor]
    1993 Jason Jacobs [US, physics; MD, ophthalmologist]
    1992 Noah Feldman [US, Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations; Rhodes Scholar, Oxford PhD, Yale Law School JD, Harvard Law School professor]
    1991 Constantin Teleman [US/Romania, mathematics; math professor at UC Berkeley]
    1990 Jonathan Bolton [US; professor of Slavic studies]

    1985 Christopher Landau [US, history; lawyer, Kirkland & Ellis]
    1983 Amy Remensnyder [US; Berkeley PhD in history; medievalist at Brown]
    1972 Robert Waldinger [US, history and science; Harvard Medical School MD, psychiatry]
    1971 Claude Bernard [US, physics; physics professor at WUSTL]
    1970 Scott Boorman [US; Junior fellow upon graduation from College, Yale Law School JD, mathematical sociologist at Yale]
    1966 David Kelly Campbell [US, physics and chemistry; PhD, Cambridge (theoretical physics, math), physics professor at Boston University

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    For the 90s, 3 gentile whites, 1 unknown white (aaron brown), 3 Jews, 2 east asians, 1 indian, 1 romanian with a mostly non-jewish surname.

    I'm pretty sure Teleman is Jewish
    , @Mr McKenna
    Just skimming your list, it seems that Yale Law School is full of Jews from Harvard.
  87. @Old NY Jew
    Wait until it gets to the US Supreme Court. This was one Obama appointed District Court judge in a hotbed of leftism, Massachusetts.

    They’re terrified on pulling the plug on the blacks. If the affirmative action free ride stops, riots will occur. Ferguson was a demonstration of the potential threat of violence to other cities. You better think twice white boy.

  88. @Tired of Not Winning

    Allison Burroughs...religious views are listed as Jewish,
     
    Harvard is for Jews and blacks only, get it you stupid Asians? Stop applying!

    I doubt that Judge Allison Burroughs is Jewish, or has substantial Jewish ancestry, or is even necessarily more pro-Jewish than the avg. American is compelled to be in public. (Never be the first Congressperson to stop applauding when someone says ‘Israel.’)

    Whoever edited that public profile was probably an Alt-Right troll responding to her late January 2017 decision to declare the six-country ‘Muslim Travel Ban’ illegal. (Yes, the very same woman.)

  89. anon[154] • Disclaimer says:

    15.8% of Harvard students are black, above their 13% proportion of the general population, and of course well above the .9% they would rate if admitted on grades.
    Every black affirmative action student at Harvard is selected and trained to be a resentful, hate-filled racist. Their life mission is to get whitey.
    That is 15.8% of the student body.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    15.8% of Harvard students are black

    Is # that for sure, or is that the percent of admissions offers that go to blacks? The kind of blacks who get admitted to Harvard have a lot of options in life, so maybe they wait to see what Stanford and Yale and Princeton are offering.

  90. @Reg Cæsar

    She looks a little like Bill Clinton in drag
     
    Probably sounds like Julia Child, too.

    Despite exercising immense power the past few years, overruling the president on major policy (the essentially immediate revoking of the Travel Ban in late Jan. 2017), you’ll find something curious here:

    There is no video of Judge Allison D. Burroughs anywhere on YouTube.

    No interviews, no conference talks, no appearances at an alma mater or the like; nothing from her years as a prosecutor, nor during her nomination to be a federal judge in the second half of 2014 (confirmed, Dec. 2014). Just nothing.

    Judge Burroughs is a ghost, a hidden hand operating behind the curtain in Oz.

  91. @anonymous
    I believe a lot of the point here was to get this case to SCOTUS. For that purpose a loss at the trial court level is probably fine. In fact, if the plaintiffs had won now, Harvard might not have appealed in order to avoid a precedent-setting SCOTUS decision.

    So the mostly Harvard/Yale grad Supreme Court is going to rule that those schools should only consider tests scores and let themselves become 0.5% black and 60%+ asian?

    Well anything is possible. I wouldn’t bet on it.

    So many better potential test cases. Ed Blum made a big mistake throwing his hat in with Hsu’s Asian Supremicism and Unz’s ethnomasochism.

    Harvard was also a poor choice of defendant for a test case.

    I predicted before that Harvard would win completely and was right. Here’s my further prediction: Harvard wins again on appeal and the Supreme Court doesn’t take the case.

    My alternate less likely prediction: Supreme Court takes another AA case during the appeal of this case, the judge’s order is possibly vacated to reflect the new decision, and then Harvard wins again.

    So two paths to the same result.

    Ed Blum has done so much good with his activism on AA and redistricting and voter ID laws. Hope he finds a way to extricate himself from this case before it sucks up more of his energy and time.

  92. The stigma continues for blacks: they will always be seen as underqualified affirmative action hacks no matter where they work, what job title they hold, where they went to college, what they majored in. And they can thank the well meaning liberals for that.

  93. @anon
    15.8% of Harvard students are black, above their 13% proportion of the general population, and of course well above the .9% they would rate if admitted on grades.
    Every black affirmative action student at Harvard is selected and trained to be a resentful, hate-filled racist. Their life mission is to get whitey.
    That is 15.8% of the student body.

    15.8% of Harvard students are black

    Is # that for sure, or is that the percent of admissions offers that go to blacks? The kind of blacks who get admitted to Harvard have a lot of options in life, so maybe they wait to see what Stanford and Yale and Princeton are offering.

  94. @Hail

    Judge Allison D. Burroughs
     

    Middlebury College graduate, check, Massachusetts federal judge, check, female Obama appointee, check.
     
    Here she is speaking at the "Boston white-collar crime conference, 2018":

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EF1muBFWoAAODH4.jpg

    Judge Allison D. Burroughs
    - Born April 1961, Boston;
    - Likely of full White-Christian ancestry, though a wiki troll has added the category "Jewish American judges" to her page today which stands as of this writing;
    - JD, 1988, University of Pennsylvania;
    - Legal career started under tutelage of Norma Levy Shapiro, 1988-'89 (law clerk);
    - Listed as Waban, Mass., resident: "In the Washington Post's 2013 study of the most affluent and well-educated zip codes in America, Waban (02468) ranked third in the nation."

    Demographic snapshot of Judge Allison Burroughs' zip code:

    - College Degree: 81.4% [99th percentile]
    - Professional: 75.2% [99th percentile]

    - Married: 70.6%[95th percentile]
    - Divorced: 5.0% [3rd percentile]

    - White: 91.5% [55th percentile]
    - Black: 0.1% [18th percentile]
    - Asian: 6.1% [92nd percentile]
    - Hispanic: 0.4% [15th percentile]
     
    "Diversity is great! Enforce it! Enforce it, I say! Just, err, not in my neighborhood, Thx."

    "In her decision, Judge Allison Burroughs gave an eloquent defense of the benefits of diversity, and said while the time might come when it would be possible to look beyond race in college admissions, that time was not yet here."
     
    "The time to put in Somali quotas in my neighborhood is -- not here yet."

    Waban is part of Newton, and very Jewish. Asians aspire to live there and some do. Somalis, not so much, they enrich Portland, ME with their vibrant diversity.

    • Replies: @HammerJack
    My friends in Newton have Jewish neighbors on all sides. I have to admit, though, that it's a very very pleasant neighborhood and seems to be 100% white. Did see a couple Asians at the supermarket.
  95. @Lot
    “then they would be far more dominant in culture, politics, business and science than they are”

    The Asian underperformance starts before they even graduate.

    Here’s a list of individuals who had the highest GPA in their class at Harvard.

    For 2000-2011, I see 9 Jewish surnames. 2 unknown whites, 1 Iranian, 1 east Asian.

    For the 90s, 3 gentile whites, 1 unknown white (aaron brown), 3 Jews, 2 east asians, 1 indian, 1 romanian with a mostly non-jewish surname.

    So it appears East and South Asians both underperform both Jewish and non-Jewish whites

    2011 *Sophie Cai [US, chemical physics ; Harvard Medical School], *Zachary Frankel [US, physics; Rhodes Scholar], *Darius Imregun [UK, chemical physics]
    2010 Jeremy Aron-Dine [US, linguistics]
    2009 ???
    2008 Seth Philip Herbst [US, English & American literature, music; doctoral student in English at Harvard]
    2007 Alexandra Harwin [US, history; Yale Law School JD, works in family law]
    2006 Kirsten Frieda [US, chemistry & physics; Stanford biophysics graduate student]
    2005 David Camden [US, classics; Harvard PhD candidate in classical philology]
    2004 Andrew Goldstone [US, physics and mathematics; Yale PhD in English literature]
    2003 *Elias Reinhold Sacks [US, comparative religion; Princeton doctoral student in religion] and *Lisa Beth Schwartz [US, government; Yale Law School JD, Harvard MBA, lawyer at Wachtell]
    2002 Stephen Sachs [US, history (medieval Europe); Yale Law School JD, Oxford MA; lawyer, Mayer Brown]
    2001 Kevin Schwartz [US, government; Oxford MBA+PhD (Marshall scholar); Yale Law School JD, lawyer at Wachtell]
    2000 Matthew Strahl Levine [US ; Yale Law School JD, lawyer at Wachtell Lipton Rosen Katz]
    1999 Chelsea Helen Foxwell [US ; art history professor at U. Chicago]
    1998 Daniel Philippe Mason [US, biology; novelist]
    1997 Aaron Brown [US, computer science; Berkeley PhD in computer science, Google] and Jeffrey Gell [US, economics; Marshall scholar, Boston Consulting Group VP]
    1996 Yeoh Yong Yeow [Singapore IMO medalist; DE Shaw]
    1995 Reshma Jagsi [US; Rhodes Scholar, MD, doctor]
    1994 David Liu [US, chemistry; Harvard Chemistry dept professor]
    1993 Jason Jacobs [US, physics; MD, ophthalmologist]
    1992 Noah Feldman [US, Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations; Rhodes Scholar, Oxford PhD, Yale Law School JD, Harvard Law School professor]
    1991 Constantin Teleman [US/Romania, mathematics; math professor at UC Berkeley]
    1990 Jonathan Bolton [US; professor of Slavic studies]

    1985 Christopher Landau [US, history; lawyer, Kirkland & Ellis]
    1983 Amy Remensnyder [US; Berkeley PhD in history; medievalist at Brown]
    1972 Robert Waldinger [US, history and science; Harvard Medical School MD, psychiatry]
    1971 Claude Bernard [US, physics; physics professor at WUSTL]
    1970 Scott Boorman [US; Junior fellow upon graduation from College, Yale Law School JD, mathematical sociologist at Yale]
    1966 David Kelly Campbell [US, physics and chemistry; PhD, Cambridge (theoretical physics, math), physics professor at Boston University

    For the 90s, 3 gentile whites, 1 unknown white (aaron brown), 3 Jews, 2 east asians, 1 indian, 1 romanian with a mostly non-jewish surname.

    I’m pretty sure Teleman is Jewish

    • Replies: @Lot
    “ I’m pretty sure Teleman is Jewish”

    In the abstract “successful Romanian at the top of his Harvard class” is a strong clue of AJ ancestry. And I wouldn’t be surprised if he has a Jewish mother.

    However, the surname has 500+ people in Romania and under 5 in Israel. A quick google search finds no obvious Jews with that surname. Thus, since the name is Germanic, he’s probably a non-Jewish German-Romanian in his paternal line.
  96. @Alden
    Harvard and other private colleges apply for, beg, scam and get federal money for research and other purposes. Harvard and other colleges accept federal and state government funded scholarships for tuition payments. Harvard and other colleges accept tuition payments made by federal student loans.

    Once any entity accepts a dime of federal state city or county money or has any kind of government license such as a liquor license in a private club

    The 14th amendment applies and the private entity cannot discriminate on the basis of race ethnicity religion sex gender sexual preference transgender ism or anything else.

    Therefore, any college that accepts government money for any purpose cannot discriminate.

    Plus, Harvard like every other college in the country, hates Whites and wants us all dead and gone. .

    Harvard and other private colleges apply for, beg, scam and get federal money for research and other purposes. Harvard and other colleges accept federal and state government funded scholarships for tuition payments. Harvard and other colleges accept tuition payments made by federal student loans.

    So in theory you have your freedoms (private property, freedom of speech and all that) but the more the government gets its hands into everything the more those freedoms don’t really exist, because you can’t do without the money and that money comes with strings attached.

  97. @216
    Harvard is supposed to be a Protestant institution, Boston College is supposed to be a Catholic institution.

    Harvard is traditionally Unitarian Universalist. Not really Christian, because UUs are anti-trinitarian and deny the divinity of Christ.

    This is one reason why Harvard was and is so popular with Jews. In the 19th century a lot of Christian parents refused to send their children to Harvard because of its theology.

    The Unitarians are responsible for what Harvard is today — not the Puritans who founded the school. The Puritans lost control of their creation very early on. In fact, one could say that the Puritan project was an abject failure as a religious movement, because it barely lasted more than a couple generations before it was overcome by liberalism.

  98. Harvard wins one small judgement. I’d bet against racial preferences in college admission surviving another fifteen years.

    I’d actually bet on major changes to higher ed in the coming thirty years… There are lots of giant problems with higher ed, lots of opposition to higher ed is building, it’s a matter of time before major changes happen.

    Don’t bet against Harvard has been a pretty good rule for the last 383 years.

    Harvard was founded to train Puritan Protestant Ministers in religion. That Harvard was basically killed off and replaced. The current Harvard has inherited the name and the financial endowment, but killed off the main purpose and function of the original Harvard. Such a change will come again.

  99. It’s weird to me that so many commenters here think it is critical to make the world safe for Asian grinds and their Harvard fetish. Much less believe that there is something in the Constitution of the United States that mandates it–and ergo federal judges ought to be dictating private school admissions policies. Weird stuff.

    This is a huge waste of conservative effort in the educational space or the “college education” space.

    Here’s a better list:

    1) On-line courses and competency exams.
    Rein in the whole “Yale or Jail” college bubble. Have the feds encourage the development of on-line courses-perhaps require colleges receiving federal aid to provide them. And then develop some basic competency exams–in basic literacy, numeracy and various subjects. Then have the feds do all federal hiring with them. There are absolutely huge benefits to this both personally–in terms of young people’s academic motivation, flexibility options and in terms of family life/affordable family formation (no college debt, no “can’t afford college for another child”)–and politically–in terms of whacking at the huge parasitic and politically damaging college beast.

    2) Fight for freedom of association.
    If Harvard’s free to chose it’s students, so are all other private institutions free. We should be free to admit whom we want, hire whom we want, rent to whom we want, bake cakes for whom we want, etc. etc. etc.

    3) Build our own institutions.
    Actual physical college could still be useful for maybe the top 5 or 10% who have actual serious academic interest in research or need to get into the lab in STEM disciplines. Conservatives need to take control of some institutions and have real–free thinking–academics. (Including social science that is HBD aware.)

    4) If affirmative action then *everyone* gets their quota.
    A good number of commenters honestly seem to believe that affirmative action can be stopped. In a multi-ethnic democracy? Good luck with that!

    More realistic would be “fairness doctrine”. If there’s affirmative action for some, then there’s a quota for all. Every ethnic group gets their slice.

    It’s ridiculous that when you parse the numbers at elite institutions like Harvard, Jews (10-15x) and Asians (4-5x) are wildly over-represented, blacks slightly under-represented and Hispanics and white gentiles sizeably under-represented. The core and founding population of the nation booted out of the elite institutions … which they founded. If we’re doing political ethnic allocation … then every group should get their quota.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Hail
    To paraphrase a Black clothing magnate:

    For Us, By Us.
     
    It's not, and ought not be,

    For Asians, By Us.
     
    , @Semperluctor
    The US overtook England as global hegemon, and won 2 World Wars (the Second but not the First with considerable help from Russia) using homegrown, 90% white talent. Most inventions, most entrepreneurial innovations, homegrown Euro-stock. The focus on SAT grinding is a dead end, and it does not reflect real world success. But, that argument can also be turned on its head, and can be used to justify so called holistic admissions. The two sides to this argument, which has been going on now for one generation, will never agree. I like the idea set out above, proposing that beyond a certain exam and or GPA cutoff, admissions should be by lottery. That guts legacy and nepotism, ethnic or otherwise. That seems very equitable to me.
    , @Almost Missouri
    As usual, you give me very little to disagree with.

    There may be a slight discrepancy here though:


    "2) Fight for freedom of association.
    If Harvard’s free to choose it’s students, so are all other private institutions free. We should be free to admit whom we want, hire whom we want, rent to whom we want, bake cakes for whom we want, etc. etc. etc."
     
    While I agree with the sentiment of the second half of the if-then statement, the first (bolded) half of the statement may not be quite right. If I (and Hypnotoad666) understand the convoluted hundred-odd page ruling correctly, Harvard is free to discriminate because it uses expensive, opaque, convoluted and Jesuitical systems to do so while making all the correct invocations to the diversity god, therefore it is totally A-okay. The rest of us do not, so therefore we must continue to admit, hire, rent to, and bake cakes for all comers. Sorry suckers. Thanks for playing though. So ruleth the Kritarch.

    Like Lot, I expect this underlying meta-ruling will be upheld on appeal, one way or another, probably with another O'Conner-esque fake time horizon.

  100. @kaganovitch
    For the 90s, 3 gentile whites, 1 unknown white (aaron brown), 3 Jews, 2 east asians, 1 indian, 1 romanian with a mostly non-jewish surname.

    I'm pretty sure Teleman is Jewish

    “ I’m pretty sure Teleman is Jewish”

    In the abstract “successful Romanian at the top of his Harvard class” is a strong clue of AJ ancestry. And I wouldn’t be surprised if he has a Jewish mother.

    However, the surname has 500+ people in Romania and under 5 in Israel. A quick google search finds no obvious Jews with that surname. Thus, since the name is Germanic, he’s probably a non-Jewish German-Romanian in his paternal line.

  101. @Cortes
    How long before a College of Merit is established?

    I’d guess within ten years.

    That’s Caltech. It is very meritocratic. That’s why its Asian share is already well above 40%.

  102. @AnotherDad
    It's weird to me that so many commenters here think it is critical to make the world safe for Asian grinds and their Harvard fetish. Much less believe that there is something in the Constitution of the United States that mandates it--and ergo federal judges ought to be dictating private school admissions policies. Weird stuff.

    This is a huge waste of conservative effort in the educational space or the "college education" space.

    Here's a better list:

    1) On-line courses and competency exams.
    Rein in the whole "Yale or Jail" college bubble. Have the feds encourage the development of on-line courses-perhaps require colleges receiving federal aid to provide them. And then develop some basic competency exams--in basic literacy, numeracy and various subjects. Then have the feds do all federal hiring with them. There are absolutely huge benefits to this both personally--in terms of young people's academic motivation, flexibility options and in terms of family life/affordable family formation (no college debt, no "can't afford college for another child")--and politically--in terms of whacking at the huge parasitic and politically damaging college beast.

    2) Fight for freedom of association.
    If Harvard's free to chose it's students, so are all other private institutions free. We should be free to admit whom we want, hire whom we want, rent to whom we want, bake cakes for whom we want, etc. etc. etc.

    3) Build our own institutions.
    Actual physical college could still be useful for maybe the top 5 or 10% who have actual serious academic interest in research or need to get into the lab in STEM disciplines. Conservatives need to take control of some institutions and have real--free thinking--academics. (Including social science that is HBD aware.)

    4) If affirmative action then *everyone* gets their quota.
    A good number of commenters honestly seem to believe that affirmative action can be stopped. In a multi-ethnic democracy? Good luck with that!

    More realistic would be "fairness doctrine". If there's affirmative action for some, then there's a quota for all. Every ethnic group gets their slice.

    It's ridiculous that when you parse the numbers at elite institutions like Harvard, Jews (10-15x) and Asians (4-5x) are wildly over-represented, blacks slightly under-represented and Hispanics and white gentiles sizeably under-represented. The core and founding population of the nation booted out of the elite institutions ... which they founded. If we're doing political ethnic allocation ... then every group should get their quota.

    To paraphrase a Black clothing magnate:

    For Us, By Us.

    It’s not, and ought not be,

    For Asians, By Us.

  103. @Anon
    Waban is part of Newton, and very Jewish. Asians aspire to live there and some do. Somalis, not so much, they enrich Portland, ME with their vibrant diversity.

    My friends in Newton have Jewish neighbors on all sides. I have to admit, though, that it’s a very very pleasant neighborhood and seems to be 100% white. Did see a couple Asians at the supermarket.

  104. @Wilkey
    However imperfect and/or biased Harvard's admission process, keeping a cap on the number of Asian students seems fair to me.

    First, it's a private school. Private schools. even those as rich as Harvard, are still private money, and they should have the right to admit whomever they want, even if lots of Harvard-trained lawyers would disagree, and even if they receive government money for research. Otherwise what would be the point of your money belonging to you instead of the government. If the government can dictate to you how your charitable dollars must be spent then it isn't really your money.

    Second, and perhaps as importantly, while Asians certainly do much better than average in the US economically, academically, etc., there is absolutely nothing in their post-collegiate careers which suggests they should comprise 50% of elite college student bodies.

    Are 50% of top writers and musicians and television/movie/theatre producers and directors Asian?

    Are 50% of corporate CEOs Asian?

    Are 50% of top *US-born* engineers and scientists Asian (i.e., not counting all the Asians let in on H-1B visas or as grad students)?

    Are 50% of top political leaders Asian?

    Are 50% of military admirals and generals Asian?

    Not even close with regards to any of those. Whatever else you can say, SAT scores appear to overpredict Asian success. Our culture, our science, our government, our military, and our industry aren't nearly as dominated by Asians as they would be if Asians actually deserved to comprise half the top spots at Harvard and elsewhere. So jiggering the admissions process to account for that doesn't strike me as in any way a racist decision on Harvard's part.

    Hmmm..fair point, but follow it through to its logical conclusion. Regular old whites dominate in politics, the military and non finance/entertainment fields. By this reasoning, admissions for whites should be 60 plus percent. I agree that SAT etc numbers overestimate later success in life.. but, wouldn’t a neo Marxist assert that white dominance is a legacy power structure and should be dismantled? The Court in effect stated the same thing as SCOTUS said 25 years ago: we need race based admissions for now and we expect one day..real soon.. no longer to need them. Nothing has changed, Courts will be repeating the same mantra in another generation’s time.

  105. @Wilkey
    However imperfect and/or biased Harvard's admission process, keeping a cap on the number of Asian students seems fair to me.

    First, it's a private school. Private schools. even those as rich as Harvard, are still private money, and they should have the right to admit whomever they want, even if lots of Harvard-trained lawyers would disagree, and even if they receive government money for research. Otherwise what would be the point of your money belonging to you instead of the government. If the government can dictate to you how your charitable dollars must be spent then it isn't really your money.

    Second, and perhaps as importantly, while Asians certainly do much better than average in the US economically, academically, etc., there is absolutely nothing in their post-collegiate careers which suggests they should comprise 50% of elite college student bodies.

    Are 50% of top writers and musicians and television/movie/theatre producers and directors Asian?

    Are 50% of corporate CEOs Asian?

    Are 50% of top *US-born* engineers and scientists Asian (i.e., not counting all the Asians let in on H-1B visas or as grad students)?

    Are 50% of top political leaders Asian?

    Are 50% of military admirals and generals Asian?

    Not even close with regards to any of those. Whatever else you can say, SAT scores appear to overpredict Asian success. Our culture, our science, our government, our military, and our industry aren't nearly as dominated by Asians as they would be if Asians actually deserved to comprise half the top spots at Harvard and elsewhere. So jiggering the admissions process to account for that doesn't strike me as in any way a racist decision on Harvard's part.

    Hmmm..fair point, but follow it through to its logical conclusion. Regular old whites dominate in politics, the military and non finance/entertainment fields. By this reasoning, admissions for whites should be 60 plus percent. I agree that SAT etc numbers overestimate later success in life.. but, wouldn’t a neo Marxist assert that white dominance is a legacy power structure and should be dismantled? The Court in effect stated the same thing as SCOTUS said 25 years ago: we need race based admissions for now and we expect one day..real soon.. no longer to need them. Nothing has changed, Courts will be repeating the same mantra in another generation’s time.

  106. @AnotherDad
    It's weird to me that so many commenters here think it is critical to make the world safe for Asian grinds and their Harvard fetish. Much less believe that there is something in the Constitution of the United States that mandates it--and ergo federal judges ought to be dictating private school admissions policies. Weird stuff.

    This is a huge waste of conservative effort in the educational space or the "college education" space.

    Here's a better list:

    1) On-line courses and competency exams.
    Rein in the whole "Yale or Jail" college bubble. Have the feds encourage the development of on-line courses-perhaps require colleges receiving federal aid to provide them. And then develop some basic competency exams--in basic literacy, numeracy and various subjects. Then have the feds do all federal hiring with them. There are absolutely huge benefits to this both personally--in terms of young people's academic motivation, flexibility options and in terms of family life/affordable family formation (no college debt, no "can't afford college for another child")--and politically--in terms of whacking at the huge parasitic and politically damaging college beast.

    2) Fight for freedom of association.
    If Harvard's free to chose it's students, so are all other private institutions free. We should be free to admit whom we want, hire whom we want, rent to whom we want, bake cakes for whom we want, etc. etc. etc.

    3) Build our own institutions.
    Actual physical college could still be useful for maybe the top 5 or 10% who have actual serious academic interest in research or need to get into the lab in STEM disciplines. Conservatives need to take control of some institutions and have real--free thinking--academics. (Including social science that is HBD aware.)

    4) If affirmative action then *everyone* gets their quota.
    A good number of commenters honestly seem to believe that affirmative action can be stopped. In a multi-ethnic democracy? Good luck with that!

    More realistic would be "fairness doctrine". If there's affirmative action for some, then there's a quota for all. Every ethnic group gets their slice.

    It's ridiculous that when you parse the numbers at elite institutions like Harvard, Jews (10-15x) and Asians (4-5x) are wildly over-represented, blacks slightly under-represented and Hispanics and white gentiles sizeably under-represented. The core and founding population of the nation booted out of the elite institutions ... which they founded. If we're doing political ethnic allocation ... then every group should get their quota.

    The US overtook England as global hegemon, and won 2 World Wars (the Second but not the First with considerable help from Russia) using homegrown, 90% white talent. Most inventions, most entrepreneurial innovations, homegrown Euro-stock. The focus on SAT grinding is a dead end, and it does not reflect real world success. But, that argument can also be turned on its head, and can be used to justify so called holistic admissions. The two sides to this argument, which has been going on now for one generation, will never agree. I like the idea set out above, proposing that beyond a certain exam and or GPA cutoff, admissions should be by lottery. That guts legacy and nepotism, ethnic or otherwise. That seems very equitable to me.

  107. @Hypnotoad666
    I just briefly skimmed the decision. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1865-harvard-admissions-process/fcb2b57c15f154b139df/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

    It's about 200 pages but the vast majority is filler about procedural history, summaries of expert reports and long discussions of old Supreme Court precedent. For what it's worth, here's my take on the highlights.

    Myth of American Meritocracy Gets a Shout Out.
    Ron's Myth of American Meritocracy article that kicked this whole mess off gets an entire subsection at page 31. The court felt compelled, however, to gratuitously virtue signal against Ron's general political incorrectness by noting that it contained "language that suggested certain unsavory biases" and includes "data based on perceptions about the proportion of national merit scholarship semifinalists from California whose names seem to be Jewish.” [Footnote 25]. Thus, it was quite reasonable for "Harvard admissions officials to view the article as 'profoundly anti-Semitic and, as a result, to view it as less than serious scholarship." Tsk Tsk, Ron.

    Luckily, Official Respectable Person, "David Brooks of the New York Times published an article that promoted the Unz Article." So it was saved from the memory hole. The rest is history.

    The Fix Was In to Uphold Harvard's System
    It was always pretty obvious that this judge (a very liberal Democrat), was going to uphold the Harvard system. It is equally obvious that this is the first stop before appellate review with a good chance of going all the way to the Supreme Court eventually. So the only question was how would she justify her conclusion to avoid doing harm to affirmative action generally, while creating the best record for appeal.

    Holding # 1: It's Always OK to Discriminate Against White in Favor of Black and Brown.
    This was the easy part, Harvard admits that it considers race in order to get the "diversity" it feels it needs. The court said "no problem," because "diversity is our strength" you may go forth and discriminate. "Just don't get caught using anything that looks too much like a 'quota.'" (To paraphrase about 50 pages of legal blather pretending to analyze all the convoluted facts and legal standards).

    Holding # 2: Smart Asian Nerds are Different But Equal to Charismatic White Jocks.
    Under the incoherent legal standard created by the U.S. Supreme Court (to paraphrase): racial discrimination in college admissions is legal if it is only used as a "plus" in a multi-factor system that also considers the "whole person" and doesn't "unduly burden" the non-preferred group. (Note: It has always been assumed that everybody except whites would be eligible for the racial "plus;" and nobody ever cared that this the same outcome as just giving whites a racial "minus").

    But the problem in upholding Harvard's discrimination scheme under this standard is that Asians must have much higher grades and SAT scores to get admitted as compared to all other groups, including whites. So that sure doesn't look like a "plus" for being Asian. In fact, that looks a lot like a racial "minus" for a minority group, which would be illegal. Uh-Oh.

    At this point, the Court could have found that this racial disparity occurred because Harvard gave a racial "plus" to everyone except Asians, and that this was justified to avoid having Asians swamp the school and mess up the precious levels of racial "diversity" sought by Harvard. It's pretty obvious to everyone that this is exactly what Harvard is intentionally doing. But recognizing this reality would not work as it would set a precedent that white people could be eligible for a racial preference if its necessary to preserve "diversity." We can't have that.

    So the Court had to default to Plan B: Just pretend Whites and Asians are actually being treated the same. It did this by finding that: (a) The particular Asians who apply to Harvard just happen to be smarter than the Whites; (b) The particular Whites who apply to Harvard just happen to be more athletic and have better personalities than Asians; and (c) These factors just happen to cancel each other out so that both groups are really being treated the same by Harvard.

    The court therefore held that there is no "undue burden" in requiring Asians to have higher SATs and grades because lower scoring Whites are nevertheless "similarly situated" to their smarter Asian counterparts by virtue of their superior athletic prowess and better personalities.

    So this is a really interesting holding. The NYT crowd will no doubt spin it as a victory for affirmative action. But it also kind of holds that you can give a preference to whatever group you like -- including whites -- if you just do it on the down-low by rigging the factors in the good old "multi-factor" "whole person" test.

    It's also a little awkward to have an official judicial finding on the books that Asians have no personality.

    A typically magisterial contribution from you Mr Toad. Thanks.

  108. @Lot
    “then they would be far more dominant in culture, politics, business and science than they are”

    The Asian underperformance starts before they even graduate.

    Here’s a list of individuals who had the highest GPA in their class at Harvard.

    For 2000-2011, I see 9 Jewish surnames. 2 unknown whites, 1 Iranian, 1 east Asian.

    For the 90s, 3 gentile whites, 1 unknown white (aaron brown), 3 Jews, 2 east asians, 1 indian, 1 romanian with a mostly non-jewish surname.

    So it appears East and South Asians both underperform both Jewish and non-Jewish whites

    2011 *Sophie Cai [US, chemical physics ; Harvard Medical School], *Zachary Frankel [US, physics; Rhodes Scholar], *Darius Imregun [UK, chemical physics]
    2010 Jeremy Aron-Dine [US, linguistics]
    2009 ???
    2008 Seth Philip Herbst [US, English & American literature, music; doctoral student in English at Harvard]
    2007 Alexandra Harwin [US, history; Yale Law School JD, works in family law]
    2006 Kirsten Frieda [US, chemistry & physics; Stanford biophysics graduate student]
    2005 David Camden [US, classics; Harvard PhD candidate in classical philology]
    2004 Andrew Goldstone [US, physics and mathematics; Yale PhD in English literature]
    2003 *Elias Reinhold Sacks [US, comparative religion; Princeton doctoral student in religion] and *Lisa Beth Schwartz [US, government; Yale Law School JD, Harvard MBA, lawyer at Wachtell]
    2002 Stephen Sachs [US, history (medieval Europe); Yale Law School JD, Oxford MA; lawyer, Mayer Brown]
    2001 Kevin Schwartz [US, government; Oxford MBA+PhD (Marshall scholar); Yale Law School JD, lawyer at Wachtell]
    2000 Matthew Strahl Levine [US ; Yale Law School JD, lawyer at Wachtell Lipton Rosen Katz]
    1999 Chelsea Helen Foxwell [US ; art history professor at U. Chicago]
    1998 Daniel Philippe Mason [US, biology; novelist]
    1997 Aaron Brown [US, computer science; Berkeley PhD in computer science, Google] and Jeffrey Gell [US, economics; Marshall scholar, Boston Consulting Group VP]
    1996 Yeoh Yong Yeow [Singapore IMO medalist; DE Shaw]
    1995 Reshma Jagsi [US; Rhodes Scholar, MD, doctor]
    1994 David Liu [US, chemistry; Harvard Chemistry dept professor]
    1993 Jason Jacobs [US, physics; MD, ophthalmologist]
    1992 Noah Feldman [US, Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations; Rhodes Scholar, Oxford PhD, Yale Law School JD, Harvard Law School professor]
    1991 Constantin Teleman [US/Romania, mathematics; math professor at UC Berkeley]
    1990 Jonathan Bolton [US; professor of Slavic studies]

    1985 Christopher Landau [US, history; lawyer, Kirkland & Ellis]
    1983 Amy Remensnyder [US; Berkeley PhD in history; medievalist at Brown]
    1972 Robert Waldinger [US, history and science; Harvard Medical School MD, psychiatry]
    1971 Claude Bernard [US, physics; physics professor at WUSTL]
    1970 Scott Boorman [US; Junior fellow upon graduation from College, Yale Law School JD, mathematical sociologist at Yale]
    1966 David Kelly Campbell [US, physics and chemistry; PhD, Cambridge (theoretical physics, math), physics professor at Boston University

    Just skimming your list, it seems that Yale Law School is full of Jews from Harvard.

  109. @Hypnotoad666
    I just briefly skimmed the decision. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1865-harvard-admissions-process/fcb2b57c15f154b139df/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

    It's about 200 pages but the vast majority is filler about procedural history, summaries of expert reports and long discussions of old Supreme Court precedent. For what it's worth, here's my take on the highlights.

    Myth of American Meritocracy Gets a Shout Out.
    Ron's Myth of American Meritocracy article that kicked this whole mess off gets an entire subsection at page 31. The court felt compelled, however, to gratuitously virtue signal against Ron's general political incorrectness by noting that it contained "language that suggested certain unsavory biases" and includes "data based on perceptions about the proportion of national merit scholarship semifinalists from California whose names seem to be Jewish.” [Footnote 25]. Thus, it was quite reasonable for "Harvard admissions officials to view the article as 'profoundly anti-Semitic and, as a result, to view it as less than serious scholarship." Tsk Tsk, Ron.

    Luckily, Official Respectable Person, "David Brooks of the New York Times published an article that promoted the Unz Article." So it was saved from the memory hole. The rest is history.

    The Fix Was In to Uphold Harvard's System
    It was always pretty obvious that this judge (a very liberal Democrat), was going to uphold the Harvard system. It is equally obvious that this is the first stop before appellate review with a good chance of going all the way to the Supreme Court eventually. So the only question was how would she justify her conclusion to avoid doing harm to affirmative action generally, while creating the best record for appeal.

    Holding # 1: It's Always OK to Discriminate Against White in Favor of Black and Brown.
    This was the easy part, Harvard admits that it considers race in order to get the "diversity" it feels it needs. The court said "no problem," because "diversity is our strength" you may go forth and discriminate. "Just don't get caught using anything that looks too much like a 'quota.'" (To paraphrase about 50 pages of legal blather pretending to analyze all the convoluted facts and legal standards).

    Holding # 2: Smart Asian Nerds are Different But Equal to Charismatic White Jocks.
    Under the incoherent legal standard created by the U.S. Supreme Court (to paraphrase): racial discrimination in college admissions is legal if it is only used as a "plus" in a multi-factor system that also considers the "whole person" and doesn't "unduly burden" the non-preferred group. (Note: It has always been assumed that everybody except whites would be eligible for the racial "plus;" and nobody ever cared that this the same outcome as just giving whites a racial "minus").

    But the problem in upholding Harvard's discrimination scheme under this standard is that Asians must have much higher grades and SAT scores to get admitted as compared to all other groups, including whites. So that sure doesn't look like a "plus" for being Asian. In fact, that looks a lot like a racial "minus" for a minority group, which would be illegal. Uh-Oh.

    At this point, the Court could have found that this racial disparity occurred because Harvard gave a racial "plus" to everyone except Asians, and that this was justified to avoid having Asians swamp the school and mess up the precious levels of racial "diversity" sought by Harvard. It's pretty obvious to everyone that this is exactly what Harvard is intentionally doing. But recognizing this reality would not work as it would set a precedent that white people could be eligible for a racial preference if its necessary to preserve "diversity." We can't have that.

    So the Court had to default to Plan B: Just pretend Whites and Asians are actually being treated the same. It did this by finding that: (a) The particular Asians who apply to Harvard just happen to be smarter than the Whites; (b) The particular Whites who apply to Harvard just happen to be more athletic and have better personalities than Asians; and (c) These factors just happen to cancel each other out so that both groups are really being treated the same by Harvard.

    The court therefore held that there is no "undue burden" in requiring Asians to have higher SATs and grades because lower scoring Whites are nevertheless "similarly situated" to their smarter Asian counterparts by virtue of their superior athletic prowess and better personalities.

    So this is a really interesting holding. The NYT crowd will no doubt spin it as a victory for affirmative action. But it also kind of holds that you can give a preference to whatever group you like -- including whites -- if you just do it on the down-low by rigging the factors in the good old "multi-factor" "whole person" test.

    It's also a little awkward to have an official judicial finding on the books that Asians have no personality.

    Myth of American Meritocracy Gets a Shout Out.

    Ron’s Myth of American Meritocracy article that kicked this whole mess off gets an entire subsection at page 31. The court felt compelled, however, to gratuitously virtue signal against Ron’s general political incorrectness by noting that it contained “language that suggested certain unsavory biases” and includes “data based on perceptions about the proportion of national merit scholarship semifinalists from California whose names seem to be Jewish.” [Footnote 25]. Thus, it was quite reasonable for “Harvard admissions officials to view the article as ‘profoundly anti-Semitic and, as a result, to view it as less than serious scholarship.” Tsk Tsk, Ron.

    @Ron Unz, consider publishing a response to this court decision(‘s remarks about you and your work) — Soon.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    @Ron Unz, consider publishing a response to this court decision(‘s remarks about you and your work) — Soon.
     
    Most people will never read the actual opinion. But Ron should see if he can push out the court's reference to the article in social media or a mainstream article. Anyone who hears about this ominous reference to "unsavory" thoughts is going to be curious.

    It's like slapping an XXX rating on the article as intellectual porn.
  110. @Hypnotoad666
    I just briefly skimmed the decision. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1865-harvard-admissions-process/fcb2b57c15f154b139df/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

    It's about 200 pages but the vast majority is filler about procedural history, summaries of expert reports and long discussions of old Supreme Court precedent. For what it's worth, here's my take on the highlights.

    Myth of American Meritocracy Gets a Shout Out.
    Ron's Myth of American Meritocracy article that kicked this whole mess off gets an entire subsection at page 31. The court felt compelled, however, to gratuitously virtue signal against Ron's general political incorrectness by noting that it contained "language that suggested certain unsavory biases" and includes "data based on perceptions about the proportion of national merit scholarship semifinalists from California whose names seem to be Jewish.” [Footnote 25]. Thus, it was quite reasonable for "Harvard admissions officials to view the article as 'profoundly anti-Semitic and, as a result, to view it as less than serious scholarship." Tsk Tsk, Ron.

    Luckily, Official Respectable Person, "David Brooks of the New York Times published an article that promoted the Unz Article." So it was saved from the memory hole. The rest is history.

    The Fix Was In to Uphold Harvard's System
    It was always pretty obvious that this judge (a very liberal Democrat), was going to uphold the Harvard system. It is equally obvious that this is the first stop before appellate review with a good chance of going all the way to the Supreme Court eventually. So the only question was how would she justify her conclusion to avoid doing harm to affirmative action generally, while creating the best record for appeal.

    Holding # 1: It's Always OK to Discriminate Against White in Favor of Black and Brown.
    This was the easy part, Harvard admits that it considers race in order to get the "diversity" it feels it needs. The court said "no problem," because "diversity is our strength" you may go forth and discriminate. "Just don't get caught using anything that looks too much like a 'quota.'" (To paraphrase about 50 pages of legal blather pretending to analyze all the convoluted facts and legal standards).

    Holding # 2: Smart Asian Nerds are Different But Equal to Charismatic White Jocks.
    Under the incoherent legal standard created by the U.S. Supreme Court (to paraphrase): racial discrimination in college admissions is legal if it is only used as a "plus" in a multi-factor system that also considers the "whole person" and doesn't "unduly burden" the non-preferred group. (Note: It has always been assumed that everybody except whites would be eligible for the racial "plus;" and nobody ever cared that this the same outcome as just giving whites a racial "minus").

    But the problem in upholding Harvard's discrimination scheme under this standard is that Asians must have much higher grades and SAT scores to get admitted as compared to all other groups, including whites. So that sure doesn't look like a "plus" for being Asian. In fact, that looks a lot like a racial "minus" for a minority group, which would be illegal. Uh-Oh.

    At this point, the Court could have found that this racial disparity occurred because Harvard gave a racial "plus" to everyone except Asians, and that this was justified to avoid having Asians swamp the school and mess up the precious levels of racial "diversity" sought by Harvard. It's pretty obvious to everyone that this is exactly what Harvard is intentionally doing. But recognizing this reality would not work as it would set a precedent that white people could be eligible for a racial preference if its necessary to preserve "diversity." We can't have that.

    So the Court had to default to Plan B: Just pretend Whites and Asians are actually being treated the same. It did this by finding that: (a) The particular Asians who apply to Harvard just happen to be smarter than the Whites; (b) The particular Whites who apply to Harvard just happen to be more athletic and have better personalities than Asians; and (c) These factors just happen to cancel each other out so that both groups are really being treated the same by Harvard.

    The court therefore held that there is no "undue burden" in requiring Asians to have higher SATs and grades because lower scoring Whites are nevertheless "similarly situated" to their smarter Asian counterparts by virtue of their superior athletic prowess and better personalities.

    So this is a really interesting holding. The NYT crowd will no doubt spin it as a victory for affirmative action. But it also kind of holds that you can give a preference to whatever group you like -- including whites -- if you just do it on the down-low by rigging the factors in the good old "multi-factor" "whole person" test.

    It's also a little awkward to have an official judicial finding on the books that Asians have no personality.

    “ The court therefore held that there is no “undue burden” in requiring Asians to have higher SATs and grades because lower scoring Whites are nevertheless “similarly situated” to their smarter Asian counterparts by virtue of their superior athletic prowess and better personalities.”

    What part of that do you think is wrong?

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666


    “ The court therefore held that there is no “undue burden” in requiring Asians to have higher SATs and grades because lower scoring Whites are nevertheless “similarly situated” to their smarter Asian counterparts by virtue of their superior athletic prowess and better personalities.”

     

    What part of that do you think is wrong?
     
    I don't think it's necessarily wrong for Harvard to think or act this way. I just think the court and Harvard are being intellectually dishonest. I am certain Harvard just tweaks the dial on its "personality" factor until it gets the amount of Asians it wants. If Asians weren't assigned lower personality scores, Harvard would tweak some other dial to get the number back to approximately 19% Asians.

    Like I said in the post, it's a mixed result for Whitey. On the one hand, the edifice of AA survives. On the other hand, it looks like Universities are given an out to rig the system in favor of whites if they so chose. (But probably with the implicit limitation that you can't let any minority group get less than it's share of the population).
  111. @nebulafox
    I don't think it is that simple. "Asian" can be anything from Khmer to Korean: to say nothing of the South Asians, who come from an absolutely, totally different cultural and racial construct.

    (One can say the same about "Muslims". An Iranian physicist and a Jordanian shopkeeper and a Somali refugee aren't the same, folks, racially or otherwise.)

    I'd say that South Asians are shaping up to do pretty well in an SJW-fied America, in part because they, like the Jews, have better verbal skills than the East Asians. Although it is a much more risky gambit to use them as the go-to socially left-wing minority group because they can't rely off the bizarre Judeophilia of conservative American whites protecting them from antagonistic feelings from the Deplorables, in the short run, they are a lot more likely to be on the "royalty" end of the ledger, despite being an extremely well-off, affluent group. Upwardly mobile Hispanics, on the other hand, are a lot more likely to mix with downwardly mobile whites, which can lead to interesting results.

    That in their own lives they can be quite conservative and insular, often insisting their children marry within the ethnic group, is irrelevant: the Jews were the same in the 1950s before America made them softer and dumber like all the other whites. Hell, I've met Indians who support the Democrats and the BJP simultaneously without blinking an eye.

    Everyone is conservative about the things they really care about.

    Hence, lots of Democrat-in-the-US-Likudnik-in-Israel, folk.

  112. @AnotherDad
    It's weird to me that so many commenters here think it is critical to make the world safe for Asian grinds and their Harvard fetish. Much less believe that there is something in the Constitution of the United States that mandates it--and ergo federal judges ought to be dictating private school admissions policies. Weird stuff.

    This is a huge waste of conservative effort in the educational space or the "college education" space.

    Here's a better list:

    1) On-line courses and competency exams.
    Rein in the whole "Yale or Jail" college bubble. Have the feds encourage the development of on-line courses-perhaps require colleges receiving federal aid to provide them. And then develop some basic competency exams--in basic literacy, numeracy and various subjects. Then have the feds do all federal hiring with them. There are absolutely huge benefits to this both personally--in terms of young people's academic motivation, flexibility options and in terms of family life/affordable family formation (no college debt, no "can't afford college for another child")--and politically--in terms of whacking at the huge parasitic and politically damaging college beast.

    2) Fight for freedom of association.
    If Harvard's free to chose it's students, so are all other private institutions free. We should be free to admit whom we want, hire whom we want, rent to whom we want, bake cakes for whom we want, etc. etc. etc.

    3) Build our own institutions.
    Actual physical college could still be useful for maybe the top 5 or 10% who have actual serious academic interest in research or need to get into the lab in STEM disciplines. Conservatives need to take control of some institutions and have real--free thinking--academics. (Including social science that is HBD aware.)

    4) If affirmative action then *everyone* gets their quota.
    A good number of commenters honestly seem to believe that affirmative action can be stopped. In a multi-ethnic democracy? Good luck with that!

    More realistic would be "fairness doctrine". If there's affirmative action for some, then there's a quota for all. Every ethnic group gets their slice.

    It's ridiculous that when you parse the numbers at elite institutions like Harvard, Jews (10-15x) and Asians (4-5x) are wildly over-represented, blacks slightly under-represented and Hispanics and white gentiles sizeably under-represented. The core and founding population of the nation booted out of the elite institutions ... which they founded. If we're doing political ethnic allocation ... then every group should get their quota.

    As usual, you give me very little to disagree with.

    There may be a slight discrepancy here though:

    “2) Fight for freedom of association.
    If Harvard’s free to choose it’s students, so are all other private institutions free. We should be free to admit whom we want, hire whom we want, rent to whom we want, bake cakes for whom we want, etc. etc. etc.”

    While I agree with the sentiment of the second half of the if-then statement, the first (bolded) half of the statement may not be quite right. If I (and Hypnotoad666) understand the convoluted hundred-odd page ruling correctly, Harvard is free to discriminate because it uses expensive, opaque, convoluted and Jesuitical systems to do so while making all the correct invocations to the diversity god, therefore it is totally A-okay. The rest of us do not, so therefore we must continue to admit, hire, rent to, and bake cakes for all comers. Sorry suckers. Thanks for playing though. So ruleth the Kritarch.

    Like Lot, I expect this underlying meta-ruling will be upheld on appeal, one way or another, probably with another O’Conner-esque fake time horizon.

  113. Asians should simply apply as ‘Native American’. If pressed, they should invoke the Bering Land Bridge, and claim that ‘we were Native American before Native American’.

    Hispanics should too, as in—‘I’m a Native South American’

    Blacks should not have to demean themselves by answering such questions. Their non-answer will demonstrate their blackness bonafides.

    Trans can go Native American, because Trans always gets to be whatever a Trans wants to be.

    Whites can go Native American, but with an asterisk. The asterisk being a commitment to Prog causes.

  114. @nebulafox
    Right. And I believe the physicist is more useful for the purposes of the United States than a pure stock meth-head. Softcore eugenics, it is a thing that will come into fashion when the Baby Boomers die.

    Think it'd be better for the world too if, say, we were the ones figuring out how to engineer biology than the PRC, whatever our faults as a society.

    Right. And I believe the physicist is more useful for the purposes of the United States than a pure stock meth-head.

    The purpose of the United States is to be a home and source of sustenance to that methhead, so. no , you are mistaken.

  115. Harvard Wins Again

    What the Phuck did Harvard win? The 50 yard dash at the Ivy League Douchebag Snot Globalizer Games?

    Some baby boomer distaff black robed devil dog boob federal judge named Allison Dale Burroughs said Harvard can do any damn thing it likes to promote anti-White Christian and anti-Asian admissions policies that only benefit Jews and somebody says Harvard is winning?

    Baby boomer boob federal judge Allison Dale Burroughs may be a nice lady who loves puppies and apple pie and pumpkin pie and crisp, clear autumn days in New England, but I don’t give a damn!

    Impeach Trumpy? That sounds like ACCELERATIONISM to me, do it!

    Impeach federal judge Allison Dale Burroughs? DO IT YESTERDAY, DAMMIT!

    I hereby call for the impeachment of federal judge Allison Dale Burroughs from the federal court.

    Warrior Patriot Andrew Jackson was a judge, not all judges are bad, but impeachment must be used to remove those judges who pass off their policy preferences as the law of the land in the USA!

    Harvard is discriminating against Asian American students and European Christian American students, and this federal judge Allison Dale Burroughs says go ahead and keep doing it Harvard!

    I hereby call for the implementation of a tax policy that will whittle down Harvard’s 40 billion dollar endowment loot pile to 4 million dollars immediately.

    It is clear to this state university peasant that the Ivy League Harvard Jews have been given the green light to continue on with their vile and disgusting attacks on the innocent little lamb Asian students and the White Christian students.

    It Is An OUTRAGE!

    Tweet from 2015:

  116. @anonymous
    What a loser thing to say.

    I am a grad from a top 14 law school and when I was in the military I was a member of extremely elite units.

    And I was just trying to help you, and you lashed out like a little kitten that never knew what it was to be cared for.

    Don't call me by a nickname again, until you shape up.

    And no I am not Corvinus. I believe in God and God believes in me, and Corvinus has never been able to say that. That being said, please reconsider my advice, I want you to succeed in life.

    And for the love of God I gave you priceless advice, and I still hope you take it, I like you even though you messed up by insulting me.

    Not your fault, you had no idea how good-hearted I am, and how powerful I am when I pray for people who are unkind to me (or kind to me, for that matter).

    This is my world, not yours, and don't mock me again.

    Thanks for reading.

    My apologies.

    I suppose I’m at a crossroads…

    • Replies: @anonymous
    Totally fine, I see a lot of prosperity in your future, but .... the age of AI assistants is not yet here.

    so .....

    Not communicating at a level appropriate to one's ability to communicate is not anyone's fault, and seriously, there are thousands of good human coaches out there. If you really applied to MIT back in the day and almost got in you probably can afford such a coach. Just be careful not to hire a phony. I just wanted to get that out there, in a noticeable way.

    If you are already married, your wife can help you.

    In my day, we called them (coaches who helped us communicate) "wing men" if we were guys, or "BFFs" if we were girls, and what those words meant were this - they always had our best interests at heart.


    By the way, this site is moderated and I write a few nearly incoherent rants now and then. They do not get through moderation, and that is a good thing! I do not claim to be an expert in communication, just a person who has common sense now and then!

    Also, I know nothing about Corvinus, except that he once expressed displeasure at a pastiche of mine of the great French writer Peguy. He might be a great guy but I owe him no favors, for that reason .....

  117. @Lot
    “ The court therefore held that there is no “undue burden” in requiring Asians to have higher SATs and grades because lower scoring Whites are nevertheless “similarly situated” to their smarter Asian counterparts by virtue of their superior athletic prowess and better personalities.”

    What part of that do you think is wrong?

    “ The court therefore held that there is no “undue burden” in requiring Asians to have higher SATs and grades because lower scoring Whites are nevertheless “similarly situated” to their smarter Asian counterparts by virtue of their superior athletic prowess and better personalities.”

    What part of that do you think is wrong?

    I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong for Harvard to think or act this way. I just think the court and Harvard are being intellectually dishonest. I am certain Harvard just tweaks the dial on its “personality” factor until it gets the amount of Asians it wants. If Asians weren’t assigned lower personality scores, Harvard would tweak some other dial to get the number back to approximately 19% Asians.

    Like I said in the post, it’s a mixed result for Whitey. On the one hand, the edifice of AA survives. On the other hand, it looks like Universities are given an out to rig the system in favor of whites if they so chose. (But probably with the implicit limitation that you can’t let any minority group get less than it’s share of the population).

  118. @Hail

    Myth of American Meritocracy Gets a Shout Out.

    Ron’s Myth of American Meritocracy article that kicked this whole mess off gets an entire subsection at page 31. The court felt compelled, however, to gratuitously virtue signal against Ron’s general political incorrectness by noting that it contained “language that suggested certain unsavory biases” and includes “data based on perceptions about the proportion of national merit scholarship semifinalists from California whose names seem to be Jewish.” [Footnote 25]. Thus, it was quite reasonable for “Harvard admissions officials to view the article as ‘profoundly anti-Semitic and, as a result, to view it as less than serious scholarship.” Tsk Tsk, Ron.
     

    @Ron Unz, consider publishing a response to this court decision('s remarks about you and your work) -- Soon.

    @Ron Unz, consider publishing a response to this court decision(‘s remarks about you and your work) — Soon.

    Most people will never read the actual opinion. But Ron should see if he can push out the court’s reference to the article in social media or a mainstream article. Anyone who hears about this ominous reference to “unsavory” thoughts is going to be curious.

    It’s like slapping an XXX rating on the article as intellectual porn.

    • Replies: @Hail

    a mainstream article
     
    Would any MSM'ers publish Ron Unz today?

    The political-campaign principle of Equal Time applies, in spirit, here.
  119. @Hypnotoad666

    @Ron Unz, consider publishing a response to this court decision(‘s remarks about you and your work) — Soon.
     
    Most people will never read the actual opinion. But Ron should see if he can push out the court's reference to the article in social media or a mainstream article. Anyone who hears about this ominous reference to "unsavory" thoughts is going to be curious.

    It's like slapping an XXX rating on the article as intellectual porn.

    a mainstream article

    Would any MSM’ers publish Ron Unz today?

    The political-campaign principle of Equal Time applies, in spirit, here.

  120. @anonymous
    What a loser thing to say.

    I am a grad from a top 14 law school and when I was in the military I was a member of extremely elite units.

    And I was just trying to help you, and you lashed out like a little kitten that never knew what it was to be cared for.

    Don't call me by a nickname again, until you shape up.

    And no I am not Corvinus. I believe in God and God believes in me, and Corvinus has never been able to say that. That being said, please reconsider my advice, I want you to succeed in life.

    And for the love of God I gave you priceless advice, and I still hope you take it, I like you even though you messed up by insulting me.

    Not your fault, you had no idea how good-hearted I am, and how powerful I am when I pray for people who are unkind to me (or kind to me, for that matter).

    This is my world, not yours, and don't mock me again.

    Thanks for reading.

    ” Top 14″ law school was awesome.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    ” Top 14″ law school was awesome.


    This is the kind of "priceless" advice on communication that you can get for $30 per hour. Cheap at twice the price if you ask me.
  121. @William Badwhite
    " Top 14" law school was awesome.

    ” Top 14″ law school was awesome.

    This is the kind of “priceless” advice on communication that you can get for $30 per hour. Cheap at twice the price if you ask me.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    It would be even funnier if he/she said "top 14" law school, then added "but I went to the one ranked 9th...and don't call me Corvinus".

    To be fair, calling someone Corvinus is quite an insult, certainly in the top 11.
  122. @kaganovitch
    ” Top 14″ law school was awesome.


    This is the kind of "priceless" advice on communication that you can get for $30 per hour. Cheap at twice the price if you ask me.

    It would be even funnier if he/she said “top 14” law school, then added “but I went to the one ranked 9th…and don’t call me Corvinus”.

    To be fair, calling someone Corvinus is quite an insult, certainly in the top 11.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    William - I am funnier in real life.

    If you are interested in the type of wit I trade in , read a little Aristophanes.

    (By the way I thought the "elite military units" would get more attention than "top 14 law school", but this is not really a military crowd). I would never mention my top 14 law school down at the local VFW beerhall.

  123. @Unladen Swallow
    Middlebury College graduate, check, Massachusetts federal judge, check, female Obama appointee, check. You expect something different? Also wouldn't it go to the Court of Appeals ( which has a slight Republican composition edge ) and then the Supreme Court?

    It is one of the most charming aspects of our legal system that an individualistic population can be picked off one by one through simple legal expenses of civil suits long before an appeal can even be heard by a court, let alone a court of appeals let alone the Supreme Court. This means, for example, that even if Trump manages to completely replace the judiciary, Red Flag Laws can disarm all who might resist a commie takeover of the Federal government and if they fight at all, the gene pool can be culled of those objecting to be turned into sterile worker bugmen .

  124. @Paleo Liberal
    I think in 1970 the acceptance rate of Penn was about 70%, although usually only really good students applied. Generally, if you were remotely qualified you got in. Nobody wanted to go to college in West Philadelphia. The colleges in the suburbs were considered better and were more selective.

    Now the acceptance rate at Penn is 7%. Why? Because it’s an Ivy. There used to be some just okay schools in the Ivy League, but now anything with the Ivy brand MUST be good. 3 billion Asian Indians and Orientals can’t be wrong.

    Was it an Ivy League school back in 1970, P.L. (serious question)? I mean, if all you have to do is get ivy growing up all the exterior walls, then it’s worth paying for a 100 Mexican landscapers out of the “computer fees” account.

    Who decides what’s an Ivy League school, anyway? I assume you said it facetiously, so yeah, the Orientals and Indians, in general, have this fixation on the piece of paper over the integrity of the learning process. It’d be nice to leave all these Ivies behind. Could one just make a deal with the frat boys to cut all those vines down in the middle of the night for 5 kegs of Bud? Imagine waking up in the morning and having to text your Tiger Mother:

    “Mom. Wll not gradiate fm I.V. Leeg. Don’t tl Dad. Good nws is I got accept to Del. hse. Room stl spin round. Call after noon.”

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    The Ivy League is an athletic conference.

    The conference is made up of the very old and generally prestigious universities in the northeastern part of the US. Half are in New England, two in New York, one in New Jersey and one in Pennsylvania.

    Since the Ivy League is a very old conference, which hasn’t changed in many decades, yes, Penn was part of the Ivy League in 1970.

    In some cases, athletic conferences were derived from scholarly collaborations. For example, the Big 10 started from a scholarly network which included U Chicago. Chicago is still part of the scholarly network that preceded the Big 10, but is not part of the Big 10.
  125. anonymous[546] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    My apologies.

    I suppose I'm at a crossroads...

    Totally fine, I see a lot of prosperity in your future, but …. the age of AI assistants is not yet here.

    so …..

    Not communicating at a level appropriate to one’s ability to communicate is not anyone’s fault, and seriously, there are thousands of good human coaches out there. If you really applied to MIT back in the day and almost got in you probably can afford such a coach. Just be careful not to hire a phony. I just wanted to get that out there, in a noticeable way.

    If you are already married, your wife can help you.

    In my day, we called them (coaches who helped us communicate) “wing men” if we were guys, or “BFFs” if we were girls, and what those words meant were this – they always had our best interests at heart.

    By the way, this site is moderated and I write a few nearly incoherent rants now and then. They do not get through moderation, and that is a good thing! I do not claim to be an expert in communication, just a person who has common sense now and then!

    Also, I know nothing about Corvinus, except that he once expressed displeasure at a pastiche of mine of the great French writer Peguy. He might be a great guy but I owe him no favors, for that reason …..

    • Replies: @anonymous
    my best incoherent rants were about what the world would be like if powerful people were more like the better selves they should be - like Ernest Borgnine always played characters who were mostly the sort of person Ernest Borgnine would be if he were a better version of Ernest Borgnine.

    What would Ernest Borgnine do, one asked oneself (wwebd) ---- but the desire to rant, common not only to crazy homeless people but also to the richest and most powerful among us, even those who graduated from top 14 law schools --- (looking at you, if you have been a "Democratic party frontrunner" from some such school, at any time since the last time LBJ got one of those disgusting blow jobs (o my goodness the poor woman) that even his almost monastically devoted biographer does not have the level of above-it-all resistance to disgust (common to almost all historians) which would enable him to write about it) ---- anyways, the desire to rant sometimes overcame my desire to be the cool and collected historian who could and would explain this all perfectly, and God bless Steve and his employees for not letting my more un-improving rants through moderation.

  126. @William Badwhite
    It would be even funnier if he/she said "top 14" law school, then added "but I went to the one ranked 9th...and don't call me Corvinus".

    To be fair, calling someone Corvinus is quite an insult, certainly in the top 11.

    William – I am funnier in real life.

    If you are interested in the type of wit I trade in , read a little Aristophanes.

    (By the way I thought the “elite military units” would get more attention than “top 14 law school”, but this is not really a military crowd). I would never mention my top 14 law school down at the local VFW beerhall.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    Usually people that say they went to a Top X school make the X as small as they can while still capturing their school. If someone went to say Michigan law (currently ranked 9th by US News), they don't say they went to a top 20 school, they say top 10.

    I thought "top 14" was funny because people usually pick a number ending in 0 or 5.

    I didn't react to "elite military units" because I have no reason to either believe or not believe you, also because it wasn't relevant to your exchange with the other commenter.
  127. anonymous[532] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous
    Totally fine, I see a lot of prosperity in your future, but .... the age of AI assistants is not yet here.

    so .....

    Not communicating at a level appropriate to one's ability to communicate is not anyone's fault, and seriously, there are thousands of good human coaches out there. If you really applied to MIT back in the day and almost got in you probably can afford such a coach. Just be careful not to hire a phony. I just wanted to get that out there, in a noticeable way.

    If you are already married, your wife can help you.

    In my day, we called them (coaches who helped us communicate) "wing men" if we were guys, or "BFFs" if we were girls, and what those words meant were this - they always had our best interests at heart.


    By the way, this site is moderated and I write a few nearly incoherent rants now and then. They do not get through moderation, and that is a good thing! I do not claim to be an expert in communication, just a person who has common sense now and then!

    Also, I know nothing about Corvinus, except that he once expressed displeasure at a pastiche of mine of the great French writer Peguy. He might be a great guy but I owe him no favors, for that reason .....

    my best incoherent rants were about what the world would be like if powerful people were more like the better selves they should be – like Ernest Borgnine always played characters who were mostly the sort of person Ernest Borgnine would be if he were a better version of Ernest Borgnine.

    What would Ernest Borgnine do, one asked oneself (wwebd) —- but the desire to rant, common not only to crazy homeless people but also to the richest and most powerful among us, even those who graduated from top 14 law schools — (looking at you, if you have been a “Democratic party frontrunner” from some such school, at any time since the last time LBJ got one of those disgusting blow jobs (o my goodness the poor woman) that even his almost monastically devoted biographer does not have the level of above-it-all resistance to disgust (common to almost all historians) which would enable him to write about it) —- anyways, the desire to rant sometimes overcame my desire to be the cool and collected historian who could and would explain this all perfectly, and God bless Steve and his employees for not letting my more un-improving rants through moderation.

  128. @Achmed E. Newman
    Was it an Ivy League school back in 1970, P.L. (serious question)? I mean, if all you have to do is get ivy growing up all the exterior walls, then it's worth paying for a 100 Mexican landscapers out of the "computer fees" account.

    Who decides what's an Ivy League school, anyway? I assume you said it facetiously, so yeah, the Orientals and Indians, in general, have this fixation on the piece of paper over the integrity of the learning process. It'd be nice to leave all these Ivies behind. Could one just make a deal with the frat boys to cut all those vines down in the middle of the night for 5 kegs of Bud? Imagine waking up in the morning and having to text your Tiger Mother:

    "Mom. Wll not gradiate fm I.V. Leeg. Don't tl Dad. Good nws is I got accept to Del. hse. Room stl spin round. Call after noon."

    The Ivy League is an athletic conference.

    The conference is made up of the very old and generally prestigious universities in the northeastern part of the US. Half are in New England, two in New York, one in New Jersey and one in Pennsylvania.

    Since the Ivy League is a very old conference, which hasn’t changed in many decades, yes, Penn was part of the Ivy League in 1970.

    In some cases, athletic conferences were derived from scholarly collaborations. For example, the Big 10 started from a scholarly network which included U Chicago. Chicago is still part of the scholarly network that preceded the Big 10, but is not part of the Big 10.

  129. @Alden
    Asians don’t care about Whites. So why should Whites care about Asians or any other group but bad White race realists.

    Whites don’t care about Whites either. So why should Asians care about Whites?

  130. @Wilkey

    They will be in about 15 years. Except maybe for the military.
     
    Unlikely, unless immigration gets even more out of control than it already is.

    Look, if Asians were really *that* talented then Asia would be doing far better than it is.

    So Asians aren't that dominant in the USA despite the fact that they "deserve" to be 50-100% of the Harvard student body. Asian countries aren't any richer than Europe despite the fact that their emigrants "deserve" to be 50-100% of the Harvard student body.

    Being an excellent grind in high school is not the same as having real talent.

    Unlikely, unless immigration gets even more out of control than it already is.

    The rejoinder here is too obvious to type.

  131. @anonymous
    What a loser thing to say.

    I am a grad from a top 14 law school and when I was in the military I was a member of extremely elite units.

    And I was just trying to help you, and you lashed out like a little kitten that never knew what it was to be cared for.

    Don't call me by a nickname again, until you shape up.

    And no I am not Corvinus. I believe in God and God believes in me, and Corvinus has never been able to say that. That being said, please reconsider my advice, I want you to succeed in life.

    And for the love of God I gave you priceless advice, and I still hope you take it, I like you even though you messed up by insulting me.

    Not your fault, you had no idea how good-hearted I am, and how powerful I am when I pray for people who are unkind to me (or kind to me, for that matter).

    This is my world, not yours, and don't mock me again.

    Thanks for reading.

    You sound like an angry Korean.

  132. @anonymous
    William - I am funnier in real life.

    If you are interested in the type of wit I trade in , read a little Aristophanes.

    (By the way I thought the "elite military units" would get more attention than "top 14 law school", but this is not really a military crowd). I would never mention my top 14 law school down at the local VFW beerhall.

    Usually people that say they went to a Top X school make the X as small as they can while still capturing their school. If someone went to say Michigan law (currently ranked 9th by US News), they don’t say they went to a top 20 school, they say top 10.

    I thought “top 14” was funny because people usually pick a number ending in 0 or 5.

    I didn’t react to “elite military units” because I have no reason to either believe or not believe you, also because it wasn’t relevant to your exchange with the other commenter.

    • Replies: @Triumph104

    I thought “top 14” was funny because people usually pick a number ending in 0 or 5.
     
    "Top 14" or "T14" is the way to refer to top law schools in the US. Anonymous didn't make up the term.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_school_rankings_in_the_United_States#List_of_T14_law_schools

    https://www.thoughtco.com/t14-law-schools-2154903

    https://7sage.com/does-attending-a-t14-law-school-matter/
  133. @Wilkey

    They will be in about 15 years. Except maybe for the military.
     
    Unlikely, unless immigration gets even more out of control than it already is.

    Look, if Asians were really *that* talented then Asia would be doing far better than it is.

    So Asians aren't that dominant in the USA despite the fact that they "deserve" to be 50-100% of the Harvard student body. Asian countries aren't any richer than Europe despite the fact that their emigrants "deserve" to be 50-100% of the Harvard student body.

    Being an excellent grind in high school is not the same as having real talent.

    Being an excellent grind in high school is not the same as having real talent.

    Example: Sarah Jeong of the NY Times and Harvard

  134. @William Badwhite
    Usually people that say they went to a Top X school make the X as small as they can while still capturing their school. If someone went to say Michigan law (currently ranked 9th by US News), they don't say they went to a top 20 school, they say top 10.

    I thought "top 14" was funny because people usually pick a number ending in 0 or 5.

    I didn't react to "elite military units" because I have no reason to either believe or not believe you, also because it wasn't relevant to your exchange with the other commenter.

    I thought “top 14” was funny because people usually pick a number ending in 0 or 5.

    “Top 14” or “T14” is the way to refer to top law schools in the US. Anonymous didn’t make up the term.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_school_rankings_in_the_United_States#List_of_T14_law_schools

    https://www.thoughtco.com/t14-law-schools-2154903

    https://7sage.com/does-attending-a-t14-law-school-matter/

  135. @Autochthon
    Were – if Harvard University were full of Asians, they would be even worse at understanding conditional subjunctive verbs than Theodore Roosevelt. Bully.

    (Shitty beef or shitty chicken?)

    That’s a Yogi Berra-ism, but you might have been too busy admiring the margin notes in your ’26 MEU to catch that.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    That’s a Yogi Berra-ism
     
    The 1957 and 1958 Series must have been howlers, what with Berra and the Braves' Johnny Logan up against each other. Logan is remembered for asking for ice cream on his pie à la mode.

    https://www.just-one-liners.com/ppl/johnny-logan/
  136. @Reg Cæsar

    Physical isolation only by Northeastern elitist standards. They’re 100-150 miles from Boston.
     
    126 mi by Interstates that haven't been around all that long. To the traditional "Northeastern élitist", rural isolation is a feature, not a bug, and it shows in Dartmouth's (relatively) high percentage of white goyim.

    While William Dwight Whitney was teaching Sanskrit at Yale, brother Josiah was sending out the first team to scale and measure the mount that bears his name. William's grandson Hassler was a noted mathematician.

    That's my kind of élite!

    Mine too, and their mother was a Williston. I was only reading yesterday about my ancestral uncle the Reverend Solomon Lyman (Yale 1822) who was one of the founders of the Williston Academy (which is of course in Northampton) and a trustee of the same for some forty years.

    But since the Whitney brothers didn’t attend Dartmouth I don’t quite see why you are mentioning them here?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Dartmouth's isolation showed up in the stats-- likely due to more (true) Yankees there. Or fewer others.

    William joined Josiah on the first survey of Michigan's Upper Peninsula. If you think it's wild now, imagine it in 1849.



    American National Biography-- Whitney, Josiah Dwight

    American National Biography-- Whitney, William Dwight

    From the latter bio:

    At age fifteen he joined the sophomore class of Williams College, graduating three years later in 1845 as the class valedictorian after having spent “no small part of his time … roaming over the hills and through the valleys, collecting birds for the Natural History Society,” according to his autobiography

    It's the same phenomenon. No mere bookworms, they!
  137. @Old Palo Altan
    Mine too, and their mother was a Williston. I was only reading yesterday about my ancestral uncle the Reverend Solomon Lyman (Yale 1822) who was one of the founders of the Williston Academy (which is of course in Northampton) and a trustee of the same for some forty years.

    But since the Whitney brothers didn't attend Dartmouth I don't quite see why you are mentioning them here?

    Dartmouth’s isolation showed up in the stats– likely due to more (true) Yankees there. Or fewer others.

    William joined Josiah on the first survey of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. If you think it’s wild now, imagine it in 1849.

    American National Biography– Whitney, Josiah Dwight

    American National Biography– Whitney, William Dwight

    From the latter bio:

    At age fifteen he joined the sophomore class of Williams College, graduating three years later in 1845 as the class valedictorian after having spent “no small part of his time … roaming over the hills and through the valleys, collecting birds for the Natural History Society,” according to his autobiography

    It’s the same phenomenon. No mere bookworms, they!

  138. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    That's a Yogi Berra-ism, but you might have been too busy admiring the margin notes in your '26 MEU to catch that.

    That’s a Yogi Berra-ism

    The 1957 and 1958 Series must have been howlers, what with Berra and the Braves’ Johnny Logan up against each other. Logan is remembered for asking for ice cream on his pie à la mode.

    https://www.just-one-liners.com/ppl/johnny-logan/

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings