The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Unz Archive
American Meritocracy Revisited
Elite Admissions, Asian Quotas, and the Free Harvard/Fair Harvard Campaign
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


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

The Disappearance of American Meritocracy

For at least the last two generations, American conservatives have been loudly complaining about the racially-based employment and admission policies widely described as “affirmative action.”

I know this to be true because as a youngster in the 1970s, strong opposition to affirmative action was the primary issue that gradually drew me towards the Republican Party, until I finally cast my first presidential vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Yet although Republicans have held the White House and Congress during much of this period and placed numerous conservatives on the Supreme Court, the policies in question are vastly stronger today than they ever were in the past. Indeed, the racial positions publicly espoused by some wildly popular recent “right-wing” presidents as Donald Trump and George W. Bush surely would have utterly appalled such prominent liberals of the 1960s as Hubert Humphrey and Robert F. Kennedy.

However, hope springs eternal, and although most of the Republican Party establishment has long since grown silent on the issue, a small band of determined conservative-activists has persevered, and earlier this year the Supreme Court agreed to take up a racial discrimination case brought by Asian plaintiffs against Harvard University, together with a similar case against the University of North Carolina.

I wish them well and I even have a proprietary interest in their success since the lawsuit was reportedly inspired by my 2012 Meritocracy article, whose findings of anti-Asian discrimination provoked a considerable flurry of attention both in the media and among Asian-American organizations. But after nearly fifty years of overwhelmingly negative progress, I’m quite skeptical that nine justices will suddenly provide a deus ex machina to remedy this unfortunate situation, especially since the Covid outbreak has provided many of our most elite colleges an excuse to sharply reduce their reliance upon standardized tests.

If admissions are increasingly based upon entirely subjective factors such as personal essays, admissions officers can produce whatever racial or demographic results that they and their academic masters desire. Indeed, despite its role in prompting the current lawsuit, relatively little of my analysis had focused upon traditional affirmative action, and my harsh conclusions were far more sweeping. As I wrote:

In recent decades, elite college admissions policy has frequently become an ideological battlefield between liberals and conservatives, but I would argue that both these warring camps have been missing the actual reality of the situation.

Conservatives have denounced “affirmative action” policies which emphasize race over academic merit, and thereby lead to the enrollment of lesser qualified blacks and Hispanics over their more qualified white and Asian competitors; they argue that our elite institutions should be color-blind and race-neutral. Meanwhile, liberals have countered that the student body of these institutions should “look like America,” at least approximately, and that ethnic and racial diversity intrinsically provide important educational benefits, at least if all admitted students are reasonably qualified and able to do the work.

My own position has always been strongly in the former camp, supporting meritocracy over diversity in elite admissions. But based on the detailed evidence I have discussed above, it appears that both these ideological values have gradually been overwhelmed and replaced by the influence of corruption and ethnic favoritism, thereby selecting future American elites which are not meritocratic nor diverse, neither being drawn from our most able students nor reasonably reflecting the general American population.

The overwhelming evidence is that the system currently employed by most of our leading universities admits applicants whose ability may be unremarkable but who are beneficiaries of underhanded manipulation and favoritism. Nations which put their future national leadership in the hands of such individuals are likely to encounter enormous economic and social problems, exactly the sort of problems which our own country seems to have increasingly experienced over the last couple of decades.

So I think the serious ills plaguing our elite universities are far broader and deeper than merely the question of racial discrimination under affirmative action, and even if the latter were rectified, I suspect that few would notice much improvement.

A perfect illustration of the dismal state of college admissions came a couple of weeks ago in a front-page Wall Street Journal story regarding a graduating Texas teenager who had been denied admission to all of the selective colleges to which she had applied. The first few paragraphs explained the details of her plight:

Kaitlyn Younger has been an academic standout since she started studying algebra in third grade.

She took her first advanced-placement course as a freshman, scored 1550 on her SATs as a junior at McKinney High School near Dallas and will graduate this spring with an unweighted 3.95 grade-point average and as the founder of the school’s accounting club. Along the way she performed in and directed about 30 plays, sang in the school choir, scored top marks on the tests she has so far taken for 11 advanced-placement classes, helped run a summer camp and held down a part-time job.

“She is extraordinary,” said Jeff Cranmore, her guidance counselor at McKinney High School.

Ms. Younger, 18 years old, was cautiously optimistic when she applied to top U.S. colleges last fall. Responses came this month: Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Brown, Cornell, University of Pennsylvania, University of Southern California, University of California, Berkeley, and Northwestern all rejected her.

“I expected a bunch wouldn’t accept me,” she said. “I didn’t expect it to be this bad.”

What made her situation so surprising was that her standardized SAT test scores of 1550 out of a possible 1600 placed her in the 99+ percentile, an especially impressive achievement since she had gotten those scores as a junior, being a year younger than nearly all of her competitors. Her ranking was substantially above the average for all of America’s most elite colleges, including those that rejected her, and far surpassed those of many of the other schools that had also returned thin envelopes. She had done very well in 11 AP classes and her application was overflowing with exactly the sort of impressive extra-curricular activities expected in the well-rounded applicant. And the result was still uniform rejection everywhere.

Based upon these apparent facts, the unfairness of her fate seems manifest, but it is much less clear to me that she was a victim of racial discrimination. I certainly don’t doubt that a large fraction of all the blacks or Hispanics admitted in her place had considerably lower test scores and less stellar academic transcripts. But given her extremely impressive record, the same was probably also true for most of the whites and Asians favored over her.

My suspicion is that she and her middle-class family lacked the special “hooks” that admissions consultants charge huge sums to arrange, and so she fell victim to the random whims of the bored or ignorant admissions officers who seem so typical of that profession. The obvious, almost inevitable consequence of the elimination of objective, meritocratic admissions criteria is that the process will increasingly be governed by corruption, connections, and favoritism, certainly very negative social ills but not necessarily violations of Civil Rights statutes.

So with the tenth anniversary of my Meritocracy monograph fast approaching and a Supreme Court ruling also on the horizon, I’ve decided to provide a lengthy summary of that analysis as well as a retrospective account of my own unsuccessful efforts to achieve reform via my Free Harvard/Fair Harvard campaign of 2016, starting with lengthy excerpts from my most recent 2018 discussion and the original 2012 article.

Asian Quotas in the Ivy League

This last week trial began in Boston federal court for the current lawsuit in which a collection of Asian-American organizations are charging Harvard University with racial discrimination in its college admissions policies. The New York Times, our national newspaper of record, has been providing almost daily coverage to developments in the case, with the stories sometimes reaching the front page.

Last Sunday, just before the legal proceedings began, the Times ran a major article explaining the general background of the controversy, and I was very pleased to see that my own past research was cited as an important factor sparking the lawsuit, with the reporter even including a direct link to my 26,000 word 2012 cover-story “The Myth of American Meritocracy,” which had provided strong quantitative evidence of anti-Asian racial quotas. Economic historian Niall Ferguson, long one of Harvard’s most prominent professors but recently decamped to Stanford, similarly noted the role of my research in his column for the London Sunday Times.

Two decades ago, I had published a widely-discussed op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on somewhat similar issues of racial discrimination in elite admissions. But my more recent article was far longer and more comprehensive, and certainly drew more attention than anything else I have ever published, before or since. After it appeared in The American Conservative, its hundreds of thousands of pageviews broke all records for that publication and it attracted considerable notice in the media. Times columnist David Brooks soon ranked it as perhaps the best American magazine article of the year, a verdict seconded by a top editor at The Economist, and the Times itself quickly organized a symposium on the topic of Asian Quotas, in which I eagerly participated. Forbes, The Atlantic, The Washington Monthly, Business Insider, and other publications all discussed my striking results.

Conservative circles took considerable interest, with Charles Murray highlighting my findings, and National Review later published an article in which I explained the important implications of my findings for the legal validity of the 1978 Bakke decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

There was also a considerable reaction from the academic community itself. I quickly received speaking invitations from the Yale Political Union, Yale Law, and the University of Chicago Law School, while Prof. Ferguson discussed my distressing analysis in a lengthy Newsweek/Daily Beast column entitled “The End of the American Dream.”

Moreover, I had also published an associated critique suggesting that over the years my beloved Harvard alma mater had transformed itself into one of the world’s largest hedge-funds with a vestigial school attached for tax-exempt purposes. This also generated enormous discussion in media circles, with liberal journalist Chris Hayes Tweeting it out and generously saying he was “very jealous” he hadn’t written the piece himself. Many of his colleagues promoted the piece with similarly favorable remarks, while the university quickly provided a weak public response to these serious financial charges.

Meanwhile, unbeknownst to myself or other outside observers, Harvard itself launched an internal investigation of the anti-Asian bias that I had alleged. Apparently, the university’s own initial results generally confirmed my accusations, indicating that if students were admitted solely based upon objective academic merit, far more Asians would receive thick envelopes. But Harvard’s top administrators buried the study and did nothing, with these important facts only coming out years later during the discovery process of the current Asian Quotas lawsuit.


Only the first part of my very long article dealt with the question of anti-Asian racial discrimination in elite college admissions, but it attracted vastly more attention than any other element.

For many years, there had been a widespread belief within the Asian-American community that such discriminatory practices existed, a sentiment backed by considerable anecdotal evidence. But the university administrations had always flatly denied those claims, and the media had shown little interest in investigating them. However, my powerful new quantitative evidence proved very difficult to ignore.

Among other things, I focused upon the publicly available statewide lists of National Merit Semifinalists (NMS), a group that constituted the highest-performing one-half percent of American high school seniors. By a fortunate coincidence, this fraction of the American student body was reasonably close in size to the total enrollment of students at the Ivy League schools together with similarly elite schools such as Stanford, Caltech, and MIT. The NMS dataset had previously been almost entirely ignored by researchers, but I found it provided a treasure-trove of useful empirical information.

Since Asian last names are extremely distinctive, I was able to estimate that Asians nationally constituted roughly 25-30% of this top academic group, a figure considerably larger than their enrollment at Harvard and other elite schools. This conclusion was supported by the even greater Asian dominance in more highly selective academic competitions such as the Math Olympiad and the Intel Science Talent Search, though the far smaller numbers involved reduced the statistical validity of these analyses.

But my most dramatic finding relied upon an even simpler analysis of public data, which had previously remained unnoticed. As I wrote in my New York Times column:

Just as their predecessors of the 1920s always denied the existence of “Jewish quotas,” top officials at Harvard, Yale, Princeton and the other Ivy League schools today strongly deny the existence of “Asian quotas.” But there exists powerful statistical evidence to the contrary.

Each year, American universities provide their racial enrollment data to the National Center for Education Statistics, which makes this information available online. After the Justice Department closed an investigation in the early 1990s into charges that Harvard University discriminated against Asian-American applicants, Harvard’s reported enrollment of Asian-Americans began gradually declining, falling from 20.6 percent in 1993 to about 16.5 percent over most of the last decade.

This decline might seem small. But these same years brought a huge increase in America’s college-age Asian population, which roughly doubled between 1992 and 2011, while non-Hispanic white numbers remained almost unchanged. Thus, according to official statistics, the percentage of Asian-Americans enrolled at Harvard fell by more than 50 percent over the last two decades, while the percentage of whites changed little. This decline in relative Asian-American enrollment was actually larger than the impact of Harvard’s 1925 Jewish quota, which reduced Jewish freshmen from 27.6 percent to 15 percent.

The percentages of college-age Asian-Americans enrolled at most of the other Ivy League schools also fell during this same period, and over the last few years Asian enrollments across these different universities have converged to a very similar level and remained static over time. This raises suspicions of a joint Ivy League policy to restrict Asian-American numbers to a particular percentage…

This statistical finding was illustrated in a simple graph, demonstrating that over the last two decades enrollment of Asian-Americans had gradually converged across the entire Ivy League, while sharply diverging from the rapidly increasing Asian-American population, with only strictly meritocratic Caltech continuing to track the latter.

It would be difficult to imagine more obvious visual evidence of an Asian Quota implemented across the Ivy League, and this chart was very widely circulated among Asian-American organizations and activists, who launched their lawsuit the following year. If they do succeed in winning their current case in federal court, the history books may eventually record that the wealthiest and most powerful university in the world was brought low by a single striking graph.

The Hidden Jewish Dimension


For decades affirmative action based upon race has been an extremely contentious topic in American politics, sharply divisive across ideological lines, and it was hardly surprising that my new analysis of that issue produced a wave of coverage. But buried deeper within that same lengthy article were even more explosive findings, apparently far too sensitive to even become a subject of significant media scrutiny.

Not without reason, most journalists regard matters touching upon Jewish sensitivities as the lethal “third rail” of their profession, and the bulk of my piece had presented some unexpected new insights in this area. These attracted the widespread private fascination of numerous prominent scholars and members of the media, but almost none of these individuals was willing to publicly disclose the results that had drawn their rapt attention.

As a consequence, these findings have remained largely unnoticed except among those who have actually taken the time to read far into my extremely long piece, while never penetrating into the awareness of the broader public. For example, Prof. Jordan Peterson, a leading celebrity-intellectual with a large YouTube following, recently demonstrated that he was totally ignorant of these important facts. Therefore, I am now taking this opportunity to summarize and excerpt those elements of my Meritocracy analysis that attracted the greatest private interest but received the least public attention.

A few years earlier, Jerome Karabel, an eminent Berkeley sociologist, had published The Chosen, his magisterial history of Jewish enrollment in the Ivy League, which won numerous scholarly accolades. His research conclusively demonstrated the existence of the once-denied Jewish Quotas of the past, employed by the reigning WASP elites to maintain control of those institutions against their upstart ethnic competitors. As I wrote:

Karabel’s massive documentation—over 700 pages and 3000 endnotes—establishes the remarkable fact that America’s uniquely complex and subjective system of academic admissions actually arose as a means of covert ethnic tribal warfare…

As Karabel repeatedly demonstrates, the major changes in admissions policy which later followed were usually determined by factors of raw political power and the balance of contending forces rather than any idealistic considerations. For example, in the aftermath of World War II, Jewish organizations and their allies mobilized their political and media resources to pressure the universities into increasing their ethnic enrollment by modifying the weight assigned to various academic and non-academic factors, raising the importance of the former over the latter. Then a decade or two later, this exact process was repeated in the opposite direction, as the early 1960s saw black activists and their liberal political allies pressure universities to bring their racial minority enrollments into closer alignment with America’s national population by partially shifting away from their recently enshrined focus on purely academic considerations. Indeed, Karabel notes that the most sudden and extreme increase in minority enrollment took place at Yale in the years 1968–69, and was largely due to fears of race riots in heavily black New Haven, which surrounded the campus.

Philosophical consistency appears notably absent in many of the prominent figures involved in these admissions battles, with both liberals and conservatives sometimes favoring academic merit and sometimes non-academic factors, whichever would produce the particular ethnic student mix they desired for personal or ideological reasons. Different political blocs waged long battles for control of particular universities, and sudden large shifts in admissions rates occurred as these groups gained or lost influence within the university apparatus: Yale replaced its admissions staff in 1965 and the following year Jewish numbers nearly doubled…

Branches of Hillel, the Jewish student organization, exist across most college campuses, and for decades they have provided estimates of the percentages of the local Jewish enrollment, with Karabel and other scholars relying upon these to chart the ebbs and flows of Jewish numbers. I discussed how Karabel used this data to celebrate the final meritocratic victory of Jewish college applicants over their former WASP oppressors…

Indeed, Karabel opens the final chapter of his book by…noting the extreme irony that the WASP demographic group which had once so completely dominated America’s elite universities and “virtually all the major institutions of American life” had by 2000 become “a small and beleaguered minority at Harvard,” being actually fewer in number than the Jews whose presence they had once sought to restrict. Very similar results seem to apply all across the Ivy League, with the disproportion often being even greater than the particular example emphasized by Karabel…


Karabel showed that the collapse of WASP resistance to the admission of high-performing Jewish students soon drastically reshaped the ethnic composition of these institutions, with his triumphalist narrative suggesting that this transformation raised academic standards and lifted the quality of the student body to new heights. And for decades, I had entirely accepted this simple morality tale, which was implicitly or explicitly presented in nearly all the accounts, liberal and conservative alike, that I had read regarding the history of our leading East Coast universities.

But as I began to quantitatively explore this issue, utilizing the same techniques and data sets I had applied to determining the existence of severe discrimination against Asian applicants, I uncovered evidence of an entirely contrary nature. I soon came to realize that many of my beliefs were merely ideological fairy tales, sometimes little more accurate than the Soviet claims of Russian peasants eagerly joining their collective farms.

Although Jewish names are not nearly as distinctive as Asian ones, they may usually be determined with reasonable accuracy, and applying Weyl analysis to a subset of the most absolutely characteristic ones—such as Goldstein, Silverberg, Cohen, and Kaplan—allows us to statistically validate the results so obtained.

As I thus analyzed the many dozens of statewide NMS lists, I soon discovered that Jews were far less heavily represented among America’s highest-performing students than I had expected, probably constituting no more than 6% of the national NMS total. The lists of the winners of the top scholastic competitions I had previously examined for Asians produced reasonably similar results.

Hispanic names are quite distinct and blacks are fewer in number and somewhat less successful academically, so the NMS totals for those two groups are also not difficult to determine. Once we subtract the totals of Asians, Jews, Hispanics, and blacks, what remains is the NMS total of non-Hispanic white Gentiles. And the results were absolutely eye-opening:

The evidence of the recent NMS semifinalist lists seems the most conclusive of all, given the huge statistical sample sizes involved. As discussed earlier, these students constitute roughly the highest 0.5 percent in academic ability, the top 16,000 high school seniors who should be enrolling at the Ivy League and America’s other most elite academic universities. In California, white Gentile names outnumber Jewish ones by over 8-to-1; in Texas, over 20-to-1; in Florida and Illinois, around 9-to-1. Even in New York, America’s most heavily Jewish state, there are more than two high-ability white Gentile students for every Jewish one. Based on the overall distribution of America’s population, it appears that approximately 65–70 percent of America’s highest ability students are non-Jewish whites, well over ten times the Jewish total of under 6 percent.

Needless to say, these proportions are considerably different from what we actually find among the admitted students at Harvard and its elite peers, which today serve as a direct funnel to the commanding heights of American academics, law, business, and finance. Based on reported statistics, Jews approximately match or even outnumber non-Jewish whites at Harvard and most of the other Ivy League schools, which seems wildly disproportionate. Indeed, the official statistics indicate that non-Jewish whites at Harvard are America’s most under-represented population group, enrolled at a much lower fraction of their national population than blacks or Hispanics, despite having far higher academic test scores.

When examining statistical evidence, the proper aggregation of data is critical. Consider the ratio of the recent 2007–2011 enrollment of Asian students at Harvard relative to their estimated share of America’s recent NMS semifinalists, a reasonable proxy for the high-ability college-age population, and compare this result to the corresponding figure for whites. The Asian ratio is 63 percent, slightly above the white ratio of 61 percent, with both these figures being considerably below parity due to the substantial presence of under-represented racial minorities such as blacks and Hispanics, foreign students, and students of unreported race. Thus, there appears to be no evidence for racial bias against Asians, even excluding the race-neutral impact of athletic recruitment, legacy admissions, and geographical diversity.

However, if we separate out the Jewish students, their ratio turns out to be 435 percent, while the residual ratio for non-Jewish whites drops to just 28 percent, less than half of even the Asian figure. As a consequence, Asians appear under-represented relative to Jews by a factor of seven, while non-Jewish whites are by far the most under-represented group of all, despite any benefits they might receive from athletic, legacy, or geographical distribution factors. The rest of the Ivy League tends to follow a similar pattern, with the overall Jewish ratio being 381 percent, the Asian figure at 62 percent, and the ratio for non-Jewish whites a low 35 percent, all relative to their number of high-ability college-age students.

Just as striking as these wildly disproportionate current numbers have been the longer enrollment trends. In the three decades since I graduated Harvard, the presence of white Gentiles has dropped by as much as 70 percent, despite no remotely comparable decline in the relative size or academic performance of that population; meanwhile, the percentage of Jewish students has actually increased. This period certainly saw a very rapid rise in the number of Asian, Hispanic, and foreign students, as well as some increase in blacks. But it seems rather odd that all of these other gains would have come at the expense of whites of Christian background, and none at the expense of Jews…

Several graphs from my article effectively illustrated these remarkable findings.

Based on these figures, Jewish students were roughly 1,000% more likely to be enrolled at Harvard and the rest of the Ivy League than white Gentiles of similar ability. This was an absolutely astonishing result given that under-representation in the range of 20% or 30% is often treated by courts as powerful prima facie evidence of racial discrimination.

Furthermore, I noted the possibility that this discrepancy might be related to the overwhelming Jewish dominance of the top administration of those institutions:

It would be unreasonable to ignore the salient fact that this massive apparent bias in favor of far less-qualified Jewish applicants coincides with an equally massive ethnic skew at the topmost administrative ranks of the universities in question, a situation which once again exactly parallels Karabel’s account from the 1920s. Indeed, Karabel points out that by 1993 Harvard, Yale, and Princeton all had presidents of Jewish ancestry, and the same is true for the current presidents of Yale, Penn, Cornell, and possibly Columbia, as well as Princeton’s president throughout during the 1990s and Yale’s new incoming president, while all three of Harvard’s most recent presidents have either had Jewish origins or a Jewish spouse.

At most universities, a provost is the second-ranking official, being responsible for day-to-day academic operations. Although Princeton’s current president is not Jewish, all seven of the most recent Princeton provosts stretching back to 1977 have had such ancestry, with several of the other Ivies not being far behind. A similar degree of massive overrepresentation is found throughout the other top administrative ranks of the rest of the Ivy League, and across American leading educational institutions in general, and these are the institutions which select our future national elites…

Since the publication of my 2012 article, Harvard and Princeton have both selected new presidents, each of them Jewish, while Yale’s Jewish president has remained in office.

The Corruption of the Admissions Process

The exact mechanism by which this seemingly enormous bias in favor of Jewish applicants to our most elite colleges manifests itself is not entirely clear, and I very much doubt that it takes the crude form of top administrators directing admissions officers to admit under-qualified Jewish applicants. Instead, I strongly suggested that a leading factor was the “negative pressure” of America’s overwhelmingly Jewish media and Jewish activist groups, which might respond harshly to any significant decline in Jewish numbers:

Meanwhile, any hint of “anti-Semitism” in admissions is regarded as an absolutely mortal sin, and any significant reduction in Jewish enrollment may often be denounced as such by the hair-trigger media. For example, in 1999 Princeton discovered that its Jewish enrollment had declined to just 500 percent of parity, down from more than 700 percent in the mid-1980s, and far below the comparable figures for Harvard or Yale. This quickly resulted in four front-page stories in the Daily Princetonian, a major article in the New York Observer, and extensive national coverage in both the New York Times and the Chronicle of Higher Education. These articles included denunciations of Princeton’s long historical legacy of anti-Semitism and quickly led to official apologies, followed by an immediate 30 percent rebound in Jewish numbers. During these same years, non-Jewish white enrollment across the entire Ivy League had dropped by roughly 50 percent, reducing those numbers to far below parity, but this was met with media silence or even occasional congratulations on the further “multicultural” progress of America’s elite education system.

I suspect that the combined effect of these separate pressures, rather than any planned or intentional bias, is the primary cause of the striking enrollment statistics that we have examined above. In effect, somewhat dim and over-worked admissions officers, generally possessing weak quantitative skills, have been tasked by their academic superiors and media monitors with the twin ideological goals of enrolling Jews and enrolling non-whites, with any major failures risking harsh charges of either “anti-Semitism” or “racism.” But by inescapable logic maximizing the number of Jews and non-whites implies minimizing the number of non-Jewish whites…


I further noted that this 1999 firestorm of media controversy attacking Princeton for its alleged “anti-Semitism” took place at a time when university’s president and provost were both Jewish, and the campus had recently opened a \$4.5 million Center for Jewish Life.

In 2002, Jacques Steinberg, a longtime National Educational Correspondent for the New York Times, published The Gatekeepers, a widely praised best-seller that provided an “inside look” at the college admissions process based on the year he had spent embedded with those officials at Wesleyan, and the 2012 edition of his book stated that few aspects of the process had changed during the previous decade. I was deeply distressed by his description of the background of the admissions officers:

In fact, it seems likely that some of these obvious admissions biases we have noticed may be related to the poor human quality and weak academic credentials of many of the university employees making these momentous decisions. As mentioned above, the job of admissions officer is poorly paid, requires no professional training, and offers few opportunities for career advancement; thus, it is often filled by individuals with haphazard employment records. As one of the “Little Ivies,” Wesleyan is among America’s most prestigious liberal arts colleges, and Steinberg’s description of the career paths of its handful of admissions officers is eye-opening: the interim Director of Admissions had most recently screened food-stamp recipients and run a psychiatric half-way house; another had worked as an animal control officer and managed a camera store; a third unsuccessfully sought a job as a United Airlines flight attendant; others were recent college graduates, whose main college interests had been sports or ethnic studies. The vast majority seem to possess minimal academic expertise and few intellectual interests, raising serious questions about their ability to reasonably evaluate their higher-quality applicants…

Books by former members of the Harvard and Dartmouth admissions strongly supported the same conclusions…

As additional evidence, we can consider What It Really Takes to Get into the Ivy League, a 2003 advice book written by Chuck Hughes, who spent five years as a Senior Admissions Officer at Harvard, after having himself graduated from that university. Although he strongly emphasizes his own college participation in varsity sports, he never says a word about any personal academic interests, and near the end of his book on elite college admissions, he appears to describe Duke, Northwestern, and Rice as being members of the Ivy League.

A more explicit statement of this exact problem is found in A for Admission, a very candid 1997 description of the admissions process at elite private universities written by Michele A. Hernandez, who had spent four years as Dartmouth’s Assistant Director of Admissions. Near the beginning of her book, Hernandez explains that over half of Ivy League admissions officers are individuals who had not attended such academically challenging universities, nor probably had the intellectual capability to do so, and were sometimes confused about the relative ranking of SAT scores and other basic academic credentials. She also cautions students to avoid any subtlety in their essays, lest their words be misunderstood by their readers in the admissions office, whose degrees are more likely to have been in education than in any serious academic discipline…

Given this unfortunate situation, we should not be overly surprised by the egregious aspects of the particular admissions stories that Steinberg recounts…

Consider the case of Tiffany Wang, a Chinese immigrant student raised in the Silicon Valley area, where her father worked as an engineer. Although English was not her first language, her SAT scores were over 100 points above the Wesleyan average, and she ranked as a National Merit Scholarship semifinalist, putting her in the top 0.5 percent of high school students (not the top 2 percent as Steinberg mistakenly claims). Nevertheless, the admissions officer rated her just so-so in academics, and seemed far more positively impressed by her ethnic activism in the local school’s Asian-American club. Ultimately, he stamped her with a “Reject,” but later admitted to Steinberg that she might have been admitted if he had been aware of the enormous time and effort she had spent campaigning against the death penalty, a political cause near and dear to his own heart. Somehow I suspect that a student who boasted of leadership in pro-death penalty activism among his extracurriculars might have fared rather worse in this process. And presumably for similar reasons, Tiffany was also rejected by all her other prestigious college choices, including Yale, Penn, Duke, and Wellesley, an outcome which greatly surprised and disappointed her immigrant father.

There was also the case of half-Brazilian Julianna Bentes, with slight black ancestry, who came from a middle-class family and attended on a partial scholarship one of America’s most elite prep schools, whose annual tuition now tops \$30,000; her SAT scores were somewhat higher than Tiffany’s, and she was an excellent dancer. The combination of her academic ability, dancing talent, and “multiracial” background ranked her as one of America’s top college recruitment prospects, gaining her admission and generous financial packages from Harvard, Yale, Stanford and every other elite university to which she applied, including the University of Chicago’s most prestigious academic scholarship award and a personal opportunity to meet Chelsea Clinton while visiting Stanford, which she did, before ultimately selecting Yale.

Finally, there was the case of Becca Jannol, a girl from a very affluent Jewish family near Beverly Hills, who attended the same elite prep school as Julianna, but with her parents paying the full annual tuition. Despite her every possible advantage, including test-prep courses and retaking the exam, her SAT scores were some 240 points lower on the 1600 point scale, placing her toward the bottom of the Wesleyan range, while her application essay focused on the philosophical challenges she encountered when she was suspended for illegal drug use. But she was a great favorite of her prep school counselor, who was an old college friend of the Wesleyan admissions officer, and using his discretion, he stamped her “Admit.” Her dismal academic record then caused this initial decision to be overturned by a unanimous vote of the other members of the full admissions committee, but he refused to give up, and moved heaven and earth to gain her a spot, even offering to rescind the admissions of one or more already selected applicants to create a place for her. Eventually he got her shifted from the Reject category to wait-list status, after which he secretly moved her folder to the very top of the large waiting list pile.

In the end “connections” triumphed, and she received admission to Wesleyan, although she turned it down in favor of an offer from more prestigious Cornell, which she had obtained through similar means. But at Cornell, she found herself “miserable,” hating the classes and saying she “didn’t see the usefulness of [her] being there.” However, her poor academic ability proved no hindrance, since the same administrator who had arranged her admission also wrangled her a quick entrance into a special “honors program” he personally ran, containing just 40 of the 3500 students in her year. This exempted her from all academic graduation requirements, apparently including classes or tests, thereby allowing her to spend her four college years mostly traveling around the world while working on a so-called “special project.” After graduation, she eventually took a job at her father’s successful law firm, thereby realizing her obvious potential as a member of America’s ruling Ivy League elite, or in her own words, as being one of “the best of the best”…

Jannol’s account also contains a particularly intriguing element. Personal essays have become a crucial component of application packages to elite colleges, and these are considered especially effective if they provide strong evidence of hardships and victimhood. Given her extremely wealthy and privileged background, Jannol had originally considered focusing on her status as the granddaughter of a Holocaust survivor, but ultimately decided against it because so many of her peers would be following exactly that same stratagem, explaining to Steinberg that “Everyone’s going to write about their Holocaust grandma.”

Over the last few decades, our news and entertainment industries have elevated Jewish suffering during World War II into the most horrific and monumental tragedy of the modern era, and it not impossible that a substantial fraction of the unfair Jewish advantage in elite admissions may derive from something as simple as the ability of the children of elite Jewish families to wrap themselves in the ultimate victimhood of Holocaust survivor status…

The Strange Collapse of Jewish Academic Performance

I had been stunned by my evidence of the unreasonable over-representation of Jewish students at our most elite academic institutions, and most of the prominent scholars and journalists who read my analysis seemed to have a similar reaction. Further analysis suggested some of the crucial reasons for this widespread myopia, which I explicated in a section entitled “The Strange Collapse of Jewish Academic Achievement”…

From my own perspective, I found these statistical results surprising, even shocking.

I had always been well aware of the very heavy Jewish presence at elite academic institutions. But the underwhelming percentage of Jewish students who today achieve high scores on academic aptitude tests was totally unexpected, and very different from the impressions I had formed during my own high school and college years a generation or so ago. An examination of other available statistics seems to support my recollections and provides evidence for a dramatic recent decline in the academic performance of American Jews.

The U.S. Math Olympiad began in 1974, and all the names of the top scoring students are easily available on the Internet. During the 1970s, well over 40 percent of the total were Jewish, and during the 1980s and 1990s, the fraction averaged about one-third. However, during the thirteen years since 2000, just two names out of 78 or 2.5 percent appear to be Jewish. The Putnam Exam is the most difficult and prestigious mathematics competition for American college students, with five or six Putnam winners having been selected each year since 1938. Over 40 percent of the Putnam winners prior to 1950 were Jewish, and during every decade from the 1950s through the 1990s, between 22 percent and 31 percent of the winners seem to have come from that same ethnic background. But since 2000, the percentage has dropped to under 10 percent, without a single likely Jewish name in the last seven years.

This consistent picture of stark ethnic decline recurs when we examine the statistics for the Science Talent Search, which has been selecting 40 students as national finalists for America’s most prestigious high school science award since 1942, thus providing a huge statistical dataset of over 2800 top science students. During every decade from the 1950s through the 1980s, Jewish students were consistently 22–23 percent of the recipients, with the percentage then declining to 17 percent in the 1990s, 15 percent in the 2000s, and just 7 percent since 2010. Indeed, of the thirty top ranked students over the last three years, only a single one seems likely to have been Jewish. Similarly, Jews were over one-quarter of the top students in the Physics Olympiad from 1986 to 1997, but have fallen to just 5 percent over the last decade, a result which must surely send Richard Feynman spinning in his grave.

• • •

Taken in combination, these trends all provide powerful evidence that over the last decade or more there has been a dramatic collapse in Jewish academic achievement, at least at the high end.

Several possible explanations for this empirical result seem reasonably plausible. Although the innate potential of a group is unlikely to drop so suddenly, achievement is a function of both ability and effort, and today’s overwhelmingly affluent Jewish students may be far less diligent in their work habits or driven in their studies than were their parents or grandparents, who lived much closer to the bracing challenges of the immigrant experience. In support of this hypothesis, roughly half of the Jewish Math Olympiad winners from the last two decades have had the sort of highly distinctive names which would tend to mark them as recent immigrants from the Soviet Union or elsewhere, and such names were also very common among the top Jewish science students of the same period, even though this group represents only about 10 percent of current American Jews. Indeed, it seems quite possible that this large sudden influx of very high performing immigrant Jews from the late 1980s onward served to partially mask the rapid concurrent decline of high academic achievement among native American Jews, which otherwise would have become much more clearly evident a decade or so earlier.

This pattern of third or fourth generation American students lacking the academic drive or intensity of their forefathers is hardly surprising, nor unique to Jews. Consider the case of Japanese-Americans, who mostly arrived in America during roughly the same era. America’s Japanese have always been a high-performing group, with a strong academic tradition, and Japan’s international PISA academic scores are today among the highest in the world. But when we examine the list of California’s NMS semifinalists, less than 1 percent of the names are Japanese, roughly in line with their share of the California population. Meanwhile, Chinese, Koreans, and South Asians are 6 percent of California but contribute 50 percent of the top scoring students, an eight-fold better result, with a major likely difference being that they are overwhelmingly of recent immigrant origin. In fact, although ongoing Japanese immigration has been trivial in size, a significant fraction of the top Japanese students have the unassimilated Japanese first names that would tend to indicate they are probably drawn from that tiny group.

In his 1966 book The Creative Elite in America, Weyl used last name analysis to document a similarly remarkable collapse in achievement among America’s Puritan-descended population, which had once provided a hugely disproportionate fraction of our intellectual leadership, but for various reasons went into rapid decline from about 1900 onward. He also mentions the disappearance of the remarkable Scottish intellectual contribution to British life after about 1800. Although the evidence for both these historical parallels seems very strong, the causal factors are not entirely clear, though Weyl does provide some possible explanations.

In some respects, perhaps it was the enormously outsize Jewish academic performance of the past which was highly anomalous, and the more recent partial convergence toward white European norms which is somewhat less surprising. Over the years, claims have been widely circulated that the mean Jewish IQ is a full standard deviation—15 points—above the white average of 100, but this seems to have little basis in reality. Richard Lynn, one of the world’s foremost IQ experts, has performed an exhaustive literature review and located some 32 IQ samples of American Jews, taken from 1920 to 2008. For the first 14 studies conducted during the years 1920–1937, the Jewish IQ came out very close to the white American mean, and it was only in later decades that the average figure rose to the approximate range of 107–111.

In a previous article “Race, IQ & Wealth,” I had suggested that the IQs of ethnic groups appear to be far more malleable than many people would acknowledge, and may be particularly influenced by factors of urbanization, education, and affluence. Given that Jews have always been America’s most heavily urbanized population and became the most affluent during the decades in question, these factors may account for a substantial portion of their huge IQ rise during most of the twentieth century. But with modern electronic technology recently narrowing the gaps in social environment and educational opportunities between America’s rural and urban worlds, we might expect a portion of this difference to gradually dissipate. American Jews are certainly a high-ability population, but the innate advantage they have over other high-ability white populations is probably far smaller than is widely believed.

This conclusion is supported by the General Social Survey (GSS), an online dataset of tens of thousands of American survey responses from the last forty years which includes the Wordsum vocabulary test, a very useful IQ proxy correlating at 0.71. Converted into the corresponding IQ scores, the Wordsum-IQ of Jews is indeed quite high at 109. But Americans of English, Welsh, Scottish, Swedish, and Catholic Irish ancestry also have fairly high mean IQs of 104 or above, and their combined populations outnumber Jews by almost 15-to-1, implying that they would totally dominate the upper reaches of the white American ability distribution, even if we excluded the remaining two-thirds of all American whites, many of whose IQs are also fairly high. Furthermore, all these groups are far less highly urbanized or affluent than Jews, probably indicating that their scores are still artificially depressed to some extent. We should also remember that Jewish intellectual performance tends to be quite skewed, being exceptionally strong in the verbal subcomponent, much lower in math, and completely mediocre in visuospatial ability; thus, a completely verbal-oriented test such as Wordsum would actually tend to exaggerate Jewish IQ.

Stratifying the white American population along religious lines produces similar conclusions. An analysis of the data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth found that Americans raised in the Episcopal Church actually exceeded Jews in mean IQ, while several other religious categories came quite close, leading to the result that the overwhelming majority of America’s high-ability white population had a non-Jewish background.

Finally, in the case of Jews, these assimilation- or environment-related declines in relative academic performance may have been reinforced by powerful demographic trends. For the last generation or two, typical Jewish women from successful or even ordinary families have married very late and averaged little more than a single child, while the small fraction of Jewish women who are ultra-Orthodox often marry in their teens and then produce seven or eight children. As a consequence, this extremely religious subpopulation has been doubling in size every twenty years, and now easily exceeds 10 percent of the total, including a far higher percentage of younger Jews. But ultra-Orthodox Jews have generally been academically mediocre, often with enormously high rates of poverty and government dependency. Therefore, the combination of these two radically different trends of Jewish reproduction has acted to stabilize the total number of Jewish youngsters, while probably producing a sharp drop in their average academic achievement.


Although the relative importance of these individual factors behind Jewish academic decline is unclear, the decline itself seems an unmistakable empirical fact, and the widespread unawareness of this fact has had important social consequences.

My casual mental image of today’s top American students is based upon my memories of a generation or so ago, when Jewish students, sometimes including myself, regularly took home a quarter or more of the highest national honors on standardized tests or in prestigious academic competitions; thus, it seemed perfectly reasonable that Harvard and most of the other Ivy League schools might be 25 percent Jewish, based on meritocracy. But the objective evidence indicates that in present day America, only about 6 percent of our top students are Jewish, which now renders such very high Jewish enrollments at elite universities totally absurd and ridiculous. I strongly suspect that a similar time lag effect is responsible for the apparent confusion in many others who have considered the topic.

For example, throughout his very detailed book, Karabel always seems to automatically identify increasing Jewish enrollments with academic meritocracy, and Jewish declines with bias or discrimination, retaining this assumption even when his discussion moves into the 1990s and 2000s. He was born in 1950, graduated Harvard in 1972, and returned there to earn his Ph.D. in 1977, so this may indeed have been the reality during his formative years. But he seems strikingly unaware that the world has changed since then, and that over the last decade or two, meritocracy and Jewish numbers have become opposing forces: the stricter the meritocratic standard, the fewer the Jews admitted…

Evidence of the remarkable collapse of Jewish academic achievement is easily seen in a series of charts:

Successfully Opening a Public Debate on Meritocracy

Important results with major policy implications will only have significant impact if they are widely distributed, and in this regard I faced formidable obstacles.

My article was running in The American Conservative, a small circulation political opinion magazine of which I was the publisher, and so my findings needed to break through into far larger and more mainstream outlets in order to reach a sizable audience. But in the past TAC had often been fiercely denounced by Jewish activists and organizations, mostly on foreign policy issues, and elements of my piece were far more inflammatory than any of that previous material. While harsh attacks might help promote my information within particular ideological circles, they would surely dissuade mainstream publications from taking notice, and would also sufficiently stigmatize my research that no respectable individual would be willing to cite it in the future.

My first decision was to place my Asian Quota section near the front of my very long text. Aside from the intrinsic importance, this would also provide interested readers with a relatively safe “hook” that they could use to describe and promote my analysis, while allowing them to avoid mentioning any of the “third rail” material that constituted the bulk of my text; and this was exactly what eventually occurred. But such a strategy would obviously fail unless I could also somehow induce hair-trigger activist groups to maintain silence about my article rather than begin crudely demonizing it. Therefore, I decided to launch what I considered a decapitating first strike against those central organs of Jewish activism but to do so in a rather oblique manner.

Jerome Karabel certainly ranked as the world’s foremost authority on Jewish admissions to the Ivy League, and his celebrated opus had been the central text I had used, although my ultimate conclusions were radically different than his own. It seemed likely to me that once Jewish organizations became aware of the controversial elements of my article, he would be among the first individuals they contacted, both to seek his assessment of my analysis and perhaps also receive suggestions for an effective rebuttal.

Therefore, I obtained Karabel’s contact information and sent him an advance copy of my completed article weeks before it was generally released, explaining that I thought he would find it rather interesting although some of my conclusions were quite different than his own. My expectation was that once he carefully read my detailed analysis, he would conclude that the case I made was far too strong to be effectively refuted, and he would pass along that verdict to the activist organizations when they eventually contacted him, thus leading them adopt a policy of “strategic silence” in order to avoid drawing attention to my claims. For whatever reason, that was exactly how they reacted, and no prominent Jewish activist or group ever issued a public response to my extremely controversial findings despite the considerable attention these ultimately attracted.

Not only did this complete absence of organized attacks provide a green light for the very favorable mainstream coverage I soon began receiving, but it even opened the door to quite friendly treatment from numerous members of the organized Jewish community itself, as they discovered and read my article without any prior negative preconceptions. Most of these discussions focused directly upon the evidence of the sharp recent decline in Jewish academic ability and the resulting Jewish over-representation at elite universities, with a professor of Talmud Studies at Yeshiva University publishing a thousand-word column entitled “Endangered Jewish Genius” and NYU’s Berman Jewish Policy Center featuring my article on its website. Even the Israeli press took notice, with a columnist for Israel Hayom, Sheldon Adelson’s top-circulation newpaper, devoting a 1500 word column to my analysis, focusing especially upon my claims of Jewish over-representation.

But although prominent Jewish activists maintained their strict blockade against any discussion of my findings, the Jewish community has never lacked for extreme zealots, and some of these did eventually launch ferocious attacks on my work. However, these were fringe figures, so they were very slow off the mark in their responses and lacked significant credibility or media support. Therefore, their complaints had little impact, especially because they were largely self-refuting.

My fiercest academic critic was a certain cancer researcher named Janet Mertz, a fanatic feminist whose previous public efforts had been focused on vilifying and refuting former Harvard president Larry Summers for his mild but impolitic suggestion that perhaps men might be a bit better at math than women, a position she regarded as utter anathema. To that end, she had published a 10,000 word peer-reviewed analysis of decades worth of International Math Olympiad participants, which convincingly demonstrated that across almost every time period and country, roughly 95% of the best mathematicians had been male and only 5% female. But she rather bizarrely claimed that this conclusively proved that males and females had exactly equal mathematical aptitude, and then persuaded Science Daily and other gullible media outlets to publish headlined news stories touting her powerful debunking of male chauvinist mythology.

Mertz was equally zealous in her Jewish identitarianism, and she had invested enormous effort in exhaustively determining the exact fractional Jewish ancestry of all of America’s recent Math Olympians. As a consequence, she fiercely denounced as mere “guesswork” my own estimates of Jewish numbers, based as they were upon a much more casual inspection of surnames, supplemented by Weyl analysis. I think my response was quite effective…

As it happens, she and her co-authors had exhaustively researched the ethnicity of the 1988-2007 American Math Olympians in their aforementioned 2008 article, and through a combination of extensive biographical research and confidential personal interviews had determined the exact number of full-Jews and part-Jews among those 120 individuals, publishing the results in their Table 7 mentioned above, together with the broader racial categories.

Given that I had produced my own ethnic estimates for those same students based on perhaps five minutes of cursory surname analysis, while Mertz and her associates seemingly devoted five weeks of research to the same task, I readily acknowledge that her results are certain to be vastly more accurate than my own. Indeed, if we regard the Mertz figures as the “gold standard,” then comparing them with my own numbers provides a useful means of assessing the overall quality of my direct inspection technique, a technique that constituted a central pillar of my entire study. This allows us to decide whether my approach was indeed just the worthless “guesswork” that she alleges.

Her peer-reviewed journal article determined that the 120 American Math Olympians from 1988-2007 consisted of exactly 42 Asians, 26 Jews, and 52 non-Jewish whites. My crude surname estimate had been 44 Asians, 23 Jews, and 53 non-Jewish whites. Individual readers must decide for themselves whether these estimation errors seem so enormous as to totally invalidate my overall conclusions, but personally I would be quite satisfied if they remained in this range across the tens of thousands of surnames I had inspected throughout the rest of my paper.

Obviously, such estimation techniques may be completely incorrect for tiny handfuls of names, and should only be relied upon across substantial lists. For example, in one sentence of my 30,000 word article I stated that just 2 of the 78 names of Olympiad winners since 2000 seemed likely to be Jewish, and Mertz has repeatedly attacked me for this claim, now pointing out that I had missed the Hebrew name of winner “Oaz Nir.” She is correct, and since Nir was a double winner in 2000 and 2001, this single surname error on my part accounts for virtually the entire discrepancy between my own 1988-2007 Olympiad results and those produced by the exhaustive research undertaken by Mertz and her three academic co-authors…

The only reason that I or anyone else even became aware of Mertz’s harsh critique of my analysis was the heavy promotion she received by Andrew Gelman, a professor of Statistics at Columbia University and a prominent blogger, who thereby apparently hoped to undercut my findings without directly involving himself and thereby risking his own reputation. But once I informed him of some of her previous scholarly claims regarding gender issues, he seemed to abandon the project.

A close Mertz ally was a much younger woman named Nurit Baytch, whom I actually encountered in person. As I was giving my lecture at the University of Chicago Law School, I couldn’t help but notice a rather short young woman sitting in the front row, glaring at me with a glassy-eyed stare. I am hardly a clothes-horse, but she was dressed very strangely, and when she afterward came up to “confront me,” her mannerisms and style of speaking were quite odd as well. All in all, her appearance much reminded me of the photos of female Weather Underground terrorists of the late 1960s, most of whom had also come from a Jewish background.

Eventually, Ms. Baytch wrote a massive document purportedly refuting my Meritocracy analysis, and since it was never published anywhere, she posted it on the Internet as a GoogleDocs file, which countless Jewish activists have subsequently cited as a conclusive debunking of my claims. But all her tens of thousands of words of complex verbiage cannot get around the simple fact that only about 6% of America’s high-performing NMS students are Jewish and the remaining 94% are Gentile.

Her other line of criticism was to denounce my use of the Hillel numbers for Jewish enrollment, which she claimed were completely fraudulent, though without any evidence buttressing her claim. For decades, these Hillel figures had been accepted without reservation by all our leading media outlets and academic researchers, while I had actually treated them with some caution, perhaps being the first analyst to do so…

Similarly, nearly all our figures on Jewish enrollment were ultimately drawn from the estimates of Hillel, the national Jewish campus organization, and these are obviously approximate. However, the Hillel data is the best we possess for recent decades, and is regularly used by the New York Times and other prominent media outlets, while also serving as the basis for much of Karabel’s award-winning scholarship. Furthermore, so long as any latent bias in the data remained relatively constant, we could still correctly analyze changes over time…

Completely discarding as unreliable the tens of thousands of annual Jewish enrollment estimates compiled by Hillel over the last half-century would completely eliminate almost everything we know about the historical size and trajectory of the Jewish presence at thousands of American colleges, destroying the sociological studies of many scholars. But fortunately, it seems quite unlikely that the figures are as completely nonsensical as Baytch casually claimed.

These Hillel estimates have been very widely circulated within the Jewish community for decades and republished in Jewish magazines, being primarily intended to help guide strongly-identified Jewish families in selecting a college campus with a Jewish enrollment in the range they considered necessary. For most families, the cost of a college education is one of the largest investments they will ever make, and if for decades, tens or hundreds of thousands of committed Jewish families had picked their colleges based on the Hillel numbers only to discover that those figures had no connection to reality, surely there would have been a huge and angry backlash. But there is no record of any such complaints.

For many years, Harvard Hillel had regularly claimed that half or more of all the white undergraduates on the campus came from a Jewish background, and if this figure were wildly inaccurate, surely someone at Harvard Hillel would have eventually noticed that error and corrected it, with the same being true for Yale, Columbia, Penn, and numerous other colleges. Obviously, the criteria used to classify a student as Jewish are somewhat elastic, and we can easily suppose that the estimate generally includes part-Jews who in any way identified with that community, and may have been been somewhat exaggerated due to ethnic boosterism. But it seems highly unlikely that the figures would be utterly and demonstrably false.

These arguments based on general plausibility are strongly supported by quantitative evidence, and ironically enough, it is Baytch herself who provided it. Around the time she produced her lengthy and unpublished document, Harvard Hillel was claiming a Jewish undergraduate enrollment of 25%, and near the beginning of her text, she claimed that figure was obviously false by citing a Harvard Crimson survey indicating that only 9.5% of the Class of 2017 were Jewish. However, she failed to notice that the survey referred to being religiously Jewish, which is entirely different than being Jewish in the broader ethnic or ancestral sense, especially since Jews are among the most secular populations in American society and a full 42% of the Harvard students described their religious beliefs as atheist, agnostic, or “other.” Indeed, a worldwide survey finds that only 38% of (ethnic) Jews follow the Jewish religion. So if the Crimson survey were correct and Harvard Jews were typical in their religiosity, this would imply that 9.5% / 0.38 = 25%(!!!) of Harvard freshman were ethnically Jewish, exactly the figure claimed by Harvard Hillel. Fanatic ideologues such as Baytch sometimes have a tendency to score game-ending own-goals without even realizing what they have done.


In general, Jewish classification has a rather protean nature, with somewhat overlapping definitions based on religion, ethnicity, and full or partial ancestry, allowing it to be drastically expanded or contracted for various reasons. I suspect that Baytch’s confusion on this matter was entirely sincere, related to the obsessive tendencies she exhibited in real life. But others may employ these shifting definitions based upon more pragmatic considerations.

It is well known that for many decades the American Communist Party and especially its top leadership were overwhelmingly Jewish, even at a time when Jews were just 3% of the national population. But Jewish community leaders were not pleased with this situation, and they sometimes flatly denied the reality, insisting that there were actually no Jewish Communists whatsoever—how could there be, when Communists were hostile to all religious belief?

Similarly, my findings that Jews were apparently enrolled at Harvard and other elite colleges at a rate some 1,000% greater than white Gentiles of similar academic performance must surely have set off alarm bells within the leadership of Jewish activist organizations, who wondered how best to manage or conceal this potentially dangerous information. With a high-profile Asian discrimination lawsuit wending its way through the courts and my own unsuccessful 2016 attempt to run a slate of candidates for the Board of Harvard Overseers, the likelihood of growing public scrutiny surely loomed very large.

Baytch’s apparent confusion between having Jewish ancestry and practicing the Jewish religion would have been well-known in these circles, and offered an obvious solution. If Jewish numbers were suddenly narrowed to only include those students who claimed to follow Jewish religious practices, the flagrant over-representation of Jews on elite campuses would be greatly reduced. Meanwhile, large numbers of lesser-qualified applicants of Jewish ancestry but no religious belief could continue to gain unfair admission by writing essays about their “Holocaust grandmas” with America’s 98% Gentile population being none the wiser.

For whatever reason, Hillel seems to have recently adopted this practice, drastically reducing its published estimates of the Jewish enrollment at Harvard and other elite colleges, thus eliminating a glaring example of ethnic bias by a simple act of redefinition. For example, the Hillel website now claims that merely 11% of Harvard undergraduates are Jewish, a huge reduction from the previous 25% figure, and a total suspiciously close to the Crimson survey of a few years ago which counted Jews only based upon their religious beliefs. The Hillel figures for Yale, Princeton, and most other elite colleges have experienced equally sudden and huge declines.

One very strong clue regarding this new definition of Jewish enrollment comes from Caltech, an elite science and engineering school which is quite unlikely to attract Jews professing religious faith. According to the Hillel website, the Jewish enrollment is 0%, claiming that there absolutely no Jews on campus. Despite this, the website also describes the vibrant Jewish life at Caltech, with Caltech Jews involved in all sorts of local activities and projects. This absurd paradox is obviously due to the distinction between individuals who are Jewish by religion and those who are Jewish by ancestry.

As the 1999 media firestorm engulfing Princeton demonstrated, in the past even slight and gentle declines of Jewish enrollment over a fifteen year period would provoke massive controversy and angry denunciations from Jewish organizations. The absolute lack of any organized response to the recent sudden disappearance of nearly 60% of Harvard’s Jews certainly suggests that little more than a mere change in definition had occurred.


Many years ago as a young and naive undergraduate, I would usually spend my dinners discussing all sorts of political and policy issues with my fellow classmates in our Harvard dining hall.

Affirmative action was a regular topic of our conversations, and I would occasionally note how odd America was in that regard. No other example came to mind in which an ethnic group had established a legalized system of racial discrimination against its own members, while similar sorts of systems aimed at excluding or disadvantaging rival ethnic groups were all too common in world history.

As the decades went by, I gradually noticed that the huge and continuing increase in the enrollment of non-white and foreign students at our most elite universities had caused a complete collapse in the enrollment of white American Gentiles, but oddly enough, no similar reduction in Jewish numbers. It was well-known that Jewish activists had been the primary force behind the establishment of affirmative action and related policies in college admissions, and I began to wonder about their true motivation, whether conscious or unconscious.

Had the goal been the stated one, of providing educational opportunities to previously excluded groups? Or had that merely been the excuse used to advance a policy that eliminated the majority of white Gentiles, their primary ethnic competitors? With the Jewish population numbering merely 2%, there was an obvious limit as to how many elite college slots they themselves could possibly fill, but if enough other groups were also brought in, then Gentile numbers could easily be reduced to low levels, despite the fact that they constituted the bulk of the national population.

Asians represented an interesting test-case. As their numbers rapidly grew, white Gentiles were consequently pushed out, and this process was celebrated across the academic community. But by the late 1980s, Asian numbers had increased to such an extent that they inevitably began to impinge upon elite Jewish enrollment as well and future increases would surely worsen the situation. And at that point, the process suddenly halted, with Asian numbers being sharply reduced and thereafter permanently capped. The implications of this situation were already in the back of my mind when I published my 1998 Wall Street Journal column describing some of these striking racial facts.

The current high-profile trial in Boston is widely portrayed by the media as a conflict between Asian-American groups, whose educational interests suffer under the current subjective and opaque admissions system, and black and Hispanic groups, whose numbers might be sharply reduced under some proposed changes. Whites are largely portrayed as bystanders, with Harvard indicating that their numbers would scarcely shift even under drastic changes in admissions policy. But the term “white” encompasses both Jews and Gentiles, and thus may conceal more than it reveals.

The implications of my 2012 Meritocracy analysis are certainly well-known to all of the prominent participants and observers in the ongoing legal battle, but the fearsome power of the ADL and its media allies ensures that certain important aspects of the current situation are never subjected to widespread public discussion. Asian advocates rightly denounce the unfairness of the current elite academic admissions system, but remain absolutely mute about which American group actually controls the institutions involved.

Throughout the enormous media controversy surrounding the Harvard trial in Boston, all sides are doing their utmost to avoid noticing the 2% elephant in the room. And that fact provides the best proof of the tremendous size and power of that elephant in today’s American society.

Abolishing Tuition at Harvard University?

By early 2015 a couple of years had passed since the publication of my Meritocracy article. The last echoes had long since faded away, and I saw no likelihood for anything to happen in the real world during the immediate future.

In the wake of the considerable media coverage of my analysis, many dozens of Asian organizations had publicly denounced Harvard’s policies and a federal lawsuit had been filed challenging Harvard’s apparent racial discrimination against Asian-American applicants; but lawsuits moved slowly, so I assumed it would take many years until anything significant resulted. Meanwhile, I’d launched my new webzine, The Unz Review, but had been too preoccupied with software work to do any writing over the previous year.

Then in March 2015 I decided to finally publish my expose describing the true military career of Sen. John McCain, which I had discovered was so extremely divergent from the sugar-coated narrative promoted by his worshipful mainstream media scribes. Drawing upon the seminal research of Pulitzer Prize winner Sydney Schanberg, I emphasized that the closest analogy to the man widely regarded as our greatest national war hero was probably the notorious “Tokyo Rose,” who had been convicted of treason after World War II.

My piece did very well, receiving a great deal of readership and many favorable comments, including from the numerous individuals on my distribution list, and a week or two later, the New York Times invited me to contribute to a symposium they were organizing on how to improve American higher education, a natural topic for me given my previous Meritocracy analysis. My first thought was to submit a piece arguing that an element of randomness should be added to the admissions process, a suggestion that I had advanced in my Meritocracy article. But another contributor had already proposed that idea, so I switched to arguing that Harvard and the other elite, wealthy schools should abolish undergraduate tuition, another proposal I had previously made, even as I ridiculed them as tax-exempt hedge-funds.

Although Harvard is widely known as one of America’s oldest and most prestigious colleges, that public image is outdated. Over the last couple of decades, the university has transformed itself into one of the world’s largest hedge-funds, with the huge profits of its aggressively managed \$36 billion portfolio shielded from taxes because of the educational institution it continues to run as a charity off to one side.

The numbers tell the story. These days Harvard’s 6,600 undergraduates are charged annual tuition of \$44,000 per year, with substantial reductions for students from less wealthy families. So student tuition probably contributes much less than \$200 million to Harvard’s annual revenue. Meanwhile, the hedge-fund side of Harvard’s operations last year generated a \$5 billion return, an amount at least 25 times larger. If all of Harvard’s college students disappeared tomorrow, or attended classes without paying a dime, the financial impact on Harvard, Inc. would be completely negligible.

But although those tuition dollars mean almost nothing to Harvard, they are surely a daunting barrier and burden to almost any American family. An admissions process is flawed when a four-year total price tag approaching \$250,000 probably deters many students from even applying.

Harvard claims to provide generous assistance, heavily discounting its nominal list price for many students from middle class or impoverished backgrounds. But the intrusive financial disclosures required by Harvard’s financial aid bureaucracy may be a source of confusion or shame to many working-class households. I also wonder how many lower-income families unfamiliar with our elite college system see such huge costs and automatically assume that Harvard is only open to the very rich.

Meanwhile, even some upper-middle-class parents — who are charged closer to full freight — must wonder if they can afford paying close to a quarter million dollars for a Harvard diploma.

Harvard’s enormous hedge-fund operation has avoided billions of dollars in government taxes. In exchange for this continuing tax benefit, Harvard should abolish all tuition for its undergraduates.

The announcement of a free Harvard education would capture the world’s imagination and draw a vastly broader and more diverse applicant pool, including many high-ability students who had previously limited their aim to their local state college.

Furthermore, everything I’ve said about Harvard applies equally well to most of America’s other top universities including Yale, Princeton and Stanford, which have also become huge untaxed hedge-funds that charge exorbitant tuition. They could just as easily provide free college educations to their students at little financial cost and great social benefit.

In recent decades a greater and greater fraction of our financial, media and political elites have been drawn from among the graduates of a small handful of our top colleges, whose enrollments are enormously skewed toward the wealthy and the well-connected. Having these colleges eliminate their tuition would be an important step toward reversing this unhealthy American polarization.

The reaction of the Times readership to my proposal was very positive and gratifying, and the idea began to play around in my head with increased seriousness.

For many years I’d been convinced that it made absolutely no financial sense for Harvard to charge tuition, and if the world’s most famous university took the radical step of abolishing such fees, the impact upon its rivals and lesser counterparts would be enormous. America’s hugely corrupt and bloated higher education sector would be greatly transformed for the better, with tremendous long-term consequences. If only Harvard President Drew Faust were daring enough to take such a bold step, she would instantly be proclaimed a global academic icon, probably becoming the most famous educator in modern world history. It seemed such a great pity that there was absolutely no chance she would ever consider taking such necessary and forceful action.

Then a couple of weeks later I received my annual ballots for the Harvard Board of Overseers, and it suddenly struck me that perhaps I could try to grasp the brass ring myself.

Although Harvard’s Board of Overseers possesses little legal power, it holds considerable prestige and authority, with eight of the university’s most distinguished and influential alumni annually nominated by the Harvard Alumni Association for the five open seats. Each year, the ballot statements of the nominated candidates were invariably total pablum, filled with vague promises to do their best to support their beloved alma mater, and although I almost always returned the mail-in ballot with my five marked choices, my selections were usually close to random.

However, in 1989 something quite different had happened. Overseer candidates could also be nominated by petition signatures, and a group of anti-Apartheid activists had placed several individuals on the ballot running on the platform that Harvard’s endowment should divest from all corporations doing business with white minority-ruled South Africa. Although Overseers had no authority over investment decisions and Harvard’s administrators and financial managers had strongly criticized the effort, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and a couple of other candidates had won, and the following year Harvard had begun divesting, soon followed by several other elite universities. In effect, the Overseer vote had functioned as a popular referendum of the entire Harvard community, the 300,000 or so individuals who held graduate or undergraduate degrees.

I realized that I could use the same methods to enact my proposals. If I organized a full slate of candidates and most or all of them won, the world’s wealthiest and most influential university might feel enormous pressure to implement our campaign proposals, and would probably do so. Such a strategy seemed breathtakingly bold, but it might succeed.

It was now late April and the Overseer nominations opened near the end of the year, so I began planning the necessary steps, keeping the idea entirely to myself to avoid the disruption of early attention.

I decided that the platform of our slate of candidates would focus upon two of the key issues at the heart of my Meritocracy critique. We would propose that Harvard provide greater transparency in its admissions process, thereby allowing a closer investigation of likely anti-Asian discrimination, and we would also ask for the immediate abolition of undergraduate tuition.

I believed that these issues would probably attract a great deal of media coverage, and their enormous popularity might easily carry our slate to victory. After all, something like 20% of the potential Harvard voters were themselves Asian, and anti-Asian discrimination had become a hot topic over the last few years, so many or most of them might give us their votes. Four years of Harvard undergraduate tuition now totaled around \$180,000, and eliminating it would be a very tempting idea both for the families of current students and those who might attend in the future. I began asking a few of my friends whether they thought people would be willing to check a simple box on a piece of paper if it might save them almost \$200,000, and although most of them thought it was some sort of strange, trick question, they generally said yes.

With a little effort, I came up with a descriptive name for the project—the “Free Harvard/Fair Harvard” campaign—simple and easy for people to remember, and I later produced a reasonably attractive logo. As a single unified slate of five candidates, we would benefit from the concentrated votes of our adherents, while our opponents would have their votes spread out over the eight regular nominees. No one had ever tried anything like this in Harvard’s nearly 300 year history, so success was far from certain, but I felt that under the right circumstances our chances would be pretty good.


As my Times column had emphasized, the possible impact of the project might extend far beyond Harvard. A victory would place enormous pressure upon some of the other wealthy, top-elite universities such as Yale, Princeton, and Stanford to take similar steps, and if they did, a tidal wave might begin sweeping across American higher education, transforming both admissions and tuition policies. The changes would be greater than anything that had happened to American universities in at least two or three generations, perhaps even a century or more. My original Meritocracy article had sharply criticized the pernicious social consequences of our existing system:

But given such massive social and economic value now concentrated in a Harvard or Yale degree, the tiny handful of elite admissions gatekeepers enjoy enormous, almost unprecedented power to shape the leadership of our society by allocating their supply of thick envelopes. Even billionaires, media barons, and U.S. Senators may weigh their words and actions more carefully as their children approach college age. And if such power is used to select our future elites in a corrupt manner, perhaps the inevitable result is the selection of corrupt elites, with terrible consequences for America.

I now envisioned a means of rectifying that system, like a skilled jeweler in a Hollywood movie splitting a rough diamond by a single hard tap in exactly the right location.

Later that year, the influential Economist fortuitously published a 2,800 word briefing on anti-Asian discrimination in elite admissions, and its update of my own analysis demonstrated that little had changed in three years. I dropped notes about this unfortunate situation to the circle of individuals who shared my views, arguing that Harvard and the Ivies were “extremely tough nuts to crack.”

As I’ve always told people, our elite universities represent an *enormous* concentration of soft power, and they’re very entrenched on their admissions policies. I doubt even a \$100M advertising campaign or a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling would really change things. Frankly, I’m not sure there’s any single individual on the planet who deploys the influence to overcome their determined resistance. If Obama or George Soros or the Pope got into a wrestling match with Harvard and the Ivies, I’d certainly put my money on the latter.

But I cryptically added that I had worked out a political/media strategy that might suddenly change everything.

Indeed, given the broader influence of our elite universities, success in my planned venture might be enormously consequential in ways even extending far beyond America’s university system. Although I obviously never discussed those broader implications at the time, a couple of years ago I sketched out the grandiose scenario that had soon entered my thoughts:

(1) A victory for our slate would probably have put us on the front-pages of half the world’s newspapers, giving us gigantic media momentum and putting enormous pressure on Harvard.

(2) One or two people who knew President Faust fairly well had told me she wasn’t very tough-minded, and since abolishing undergrad tuition required such a trivial amount of endowment spending, she and the Board would have almost certainly folded immediately and done so.

(3) I doubt that even 5% of the Harvard community who heard of our campaign regarded our free tuition proposal as “real.” But suddenly the next year their tuition would have gone from \$50,000 to ZERO! All the 6,500 students and their (affluent, influential) parents would have been utterly flabbergasted, and they would have then backed us on anything else. Our political capital at Harvard would have been almost unlimited.

(4) Immediately thereafter, copycat campaigns would have been launched to zero out tuition at Princeton, Yale, and Stanford, while MIT and Caltech would have also gone along, plus maybe a few other sufficiently-wealthy universities. With Harvard having set the example, I assume most of these other campaigns would have quickly succeeded. And our political capital would then have extended into most of America’s most elite universities.

(5) To nail down our effective control of Harvard, we could have sponsored additional Harvard slates the following couple of years, while also blowing the lid on the Asian Quota and other admissions bias and academic corruption issues, helping to organize additional copycat campaigns at the other elite colleges. Maybe we would then also eliminate tuition at some of the graduate schools or do various other worthwhile things.

(6) Taken together, I’d say that Harvard and the Ivies constitute one of the world’s greatest reservoirs of soft power, and tens of thousands of their students and families would owe us billions in financial savings, giving us substantial control over all that soft power, which we could then deploy for all sorts of other useful national and international projects.

A Star Wars metaphor had always been in the back of my mind: a five-man commando team sneaks into the Death Star and seizes its control room, then uses the Death Star to subdue the entire Galactic Empire…

Preparing the Free Harvard/Fair Harvard Campaign

Given those visions of the sweeping possible impact and with half a year to go until the new Overseers nominations opened, I spent a few months finishing up some of my existing software work, and then began carefully laying the groundwork for a strong Harvard campaign.

As the organizer of the effort, I decided I needed to burnish my own academic credentials as much as possible. I was on quite friendly terms with a couple of Harvard’s most eminent scholars, who had been very impressed by my Meritocracy analysis. They had occasionally shared their negative views of the entrenched administrative bureaucracy that actually ran their university, which sometimes favored policies harmful to educational excellence and research scholarship. Under the right circumstances, I even hoped they might consider lending their public support to our redemptive effort, and the last thing I wanted was to be portrayed by our opponents as a philistine interloper from the business world seeking to wrangle a Harvard seat for reasons of personal aggrandizement.

Although my scholarly credentials had once been strong, I had defected from the academic community more than a quarter century earlier, and lacked the advanced degrees or publication history that many might consider appropriate for someone seeking to influence such an august intellectual institution. I’d been on friendly terms for years with a number of highly-regarded writers and scholars who respected my work, but I felt I needed to provide that evidence in a weighty and concrete form, so I decided that publishing a collection of my essays might be the best means of accomplishing this.

Obviously, I lacked the substantial visibility to attract the interest of a mainstream publishing house and I anyway soon discovered that the production lead-times would be far too long. But the costs and difficulty of self-publishing a volume had greatly diminished, and with a few months of effort I was able to put together an attractive hard-cover edition of my substantial essays, which ran over 500,000 words and would be available on Amazon. Once the proof copy was ready, I managed to secure some flattering cover-blurbs from individuals whom I greatly respected:

With high intelligence, common sense, and advanced statistical skills, presented transparently and accessibly, Ron Unz has for decades been addressing key issues in a rapidly changing America, enlightening us on the implications and effects of bilingual programs in American schools, clarifying the issues around crime and immigration so often distorted in political and popular discussion, placing the question of an increased minimum wage effectively on the national agenda, and addressing most provocatively the issue of affirmative action and admission to selective colleges and universities, revealing some aspects of this ever disputed question that have never been noted or discussed publicly before. He is one of our most valuable discussants and analysts of public issues.—Nathan Glazer, Professor Emeritus of Education and Sociology, Harvard University, and author of Beyond the Melting Pot.

Few people on the planet are smarter than Ron Unz or have more intellectual curiosity. This fascinating and provocative collection of essays explores a remarkable range of topics, many of them high profile, some of them arcane. Unz’s analysis is always serious and invariably challenges prevailing wisdoms, which is to say there are a lot of controversial arguments in this book. No one is likely to agree with every one of his conclusions, but we would be better off if there were more people like Ron Unz among us. —John J. Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and author of The Israel Lobby.

Ron Unz is a brilliant essayist. His interests run from ancient history and black holes to contemporary issues like racial quotas and the minimum wage. He moves swiftly to the heart of a subject with cogent analysis and limpid argument. This collection of essays sparkles with unexpected gems ranging from critiques of the mainstream press to appreciation of dissenters from common wisdom such as General Bill Odom and Alexander Cockburn. In every paragraph of these essays the reader enjoys a penetrating intelligence at work. —Nicholas Wade, former writer and editor for The New York Times, and author of Before the Dawn, The Faith Instinct, and A Troublesome Inheritance.

Over the past two decades as an original thinker and writer Ron Unz has tackled complex and significant subjects such as immigration, education, economics, race, and the press, pushing aside common assumptions. This book brings together in one volume these pieces from a variety of publications. Unlike other essayists on culture and politics, Unz shreds ideology and relies on statistical data to support his often groundbreaking ideas, such as his 2010 essay on “The Myth of Hispanic Crime.” And his 2014 efforts to put a \$12 an hour minimum wage bill before California voters is an example of how the action of an individual can draw public attention to an issue he believes is necessary for the economic health of the Republic. Anyone reading this book will learn a great deal about America from an incisive writer and scholar who has peeled back layers of conventional wisdom to expose the truth on issues of prime importance today. —Sydney Schanberg, Pulitzer-Prize winning former reporter and editor for The New York Times, whose story inspired the 1984 film The Killing Fields.

Provocative and fearless, sometimes infuriating, and quite often, persuasive. And when American’s low-wage workers get their coming big raise, the apostate conservative Ron Unz will deserve a decent share of the credit. —Prof. James K. Galbraith, author of The End of Normal and Welcome to the Poisoned Chalice: The Destruction of Greece and the Future of Europe.


As I had in my other political ventures, I intended to rely heavily upon the media for success in my Harvard undertaking, and I felt reasonably confident in that regard.

I expected that a public campaign demanding that Harvard cut its annual tuition from \$45,000 to zero would certainly attract a great deal of attention, as would the revelation that the financial impact upon the university would be negligible. My 2012 column denouncing the school as a tax-exempt hedge-fund in disguise had been widely circulated within the media.

I’d produced a striking graph at the time demonstrating the apparent anti-Asian bias in Ivy League admissions, which was republished by the Times and widely circulated online, serving as the visual cutting-edge of my 26,000 word article.

So now I designed an equally striking chart showing the gigantic imbalance between Harvard’s investment income and its tuition revenue, suggesting that it was more of a hedge-fund than an institution of higher education, and could eliminate tuition with negligible financial impact. This would highlight the summary explanation of our “Free Harvard” campaign:

Harvard Should Be Free

As Harvard Overseers we would demand the immediate elimination of all tuition for undergraduates since the revenue generated is negligible compared to the investment income of the endowment.

Over the last quarter century, Harvard University has transformed itself into one of the world’s largest hedge-funds, with the huge profits of its aggressively managed \$38 billion portfolio shielded from taxes because of the educational institution it continues to run as a charity off to one side.

The numbers tell the story. Each year, the investment income the university receives from its private equity and securities holdings averages some twenty-five times larger than the net tuition revenue from its 6,600 undergraduate students. Under such circumstances, continuing to charge tuition of up to \$180,000 for four years of college education is unconscionable.

Admittedly, Harvard does exempt from tuition families earning less than \$65,000 per year and provides some financial aid to families with incomes up to \$150,000. But relatively few less affluent families even bother applying because they assume that a Harvard education is reserved only for the rich.

If Harvard abolished tuition the announcement would reach around the world, and soon nearly every family in America would be aware that a Harvard education was now free. Academically-successful students from all walks of life would suddenly begin to consider the possibility of attending Harvard. Other very wealthy and elite colleges such Yale, Princeton, and Stanford would be forced to follow Harvard’s example and also abolition tuition. There would be considerable pressure on all our public colleges and universities to trim their bloated administrative costs and drastically cut their tuition.

A closely related chart showed that the same situation existed at Harvard’s closest peers of Yale, Princeton, and Stanford.

Meanwhile, my previous chart played a similar role in the summary of the “Fair Harvard” goals:

Harvard Should Be Fair

As Harvard Overseers we would demand far greater transparency in the admissions process, which today is opaque and therefore subject to hidden favoritism and abuse.

In his book The Price of Admission Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Daniel Golden has described the strong evidence of corrupt admissions practices at Harvard and other elite universities, with the children of the wealthy and the powerful regularly granted admission over the more able and higher-achieving children of ordinary American families. In some cases, millions of dollars may have been paid to purchase an admissions slot for an undeserving applicant.

A nation that selects its elites by corrupt means will produce corrupt elites. These abuses must end.

Also, just as their predecessors of the 1920s always denied the existence of “Jewish quotas,” top officials at Harvard, Yale, Princeton and the other Ivy League schools today strongly deny the existence of “Asian quotas.” But there exists powerful statistical evidence to the contrary.

During the last twenty-five years, the size of America’s college-age Asian population has more than doubled but there has been no corresponding increase in the number of Asians admitted to Harvard, with the federally-reported statistics actually showing a decline. Thus, the relative percentage of the Asian-American population attending Harvard has dropped by over 50 percent, while the percentage of whites has changed little. A very similar pattern of declining Asian enrollment has occurred at most of the other Ivy League universities, while at meritocratic Caltech, Asian enrollment has increased along with the size of the Asian-American population.

Racial discrimination against Asian-American students has no place at Harvard University and must end.


Just a year earlier I’d successfully used the vehicle of my California minimum wage initiative to focus a great deal of public attention upon that policy issue, shifting the entire national consensus as a consequence; and although my measure had failed to reach the ballot, my media credibility was consequently far stronger than it had been in at least a decade.

From an ideological perspective, although most liberals now generally supported affirmative action, they also somewhat inconsistently tended to oppose anti-Asian discrimination, and they certainly favored greater transparency in admissions, which was all we would be demanding. So I expected that we would be operating within a reasonably receptive media environment.

After I’d published my Meritocracy article in 2012, the New York Times had been very sympathetic to the Asian Quota analysis I provided, quickly organizing an on-line symposium on the subject, while running an opinion column by an Asian-American academic in the print edition, and much of the rest of the mainstream media had also been quite friendly. Forcing ultra-wealthy Harvard to abolish tuition would surely be a dream come true for progressives. Meanwhile conservatives would be even more supportive of both of our central planks, given their distaste for racial preferences in admissions policy and their intense hostility to all the elite universities, which they would love to see taken down a peg or two.

Moreover, the two elements of my platform—reducing anti-Asian bias in Harvard admissions and eliminating undergraduate tuition—had both been proposed in columns I had published in the Times, and these had now prompted my planned effort. Surely, the editors of the Gray Lady would be thrilled at the possibility that the political proposals they had recently presented on their opinion pages might so quickly be implemented at the world’s most prestigious university, giving them a proprietary interest in my project. And with the Times in support, I would have the wind at my back, with the rest of the media surely following in its wake.

Recruiting a Slate of Overseer Candidates

Finalizing my book ultimately absorbed much more time and effort than I had expected, but by mid-November I cautiously contacted the university to determine the exact mechanics of qualifying for the Harvard ballot, which I discovered was straightforward if a little unusual. Based upon recent turn-out, merely 201 valid signatures were required from among the 320,000 holders of a Harvard degree, but these had to be recorded upon specially watermarked petitions printed and distributed by the university itself, and then returned by February 1st. My California initiatives had required many hundreds of thousands of voter signatures to reach the ballot, so this seemed an easy burden by comparison. I wasn’t exactly sure how the Harvard administration would react to the potential challenge I was organizing, so I merely said I was thinking of running for the Board of Overseers and asked them to provide the necessary petitions, which they soon sent me.

Throughout the year, I had also been giving careful thought to which individuals I would recruit as members of my slate, and had put together a list of eight or ten good prospects, mostly focusing upon prominent academics with whom I was friendly. I felt confident that these would yield the four names that I needed once I explained my plan.

By early December, I was ready to launch my project and began taking a few others into my confidence, including both prospective members of my slate and other individuals whose opinions I respected. Nearly all of them were shocked at the audacity of my proposal but most agreed with me about its potential impact. At the very least, they thought it might generate some attention for the Asian Quotas issue, in which many of them had been directly involved.

Some of these highly-placed academics personally moved in the circle of Harvard’s president, and they thought that my strategy had an excellent possibility of success. If we won, Harvard’s leadership would probably fold rather than trying to strongly resist our proposals on the tuition or the transparency issues.

Unfortunately, recruiting my prospective candidates proved much more difficult than I had expected. Economist James Galbraith had given an early boost to my minimum wage project a few years earlier and he was the first individual whom I solicited; but he was totally preoccupied with the global debt crisis, traveling to speak at numerous international conferences and working with Greece’s high-profile finance minister, a long-time friend. Yale Law Prof. Amy Chua—of Asian Tiger Mom fame—had been quite impressed with my original Meritocracy article, inviting me to her university for a couple of speaking engagements; but she had already come under harsh ideological attacks, and wanted to avoid further controversy. A prominent Harvard professor begged off on the reasonable grounds that as a faculty member, he had an obvious conflict of interest.

The other names on my list also proved much less willing than I had expected, perhaps viewing my daring plan as a quixotic, hopeless effort. Admittedly, it sounded like an insane undertaking. Could the world’s wealthiest, most powerful university, possessing an ocean of soft power, \$38 billion of financial assets, and 16,000 employees fall victim to a sudden political coup d’etat carried out by five private individuals, backed by no one except themselves?

So as the days of December passed, I was still struggling to put together a reasonably strong slate of candidates. Many of the individuals I had contacted were involved in the Asian Quotas controversy, and some of them put me in touch with others they knew who had a strong Harvard connection. Several excellent academics and policy experts seemed interested, but they were already involved in the Harvard lawsuit, and they ultimately decided that their election to the Board of Overseers would represent an obvious conflict of interest.

Investigative journalist Daniel Golden had won a Pulitzer Prize for his work on the corrupt nature of university admissions, and his 2006 classic The Price of Admission had been very widely and favorably reviewed, serving as one of my own core research texts. He seemed an absolutely ideal choice, but he balked. I later heard that his influential book had actually generated many hard feelings at his Harvard alma mater, and he had spent years working to repair those relationships, so he obviously didn’t want to reopen old wounds.

By mid-December, I had finally managed to secure three other names for the slate, and was desperately seeking a fourth, when I suddenly realized that progressive icon Ralph Nader had been a graduate of Harvard Law. I’d worked closely with him during my minimum wage effort, and quickly tried to contact him. He didn’t use email and was spending a week as a featured speaker on the Nation‘s annual fund-raising cruise, but when he returned I finally managed to reach him in a phone call and explain the situation. Being in his eighties, he was initially quite reluctant to participate, concerned about the number of meetings he might have to attend or the other possible burdens, but over a period of about two weeks, I gradually won him over, and by early January America’s legendary consumer advocate had agreed to lead our Free Harvard/Fair Harvard slate.

So despite the unexpected difficulties in recruiting candidates, our ultimate slate was far stronger than I had originally expected.

A Slate of Five Candidates for the Harvard Board of Overseers

Ralph Nader – Citizen Activist and Author, The Center for the Study of Responsive Law. B.A. Princeton University, LL.B., Harvard Law. During the fifty years since the publication of his landmark 1965 book Unsafe at Any Speed, Mr. Nader has regularly been ranked as one of the most influential figures in American society, challenging large institutions on issues of administrative transparency, financial propriety, and consumer protection. Throughout his long career, he has established or inspired dozens of nonprofit organizations, including Public Citizen and the state PIRGs, and spurred the passage of major federal consumer laws such as the Pure Food and Drug Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Freedom of Information Act, while helping to launch regulatory agencies such as OSHA and the EPA.

Ron Unz – Software Developer and Chairman, and Publisher of The Unz Review. A.B., Harvard College; graduate degrees from Cambridge University and Stanford University. A past first-place winner of the Intel/Westinghouse Science Talent Search, Mr. Unz was the co-founder of Wall Street Analytics, Inc., has published widely on public policy issues, including the admissions and financial malfeasance of many of our elite universities, and has organized and led several successful initiative campaigns.

Stephen Hsu – Professor of Theoretical Physics and Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies, Michigan State University. B.S., Caltech; Ph.D. U.C. Berkeley; Junior Fellow, Harvard Society of Fellows. The co-founder of two software companies, Prof. Hsu serves as an advisor to BGI (formerly Beijing Genomics Institute) and has written widely on public policy issues, including the indications of anti-Asian discrimination at elite universities.

Stuart Taylor, Jr. – Author, journalist, lawyer, and Brookings Institution nonresident senior fellow. A.B., Princeton University; J.D., Harvard Law. During 35 years as a prominent writer, Mr. Taylor covered legal affairs and then the Supreme Court from 1980-1988 for The New York Times and has since written commentary for American Lawyer Media, National Journal, Newsweek, and other publications, with many broadcast appearances and journalism awards. He has co-authored two critically acclaimed books, Mismatch and Until Proven Innocent.

Lee C. Cheng – Chief Legal Officer, Newegg, Inc. A.B., Harvard College; J.D., Boalt Hall School of Law, UC Berkeley. A co-founder of the Asian-American Legal Foundation, Mr. Cheng has been actively involved for over two decades in issues related to anti-Asian discrimination at secondary schools, colleges, and universities.

Launching Our Campaign in the New York Times

During this same period, I had been preparing my all-important effort to secure the necessary media coverage that would make or break my project. As always, the New York Times constituted the top of the media food chain, and I planned to offer them an exclusive in hopes of attracting their interest. Unfortunately, I couldn’t begin approaching them until at least most of my slate of candidates had been selected and once I did the editor I contacted was a little dubious that their newsdesk would be interested. But after a few blind alleys I finally managed to get in touch with their higher education reporter just before the end of the year, dropping her a note with a summary of the project and then speaking with her on the phone.

She was an experienced, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, and very properly began our lengthy conversation with a rigorous and highly skeptical attitude. She carefully questioned me on some of the very surprising claims I was making, especially with regard to the astonishing size of Harvard’s investment income relative to its tuition revenue, as indicated in the shocking chart I had sent her. But all my factual information checked out, and I also immediately fedexed her for New Year’s Eve delivery a thick package of documentation and additional background information, including hard copies of my many articles. Several of my fellow slate-members had been very actively involved in the Asian Quota issue, and over the next few days she spoke to them at length, with everything going very well. Stuart Taylor Jr. had spent eight years covering the Supreme Court for the Times itself prior to her own arrival, and had a great deal of legal expertise on the admissions issues. We continued to exchange emails as her story came together, just after New Year’s day.

I had given her the names of the four members already on our slate and mentioned that I was still pursuing a fifth, a potentially big name. She told me that her editor was enthusiastic about the story, but probably would be reluctant to run it until the slate was finalized, so I took her into my confidence and revealed that I’d spent nearly two weeks talking with Ralph Nader, whom I hoped to recruit, but otherwise would have to go with a fall-back option. As I explained at the beginning of my note:

The fifth person I’ve been hoping to get is Ralph Nader. Not only is he a very Big Name, but I thought the issue was ideal for him, since he’s spent his entire career focusing on issues of transparency, institutional malfeasance, and reducing the absurd costs imposed upon consumers by self-interested bureaucracies, while he’s also a graduate of Harvard Law. Having him lead the campaign that might abolish tuition for Harvard students and perhaps produce similar results at many other colleges would be a great capstone to his half-century long career.

I had been desperately juggling all these balls in the air for several weeks, but fortunately the next morning Nader agreed to join our slate, and I immediately passed on the good news to Times reporter. She quickly contacted him by phone to confirm his participation, got a few useful quotes, and finished her article. She told me it was scheduled to run the next day, but just as I had hoped, Nader’s involvement immediately made it a much bigger story, and after showing it to her editor, she mentioned that she was “trying to levitate it onto page 1,” which is where it ultimately appeared.

None of my previous political campaigns had ever been launched with a front-page story in the Times, the sort of public prominence normally reserved for a major presidential initiative, and I was obviously thrilled. So despite all the delays and difficulties along the way, my media efforts had culminated in a far greater success than I had ever hoped or expected.


But that very success may have set the stage for the ultimate failure of my project.

Up to this point in time, everything at the Times had gone almost ideally well, and with a strong front-page launch I believed our media momentum would be enormous. Sen. Bernie Sanders, then near the height of his political influence, had made free public college tuition one of his leading issues, and our campaign to do the same at America’s most elite private university would surely attract his support and the multitude of his followers. I expected Harvard’s resistance to crumble before the battering-ram of public attention that would be unleashed.

But instead of appearing in the next day’s paper, I received a lengthy and detailed follow-up note apparently based upon questions forcefully raised by the Times editors. Was our project merely a disguised attack upon affirmative action, as suggested by the public views of several of our slate members? Wasn’t Lee Cheng the co-founder of an organization that had filed an amicus brief in the lawsuit against Harvard? Was the whole campaign merely a trick, intended to allow an “anti-affirmative-action slate” to ride to victory on the back of a wildly popular (and “less contentious”) proposal to abolition tuition at Harvard? So what “EXACTLY” did we mean by our “Fair Harvard” proposal?

I responded at considerable length, and I think I made a very persuasive case, partly because everything I said was entirely true and candid. For example, quite a number of the slate candidates I had unsuccessfully approached were decidedly on the Left and strong supporters of affirmative action, so the ultimate skew of our group was partly due to chance circumstances. Indeed, although all the members of our slate were strongly opposed to “Asian Quotas,” most of them considered themselves liberals, and claimed to actually favor “affirmative action” as they chose to define the notoriously ambiguous term. But the pushback and questioning continued, clearly prompted by heavy editorial pressure.

More than a week later, the article still hadn’t run in the Times, and I began to assume it had been killed, only to be very pleasantly surprised when it did finally appear on January 15th, Page One as promised. But the skew of the story seemed very different from what I think the original version had been. Although some attention was given to the radical tuition proposal, the focus was much more on affirmative action, and the possible connection to the ongoing conservative attempt to eliminate those programs, including by means of the lawsuit against Harvard likely to reach the Supreme Court. Inclusion of all the paragraphs focusing on the conservative drive against “racial preferences” had obviously required cuts elsewhere, and the striking figures I had provided on the enormous size of Harvard’s annual investment income relative to its tuition revenue had been left on the cutting-room floor.

The piece closed with the ironic detail that although some of the anti-Apartheid Overseer candidates of the early 1990s had won, most had lost, notably including the 1991 candidacy of a certain Barack H. Obama.

The overall tone was one of heavy suspicion that—despite Nader’s presence—-our project was part of a right-wing plot to destroy affirmative action. Just two years earlier, I had successfully orchestrated a nationwide drive to raise the minimum wage, as heavily covered in the Times itself, but that went unmentioned; instead I was identified as the leader of the anti-bilingual education campaigns of the late 1990s. Liberals or progressives reading the article might be intrigued by the tuition issue, but left extremely suspicious of the other elements, fearing they would be falling for a right-wing plot. The story seemed to present a flashing red warning sign to mainstream media editors and journalists, and as a result the huge tidal wave of political and media momentum I had counted upon never appeared. Indeed, there were far fewer follow-on stories than the launch of my minimum wage initiative had generated in late 2013, even though the Times had only run it on the inside pages.

Although I have no window into the editorial workings of the Times, I do have my suspicions. Stories slated to run on the front-page may come to the notice of top editors while lesser articles do not, and I think this may explain the striking shift in the apparent editorial sentiments that occurred around that point. Back in late 2012, my Asian Quota findings had been treated in very sympathetic fashion on the editorial side of the Times, and as late as April 2014, the paper had run a lengthy and reasonably respectful profile of the Republican architect of the subsequent Asian Quotas lawsuits against affirmative action. But in May 2014, Executive Editor Jill Abramson had suddenly been fired by the publisher, replaced by Dean Baquet, the first black to hold that position and himself an important beneficiary of an Ivy League college affirmative action program. All things considered, it wouldn’t surprise me if editorial intervention from a very high level had helped transform the story originally scheduled to run on Jan. 5th into the one that eventually appeared on Jan. 15th. Perhaps if a certain particular individual had been on vacation that week or preoccupied with other matters, the course of our campaign—and American higher education—might have followed a very different trajectory.

Although I was obviously disappointed with the negative tone of the Times story, I couldn’t blame the journalist given the strong pressure she had clearly faced from her editors. But since she might be writing future stories on our project, I wanted to completely dispel any suspicion that I’d somehow secretly orchestrated my efforts with the groups suing Harvard or other activists opposed to affirmative action. So I dropped her a lengthy note providing a very detailed and candid account of how my campaign had come about:

After an utterly exhausting Thursday, I woke up to an extremely pleasant surprise this morning: your great story on the front page of my NYT! I’m an old-fashioned print guy myself, and for me a news story isn’t “real” unless it’s in my morning newspapers and isn’t “big” unless its on the front page of the NYT or maybe the WSJ. Frankly, given all the delays and push-back you’d gotten from your editors, I’d written off the possibility of making page one. All’s well that ends well!

BTW, in reading the piece over again more carefully, I’d noticed quite a bit of discussion of the relationship between this effort and some of the ongoing lawsuits regarding admissions, including that case currently before the Supreme Court. Since none of this had come up in our original phone discussion, I should probably clarify the whole history in exhaustive detail for you.

(1) I’d been closely following all these admissions issues since the 1970s and over the years had written quite a lot about the topic. However, about 15-20 years ago I gradually decided that probably nothing would ever happen, and stopped paying any attention to the issue. I vaguely know that during the 2000s there were several different lawsuits that went up and down the courts, sometimes even reaching SCOTUS, but their details are a little fuzzy to me and all my information tended to come from the occasional articles in the NYT or my other newspapers.

(2) A few years ago, I was casually chatting with a former (white) classmate of mine at a Harvard reunion who did quite a lot of alumni interviewing in LA and he told me he was really shocked at some of the ultra-high-quality Asian-Am applicants which Harvard rejected. Then perhaps a year later, I happened to be reading Steve Hsu’s blog in which he had a number of posts relating to alleged anti-Asian discrimination at elite universities, which I thought seemed likely to be true. I mentioned to him at the time that I suspected I could find a statistical approach that might produce a real “Smoking Gun” on the matter and hoped to get around to looking into the subject when I was less busy with my software work. About a year later, I finally had some time, and sure enough the “Smoking Gun” popped right up, which persuaded me to write my 30,000 word Meritocracy article.

(3) The Meritocracy article and my “Asian Quota” graph got lots of attention, and sparked an NYT Symposium on the topic, to which I contributed. That’s how I got to know several of the various Asian-Am activists and groups such as 80-20. (Lee Cheng I’d known slightly since the mid-1990s but had completely lost touch with him a decade or more before). Naturally, Harvard and the Ivies didn’t pay the slightest attention to any of these complaints, so I just went back to my other work, still assuming nothing would ever happen.

(4) Supposedly my “Asian Quota” graph and the NYT Symposium it inspired spent the next couple of years circulating among Asian-Am activists, including that group in CA that last year quickly got 100,000 online signatures to protest the attempted repeal of Prop. 209 and also those 64(?) Asian-Am orgs that filed a complaint against Harvard earlier this year and also that lawsuit. I was too busy with my software work to pay any attention to these events, and all I know about them is what I read in my morning newspapers, including the NYT.

(5) Earlier this year Nick Fox solicited a contribution from me for a symposium on improving higher ed. I originally suggested my piece focus on my radical “random admissions” proposal for Harvard and the Ivies, which he thought was fine, but someone named Barry Schwartz had already grabbed that idea so (very fortunately!) I went with my backup idea of free tuition at Harvard and the Ivies, which I’d previously proposed in a sidebar to my Meritocracy article three years before.

(6) When I distributed my NYT piece lots of people told me what a great idea it was and hoped there was some way I could get it actually implemented, including a top AFL-CIO official I’d gotten friendly with from my Minimum Wage campaign, especially since the endowment income had grown so absurdly large over the years. The whole notion of Harvard still charging tuition seemed so totally ridiculous I told them maybe something could actually be done about it, and starting vaguely thinking if there some possible way to put pressure on Harvard. Then, a few weeks later, I suddenly got my Overseer idea, possibly because I’d gotten my annual ballot mailed out from Harvard in April. The idea seemed like such an excellent one that I was kicking myself for not having thought of it years before. Naturally, I also added the Asian Quota issue, since I’d actually been writing about it much longer.

(7) The crucial part of any political campaign is media coverage, and the media won’t cover what isn’t “new”. So I vaguely dropped a note to Steve Hsu saying that I’d come up with a very clever political/media strategy to finally fix the Asian Quota problem, but wouldn’t be able to get around to working on it until the end of the year. And for the next eight months I kept my planned project entirely to myself while I was busy with my software work and various other things. People in the political world tend to gossip an enormous amount and if I mentioned it to anyone at all, such a simple and exciting idea would surely have spread like wildfire, probably prompting numerous different activists of all sorts of backgrounds and views to plan on putting together candidates for the Harvard Overseer ballot. Plus since everyone would be talking about it, it would no longer be newsworthy when I launched my own effort, and neither the NYT nor anyone else would bother covering it.

(8) So until mid-December absolutely no one in the world was aware of my plan, though a couple of weeks before I’d dropped notes to a number of Asian-Am activists I’d known saying I might have a new project in the works and checking whether they were still active at all in the issue (Lee Cheng was, but I never heard back from several others, so I guess they weren’t). I did the same with Ralph Nader and his top assistant, plus quite a number of other people whom I thought might make pretty good prospective Overseer candidates.

(9) For various reasons I got delayed, and whereas I’d hoped to start telling people my plan and putting together my slate in early December, I didn’t get around to it until a week or two later in mid-December. Also, whereas Harvard had previously had a mid-February turn-in date for petitions, this time they’d changed it to Feb 1st, which made me nervous. Plus I discovered that only Harvard-printed petitions could be used. On the other hand, the number of signatures in the past had generally been closer to 250, and this time it was 201, which was easier.

(10) I’ve done a lot of successful campaigns over the years and I have a very good reputation for political effectiveness. But when I began approaching my prospective Overseer candidates in mid-December, most of them thought that this particular project was just *too* audacious, and balked at having their names associated with something that seemed so utterly hopeless: Mighty Harvard, with its \$38 billion endowment and 100 PR professionals, falling to handful of people backed by no organization and recruited so near to the deadline. This was a disappointment, and I really had to scramble to somehow put together a slate of five solid candidates within the very tight timeline, made much more difficult by the Holidays. Also, Nader had been away for a week headlining the fundraising cruise of The Nation, and then was at his home in Connecticut, making things especially difficult with him, since he doesn’t use email or the Internet and never gives anyone his home phone or fax number. I also got in touch with the NYT towards the end of December, and Nick Fox passed me over to you.

(11) Fortunately, things ultimately worked out and I think we’re now in pretty good shape, especially given how much enthusiasm our signature drive seems to be getting. And if we do manage to get on the Overseer ballot—despite everything not at all a certainty—I feel quite confident we’ll win. And if we win, Mighty Harvard will quickly abolish tuition and (probably) increase the transparency of their admissions process.

(12) Finally, here’s a nice metaphor of mine you might appreciate. In the original Star Wars movie, there was that gigantic, invincible Death Star, totally invulnerable, except that if you dropped a hand-grenade down a particular exhaust-shaft, the entire moon-size space-fortress exploded. Harvard University is a seemingly invincible fortress, but I do think I’ve managed to locate the right exhaust-shaft, and so long as we can manage to drop 201 valid alumni signatures down that location in time, victory on all these seemingly impossible issues may well be ours.

Anyway, that’s the full saga of where this all came from. Partly I wrote this up just so I would have a nice future summary for myself.

Qualifying for the Ballot and Early Media Coverage

As a consequence of these developments, our petition drive was to become a horrific nightmare. Media coverage had been a central element of my planned campaign and on Jan. 5th it looked like we were about to be launched with the unrivaled cannon-shot of a front-page Times story, which I felt I needed to protect. But if we began our public petitioning drive and our supporters spread the word to their many contacts, other media outlets would surely hear about our project and probably begin running their own stories, perhaps risking the placement of the Times article or even its appearance. So I assumed that the article would run any day, and urged everyone to sit tight and wait for it to appear, even as the clock ticked down towards Harvard’s February 1st deadline. I’d prepared hundreds of petition kits, stapled copies of the five candidate petitions together with signing instructions and a stamped, express-mail return envelope, and these were ready to be fedexed out, but we avoided any public announcement until the Times fired the starting gun. Media represented the absolutely central component of a successful political campaign.

But after a week’s delay vainly waiting for the Times story to run, I finally gave up and we began our petition drive, though without any public announcement, fedexing out our petition kits and urgently trying to locate additional potential signers. With only a couple of weeks until the deadline, we faced a desperate scramble.

Although I soon sent out hundreds of our petition packages and everyone had promised to immediately sign their names and drop them in the self-addressed express-mail envelopes I’d included, very few had been returned as the deadline drew near. The petitioning in all my initiative campaigns had always been handled by professional subcontractors without any involvement on my part, but I knew perfectly well that individuals often make mistakes on their petitions, change their minds, or forget their promises, and we had an exceptionally tight time-window.

We needed all five petitions properly signed, with the personal and business address information completed, as well as the year and type of the Harvard degree, all of which provided numerous opportunities for careless mistakes. Our success might cost Harvard billions of dollars in tuition revenue and the Harvard administrators would be the ones validating and counting the petitions, so I wondered if they would find enough disqualifying mistakes to keep us off the ballot. I felt like we were starring in a remake of Jimmy Stewart’s Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

As the days passed with few petitions being returned, I became desperate. Stanford University was only a mile or two from my home, and I realized that many Harvard degree holders would be on the campus, so I set up a card-table in the central Quad with signs, petitions, and other materials, and spent a couple of days collecting a handful of additional signatures from curious passers-by, the first time in my life I’d ever personally done any petitioning.

Four days before the deadline, we had received fewer than half the necessary signatures, and I began to believe that our situation was hopeless. But then a huge wave of express-mail envelopes suddenly arrived, carrying us across the finish line. I described the belt-and-suspenders delivery plans I implemented:

This last Saturday night I took a red-eye flight to Boston accompanied by an all-important carry-on bag, containing some thirty pounds of signed nomination petitions for our Free Harvard/Fair Harvard campaign for the Harvard Board of Overseers.

With potentially major changes in the structure of American higher education hanging in the balance, I could not possibly trust Fedex or any other service for the safe Monday arrival of our petitions at the 17 Quincy Street Harvard offices, and hand-delivery seemed the only secure option. I’d originally planned my trip when huge winter storms had led to thousands of flight cancellations along the East Coast, so I separately booked both Saturday night and Sunday morning flights, with an eye towards possibly buying a last-minute third ticket to some other city along the Eastern Seaboard just in case snow blocked all incoming flights to Boston’s Logan Airport.

Despite all our concerns, we easily met our goals, and my heavy satchel on the flight to Boston Saturday night contained around 285 total signatures for most of our individual candidacies, providing a large safety margin over the required number. Virtually all our signers appeared absolutely legitimate, and unless the Harvard administrators choose to disqualify huge numbers of those alumni signatures on unreasonably trivial grounds, our slate will appear on the next Harvard Overseer ballot, with potentially major consequences. So we have now passed the first hurdle, though not without considerable nail-biting along the way.

The foot-high stack of paper I’d transported across the country was potentially worth billions of dollars, and I nervously dropped it off at the university offices first thing Monday morning. The Harvard administrators were absolutely professional, and within a couple of weeks we were informed that our names would appear on the Overseer ballot.


The second half of January had mostly been filled with our desperate scramble to obtain the necessary qualifying signatures, but other important developments occurred as well, especially on the all-important media front.

Although the highly suspicious tone of the Times story had probably prevented the enormous flood of follow-up mainstream media coverage I had once anticipated, brief items based upon the article did quickly appear in New York Magazine and Time, along with much more extensive international coverage in the London Telegraph, as well as Spanish, Turkish, and Chinese media outlets.

A couple of young journalists from the Harvard Crimson had immediately contacted us as well, and we quickly answered their questions and provided background materials, so the story they produced was quite balanced and even-handed, considerably more so than what had run in the Times. I’d already prepared complete media kits that I immediately fedexed out to any interested journalist, and I soon produced simple explanatory PDFs that could be emailed, so our extreme responsiveness to all journalistic inquiries served us very well.

A few days later, I received a note from John S. Rosenberg, editor of Harvard Magazine, saying he was interested in speaking to me for a possible article, and wondering when I might be available. I responded immediately, sending him some of our PDF materials, fedexing him a full media kit for morning delivery, and setting up an early interview call for the next day. We spent an hour or two on the phone, and he seemed extremely well informed and knowledgeable about all the issues, with everything going very well.

We exchanged some additional emails in the next couple of days, and I emphasized that some of Harvard’s own faculty members were quite sympathetic to our efforts:

Incidentally, I got a very nice note a few days ago from one of Harvard’s most eminent professors, with whom I’ve been friendly for 25 years. A few weeks ago I’d told him the new project I was planning to launch, and he’d been very surprised and happy to see it get on the front page of the NYT so quickly. We traded a couple of emails, and then he sent me this note:

Yes, I saw some of the Cooper Union story, did not the recall the stock market losses, I recall Cooper Union and its great role in NYC I also went to totally tuition free CCNY, even many of the texts were free, loaned out by the college. I wonder how NYC in the depression could afford the free city colleges, which then paid good faculty salaries, and why in a much wealthier country and city it requires state support in addition to city, and charges substantial tuition. A good subject for research. Harvard tuition was then I recall \$500 or so—it’s close to 100 X that now, far exceeding inflation.

Rosenberg’s 9,000 word article on our campaign appeared just a few days later, and I was extremely impressed. He seemed to have very carefully read and digested the 30,000 words of my published articles I had fedexed him, also doing the same for the writings of my fellow slate-members, and then contrasted our analysis that with the positions taken by his own university’s senior officials, past and present. The bulk of his piece was devoted to the complex issue of Harvard admissions policies, now the subject of ongoing litigation, but he still devoted a couple of thousand words to the university’s finances and the implications of our proposal to eliminate tuition. The overall presentation seemed scrupulously fair and even-handed and in the months that followed he would produce several additional articles, with the series totaling over 20,000 words, certainly constituting by far the best and most thorough discussion of our campaign and the related issues that would appear anywhere.

Harvard Magazine was a glossy alumni publication with production values comparable to those of the New Yorker or Vanity Fair, mailed out six times each year to more than 250,000 of the alumni. Given the length of his treatment and the importance of the topic, I very much hoped it would go out in the next issue of his own magazine, perhaps even running as the cover story. But such fancy print publications have long preparation lead-times, and the outstanding article only appeared in online form, so relatively few members of the Harvard community probably ever saw it.


Since I had hand-delivered the petitions to Harvard’s offices, I used the opportunity of my trip to try to gauge the sentiments of the Harvard community toward our proposal and also to generate a little additional media coverage. As I wrote after my return to California:

Because I arrived in Cambridge very early Sunday morning and the Harvard offices did not open until Monday, I decided to spend the day trying to pad our numbers by doing some personal petitioning in Harvard Square and at various places around the university, having brought along some signs, large charts, and hand-outs to support such an effort.

During a full day of energetic petitioning, my success rate ran 100% among those who stopped in curiosity, asked questions, then declared themselves to be holders of Harvard degrees eligible to sign. Unfortunately, that total came to merely two individuals, as a cold New England Sunday deterred the busy and the sensible from dawdling in conversation with some obvious political crackpot sermonizing on Harvard’s vast wealth and absurdly promising to abolish Harvard tuition as a consequence.

A couple of pleasant young Crimson reporters also spent an hour or so reporting on my petitioning efforts and interviewing me, with a picture taken by their staff photographer and displayed on the front-page of their Monday newspaper accurately capturing the somewhat amusing street scene. Frankly, I doubt if even a single passer-by that day actually believed that my remarkably quixotic proposal had the slightest prospect of actual real-world success.

Petitioning near Harvard’s Science Center. Credit: Harvard Crimson
Petitioning near Harvard’s Science Center. Credit: Harvard Crimson

Still, a much larger number of current Harvard students or casual visitors did stop, listen, and take away some of our materials, and of these individuals not one opposed our project, with the great majority being enthusiastic supporters. So the secondary goal of my petitioning—to gauge the political temperature in the Harvard community—proved much more encouraging and successful.

On Monday morning, I waited in my local hotel for the fedex deliveries of those petitions signed too late to reach me on Saturday in California, then took a taxi and lugged my heavy bag of petitions to the Harvard offices for delivery to the friendly staff located there, receiving a signed receipt in return.

I then picked up a couple of copies of the Crimson issue featuring my local petitioning efforts, as well as President Drew Faust’s sharp rebuttal to our proposals, and went to have a cup of coffee with John S. Rosenberg, editor of Harvard Magazine. Just a few days earlier, I had been stunned by the sudden appearance of his remarkably long (9,000 words), thorough, and even-handed article on our Free Harvard/Fair Harvard campaign, and I was very glad to have an opportunity to meet the author himself and explain some of my forthcoming plans for the coming months. Afterwards I took a taxi to WBUR, Boston’s local NPR station, which had invited me to do a long in-studio interview segment on our campaign, which I think went quite well.

Responding to Critics and Seeking Media Coverage

I returned to California with a tremendous sense of relief. I’d been involved in political campaigns for more than twenty years, but the previous few weeks had been among the most challenging and hectic of my entire life. After quietly plotting my campaign for nearly a year, I had struggled tremendously in trying to recruit a credible slate of candidates, then faced even greater difficulties in obtaining the necessary alumni signatures. Despite suffering through these two political near-death experiences, our campaign had survived and our names would appear on the Overseer ballot.

A huge backlog of other matters had accumulated over the previous thirty days, including issues connected with the production of my essay collection, and once the books were printed and available, I used Amazon to send copies to many dozens of the journalists and other individuals on my distribution list, hoping that the text would enhance my credibility and the weight of our project. I handled a couple of additional media inquiries, hoping that these would gradually grow in number. I also finished building our new website, which I intended to serve as a go-to source of information for the journalists covering our campaign, thereby allowing us to shape their resulting coverage. Finally, I put together a simple FAQ sheet responding to the weak arguments that Harvard officials or our other critics had been making, including with regard to the existing system of financial aid:

Q: Doesn’t generous financial aid mean that only the rich pay the high Harvard tuition?

A: Harvard officials sometimes make that claim, but it just isn’t true. Harvard’s website provides a “Net Price Calculator” that estimates the size of a family’s expected financial contribution based on the information supplied. If you plug in the income for a pair of New York City public schoolteachers, you discover that Harvard expects them to contribute a large portion of their life-savings—over \$175,000—or even go heavily into family debt in order to allow their high-achieving son or daughter to obtain a Harvard degree. So unless you believe that public schoolteachers are part of America’s rich elite, Harvard’s claims aren’t correct. Meanwhile, Harvard remains mystified why relatively few middle-class families even bother applying, thereby ensuring that such a large fraction of all current undergraduates come from wealthy families.

Harvard administrators had also been claiming that any accusations of anti-Asian discrimination were obviously contradicted by the considerable rise in Asian-American enrollment since the 1980s, but their response failed to take into account the much greater increase in the Asian-American population during that same period. I soon produced a simple graph based upon these public numbers illustrating the dramatic 60% decline in per capita Asian enrollment over the previous twenty years. An enrollment drop of such size seemed very suspicious and inexplicable, and I passed it along to the Crimson reporters and other journalists, hoping that they would begin pressing the Harvard administration for an explanation, perhaps leading to additional news stories.

These points and many others were included in the series of columns I had been publishing and sending to my growing distribution list, summarizing the state of the campaign and responding to various arguments made by Harvard and our other opponents. Meanwhile, all of us also worked together to prepare the 250 word candidate statements that would be included in the Overseer ballot mailing.


Aside from continuing to run my Unz Review webzine, other political projects also now absorbed some of my time. To date, my greatest personal achievement had been my highly successful late 1990s campaigns to dismantle so-called “bilingual education” programs in California and elsewhere, which had amounted to Spanish-almost-only instruction. I had transformed the lives of many millions of immigrant students, and the huge subsequent rise in their academic test scores had proven that I had been correct, so the whole issue had been settled and forgotten for many years. But in 2014, the determined bilingual activists had successfully lobbied the State Legislature into placing a repeal measure on the November 2016 ballot, and that vote was now fast approaching. So I dug out my stored boxes of materials and produced new “English” media kits and PDF scans of the old news stories, built a new website to help remind journalists and voters about those long-forgotten facts, and considered other possible ways to bring some attention to this important issue.

But as I took stock of our situation in late February, I felt quite good about our chances. Although the Times piece had proven a very mixed blessing, I felt that the excellent 9,000 word article in Harvard Magazine had made up for it, and I mistakenly assumed the piece would also appear in the next print issue, thereby reaching the entire Harvard alumni community and alerting them to our campaign and the issues we were raising just as they began receiving their ballots. Given the dismally low turnout in most Overseer elections, if even just 10% of the alumni read the story and agreed with our positions, we would probably win.

Although I effectively filled the role of political and media consultant for our campaign, we lacked the backing of any organization, which severely reduced our options. I’d invested a few hundred dollars producing a large batch of attractive campaign paraphernalia—tee-shirts, baseball caps, and buttons—all emblazoned with our logo, and these would have provided ideal visuals for media stories if we had been able to organize any public events or rallies. But since there were just the five of us, mostly preoccupied with their regular work, this wasn’t possible.

The Bernie Sanders phenomenon was near its peak and America’s most famous Democratic Socialist had made free college tuition one of his leading campaign issues, attracting enormous youthful support. With Ralph Nader heading up our slate, a highly flattering Times story would have probably brought us an immediate wave of enthusiastic Harvard students, eager to wear our tee-shirts and buttons and hold public rallies for our cause, whose success might save their families hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition; and this would have generated tremendous media coverage. But the sharply negative spin of the Times story completely foreclosed these possibilities. Indeed, although a wave of protests soon engulfed the Harvard Law School, with the students demanding that tuition be abolished, these progressive activists carefully avoided any association with our tainted campaign.

Conservative students, let alone opponents of affirmative action, were a tiny minority at Harvard, and although I might have tried to mobilize some of them for public events, any such ideological identification would surely have been severely damaging to our efforts.

I’d never personally used Facebook or Twitter, so one major, unrecognized weakness in our effort was its complete lack of presence on social media. These technologies had not existed during my political campaigns of the late 1990s, and were still very rudimentary during my abortive minimum wage campaign of late 2013, so I paid little attention to them.

Although I had acquired a great deal of expertise over the years in the media side of campaigning, my experience was entirely restricted to the traditional mainstream media, with its hierarchical top-down structure. So all my efforts to take our message to the Harvard alumni were aimed at shaping the coverage in the Times, the Crimson, Harvard Magazine and other regular media outlets, hoping that our potential voters would happen to see these pieces. Yet Facebook had originally been started as a Harvard-only network, and there were numerous Facebook groups for all the different alumni classes. It was a major failing that I had never planned to recruit individuals to distribute and promote our factual information or striking charts and graphs in that obvious channels of communication. Only Lee Cheng, the youngest member of our slate, was active on Facebook, and although he mentioned he was regularly engaging with our numerous critics on that platform, I initially paid little attention to the matter. As our severe weakness on social media became apparent, we did eventually run some basic Facebook ads linking to our website, but it was too little and too late.

This mistake became potentially more serious in early March when an organization was launched to oppose our campaign. As reported in the Crimson, the “Coalition for a Diverse Harvard” boasted nearly 500 alumni members, with its chief spokesperson being Jeannie Park ’83, a Korean-American activist while at Harvard who had later served as top editor of InStyle and People magazines in New York. The Times article had portrayed our effort as a disguised attack on affirmative action, and according to the Crimson account, this had outraged and mobilized the founders of this opposition group, exactly the sort of consequence I had feared. Their strategy was to provide all Overseer candidates with a questionnaire on affirmative action and diversity at Harvard, after which they would issue five endorsements. A lengthy follow-up article on the Harvard Magazine website provided many more details, and also raised some of the critiques of my original Meritocracy analysis that had been so exhaustively debated following its 2012 publication.

I probably paid much less attention to this new threat than I should have. The website I had built seemed far more comprehensive than their simple effort, and also provided an enormous amount of detailed factual information compared to their rather rhetorical content celebrating “diversity” so I didn’t take their effort very seriously. But what I failed to consider was that they had hundreds of determined members who were regularly presenting their arguments, weak though they might be, on all of Harvard’s many Facebook groups, while we probably only had three or four volunteer activists making the case on the other side. When the landscape of the media technology dominating politics radically changes, those who fail to adapt may be left behind.

Meanwhile, I continued to focus upon the traditional media, and here the tide remained very encouraging. The day after the Crimson revealed our new opponents, the Nation ran a major article entitled “Universities Are Becoming Billion-Dollar Hedge Funds With Schools Attached,” a piece that shamelessly cribbed the contents and even almost the title from my own past writings on that subject. Despite the focus on Harvard, our own campaign was never mentioned, but if the Times article had been favorable rather than portraying us as promoting an underhanded attack against affirmative action, I suspect that our efforts would have received a rousing endorsement from America’s left-liberal flagship publication.

The following week the influential Economist contacted me for an interview, and soon published a major story focused upon our campaign to eliminate tuition, treating it quite sympathetically. Soon after I had begun informing my DC friends about my project, Republican Rep. Tom Reed had introduced legislation requiring all wealthy universities to allocate at least 25% of their investment income to financial aid or lose their tax exemption, a proposal vastly more onerous than our own, and his bill was also discussed in the article. I regarded the Economist coverage as a major media coup, failing to consider that the story had probably reached just a tiny fraction of the number of Harvard alumni voters who spent each day on Facebook.

In late March, just before ballots were mailed out, Harvard Magazine published yet another comprehensive and even-handed article on the contest, primarily focusing on the contrasting positions of our own camp and those of our “pro-diversity” opponents. The piece also substantially excerpted a lengthy letter it had received from five past presidents of the Board of Overseers, strongly opposing our slate, which would be published in the print issue soon to be mailed out to all alumni. Their statement strongly defended Harvard’s admissions policies against our accusations of discrimination, and sharply criticized our proposal that tuition be abolished as “misguided.” This letter was also apparently emailed out to all members of the Harvard Alumni Association.

The Surprising Rise of Donald Trump and a Bold Response

Although we had counted on much of this establishmentarian opposition, a completely unanticipated development that severely damaged our prospects was the sudden political rise of Donald Trump in the Republican primaries, as I explained at the time:

Without doubt the current election for the Harvard Board of Overseers must rank as the most significant and substantive of the last twenty-five years, perhaps even the last century. The results of our Free Harvard/Fair Harvard campaign could have tremendous national implications for tuition and admissions policy at our most elite colleges, with ripple effects upon all of American higher education.

Unfortunately, the ongoing national Trumpathon, with its endless series of Page One insults and crude slurs has captured an absolutely overwhelming share of American political attention, leaving relatively little for any other campaign, let alone a mere battle for the Harvard Board of Overseers. When The Dreadful Donald and Lyin’ Ted are trading staged photos of their wives in dress and undress on Twitter, why would anyone in America care whether elite college tuition might be abolished?

If not for Trump, the widely expected presidential contest between bland front-runners Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush would have prompted bored national political reporters to desperately seek out more interesting topics, and surely our own campaign would have been a major beneficiary of that coverage. But instead Trump now entirely dominated the national stage, choking off all of our media-oxygen, so I began to consider different ways of attracting additional attention. A daring possibility came to mind, one that I ultimately decided to pursue.

As some of you may have already heard, a few days ago I made a last-minute decision to enter the U.S. Senate race for the seat of retiring Sen. Barbara Boxer in California. I took out my official papers early Monday morning and returned them with the necessary 65 signatures of registered voters on Wednesday afternoon, the last possible day for filing.

I am certainly under no illusions that my candidacy is anything but a tremendous long-shot. Over the two decades that have passed since Gov. Pete Wilson’s Prop. 187 campaign, California has been transformed into what amounts to a one-party Democratic state, with Republicans holding not a single statewide office and barely one-third of the State Legislature; GOP presidential campaigns rarely invest any time or money in hopeless pursuit of California’s 55 electoral votes. With the sole exception of Arnold Schwarzenegger—who was obviously a special case—not a single Republican has won a top-ticket statewide race since 1994, with candidates often losing by 20-25 points despite spending many millions or even tens of millions on their campaigns; and virtually all down-ticket Republican candidates have generally lost by comparable margins.

But the flip-side of this difficult situation is that the California Republican Party is so extremely feeble these days that my entrance into the race would hardly face strong GOP rivals. Neither of the other two Republicans running has ever held any elective office or boasts significant political accomplishments, they were tied at 3% in the most recent polls, and after a full year of campaigning, each had only raised about \$50,000. As most readers are well aware, I’m hardly an ultra-wealthy “checkbook” candidate able to spend unlimited sums, but dollars in that sort of range I can easily handle.

The primary factor behind this sudden decision on my part was the current effort by the California Democrats and their (totally worthless) Republican allies to repeal my 1998 Prop. 227 “English for the Children” initiative. Although the English immersion system established in the late 1990s was judged an enormous educational triumph by nearly all observers, and the issue has long since been forgotten, a legislative ballot measure up for a vote this November aims to undo all that progress and reestablish the disastrously unsuccessful system of Spanish-almost-only “bilingual education” in California public schools:

After considering various options, I decided that becoming a statewide candidate myself was the probably the best means of effectively focusing public attention on this repeal effort and defeating it.

An important factor in my decision-making was the strong likelihood that Donald Trump would be the Republican presidential nominee. He and his campaign would almost certainly support keeping English in the public schools, but for obvious reasons he would hardly be the best political figure to be strongly identified with the No campaign. However, if I were a statewide candidate myself, heavily focusing on that issue, my standing as the original author of Prop. 227 would give me an excellent chance of establishing myself as the main voice behind the anti-repeal campaign. I also discussed the possibility of this race with some of my fellow Harvard Overseer slate-members, and they strongly believed that my candidacy would be far more likely to help rather than hurt our efforts, which was another major consideration in my decision. Furthermore, running for office provides me with an opportunity to raise all sorts of other policy issues often ignored by most political candidates or elected officials.

This last point is one that I have frequently emphasized to people over the years, namely that under the right circumstances, the real importance of a major political campaign sometimes has relatively little connection to the actual vote on election day. Instead, if used properly, a campaign can become a powerful focal point for large amounts of media coverage on under-examined issues. And such media coverage may have long-term consequences, win or lose.

The leading candidates were two Democrats, Attorney-General Kamala Harris and Rep. Loretta Sanchez, and with California having adopted a top-two open primary system, it seemed quite unlikely that there would even be a Republican name on the November ballot. I emphasized the extremely long-shot nature of my last-minute candidacy, but I also noted that in a year so unexpectedly dominated by Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, anything was possible.

The media had not entirely forgotten my past political achievements in California and given the completely unknown Republicans currently in the race, my entrance received quite a bit more attention than I expected. As a consequence, a surprising statewide poll soon ranked me as the leading Republican candidate, though my 5% share of the primary vote still placed me 40 points behind “Undecided.”

Because of my standing in the polls, I was invited to participate in both of the major televised U.S. Senate debates over the next few weeks, and despite having been away from politics for many years, I think I performed very credibly against Kamala Harris and the other candidates, as can be seen from my clips below, or in the complete debates, provided in the links. I relished the opportunity to raise all sorts of issues normally avoided by major party candidates.

A Harvard Debate and a Sudden Media Controversy

Meanwhile, I continued my efforts to attract media interest to our Harvard campaign. During my past initiatives, public debates had served as an excellent means of focusing attention on the issues, and I felt very confident that the extreme weakness of the arguments against us would easily be revealed in such a forum. Harvard’s official representatives had regularly disputed my claims in the Times article and other media stories, so for weeks I had repeatedly challenged them to a public debate on the matter, though without any success. But now that an official opposition group had emerged, I redoubled my suggestions to the Crimson reporters and our local supporters that Harvard should hold a debate, and the Chinese Students Association soon announced that they would sponsor one, inviting me to participate. I immediately accepted, although the date they selected would require me to take a red-eye flight following one of my California U.S. Senate debates.

It’s possible that Harvard had never previously held a public debate on the contentious issue of Asian Quotas or the closely-related topic of affirmative action, and with “diversity” being a watchword on campus, my opponents would obviously enjoy a huge home-field advantage, but that didn’t concern me in the least. Even a raucous, angry crowd overwhelmingly on the other side would serve my purposes by attracting the media coverage that constituted the life’s blood of our campaign. Unfortunately, the opposition apparently had similar thoughts because they refused to participate, then outrageously demanded that the debate be cancelled because it would be unfair for the audience to hear only one side of the issue, heavily pressuring the Chinese student group into withdrawing its sponsorship.

But a large Harvard lecture hall had already been reserved, I’d paid for my tickets and hotel room, and my materials were in transit to Cambridge. So I assisted a young Law School student in quickly rounding up a couple of other sponsoring organizations and local Harvard opponents, and the event went ahead as I afterwards explained.

While on campus, I was told by one student that if he published an op-ed in the Crimson critical of affirmative action, he would be subjected to a massive campaign of vilification and there would be widespread demands for his immediate expulsion. Hence our public debate on closely-related issues was almost unprecedented in Harvard’s current intellectual climate of fear. Regardless of whether you are a liberal or a conservative, I think this is an outrageous state of affairs at one of world’s most prestigious centers of higher education.

The debate produced a nice front-page story in the Crimson and a video of the event was loaded on Youtube, with one of my erstwhile opponents even changing his stance and supporting our proposal to abolish tuition as our position was fully explained.

I was quite pleased with the results, especially since I’d only gotten a couple of hours sleep on the red-eye flight out from California that had arrived earlier that morning. A few hours later I was back at the airport on my way home again, making this an exhausting but very productive East Coast trip.

A couple of days earlier, the Pacifica Radio Network, America’s leading leftwing media group, had broadcast my half hour discussion of our campaign with Ralph Nader, which was highly informative and also went very well:


Unfortunately, our increasing public profile had apparently drawn other determined foes, concerned by the very favorable media coverage we had been attracting. Just after my return from Harvard, an activist group began distributing an opposition-research dossier of harsh accusations against me, hoping to destroy my credibility with the media.

The main issues raised were that over the years I had provided financial support to extreme right-wing writers, intellectuals, and organizations, notably including Steve Sailer, Gregory Cochran, Tom Woods, and, and the Crimson ran the story under the lurid headline “Overseers Candidate Donates to ‘Quasi-White Nationalist’ Group.”

I regarded the charges made against me as extremely distorted and misleading, and immediately provided a lengthy rebuttal:

I was very unhappy with the unfair and inflammatory article that the Harvard Crimson ran regarding my political associations, and they suggested I submit an op-ed in response. I provided the piece below, which they requested be trimmed for length prior to publication, which I did.

They then notified me that after further consideration, they had decided that most of my points were irrelevant or unfair and should not be published: I could only make the arguments that they themselves approved. Perhaps they felt that the effectiveness of my response might risk “confusing” some of their readers.

Several individuals have emphasized to me that outrageous character assassination based on guilt-by-association must be answered quickly, so here’s the rebuttal that the Crimson refused to publish, and you can decide for yourself if their decision was appropriate.

I think my response very effectively rebutted those allegations, and probably left the young Crimson reporters a little ashamed that their inexperience had led them to fall for such nonsense; perhaps as a consequence, they published a glowing account of Ralph Nader’s role in our campaign just a few days later. By contrast, those same accusations and distortions were ignored by the political reporters covering my U.S. Senate campaign in California, and never raised at my editorial board meetings nor in the televised debates, partly because my own positions on racial and ethnic issues had become so well known in my home state during the more than twenty years of my major political campaigns. Instead California’s very mainstream Zocolo Public Square organization soon solicited a short item from me presenting my zero tuition arguments.

But although these nasty smears soon mostly vanished from the media coverage of our Harvard campaign, I’m sure that they continued to circulate widely on Harvard Facebook pages.

Defeat, Aftermath, and Epilogue

Shortly before the close of voting, the national media finally began taking some notice of our effort, with Politico running a major article focusing on Nader’s involvement and the controversy over affirmative action at Harvard.

But by then nearly all the votes had already been cast and just a few days later, we received the unfortunate news that our slate had been defeated. The following day I discussed the outcome:

As many of you have probably already heard, our Free Harvard/Fair Harvard campaign for the Board of Overseers failed yesterday, with none of the five candidates on our slate being successful. The highly contentious nature of this year’s contest did boost the vote-by-mail turnout to 11%, considerably higher than the more usual 7%. But with nearly 90% of Harvard’s 320,000 throwing their ballots in the trash, lack of interest clearly won a gigantic landslide victory.

Given that no petition candidate had successfully won a seat on Harvard’s board in the 27 years since Nobel Laureate Archbishop Tutu of South Africa made the cut in 1989, with a young Barack Obama being among the numerous failures, I suppose I should have expected this result from the beginning. But I’d like to believe that if not for a certain loudmouthed Republican presidential candidate having grabbed such an astonishing share of the national media oxygen over the last six months, our bold proposal to completely abolish tuition at the world’s most prestigious college would have attracted far more attention, considerably reducing the trash-can vote, and perhaps giving us a shot at victory.

In any event, I do believe we vastly increased the number of Americans now aware that Harvard’s annual investment income is so massively disproportionate to its net tuition revenue, perhaps laying the basis for future changes along the lines we proposed. Among other straws in the wind, just a few weeks after our campaign reached the front page of The New York Times, a group of influential U.S. Senators began pressing Harvard and its peers to allocate a much larger fraction of their annual earnings to financial aid or lose their tax exemption, with a figure as high as 25% being bandied about.

Although to a layperson, it might hardly seem unreasonable for wealthy colleges such as Harvard to spend just a quarter of their income subsidizing the education of their undergraduates, in practice such a demand would force Harvard to abolish all tuition, abolish all room-and-board costs, and also provide each student a brand new Rolls-Royce automobile each year, a policy which would surely increase the number of annual applicants to even higher levels.

It would not totally surprise me if at some point, Harvard’s shrewd financial managers may decide that the 4% allocation we were suggesting seems a lot cheaper than the 25% demanded by Congress, and immediately abolish tuition with a sudden wave of their hands.

In another strange irony, disgraced former Harvard President Larry Summers ferociously denounced our “free tuition” proposal as a disgusting giveaway to the wealthy elites, whose unfair financial privileges he so strongly opposes. Surely, Hillary Clinton should begin using a similar line of attack against her notoriously pro-Oligarchic opponent Bernie Sanders, who has proposed something very similar.

In the past, Summers has been somewhat less hesitant in assisting the rich, such as when he used \$26.5 million of Harvard funds to settle a government insider-trading case against one of his closest friends, who thereby perhaps avoided a long prison sentence as a result. This was one of the major factors leading to a massive faculty revolt against Summers and his forced resignation as Harvard president, an event probably without precedent in Harvard history. Although personal friendship is surely priceless, Summers must have realized he was risking his presidency over that decision, and I’ve always half-suspected that he’d himself been a silent partner in that insider-trading ring, and was therefore blackmailed into using tens of millions in Harvard’s endowment money to save his friend from the slammer lest he end up wearing pinstripes himself.

Despite all our efforts—and those of our vigorous opponents—the pitiful turnout of just 11% demonstrated just how little awareness the campaign had generated within the Harvard alumni community. Moreover, indifferent or uninterested voters would be expected to select the names listed closer to the top of the ballot, and four of the five winners came from that group, a result apparently similar to that of most previous years. Meanwhile, all petition candidates were grouped at the bottom, and we discovered that the votes the five of us had individually received exactly corresponded to the order in which our names were listed. So all our efforts, our dramatic proposals, and our carefully crafted ballot-statements had had almost no impact, and we had lost for the same reasons that every other petition candidate for the previous 27 years had lost.

Despite the energetic campaign on Facebook by the hundreds of activists in our “diversity” opposition, they didn’t do much better. Although some of their endorsed candidates won, their success rate was almost exactly what would have been produced by random chance.


I was somewhat surprised by these results, but I probably should not have been. Perhaps ten or twenty thousand of the alumni voters came from families currently paying up to \$180,000 in Harvard undergraduate tuition or believing that they might have to do so in the near future. My assumption had been that the prospect of such enormous financial savings would ensure our victory, but in hindsight I think I understand why this did not happen.

Although grounded in solid reality, our proposal must have seemed entirely fantastical to Harvard alumni who encountered it for the first time, and almost none of them would have believed it was real. Aside from the original Times article several months earlier, our media coverage had been minimal, so probably only a sliver of the alumni had heard of our proposal—either positively or negatively—until they glanced at their Overseer ballots, and they would have dismissed the claims we made in our ballot arguments as total nonsense, little different than the bizarre rantings of a street-corner agitator. But if the media had extensively covered and validated our issue, suggesting that a few simple checkmarks on a piece of paper might indeed save their families a six-figure sum, we surely would have gotten their votes. The media creates Reality, and without the necessary media validation, our project wasn’t “real” in the minds of the alumni voters who encountered it.

As with many other political campaigns, the unpredictable uncertainties of the media landscape had doomed our effort. If the tone of the original Times article had been friendlier or if Donald Trump had not suddenly erupted into the presidential race, absorbing so much political attention, the greatly increased coverage of our campaign might have easily changed the outcome.


Having successfully seen off our unexpected challenge, the Harvard administration soon took defensive steps to prevent any recurrence. Our effort had been made possible because petition candidates required only some 200 alumni signatures to be placed on the ballot, and later that year Harvard raised the requirement more than ten-fold to 2,650, while modernizing the petitioning process. Also, henceforth only holders of a Harvard degree would be eligible as candidates, thus preventing the participation of prominent celebrities such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who had headed the successful anti-Apartheid slate of 1987.

However, to Harvard’s considerable surprise, in 2020 a group of climate change activists successfully organized a petition drive to have their names placed on the ballot, with the five candidates running on a platform of having the Harvard endowment divest from all holdings related to fossil fuels. They conducted a very vigorous campaign on social media, and despite the opposition of Harvard’s administration, three of their candidates were elected.

But their efforts had received almost no attention until after their unexpected victory, and even that consisted of merely a small item buried on p. A-22 of the New York Times, with no indications that their proposals would be carried out. Harvard also soon limited the number of petition candidates to just six of the 30 seats on the Board of Overseers, largely closing the door to any such future campaigns.

Meanwhile, Harvard’s enormous endowment has continued to grow, recently exceeding \$53 billion, an amount more than 40% larger than the 2015 figure we had emphasized. Whereas the university’s investment income had averaged about 25 times larger than its undergraduate tuition revenue during the years leading up to our campaign, last year’s figure was around 75 times larger. Back then, the combined endowments of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford exceeded \$100 billion, while today the total is approaching \$200 billion.

The absurdities of America’s tax-exempt, tuition-charging hedge-funds have grown steadily more extreme. But with so many powerful political figures and wealthy political donors eager to have Harvard and its top peers look favorably upon the applications of their family members or relatives, no changes in government policy seem likely in the foreseeable future.

Related Reading:

The Meritocracy Series
Hide 332 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. So now Harvard can become a Chinese girls’ school, just like elite Lowell High School in San Francisco had been for 60 years. That is, had been before 2020, the year of doom for everything.

  2. Pixo says:

    You are wrong that 61% of Harvard whites were Jewish in the 00s.

    In fact, this premise is absurd and you should have looked for a better source than a college club which itself provides to source.

    A cursory look at freshmen facebooks prove this. A better estimate is about 20% of whites, about 5x their population and expected levels given their IQ.

    • Disagree: Humbert Humbert
  3. Anon[166] • Disclaimer says:

    Note to those who skipped straight to the comments. This rather long and detailed article is worth close reading in its entirety.

    My only addition is one can quickly look up the ethnicity of the 8 Ivy Admission heads via internet search. All 8 are from 1 small ethnic minority. Hmmm…

    • Agree: Dream
    • Thanks: Rahan, Rurik
    • Replies: @BuelahMan
    , @Stan d Mute
  4. 37,000 words! You remain an astonishingly productive man, Ron. Not least because your work is invariably cogent and considered.

    It’ll probably take me more time to read these words than it did you to write them! Anyway, my compliments, and now in I plunge.

    • Agree: Rurik
  5. but then this favoring of the elites has been going on for decades. How come children of presidents automatically get into ivy leagues? Jfk Jr. got into Brown and Harvard and whatnot just coz he was JFKs son. Not on merit….I don’t know, I didn’t see his report cards. Was he an exceptional student with flying grades? Same for Chelsea Clinton or Sasha Obama(think she goes to Cambridge Univ). How come we never see their report cards. Dont they fail in any subjects? From Saddam to Putin all their kids studied in the best schools on earth. Somehow I dont think they all earned it.

    The elites have always formed a club. These Ivy leagues are the architectural presence of those clubs and hidden partnerships going back centuries.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  6. @Pixo

    I’ll put this simply: Ron is right and you are wrong.

    Aside from recruited athletes and a very few legacies, there are shockingly few non-jewish whites in the top Ivy League universities. It’s been this way for decades now. Most legacy admits at Harvard and Yale are now Jewish. That was never the case before the 1990s.

    A cursory look at freshmen facebooks

    Oh. In addition to wrong, you’re silly.

  7. SafeNow says:

    Ms. Younger’s apparently flashy S.A.T. percentile (99th) actually means little in her stratospheric cohort, because significant differences in ability are all aggregated into the 99th percentile. Just ask a comparative-lit or math professor what he can expect from a student who missed one or two S.A.T. questions compared to one who missed no questions. But I will go further. True meritocracy at Harvard or M.I.T. would require an S.A.T. that contains a special section of “separator” questions that expose the difference between an “800” and an “800!!!.“

  8. bert33 says:

    At some point, Harvard became an investment opportunity and ceased being a school and corruption in higher ed is documented and baked in at this point. Online threatens to make actual education available to all students in all countries, not just east coast trust fund babies. Self-important overmonied ashes in air conditioned offices calling themselves ‘educators’ with their hands in the register up to the elbow. Thanks, but no thanks.

  9. Apu says:

    Hey Ron, can you do an article on why you changed your mind on immigration and now have become a restrictionist?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  10. TMJ says:

    Very interesting, very good article Ron!

  11. @Pixo

    Judging by their entrance scores, Jewish kids are now solidly behind Chinese/brahmin kids and yet they’re overrepresented as you correctly point out relative to the Asians. If that doesn’t scream nepotism to your face I doubt you’ll notice anything else either.

    • Agree: Polistra
  12. EdwardM says:

    Could it be that academically-qualified Jews are more likely to want to go to school back East than similarly qualified gentiles? In my reasonably upscale CA high school, it would not even occur to most students to go to the frigid northeast. (A lot of people don’t appreciate how insular greater LA and the SF Bay Area are; perhaps no more or less so than other parts of America but it seems counterintuitive here.) I believe we sent two students to the Ivy League my year, both at least nominally Jewish among a small Jewish population at the school. We sent a lot of students to Cal.

    This of course wouldn’t be enough to explain the enrollment disparity, but might be one factor.

    • Thanks: That Would Be Telling
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  13. Meritocrazy issues of the Cleptocracy of the Kakistocracy of the Jewnighted States of Israhell resolve themselves “just in time” for their nuclear winter; the bottom line of outstanding achievements of the Jewversity of Cowhards.

  14. Rahan says:

    1) modern universities are globohomo machines that turn potentially intelligent citizens into damaged system enforcement drones,
    2) these modern universities have started excluding european and mongoloid demographics due to being high on their own supply,
    this means
    3) the system has reached the point of degeneracy where it has stopped harnessing the smartest and brightest to perpetuate itself,
    4) allowing a growing subset of the best and brightest a chance to wake up

    • Replies: @Weave
  15. gotmituns says:

    Education anymore is BS. White men should concentrate on important things in life like becoming an expert riflemen and tradesmen so they can be good leaders for their White women.

    • Replies: @Alden
  16. SFG says:

    Well done, Mr. Unz.

    Perhaps the country was too far gone by that point, but you did what you could, and did much good earlier.

    Maybe partner with some younger activists next time? Your name is well known due to the Review, and I am sure some would love to work with you-on the right at least!

    If you are doing this already and keeping mum for strategic reasons, you have my full encouragement, for what it’s worth. 😉

  17. …Asians appear under-represented relative to Jews by a factor of seven, while non-Jewish whites are by far the most under-represented group of all…

    Even when referring only to the relevant cohort of High Ability Students, it is a truly unfortunate reflection of the currently debased climate of American “political correctness” that blatantly anti-White but generally anti-meritocratic university admission policies are deceptively reformulated as being “anti-Asian“, so as to redirect the perception and associated discussion away from the core – but taboo – issue. It will be interesting to see how the forthcoming US Supreme Court decision, involving Harvard and North Carolina universities, deals with this central topic of discrimination, if it should even address that aspect at all.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  18. Anonymous[661] • Disclaimer says:

    Unz, you are one prodigious journalist. I’ve yet to come across any articles on this subject as articulate and well-researched.

  19. Z-man says:

    What happened to Kaitlin Younger? I couldn’t get access to the WSJ article for free.(Grin)
    Her’s is definitely a case of reverse discrimination.
    Revolution is coming Mr Unz, and the Jews will not be happy.
    My story:
    I applied to 3 schools back in the 1970’s. Manhattan College, Columbia and Cooper Union. I wanted to be an engineer, mostly because I liked the ‘Good & Plenty’ Choo Choo Charlie Was An Engineer gingle/adds as a kid) LOL 🤣
    As an ‘good’ ethnic Catholic boy I easily got into Manhattan and I knew I wasn’t going to get into Cooper Union which I didn’t. Columbia was the … I can’t think of the right phrase… institution that was the one that…was, let’s say ‘on the bubble’.
    Now even as a naive 17 year old Catholic school kid, I knew that Jews being so ‘smart’ had a ‘corner’ on getting into Ivy League schools but I assumed that Wasps still had the advantage, even at Columbia.
    Well, I was happily surprised that I was called and went to an interview with the admissions guy at Columbia. The admissions guy was black. I must have been a real charmer because weeks later I was accepted.
    However, this is where I made one of those decisions that really affect one’s life.
    I was a lower middle class kid living in Hell’s Kitchen with my widowed mother. Manhattan gave me more money than Columbia, even though Columbia’s tuition was probably double Manhattan’s. I just couldn’t justify the cost, to me and my ‘cleaning lady’ mother. I also thought, even back then, that I would fit better at Manhattan, and there is where I went.
    Have I had regrets about that decision? Not really, just that I know my life would have been different.
    I was slightly gratified to find out recently that Kat Timph, Greg Gutfeld’s sidekick on Fox, had a similar story.
    Story II:
    Years later, I made a reverse discrimination complaint against my employer, a government agency. To make a long story short, it wasn’t successful. A ‘black’ law firm wouldn’t take my case and I met with mostly blacks in my HR department, including a militant and emotional black woman.
    I knew this ended any future advancement at the agency so I retired at the earliest possible date.

    • Thanks: Polistra
    • Replies: @Pop Warner
  20. dearieme says:

    “I don’t know, I didn’t see his report cards.”

    In my day at a leading UK university anyone could see my academic results by strolling up to the university noticeboards where they were posted. My “finals” results were also available by perusing national newspapers.

    Alas these healthy habits – based on the idea that a university’s exams are Public Examinations – has now been Americanised out of existence. (American habits spread widely – but only the bad ones.)

    I thought one of the best bits of this blog post was Mr Unz’s remarks on the calibre of Admissions Officers. Dear God! As a UK academic I used to “do” admissions. The logic was that since we, the academics, would have to teach and examine the students, we should select them too. Our incentives to admit the best were strong. My own policy was simple: I wanted bright enthusiasts.

    I can remember briefly scanning a report on the candidate provided by his/her school – by the Principal, say, or Head of Science, or the like. Across the years I was twice influenced by such a report – once pro, once con.

    I have no memory of ever bothering to read a candidates “personal statement” though I suppose I must have done for the two candidates just mentioned.

    The UK university admissions system must presumably have been designed originally to defend the system of the academics deciding whom to admit. I don’t know how it’s run today.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  21. I well remember your note when sending early copies in 2012 to read down to the end for the really incendiary stuff. I did and accordingly have been surprised to get the impression recently that the plaintiffs’ case in the litigation against Harvard has made nothing of the strongest evidence of malfeasance, namely the preference given to Jewis. Is that right? I get the impression that the case is doomed.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  22. BuelahMan says:


    When Ron writes:

    So I think the serious ills plaguing our elite universities are far broader and deeper than merely the question of racial discrimination under affirmative action

    This is all about jewish control of these institutions.- using these pretences.

  23. Alden says:

    I know a high school senior who’s been accepted at an Ivy League school, University of Pennsylvania.

    For one reason and one reason only. She checked the black box on her application.

    Her admissions essay was a masterpiece of slobbering wokeness. We wrote it together. And we filled it with every liberal cliche. And laughed and giggled throughout.

    So did her parents check the black box when they enrolled her in kindergarten and high school.

    It’s incredibly stupid and unbelievably naive for Whites to think all this conservative uselessness will help us. Look at all the conservatives and MEN OF UNZ jumping for joy that Roe vs Wade might be overturned. That’s conservatism; more blacks and browns to discriminate against Whites. Until we are just gone like the Druids.

    Why discuss affirmative action discrimination against Whites?

    The elites created it in 1968 54 years ago. Since then it has been upheld and reinforced many times.

    I too voted for Regean in 1980 He did nothing for Whites. Just allowed the affirmative action juggernaut to roll on.

    He promised to abolish the recently created Federal Department of Education. He did not. And the Federal Department of Education mandates that Critical race theory aka hatred of Whites be taught in every public school in the country.

    Regran had NASA end many programs in Mountain View Ca the first couple years of his administration
    As usual, the engineers and programmers were laid off. BUT these White American men who created Silicon Valley were never called back. But replaced by foreign Chinese and Indians. By the end of Regean’s 2 terms the White American men who made the tech industry were lucky to be high school math teachers. It happened on Regean’s watch. Plus manufacturers continued closing factories and moving them to China. And of course there was Regean’s amnesty for illegal aliens.

    The Regean administration was as harmful to White Americans as the 4 presidents who went before him.

    Any White person who is a conservative or a Republican is an idiot. Republicans and conservatives are as anti White as the democrats and BLM. The Republicans are just quieter about their hatred of Whites and desire to replace us with Africans Asians Indians and Hispanics.

  24. Alden says:

    Most employers will not hire a White tradesman. And the trade unions have been under the affirmative action gun since Robert Kennedy acting as attorney general went after the Trades Unions Central Committees apprenticeship programs back in 1962. 60 years ago

    And what use is being a good rifleman except for hunting and target shooting? I mean, if you enjoy shooting contests fine. But I can’t see it helping against the genocide every sector of society is carrying on against Whites.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  25. @dearieme

    I am just old enough to have been the beneficiary of my my famous (English born and eduvated) headmaster telling my father’s old Oxbridge college when I was 15 ” he’s a clever boy and you should take him” [obviously as long as I didn’t actually fail exams over the next year or two]. I passed no college entrance exams and wasn’t interviewed before going up. Years on when the current head of my college was visiting Australia he confirmed the impression that a contemporary who became head of an Oxbridge college also gave me that Oxbridge is almost sanctimoniouly proper in its rejection of even the most tempting bribes [I wasn’t rude enough to ask if £2 million to pay for scholarships and a Professorship for a Fellow would do the trick]. He was horrified at what I quoted about a couple of the Ivies and, I was pleased to find that the admissions officer of whom I made some inquiries for a young relative (who ended up at the other place) was a rather proper stiff-necked Fellow of the college.

    • Replies: @Alden
  26. Ron Unz says:

    Hey Ron, can you do an article on why you changed your mind on immigration and now have become a restrictionist?

    Actually, I’ve published several long articles on my immigration views. Here are a couple of the most important ones:

    My recent comprehensive retrospective on the Minimum Wage recapitulates the history:

    • Replies: @A B Coreopsis
  27. Weave says:

    Agree on all points. My white son is graduating high school this month and in any other truly functioning system he would be off to a great university in the fall. We didn’t even encourage him to apply. No way am I paying \$40+ grand a year for the garbage they are pumping out. Including him being discriminated against.

    Instead, he is getting his pilots license and attending a local college.

    • Thanks: Rahan
  28. Ron Unz says:

    Ms. Younger’s apparently flashy S.A.T. percentile (99th) actually means little in her stratospheric cohort, because significant differences in ability are all aggregated into the 99th percentile.

    Although I didn’t make much effort to get the exact levels, I saw that her SAT scores were probably at least at the 99.5% level, and since she took them as a junior, probably closer to 99.8% or even 99.9% on an age-adjusted basis. In any event, they were far higher than the median at all our most elite universities, including Harvard and Caltech, and enormously higher than those at many of the schools that rejected her.

    I suspect that one reason the SAT was recentered about 20-odd years ago was to eliminate exactly the sort of high-end distinctions that should be required in meritocratic admissions systems.

  29. @Been_there_done_that

    Do you have the impression, as I have from my slight knowledge of the case against Harvard, that the key proof of ethnic discrimination as a deliberate policy, as shown by Ron’s words and graphs, namelypreferences in admissions for Jews, is being at best under emphasised?

  30. The 1960 SAT had about 30 test takers get 800 on the English and 150 on the Math out of 1,300,000 95% white test takers. About 10-15 test takers got a 1600. With “score drift” and recentering, I estimate a 1600 today would be about 1460 in the “old days”. Yes Unz, the “top of the test” is gone and I suspect for the reason give.

    • Replies: @turtle
  31. Alden says:

    I read your essay Ron. And forced myself to read slowly it was a great article. But I really don’t care about Asians, just Whites.

    • Replies: @Mike_C
    , @Pierre de Craon
  32. But after nearly fifty years of overwhelmingly negative progress, I’m quite skeptical that nine justices will suddenly provide a deus ex machina to remedy this unfortunate situation,

    Negative progress…..Cute.

    This last week trial began in Boston federal court for the current lawsuit in which a collection of Asian-American organizations are charging Harvard University with racial discrimination in its college admissions policies.

    “court”. A place where lawyers agree on rules of behavior for everyone else. Generally speaking these lawyers are members, either by heredity or adoption, of the people who were chosen to make a contract with god almighty some thousands of years ago. They have been at the lawmaking business for a very long time.

    Based on these figures, Jewish students were roughly 1,000% more likely to be enrolled at Harvard and the rest of the Ivy League than white Gentiles of similar ability.

    Perfectly fine. The Jews who rule the western world and have acquired ownership of the Ivy Colleges by financial manipulation have the ownership right to determine who is allowed into their institutions. If they prefer hottentots to rednecks, it really doesn’t matter in the end. The long term effect will simply be deterioration of the product. The Ivy League will be replaced by the Chinese League or maybe something else entirely.

    These articles included denunciations of Princeton’s long historical legacy of anti-Semitism and quickly led to official apologies, followed by an immediate 30 percent rebound in Jewish numbers. During these same years, non-Jewish white enrollment across the entire Ivy League had dropped by roughly 50 percent, reducing those numbers to far below parity, but this was met with media silence or even occasional congratulations on the further “multicultural” progress of America’s elite education system.

    Media silence. Most legacy media, i.e. MSM, is a possession of the same group of people who now own the Ivy Colleges.

    Better that the young lady mentioned in the article find Mr. Wonderful, get married, have four children, and sing in the church choir than to waste four years of a finite life span studying ancient middle eastern philosophy. Or anything else, for that matter.

    O.K. Mr. Almost Wonderful. Nobody’s perfect.

    By the way. A well written article. Tx.

  33. J says:

    Let me point out that you are dealing with ethnic categories as if they were immutable. They are not. In the 120 years since Ashkenazi immigration to America, there had been considerable intermarriage and name-change. When an original contingent arrived from the Soviet Union, they immediately re-established the Jewish academic leadership in the USA. Assimilation also diluted the Japanese group. I wonder what happened to America’s founder population.

  34. anon[107] • Disclaimer says:

    Is the reason people apply to be accepted into college so that they can get a loan to pay for their chosen professional field of study? Maybe it’s the field of study she wants. Maybe she could get a job and pay for a couple classes and then try to get accepted that way proving she can do what’s needed. As all you libertarians know they don’t have to accept you into their institution. Maybe she could try for West Point or the Naval Academy. Or just join the service they have all kinds of programs to put you through school, of course you have to work too. There are options.
    I’m sure most people today would see her as privileged her whole life, everything was just so easy for her and now they want to force her into the dirt to teach her a lesson that she isn’t that wonderful and that everyone is as good as her yadda yadda and on and on it goes. They won’t recognize her talents and would rather have her waste away at doing something menial just to so they can say “see your not wonderful and we have power over you.”
    What school she went to and the rigors of the curriculum could make a difference too.

  35. anarchyst says:

    The abolition of Roe v. Wade does not abolish abortion but returns it to the states, which is the proper place for regulation, thereof.
    Look for an uptick in “abortion tourism” which those who live in anti-abortion states will avail themselves of.
    In fact, California is offering to pay the expenses of any woman who wishes to travel to California to get an abortion.
    Roe v. Wade may be history, but abortions most certainly are not.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  36. anarchyst says:

    You are correct. Whites are being shut out of the trades by “affirmative action” policies that favor “people of color” and “underprivileged minorities”.
    The first “nail in the coffin” was the abolition of aptitude tests, (Griggs v. Duke Power) once being a reliable indicator of suitability for a given profession or trade.
    The level of competence has already decreased immensely. That is a given.
    I see a “gold mine” for those of us who have retired from the trades who can now “freelance” and correct mistakes and installation screwups by our current crop of “affirmative action bipoc” skilled tradesmen.
    Advice to white skilled tradesmen: Put out a shingle and advertise your services. You will get more business than you can handle.

    • Replies: @Alden
  37. Ms. Younger’s got a nice rack on her. Maybe she should count her blessings, as going the Ivy League route would likely lead to Cat Lady-land. Instead maybe she will get married and become a stay-at-home mom to a bunch of really smart white kids.

  38. @SafeNow

    Your claim that there is a huge difference in future success between the 99th and 99.9th percentile is challenged in Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers. As I recall, he cites evidence that in many fields, including most scientific ones, one needs to be “good enough” (the equivalent of, say, a 125 IQ) after which the prize goes to whoever works hardest. In other words, 125 IQ people, or their equivalent in whatever ability is under consideration, are about as likely to succeed as 180 IQ people.

    Gladwell argues that this “good enough” principle seems to apply across the board. The super-talented musically, he claims, are no more likely to become professional performers, or star performers, than the “talented enough.” It’s purely a function of how many hours they put in. Likewise for athletic talent, artistic talent, etc. He cites plenty of quantitative evidence seemingly supporting his position.

    Can you point me to the best available refutation of Gladwell’s claims?

  39. The plight of Kaitlyn Younger reminds of Hollywood movies in which an actor tells a wounded person that not to worry because he is going to get them a nice Jewish doctor, i.e. a smart one who will fix him up. Now the story is going to be, ‘I will get you a nice Negro who won’t be able to fix you up but he’ll be nice to you’. A voodoo priest would be preferable!

  40. These heebs must be barred every single country on Earth if we managed to survive the coming calamities.

    Since the kikes only have funny fiat money and 1/0 as “wealth”, the Exodus will be a real Holocaust this time, unlikely the 20th century HOAX.

    The yids are not even fit to scrape toilets.

    • Replies: @Meretricious
  41. @RJ Macready

    JFK went to Harvard along with all his brothers, if you want to look at bad academic performance and cheating look at sole survivor Teddy. So his son was a legacy admit, but one should question how her father and uncles all attended it. Chelsa Clinton went to Stanford for some reason, it fits your thesis although every time I look at Stanford it looks more weird.

    Maila Obama went to Harvard, which isn’t a legacy admit since her parents attended the Law School except her Kenyan grandfather did attend Harvard. I’d note frankly her father’s Ivy League undergraduate school Columbia on Manhattan Island too damned dangerous for her to attend it, but not going for her mother’s Princeton, considered to be the most academically rigorous of the Ivies is also worth noting. Looking at Wikipedia I’m reminded she had an internship for Harvey Weinstein so connections aren’t always a win…. Sasha is unexceptional in attending first the University of Michigan and then USC.

    • Disagree: Meretricious
    • Replies: @Meretricious
  42. @Alden

    For some time I’ve believed it was No Accident Reagan’s appointment to head the National Science Foundation, not a scientist but the industrialist EE (((Erich Bloch))) in 1984 was directed connected to the huge campaign that started later in the the decade about how we didn’t have enough STEM graduates. Clearly it had been decided we were paying too much for scientific labor.

    In response to your next message, I think you grossly overstate the bias against white tradesmen, most of whom aren’t unionized, but maybe that’s because I’ve moved back to my overwhelmingly white home town. But in the trades without gatekeeping I don’t see how white are kept out.

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Alden
  43. AaronB says:

    Elite university admissions are obviously no longer successful at selecting the most promising students – this is probably a global phenomenon – and providing an environment that develops and fosters their talent, and this can be seen in the decline of genius and creativity across the globe in virtually every country that uses modern admissions systems.

    In retrospect, this is surely in part the failure of the narrow “scientific” approach towards student selection as represented by “objective” standardized testing and similar narrow minded approaches.

    Our entire approach is hostile to eccentricity, individuality, and intellectual boldness, and favors conformity and status quo thinking.

    East Asians entry to the university system in large numbers, on the backs of high standardized testing scores, coincided with the notable decline in genius and talent – surely, a stark warning about the limits of these tests, largely unheeded because the obvious conclusion calls into question too radically a main pillar of our scientific approach.

    An interesting analogy, and a hint at the problem and it’s solution, is provided by contrasting the German and American officer selection methods during WW2. The German army in that period was notably more capable, and especially creative and daring, than the American.

    Significantly, the Americans were using the objective, scientific approach of standardized testing, while the Germans relied on imprecise and unscientific methods like personal impressions and interviews.

    Interestingly, the Israeli Army during it’s most effective years also relied heavily on personal interviews and impressions in selecting it’s officers (not sure what they do today. The decline in the quality of it’s armed forces suggests standardizes testing is more widely relief on today).

    And of course Oxbridge in England was able to produce a steady stream of geniuses and elite talent while relying on personal interviews and such imprecise and unscientific methods.

    In the 18th century I believe it was, traditional Chinese methods of selecting officials based on standardized tests began to gain widespread influence in the West. Although the Chinese system was frequently venal and corrupt, and frequently failed in it’s mission, it was designed to select as much for moral and spiritual qualities as intellectual ones.

    In reality, it all too frequently selected for conformists and good memorizers.

    High level intellectual ability, like moral qualities, may be something that continues to be mysterious and resistant to precise definition and testing, and any system that relies too much in testing may be failing.

    I’m not suggesting we abandon standardized tests – they surely have their place – or rely simply on interviews.

    What is needed is complete cultural transformation across the board away from the narrowly “scientistic” approach to – everything. The reintroduction of more imprecise and messy methods and abandoning the goal of complete precision.

    The premise of this article – that our systems and methods work but the problem is social – is radically flawed, and just reproduces this failed system.

  44. AaronB says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    While you are surely correct that beyond a certain level IQ doesn’t matter, and the notion that IQ is so precise a measure of that indefinable quality we call intelligence that it can give us such a fine grained picture of precise ability is merely scientistic nonsense, the idea that we “know” – or can know” that elite talent is entirely a product of the two factors you mentioned is silly.

    Surely, high intellectual ability is somewhat mysterious and we are nowhere near able to reduce it to two – or three or ten – simple principles. And will never be able to.

    Are we as a culture ready to widen our scope of vision past these “reductionistic” notions?

  45. Anonymous[195] • Disclaimer says:

    Politicizing education and entrepreneurship will destroy a country’s competitiveness within a few generations.

    Malaysia is a good case study to what’s going on in the US. Malaysia was a colony of the British. The colony thrived during the later stage of the industrial revolution and provided valuable resources for the Brits during the world wars. The native population, the Malays were not productive enough, resulted in the British encouraging laborers and merchants from China and India to drive the economy. Right around the turn of the century, China was in a state of war and turmoil pushed many Chinese from the coastal regions escaped to Malaysia then called Malaya. Most settled down as traders, plantation owners and laborers. Malaya was an economic powerhouse in the region during the first half of the 1900s.

    In the mid 1950s, Malaya was given independence and at that time the population of ethnic Chinese was hovering around 40% overall. The education system was top notch. It used the British curriculum and official British exams.

    In a few years after independence, the ethnic Chinese political parties gained significant power. The Malays were mostly poor and uneducated with the exception of a few elites. There was much resentment against the Chinese for their affluence causing a series of event that changed the course of its history from the mid 1960s onwards. Singapore, then was a state in Malaysia with 90% of it population, ethnic Chinese was kicked out of Malaysia. That reduced the Chinese political power within Malaysia proper. Following the race riot targeting the Chinese in 1969, massive affirmative action programs were instituted. From business ownerships, land acquisitions, and the education system in favor of the Malays.

    Government contracts were given exclusively to incompetent Malay companies which in turn subcontract out to Chinese contractors. Most land was re-designated as Malay reserved land. Housing developments must allocate at least 30% to Malays whether they can afford them or not. Public listed companies must allocate 30% of their shares to Malays which many were just given for next to nothing to connected Malays just to satisfy the quota since most Malays can’t afford to buy shares.

    The education system was dumbed down so Malays can pass STEM courses. Local universities will accept Malays into STEM majors first. Any leftovers, if any, was then given to the others.

    All of this sounds good on paper. The Malays deserve to be prosperous and successful too. Except it didn’t. Today, Malays a no more employable than when they were under the British. Their degrees are worth nothing. Currently there is a quota on hiring Malays and multinationals and non-Malay companies which usually do not hire Malays for obvious reasons hired them to do nothing.

    Today, the ethnic Chinese are less than 25% of the population. Despite all the affirmative action, they still have one the highest income per capita in the world and contributed close to 90% of Malaysia’s income tax.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    , @J
    , @littlereddot
  46. @anarchyst

    Yes it will offer real business opportunies in an age of cheap travel and packaged tours. Only retarded girls raped by their carers’ boyfriends won’t be able to get an abortion. Real downmarket for cheapskate inseminators will be attendance at the mobile clinic just across the state border or on some land not within state jurisdiction in the state.

  47. SafeNow says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    What I wrote was “what the professor can expect from the student.” By “expect,” I think it was pretty clear that I was referring to performance in his class. I didn’t mean “expect to read, in journals or newspapers, years later, that, hooray, the former student had superbly excelled in his field.” You are the one who made the jump to the real world. It is an interesting and important jump, but not relevant to this discussion. An advanced-algebra professor at M.I.T. produces the best advanced-algebra expertise he can, and resists the temptation, successfully I hope, to be a life coach.

    I don’t mean to denigrate Gladwell, but I can think of many counter-examples. For example, org-syn (organic synthesis). A right-tail-way-out-there fellow at big pharma has a brilliant creative spark and intuits the skeleton of a 50-step process for what he thinks might be a new molecule, a new drug. Off it then goes to China, where the 125-IQ Ph.D., and the 125-IQ graduate students in his lab, do the fastidious and somewhat clever “benchwork.” (Maybe, at the logjam at step 37, you need to cook it a little longer; or a little warmer.)

  48. Ronnie says:

    When I went to Yale in 1967 I noticed this and I was shocked. When I talked about it I was shunned and called an antisemite. I found this account at the American Jewish Historical Society:

    “By 1919, about 80% of the students at New York’s Hunter and City colleges were Jews, and 40% at Columbia. Jews at Harvard tripled to 21% of the freshman class in 1922 from about 7% in 1900. Ivy League Jews won a disproportionate share of academic prizes and election to Phi Beta Kappa but were widely regarded as competitive, eager to excel academically and less interested in extra-curricular activities such as organized sports. Non-Jews accused them of being clannish, socially unskilled and either unwilling or unable to“fit in.”
    In 1922, Harvard’s president, A. Lawrence Lowell, proposed a quota on the number of Jews gaining admission to the university. Lowell was convinced that Harvard could only survive if the majority of its students came from old American stock.
    Lowell argued that cutting the number of Jews at Harvard to a maximum of 15% would be good for the Jews, because limits would prevent further anti-Semitism. Lowell reasoned, “The anti-Semitic feeling among the students is increasing, and it grows in proportion to the increase in the number of Jews. If their number should become 40% of the student body, the race feeling would become intense.”
    The fight against Jewish quotas at Harvard was led by Harry Starr, an undergraduate and the son of a Russian immigrant who established the first kosherbutcher shop in Gloversville, New York. As president of the Menorah Society, Harvard’s major Jewish student organization, Starr organized a series of meetings between Jewish and non-Jewish students, faculty and administrators to discuss Lowell’s proposed quota. The meetings were frequently heated and painful. As Starr recalled in an account published in 1985, which can be found at the American Jewish Historical Society, “We learned that it was numbers that mattered; bad or good, too many Jews were not liked. Rich or poor, brilliant or dull, polished or crude—[the problem was] too many Jews.”Starr insisted that there could be no “Jewish problem” at Harvard or in America. Starr observed, “The Jew cannot look on himself as a problem…. Born or naturalized in this country, he is a full American.” If admitting all qualified Jews to Harvard meant a change in the traditional social composition of the student body, so be it. Starr refused to hear any hokum about ‘pure’ American stock as a way to limit Jewish admissions to Harvard. “Tolerance,” he wrote in the Menorah Journal, “is not to be administered like castor oil, with eyes closed and jaws clenched.” Lowell received a great deal of public criticism, particularly in the Boston press. Harvard’s overseers appointed a 13-member committee, which included three Jews, to study the university’s “Jewish problem.” The committee rejected a Jewish quota but agreed that “geographic diversity” in the student body was desirable. Harvard had been using a competitive exam to determine who was admitted, and urban Jewish students were scoring highly on the exam. Urban public schools such as Boston Latin Academy intensely prepared their students, many of whom were Jewish, to pass Harvard’s admissions test. The special committee recommended that the competitive exam be replaced by an admissions policy that accepted top-ranking students from around the nation, regardless of exam scores. By 1931, because students from urban states were replaced by students from Wyoming and North Dakota who ranked in the top of their high school classes, Harvard’s Jewish ranks were cut back to 15% of the student body.”
    But as Ron Unz shows in his magnificent article, the percentage of Jewish undergraduates at these top schools was back around 25% in the 1960ies and has been there ever since. An additional point is that here are more than 50% Jewish students in these graduate schools.

  49. Perhaps a little off topic, but what exactly qualifies people like Governor Gavin Newsom to be governor of California on any basis that includes merit? Yesterday he ran a commercial where he was mentioning the environment while walking through a pristine California forest————–one that he didn’t let burn down yet. This is just one example of his merit.

  50. @Anonymous

    Interesting post on Malaysia.

    Affirmative action always results in the lowering of standards for favored groups rather than raising up those groups to meet the same standards for all.

    Many of us believe that genetics may make “raising up” of some groups impossible.

    However–in the case of the Malaysians it may appear that something else is at work. The actual system of affirmative action may depress performance. The “head start” approach that failed so miserably with American blacks might actually work with Malaysian children–as long as there is no compromising on standards and no affirmative action.

    It would be a great test case.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  51. @Ron Unz

    If you havent(I’m sure you have!)read Steve farron’s book The Affirmative Action Hoax. He does a very deep analysis of the SAT and it’s recentering and the obvious motive behind it. He’s a bit of a test fetishist, but his discussion is very interesting. I’m not sure how absolutely psychometric the sat is.

    Mr. Unz, may we inquire what your SAT was?

  52. @Z-man

    What happened to Kaitlin Younger? I couldn’t get access to the WSJ article for free.

    I can’t find it now, but one article (either a substack or on stated that she ended up choosing the University of Arizona, as not even UT Austin (or another well-regarded state school) accepted her. It’s an enormous downgrade and tragic how it will affect the life trajectory of a seemingly bright student. Pretty much the only upsides are that she’ll never have to wear a jacket, she’ll dominate her peers academically, and will have a more fun social life than she might have had at any of the Ivies. Still, that’s little consolation for being so blatantly discriminated against and having her future sabotaged by white-hating tribesmen.

    • Thanks: Z-man
  53. @Ron Unz

    You know, the recentering made the SAT less psychometric. They also removed the mathematical comparisons, which were the most g loaded part, so say. The hi IQ societies like mensa and triple nine won’t accept the after 1995 SAT for entry!

  54. @That Would Be Telling

    What makes you think Malia is any smarter than her dumb mother or her mediocre father? All blacks receive preference at high IQ institutions, especially mulattoes

  55. Somewhat long-winded, is our Mr. Unz.

  56. A degree from an Ivory League college is a golden ticket for success, not for the superior education recieved but for being a member of an elitist club. In every presidential administration since Kennedy, except the HW Bush admin, the majority of senior appointees have come from elite colleges, eventhough less than 1% of college grads are from elite colleges. The same goes for members of the Supreme Court.

    The cronyism practiced by Ivory League colleges makes jewish tribalism and the Indian caste system look amateurish. Ivory Leaguers have dominated the top leadership positions of our federal government for decades, and look at the shape we are in.

    The lowly plebe AA points out that even our so called populist leaders, JD Vance, Josh Hawley, Ron DeSantis, are Ivory Leaguers.

    If Trump really wanted to drain the swamp, a degree from an Ivory League college should have disqualfied any potential political and judge appointees. But with him being an Ivory League graduate himself, that was unlikely.

  57. @HeebHunter

    you have a serious personality disorder. I recommend immediate castration and 2 aspirin/day, followed by heavy Pornhub therapy. Good luck, Mr Heeb

    • Replies: @HeebHunter
  58. IronForge says:

    So Sad, Too Bad. Most of these Ivy League Schools were established by Protestants and Secularist.

    Greed, Ethnic Hatred, Influence Peddling, and Resource Plundering.

    The Jewish Skewing of these Ivy Student Demographics have gone too far. This may influence a “Brain Drain” from Murica.

    Guess I’m going to have to find Non-Murican STEM Schools for any Children I may have.

    So relieved that I don’t have a Wife, Children, or In-Laws here in Murica, GBR+Commonwealth, or FRA.

    I’ll hopefully move abroad soon…

  59. @Ron Unz

    The breadth and depth of your sustained efforts in uncovering the truth underlying our empirical existence are exceptionally rare in the US and western world today. I note that your 2016 anthology is unavailable on amzn and rare and costly on bookfinder. Could I suggest — with the exceptional quality of print on demand (such as the superb Urs App book ‘Schopenhauer’s Compass’) — paper, binding, and graphics at least equivalent to commercial press, and rapid fire availability, a new anthology?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  60. TGD says:

    There is a simple solution. Open 10 new Harvard campuses in various parts of the USA and ditto for Yale, Princeton, Cornell and the rest of the Ivies. Divvy up the faculties and reproduce the various architectural styles and voila, problem solved.

  61. For those inclined towards the questions; how, why, when, where, what, and who or whom, the inevitable decline of empires and enterprises ought not be surprising. It cannot be helped. Entrenched interests naturally defend their positions. Sometimes it is sheer bloody mindedness sometimes ignorance sometimes selfishness sometimes from the need to be seen as powerful and important and influential. These motives are all to human. History is unequivocal in this matter.

    In the early days of empire there is a level playing field. The field is large enough to absorb the contestants aspirations and more or less in accordance with their capabilities deliver rewards. The meritocratic principle is self evident. Various knowledges learned elsewhere are reapplied without the encumbrances attendant at source. These is room for synthesis, invention, and innovation. The manifestations are praised when successful and forgotten when not.


    It is inevitable that the obvious inheritors of these early endeavours rarely are the same types as their forbearers. In this it amazes me how powerless we all are in the face of inevitability. For those with children and grandchildren who can remember their great grandfathers and great grandmothers, grand fathers and grandmothers and their fathers and mothers one can assume the natural inclination to provide betterment for their inheritors. Seldom though is there a straight line from one generation to another.

    When we are born we inherit a surprise packet of characteristics which may or may not have any resemblance to their antecedents. And in any case the circumstances are not at all the same. Each of us is born at the bottom of a well of ignorance and we are larded with assumptions and presumptions.

    This world is an illusion, the real world shocks! Our place in the world shifts for us as we continually assess and reassess its dimensions. For the uncurious but nevertheless competent or even exceptional life may surprise or disappoint without them cognizing the exogenous circumstance which supported and rewarded their efforts. In many cases they are trapped inside a paradigm where they come to believe they made themselves. Sure they may have worked hard but rewards are not distributed fairly are they?

    Fate plays an extraordinary role in each of our lives. One such instance is shock! Wars, inventions, innovations, disasters, political change, luck, bear down on everyone, but not in equal measure.

    The Internet cannot be overestimated in its effects. One such effect, bearing on the subject of education will no doubt be the enabling of the self selecting, and self determined to educate themselves, without the need for attending certain established routes to success. Entrepreneurial educators will no doubt find it adventitious to establish their presence in an online forum. A first these endeavours will be mocked and slandered — people truly interested in educating others will be only to happy to shrug off the unnecessary chrysalis of what was presumably thought to be necessary, but will come to be thought of as an unnecessary encumbrance — and teach the truly interested through the marvel of interactivity.

    One need not be thought prescient here. This is already happening. The establishment has allowed the education of our young to be a process of social conditioning, focusing altogether too much on fantasy, as though social engineering is not sheer madness. Of course buried under the entire heap of the most ridiculous nonsense not even imagined by the most dystopian futurists writing in the early years of last Century is an agenda. Certainly control is its essence. But already one can see how “every stick has two ends” — while there is an establishment most can barely see, whom if they could, would never have allowed the genie out of the bottle, more and more their machinations are becoming transparent to ordinary people. …Otherwise the truckers revolt would not have garnered so much opprobrium in the MSM. The truckers attracted far more support from ordinary people than the establishment in Canada were prepared for. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s step brother could be seen mocking him. Without the Internet this criticism would never have seen the light of day.

    At some point establishments become rotten. They carry on, inertia is a force too. The Internet though is a force without precedent. In and of itself, it is egalitarian, democratic, messy, unpredictable, collaborative, meritorious — and revolutionary. Obviously Ron Unz, is, through the power of the Internet, reaching an audience much greater than Instauration ever did.

    Harvard has been made to seem the antithesis of a place of higher learning by Ron Unz — indeed his essay has revealed Harvard for what it has become. A helpful construct for perpetuating the mediocrity of an artificial construct — a closed shop intentionally designed to perpetuate a class of transnational racists — whom collectively have no loyalty to the bulk of the American people.

    Harvards huge investment portfolio is no doubt used to underwrite endeavours where graduates find favourable acknowledgment of their Harvard imprimatur.

    consequently a new sort of meritocracy.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  62. Apologies, composing one’s comments here allows no time for an appropriate edit.

  63. @Happy Tapir

    I’m not sure how absolutely psychometric the sat is.

    That is a good question.

  64. Spanky says:


    Sorry Ron, but I just don’t have the time at the moment. But I will read it, I promise.

    Still… I get the whole meritocracy thing. Seriously, but…

    Considering the apparent competence of our forebears in building this empire, shouldn’t we support its recruits being dumbed down? If this were still the republic Washington, Franklin and Jefferson fashioned then, yeah, maybe recruiting the best and brightest results in statesmen and honest leaders.

    But in the Empire of Lies?

    I want incompetence. Big and bold. Make it obvious to any thinking person. We need more singing censors and fewer Machiavellis.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  65. Anon[324] • Disclaimer says:

    “What happened to Kaitlin Younger?”

    Who is John Galt?

    We bin talent as if the supply is overwhelmingly plentiful.

    It isn’t.

    I’ll say it. The U.S. has a deep-seated cultural hatred of intelligence and ability, contrary to all the myths about meritocracy it feverishly promotes. The real social glue of America is “all men are created equal” and “money is the measure of a man.”

    The U.S. temporarily tolerates talent if that talent turns out great wealth. It’s the cash that’s admired, not the talent. Eventually the talented person is destroyed. Taxed, smeared, sued, and/or canceled.

    Note the egalitarians who work their way into these threads. “IQ isn’t everything.” “Academic scores aren’t everything.” “Demonstrated performance isn’t everything.” “Competence isn’t everything, what about empathy?” “Empathy isn’t everything–what about autistic people and sociopaths? What about Minor Attracted Persons? What about non-linear learners such as the Dalits? Shouldn’t our schools and professions look like America?” It’s just raw hatred of superiority per se, veiled under cheap “inclusivity” rhetoric.

    We are getting what we deserve.

    Cherish your indoor plumbing while you still have it. It’s going away, along with paved roads. Snicker now, but get back to me in 20 years.

  66. @werpor werpor

    Harvards huge investment portfolio is no doubt used to underwrite endeavours where graduates find favourable acknowledgment of their Harvard imprimatur.

    There’s a funny story about meritocracy there. Harvard for a while had one of the most successful investment units in history but the faculty and administrators couldn’t tolerate those guys being paid at the Wall Street instead of academic level. So that was “fixed” and the talent including the risk managers left.

    By the time of the 2008 crash that unit was so bad at its job it didn’t notice for a long time it hadn’t closed out one losing bet until it had lost a billion dollars. Last time I checked they had to stop a colossal effort at building a new campus. Haven’t looked since then but don’t assume they have as much money to spend as they please as you think. Most donors don’t trust college administrators so they earmark their money, that’s one reason tuition is so valued and still so high, it’s unrestricted and can be spent as the administrators please.

  67. J says:

    Re Malaysia: The system is working nicely. The same in Thailand and Indonesia. There is social peace, and the Chinese minority is prospering. It occurs to me that America is moving to a similar system, where political power (and fake Ph.D. diplomas) are being handed to the dumb majority, allowing the smart minority to prosper.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Brian Damage
  68. Anon[148] • Disclaimer says:

    For a real eye opener – try this exercise

    Tally up the number of Jewish kids graduating High School (approx 75,000)

    Figure ( roughly ) 18,000 Freshman places at the top ten schools

    Use the % of Jewish attendees that Ron Unz shows in his article (approx 7,500)

    Now divide the total Jewish HS graduate by the number of Jewish attendees. (Approx 10% of population attend a top ten school )

    Now do the same for white Christians

    It’s that bad

  69. Ron Unz says:

    Could it be that academically-qualified Jews are more likely to want to go to school back East than similarly qualified gentiles?

    There’s certainly an element of that. But the disproportion is so enormous—roughly 1,000%—that it almost certainly dwarfs any factors like that, of which there are also others.

    Depending upon how interested you are in the topic, you might want to read my original article, that analyzed all those possible factors in great detail, along with the series of follow-up columns:

    Also, there seems a great deal of evidence that high-performing Asians are extremely eager to attend the Ivy League, but also fail to be admitted.

  70. Ron Unz says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I did and accordingly have been surprised to get the impression recently that the plaintiffs’ case in the litigation against Harvard has made nothing of the strongest evidence of malfeasance, namely the preference given to Jewis. Is that right? I get the impression that the case is doomed.

    As I suggested in my article, everyone involved in the trial is simply terrified of that aspect of the issue and therefore avoids it. The main reason I doubt that anything much will happen is that the elite universities have now moved away from using admissions tests, and without tests it’s difficult to demonstrate discrimination.

    Incidentally, last year’s Harvard admissions were 18% black, a huge jump. Indeed, I think blacks may now considerably outnumber white Gentiles at Harvard, although the latter group is a much larger fraction of the American population.

    • Thanks: Polistra
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  71. Ron Unz says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    Gladwell argues that this “good enough” principle seems to apply across the board…Can you point me to the best available refutation of Gladwell’s claims?

    I’ll admit I’ve never read any of Gladwell’s books, but my strong impression is that he’s just an incompetent, gullible fraud. That’s based upon numerous harsh critiques of his work I’d read 10-15 years ago back when he was getting much more attention.

    I think he had one book claiming that success in almost any field merely required 10,000 hours of practice or something like that. So just put your nose to the grindstone, and you, too, can be another Richard Feynman….

  72. Ron Unz says:
    @A B Coreopsis

    I note that your 2016 anthology is unavailable on amzn and rare and costly on bookfinder.

    Until recently I’d had hard copies of the 2016 collection available on Amazon, but sales were virtually nil. However, an updated version of the that text and numerous other eBooks are freely available for downloading on this website:

    • Replies: @A B Coreopsis
  73. Ron Unz says:

    Considering the apparent competence of our forebears in building this empire, shouldn’t we support its recruits being dumbed down?…I want incompetence. Big and bold. Make it obvious to any thinking person. We need more singing censors and fewer Machiavellis.

    Sure, that’s a perfectly valid argument.

    However, if you do a CTRL-F for the word “grandiose” you’ll better understand why I’m still kicking myself over my mistakes six years after our defeat…

  74. Miro23 says:

    Based on these figures, Jewish students were roughly 1,000% more likely to be enrolled at Harvard and the rest of the Ivy League than white Gentiles of similar ability. This was an absolutely astonishing result given that under-representation in the range of 20% or 30% is often treated by courts as powerful prima facie evidence of racial discrimination.

    Furthermore, I noted the possibility that this discrepancy might be related to the overwhelming Jewish dominance of the top administration of those institutions

    It would be unreasonable to ignore the salient fact that this massive apparent bias in favor of far less-qualified Jewish applicants coincides with an equally massive ethnic skew at the topmost administrative ranks of the universities in question, a situation which once again exactly parallels Karabel’s account from the 1920s.

    The current Jewish dominance is not justified by academic merit or their percentage of the US population (2%) and is another aspect of the ongoing US Jewish attack on white Gentiles. The article also shows other minority races being allowed (by Jews) to displace higher ability whites.

    The problem is that Jews hijack the US and take power to use it exclusively their own interests. Not too different from Russia under Yeltsin with his Jewish oligarch looters – but actually worse because dominance of the US allows a whole new level of power – and dreams of world dominance (NWO). If they can destroy the Anglos then why not the Russians and Chinese? Hence the 2014 Ukraine CIA/Neocon coup and attack on Russia as a prelude to the subjugation of China.

    Putin no doubt especially rankles because he was their guy (a WEF/Davos trained “young leader”) groomed by the oligarchs to take over from Yeltsin. Not only did he turn on them (expel/control them) but he imprisoned their chosen leader (Khodorkovsky – 10 years). Also probably assassinated his criminal oligarch sponsor Berezovsky, and halted the NWO ZioGlob invasion of Syria.

  75. Anonymous[195] • Disclaimer says:

    The average IQ of Native Malays is in the 80s. Just like their ethnic cousins in the Philippines and Indonesia. Both Indonesia and the Philippines have no affirmative action policies favoring the natives. The GDP per capita of Philippines and Indonesia are on the low end. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka all have somewhat similar low GDP per capita. Malaysia is in the middle income range because of the presence of Chinese minorities. Your idea would not work.

    I did some googling on the demographic and GDP data and this is what I got.

    If we use the average GDP per capita of Indonesia+Philippines (\$4,189) as the standard for ethnic Malay productivity, at 23% of the population, the ethnic Chinese would have an average of \$45,000 per capita in GDP. That is probably too low considering that a large chunk of the economy in Indonesia and the Philippines are owned by their ethnic Chinse minority therefore the average native Malay GDP per capita in both Indonesia and Philippines would probably be around \$1,500. Using that as the standard, Malaysian ethnic Chinese’s GDP per capita would be around \$54,000 which is more realistic as Singapore, a predominantly ethnic Chinese economy in Southeast Asia, with a GDP per capita of \$79,000. The \$25,000 discrepancy between the Singaporean and Malaysian Chinese can be attributed to the lack of efficiency and infrastructure, and the rent-seeking institutional bureaucracy.

  76. Anonymous[195] • Disclaimer says:

    I agree. Just put up with the BS and prosper.

  77. anonymous[854] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    Couldn’t it also be that favored groups like Jews and Blacks are overrepresented in socially liberal non-profit activism, and that is what drives the bulk of their favorable treatment? I would especially suspect this since Universities are liberally-oriented nonprofits and therefore look favorably on that.

    After all, I doubt rural White people or test-oriented Asian city kids are spending their time activising against the death penalty or something.

    All of the socially active Asians I know, who are overrepresented in social activism, or working on emerging fields have virtually 0% difficulty getting into a good College, with the bulk going to an Ivy League school. I have seen Chinese and Indian Americans with mediocre test scores getting into an Ivy League masters with scholarships, with their only distinguishing factor being some form of activism, such as in one case going to China to help gender nonprofits and another going to India to help with building housing.

    I think the problem with the opponents of the current admissions process is they don’t understand that these colleges, for various reasons, primarily view themselves as social institutions heavily influenced by non-profits, not learning centers, so they pick ethnicities and backgrounds that favor this. Students that take advantage of this have virtually zero problem getting into these institutions, whereas a student who ignores this will get smacked away.

    For instance, in the case of Tiffany Wang from your writings, it is said the admissions officer would have been more favorable to her application if he had been aware of her campaigning against the Death Penalty. Tiffany Wang’s only problem is that she didn’t emphasize that aspect. Of course connections matter, but not as much as a good story to liberal wine aunts in charge of admissions.


    Furthermore, I would expect affirmative action kids picked to go to college are the ones that are at the center of non-profit activism, in that their life story and background make them a good fit for those sort of institutions after graduation, such as President Obama was. Chinese math wizards are not going to become US President, so they won’t get in unless they are exceptional. Upper-middle class Black kids I know, whose hobbies are anime and video games with very good scores, are not getting into good universities either, from what I can tell.

    Why did this state of affairs come about? Because non-profits are 10% of the US economy, and control US politics and the actions of corporations. There is a demand for people who can understand, and predict that industry, and so the college demographic makeup reflects that influence.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  78. @Ron Unz

    Thanks for the link to this archive which seems impressively complete — an investment in the future when I suspect there will be greater interest in the corpus of your iconoclastic work, even if it is only in China. The Chinese, as they pore over all aspects of Western creative life, may keep your name alive, as they are doing for the composers of the canon of western classical music.

    Books may be like black discs, cycling again into favor. As an air traveler, I’ve noticed that anyone with a book or newspaper is viewed with puzzlement and glances as to what could be so interesting. “An Anthology of the Controversial Ron Unz”, or “An Anthology of the Despised Andrew Anglin” — these are titles I’d like to schlepp about in public.

  79. @J

    While in theory it can work BUT the US is not Thailand nor Indonesia. It has nuclear weapons. I am not about to give the nuclear codes to a bunch of dumbed down politicians or fake PhDs.

  80. Translation: jews run everything, including Harvard.

  81. turtle says:
    @George Weinbaum

    Are these results available online?
    If so, please provide a link.
    If not, please justify your assertion.

    I would be interested to know the results for 1966, my own HS graduation year.
    The best math student at my HS got a perfect 800 SAT math. She went to Rice on a sponsored National Merit scholarship. Her dad worked for IBM.

    Curious to know how many others managed it that year, and how many took the test.


  82. d dan says:

    I don’t think making Harvard tuition-free will help. If anything, it will make a place in Harvard even more desirable and privileged. I agree and understand the objective to lower the costs for everyone, but I doubt most colleges will follow Harvard’s lead of the hypothetical tuition-free policy. They could always argue that they lack the endowment to provide free education to most of their students.

    An alternative innovative argument to break the monopolistic power of these elite colleges might be to attack their non-profit tax status. Since they clearly have the financial power to provide their services to more people, but refuse to do so, it is a violation of constitutional rights of many students. After all, if Harvard’s (supposedly or real) educational advantage is due to Harvard’s inherent systematic, managerial and/or professional superiority, then such competence should and could be replicated for the benefits of more students.

    The push should be for them to admit more students (i.e. “enlarge the cake”) rather than to fight among the various races/constituents about who should get admitted and/or the criteria for the admissions (i.e. “divide the cake”). Politically and legally, this might replace or complement the existing arguments (meritocracy, affirmative action, etc) in shaping for better outcomes.

  83. Alden says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    Where I live, California there are no more White tradesmen due to the fact that contractors won’t hire them.

    I’m very very familiar with electricians and IBEW. Because I’m on the Board of Directors of a medium sized electrical contracting company. All our workers are IBEW inside wiremen. The sub contractors are IBEW inside wiremen as well as having their state contractors licenses. I’ve been involved with the company for decades.

    And believe me the EEOC and the affirmative action enforcers have been putting pressure in IBEW since that anti White liberal Robert Kennedy acting as attorney general of the United States began pressuring the apprenticeship programs in 1962.

    We might have a different idea of tradesmen. Mine is a person who passed an entrance exam on math and mechanical ability, has a high school diploma with Bs in algebra 1 and 2 and geometry, not remedial math and went through a rigorous 5 year apprenticeship program with 8 hours a week classes in their own trade’s building code and the state and county building codes for all the trades. Plus state and county fire and health and safety codes.

    That’s a tradesman

  84. Alden says:

    Nice to meet another blue collar person on cubicle land UNZ. The problem for young Whites is there’s no chance to learn. Because except for electricians and plumbers there don’t seem to be any apprenticeships left.

    • Replies: @Meretricious
  85. since the majority of aa recipients are whites same sex practitioners, and white women by the tune if 70 percent plus the article is barking up the wrong tree.

    but i get it the

    ‘blacks fault’

    dog whistle, low hanging fruit is just too hard to pass by.

  86. good grief

    it is now 2022 and you are still howling about a system that benefits and has benefited whites since the early 1970’s to the tune of 70 plus percent

    the system is being changed by white women and white same sex practitioners who have the numbers by volume and occupy the places of influences to cause the concerns raised.

    • Replies: @Meretricious
  87. @Alden

    stop complaining! you want Malia Obama’s IQ?

  88. Jim H says:

    ‘a couple of years ago I sketched out the grandiose scenario that had soon entered my thoughts’ — Ron Unz

    Likewise, I furiously sketch out grandiose scenarios and esoteric quotes (Nabokov, Amis, George Jones, et al) on brightly colored index cards, when profoundly baked on delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.

    These deluded scribblings may yet result in a self-edited non-fiction book — stay tuned!

    Meanwhile, were I serving as editor of the talented researcher, writer and data analyst Ron Unz, I would implore him to separate his excellent factual analyses (roughly the first third of this article) from personal shaggy-dog anecdotes such as the Harvard Board of Overseers campaign.

    Thank you all the same, Mr Unz, for your fine website.

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Wizard of Oz
    , @Ron Unz
  89. Turtle:
    There was an article about how rare 800s were on the SAT in Science in about 1961.

  90. Alden says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    Thanks for the info about the appointment of Erich Bloch by Regean. I went to college with the young White men who were recruited by NASA and its contractors and sent a man to the moon. Two weeks after graduation they were working in Mountain View. Husband had similar friends and we all kept in touch.

    Then in the early 1980s in Regean’s early years suddenly NASA ended many programs and many were laid off. That happened a lot. But this time they weren’t re hired And soon replaced by Indians and Chinese.

    Conservatives are as anti White as liberals are.

    But that’s the history of American labor relations. Back in 1810 the textile mills of Massachusetts hired American unmarried women. Didn’t pay all that much but gave them generous room board and even clothes in boarding houses. Which after all is what the average worker gets from his wages. That lasted about one generation. And soon the American women were replaced by Irish and German immigrants paid starvation wages.

    American labor relations is 400 years of bringing in the desperate workers As soon as one cohort of desperate starts organizing or finding other occupations another cohort of desperate workers comes in.

    I agree with English economist David Ricardo. He wrote in the 1700s. An entire book showing that the first generation of workers that learns a new skill does very well. And becomes prosperous. But then everybody wants to learn the new skill. Within a generation the occupation is over crowded with workers and wages go down. I forget the name of Ricardo’s book.

    • Thanks: Spanky
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  91. @EliteCommInc.

    WRONG: read this about how race hustlers like Shonda Rhimes almost destroyed Netflix:

    • Thanks: That Would Be Telling
  92. Alden says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    What a pretentious asshole you are. Cambridge and Oxford students faculty staff and graduates don’t use the term Oxbridge. They use the name of the college followed by the name of the university. As in Churchill College Cambridge.

    • Agree: Ralph B. Seymour
  93. Rurik says:

    Any White person who is a conservative or a Republican is an idiot. Republicans and conservatives are as anti White as the democrats and BLM. The Republicans are just quieter about their hatred of Whites..

    they don’t hate them, per se

    It’s just that they’re perfectly willing, (eager even) to sell them out for personal gain.

    Reagan sold out the white middle class to the .01%, especially the banking sector.

    He gave amnesty, not because he hates whites, but because the ((PTB)) do, and he, like all the rest of them, are whores. That’s why, and that’s the only reason why, they’re allowed any where near the levers of power. Because they’re soulless whores, and can be expected (to a certainty) to serve their ((masters)) at the expense of those whom they betray.

    But they’re not all equally rotten.

    The Mitt and Marco, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger wing of the GOP are far more rotten than the rest.

    But in all, since Ron Paul retired, it seems near to impossible to find an honorable congress-critter who wouldn’t sell his own mother and children for campaign cash and favorable ((media)) treatment.

    Still, I’m glad that Vance guy beat out the Israeli-first ((POS)) in the Ohio primary.

    As we slog into the abyss, at least there’s a wry moment, (like your admissions essay) along the way.

    No doubt Vance will, when push comes to shove, betray everyone and everything he’s ever said he stands for, when the zio-\$cum knock on his door.

  94. Mike_C says:

    “it was a great article. But I really don’t care about Asians, just Whites. ”

    Fair enough. But this is about strategy and who benefits LONG term. Use the Asian issue as a wedge against Jewish domination of elite universities. This incidentally would mirror the Tribal strategy of using Blacks as a blunt instrument against whites, so there is a sort of poetic justice in it.

    And for those who say (not unreasonably), “Who cares? I’m sending my bright kid to a trade school rather than paying hundreds of thousands to let evil people put snakes into her head,” also fair enough. And good for your bright daughter or son. But the underlying issue is that “elite” credentialing is a gatekeeper into political power. As an example, apart from ACB, I think the overwhelming majority of current and recent past Supreme Court justices have Harvard or Yale on their CVs.

    • Replies: @Alden
  95. Alden says:
    @Jim H

    Be grateful for the site. If Ron wants to explain how he learned about various issues and how he came to think about those issues. It’s his website.

    Or you can learn to read faster.

  96. @Alden

    It’s good to know that at your age you seem to have limited your bilious output to the amount of bilious mental activity you can handle each day. But you might otherwise notice that in many years of commenting on UR I have never specified my college or the colleges of my young relations (including Ivies) or even what relations I have. If you are now on the ball you might have worked out that it is because I don’t want to be identified by arse****s [note Oxbridge spelling] like you. Is that unpretentiously clear enough for you Ms DAR?

  97. @Alden

    FYI. Wikipedia on that word

    Although both universities were founded more than eight centuries ago, the term Oxbridge is relatively recent. In William Thackeray’s novel Pendennis, published in 1850, the main character attends the fictional Boniface College, Oxbridge. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, this is the first recorded instance of the word. Virginia Woolf used it, citing Thackeray, in her 1929 essay A Room of One’s Own. By 1957 the term was used in the Times Educational Supplement and in Universities Quarterly by 1958.

    Now you tell me about Ivies.

    • Replies: @Alden
  98. @Ron Unz

    Thanks for saying your sat. I already thought you were smart, but I just wanted to see how the score correlated.

    I read Outliers and thought it was actually pretty good. I think gladwell is a little disingenuous, as he will make evolutionary arguments and then declare a victory for egalitarianism. I took the thousand hour rule not to mean that everyone could be the equivalent of a great genius, but that a high degree of mastery could be achieved. After a certain iq, effort is more important than shear iq. Feynman only had an iq in the 120s. Shockley, Anderson, e o Wilson, Watson, all report similar scores. Maybe you don’t have to be all that smart to do well in science. Maybe the iq tests are leaving out something important.

  99. @Ron Unz

    Actually a really interesting part of Outliers is the psychometrics part and Termins Termites, if you haven’t read about that before.

  100. @Jim H

    I followed Ron’s Harvard Overseers campaign enough at the time to irritate my Harvard graduate friends by lobbying them to support it. (Despite absence of legacy hopefuls in their issue I didn’t find them responsive – at least not favourably. I don’t think I even got more than a twisted smile out of the “hedge fund with a small educational tax exempt charity attached” gibe).

    So I read that “shaggy dog” section with interest. Ron is indeed a very interesting man, even for his foibles like his refusal to give an inch when the small crew of logical and factual nitpickers on UR threads reject or question ideas he has fallen in live with. Which do you have in mind I hear you ask (with a yawn). Just some simplified versions….

    Try the rogue actors who started the Covid 19 pandemic as American biowarfare against China where he continues to regard an alleged report as the key “smoking gun” and, also, to neglect the likelihood that there was a superspreader in Iran.

    Try the refusal to believe in the 19 Arab hijackers “with boxcutters” being able to do critical damage to the WTC, and thinking that no plane hit the Pentagon. Also that ObL would have boasted about it straighaway if Al Qaeda was involved.

    Try Operation Baebarossa being mainly pre-emptive by Hitler, as if Lebensraum to the East and destroying the Jewish-Bolshevic threat wasn’t enough.

  101. @Ron Unz

    Thanks. Do you know if that astounding 18% figure was achieved
    (a) at the expense of other Ivies black intakes
    (b) disproportionately by admitting upper class Africans
    (C) by avoiding notice of a lot of (claimed) one-drop pale skinned blacks?

    Probably not enough known yet but perhaps you can rely on Steve S to fill us in before long.

    • Replies: @Meretricious
  102. Ferrari says:
    @Ron Unz


    Most students take the SAT/ACT their junior year these days. They are applying for schools in the fall of their senior year and many have early deadlines which they call “early decision” or “early action”. These early deadlines allow students an advantage in getting into schools, especially the best schools.

    So I don’t think we can give her extra points for taking it as a junior in high school.

    • Agree: Sam Hildebrand
    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Ron Unz
  103. @Anon

    Don’t tease. Save us time😉

  104. Alden says:

    Having observed the attempts by pro White activists to use the Asian issue as a wedge to chip away at affirmative action for about 20 years, I don’t believe it will work. It hasn’t worked for 20 years.

    I’m Californian and I’m very very familiar with Asians. I worked at UCLA for a while and listened to Asian students and staff.

    Asians vote as solidly democrat as blacks. Always have and always will. That’s it. Prop 209 was a state of California referendum 1996 to abolish affirmative action in California. Asians voted solidly against the referendum to abolish affirmative action.

    The activists who put Prop 209 on the ballot endlessly pointed out to Asians and Asian leadership that affirmative action hurts Asians as much as it hurts Whites. To no avail Despite the endless propaganda aimed at them, Asians voted as a solid bloc to keep affirmative action.

    Since the death of Saint George Floyd blacks have been attacking Asians relentlessly. Especially older Asians and women.

    And every single time it’s in the news the Asian leadership comes out to denounce “ White racism, Donald Trump and bigotry against the Wuhan fly” as the reason for the attacks on Asians by persons of unknown sex or race.

    Asians and Indians are as staunch a part of the democrat anti White party as are the blacks.

    The White American men who built Silicon Valley tended to be republicans and against blacks and their criminality.

    But as soon as they were replaced by democrat Indians and Asians Santa Clara County turned solid democrat and totally anti White. Remember what the mostly Hispanic city police in the county seat, San Jose did in the 2016 election? There was a Trump rally in San Jose. The solid democrat SJ city police force funneled the Trump rally attendees into an ambush by democrats where many were beaten. And the ambushing assailants were arrested. It was a Charlottesville situation.

    I’m very familiar with Asians having lived with them all my life This includes extended family members . It’s all very well to sit in your small midwestern town and read Jared Taylor and Ron UNZ and think Asians are 4 IQ points higher than Whites therefore they are allies of Whites.

    Asians are not allies of Whites. Never have been and won’t be in your children’s life time. 25 years since California Whites tried to involve Asians in the anti affirmative action referendum. They voted with the other non Whites. No matter what their personal disdain for blacks and Hispanics.

    If multimillionaire Ron tries to help his fellow Whites by helping Asians that’s wonderful and I applaud him for it. But these multimillionaire Whites, me and husband have a family business and 8 grandchildren to preserve from confiscation and genocide. Husband still harassed me because I gave money to Prop 209. He was right and I was wrong. Prop 209 passed but there was no enforcement built in. So it was a complete failure.

    It’s my opinion and has been all my life living among Asians and listening to their opinions about politics and observing Asian politicians and activists. I know there were occasionally an Asian republican in California politics. But that was back in the 1940s and 50s.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  105. Alden says:

    The SATs are out. More and more colleges are making SATs optional. Check the black box and don’t take the SATs. Get admitted with grants scholarships and special tutoring and classes galore. Check the White box and be denied admission.

    That’s all. Times have changed since you were admitted to college.

  106. anon[364] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    Hoxby and Avery (2013) studied the college application behavior of high school students who came from low-income backgrounds but earned high SAT/ACT scores. They found that low-income Asian-American students were much more likely to gun for admission to top schools than were low-income whites with similar test scores.

    Their data fit my experience. I completed high school in the 2000s in a conservative Christian subculture in which the concept of gunning for admission to Ivy League schools was totally absent. It simply wasn’t something that the people I knew, including the intelligent ones, worried about. Only years later, when I went down the online HBD rabbit hole, did I learn that there were groups of people who obsessed over it.

    I suspect that Jews behave a lot more like Asians than like red state gentile whites.

  107. Alden says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Because I have English relatives I met dozens of graduates of the Cambridge colleges. Unlike you you pretentious asshole. And they all say Cambridge or the specific college.

    All my comments are based on personal knowledge observations and information. Speaking with and observing real people

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  108. @Wizard of Oz

    All I know is whenever I hear about a Negro Harvard grad they’ve taken easy courses (the Obamas) or are incredibly stupid (Joy Reid, Elie Mystal). They do not graduate and become Mark Zuckerbergs; no, they tend to join the parasite class like Barry Obama (community organizer) or Joy Reid (professional low-IQ racial arsonist). I am very skeptical of these Negro data!

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  109. @Alden

    Thanks for prompting to look up Ricardo of whom I had respectful memory bu not much detailed recollection. I thought your reference to his writing in the 1700s, rather than closer to his death in 1823 was probably wrong, but as he went to work for his stockbroker father at 14, maybe not. He eloped with a Quaker and became a Unitarian so was disowned by his Sephardi Jewish parents though not all of his 16 siblings it seems, at least one if whom also became a Member of Parliament. It would be fascinating to know how the everyday successful English businessman spoke of these Jews – as obsessives on UR would certainly have called them

    • Replies: @Alden
  110. @Happy Tapir

    After a certain iq, effort is more important than shear iq.

    That is logic ! Effort and a lof of thinking is very important to get an inspiration. How much effort you put on a subject and you remain interested it it depends on your personality.

    Einstein modestly said, “It’s not that I’m so smart, it’s just that I stay with problems longer.” In a similar vein, he also said, “I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious.

    Obviously, Einstein was smart and had special talents, but he is probably still correct. How often have you been able to work out solutions to “unsolvable” problems simply by keeping at them? Wouldn’t you rather have an employee who is persistent than one who is overly smart? I would, and I think Einstein would too. What a lesson to teach our children!

    In a similar fashion Einstein said, “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”

  111. EH says: • Website

    I agree that Ron’s methodology is incapable of proving that, and I commented to that effect several years ago. Nevertheless, there is a major disproportion.

    Using a similar method on Emory University in Atlanta a few years back, I calculated that only 8% of the undergraduate student body were US-born, White Christian men, while 10% were US Jewish women. The percentages of the general US population in that age group were 24% and 1%, respectively, giving a 30:1 disproportion in representation.

    • Replies: @Pixo
  112. Ron Unz says:

    Couldn’t it also be that favored groups like Jews and Blacks are overrepresented in socially liberal non-profit activism, and that is what drives the bulk of their favorable treatment?

    Black enrollment is just straight AA, and although—as I had discussed—ideological considerations may be a contributing factor to Jewish admissions, the imbalance is just too gigantic for it to be responsible. There are basically four or five separate factors that would tend to boost Jewish numbers, but even if you apply them all together, I think you’re still off by a factor of 2 or so.

    I had discussed some of my own ideas in this follow-up column from 2013:

  113. @Anon

    Exactly. 35,000 kids a year score in the top 1% on ACT/SAT. 18,000 freshman slots in Ivory League schools. 7500 goes to jewish kids, probably another 7500 to diversity, legacy and large donors. 3,000 spots left for kids of working class white christians to compete for against asians.

    How many of the remaining slots are filled by a white, christian, heterosexual male from a working class two parent household in a red state who managed to score a 34 on his ACT without the advantage of taking expensive test prep classes? I’m going to guess in the single digits if not 0. It’s a waste of time and money to even apply. He should find a land grant university with the best research in his field of interest.

    Ivory League schools are no longer the home of the best of the best, if they ever were.

  114. Alden says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Thanks you’re probably right that he would have written the book around 1800. That’s the thing that struck me. That 1700s factory workers faced the same oversupply of skilled workers as Americans workers did after 1970

  115. Ron Unz says:
    @Jim H

    Meanwhile, were I serving as editor of the talented researcher, writer and data analyst Ron Unz, I would implore him to separate his excellent factual analyses (roughly the first third of this article) from personal shaggy-dog anecdotes such as the Harvard Board of Overseers campaign.

    But except for the brief introduction, the first one-third of the text that you mention was just drawn from a lengthy article I’d already published in 2018, so you should read that entire piece directly:

    I included it in order to provide the necessary background for the Harvard campaign, which was the main part of the article, and something I hadn’t previously covered. I also thought it would be useful to have everything included in a single, comprehensive package.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  116. @Alden

    And. I have known and/or spoken to thousands of Oxford and Cambridge alumni. So what?
    I am not competing with the low grade anecdotalism which is your usual attempt at intellectual activity. I merely reiterate that there are sensible rational reasons – and much precedent – for using the portmanteau word “Oxbridge”.

  117. @Meretricious

    Not quite…. Obama

    (a) was studying Law and was elected by his peers as editor of the Harvard Law Review.

    (b) had a very bright white mother and a father who (Luo/Nilotic) had very little in common with Amrrica’s descendants of slaves except skin colour.

  118. @Ron Unz

    …article, that analyzed all those possible factors in great detail…

    What should not be overlooked and never gets mentioned is that Jewish privilege includes getting to take the same key tests required for admission applications on a Monday, a full two days after everyone else has taken them on Saturday. Preparatory classes often feature tutors who are part of a network of other tutors, some of whom take these tests and then report back on what types of questions and essays themes can be expected. This gives those who are tied in to these test preparation classes an unfair advantage, also boosting their confidence, which can be a crucial factor for score improvement and consequently being accepted to a desirable college or graduate program. For some reason nobody I know of has ever publicly suggested that everybody should take these test on the same day, for the sake of essential fairness.

    • Replies: @Anon
  119. Ron Unz says:
    @Happy Tapir

    I read Outliers and thought it was actually pretty good.

    Well, I’d have to admit I’ve never looked at any of this books. I remember about 15-odd years ago, Steve Sailer and some other bloggers used to endlessly attack and ridicule Gladwell, and that’s pretty much where I got my impression. So perhaps I wasn’t being entirely fair.

    Feynman only had an iq in the 120s…Maybe the iq tests are leaving out something important.

    It’s certainly an interesting case. If you selected the individuals who might have been the smartest human alive during the second half of the 20th century, I think Feynman’s name would probably have been at the very top of the list, yet he allegedly had a tested IQ of only something like 124. For a dozen years or more, I’ve joked that if the anti-IQists were smart, they’d point to that example as the single strongest argument against the validity of IQ tests.

    On the other hand, Feynman was a notorious practical joker, so perhaps he just invented that score to trick or irritate people.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
  120. Ron Unz says:

    Most students take the SAT/ACT their junior year these days.

    Thanks. I hadn’t been aware of that, and the WSJ article seemed to suggest it unusual.

  121. @Ron Unz

    Would you care to bring your Californian native’s knowledge to bear on Alden’s #105…

  122. Ron Unz says:

    I’m Californian and I’m very very familiar with Asians…Asians vote as solidly democrat as blacks. Always have and always will.

    That really isn’t correct. Until the mid-1990s, California Asians voted Republican about half the time. For example, in 1990 when Wilson was running for governor against Feinstein, and he made “quotas” a big issue, he got 53% of the white vote but 58% of the Asian vote.

    Asians tend to be socially-conformist, and they became overwhelming Democratic in California after the Republican Party collapsed.

    Prop 209 was a state of California referendum 1996 to abolish affirmative action in California. Asians voted solidly against the referendum to abolish affirmative action.

    The 209 campaign was disastrously badly run. I covered it at considerable length in one of my articles:

    Since the death of Saint George Floyd blacks have been attacking Asians relentlessly. Especially older Asians and women…And every single time it’s in the news the Asian leadership comes out to denounce “ White racism,

    Again, it’s really just a matter of social-conformity. The elites and the media overwhelmingly take that position, so the “Asian leadership” mostly go along. Anyway, the definition of “Asian leaders” are Asians who are quoted in the MSM, and the MSM won’t quote any Asians who say something different.

    Blacks have been robbing, raping, and killing whites for fifty-sixty years now, and how many “white leaders” can you name that mention that in the MSM? There’s really no difference between “Asian leaders” and “white leaders.”

    • Agree: A B Coreopsis
    • Thanks: Wizard of Oz
    • Troll: d dan
    • Replies: @d dan
    , @Alden
  123. Anymike says:

    You are right about the SAT. The SAT has been recalibrated so that a perfect 800 score on either section is equivalent to I think 730 on the pre-1994 test that many of the people who read and comment at political websites took. There may be a point to doing it this way, Not so many people ever scored higher than that and there probably are other markers or indicators that colleges can use to use assess people. Frankly, if someone who wants to major in physics, math, chemistry or engineering who think that the colleges underassessed their ability, they are not going to end up living in cardboard box. They still will have the opportunity to major in their subject and prove themselves wherever they go.

    Where the problem comes in is that people might look at the average SAT at some college today, see that it is close to 800 per section and imagine that this means the same thing as an 800 SAT section score meant in the 1960s or 1970s. It doesn’t. Nowhere near.

    Inflated ideas abound about what the intellectual levels are at selective universities. It is, in fact. impossible for them to be what people think they are. The number of people in the cohort that turns college age every year today who have an IQ 150 or higher is about 5000. IQ 140 or higher represents maybe 30,000 people. Even IQ 130 represents only 150,000 people at the most. Start dividing these up and see what happens.

    Some will not be qualified to apply to selective universities. Some will not go to college at all. Some don’t know. Some don’t care. Some will join the military. Some will go to local or regional universities or their state research university. Some will go the colleges their families members have always gone to. Some will go to religious-affiliated universities, maybe Catholic, maybe Evangelical, Maybe Mormon, maybe something else. Then there are the outliers – the ones who are mentally disturbed, the ones who are criminals, the ones who are social misfits or who have specific problems like difficulty communicating.

    By the time you get done, there are not enough people to populate any selective university with a student body with a median IQ higher than 130. People who have researched the issue claim that the median IQ at Harvard is (or was) about 129. It might be equal or close to that at a few other institutions. After that, it begins to scale down because the people needed to make it higher simply do not exist. It may be even lower now with the number of students from “disadvantaged” minorities with lower median IQs who are being admitted to selective universities.

    I saw someone claimed once that the undergraduate student body at MIT probably had average IQ of 150. That is flat out impossible. It certainly is into the 130, but not any higher than that because it can’t be.

    Don’t believe the yarn. Graduates of Harvard and some other selective universities have better careers for one thing because there are certain careers that only they are allowed to enter. Look around the publishing industry, for example. See how many of the readers at the literary agencies and the junior editors at the publishing houses come from the Ivy League. That’s if they put this information on their websites, and they may not be doing so anymore. The point is, other people, no matter who they are or what their qualifications, are simply never put into the pipeline in the first place. Ditto for many other occupations. Then, put on pressure to increase diversity, and the businesses that hire Ivy League grads will hire minorities and people of non-white European descent in response. It’s the same old triangulation they have been practicing for 50 years now, with the early roots of it going even further back.

    No one ever came down a mountain with some stone tablet on which the words “Harvard Rules” were chiseled. Stop arguing about who goes to Harvard. Harvard is not the only university in English-speaking North America. You can’t always fight to get into the club. Sometimes you have to fight the club and expose its frauds. The big fraud is the fake picture of who goes to these institutions. Judge them by the bottom half of their class, not the top and you will get a different picture. Few of the people into top group are so fragile that they couldn’t have gone somewhere else and done just as well if allowed the opportunity. Linus Pauling, for example, went to Oregon State University for his undergraduate degree. He’s not the only one, but they don’t like to tell you.

    Let me go on to one more issue. I think that if Donald Trump had nominated someone from Harvard law for the Supreme Court instead of Amy “Why does she need three names?” Barrett from Notre Dame after Ruth “Why does she need three names?” Ginzburg passed on, there would have been only half the s-storm. I also have noticed that Ketanji “Why does she need three names?” Jackson has announced that she will recuse herself from the Harvard discrimination case because she is a member of the Harvard Board of Overseers. Cute name, but in any case if every member of the Supreme Court who had received their education at one of the member schools of the Ivy League cartel recused themselves as they should, there wouldn’t even be a quorum to hear the case. Barrett is the only justice unstained by contact with the Ivy League.

  124. Anon[130] • Disclaimer says:

    The Monday test taking is a extraordinary hidden cheating operation. It’s systemic and widespread among this ethnic group. Thanks for bringing this subject into the open. They also cheat by having bogus medical conditions that allow them lots of extra time to take the SATs.

  125. I’m an Asian 1600 SAT scorer who has lived in both Northeast Asia and the West over the past five decades.

    Asians are terribly conformist but so are whites. The vast majority of people merely parrot what they hear. The lack of flexibility in thought makes most people seem more like animals than human.

    The big difference is that maybe 5-10% of whites are freethinkers while I think only 1-5% of Asians are. I think there is some genetic component based on my observation of Asians who grew up in the west.

    The problem for Asians is doubly magnified in Asia because their Confucian culture enforces respect for hierarchy and seniority. This is absolutely crippling for innovation. China seems to suffer less from this crippling cultural disease but the authoritarian nature of the government will stifle its people in lieu of culture.

  126. @Anonymous

    Great comment! I too was thinking of the Malaysian example, and you have explained it perfectly.

    Just one tiny little quibble: the Chinese proportion of the population in Singapore at time of independence was about 75% it has stayed about the same ballpark till today. No doubt scrupulously maintained to preserve racial peace.

    I did some googling on the demographic and GDP data and this is what I got

    One more interesting thing one can do too:
    Make a list of SE Asian countries in order to their per capita GDP
    On the next column, list the percentage of Chinese in the population.
    It would show what you expect quite nicely.

    The education system was dumbed down so Malays can pass STEM courses. Local universities will accept Malays into STEM majors first. Any leftovers, if any, was then given to the others.

    The result was that many Chinese Malaysians, being unable to gain a place in Malaysian universities, go abroad to get their degrees. Many “Chinese students” that Americans observe in their colleges, are actually Malaysian.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Alden
    , @boy1988
  127. @Calinonymous

    China seems to suffer less from this crippling cultural disease but the authoritarian nature of the government will stifle its people in lieu of culture.

    What would be the result if the Chinese government starts to encourage innovation?

  128. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:

    Here you go.

    GDP/Capita % Chinese
    Malaysia 13268 23%
    Thailand 7449 12%
    Indonesia 4691 3.30%
    Vietnam 4122 2%
    Phillipines 3687 1.50%
    Laos 2319 2%
    Cambodia 1752 1%
    Burma 1285 1.40%

    Correlation Coefficient 0.969566292

    A very strong correlation of 0.97. If 1 it means exact correlation.

    I took out Singapore and Brunei because both are anomalies. Singapore being an ethnic Chinese majority country and Brunei which has no industries other than petroleum.

  129. @Calinonymous

    “Crippling for innovation”….You may have ‘lived in NE Asia and California” but I sincerely doubt you were involved in finance, technology, or business at large, in China. While you’re entitled to believe anything, an uninformed opinion is nothing to be proud of.

  130. @Anymike

    I saw someone claimed once that the undergraduate student body at MIT probably had average IQ of 150. That is flat out impossible. It certainly is into the 130, but not any higher than that because it can’t be.

    You’re ignoring the intense self-selection in applying that tremendously aids MIT and Caltech in their admissions process. If you want to rule the world, you’re not going to apply for either compared to Harvard etc. If you want to get the best engineering education there’s only so many schools offering that, and as I understand it most aren’t strong in it across the board, which includes Caltech with its relatively limited number of undergraduate engineering majors, it’s a small school more focused on science, only about 250 undergraduates per class.

    There are a lot of schools including Harvard that are good for science and math (although beware the ones where classes are taught by mostly foreign grad students), but MIT is mostly an engineering school, its largest science undergraduate subject is biology which in the 1908s had maybe 70 students per class of 1,100 enrolled compared to 400 for EECS.

    The other thing you’re ignoring is that like the floor of competence that the US Navy has with carrier landings, Caltech and MIT have hard core math and science requirement taught at speed which I would guess from comparing myself at an IQ of 145 would support an average of 150 or higher (although I’ve read past my 3SD+ IQ results get iffy). All those EECS students? The majority are taking a lot of EE even if they’re planning on doing more CS, a lot also get their first jobs as quants in finance because their math is so strong.

    All of the above applies to the blacks who apply, MIT does not have great troubles getting enough applicants who can do the work and who will actually enroll after getting an acceptance (“yield” can be a particularly difficult game, one year tens more accepted than was planned and a bunch of freshmen were housed in makeshift quarters in the basement of a graduate student dorm which they said worked out very well for them). And while I’m not sure I ever met a black super genius who went to MIT, all the ones I know belonged there both in talent and what they wanted to do, in almost all cases engineering or CS if you don’t count that as an engineering discipline.

    To put some more numbers on the table, the last reading I got of the process, this would probably be in the late 1990s, 7,000 applied and 3,000 made the first pass of being judged as able to “do the work.” Again with the initial self-selection in even applying, it wasn’t hard to construct a desired student body of 1,100 with those numbers.

  131. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:

    Here you go.

    GDP/Capita % Chinese
    Malaysia 13268 23%
    Thailand 7449 12%
    Indonesia 4691 3.30%
    Vietnam 4122 2%
    Phillipines 3687 1.50%
    Laos 2319 2%
    Cambodia 1752 1%
    Burma 1285 1.40%

    Correlation Coefficient 0.969566292

    A very strong correlation of 0.97. If 1 it means exact correlation.

    I took out Singapore and Brunei because both are anomalies. Singapore being an ethnic Chinese majority country and Brunei which has no industries other than petroleum.

    I also did additional calculations which are not math proper but nonetheless they gave a bit more insight to the stats .

    Seems like ethnic Chinese in Malaysia, Thailand and Laos contribute about \$60k per capita into their respective economy. That number feels about right. In Vietnam, I feel that the local Vietnamese can somewhat compete with their ethnic Chinese brothers and sisters. Once Vietnam economy starts to grow, it will also be an anomaly like Singapore and Brunei.

    From what I see, ethnic Chinese in Indonesia and the Philippines are filthy rich.

  132. Mr. Unz, don’t beat yourself up for the lack of a social media presence for the campaign. Facebook and Twitter would have throttled it down and no one woul have seen it anyway.

    The elite protect their own, you know.

  133. @Calinonymous

    You are correct about the conformist part but you failed to understand the healthy mix of conformist versus nonconformist population for a country to be successful.

    While it is all funs and games with the “nonconformists” but 90% of things needing to get done are performed by conformists. Boring and unspectacular things. To do those things, one needs to endure a long winding road of boring learning, following instructions and, adhering to policies, regulations and accepted practices.

    A good mix would be 10% of nonconformists and 90% conformists. That will add color and flexibility to a culture or a nation. The United States has such mix but it seems lately, the unqualified non-conformists are taking over conformist jobs. Things are slowly falling apart.

    I think the problem with China is the conformists are putting conformists in non-conformist roles. Starting from their cringe worthy media people to the marketing and design people. It needs to relax the rules a bit to allow the non-conformists to thrive and create an environment where non-conformists can succeed.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  134. @Brian Damage

    I think the problem with China is the conformists are putting conformists in non-conformist roles.

    This is pretty much guaranteed under the system Xi and his Tsinghua Clique have put into place. There aren’t very many super competent people in it, and positions go to the most loyal, obviously excluding the competent from the Shanghai and what I’m told is the Communist Youth League Cliques.

    Does not help that Xi is visibly not all that smart, and even more audibly I’m told not well educated, that was interrupted when he was in middle school by the Cultural Revolution which targeted his family.

    I got some of the above details from this essay, but it mostly filled in gaps of a picture I’d already been forming, and as the author states at the beginning what’s going on is very opaque and it’s very easy to get things wrong. But something is needed to explain how Xi and company have screwed up so much. To the point of potentially losing the Mandate of Heaven, the latest being the extremes of its Zero COVID policy, but before that screwing up electricity and related, fertilizer production (nitrogen fixing needs hydrogens from natural gas for the first step of making NH3 or ammonia). He and his people do stupid things like banning the import of (cheap) Australian coal without thinking through the consequences or there I’d guess simply doing the math.

    • Replies: @Brian Damage
  135. Skeptic2 says:

    @Ron Unz

    Mr. Unz

    I absolutely appreciate your prodigious efforts to make the case that there is no true ‘meritocracy’ in the Ivy League admissions process. It seems inarguable, based on scores at least, that Jewish candidates are substantially overrepresented and non-Jewish white and Asian candidates substantially underrepresented. And I agree that as long as the most rewarding and powerful positions in our country are reserved for Harvard and Yale graduates, this is a problem.

    But I doubt litigation and some kind of injunctive relief will solve this problem. Rather, I suggest simply requiring transparency (in admissions criteria, statistics and outcomes) and letting the market work its inexorable magic.

    There was a time, perhaps when you were an undergraduate, when Goldman Sachs or Cravath could fill its recruiting classes with Harvard graduates, comfortable in the knowledge that Harvard had done a good job vetting the candidate in its own admission process, and then had done an acceptable job ‘educating’ the candidate sufficiently to succeed in an entry-level upper echelon job.

    Given the pernicious effects of affirmative action, however, this is no longer the case. For every underperforming Jewish or minority candidate accepted at Harvard, there is an overperforming non-Jewish white or Asian student who is rejected…or who never even applies. These rejected candidates still go to college, but they have to attend flagship state universities, or Little Ivies, or highly selective engineering or STEM schools, like Carnegie Mellon or RPI or Georgia Tech. Or dozens of other schools.

    It is the job of hungry and competitive employers today to go the extra yard and find real talent, regardless of the status of a handful of highly endowed, but arguably suicidal, ‘elite’ institutions. In my judgment, Harvard (a private institution) should be free to admit academically underqualified minorities, as well as underqualified athletes, legacies, geographic diversity candidates, and, yes, urban Jews, if it believes that such policies are in its best interests. If Harvard is truly transparent in its admission process the market will (eventually) understand and respond appropriately.

    In many cases, today, I believe it already does.

    • Replies: @Anymike
    , @Alden
  136. Anymike says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    The problem is, the numbers flat out do not exist. There are not enough people with IQs that high to populate the undergraduate colleges which people believe have a student body with IQ levels higher than the mid-130s. I credited MIT with that level. It’s not even math, it’s just simple arithmetic. Also, I want to remind those who discount IQ that the ideas about intelligence that people today equate with IQ existed long before any kind of intellectual testing exised. In the early modern era, and I am sure before that, people spoke of others as having an intelligence of a “good order, “a high order”, the “highest order” or even “the very highest order.” Or, sometimes, of “a low order.”

    The point is, organized society has always recognized the idea that there are different orders of intelligence and always has had known ways of discerning these. The objective testing we use to today does not produce different results than the subjective heuristics of the past produced.

    One thing that confuses people, I believe, is that they think that IQ is some kind unitary measure. It isn’t. An IQ score is a composite, just like the composite SAT or GRE is a sum of separate tests. Even those separate tests are themselves composites of different component aptitudes.

    Let me tell my own experience. My IQ score is in the range of 135-38. My verbal ability is very high and that’s what gets me my score. My GRE scores over six administrations over 45 years show that and according the charts equate closely to my actual tested IQ scores. So did two administration of the Wonderlic back in the 1960s. At age 18, I got a 48 on the Wonderlic, a score equaled or exceeded by only a handful of NFL prospects over the decades the test was administered to them at them at the NFL combine.

    However, over the same six GRE administrations my quantitative score trailed my verbal score, and when the analytical was a separate score, the analytical trailed both of them every time. What I am getting at is that someone whose IQ score (or GRE composite) was the same as mine whose quantitative and analytical ability was equal to my verbal ability would be very adequate for MIT. In that case, their verbal ability would be on a lower level, but it still would be easily adequate to meet the demands of the liberal art courses they were required to take (if any) and the communication demands of their future career.

    Fact is, there is no reason to believe that the student body at MIT has a median IQ higher than in the mid-130s. Nor is it even possible. For the MIT class to have a median IQ of 150 as some people have imagined, they would have to get 10 percent of the American age cohort with IQs that high to enroll there every year. I doubt that is possible the way people get scattered around.

  137. @That Would Be Telling

    If you want to get the best engineering education there’s only so many schools offering that, and as I understand it most aren’t strong in it across the board, which includes Caltech with its relatively limited number of undergraduate engineering majors, it’s a small school more focused on science…

    The very best Engineering schools are not in the pompous Ivy League anyway. Students who are serious about pursuing a Science and Engineering curriculum would probably not want to deal with all the intense woke bullshit now associated with most Ivy League institutions.

    Caltech is really far too small to be considered a university in the traditional sense. It has roughly a quarter of the students enrolled at Princeton, itself already very small (no medical, business or law schools). Caltech first admitted women in 1970, of which only four received bachelor’s degrees by 1973. Basically, the specialty that Caltech excels in is Aerospace, which facility is associated with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The first director of the predecessor Aeronautical Laboratory was Theodore von Karman, who became its first director in 1930, originally from Budapest, who then taught at German universities.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  138. d dan says:
    @Ron Unz

    “Since the death of Saint George Floyd blacks have been attacking Asians relentlessly. Especially older Asians and women…And every single time it’s in the news the Asian leadership comes out to denounce “ White racism,” – Alden

    “the definition of “Asian leaders” are Asians who are quoted in the MSM, and the MSM won’t quote any Asians who say something different.” – Ron Unz

    There is nothing more obvious about the double standards by Ron Unz here: Black attacking Asian is because they independently decide to attack Asians, and this has nothing to do with following White racism, or conformation to the political anti-Asians environment created by White racists. On the other hand, Asian leaders denouncing White racism is because they are not independent, and conform to the MSM and political environment, blah, blah, blah….

    White racism contributes (likely decisively) to the majority of black attacking Asian – period. I know many people still want to blame Jew-controlled media, blame Trump, blame blacks, blame social conformist, blame global warming and Tonga volcano eruption, …, but it is the Asian (leaders or not) who have better grip about the issue than Mr. Unz.

    • Replies: @Brian Damage
  139. Ron Unz says:

    White racism contributes (likely decisively) to the majority of black attacking Asian – period.

    That’s interesting. As I’m sure you’re aware, blacks are also constantly attacking whites as well. Are you claiming those attacks have also been brought about by the public anti-white rhetoric of Trump and his supporters?

    The arguments of many of the Asian-activists who hang around this website are so enormously counter-productive that I sometimes half-suspect that they’re actually KKK members engaging in self-sabotage.

    Similarly, I wonder how many of the white-activists who write on these threads are actually agents of the ADL…

    • Replies: @d dan
    , @Richard B
  140. @That Would Be Telling

    I wouldn’t underestimate Xi. He and his technocrats are pretty good at strategies and planning. Under Xi, China managed to grow leaps and bounds in military technology, semiconductors, self sustenance, space technology, and developing poorer regions.

    My problem with Xi is, he does things like a mid-tier engineer on human issues and geopolitics. He solves them like a civil engineer solving a bridge structural design, which is quite cold and sooner or later his “mandate from heaven” will run out.

    The rise of Xi was inevitable. When Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” started and warhawk Secretary of State Hillary Clinton going around Asia drumming up support for hostile actions against China, at that time, Xi was the obvious choice.

  141. @Anymike

    However, over the same six GRE administrations my quantitative score trailed my verbal score, and when the analytical was a separate score, the analytical trailed both of them every time.

    If you’re trying to convince us of the quality of your analysis this is not the sort of thing you should be saying.

    To start with, in addition to denying MIT could benefit from intense self-selection in who applies and enrolls after acceptance and its selectivity in offers due to the requirement to pass the core science and math requirements which are taught at speed, are you considering that on the order of 11% of its undergraduates are Officially foreigners?

    What were the average SAT scores back before the early-mid 1990s when that was a good proxy for g? How many got one or two 800s and thus we can’t judge from that data where they top out?

    I don’t have any real data at my fingertips, just my observations that I don’t think I came across anyone less smart than me. Although you’re of course right there’s no one metric of that, I for example excel at 3D visualization and did not have to use models to ace first term organic chemistry while others weren’t so fortunate. Still, there were plenty of students in second term organic chemistry who’d obviously done well enough to pursue the routes that required it.

    Also lots of math intense engineering majors as well as the math and physics majors. How many of the other Top Schools have excellent engineering programs? Harvard infamously doesn’t, even started a street riot in the 1904-5 period in its attempts to acquire MIT.

    • Replies: @Anymike
    , @Anymike
  142. @d dan

    White racism contributes (likely decisively) to the majority of black attacking Asian – period.

    You can be correct if you are talking about “leftie” White racists perpetuating stereotypes and enabling Blacks.

    In my experience, majority of Whites including those so-called “rednecks” are OK with Asians. Just a brother with another mother. You do what you do we do what we do. All’s good.

    Racism starts to happen when you are not playing the victim fitting your stereotype in “liberal” cities with all their woke virtue signaling and identity politics. In another word, you have to toe the line, play the obedient pet for these “White racists” and Blacks get to be the top pet. Top pets get to punch lower pets anytime they want with impunity.

    • Replies: @d dan
  143. @Been_there_done_that

    The MIT Press has a good, short book Bringing Aerodynamics to America which covers a lot about Theodore von Karman including how he was recruited to America and Caltech, and Caltech is indeed strong in aerospace. On the other hand that’s not an undergraduate major, is offered as a minor. Woah, if my memory is correct computer science is no longer offered as a major.

    As we both say, it’s a very small school and there’s probably just not enough demand, MIT only has ~60/class in its two majors for that subject. Caltech last time I checked has 250 undergraduates per class compared to MIT’s target of 1,100 and Princeton looks to be a bit bigger than MIT.

    Is there any Ivy League or other Top School including Stanford (infamous, see the Jesse Jackson visit) and UC Berkeley (extremely infamous) that’s not poisoned by “intense woke bullshit?” MIT and I gather at least in times past Caltech students were too busy for much of that.

    (MIT BTW was once in the Ivy League until in the early part of the 20th Century it decided (US) football was a distraction from its mission. When I showed up a football “club” which does not have the same status as a varsity sport had just been formed and was very controversial.)

    • Replies: @Been_there_done_that
  144. @Anymike

    80-90* % of 130<IQ graduate college according to two nlsy cohorts and Lewis Termans study about genius.
    If memory serves me right, of the 20 (1:10000) kids who maxed out Termans IQ-test: 18 had a college degree and this was well before mass education.

    Plenty of talent to spread around.

    Self-serving truistic verbiage** is not the best starting point, better to have some facts as anchors.

    PS. Non-native speaker here

  145. Anymike says:

    “It is the job of hungry and competitive employers today to go the extra yard and find real talent, regardless of the status of a handful of highly endowed, but arguably suicidal, ‘elite’ institutions.”

    The NFL goes the extra yard to find real talent no matter where it is. Does industry really do the same when you get lower in the talent pool and everybody left is a Double A player?

    Keep in mind, the NFL, with all the scouting and evaluation it does, still is wrong about half the time. With few exceptions, no way to know in advance how some will perform. The job world is different though in that if you prove to not be the talent they thought you were, they still keep you around. Usually.

    • Replies: @Skeptic2
  146. SafeNow says:

    Thank you, Anymike and Telling. Fun fact: China has 300,000 people with an IQ of 160 or above, while the U.S. has 10,000. As Steve Sailer would say, “Uh oh.” Anyway, when the S.A.T. was “recentered” in 1995, they basically said “here’s an 80-point gift to add to your verbal score.” I am ancient. Back in my day, an 800-verbal person was the real deal, and was something to behold as he explained in class what a poem was about. Today, an 800-verbal person might possibly be that, but more likely, is a would-be 720 person in disguise. The shame of it is, if they hadn’t “refreshed” (Harvard’s euphemism) the traditional literary canon, the fake-800 person had it in him to be a genuine 800, and might have turned out that way.

    • Thanks: That Would Be Telling
    • Replies: @Meretricious
    , @Alden
  147. @SafeNow

    safenow–not buying your data–source?

    • Replies: @SafeNow
  148. Skeptic2 says:

    I think you make a good point about the NFL. Obviously ‘affirmative action’ to hire underqualified applicants for ‘diversity’ isn’t going to fly in the NFL.

    I just looked at a website called, which shows that NFL players come from 100s of different colleges. Yes, there are many from Alabama and Ohio Street. Check it out: But there are also a handful from Eastern Illinois, West Alabama and…Harvard.

    I don’t think ‘industry’ …or the Supreme Court…will have to dip down to the AA level to recruit superior candidates who got passed over by Harvard by reason of its discriminatory admissions policies…and therefore had to attend Amherst or the University of Texas or Emory.

    I went to Columbia Law School, which when I attended had a class size of about 300. Perhaps 25 had gone to Harvard College. I assume Columbia Law School could have enrolled a class with 50 Harvard graduates, but it didn’t. It looked elsewhere. At least it did at the time.

  149. @That Would Be Telling

    Is there any Ivy League or other Top School…that’s not poisoned by “intense woke bullshit?

    Probably not, though I’m not familiar with all the campuses. The big difference is that at a university with a highly regarded and large Engineering school this specialized sub-environment can serve as a kind of “safe space”, to use a cliché, whereas within an Ivy League campus milieu the liberal arts and woke attitudes are likely overwhelmingly predominant, so that greater intensity would make some Engineering majors feel more uncomfortable.

    • Replies: @Alden
  150. Alden says:

    It’s always helpful when reading about lawsuits if the article gives the name of the lawsuit. As in Plaintiff vs Defendant or Respondent.

    News articles never ever include the name of the lawsuit. So readers can’t actually read the lawsuit and the responses by the Defendant or Respondent. Thus readers are dependent on the perspective of the journalist writing about the lawsuit.

    It would be helpful if the name under which the suit was filed was included in articles about it.

    Not that I care about Asians or Harvard.

  151. Alden says:

    All colleges require the engineers to take the GER General required courses the first 2 years and they are nauseatingly woke anti White. For instance English literature courses usually don’t have one book essay poem or article written by an English or British ethnicity American Canadian Australian writer.

    Just black Americans Indians both dot and feather Africans anything but an English ethnic writer.

    The rest of the GER classes are even worse.

    For instance an introductory History of Film course might seem interesting, easy and an escape from wokeness. Wrong wrong wrong.

    At least half the course will be hysterical denunciations of McCarthy and defense of the communist Hollywood Ten. Also denunciations if the Catholic Church for lobbying against nudity and sex scenes in movies back in the olden day’s 1920-1970 .. The rest will be blathering about the discrimination against gays blacks Asians in the film industry.

    Usually taught by older Jewish men who got a foot in the industry only because they were Jews. But they will never mention the pro Jewish bias in the industry. Got a foot in the industry because they were Jews . But couldn’t make it so now teach about the industry.

    Plus a critical race theory course is usually somewhere in the required courses.

    • Replies: @Been_there_done_that
  152. Alden says:

    Most colleges have made the SATs optional. Harvard has too. But only as a temporary measure for the class entering fall of 2022. Because of covid But Harvard will probably follow other colleges and make the SATs optional.

  153. SafeNow says:

    safenow–not buying your data–source?

    A rather brusque way to ask, I must say; we are family here, in an insane country. Anyway, I found for you the link below in about 10 seconds, and stopped.

    • Agree: Meretricious
    • Replies: @Meretricious
  154. Anymike says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    I never said that there wasn’t self-selection in the applicant pool or that MIT or any other institution did not try to select. All I said was that it was not possible for the student body at MIT to have a median IQ of 150 as some people seem to imagine. The numbers just do not exist. That my point, and the only one, really.

    • Agree: Meretricious
    • Replies: @AnonFinn92
  155. Alden says:

    Harvard’s not really a private school because

    1 It’s a non profit doesn’t pay taxes. Property taxes sales tax on the tuition and book store Capitol gains and dividend income on its multi billion dollar hedge fund city taxes on its utilities etc. Any entity or club in America is not considered private if it has anything to do with government. Including getting building permits or license to serve alcohol in the club house. If you want to join a golf or tennis club, it’s nit private and cannot discriminate on the grounds of race creed color sex or LGBTQ status. Because the club got a building permit when it was built.

    2 Much of Harvard’s tuition is paid by a combination of federal grants. Such as the universal PELL grant, no payment given to every college student in America. Many states have a State grant too. Some states the State grant can only be used within the state. Other states the students can use the grant for out of state schools. Even the children of people like Bill Gates get these grants.

    Plus many students get student loans. Backed by the federal government. A loan backed by the federal government, such as SBA and other business loans means for purposes of college admittance and business hiring promoting and contracting no entity is private any more that gets either

    A government money

    B government permits whether a city serving food and or alcoholic at a golf club a or bidding on a remodeling or maintainence job at the local hospital airport school district college or any entity that has a government permit for anything

    Because they are non profits and so much of their tuition is paid by government grants and loans colleges are not considered private for purposes of selecting students faculty and staff.

    It’s still possible to select anyone you please to entertain in your home. But that’s about all.

    • Replies: @Skeptic2
  156. @SafeNow

    as soon as I read “assuming” my BS detector broke.

    • LOL: SafeNow
  157. Alden says:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron, were you able to find anything other than one race for governor in which Asians voted for the republican candidate?

    I know there were a few republican Asian city council, county board, state assemblymen back in the 1940s and 50s.

    But since 1970s when Asians got affirmative action they firmly joined the democrats, and the idiot conservatives and republicans in California just keep sucking up to them begging the Asians to join an Asian White coalition.

    Because we have so much in common like low crime rate civilized behavior in schools and public and normal to bright IQs. Even worse are the conservative sites and commenters from areas where there are very few Asians who believe in the mythical Asian White coalition,

    I always knew Asians are Democrats because I’m surrounded by them. But Asians voting against Prop 209 a referendum which would have benefitted them as much as Whites was a message that Asians are a firm part of the anti White coalition For whatever reason. Maybe because they’re not White?

    Does anyone on this site except me know why Asian women marry White men but very few Asian men marry White women?

    It’s not because all White women are obese tattooed ugly un feminine and repulsive.

    It’s because of Asian opinions summed up in this old Asian proverb

    “ Marrying off a daughter is like …….. … ….. ………. “

    I invite all these pseudo Asian experts to complete the proverb.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @littlereddot
  158. Alden says:

    Everyone is commenting about the 1990s resetting of the SATs. But no one but me seems aware that colleges are making the SATs optional And stating right on the application packets and their websites that SATs are optional and that “ not submitting SATs will not be a disadvantage”. And that submitting SATs “ Will not be an advantage”. right on the application packets.

    The SATs were re set 28 years ago. For the last few years the trend is SATs optional . Because no matter how the White hating liberals twist and turn; SAT tests discriminate against the stupid and ignorant who are disproportionately black.

    So the colleges no longer want to use the SATs.

    Maybe this site should be considered the Rip Van Winkle commenters site.

  159. “Does anyone on this site except me know why Asian women marry White men but very few Asian men marry White women?”

    Yes, I have expertise in this area. Caucasian men find East Asian women erotically beautiful: small breasts and a delicate countenance. Many are attracted to their personalities, which, contrary to the stereotype, run from aggressive to passive. Asian women tend to find European men adventurous, funny, and good in the sack. So marriage between these groups is becoming commonplace.

    The converse, not so much. Haven’t delved into this too deeply but I suspect there is a negative stereotype about Asian men being boring among Euro females (in my view this stereotype is BS). OTOH, Asian men find Euro women hot but I’m not sure they are interested in marrying them.

    • Replies: @Alden
  160. @Ron Unz

    The 10,000 hours rule, like the “good enough” principle, is in Outliers which I just re-skimmed. The book presents an exaggerated argument tinged with wishful thinking, but if we allow for the hyperbole and cherry-picked examples, it isn’t clear that the gist of the argument is wrong. Since it’s a pretty well-known book by a bestselling author, and addresses issues relevant to the IQ research community here, I thought maybe somebody knew of a good refutation. But it looks like I’ll have to be super-diligent, as Gladwell advises, and spend 10,000 hours looking for one myself ; – )

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  161. @Ron Unz

    A lot of people have claimed that Gladwell claimed the 10000 hours thing but they were being even more glib than Gladwell. Yes that’s possible.

    He read the best academic sources on the question. Summarized here:

    The military guys have sponsored Ericsonn’s research for years and he knows more about performance improvement than Fauci knows about vaccinations. It is all as perfectly legitimate as psychometry can be.

    Gladwell is on youtube running a senior mile race and he is a very good miler. I hate his books but I am compelled to respect that.

  162. Alden says:

    Malays have Malay surnames. Chinese have Chinese surnames. Japanese have Japanese surnames Thais have Thai surnames. Easy enough to tell the difference.

    One of the most ridiculous accusations Asian activists have against Whites is the claim that we Whites are always insulting them by asking
    “ Are you Chinese or Japanese?” Why bother asking? It’s easy enough to tell by the surname.

    Plus there are very very few Japanese in America. And they’re mostly in California. Because Japan has been a prosperous country since 1950 and no need to migrate to find work.

    But you’ll find that false claim on every college campus and wherever anti White Asians get together.

  163. Alden says:

    No it’s not that. There were 2 parts to the question. Why do Asian women marry White men? And why don’t Asian men marry White women. I should have added or anything but women of their own ethnic group, region, ancestral region tribe and clan.

    The correct answer is in this proverb common to all Asian languages. Complete the proverb and you’ll have the one and only correct answer. And it has nothing to do with anyone’s preferences for slim short black hair or any visible features of Asian men or women.

    Marrying off a daughter is like …….. … ….. ………

    You won’t find the correct answer on the internet. And the answer doesn’t have anything to do with physical features or personality.

    I will give one hint. If you know the deepest and widest aspects of Asian culture you’ll know the answer. But you have to know real actual Asians to know the answer.

    Look at the dots. First word 8 letters second word 3 letters third word 5 letters last word 9 letters.

    Come on internet Asian experts . Complete the proverb “ Marrying off a daughter is like ……..
    … ….. ………

    If you’re familiar with the ASIAN WAY you’ve probably heard the proverb . But none of you are familiar enough with the ASIAN WAY to complete the proverb

  164. Ferrari says:

    If the current discrimination trends continue there seems to be a couple of ways around it:

    1.) The already mentioned upcoming supreme court case (or similar ones in the future)
    2.) Or possibly some universities specifically advertising themselves as “merit first” education programs and that becomes a very useful signal to companies on Wall Street on where to get their talent from.

    Because at the end of the day, people in finance and consulting want to work with smart people. They will play the diversity game in their personal speech at the dinner parties, but these folks are working a ton in their day to day jobs — so they want to load some of that work onto presumably high IQ people who won’t let them down.

    Good article as usual Ron. Would actually be entertaining to see you take a personal dive in IQ research and present your personal opinions on the matter as it regards to the many areas IQ may or may not impact.

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Ron Unz
  165. Ron Unz says:

    Ron, were you able to find anything other than one race for governor in which Asians voted for the republican candidate?

    Sure, that’s a fair question. I located the votes of California Asians in the 1992, 1994, and 1996 California elections, and they seem to be roughly similar to what I mentioned in the 1990 election I provided:

    1992 California Presidential Vote:
    Whites: 42% Clinton, 35% Bush, 23% Perot
    Asians: 39% Clinton, 39% Bush, 23% Perot

    1994 California Gubernatorial Vote:
    Whites: 33% Brown, 62% Wilson
    Asians: 45% Brown, 54% Wilson

    1996 California Presidential Vote:
    Whites: 45% Clinton, 43% Dole, 7% Perot
    Asians: 51% Clinton, 44% Dole, 4% Perot

    So, in 1992, Asians voted somewhat more Republican than whites.

    In 1994, Asians voted somewhat less Republican than whites, but Wilson still got 54% of their vote.

    In 1996, Asians gave Dole a slightly higher percentage than whites, but less support to Perot.

    So at least until 1998, California Asians did tend to vote Republican about as much as whites did.

    Does anyone on this site except me know why Asian women marry White men but very few Asian men marry White women?

    It’s probably the same racial factors explaining why the number of black male/women female couples is so much larger than the number of black female/white male couples.

    • Replies: @Alden
  166. Ron Unz says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    Since it’s a pretty well-known book by a bestselling author, and addresses issues relevant to the IQ research community here, I thought maybe somebody knew of a good refutation. But it looks like I’ll have to be super-diligent, as Gladwell advises, and spend 10,000 hours looking for one myself ; – )

    Here’s a link to the 24(!) posts by Steve Sailer insulting and ridiculing Gladwell, which was mostly how I’d formed my impression that his work was no good. There were so many of them, Steve even added a tag, which is why they’re so easy to locate:

    Supposedly, Gladwell got into a debate with Harvard Prof. Steven Pinker, who’s a serious scholar, and was totally humiliated:

    From what I vaguely remember, the battle with Gladwell may have been one of the main factors leading Steve to allow comments on his blog, after which Gladwell stopped allowing comments on his.

    But like I said, I’ve never read any of Gladwell’s books myself, so it’s perfectly possible that my opinion is mistaken.

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
  167. Alden says:

    Any mention of merit first constitutes discrimination against dummies who just happen to be disproportionately black.

    Here it it, the most important sentence in the ruling on Griggs vs Duke Power 1973

    Disproportionate representation is in and of itself clear and present evidence of discrimination.

    One sentence in one Supreme Court ruling by one justice Brennan. That one sentence made discrimination against Whites not just legal but mandatory in all aspects of American life. And if any person or entity does not discriminate against Whites in favor of non Whites they are subject to investigation and extensive fines by the federal and state justice departments.

    You re not an American are you? Obviously you’ve never heard of affirmative action for non Whites.

    Something that became a federal law in 1968 and affirmed by Griggs vs Weber 1973 and Kaiser vs Weber 1979.

    The Kaiser case was much much worse than the Griggs case. Griggs just applied for a power company entry level trainee laborer job. Plenty of power company laborer jobs for people who can’t preform more skilled jobs.

    But the Kaiser case was about steel mill foreman jobs. Now that’s a job that requires basic knowledge of making steel, highest safety standards the ability to read emails in those days memos write emails and memos schedule shifts and workers etc. Steel mill foreman needs normal intelligence ability to figure out advanced math problems. Such as “ I need 12 guys in the crew but only 9 showed up. How many guys should I tell HR to send me?”

    Believe me, Kaiser was far far worse in terms of forcing companies and agencies to hire absolute dis functional retards than Griggs.

    • Thanks: That Would Be Telling
    • Replies: @Ferrari
  168. Ron Unz says:

    Good article as usual Ron. Would actually be entertaining to see you take a personal dive in IQ research and present your personal opinions on the matter as it regards to the many areas IQ may or may not impact.

    Actually, just prior to my big 2012 Meritocracy article, I’d published a major article on Race/IQ:

    And it provoked a very long series of follow-up columns:

  169. Alden says:
    @Ron Unz

    No it’s not. It has to do with deep seated Asian culture. Marrying off a daughter is like…..

    So Asians stopped voting republican in 1998. 24 years ago. I assumed it was about 35 years ago at least. But Asians are now firmly part of the anti White coalition. What happened in the 1990s has little to do with what’s happening today.

    UNZ needs some commenters under the age of 60.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Ron Unz
  170. Skeptic2 says:

    I appreciate everything you say about Harvard, although ‘private’, not really being ‘private’. Like Ron Unz’s perhaps quixotic efforts to make Harvard tuition free, I would seek to return Harvard to fully private ‘private’ status and let them adopt whatever admissions policy they wish and their governance permits.

    And let them abolish SATs. So much the better.

  171. Alden says:

    Here’s a much easier question about the Asian Way. If anyone has lived in an Asian Invasion neighborhood they should know the answer.

    When Chinese buy homes, why do they cut down trees around the house and pour gallons of weed killer around the trunks of the trees planted on the verge that the city refused to cut down to accommodate the Asian Way?

    If you know Asians you should know the answer.

    But UNZ commenters only know Asians from internet articles about their marvelous IQs and why those high IQs gives them the right to every tech and medical Dr job in the USA.

  172. Ron Unz says:

    No it’s not. It has to do with deep seated Asian culture.

    I’m skeptical. I think it’s just basic racial factors of the sort Rushton and all the HBD people have always claimed—size, aggressiveness, testosterone, that sort of thing.

    But since you think it’s culture, what’s your explanation of why black men marry white women, but very rarely the other way round?

    So Asians stopped voting republican in 1998. 24 years ago.

    Well, it was exactly what I said. That was the year Dan Lungren lost by 20 points to Gray Davis, and the Republican Party pretty much collapsed, never to recover. After that, California Asians stopped voting Republican.

  173. Ron Unz says:

    Actually, I think here’s another (painful) example that supports my position…

    One reason I felt confident about winning the Harvard campaign was that the typical turnout was just 7% and the eligible alumni were roughly 20% Asian.

    One of our main issues was criticism of the Asian Quota, and two of the members of our slate were Asians who’d been vocal opponents of the policy, while I and another slate-member were also leading opponents. The Harvard lawsuit against Asian discrimination had been getting a good deal of public attention, and 64 different Asian organizations had denounced Harvard over the policy.

    From the logical perspective of personal or ethnic self-interest, all the Asians should have voted for us, regardless of whether or not they supported other types of Affirmative Action or the Democratic Party. The vote was obviously secret.

    Unfortunately, there’s absolutely no indication we got any sizable Asian vote. Since the media and the Harvard administration was critical of our proposal, the Asians apparently voted against it. Indeed, the member of our slate who’d been most actively involved in opposing the Asian Quota got the fewest votes.

    All the evidence I’ve seen is that Asians generally tend to be socially-conformist and listen closely to what high-status elites and the media tell them to do and think. Whites are generally the same way, but Asians even more so.

    • Replies: @Alden
  174. Ferrari says:

    This point doesn’t seem to be entirely true in practice and omits details. Tons of companies do not have 13% black employees. The courts recognize there must be an interest and capability factor. Walk into any major consulting firm, I seriously doubt you will see 13% black employees. But I suppose your response would be: absence of a lawsuit does not mean it wouldn’t succeed!

    Note: Many schools only have 6% black population — Harvard and Cal tech. MIT has 3%. So these are huge disproportionate representations at current population levels, but no law suits exist, to my knowledge.

    But here is your omission: If the hiring company or college can prove that qualified and interested applicants of some race that is underrepresented do not exist in sufficient numbers, then it is not going to survive in court. Since a standardized test score is clearly relevant as a bench mark for college readiness, those court battles would face a tough uphill battle. You really think a black person could win a lawsuit to gain admission into a physics or math PHD program? Highly doubtful. But by your far too general reasoning, that is the conclusion we are left with. How do strip clubs get to discriminate against ugly dancers? They need hot dancers, its part of the job. Qualifications still matter.

    After all, where are said lawsuits? 6% is a long way from 13% (in percentage increase terms) and 3% is even farther away from 13%. Plenty of left wing groups would love to take more spots away from white kids, we all know that is true.

    Your strongest evidence is a steel mill job. Harvard is quite a bit more difficult than that.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Alden
  175. @Alden

    Got a foot in the industry because they were Jews . But couldn’t make it so now teach about the industry.

    Thanks for the enlightenment. Since I do not teach at a university or attend classes there nowadays, I am somewhat out-of-the-loop about the latest trends. I used to go to the campus bookstores at Berkeley and Stanford at the beginning of the terms to see what textbooks were being assigned for a variety of subjects – occasionally buying some of them – but stopped doing that years ago.

    • Replies: @Alden
  176. Ron Unz says:

    Note: Many schools only have 6% black population — Harvard and Cal tech. MIT has 3%. So these are huge disproportionate representations at current population levels, but no law suits exist, to my knowledge.

    I don’t think those figures are correct. Caltech is less than 2% black, MIT is 6%, and Harvard 11% — at least those were enrollments in 2020:

  177. @Anymike

    You have to take into account foreign students and the fact that the distribution of IQ is not a perfect bell curve (more than expected amount of most super smarts)

    Also according to SMPY* (top 1%) people with 99,9 percentile scores go for stem-phds at 18,2 times the rate of 99,0 percentiles.
    According to the same study after IQ rises beyond 135 the popularity of elitr professions such as medicine and law falls as more people go for science and math.

    So the proportion of super smarts going for tier 1-2 stem schools might be suprisingly high.

    But yeah I don’t believe in the “median over 150” figures either.
    The average of stem-phd:s seems to be a bit over 125**.
    I remember reading some study about oxbridge math students and their IQ was in the ball park of 133. This was some quick, low-stakes test and I bet there was no corrections for ceiling effect so this I would say is the very minimum for elite stem schools.
    If the same population had been motivated to complete a full scale IQ test with a proper ceiling, then the scores would have been most likely significantly higher.

    • Replies: @Anonymike
  178. @Alden

    … I really don’t care about Asians, just Whites.

    I agree with you, of course, but the outsized presence of first Jews and now blacks (domestic and foreign-born), Asians, and Third Worlders in the once-great academic institutions of this country has served to destroy forever the possibility that those institutions will ever recover their original primary purpose: to select and educate the native-born students who are (1) best endowed with the intelligence and industriousness to serve as future political, economic, cultural, business, and scientific leaders of the country and (2) most inclined, by nature and nurture, to understand that they have a duty to use their gifts and education for the good of their country and the betterment of their fellow citizens.

    Diversity is any society’s greatest weakness, and in that diversity is today merely a euphemism for “Christophobia” and thus the enemy of all virtues, it is also American society’s greatest evil. “Our” country will never again be ours, nor will it be a true homeland for our descendants or the descendants of like-minded whites.

    • Replies: @Meretricious
  179. Anymike says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    Why are my intellectual credentials a negative? The point I was making was that IQ is not a unitary measure but a composite of sub-aptitudes. The actual aptitudes of people with the same IQ scores can vary widely. That’s why most people with IQs in the 130 trend toward verbal skills, but also why a technical university like MIT can populate its undergraduate classes with qualified people without needing a cohort with a medium IQ of 150. Probably, MIT has a pretty high percentage of people with IQs of 140 and higher, but not a majority. A majority with an IQ that high is nearly impossible to achieve in the world we have. The numbers there are will get spread around many schools with many going into majors which do not require an MIT-like education. Then are those who for various reason do not produce a good secondary record and end up even in community college. Then there are the outliers – those who either do not go to college or defer college – and the pool shrinks a little more.

    Add it up. It’s not statistics. It’s just simple arithmetic.

    • Agree: Meretricious
  180. Alden says:

    You’re writing about extremely intelligent high achieving applicants to top colleges. My post was about affirmative action in general in all jobs college admissions everything

    • Replies: @Ferrari
  181. d dan says:
    @Ron Unz

    “… blacks are also constantly attacking whites as well. Are you claiming those attacks have also been brought about by the public anti-white rhetoric of Trump and his supporters?”

    This is both non-sequitur and ab absurdo. Do you think all racism/attacks against all groups are caused by same reasons? Are you claiming there are anti-white rhetoric that came from Trump and his supporters?

    “enormously counter-productive …”

    Strongly agree. Productive debate/discussion requires open-mindedness from BOTH sides. One side is obviously hiding their heads in the sand.

  182. Alden says:

    I’m as old as the rest of the UNZ commenters.

    But I still do some work at UCLA when I’m in Los Angeles. Plus a lot of my tenants and a couple employees are staff, instructors and students at UCLA , Loyola LA , and Santa Monica CC.

    So I’m a bit more in touch with what’s actually going on in colleges than the average 60 to 90 year old UNZ commenter.

    And starting in August I’ll be in touch with University of Pennsylvania and UC Santa Barbara. So I’ll post all the latest atrocities the twins have to endure in the cause of teaching White students how totally evil, vicious and despicable they, their families and all binary and White people are.

    For all the 60 to 90 year olds who think binary is a math term it’s college speak for male and female heterosexuals.

    Things I’ve learned in casual chats with a PHD student at UCLA, one of the top colleges in the country and thus revered by UNZ readers.

    The civil war was fought by the southern Republican party of the slave holding confederate states. Against the northern Democrat party union federal government states.

    The southerners were Republicans during the civil war. The northerners were Democrats.

    Colleges may have been liberal when UNZ commenters were in college. But they’re totally insane now days

  183. Alden says:
    @Ron Unz

    Would it be too much to ask the name of the law suit? So and so vs Harvard? I prefer to read at least the plaintiffs declaration part of lawsuits. It lays out the plaintiff’s case against the defendant / respondent.

    I hope the plaintiffs attorney keeps hammering on the “ disproportionate representation is in and of itself clear and present evidence of discrimination”

    That’s the absolute criteria by which discrimination is supposed to be determined. Or found by a judge.

    And the Asian proverb Marrying off a daughter is like ….. Has absolutely nothing to do with testosterone estrogen muscles slimness fairness or any other physical attributes Or even money and status.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  184. d dan says:
    @Brian Damage

    “You can be correct if you are talking about “leftie” White racists perpetuating stereotypes and enabling Blacks.”

    The ridiculous argument by you (and Unz and others) is your denial of any existence of racism against Asians from the right (zero racism, nothing to see – move on). Or else if such racism exists, it has no effects (non-event, totally inconsequential – don’t worry) on the behaviors of the very excitable, easily provoked and low crime-threshold blacks.

    I dislike racism from the left as much. The only difference is that they know how to hide their racism better than people from the right. I actually find it funny to read some the exchanges (e.g. in this thread) about the various interpretations, theory and explanations of why Asians tend to support democrats. I suppose if you are determined to ignore an elephant in the room, you really need super-high IQ person to help to square a circle.

  185. Thrallman says:

    This is a very big deal and Ron Unz is the only one who dares to point it out. Severe favoritism in the Ivy League doesn’t stop there–their graduates go on to Wall Street, the State Department, and the non-profit organizations. This favoritism has been going on for decades and can be assumed to have infected all institutions. That recalls something else Unz wrote in “American Pravda: Understanding World War II”

    During his political rise, Hitler had hardly concealed his intent to dislodge Germany’s tiny Jewish population from the stranglehold they had gained over German media and finance, and instead run the country in the best interests of the 99% German majority, a proposal that provoked the bitter hostility of Jews everywhere.

    The deterioration of Jewish academic performance is also a striking finding. It shows that whenever selective pressure is removed, decadence is the result.

    The answer of course is not persecution or segregation. Even a completely homogeneous nation would develop cliques and leading families that would consolidate power. What is needed is reform, which is harder than revolution. The answer is objective standards, transparent decisions, and disinterested arbiters. Failing that, as Unz suggests, random selection would be better than bias.

  186. @Pierre de Craon

    conflating talented Jews and Asians with untalented Negroes does not make a lot of sense.

    • Replies: @Pierre de Craon
  187. Ferrari says:

    I was attempting to the make the case that a “Merit First” university could exist legally. According to Ron’s numbers Cal Tech has only a 2% black population. That is probably not too far off a fairly merit based admissions procedure.

    If merit based was adopted by only the top universities, I would still consider that a major win. If the universities ranked outside the top 40 still used affirmative action, well then we can fight that battle another day.

    Also, it’s not inconceivable that the method of detecting discrimination described in those court cases could be overturned in the future. It is clearly an illogical method. Racism can cause numerical differences between populations but those numerical differences do not necessarily imply racism.

    I would hope our “great legal minds” could understand A implies B does not necessarily mean B implies A.

  188. @Ron Unz

    Thanks, Ron, you and Steve just saved me 10,000 hours ; – ) Seriously, I’ll check it out. Gladwell of course is a popularizer and preacher, not a scholar. But that doesn’t mean all his assertions are wrong. The Gladwell claim that there is a “good enough” threshhold across many domains of talent/ability, including IQ and whatever it measures, strikes me as both astonishing and easily falsifiable if untrue. According to Gladwell’s thesis, which of course he borrowed from actual researchers, it seems that if there were a smart pill that increased IQ by 25 points, a 100 IQ person who wanted to excel in a domain requiring intellectual ability could transform his chances from zero to “as good as anyone, including those with much higher IQs.” Meanwhile, the 125 IQ person who took the pill and reached 150 would gain virtually nothing, at least in terms of probability of success. This would be bizarre if true, and would have implications for public policy. For example, the relative paucity of outlier high IQs among this gender or that ethnicity wouldn’t matter as much if all you needed to be a successful pilot or engineer or scientist or scholar was that modest threshhold of 125. In that case, admitting a 125 IQ person from a disadvantaged background over a 150 IQ person from a privileged one wouldn’t be nearly as foolish as it otherwise would be.

    I am suspicious of Gladwell’s thesis because it seems “too good to be true” from the standpoints of both Horatio Alger style self-improvement preaching and liberal ideology. But it should be very straightforward to measure IQs and success outcomes. So I find it difficult to understand how any researcher could have reached such conclusions if there weren’t at least some truth to the “good-enough threshold” thesis.

  189. @Alden

    Hard to tell by just surnames. Ethnic Chinese in Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia and in most cases in the Philippines have localized surnames. Usually there is a hint of their Chinese surname in them. They all have their real names in Chinese characters. Only in Singapore and Malaysia, ethnic Chinese have the anglicized Chinese surname.

  190. @d dan

    There is the racism from the right just like there is racism by Asians. The racism among Asians are worst. At least from the right, those who are racist are honest about it. When you are honest about it, you can easily differentiate the racists from the ones that just want to do their own things. It easier to function in a society like that.

    When you can hide it, like the left, racism takes a life of its own and eventually becomes the norm.

    I lived in the tri-state area of Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri for more than a decade and then the most cosmopolitan and sophisticated city one can live in. From experience, I can tell you, the people in the city are more racist. I guess city folks have complex lives, distrustful, materialistic, manipulative and live in their own cocoon. They have a hierarchy system among the Whites and also towards non-Whites. Country folks are simple, carefree , friendly, welcoming, trusting and most of the time will treat you, no matter what race, like how they want to be treated.

    So yes, like you said, White racism is the cause of Blacks attacking Asians. But, it is not the Whites from the right as they have no power to control the narrative. It is from the left. Can you answer why MSM never disclose the race of the perpetrator of anti-Asian attacks? Why after the initial uproar over the spate of anti-Asian attacks, subsequent attacks are being downplayed? Or the race of the victims are not being reported as prominently as before to skew the stats on anti-Asian attacks? You think the right did this?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @d dan
  191. @Kevin Barrett

    Gladwell’s claim is nonsense: think about it. One of the most important skill sets in any occupation is having a solid gold BS detector–that’s a skill that just can’t be learned in 10,000 hours (eg, how many people were fooled that the empty-suit mediocrity Barack Obama was a genius?) . It requires talent. I can think of a million other examples. Gladwell is nothing more than a social justice warrior posing as a scientist. I’m not buying.

  192. Ron Unz says:

    Would it be too much to ask the name of the law suit? So and so vs Harvard? I prefer to read at least the plaintiffs declaration part of lawsuits. It lays out the plaintiff’s case against the defendant / respondent.

    Sure, I just Googled it. It’s called “Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College.”

  193. Ron Unz says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    According to Gladwell’s thesis, which of course he borrowed from actual researchers, it seems that if there were a smart pill that increased IQ by 25 points, a 100 IQ person who wanted to excel in a domain requiring intellectual ability could transform his chances from zero to “as good as anyone, including those with much higher IQs.” Meanwhile, the 125 IQ person who took the pill and reached 150 would gain virtually nothing, at least in terms of probability of success.

    If that’s what he was actually saying, I’m extraordinarily skeptical. At least based upon the lengthy critiques by Steve Sailer, Gladwell didn’t seem very smart himself, and it’s very possible he’s never associated with too many smart people or worked in a field required high intelligence.

    Indeed, it’s very possible that for success in writing the sort of Pop-Psych books he produces, high intelligence isn’t necessary and might even be a hindrance, so he mistakenly extrapolated his own experience to the world at large.

    For example, according to Sailer and others, there’s some ultra-dimwitted black activist named “Ibram X. Kendi” who’s gotten all sorts of academic accolades and massive book sales for producing total rubbish, and he makes Gladwell look like a genius by comparison.

    • Agree: Meretricious
    • Replies: @Ferrari
    , @Pixo
    , @Kevin Barrett
  194. Ferrari says:
    @Ron Unz

    A 125 to 150 point increase is a very significant increase. However, keep in mind the strongest statements one can make about IQ apply to GROUPS of people, not individuals. It’s entirely possible a 25 point increase wouldn’t do much for some individual in some field. But comparing a 125 IQ group of students to 150 IQ group of students would produce significant differences in accomplishments.

    I would venture a guess that if the 25 point increase was mostly in verbal IQ, one might see less of an impact in performance not only in STEM based fields but across the board as compared to a 25 point increase predominantly derived from Spacial/Quantitative abilities.

    Stephen Hsu has talked about how people with high verbal IQ but lower quantitive IQ can often make very poor models of the world in their brain and simply find some success by essentially using rhetorical tricks. At some point, accuracy of your ideas will matter and other high IQ individuals will see you as a fake.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  195. Pixo says:

    Emory has long been one of the South’s Jewy colleges, along with Duke and Tulane, and attracts the relatively sporty preppy or fratty Jews from the NE. They go to get the classic American college experience away from their parents, then go back to the NE.

    Isn’t its prestige and selectiveness and quality roughly in line with UGA, which isn’t too Jewish?

    While you can group HYPSMC together since 70%+ of top HS students would go if they could, once you get down to Emory, disproportions are more likely from sorting and preferences, not bias.

  196. Pixo says:
    @Ron Unz

    Gladwell writes for 120IQ businessmen, Kandi for the large mass of education industry mediocrities with 900 SAT scores who barely made it out of ed school.

    There’s no question the former is smarter and writes at a higher intellectual level. Kandi is likely the lowest IQ person to ever make it as a public intellectual in a Western country.

    Whenever I see someone make the argument that “beyond a certain point IQ doesn’t improve life and work outcomes” I see behind it a loser with an inflated perception of his intelligence who blames discrimination against smart people for his loserdom.

    Terman’s large high quality study showed even at very high levels, g is still correlated with positive outcomes.

    • Replies: @Meretricious
  197. @Pixo

    talent is more than IQ–geez!!!!!!

  198. @Meretricious

    It makes sense. That you fail—or refuse—to see how and why is very revealing.

    • Replies: @Meretricious
  199. @Pierre de Craon

    OK, Jews are getting marginal preference at places like Harvard but they are not compromising Harvard’s brand–unlike blacks. Can we agree on that statement?

    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  200. @Kevin Barrett

    Your post brings to mind this classic dictum of one Warren Buffett:

    “Investing is not a game where the guy with the 160 IQ beats the guy with the 130 IQ. Once you have ordinary intelligence, what you need is the temperament to control the urges that get other people into trouble in investing.”

    And it comports neatly with my own experience. When I happened to land at “Famous University” I found that I was one of the smarter people there (but by no means the smartest, which was a pleasure).

    What I lacked in comparison with many of my classmates was a good measure of industry and self-discipline. Those kids could really grind, and did. As one result, the academic pace was unlike anything I’d experienced before, and I had to reform my ways fast.

    This is one reason I tire of people saying that the top schools are all about the connections you make there. They betray their own ignorance more than anything else. It’s a Hollywood version of higher education.

    In fact, the best schools are about discovery, accomplishment, and enlightenment, and you’ll get out what you put in, and sometimes more.

  201. Anymike says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    I finished an M.A. program at a state university just last year. My conclusion is that for any subject, there is a gate for post-bac (graduate) study, and if you make the gate, most of the time it makes no difference whether you just make it or make it by a wide margin.

    In my subject, which was English literature, many could make the gate if they were motivated to want to study the subject. Even a physics major who got tired of equations. In physics and many other subjects, making the gate might a little harder. But for those who do, there may not be a huge difference between those who barely make the gate and those who make it by a larger margin. The big leaguers are only a small percentage and the superstars a small percentage of those. That’s the nature of things.

  202. @Ferrari

    That sounds right. I have just been reading Derb on Hyperglottery which, apart from the bons mots like Bismarck’s “useful for headwaiters” sneer, is good for making one wonder where that sort of freak ability fits in with g.

  203. @Brian Damage

    I am fascinated (and horrified) as I read and listen to American racism and about it. Australia is unarguably better off but I look out for evidence that I might be fooling myself. My extended family is multiracial and charming and talented. But none of them could be mistaken for having Bantu genes. Looking back to when the White Austalia policy had, before the late 1960s, ensured that Australians, apart from Aborigines, were nearly all of white European descent (like my convict and other Australian ancestors), I theorised that there were two important things to note. 1. By 1965 Australia was very prosperous and not very unequal and huge waves of non English speaking migrants had, post WW2, fitted in well. 2. The real issue was class. At least I had been brought up without a tincture of racism and can just remember that there were slight signs of background anti-semitism that some of my school contemporaries displayed.
    Obviously numbers count and so does economics. I trust that Australia is on the right path by keeping up IQ and aptitude for hard work in the Asian immigrants we receive – often ex students – and not testing ourselves too much by receiving black Africans, especially Bantu. I tend to joke about our desperate left and woke attempts to ape American Angst as in BLM (a hard call in a country where blackness is largely confined to the 2 or 3 per cent who identify [when profitable] as Aboriginal but suffer recessiveness of their genes for melanin). Russian oligarchs buy European football clubs. Chinese parents pay for their children’s school to have a new swimming pool. So far do good.

  204. @Meretricious

    Jews get 20% of places at Harvard from 2% of the population, and grades that are not exceptional. But the Admissions Boards love them. ‘Marginal’? Some years ago it was noticed that Jews were ‘only’ 14% of the Princeton student body, and there was not a little grouching about ‘antisemitism’.

    • Agree: Meretricious
  205. jaichind says:

    There is a rational argument for setting a higher bar for Asian admissions to elite universities. Namely, for a given IQ, Asians are less successful career-wise relative to Whites. Despite all their high test scores, Asians do not dominate the C-suite positions as it would be as implied by their test score would imply. Elite universities are all about money and influence. If Asians are underperforming in terms of holding positions of power in either the business or political world then elite universities are justified in lowing the number of Asians in their ranks. This is more true for East Asians than South Asians to be fair. I am a Chinese that went to Yale back in the 1990s. I was very angry at what I saw as higher standards Asians were held to but started to understand once I entered the workforce and then eventually took up a management position. This is not good news for my son to get into Yale but I have to face the reality and accept the rational implications of relative career underperformance of East Asians relative to our IQ.

    • Agree: Meretricious
    • Replies: @Meretricious
  206. @Anonymous

    LOL, you put my maths to shame.

    This might be controversial, but if I were an Austronesian in one of these countries, instead of resenting Chinese for their relative wealth, I would try to harness the Chinese for what they can contribute economically to the country.

    I would say that although it is not perfect, the Malaysians seem to be getting it roughly right. Just by allowing the Chinese to do their stuff, their GDP has doubled from what it otherwise would have been (compare with Indonesia).

    The Indonesians are showing signs of recognising this, I think. They have stopped persecuting their Chinese population.

    • Replies: @boy1988
  207. @Ron Unz

    It looks like I should check out Terman’s study cited by Pixo showing a correlation between extra IQ points and real-world success at all levels including among those with outlier high IQs, and compare that to Gladwell’s sources. But the question is: how much correlation? If there is a very strong correlation up to the 120s, and a much weaker correlation after that, then Gladwell’s assertion is largely correct.

    If you plotted a curve with life success at intellectually demanding endeavors as the y axis and additional IQ points as the x axis, and started at 100, Gladwell’s claims predict that you’d begin at zero with a VERY shallow rise that would start to rise more and more steeply around 115, and then start declining equally steeply around 125 and tail off thereafter: another Bell curve, but with different implications from Murray’s.

    How could this possibly be true? Gladwell sensibly suggests in his chapters on “the trouble with geniuses” that the case of Christopher Langan illustrates how extremely bright people are often too smart to play the tedious social games that lead to real-world success. Very smart people from modest backgrounds, like Langan and Ted Kaczynski, have the toughest time, because the problem of being surrounded by intellectual inferiors who are socio-economic superiors is most acute for them.

    I can relate to that feeling. But I’m not smart enough to know whether I’m one of the many people too dumb to realize they’re not as smart as they think they are, or whether most of my socio-economic superiors are really as dumb as they seem ; – )

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  208. @Alden

    Does anyone on this site except me know why Asian women marry White men

    I can’t speak about whites because here in Singapore there aren’t too many. But here, the same phenomenon happens for perhaps similar reason. Here you will observe many Indian men having Chinese wives, but very very few the other way around.
    I put this to the Indian cultural association of higher castes having lighter skin tones. Everywhere you see, there are Indian men chasing Chinese women in the hope of lightening their gene pool.

    In the US, I hazard to guess that the white men who go for Asian women do so because they find their delicate features more appealing.

    White men but very few Asian men marry White women?

    Because we find them kinda gross.

    To us, white women are big chunky furry things. Sure, some Asian men might like them, but most of us prefer the delicate features of Asian women.

    Let me tell when I first realised why I found white women unattractive. I was maybe 10 years old and taking a public bus back home. In front of me sat a White woman. When the sun illuminated her skin, I could see a layer of fine fuzz on it. Now that grossed me out for life.

    “ Marrying off a daughter is like …….. … ….. ………. “

    Please complete this proverb and enlighten us.

    • Replies: @Meretricious
  209. @Alden

    It’s easy enough to tell by the surname.

    Not everyone in the US is as informed as you. Most can’t even tell which is the surname and which is the given name.

    For example, the commonly heard names of national leaders:
    The former Japanese PM, Shinzo Abe. Which is his surname?
    The former Chinese leader, Wen Jiabao. Which is his surname?

    Try this test with Americans and you would probably get 20% correct at most.

    Asian activists

    This is something perculiar to the USA. Your country is now hyper racialised, hyper woke, hyper eager to be offended.

    In this atmosphere, it is no wonder why everybody is at everybody else’s throats. Americans are so intoxicated on identity politics that they don’t even realised that they are inebriated.

    Have you been to Asia lately? You will see that people don’t really care too much about such sh*t.

  210. @jaichind

    Asians have lower verbal IQ, which is more important in the real world–see La Griffe du Lion on this. Again, IQ is overrated: what makes someone like Elon Musk extraordinary goes way beyond IQ, and my guess is that the moron diversity pimp gatekeepers at places like Harvard would have rejected Musk

    • Replies: @Brian Damage
  211. @littlereddot

    you are obviously an idiot–European women are exceptionally attractive

    • Replies: @littlereddot
  212. @Alden

    Easy enough to tell the difference.

    You would be surprised to find that many of those you regarded as Thais with Thai sounding names are ethnically Chinese. Those who could afford to send their kids to US colleges are probably so. Was the former PM, Thaksin Shinawatra ethnically Chinese?

    Same with Indonesians who where in the past banned and restricted from using their own names, language, holidays etc. Was the former Governor of Jakarta, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama ethnically Chinese?

  213. @Meretricious

    Ewww, you have them all.

    If I wanted furry things, I would adopt a cat.

    • Replies: @Meretricious
  214. @Meretricious

    Although I want to agree with you that Northeast Asian verbal IQ is lower, I think it is language related rather than genetics. The verbal IQ metrics you talked about are based on operating in an Indo-European language structure. That’s why South Asians thrived in this arena.

    Native Indo-European Northeast Asian speakers are no different from Northern Europeans in verbal abilities. The Brits and the Latin-Europeans, like their south Asians counterparts are experts in sophism. No amount of verbal IQ can beat that.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  215. @littlereddot

    I suspect you’re a fudgepacker from Shanghai. That’d make a great starting off point for a ditty, don’t you think? The problem with Asian women (and I’ve banged quite a few) is that there is not enough variation. Google Images “hot Chinese actresses” and you’ll get my drift.

    • Replies: @littlereddot
  216. Ron writes:

    Similarly, Jews were over one-quarter of the top students in the Physics Olympiad from 1986 to 1997, but have fallen to just 5 percent over the last decade, a result which must surely send Richard Feynman spinning in his grave.

    Richard Feynman notoriously hated being identified as a Jewish or being included in lists of Jewish Nobel Lauriates.

    In 1967, when preparing The Laureates: Jewish Winners of the Nobel Prize, Author Tina Levitan wrote to Richard Feynman, who had been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965, requesting a biographical sketch and a black and white photograph, as he was listed as a Jewish Nobel Prize winner.

    Feynman wrote back saying that his inclusion in the book would be inappropriate because at the age of 13, he had converted to non-religious views. When she wrote a follow-up letter saying that she intended to include not only professing Jews but also those of Jewish origins because “they usually have inherited their valuable heredity elements and talents from their people,” he replied that “it is evil and dangerous to maintain… that there is a true Jewish race or specific Jewish hereditary character… to select for approbation the peculiar elements that come from some supposedly Jewish heredity is to open the door to all kinds of nonsense on racial theory… such theoretical views were used by Hitler.” Feynman was not included in the book.

    I think Feynman is perfectly happy in his grave

    • Replies: @ginger bread man
  217. @ginger bread man

    The full text of his letter is worth reading

    Richard P. Feynman to Tina Levitan, February 7, 1967

    Dear Miss Levitan:

    In your letter you express the theory that people of Jewish origin have inherited their valuable hereditary elements from their people. It is quite certain that many things are inherited but it is evil and dangerous to maintain, in these days of little knowledge of these matters, that there is a true Jewish race or specific Jewish hereditary character. Many races as well as cultural influences of men of all kinds have mixed into any man. To select, for approbation the peculiar elements that come from some supposedly Jewish heredity is to open the door to all kinds of nonsense on racial theory.

    Such theoretical views were used by Hitler. Surely you cannot maintain on the one hand that certain valuable elements can be inherited from the “Jewish people,” and deny that other elements which other people may find annoying or worse are not inherited by these same “people.” Nor could you then deny that elements that others would consider valuable could be the main virtue of an “Aryan” inheritance.

    It is the lesson of the last war not to think of people as having special inherited attributes simply because they are born from particular parents, but to try to teach these “valuable” elements to all men because all men can learn, no matter what their race.

    It is the combination of characteristics of the culture of any father and his father plus the learning and ideas and influences of people of all races and backgrounds which make me what I am, good or bad. I appreciate the valuable (and the negative) elements of my background but I feel it to be bad taste and an insult to other peoples to call attention in any direct way to that one element in my composition.

    At almost thirteen I dropped out of Sunday school just before confirmation because of differences in religious views but mainly because I suddenly saw that the picture of Jewish history that we were learning, of a marvelous and talented people surrounded by dull and evil strangers was far from the truth. The error of anti-Semitism is not that the Jews are not really bad after all, but that evil, stupidity and grossness is not a monopoly of the Jewish people but a universal characteristic of mankind in general. Most non-Jewish people in America today have understood that. The error of pro-Semitism is not that the Jewish people or Jewish heritage is not really good, but rather the error is that intelligence, good will, and kindness is not, thank God, a monopoly of the Jewish people but a universal characteristic of mankind in general.

    Therefore you see at thirteen I was not only converted to other religious views but I also stopped believing that the Jewish people are in any way “the chosen people.” This is my other reason for requesting not to be included in your work.

    I am expecting that you will respect my wishes.

    Sincerely yours,

    Richard Feynman

    • Thanks: turtle
  218. Bumpkin says:

    Eh, Harvard and the Ivies will all be dead and gone soon, this whole endeavour seems to have been a waste of your time, Ron. In the end, I think you were lucky to lose, if the end result was more time to focus on your writing here.

    If you really care about education, create an Unz University online, like Trump University but actually delivering something worthwhile. Some new online learning ventures like that are inevitably going to kill off the entire collegiate system in the coming years, just as Lyft and Didi have obsoleted the job of taxi dispatcher.

    • Agree: anarchyst
  219. @d dan

    I dislike racism from the left as much. The only difference is that they know how to hide their racism better than people from the right.

    Racism is a very big problem in the West. Europeans have always been obsessed with race and racial classifications. The Holocaust, slavery and other forms of pure hatred are the result of the never-ending obsession. The other day a brilliant black woman who went to Harvard was telling my uncle that her white classmates thought of her as an Affirmative Action student during her study there.

    It seems very natural for whites in the United States to begrudge blacks (descendants of slaves ) any job or higher education opportunity.

    • Replies: @Chebyshev
  220. Ron Unz says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    that the case of Christopher Langan illustrates how extremely bright people are often too smart to play the tedious social games that lead to real-world success.

    I used to see lots of chatter about that Langan fellow on the Internet a dozen years ago, and was always somewhat skeptical, so just out of curiosity I took a quick look at his Wikipedia page. Some of his theories seem like nonsense, and I really wonder whether he actually got a perfect SAT score despite taking a nap in the middle of the test. Is there really any solid evidence behind most of those claims? As far as I can tell most of it traces back to some ABC 20-20 20-odd years ago show, and that may or may not be reliable.

    I don’t doubt that he’s probably a smart fellow, but sometimes the wildest sort of exaggerations can begin circulating on the Internet.

    • Replies: @Anymike
  221. d dan says:
    @Brian Damage

    There is the racism from the right… White racism is the cause of Blacks attacking Asians

    Thank you for agreeing to that common sense fact. Although a small step, that is still refreshingly honest among Unz commenters.

    “But, it is not the Whites from the right as they have no power to control the narrative.”

    I don’t buy this lame excuse that the right does not control its own words. As far as I remember, most of Trump/MAGA rhetoric are fairly reported by MSM. Furthermore, the right has FoxNews, WSJ and Trump utilized his Twitter account profusely with great effects before the ban. You can see the harmful effect on Asians in 2020:

    “More than three-quarters of Americans — 78 percent — place a “great deal or fair amount of the blame” on China for the virus’ spread around the world…”

    You may think it is just about China, but after 2 years, a 2022 survey asks specifically about Americans’ perception on *Asian Americans*. And here is the lingering damages: 21% of Americans think that “Asian Americans are at least partly responsible for COVID-19”, an increase from 11% in the previous year.

    “Compared to 2021, Americans in 2022 are more likely to say that Asian Americans are at least partly responsible for COVID-19. More Americans in 2022 say anti-Chinese names for COVID-19, such as “Wuhan virus,” are appropriate.” – STAATUS report

    In other words, 1 in 5 Americans blame Asian Americans for Covid19. Even today, I still read commenters in Unz who use “kung flu” or other dog whistle terms to talk about Covid19. Ironically, it is Biden that bans the use of “Chinese virus” for federal government.


    “At least from the right, those who are racist are honest about it.”

    No, they are not honest about it. They are just not as good (as the left) in hiding it. A recent example from Texas GOP candidate Shelley Luther tweet:

    “Chinese students should be BANNED from attending all Texas universities. No more communists!” – Shelley Luther

    After some criticisms, she clumsily hides the racial reference with the more political correct “CCP” term by changing the tweet to:

    “Texas taxpayers should not be subsidizing the next generation of CCP leaders. It is common sense: CCP members should not have access to our schools.” – Shelley Luther

    So, are Asians suppose to believe she is not racist, and vote for her so that their kids could get into Harvard with may be, 0.0001% improved chance. Or should they vote for a democrat so that 80% of the kids can at least be assured of a state education?

    “you can easily differentiate the racists from the ones that just want to do their own things”

    To be “honest” for being a racist does not grant a person the license to irresponsibly rant about other races. It provokes retaliation-in-kind, which is how the nation is fractured. Dumb comment like “Asian Invasion Neighborhood” is matched only by “White Invasion Nation”, or actually “Continent”, or “Continents”.

    America traditionally has been a multi-racial country. So, freedom of speech is pure BS without accountability. This country is NOT built by the whites alone: white wasn’t even economically competitive to pick the cotton or built the railway, and even today, the country still needs 10’s of millions of Hispanics to sustain its status as the biggest food exporter, or thousands of foreigners for the high tech industry.

    “It easier to function in a society like that.”

    You may think your small country town is a good refuge from the vulgarity and ills of the nation, but a rotten corpse can’t protect any part from the invading larvae.

    “Can you answer why MSM never disclose the race of the perpetrator of anti-Asian attacks?”

    And what is the purpose of disclosing the race of the perpetrator – other than to indulge whites’ obsession to stereotype blacks? Everyone (whites, Asians and even blacks) already knows that black has the highest crime rate, says 30% or 40%. Do we also need to stymie 60% of the law-abiding blacks? Or is the purpose to ensure Asians hate blacks as much as whites do?

    I agree the left is hypocritical to pick on whites when reporting a crime, but two wrongs don’t make a right. You don’t like that, don’t do that to others. Lest you think only the left engages in this type of double dealing. Rightwing media also often reports that “Chinese spy” steals tech or secret from this company or that lab. One wonders what is the point of calling out “Chinese” when thousands of whites have also stolen IP’s from other whites, or been spying for foreign nations.

    Americans need to be brutally honest about racial relation. The right (especially?) is not exempted from looking at the mirror if they want to save the nation. Start by learning the basics on how to treat other races fairly, and stop listening to experts or charlatans with elaborate theory, like the oxymoron statements on Asians: about leaders that are followers, high IQ persons that are non-thinking conformists or voters that intensely destroying what they care most (education).

    Unless you want to believe in California, any Asian not conforming to that laughable caricature are half suspected KKK member, just like every Chinese in Texas is a certified CCP member.

    • Replies: @Chebyshev
  222. dlc06492 says:
    @Ron Unz

    In the 1960s-70s, there were 6-10 perfect 1600 scores typically on the SAT. Then after the “Great Renormalization” (recentering) of 1994, suddenly there were 200 perfect scores. Were the students smarter – of course not. The test was dumbed-down. This was the official beginning of grade inflation at high school’s highest level. And don’t we all just feel so much better now??!!

    • Replies: @Anonymike
  223. Maybe white supremacy is not a fact but black inferiority certainly is and we need to admit that. Most blacks get their income thru crime and welfare. Those that do work got the job thru affirmative action which is a type of welfare too.

    George floyd was a typical black man.

  224. Anonymike says:

    The test wasn’t dumbed down. It was rescaled so that what in the pre-1994 test was about 730 on the verbal became 800 on the new scale. There is somewhat of a point to doing it that way because there were not very many people who scored higher than that anyway.

    Even if there was some logic to the change, a side benefit for the regime is that it obfuscates the issue. A score is just a number. 800 on today’s test means 730 or higher on the old test. 730 was high enough. Whether you went to state college or Yale with that score, up to you to master your subjects. I know for as fact that the laws of physics are the same in downtown San Jose as they are in Palo Alto so is the text of Hamlet.

  225. Anonymike says:

    I’m not so about a more thorough test producing a different result. I’ve score in the mid-130s on administered IQs tests. Maybe 20 years ago, I decided to take one of those pop-up, quickie, click-bait IQ tests online just a lark. Ran through it as fast I could, and guess what? Presto-whammo, IQ 135. No, I don’t believe more thorough testing would produce a different result in the aggregate for a group of people. Some individually might get a different result. Some might even fall.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that an IQ score is a composite of several sub-aptitudes. My impression definitely is, most people in the 130s get there due to superior verbal aptitude. The mathematical, spatial, quantitative and abstract aptitudes that make people successful in STEM studies are less common. But the people who have them are the ones who become engineering, math, and laboratory science majors. Plenty of people who could not score higher than maybe the mid-120s on an IQ test are successful in STEM. The reason why is pretty obvious. STEM is the high end of their aptitudes.

    There are always the people who just work harder and are willing to concentrate their efforts on certain subjects. If the family and community pressure you to study STEM and your sense of what you are supposed to be doing when you go to college is to study STEM, maybe you put unlimited effort into it even if your aptitude is not that great. It works for a lot of people.

    • Replies: @AnonFinn92
  226. I attended an Ivy League school (Class of 2015) and noticed that there was a paucity of really smart Jews possessing both intelligence and high levels of work ethic/motivation. Mostly extreme introverts who happened to love being Nerdy. Think Zuckerberg, but on steroids. In general, while many of my Jewish classmates possessed ambition, they were more relaxed in their pursuits than the Asian students. Many of them were content being the president of a club rather than a groundbreaking researcher. That’s not to say that there weren’t brilliant or hardworking Jewish students, just that the majority of those in the Ivies behaved similarly to the WASPs of the previous generations. They knew a comfortable job in consulting, tech, finance or at a non-profit awaited them post-graduation. The consistent extreme hard work and late nights typical of Asian students was atypical for most of my Jewish classmates. The majority did work hard, but not any harder than the median student.

    I think Ron hit the nail on the head when he noted that Jewish students tended to load up on extra curricular activities in High school as a way to get accepted into college. So while they may not score high on the National Merit Scholar Program, the Putnam competition or the Intel Science search, they now can wax about their ten to twelve Extracurriculars in their college essay. The idea that just being smart could get you into college was unheard of. One also needed to be on a sports team, in the theater, in language honor societies, and be involved with volunteering, gay/ethnic activism, and so forth. Everyone was accomplished in something and knew how to game the system. (See this kid for an exmaple. He started a company while in prep school). These students were spending more of their time campaigning to be national president of the Future Business Leaders of America or starting the coding for social justice club than studying physics in their free time.
    Professor Espenshade from Princeton discovered in his book

    I would like to See Ron make a few updates to his 2013 analysis.
    Since 2013, the number of Jews in the Ivy League has plummeted. This article describes that trend:
    I would love to see updated numbers on Jewish enrollment since 2013 to verify this article.
    Perhaps Ron’s article made an impact and these schools all quietly stopped admitting as many Jewish students? Who knows.

    Another trend worth mentioning is that more and more Jews in the Ivy League are of the Modern Orthodox extraction. These students wear Yarmulkes and modest clothing but are not insular like Hasidim. Modern Orthodoxy is most closely associated with Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik and has strongholds in the Upper West Side, Riverdale, Chevy Chase, and Boston. Most of these students spend at least one year in Israel Studying in a Yeshiva before attending college. These students are often hardworking and are also often the grandchildren of holocaust survivors. There are many articles in student run newspapers over the last decade bemoaning how the Orthodox students have taken over the Jewish student Centers and the concurrent disappearance of reform and conservative Jews in public Jewish campus life.
    I think many of these students are the ones winning academic prizes and getting noticed by the Intel Talent search.

    I’d like to ask a few questions that I hope Ron can help answer.

    – First, You are correct to assume that Jewish people closer to the immigrant generation work harder and are more diligent in their studies than the comfortable 2nd and 3rd generation students. They Weyl analysis on names probably is mostly concerned with Ashkenai Jewish last names.
    Since the number of Persian, Syrian, Israeli and other Jews are now a larger part of the American Jewish population, it seems to reason that more of these surnames would appear on the list of NMS finalists than previously. Did Ron account for these at all?
    – A followup to this is that certain Russian Jewish surnames are spelled differently than their American analog. For instance Weinstein may be spelled Vaynshtayn. I don’t think this would detract from Ron’s overall thesis, but I think the Weil Analysis would fail to catch these distinctive spellings.
    – Is there a way to quantify the impact of legacy admissions on Jewish enrollment? If 25% of Harvard students were Jewish in 1990, and of those 20% only 5% could qualify for Harvard without legacy admissions, how much of the remaining 15% might be bumped up because of Legacy admissions without proper qualifications?
    – Is there a way to quanity the impact of celebrity or wealth on Jewish enrollment? I attended a university where buildings were donated by both Michael Bloomberg and Carl Icahn, and strangely both of their Children were admitted. Is there a way to quantify this impact?
    – What percent of the Jewish students are coming from feeder schools? Dalton Prep? Exeter? etc. These schools have tight relationships with the Ivies and regularly send 10-20 students to each one. Perhaps more Jews are coming out of these schools and being “fed” straight into the ivies rather than being stellar students at Public Schools like James Madison or Weequaic.

    I’d love to hear Ron’s thoughts on any of what I have just brought up

  227. Chebyshev says:
    @Charles Martel France

    One manifestation of race obsession we could get rid of is affirmative action. Then people like that woman wouldn’t be thought of that way, and there would be no begrudging of blacks for their college acceptances or jobs.

  228. @Meretricious

    and I’ve banged quite a few

    It is my experience that when men have to resort to boasting about their conquests, it means that they are not getting enough of it.

    Try having a fatter wallet. You will get alot more attention from the women then. Maybe then you will have pussy beyond the coarse fat furry red neck women of the trailer park.

    • LOL: Wizard of Oz
  229. Chebyshev says:
    @d dan

    Your claim that blacks are attacking Asians because of white racism isn’t correct. They’re attacking (mainly elderly) Asians because they’re violent and impulsive and Asians are soft, proximate targets. It’s absurd to think blacks are taking cues for their behavior, even unconsciously, from Republican politicians or white MAGA people in general – this is one of the least Republican demographics in the country and they generally don’t like white people, especially conservative whites. They’ve been attacking Asians more in the past couple of years for the same reasons they’ve been committing more murders and carjackings, and getting in more car accidents.

  230. @Chebyshev

    There’s a theory brought up in a topic or discussion that Asians are getting attacked more due to COVID work from home policies which have less whites on the streets for them to blend into, as well as whites decamping from cities following an old plague times pattern. So it says Asians have become a higher total of potential victims and have less cover during their outside activities.

  231. @ginger bread man

    It turns out there were a lot of public high schools with extreme numbers of high achieving Jews.

    Perhaps these public high schools with 80%+ Jewish enrollment were incubators of sorts that encouraged high achievement mindset. Today, most American Jews attend private schools. The most comparable public high schools with high achieving Jews are Milburn High School and Livingston High School in New Jersey. These are where all the Jews moved to when the escaped Newark in the 1970s. There are also high concentrations of Russian Jews in these school districts.

  232. @Brian Damage

    Native Indo-European Northeast Asian speakers are no different from Northern Europeans in verbal abilities.

    Can you please explain what you mean by
    “Native Indo-European Northeast Asian speakers”

  233. @ginger bread man

    Thank you for an interesting contribution and interesting links.i hope Ron responds. Nonetheless your typing ran away with you and left a little muddle here which I hope you will sort out

    Is there a way to quantify the impact of legacy admissions on Jewish enrollment? If 25% of Harvard students were Jewish in 1990, and of those 20% only 5% could qualify for Harvard without legacy admissions, how much of the remaining 15% might be bumped up because of Legacy admissions without proper qualifications?

    • Replies: @ginger bread man
  234. Ron Unz says:

    Your claim that blacks are attacking Asians because of white racism isn’t correct.

    As I’ve frequently argued, there’s probably an element of truth to that claim, but “d dan” tends to greatly exaggerate it.

    It’s certainly true that Trump and the right-wing media very loudly blamed the Covid outbreak on China, and that was picked up by activists in that camp, including the commenter examples cited from this website.

    Obviously, violent black street thugs don’t watch FoxNews, but the latter and talk-radio probably helped get the idea into general circulation, and it naturally spread across the broader society. Maybe black church ladies picked it up from Christian radio and mentioned it to their sons or grandsons, or the black rappers that like Trump promoted it to their audiences.

    In effect, black thugs got the idea that attacking “Chinese” people (including Koreans, Thais, etc.) was socially-sanctioned, and did so. They’d been doing it for years, but the rate really seems to have skyrocketed following the Covid outbreak. However, I do think probably 80-90% of the violent attacks were by blacks rather than whites, and pretending otherwise is just ridiculous.

    The same thing happened after the 9/11 attacks, when the MSM vilified Muslims. For example, some Sikh fellow in CA was murdered because his turban led his attackers to believe he was Muslim.

    • Replies: @Chebyshev
    , @EdwardM
  235. @ginger bread man

    Yeah, the smartest NYC (STEM) Jews I knew attended either Stuyvesant or Bronx Science in the 1960s or 1970s; which of the two I imagine would depend on where they lived. Can’t say I really knew him, but very sharp Brooklynite Bob Frankston of programming Visicalc fame along with at least one of his two younger brothers went to the former which was in East Manhattan and thus closer than a school in the Bronx.

    If they’re now going to less demanding schools it could help explain the “Good times make soft Jews” phenomena, then again the STEM Jews I’m referring to here all went to Caltech or MIT as undergraduates. Or maybe one of the ones I’m thinking of was (also?) a professor for a while at the former before he became an entrepreneur, albeit a very focused on algorithms type for the startup company where he was CEO.

  236. Ron Unz says:
    @ginger bread man

    I would like to See Ron make a few updates to his 2013 analysis.
    Since 2013, the number of Jews in the Ivy League has plummeted. This article describes that trend:
    I would love to see updated numbers on Jewish enrollment since 2013 to verify this article.
    Perhaps Ron’s article made an impact and these schools all quietly stopped admitting as many Jewish students? Who knows.

    I’m actually very skeptical of those claims of a huge drop in Jewish enrollment at Harvard, and I discussed the issue in my article above:

    These arguments based on general plausibility are strongly supported by quantitative evidence, and ironically enough, it is Baytch herself who provided it. Around the time she produced her lengthy and unpublished document, Harvard Hillel was claiming a Jewish undergraduate enrollment of 25%, and near the beginning of her text, she claimed that figure was obviously false by citing a Harvard Crimson survey indicating that only 9.5% of the Class of 2017 were Jewish. However, she failed to notice that the survey referred to being religiously Jewish, which is entirely different than being Jewish in the broader ethnic or ancestral sense, especially since Jews are among the most secular populations in American society and a full 42% of the Harvard students described their religious beliefs as atheist, agnostic, or “other.” Indeed, a worldwide survey finds that only 38% of (ethnic) Jews follow the Jewish religion. So if the Crimson survey were correct and Harvard Jews were typical in their religiosity, this would imply that 9.5% / 0.38 = 25%(!!!) of Harvard freshman were ethnically Jewish, exactly the figure claimed by Harvard Hillel.

    Likely as the result of the controversy unleashed by my article, the Harvard lawsuit, and my Harvard campaign, Hillel and other Jewish organizations eventually decided to “minimize” Jewish numbers by only counting religious Jews, who are just a fraction of the total. If you read that part of my article, you’ll see why I strongly suspect that ethnic Jewish numbers have probably not changed much.

    • Replies: @ginger bread man
  237. @ginger bread man

    My not-at-all PC Reform Rabbi friend said of the huge families of the Ultra Orthodox that I spoke about after a visit to Israel, and after noting their archaic behaviour and even,indeed, the number of retarded children that their inbreeding observably produced “Yes, but they have the genes”.

    His hope obviously was that, when a lot of the children eventually headed towards modernity, in their generation or their children’s, that the genes for high cognitive ability would prevail. But, but….

    Are the gene pools of those Haredi and other Ultra Orthodox really those that produced so many Nobel Prize Winners and great fanciers? My understanding is that the intellectualism of Orthodoxy ran into an overpopulation problem which meant that selection for brains petered out, possibly in the 17th century, and that’s when distinctly unintellectual Hasidic Judaism arose.

    Do you know enough to sort out my puzzlement about this?

    • Replies: @ginger bread man
  238. Chebyshev says:
    @Ron Unz

    The idea that China/Chinese people are to blame for the outbreak of Covid is just a simple thought one could have if one accepted the official story reported in the mainstream media, that Covid originated in China. Then, all the negative consequences of Covid in America would ultimately be linked to Chinese people. If you drew that conclusion, and if you are already inclined to violence, you can use this as a spark for an attack against an Asian person if you happen upon one. Blacks are very unlikely to be picking anything up from conservative media, even secondhand, and there’s no need to hear Trump say “China virus” in order to associate Covid with Chinese people.

  239. Chebyshev says:
    @ginger bread man

    I graduated from one of those schools recently. I would say based on my freshman dorm that 30-40 percent of the white students were Jewish.

  240. Blissex says:

    «Perhaps ten or twenty thousand of the alumni voters came from families currently paying up to \$180,000 in Harvard undergraduate tuition or believing that they might have to do so in the near future. My assumption had been that the prospect of such enormous financial savings would ensure our victory, but in hindsight I think I understand why this did not happen.»

    What an amazingly naive assumption from R. Unz! Mothers who can afford to pay, even if barely, those \$180,000 regard them as a barrier that eliminates competition to their children from the perhaps more able children of mothers who cannot to afford that.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  241. @Anonymike

    One does not simply disregard ceilings and noise.

    If you read through the smpy talent search studies, then you will see that there are a lot of (non-jewish white/asian) boys with math/spatial tilt.
    Verbal tilt is a crystallized iq/upper-middle class/jewish/girl phenomenon.

    People with 120-135 IQ’s go to medicine and other professions.* There is a geometric trend of over-representation in medicine from 100 to 130 IQ.
    Over-representation in math and engineering rises beyond 135 IQ** As i said before: 18,2 times the stem-phds at 99,9 percentile compared to 99 percentile. And in the 99+ percentile studies, law and medical students are among the dumbest, because the smartest often go for science and engineering. Most of whom are boys with math/spatial tilt. In smpy cohort, even the soft science careerists have higher composite IQ scores than law/business/medicine professionals. Despite medical students “superior” IQs in multiple studies.
    And if you look at the swedish study then you will also note that engineering majors have the worst career prospects compared to other professions when holding IQ and other confounders constant. Someone with IQ around 120 would most likely make bucket loads of more money in medicine or in Finance than in Engineering.

    But yes, I can see why you would think that people with super brains are mostly verbal dominant..

    • Thanks: That Would Be Telling
    • Replies: @Anymike
  242. Anymike says:
    @Ron Unz

    I will tell you my testing story re “going to sleep” in the middle of the test. I took the GRE general test in January 2019 at the age of 70 and nine months. My concern was that I did not want to score too high but I also was concerned because I had heard that the test had changed and I had not taken any standardized test in close to 30 years.

    Well, I got in there and started the test. The first section I got was the verbal and my immediate thought was, this is so easy. I ran through all of the verbal sections as fast as I could and did not check my work. Not quite going to sleep, but I put the test to bed before time was up.

    I wanted to get a good score on the quantitative and I had to work on that. In the end, I got 162V, 153Q and an embarrassing but adequate 4.0 on the analytical writing. I was at that time in the thesis stage of an M.A. program in English literature at a state college.

    The point is, someone who is good and confident of their test-taking abilities could well have gotten an 800 on either section of the SAT sleeping through half the session.

    According to my researches, my GRE score at age nearly 71 was equal to the median of graduate admittees in my subject at the Ivy League. I don’t think checking my work would have helped the score. Test prep would improve it but why bother. The subsequent programs I was thinking of at the time were a doctoral program in the same subject or an MFA program in writing. Scores that are too high might just raises suspicions. I consider what I got on the test to be a designer score for my purposes.

    By the way, based on my experience in my program and having a lot of contact with people in graduate school in earlier decades, I subscribe to the “gate” theory. I think there is a gate for every subject in graduate and professional school. If someone makes the gate, I don’t think it makes much difference most of the time whether they are just at the gate or easily above it. When someone performs exceptionally, there could be various reasons for that too. Being very brilliant is only one of them.

  243. Anymike says:

    I don’t know if you realize it, but you are making my argument for me. Just so you know, the 99.9th percentile is IQ 150. I never got that far in my argument because I was speaking of IQs in the 130 range, but I think once you get into the 140 range in IQ everybody has good mathematical, analytical and abstract aptitude. You don’t get into that range on high verbal aptitude alone. That’s why the 130 range is loaded with people with high-level verbal aptitude. If high-level verbal aptitude is your forte and your abstract is weaker, you don’t score higher than the 130s on an IQ test. That’s my estimation of the situation anyway.

    • Replies: @AnonFinn92
  244. @Wizard of Oz

    Thank you for your question. I believe there are multiple answers to your question.

    First, there are numerous Jewish intellectuals, geniuses, creatives and people of note who are direct descendants from highly observant Orthodox Jews. Some who come to mind are Noam Chomsky (his four grandparents were Ultra Orthodox), Paul Samuelson, Murray Rothbard (see this informative essay –, Allen Ginsburg (came from a line of Rabbis), Irving Berlin (Father was an Orthodox Rabbi) and Jackie Mason (Came from line of Orthodox Rabbis). Now, these are not representative of all Jews and they themselves were not Hasidic, however many brilliant and influential people have and do descend from highly Orthodox Jews.

    The Hasidic Jews of Williamsburg brooklyn are a unique phenomenon because following WW2, they took the ideological stance that the holocaust was God’s punishment for their community not being strict enough in their Jewish practice and for too much intermingling with non-Jews. Therefore, for the past half a century, this community has remained staunchly isolated from the outside world and the larger Jewish community for ideological reasons. However, this is beginning to change as the third and fourth generation are born and demand freedom from their oppressive religious way of life. More and more of the community members are breaking free and pursuing secular education and advanced degrees. While this has only been going on for the past 20 years or so, I believe that you will start to see genius levels of accomplishment from those who broke free from the Orthodox community.

    That is about the Nobel Prize winners. With regard to wealth, the Hasidic community has more than its fair share of extremely wealthy individuals. While many within the community rely on government assistance, there are still many who attain very high levels of wealth with an extremely limited education. Many of them only complete an 8th grade equivalent of secular learning because they spend all day learning Jewish texts such as the Talmud.
    See these articles and videos

    This should give you a good start

  245. @Ron Unz

    Okay, that’s fine.

    I am wondering whether Ron can do some investigative journalism here.

    Ron is a Harvard alum and ostensibly has access to Harvard’s alumni directory. Can Ron access the list of graduates from the classes of say, 2014-2020 and then run the Weyl analysis on those names? Then we will have an apples to apples comparison of Jewish high achievers on the NMS and Jewish harvard grads. No more need to rely on the shoddy Hillel International numbers.

    I can do the same for my Alma Mater. Where can I find instructions for how to perform the Weyl analysis? Perhaps Ron can create a Weyl Analysis machine where users can upload an Excel spreadsheet of names and the code spits out what percent of students are likely Jewish.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  246. @Wizard of Oz

    I think Ron mentioned this phenomenon in his original article. Since Jews made up 20-30% of the Ivy League student body during the last few decades of the twentieth century, a substantial amount of the children/grandchildren of those former students will be granted legacy admissions in the twenty first century.

    Some of those who granted legacy admissions will have gotten in on their own anyhow based on their own merit, but for many the legacy may be the singular factor that tips the scale in their favor. My intention is to ask whether we can quantify what percent of the Jewish students who are pure legacy admits.
    Is it 5% of all Harvard’s Jewish students? 10%? 20%? How would one go about quantify this?

    In asking such questions, I seek to come up with a rigorous counter argument to Ron’s conspiracy theory. Ron essentially argues that Jews and their cronies are granting coveted Ivy League spots to their co-ethnics who really don’t deserve those spaces. I, as a Jewish person who may have been one of the lucky recipient of said spoils system (although I hope not) wish to identify precsely what percent of the Jewish students were admitted via which obscure entry pathway. If Merit alone would only allow 5-7% of the slots to be allocated for Jewish students, yet they comprise 20-30% of the student bodies, exactly how did those extra 13-25% of students get through the entry gates?

    Let’s say we were able to mathematically break down Harvard’s Jewish students into their primary mode of admission. Let’s say that 5% were admitted based on pure merit, 5% were legacy admits, 5% were gay/ethnic activists and 5% were prep school feeder kids. This is a little absurd, because there will be some overlap in these categories.

    My ultimate goal here is to rule out a Protocols of the Elders of Zion-type scheme where the opaque, shady admissions committees have explicit Jewish quotas they are required to fill or else face the wrath of their wealthy Jewish board member who will pull their funding. That’s the undertone of Ron’s writing that probably wasn’t lost on smart Jewish reporters like Nicholas Lemann or David Brooks who read and reported on his work.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  247. Ron Unz says:

    What an amazingly naive assumption from R. Unz! Mothers who can afford to pay, even if barely, those \$180,000 regard them as a barrier that eliminates competition to their children from the perhaps more able children of mothers who cannot to afford that.

    Obviously, there’s that countervailing factor, but I don’t think it’s nearly as important as you suggest.

    First, I’d guess that 90+% of the Harvard families would regard \$180K as very serious money, even if they could afford it. Second, families of current students wouldn’t have to worry about admission and could just focus on the financial savings.

    So for the others, it would be a complex personal tradeoff, increased competition vs. saving a large chunk of money. Personally, I think the net balance would have been enough to reach my 10K-20K estimate, though obviously I don’t have any scientific data.

  248. Ron Unz says:
    @ginger bread man

    First, there are numerous Jewish intellectuals, geniuses, creatives and people of note who are direct descendants from highly observant Orthodox Jews.

    Don’t forget that until about a century ago, the overwhelming majority of European Jews were Orthodox Jews. So I’d guess that among older Jews in America, something like 90% had Orthodox grandparents.

  249. @ginger bread man

    I’m not sure if @Wizard of Oz’s point was whether Orthodox Jews in general are incapable of producing genius or whether Hasidic jews specifically are incapable? Did I get it right?

  250. Ron Unz says:
    @ginger bread man

    Ron is a Harvard alum and ostensibly has access to Harvard’s alumni directory. Can Ron access the list of graduates from the classes of say, 2014-2020 and then run the Weyl analysis on those names?

    Sure, it would be easy enough to do, but I don’t know that I have access to any alumni directory. I don’t use Facebook and my impression is that the individual Classes are only open to their own members.

    I can do the same for my Alma Mater. Where can I find instructions for how to perform the Weyl analysis?

    Sure, that would be pretty easy. I discussed how to use Weyl analysis for Jews:

    I actually did it with a smaller and a larger set:

    (1) Count the instances of Cohen, Kaplan, Levy, and Gold***. Multiply by 20 to get the Jewish estimate.

    (2) Take those previous names and also look for Berman, Bernstein, Epstein, Friedman, Greenberg, Katz, Levine, Rosenberg, and Stern. Multiply by 12 to get the Jewish estimate.

    Those figures were based upon Census data from a decade ago, and they probably are still reasonably valid today.

  251. Ron Unz says:
    @ginger bread man

    Ron essentially argues that Jews and their cronies are granting coveted Ivy League spots to their co-ethnics who really don’t deserve those spaces….My ultimate goal here is to rule out a Protocols of the Elders of Zion-type scheme where the opaque, shady admissions committees have explicit Jewish quotas they are required to fill or else face the wrath of their wealthy Jewish board member who will pull their funding.

    That really isn’t correct, and in fact I explicitly said the exact opposite in my original article, also excerpted in this one:

    The exact mechanism by which this seemingly enormous bias in favor of Jewish applicants to our most elite colleges manifests itself is not entirely clear, and I very much doubt that it takes the crude form of top administrators directing admissions officers to admit under-qualified Jewish applicants. Instead, I strongly suggested that a leading factor was the “negative pressure” of America’s overwhelmingly Jewish media and Jewish activist groups, which might respond harshly to any significant decline in Jewish numbers…

    I suspect that the combined effect of these separate pressures, rather than any planned or intentional bias, is the primary cause of the striking enrollment statistics that we have examined above. In effect, somewhat dim and over-worked admissions officers, generally possessing weak quantitative skills, have been tasked by their academic superiors and media monitors with the twin ideological goals of enrolling Jews and enrolling non-whites, with any major failures risking harsh charges of either “anti-Semitism” or “racism.” But by inescapable logic maximizing the number of Jews and non-whites implies minimizing the number of non-Jewish whites…

    I think the 1999 Princeton case serves as a perfect model. Although the President and the Provost were both Jewish, Jewish enrollment had gradually drifted downward over the previous decade, much like the enrollment of white Gentiles during the same period. But then the MSM discovered the Jewish decline and there was a massive national political firestorm about Princeton’s smoking-gun “anti-Semitism” so Jewish numbers jumped the follow year and (I strongly suspect) much of the admissions office was purged. Elite admissions is a small community, and word quickly gets around…

    I discussed this question at greater depth in one of my follow-up columns:

    That’s the undertone of Ron’s writing that probably wasn’t lost on smart Jewish reporters like Nicholas Lemann or David Brooks who read and reported on his work.

    Actually, Brooks ranked it as quite possibly the best magazine article of the year in his NYT column, so I’m not sure if he read it the way you think. However, Lemann never commented, so I can’t say about him.

    • Replies: @ginger bread man
  252. @Ron Unz

    Thanks for clarifying. I think you’re right that most people took it the right way. For me, I like to have clarity as to the precise mechanisms that are being used to fully rule out the very small chance that something nefarious is taking place.

    Perhaps there is a way to quantify the impact that the various non-meritocratic schemes have on Jewish enrollment.
    The few that I have thought of include
    – Legacy admits (better odds than general population)
    – Children of Current Faculty members (much higher admit rate than general population)
    – Nationally renown musician/athlete/debater/extraordinary non academic ability
    – LGBT/Social Justice Activists
    – Prep/Feeder School kids
    – Affirmative action for non-white (sephardic i.e. Persian/Syrian/Israeli or PoC) Jews,
    – Sizable monetary contributions (A.K.A. bribery) from parents with names like Bloomberg, Kushner, Sommers, Icahn, etc.

    P.S. I know for my school there is a searchable alumni directory. Unless someone chooses to remove themselves, they are included and searchable. I assumed Harvard had the same, but I don’t know

  253. @Ron Unz

    Wow! I didn’t know that the idea for analyzing the state NMS roster came from Steve Sailer’s blog. That’s a genius idea and he’s truly a gem. He’s the most brilliant public intellectual our generation has and in a saner world he’d be tenured and giving lectures

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  254. @Anymike

    but I think once you get into the 140 range in IQ everybody has good mathematical, analytical and abstract aptitude. You don’t get into that range on high verbal aptitude alone. That’s why the 130 range is loaded with people with high-level verbal aptitude

    If you look at 135+ IQ cohorts there are twice as many boys with atleast 1 SD higher math than verbal IQ than boys with math less than 1SD above verbal. Boys make a majority of the top scorers and the tilt towards math rises with profound giftedness.
    Verbal over 1SD above Math among boys is pretty rare.
    Your intuition and induction are mistaken.
    Have you heard about simpson’s paradox?

    There are a lot of studies about the ability profiles of the gifted and I’m pretty sure that you haven’t read single one of them.
    Your confidence is mind-boggling

    • Replies: @Anymike
  255. @Meretricious

    Very kosher medical instruction. I will apply to the next heeb I capture 🙂

  256. Your prodigious research effort would benefit by one additional consideration: an attempt to account for the increasing prevalence of multi-ethnic, multi-racial children who have typical “WASP” last names, but whose mothers are Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Latin American, Middle Eastern, other Asian. Your research methodology apparently does not account for this highly significant (statistically speaking) phenomenon. Especially since the 1990’s, the number of such multi-ethnic, multi-racial children has proliferated especially in the Pacific Rim. In our experience, with three multi-ethinc children who all have a WASP last name but a Japanese mother, they all were NMS Semifinalists or, in the case of our son, a Finalist. They were all admitted to multiple Ivy League and elite schools and attended Stanford, Dartmouth and Princeton. But since they use a WASP last name your methodology classifies them as Caucasian. Increasingly, we see the prevalence of multi-ethnic trilingual native speakers (i.e., English, Chinese, German; or Japanese, Spanish, English) but who will be treated as WASP Caucasian by your methodology. How significant is this? In our observation, almost all the close friends of our children are also multi-ethnic and multi-racial. I don’t have a simple solution to capturing this information since most of the kids and families involved either declare themselves as Caucasian, or decline to state their ethnicity on application forms because everyone knows its fatal to declare yourself as Asian in academic matters.

    • Thanks: That Would Be Telling
    • Replies: @Meretricious
    , @Ron Unz
  257. BlackFlag says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    Sample quote:
    The Terman super-smarties (i.e., +4 SD) only earned slightly more (say, 15-20% over a lifetime) than the ordinary smarties (i.e., +2.5 SD), but the probability of earning a patent (SMPY) went up by about 4x over the corresponding ability range.

    • Replies: @Meretricious
  258. @ScottishSamurai

    good point. OTOH, methinks the rare “Negro” who is meritocratically admitted to a high-IQ institution has either 1 East Asian or Ashkenazi parent (presumably the mother)

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  259. @BlackFlag

    got news for you: corporations loathe geniuses–they are the MOST DISCRIMINATED AGAINST COHORT out there. And the low-IQ, affirmative action minority fatties in HR don’t give a damn about them. I doubt this phenomenon has even been studied much by scholars. Correct, Ron Unz?

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  260. Ron Unz says:

    Your prodigious research effort would benefit by one additional consideration: an attempt to account for the increasing prevalence of multi-ethnic, multi-racial children who have typical “WASP” last names, but whose mothers are Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Latin American, Middle Eastern, other Asian…I don’t have a simple solution to capturing this information since most of the kids and families involved either declare themselves as Caucasian, or decline to state their ethnicity on application forms because everyone knows its fatal to declare yourself as Asian in academic matters.

    Sure, I was aware of that possible factor, which is difficult to precisely determine for the reasons you suggest. But I don’t think it significantly impacted my overall analysis.

    College enrollment statistics do have a “multiracial” category, which used to be grouped in with Unknown/Unreported, so those figures aren’t impacted.

    And I think the multiracial students you describe would still have been just a sliver of the high-performing total during the years of my analysis, probably something like 1-2%. Meanwhile, other complications, especially the different thresholds for NMS status in different states and missing NMS lists, had generated far larger uncertainties, so that (for example) I could only estimate the highest-performing applicant pool as being 65-70% white Gentile and 25-30% Asian. Since I’d guess that a large majority of the mixed-race students in that group are white/Asian, that 5% stated uncertainty can probably accommodate that other factor.

    • Replies: @ScottishSamurai
  261. @Meretricious

    methinks the rare “Negro” who is meritocratically admitted to a high-IQ institution has either 1 East Asian or Ashkenazi parent (presumably the mother)

    That doesn’t seem to be the case for the blacks I’ve known who attended and belonged at MIT, although I admit I didn’t get into family details like that with them. Lighter skinned, of course, but most or all of them less so than pure mulatto Ovana (black Kenyan + white American). And no non-Negro features that I noticed at the time, although physically phenotypically Negro genes tend to be very dominant from what I’ve gathered.

    Why do you and so many others find it difficult to believe the infamous bell curve doesn’t apply to blacks?? Yes, with a SD that’s narrower, as I recall 12 vs. the 15 for white men, and thus fewer outliers which I’ve also read is true for women also at 12, but out of per Pew “46.8 million people in the U.S. who identified as Black in 2019” how many will be 1 through 4SD+?

    • Replies: @Meretricious
  262. @That Would Be Telling

    I don’t believe it’s true for blacks because I rarely encounter brilliant blacks–anywhere! Even in the arts they are so overrated (Shonda Rhimes!). Please name 1 bona fide black (100% Bantu) genius working today (bet you can’t). All you’ll be able to come up with are epigones like David Adjaye.

  263. @Meretricious

    corporations loathe geniuses–they are the MOST DISCRIMINATED AGAINST COHORT out there.

    There’s research out there that says it’s very hard for people who are too far apart in IQ to connect, lead, etc. other people. Here’s a popular level report on one such study:

    The findings were made by psychologists at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, who assessed 379 mid-level leaders employed by private companies in 30 mainly European countries….

    The average IQ of the participants was 111, which is well above the average IQ score of 100 for the general population….

    Besides measuring intelligence and personality for each participant, the team led by John Antonakis also collected leadership performance ratings from eight people. These were either peers or subordinates of the executive included in the study….

    As previous studies showed, the Swiss researchers found that there was a linear relationship between intelligence and effective leadership — but only up to a point. This association plateaued and then reversed at IQ 120. Leaders who scored above this threshold scored lowered on transformational and instrumental leadership than less intelligent leaders, as rated by standardized tests. Over an IQ score of 128, the poorer leadership style was plainer and statistically significant, as reported in the Journal of Applied Psychology.

    It’s important to note at this point at these ‘very smart’ leaders didn’t employ detrimental leadership styles but rather just scored lower than their ‘less smart’ peers on useful leadership style….

    There’s lots more where that comes from, plus I’ve noticed envy of course plays a role.

    However I’ve found that units of organizations will sometimes ignore these issues when faced with an existential or thereabouts threat. It’s a hard way to earn money, especially since only your failure can validate the failure of whomever was responsible for the mess you’re fixing who hasn’t been let go, but it does mean things are not quite hopeless. And of course you can form your own business.

    It’s one of the things I’ve observed that makes MIT what it is, its leadership, visiting committees etc. generally don’t discriminate against the very smart, are of course generally made up of the very smart, and thus do a good job of applying principles like not giving tenure to anyone who’s not number one or two in their subfield.

    On the other hand this leads to the phenomena which preoccupied the Institute for a lot of the 1980s and probably beyond, “MIT grads go to work for Harvard grads” and various doomed attempts to change that. All the way down to the merchandise you had to pass to get to the bookstore for required ones for you subjects, here’s Hal Abelson commenting on that after taking a one year sabbatical off campus.

    • Agree: Meretricious
    • Replies: @Meretricious
  264. @Ron Unz

    Thank you very much for your reply; your diligence is remarkable and refreshing. Yes, I agree that a 5% margin of stated uncertainty would probably accommodate this factor.

  265. Jim7484 says:

    Typical kike comment. You’ll pay for your insipid evil.

    • Replies: @Meretricious
  266. @Jim7484

    Jim, I’m fascinated by your prose élégante. What, pray tell, is a “typical kike comment,” and do you get an erection when you type the word K I K E? Cheers

    PS. Let’s badminton real soon

  267. 3.5 odd points:

    1. No concrete mechanism identified for the alleged discrimination, and in fact no mechanism is obvious given that the admin officers seem particularly unJewish. One media storm over one university once in the last few decades is obviously irrelevant.

    And without a mechanism, we are in danger of simply not understanding. Perhaps the long-term most intelligent students have used their intelligence to work out what qualifies as “intelligent” nowadays, rather than being stuck in 1950s definitions, and make sure to succeed at that?

    It seems like criticising Bezos as a businessman because Amazon took decades to make a profit. Well, yes, but then maybe Bezos knew more about how to make a successful business in those decades than those who hewed fanatically to the old standard?

    2. Hillel numbers seen as credible just because the “completely untrustworthy” media trusts them. This is trying to have your cake and eat it. I half expect Ron Unz to approvingly quote the unsourced Wikipedia numbers next.

    Whatever Hillel is might actually be accurate, but I can’t really get over the hypocrisy of Ron Unz’s taking them on faith.

    3. An assumption that silly sounding Jewish surnames are evenly spread among Jews in relation to their academic achievements. Might be true, but feels unlikely. Don’t all of the smart rich Jews marry smart and rich Gentiles? Or stay single and childless. I’ve met quite a lot of both of the above groups, but only odd-looking, shutoff super religious Jews who married each other. The last group seems to wear black uniforms and not really speak great English. I don’t imagine they are making waves in the Ivy League.

    These 3 points need addressing, not ignoring. Otherwise, this work is trying to make up in verbiage what it lacks in substance.

    I’m not even sure East Asians are particularly discriminated against. Most people would rather study with a black 1500 on the SATs than an East Asian 1600, because they’re likely to be a lot more extroverted and catalytic. This might not seem fair to some incel super nerd, but it is no less real than crime statistics. Sorry. Maths Olympiad is very boring and I don’t know what kind of Asperger’s individual puts their all into it, but they probably lack the sort of playfulness that begets great achievement and creativity. Harsh, but kind of obvious.

    Can I also suggest that the most ridiculous scandal is that your top universities are not each 50 times bigger? Perhaps that multiplier is too big, but there certainly seem a demand for a huge expansion and plenty of qualified candidates. Your Ivy League seems to function as a guild of self-reverential snobs (see this article) that’s main aim is to make scarce their own qualifications so that they can continue to pretend that they are especially smart for the rest of their lives. I have no idea why the 99% of the rest of you put up with it. It wouldn’t fly in most other countries.

    One last thing, can please anyone who is applying to these places please just say you are black? And maybe even of the other sex in a trans way. Just keep it up whatever ever anyone says to disagree, and, if they really won’t accept it, then break into false tears and claim your parents died when you were born, but your black neighbours adopted you. Hire actors if you need to. There’s notjing immoral in resisting discrimination. Or, if you believe this essay, which I bet almost no one actually does, then just pretend to be Jewish. That would be impossible for anyone to argue against. You could even convert to some relaxed form. I very much doubt it will help you, but Ron will certainly write a lot of words suggesting it will, so you could trust him, instead of the lying media, except when the lying media talks about Jewish numbers, but let’s not dig into the details again. It gets in the way of a good narrative

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  268. @Ron Unz

    So I put my money where my mouth. I performed the Weyl analysis the numbers of Jewish students at the Ivy League located in the most hated state in the Union. I had data of first and last names for students from the years 2015 – 2018 as well as some other interesting data that may be useful for later data analysis.

    I followed your instructions, and here are my findings for J1 and J2 percentages.

    Summary 2015 2016 2017 2018
    Cohen 0 6 0 2
    Levy 0 1 0 1
    Gold* 4 1 3 8
    Kaplan 0 1 0 1
    Total 4 9 3 12
    Total*20 80 180 60 240
    Class Size 1304 1351 1308 1308
    J1% 6.13% 13.31% 4.58% 18.33%

    Here are the summary stats for J2 dataset
    J2% 6.44% 11.54% 6.42% 13.75%

    I also did a slightly expanded search and included hyphenated versions of the names in your list, in case a student had the name Levy-Schwartz or Chang-Cohen or something like that. This did increase the percentages slightly. I don’t know if that defeats the purpose of the Weyl analysis, but here are the results for that since they were easy enough to crunch.

    Hyphenated Names:
    Summary 2015 2016 2017 2018
    J1% 7.67% 13.31% 4.58% 19.86%
    J2% 8.28% 12.43% 7.33% 16.50%

    • Replies: @ginger bread man
    , @Ron Unz
  269. You have to laugh at the look of horror on the faces of some of the parents of child prodigies when Alan Dershowitz trotted out the entire faculty of the Harvard law school to publicly defend his client at the time, Jeffery Epstein. I believe these smart Gentiles from the suburbs who got turned down from the Ivy League schools that their ancestors built, will have a bright future serving their communities. You can say that they are being carefully selected for important leadership positions whether they are aware of it or not.

  270. @Triteleia Laxa

    I’d like to suggest that if someone wants to find out why some groups do exceptionally well, beyond IQ distributions in general demographics, they should look at a few interesting facts.

    As far as I can tell, the most successful, richest groups, on average, in different countries are:

    Jews in Russia.
    Lebanese in Mexico.
    Indians in Singapore.
    French in Britain.
    Palestinian Christians in Israel.
    Persians in India.
    White people in Japan.
    Germans in Brazil.
    Chinese in Thailand.
    Armenians in Lebanon.
    White African-Americans in the United States (haha.)

    I could easily be wrong, as these are just my impressions, but I bet, at the very top, things are not very predictable.

    • Replies: @littlereddot
  271. Anymike says:

    First of all, you speak of people with IQs higher than 135. In totality, people with IQs between 130 and 135 outnumber those with IQs of 135 and higher by maybe at least two to one. I noted that I did not believe that someone without a high level of abstract ability could score higher than in the 130s on an IQ test. I usually flat out tell people that they are making my argument for me. You might be at that but the topic is very big.

    What it would be interesting to know is how many people in the IQ 140-145 range have higher verbal than mathematical or abstract ability and how many in the 130-135 range have the same. I suspect, the percentage of people who have verbal ability exceeding their abstract gets lower and lower the higher you get in IQ.

    But if you know anything specific, put it on the table. One thing I do know is that populations known for producing IQ scores trailing whites and East Asians score closer to the same in verbal aptitude than they do in abstract. Very few members of these groups score higher than 125 on IQ tests. I think this result supports my idea, which is that there is a limit to how high someone can score on an IQ test based on verbal ability alone. My verbal ability exceeds my quantitative by a considerable margin. I think my quantitative ability is above average within the entire population of American college graduates. It is high enough to succeed in certain STEM subjects but I’m an old dog. I’m not going to try to learn any new tricks.

    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  272. Ron Unz says:
    @ginger bread man

    I followed your instructions, and here are my findings for J1 and J2 percentages.

    Interesting. Excluding the hyphenated names, that indicates roughly 10% or so of the class is of Jewish ancestry. Based upon your geographical hint, we’re talking about Princeton, which the Hillel guide claims is 8% Jewish, which is somewhat low but not hugely so.

    Except for Dartmouth, Princeton has generally been the least Jewish Ivy, with the Hillel estimates being 13-14% around the time I was producing my Meritocracy article.

    Just out of curiosity, I looked at the masthead of the Harvard Crimson, which is public. I remember when I looked at it a few years ago, it seemed roughly 30% Jewish by name, with more than half of the top editors falling into that category. But now it’s well under 10% Jewish. So maybe there really has been a major change in Jewish undergraduate enrollment.

  273. anon[497] • Disclaimer says:

    Are orthodox Jews ethnically Ashkenazi Jews?

    What else could explain their lower IQs?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  274. @ginger bread man

    John O’Sullivan (qv) introduced me to Steve (electronically at first) 2about 24/25 years ago and it has contributed so much to my mental activity – including teasing, quibbling with and irritating Ron – since then that I am quite relaxed about my failure to produce a magnum opus or change the world.

    Your “For me, I like to have clarity as to the precise mechanisms that are being used to fully rule out the very small chance that something nefarious is taking place.” resonated with me. It is like my most common approach to UR commenting. Ron, since he achieved the big 60 has stopped expressing his irritation with my nit picking and imaginative counter possibilities by calling me “elderly” but you can have a lot of fun if you take rational objection to some of what he insists is very strong evidence. For tasters try believing that no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11 [the brilliant plotters – as well as bringing down WTC7 which no plane hit also used a rocket on the Pentagon] and that it was more likely that a few intel guys disclosed a real report that proved the US had made a biowarfare attack on China than that they cooked up some phony stuff to damage Trump. Those of us who never scored 214 on an IQ test can take comfort that we can sometimes see more clearly even while acknowledging that Ron is one of America’s great achievers and benefactors.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  275. @anon

    Would you care to flesh out what strikes me as a rather garbled question by giving a source for your belief that Orthodox Jews have lower IQs?

    • Replies: @anon
  276. @Anymike

    Oh, to be only 134.9-the shame of it all!! The funniest, and least amusing, obsession of all (besides dick size).

    • Replies: @Anymike
  277. @ginger bread man

    What a burden it must be to be a self-professed ‘genius’. Borne with great dignity.

  278. @Triteleia Laxa

    Indians in Singapore.

    I cannot speak as to the others. But in Singapore, one has to distinguish Indians from two distinct waves. Those that originally migrated in the late 1800s, early 1900s. These are are spread evenly through the socio-economic spectrum.

    The recent arrivals from India are a result of an economic pact called “CECA” which allowed for relatively free entry of highly skilled professional Indians to gain employment in Singapore. Perhaps this is what skews your data.

    Even these Indians who come to Singapore, it is notable that they come from the higher castes. A friend of mine recently hired one such Indian national. She happens to be a Brahmin married to a Kshatriya (next highest caste).

    A further observation about Indians in the USA. Unlike the Chinese who are represented by a big variation – those decended from poor peasant stock who took menial jobs in the late 1800s like building the railroads, to those with enough wealth escaping from a new communist government in the 40s and 50s. To those already established in Southeast Asia but re-emigrating to the USA, to the most recent wave of rich-kids-who-could-not-qualify-for-a-China-university.

    Unlike the variation of Chinese, Indians who have come to the USA are mostly those who had the money to pay for the voyage to the USA and start up there. It would be interesting for you to do a survey of the Indians in the USA as to which castes they belong to. I would guess many have Brahmin names such as Patels and Sharmas. Conversely I would expect that there would be few Dalit names.

    IQ distributions in general demographics,

    I would say that to get a better picture, it would need to be more nuanced than taking only just ethnicity. One also needs to consider the socio-economic class that said ethnicity contributed.

    For example, are the whites in Japan that you mention are sourced of a low skilled factory worker type? Or are they highly paid professionals? Would a red neck find a job in Japan? Or an actuary with skills nobody else in Japan has?

    • Replies: @Brian Damage
    , @Anonymous
  279. @Ron Unz

    Hypothetical A: all colleges are mysteriously engaged in a mass conspiracy managed by incompetent admin officers who nonetheless have somehow bamboozled the nation for decades, and have given 0 evidence away.

    And yet Ron Unz exposed this so they got rid of the conspiracy and Ron Unz has saved the day! All hail the victor over a nationwide conspiracy involving all privilege and the smartest people, that will save the world!

    Hypothetical B: some Jewish group called Hillel collected lazy numbers, not adjusting them downwards as Jews diminished in number, partly for fund-raising purposes, but also because they just did ctrl-C and ctrl-V each year and were staffed by hapless incompetents who probably correctly didn’t much care.

    So Ron Unz exposed that irrelevant incidence and now said college social clubs do their work a bit better. All hail the great defeater of the summer intern task at ethnic college social clubs.

    I can see why Ron Unz chooses hypothetical A…but I see no reason to myself.

  280. Ron Unz says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    but you can have a lot of fun if you take rational objection to some of what he insists is very strong evidence. For tasters try believing that no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11 [the brilliant plotters – as well as bringing down WTC7 which no plane hit also used a rocket on the Pentagon] and that it was more likely that a few intel guys disclosed a real report that proved the US had made a biowarfare attack on China than that they cooked up some phony stuff to damage Trump.

    This really is entirely off-topic, but if anyone’s interested in my actual analysis of the 9/11 attacks or the Covid outbreak, they’re very conveniently available at these links:

  281. @Wizard of Oz

    All European languages with a few exceptions are Indo-European languages. Same with Indian languages.

    That means Asians born in North America or Europe who are native speakers of English, French, German, Italian..etc…

  282. @littlereddot

    Agree. The Indians the original poster trying to equate with “success” in Singapore are not market dominant but rather occupy a very small niche section of the wealth generated by the Singaporean economy. Probably less than 10% of the the total Indian population in Singapore. And the Indian population is only 7.5% of the overall population.

    Other than the few existing Tamils, the Indians in Singapore are recent arrivals who came in with talent visas. So, if their per capita income is high it is because of just that. Talent and skills. There are a lot of South Asian temporary laborers too.. Why not just lump them all and recalculate the per capita income.

    • Agree: littlereddot
  283. anon[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Finally, in the case of Jews, these assimilation- or environment-related declines in relative academic performance may have been reinforced by powerful demographic trends. For the last generation or two, typical Jewish women from successful or even ordinary families have married very late and averaged little more than a single child, while the small fraction of Jewish women who are ultra-Orthodox often marry in their teens and then produce seven or eight children. As a consequence, this extremely religious subpopulation has been doubling in size every twenty years, and now easily exceeds 10 percent of the total, including a far higher percentage of younger Jews. But ultra-Orthodox Jews have generally been academically mediocre, often with enormously high rates of poverty and government dependency. Therefore, the combination of these two radically different trends of Jewish reproduction has acted to stabilize the total number of Jewish youngsters, while probably producing a sharp drop in their average academic achievement.

    So why don’t Orthodox Jews flourish academically? Are they ethnically different from other Jews?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Ron Unz
  284. Anymike says:
    @mulga mumblebrain

    You’re not exactly addressing the issue. You’re looking for mileage and at best initiating another topic. Sorry.

  285. anon[109] • Disclaimer says:

    The NMS numbers may be skewed by income . The scholarship is only \$2500. Kids with wealthy parents may not apply , leaving the scholarship to kids of families of humble means.

    Another reason for the lack NJWs at elite colleges is geography. Jews and Asians mostly live in the coastal cities, where the elite colleges are located. NJWs are the majority in the interior. A high-scoring NJW in the Midwest can go to closer schools with excellent reputations – Notre Dame, Indiana , Michigan , etc. Besides being closer to home, they are better socially for middle class kids. It is probably socially isolating to go to the Ivy League with the student body consisting of wealthy kids and Chinese

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Ron Unz
  286. anon[109] • Disclaimer says:

    Does an undergrad Ivy League degree really matter?

    In one of Malcolm Gladwell’s books he listed all the the schools where American science Nobel winners got their undergrad degrees. The Ivy League was represented more per capita but didn’t dominate . Besides Harvard and Yale , there was Kentucky and Minnesota and some obscure schools.

    The prestige schools only mattered for graduate work

  287. @Anymike

    I agree with mulga–we’d have much more productive discussions here on cognitive ability by focusing on specific talents related to giftedness than focusing on a test. And why do high verbal scorers sometimes do poorly on the quant part of an IQ test? My guess it’s because the quant part is so damn boring! IQ indeed is ridiculously overemphasized here.

    • Replies: @Anymike
  288. @anon

    Thanks. It would be easy enough to say that those huge, often poor, (Ultra) Orthodox Jewish families are ethnically or culturally different but that leaves open the question whether they are significantly different genetically (apart from the problem of homozygotic pairing of inbred couples’ recessive genes to produce retarded children). Was my Reform Rabbi friend right in taking comfort that they are “preserving the genes” that produce Nobel Prize winners?

    So we are both interested in that quite important question. When kids start to break away presumably the first generation will be somewhat hindered in winning academic fame but the females will be the Jewish equivalent of Tiger Mothers and real life will give us the answer.

    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  289. @anon

    That all makes good sense IIMSS.

  290. @Ron Unz

    I did a secondary sanity check type search.

    I was able to filter all student by which student activity they participated in while they were a student. I selected all of the conceivable Jewish activities which include:

    Alliance of Jewish Progressives, Center for Jewish Life, Center for Jewish Life Chaplaincy, Chabad, Challah for Hunger, CJL Play, Israel TigerTrek, J Street Princeton U, Jewish Theater Project, Jewish Women’s Connection, JGAP, Kesher, Koleinu, Tigers for Israel, United Jewish Appeal, and Yavneh House.

    I hoped this dragnet would catch all the Jewish students involved with the Jewish community, so this seems to be a lower bound. I call this variable “#Jews”

    Year 2015 2016 2017 2018
    #Jews 154 107 138 110
    Class Size 1304. 1351 1308 1308
    %Jews 11.81% 7.92% 10.55% 8.41%

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  291. Anymike says:

    I don’t think so, because the aggregate and the individual are different issues. Of course the existence of specific talents is an issue, but in the end you work your way back to the aggregate because in the end you have to start working on the question of how many of each type.

    I’ve had a lifetime of experience with the issue of the distinction between verbal aptitude and abstract or quantitative aptitude. True, a lot of people drop out of one or the other eventually and focus on their strength.

    IQ cannot underestimated. If you don’t like IQ whatever other measure you use, even heuristics, you work your way back to the same idea. Before there was any testing, people spoke of different “orders” of intelligence – good, of a high order, of the highest order and so on. If you use some other test, it just becomes another way of measuring the same thing. Some dean of a “selective” college said recently that they use the SAT as a stand-in for IQ.

    In any case, the statistical connection between these categorization, whether measured quick and dirty by some standardized tests or by some informed subjective or heuristic assessment is very strong. So strong, in fact, that if you grabbed a thousand people from each of several racial or ethnic groups in America with same high IQs, the percentages of doctorates, people with professional jobs and independent writers, artists and such would be about the same.

    You can toss out IQ test itself, but any surrogate for it that you choose will tell you the same thing IQ does.

    • Replies: @Meretricious
  292. Ron Unz says:
    @ginger bread man

    I did a secondary sanity check type search…I hoped this dragnet would catch all the Jewish students involved with the Jewish community, so this seems to be a lower bound.

    That’s a very useful validation-check. I suppose it’s possible that a few non-Jews might be drawn into those organizations and be allowed to participate, but I’d guess the numbers would be pretty small.

    So it looks like the average is almost 10% of the student body, which pretty closely matches the results of the Weyl analysis. However, I’d think that at least a certain number of Princeton Jews just aren’t interested and wouldn’t be members of any of those community organizations. For example, back when I was an undergrad at Harvard during the early 1980s, neither I nor most of my Jewish friends had been affiliated with any equivalent groups. So perhaps the percentage of Jews at Princeton is actually somewhat higher than 10%.

  293. Ron Unz says:

    So why don’t Orthodox Jews flourish academically? Are they ethnically different from other Jews?

    I’d guess that cultural aspects and lack of academic interest are the main factors. Nearly all European Jews were Orthodox a few generations back, so probably 90% of American Jews come from that background.

    I suppose it’s possible that the Jews who stayed Orthodox were someone less intelligent or academically-oriented than the much larger fraction that left, but I’d guess the difference was more due to particular personal circumstances than anything else.

    • Replies: @Meretricious
  294. Ron Unz says:

    The NMS numbers may be skewed by income . The scholarship is only \$2500. Kids with wealthy parents may not apply , leaving the scholarship to kids of families of humble means.

    I doubt that. Lots of universities use the NMS criterion as a filter for all sorts of their own scholarships, that can be worth up to \$100K or more. From everything I’ve read, an absolutely overwhelming fraction of high-performing HS students were taking the NMS exam.

    Another reason for the lack NJWs at elite colleges is geography. Jews and Asians mostly live in the coastal cities, where the elite colleges are located. NJWs are the majority in the interior.

    There’s certainly a geographical Jewish skew, with Jews being much more heavily concentrated in the Northeast, home of the Ivies (though Asians are actually much more concentrated in the distant West Coast). This was certainly one of the factors I discussed and considered. But the skew is so overwhelming, it totally swamps these issues. For example, NJWs still probably outnumber Jews 4-1 or 5-1 among the top-performing Northeastern students.

  295. @Anymike

    thx–appreciate your feedback

  296. @Ron Unz

    I used to be a professional photographer and swore by B&H in Manhattan, which is run by Hasidic Jews who are brilliant. My guess is a lot of Orthodox Jews are more entrepreneurially oriented

  297. Richard B says:
    @Ron Unz

    The arguments of many of the Asian-activists who hang around this website are so enormously counter-productive that I sometimes half-suspect that they’re actually KKK members engaging in self-sabotage.

    Similarly, I wonder how many of the white-activists who write on these threads are actually agents of the ADL…

    The ADL not only accounts for a number of online white-activists, but for the KKK as well.

  298. Indeed, Karabel points out that by 1993 Harvard, Yale, and Princeton all had presidents of Jewish ancestry, and the same is true for the current presidents of Yale, Penn, Cornell, and possibly Columbia, as well as Princeton’s president throughout during the 1990s and Yale’s new incoming president, while all three of Harvard’s most recent presidents have either had Jewish origins or a Jewish spouse.

    Is there really any doubt that Pesident Lee.C. Bollinger of Columbia is (if religious at all) Catholic?

  299. anon[109] • Disclaimer says:

    I’m curious as to what Harvard does will all its investment income. They have operating and
    capital expenses but what do they do with the rest? It doesn’t pay dividends to shareholders.
    Who benefits from this surplus?

    • Replies: @Anymike
    , @Brian Damage
  300. Ron Unz says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Is there really any doubt that Pesident Lee.C. Bollinger of Columbia is (if religious at all) Catholic?

    Well, here’s what I said in footnote 81 of my big Meritocracy article:

    In addition, former NYC Mayor Ed Koch identified Columbia President Lee Bollinger (2002-present) as being of Jewish ancestry in an angry column regarding Iran, but I have been unable to independently verify that claim. See Ed Koch, “Columbia Prez Should Have Stood Up for America, Too,” Jewish World Review, September 26, 2007.

    Last year this produced an extended discussion on exactly that subject in which I pointed out:

    Mayor Ed Koch and Bollinger spent many years working together as two of the leading public figures in NYC. So I think the combination of Mayor Ed Koch angrily identifying Bollinger as Jewish in the pages of the Jewish World Review plus the independent statement in UPI is enough to consider the claim established unless any strong evidence to the contrary appears.

    However, someone eventually dug up a considerable amount of evidence regarding Bollinger’s ancestry, suggesting he was Gentile but also explaining why Koch would have believed otherwise.

  301. @Ron Unz

    Thanks for you impressive display of memory and sources. My interest was prompted by some reports from an about to be Columbia graduate like the shouting down of a lecture Bollinger gave on free speech by underpaid graduate student tutors. To that I can now add apparent hypocrisy as he must surely be the highest paid university President anywhere (approx \$5 million p.a.) and Columbia fees went up 15% in 2019 or 2020. But what had struck me most immediately was the total lack of spritzig in a conference/discussion opening speech I found online and the fact that the 76 year old had a mop of blonde hair that was like Boris Johnson neatly combed.

  302. @Wizard of Oz

    That type is known as a Sabbat Goy, Wizz. They do the Jews’ work for them when it is inconvenient for Jews to do it themselves, as on the Sabbat, in the old days, or today, when plausible deniability is required.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  303. Anymike says:

    They keep and let it grow bigger. Kind of like The Blob.

  304. @Wizard of Oz

    When he says ‘genes’ he means ‘souls’. As Rabbi Kook the Elder the former Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of Palestine (died 1935)said, ‘There is a greater difference between the soul of a Jew and that of a non-Jew…than there is between the soul of a non-Jew and that of an animal’. Were you aware that this is your Jewish ‘friends” attitude towards you? If so, I admire your forbearance.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  305. @Anymike

    Reducing a human being to a number, IQ or, say, Social Security, is a sign of a low IQ.

    • Replies: @Anymike
  306. @mulga mumblebrain

    I don’t know when I first came across the concept of the Ssbbat Goy. It was at least rubbed in on my one visit to Israel mote than 10 years ago. There not being enough Sabbat Goyim in Israel or even polite and tolerant young secular Jews our hotel in Eilat had to make special provision for its Ultra Orthodox visitors by having one lift which stopped automatically on every floor on the Sabbath.

    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  307. @mulga mumblebrain

    I am sure none of my few Jewish friends have any such outlandish ideas. My Reform Rabbi friend is too old to become an atheist. He says God is a “work in progress”!

    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  308. bjdubbs says:

    The fact that she’s interested in accounting is a good sign that she would be better off at a school that offers a business or engineering degree. The admissions office probably saw that and figured she was better off at Notre Dame or Perdue or U of T Austin.

  309. Anymike says:
    @mulga mumblebrain

    Did I do that, or are you just making a declaration?

  310. Anonymous[267] • Disclaimer says:

    Unlike the Chinese who are represented by a big variation – those decended from poor peasant stock who took menial jobs in the late 1800s like building the railroads

    I don’t doubt this is true but I’ve never encountered Chinese who came to America during the 1800s. I’m sure they exist but are miniscule compared to immigrants that came here from the 50s and beyond.

    The big variation in Chinese is actually between the working class Chinese immigrants in the 50s through 90s mostly from southern China and the newer Mandarin speaking Chinese. The former tended to speak Cantonese and later Fujianese. My great grandfather was a impressive merchant type, while my parents were blue collar workers. This group and their kids, my cohort, are generally hard working and law abiding and do well in school. The latter group of Chinese however are the true elites. They come to America for University or already with University degrees or for high tech jobs. When you read about the math Olympiads and it’s all Chinese kids, they are from Mandarin speaking elite who’s parents and grandparents were never peasants.

    Chinese immigration to America has become more selective over time. I suspect the top end may not be as selective as the top end of Indian immigration to the U.S. however.

    • Replies: @Anymike
  311. Anymike says:

    The geopolitical playbook the Marxists created after the world war, and even before, was infiltrate the elites. The present infiltrators are either not Marxist at all or are Marxist in name only, but I mention the the Marxists for a specific reason. The world Marxist movement has for getting close to 200 years now studied power. They have studied what it is. How you get it. What you do with it when you get it. How you keep it when you have it.

    No one else understands how to gain power like the Marxists do, except maybe the Islamists, who consider it from the point of view of their own agenda and how to actualize it. The point is, people who understand power, and that means understanding geopolitics, know that infiltration rather than war is the surer path to geopolitical control. The people who are coming here (to America), both the Chinese and the Indians, individually may just be seeking success in the America and a chance to mine the Gold Mountain. Be sure, though, that behind them somewhere are people who have their own geopolitical schemes and are watching, watching, watching.

  312. EdwardM says:
    @Ron Unz

    The same thing happened after the 9/11 attacks, when the MSM vilified Muslims.

    Did the MSM vilify Muslims? Sure, reality — as sometimes reported in the MSM — vilified Muslims, but didn’t the media go out of its way to downplay any Muslim group characteristics?

    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  313. @anon

    I’m curious as to what Harvard does will all its investment income. They have operating and capital expenses but what do they do with the rest? It doesn’t pay dividends to shareholders.
    Who benefits from this surplus?

    Harvard’s endowment is around \$52 billion. You can’t use the principal of endowments. They are very restricted. You can however, use the income earned from these endowments according to the terms set by those who donated these endowments.

    If Harvard’s average investment income is around 5% annually, that will be \$2.7 billion in investment income a year. Harvard.s annual budget is around \$5 billion. Based on the link below, endowment income contributed only 39% of operating cost for 2021. The rest were tuition fees, research income, fundraising and other. It can easily run a deficit year anytime. I am sure 2022 will be a deficit year as the equity market is not doing that well.

  314. @Ron Unz

    Noam Chomsky seems to have started reading as widely as you and with much the same scepticism at least ageneration earlier. I have just listened to this

    Watch “Noam Chomsky: Education For Whom and For What” on YouTube

    amd would be fascinated to read what might count as an extended review by you.

    A number of matters struck me as worth attention for different reasons. At the outset I thought he was not necessarily sound in his preferences amongst teaching methods (which didn’t seem to involve much teaching) but much later he also remarked that California’s world best public education system was in the course of being destroyed (he was speaking in 2012). No doubt you would be provoked by the way in which other matters were discussed.

  315. @EdwardM

    Well, they couldn’t vilify the real perpetrators, now could they.

  316. @Wizard of Oz

    Of course, Wizz. Kook the Elder was just a ‘fringe’ figure (anyone can get to be ‘Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi’ after all), ‘revered’ perhaps, but no other Jew thinks like him.
    Of course, there was Ovadia Yosef, the leader of the Shas (Talmud) Party, whose funeral saw the largest crowd, several hundred thousand, in Israeli history, who said that the Goyim were only born ‘ serve the Jews’, but he’s ‘fringe’ too, I suppose. And, most relevant, he didn’t know you, the measure of all things. He didn’t, did he?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  317. @Wizard of Oz

    I’m afraid that the Sabbat Goy in the West, these days, has a very much more sinister connotation. It is a very stupid concept, the Sabbat, one not fit, really, even for the Bronze Age Near East, but the group solidarity, the power of the Rabbis, the self-isolating force of it all-very sinister. I’m not surprised that sane Jews ignore it, but we’re not talking sanity here, are we? We’re speaking of external manifestations of extreme xenophobia and delusions of ABSOLUTE supremacism in the Universe. Uncomfortable companions-ask any Palestinian, or secular Jew in Israel.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  318. @mulga mumblebrain

    You remind me of what one learns about Russia’s approved preachers at present. Consider how many can be found to speak of Ukrainians as phantasmagorical Untermenschen. Sonsider what fates they advocate for their little brothers and sisters. And in the US you mightn’t have to go far from UR to become similarly despairing about most of mankind.

  319. @mulga mumblebrain

    I wondered if it was a sign of the times that, while the EU and NATO fell into line promptly one of the first things one learned about America’s closest ally was that it wouldn’t provide the Iron Dome to Ukraine — since reversed but…

    The typically Reforn, often secular, Jewish population of the US is emulating old WASP fertility and I don’t see a new generation of Sheldon Adelsons and other billionaire Israel firsters being likely to arise and support Israel with the same devotion. Perhaps it needs Iran to attack it……

  320. Anymike says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Within a few decades, Israel population’s will be predominantly composed of Jews of non-European descent. Like all Old World people, except the for the vapid Western European, these will be people with a Hobbesian world view and an acceptance of violence as an inevitable part of life. The support of the America Jewish community will mean little to them. At least little as a cultural connection.

  321. As practical people they will hope that the culturally estranged in America can still work up enough illusion to ensure money flows Israel’s way and to Israel supporting politicians.

    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  322. @Anon

    Note to those who skipped straight to the comments. This rather long and detailed article is worth close reading in its entirety.

    Unless you have been PAYING ATTENTION for the past THIRTY YEARS.

    In which case, the article is boring old news of zero consequence. Banal bullshit. NOTHING new here.


    Only a Boomer could express your sentiments.

    The rest of us have GROWN UP KNOWING that we were second (or third) class tax slaves for your preferred “victims”.

    I absolutely CANNOT wait for you Boomers to require home health care workers. NONE of whom will be white (you asked for it, I am thrilled to deliver it). I give zero fucks for what you will endure.

  323. @Ron Unz

    With all due respect, shouldn’t “People in New York Mad Because Blacks Are Killing Everyone” by
    ANDREW ANGLIN be given front-page real estate?

  324. boy1988 says:

    ‘The result was that many Chinese Malaysians, being unable to gain a place in Malaysian universities, go abroad to get their degrees. Many “Chinese students” that Americans observe in their colleges, are actually Malaysian.’
    Those malaysian non Malays who go abroad to seek university degrees consist of two groups.The first group are those who can’t get a seat in public university for courses like medicine due to discriminative quota.So they enter private university that offers twinning programme or they’ll go straight to foreign universities usually in India,Russia , Ukraine etc.Second group would be those who choose to leave malaysia for good by the means of pursuing education in western countries.In Malaysia some foreign degrees will never get you a good career prospect since that industry just doesn’t exist in Malaysia.For one the Malay Muslim seemed happy that the Chinese and Indians are leaving and they are just oblivious about the repercussions it has on the economy

  325. boy1988 says:

    Doubt the Chinese made about 1.40% of Burma’s population.Proper census seems to be an issue in burma.also the percentage of Indians there are also undereported and many lack the proper papers to counted as citizen.Main reason why Burma is such an underdeveloped country is due to long standing civil war,coupled with corruption and the way the country is made into an isolated nation by the regime .here’s some videos about the Indian community in burma.theres a town filled with Biharis,then there’s Tamils and even Rajasthani.also in kokang region it’s a predominantly Han Chinese town

  326. boy1988 says:

    Malaysian government arent doing things right.Just look at the brain drain crisis.Look at how many Malaysians non malays are working in Singapore and going to Australia as an illegal alien.malaysia is also becoming unpopular among foreign investors even with its currency becoming weaker.we alread lost many investment to thailand and Vietnam.Investors are wary about the political instability here and rising Islamism .the Malays are asking too much lately.the government plan to make it mandatory for logistics company to have 51 percent of its equity/shares being hold by bumiputera aka the Muslim for the the rising Islamism,there have been debate about whether it’s permissible for Muslims to say greetings like happy deepavali,happy Chinese new year and merry Christmas .doubt that’s an issue in ten years time Vietnam will surpassed Malaysia and in a couple of years it will surpass has already surpass the Philippines

  327. @Wizard of Oz

    Iron Dome is crap-the Ukronazis are better off without it. Israel’s future is its past-the self-destructive drive of Judaics to visit catastrophe upon themselves. The Nazi Judeocide was decreed by some orthodox to be God’s punishment for Jewish secularism. The pursuit of destruction was passed on to the Christians and Moslems, too, unfortunately-it’s all there in the eschatology. They’re gonna take us all with them.

Current Commenter

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

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Unz Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
The Hidden History of the 1930s and 1940s