PM: Racial Discrimination at Harvard, by Ron Unz

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 Around the time she produced her lengthy and unpublished document, Harvard Hillel was claiming a Jewish undergraduate enrollment of 25%, and near the beginning of her text, she claimed that figure was obviously false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 population 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, classifying an individual as Jewish 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 was 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.

(3) Ron Unz's paper, with embedded links made explicit

http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-racial-discrimination-at-harvard/

American Pravda: Racial Discrimination at Harvard

by Ron Unz

22 Oct 2018

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 <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/13/us/harvard-affirmative-action-asian-students.html> a major articleexplaining 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 <http://www.unz.com/runz/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/> “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 <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/americans-are-weary-of-this-new-civil-war-mxbtddgdg> in his column for the London Sunday Times.

Two decades ago, <http://www.unz.com/runz/some-minorities-are-more-minor-than-others/> 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 after. Soon 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 <https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/opinion/brooks-the-2012-sidney-awards-i.html> soon ranked it as perhaps the best American magazine article of the year, a verdict <https://twitter.com/adwooldridge/status/290498045899059200> seconded by a top Economist editor, and the Times itself quickly organized <https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/19/fears-of-an-asian-quota-in-the-ivy-league/statistics-indicate-an-ivy-league-asian-quota> a symposium on the topic of Asian Quotas, in which I eagerly participated. <https://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2012/11/30/do-the-ivy-league-universities-discriminate-against-asian-americans/> Forbes, <https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/is-the-ivy-league-fair-to-asian-americans/266538/> The Atlantic, <https://washingtonmonthly.com/2012/12/22/discrimination-against-asian-american-students-in-ivy-league-admissions/>The Washington Monthly, <https://www.businessinsider.com/ivy-league-discriminates-against-asians-2012-12> Business Insider, and other publications all discussed my striking results.

Conservative circles took considerable interest, with Charles Murray <http://www.aei.org/publication/at-the-ivies-asians-are-the-new-jews/> highlighting my findings, and National Review later publishing <http://www.unz.com/runz/bakk76067/> an article in which I explained the important implications of my findings for the legal validity of the 1978 Bakkedecision 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 entitled <http://www.niallferguson.com/journalism/journalism/the-end-of-the-american-dream> “The End of the American Dream.”

Moreover, I had also published <http://www.unz.com/runz/paying-tuition-to-a-giant-hedge-fund/> 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, while many of his colleagues promoted the piece with similarly favorable remarks, while the university quickly provided <http://www.unz.com/runz/harvard-as-hedge-fund-harvard-replies/> 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 was 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 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 that analysis.

But my most dramatic finding relied upon an even simpler analysis of public data, which had previously remained unnoticed. As <https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/19/fears-of-an-asian-quota-in-the-ivy-league/statistics-indicate-an-ivy-league-asian-quota> 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.

<https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/AsianEnrollmentTrends.jpg> 

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.

<http://www.amazon.com/dp/061877355X/?tag=unco037-20> 

For decades Affirmative Action based upon race has been an extremely contentious topic in American politics, sharply dividing 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 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, <https://jordanbpeterson.com/psychology/on-the-so-called-jewish-question/> 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 extremely 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.

<https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/f4-large.jpg> 

<https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/eliteenrollment-large.jpg> 

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 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 doubt that it takes the crude form of top administrators directing admissions officers to enroll 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.

<http://www.amazon.com/dp/0142003085/?tag=unco037-20> 

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, N

From: israel shamir <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 16:05:09 +0200

Subject: Pittsburgh: Advice to Jews, by Israel Shamir

To: readers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>, Israel Shamir <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Bcc: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

X-ME-Bayesian: 0.000000

X-Read: 1

Pittsburgh: Advice to Jews

<https://www.unz.com/author/israel-shamir/>ISRAEL SHAMIR • NOVEMBER 2, 2018

• 1,600 WORDS

<https://www.unz.com/ishamir/pittsburgh-advice-to-jews/>https://www.unz.com/ishamir/pittsburgh-advice-to-jews/

<https://www.unz.com/ishamir/pittsburgh-advice-to-jews/>

Police stand at the entrance to Rodef Shalom Temple before funeral services for brothers Cecil and David Rosenthal, victims of the Tree of Life Synagogue shooting, in Pittsburgh

I was hesitant to write on the subject while the Pittsburgh dead weren’t buried yet. I know, it is not a valid consideration for the militant pundits. The US Jews accused President Trump and the Israeli Jews blamed Palestinians for the shooting as on the cue before the victims were declared dead. However, you can’t talk sense before the dead are laid to rest. Now we can deliberate on guilt and blame.

The man who killed eleven Jews in Pittsburgh did it to have his objection to immigration heard. If he would be allowed to say that on his page in Facebook, instead of being blocked, these old people would still be alive. If the New York Times would allow anti-immigration feelings to be expressed and discussed on paper instead of being delegitimised, these old people would be still alive. The closing of all but ultra-liberal outlets for opinion expression had created a powerful pent-up pressure that caused the already unhinged man to go crazy.

If there are no newspapers, no public TV stations, not even a post in Facebook to say what you are eager to say, sooner or later guns will do the talking. Surely the guys who organised this massive silencing and censorship campaign are smart enough to expect exactly this outcome. They aren’t entitled to act surprised.

The US has never had a mass shooting of Jews until now, but the US has never had such an effective silencing campaign with at least half of its population including the President banned from sharing their marginalised views. It is elementary physics, the pent-up pressure leads to explosion. Problems should be discussed and feelings vented, otherwise people will die.

<https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/armedJews.png> President Trump, a simple soul, said the Jews had to defend themselves and install armed guards. Jews have enough armed guards. There is an Israeli-established <

Instead of taking responsibility for their actions, Jews prefer to deny it. At a demo confronting President Trump upon his arrival to Pittsburgh, they flatly denied their actions in favour of immigration. The gunman, they said, “believed anti-semitic lies that Jews were funding the caravan.” At the same time, before the victims were buried, the Jewish organisations, such as HIAS, swore they will continue to deliver immigrants to the unwilling country, even if it is against the law. They defied the law by hiding illegals and protecting the smugglers. This readiness to break or bend the law is a dangerous feature for a powerful but rather small elite group. They should stick to the law with both hands, instead of setting an example of bracing illegality

Indeed some ethical considerations could be placed above the law, but not with such abandon, not with such ease. Antigone broke the law and buried her brother, but she was not surprised to die for this transgression. These guys break the law and expect to be lauded for that.

Why American Jews support immigration, while Israeli Jews do not allow Gentiles to immigrate into the Jewish state? Double standards, you’d say. They do to you what they do not want to be done to them. – Not exactly. The Jews consider themselves the unique exterritorial community, while other nations are territorial. In the much-loved New Year prayer, the Jews praise Almighty for “He didn’t make us as the Nations of the Lands, the Families of the Earth” (???????????????? ??????????? ???????????????????).

In the Jewish view, the difference between [non-Jewish] territorial nations is of slight importance in comparison with the existential distinction between Jews and the nations of the lands. For this reason, Jews aren’t ‘racists’ – they do not think one race is preferable to another. Excepting Jews, for sure, who are a totally different story. As all Gentiles are quite the same for Jews, preferences (aka racism) of a Gentile are silly and meaningless, in the Jewish eyes.

Iroquois may consider themselves totally different from Huron or Blackfoot, but for the Europeans, all of them are Red Indians. Likewise, for Jews all Gentiles are quite the same.

Though this beautiful Jewish non-racism of being above races is based on theological grounds, it has economic consequences. Jewish economics is a miraculous magic of turning anybody’s blood and sweat into gold, and this magic works fine with whites, blacks and Latinos. Jews were traditionally into money, and the money of the black is of the same colour as the money of the white. The black and the white pay the same rent for the apartment the Jew lets them. The Mexican and the German pay the same commission to the Jewish bank.

Jews are exterritorial, in contra-distinction to the rest of humanity, to the Nations of the Lands. Israel is a brave [British?] experiment to ‘range Jews’ (in the words of Halford Mackinder), and indeed settled territorial Jews of Israel behave like all settled nations: they understand the difference between tribes and object to immigration. The US Jews still act as exterritorial Jews: they approve of immigration as it enlarges the pool of available customers. This is fine; such views are legitimate; Jews always embrace them. What is not so fine, that they tend to delegitimise the regular view of territorial nations.

If there is a lesson to Jews to be learned from Pittsburgh shooting it is “you should act responsible”. The Jews took control over a valuable public resource, that is the US mass media, and use it for their advantage with childish abandon. This is irresponsible. They should allow other views to be published and discussed without being marginalised and delegitimised.

Whenever people complain about Jewish behaviour, the Jews usually answer with the accusation of antisemitism, a mysterious and eternal Gentile hatred of Jews. This is too easy. The second lesson is “be more critical to yourself”. If your child comes home and complains about being bullied, you should ask him in what way his behaviour contributed to it. Bullying is surely bad, but the victim contribution should be discussed and taken care of.

Alas, in the modern paradigm it is not encouraged. There is a veritable taboo on dealing with victim contribution, whether it is the sexual misconduct or immigration argument. While unreservedly condemning the criminal action, we should also help victim by discussing his or her contribution.

If you want to eliminate negative feelings towards Jews, you should listen to complaints. If people complain about Jewish landlords or Jewish bankers, there is a easy way for a Jew, that is to retort “It is an old antisemitic canard” and a hard way: don’t be a landlord, don’t be a banker, eat your bread by the sweat of your brow, behave towards your non-Jewish neighbour in the same way you want him to relate to you. Take a position for regulation of banks and landlords. Do not allow them to skin people, for they will blame Jews.

Do not use your Jewishness as a spade to dig with. If you want to help refugees, or promote free trade or gay marriages, do not say “I do it because of my Jewish principles”, for it is silly. If you want President Trump to be impeached or re-elected, do not call for it “as a Jew”, do it as an American. Leave Jewishness for your Sabbath.

The victims weren’t connected with the immigration issue at all. There is no possible justification for the murder. But the sick head of the murderer accepted as positive truth silly claims of the immigration activists that they act as Jews and for the Jewish cause. They should be more cautious and more responsible before they claim acting for the whole body of American Jews.

Be honest and avoid weasel words. If you support affirmative action for blacks and Latinos, demand the Jews to be counted as a separate group. At present, the affirmative action is fuelled at sole expense of the white Gentiles, while the Jewish students still have their seats at the Ivy League secured, as Ron Unz <http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-racial-discrimination-at-harvard/>proved.

If you support immigration of labourers, demand recognition of their learning certificates. If you are a physician, demand immediate acceptance and unlimited entry of foreign doctors. If you are a lawyer, ditto. It is unfair that immigrants you invite and bless can’t compete with you.

If you don’t do it, show your understanding of people who had suffered because of immigration and positive discrimination, instead of calling them ‘racists’. This is called for by the Jewish law saying ??????????????, the poor of your town should be attended before the poor of other towns. Usually Jews think it refers only to poor Jews, but you may count it in a more general way.

Some Pittsburgh mourners wrapped up in Israeli flags. This is not appropriate. The Squirrel Hill Jews didn’t come under fire because of Israel, though Israeli government ministers were pleased to use the occasion to do their shtick and call for aliyah and for eternal hatred to Arabs and Muslims (unless they are called Mohammed bin Salman, live in Riyadh and want to fight Iranians). Israeli Jews have their own reckoning; their treatment of Gaza will bring retribution on their heads yet. The US Jews will do wise if they would not undersign this huge and growing debt.

Their own debt caused by irresponsible behaviour should be taken care of. And that can be done by paying heed to complaints of their fellow-citizens.

Israel Shamir can be reached at <mailto:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

This article was first published at <http://www.unz.com/ishamir/pittsburgh-advice-to-jews/>The Unz Review.

-- Peter Myers381 Goodwood RdChilders Qld 4660Australiaph. in Australia: 07 41170125from overseas: +61 7 41170125website: http://mailstar.net/index.htmlSkype video: petermyersaus . By prior arrangement only, afterdiscussions by email.To unsubscribe, reply with "Unsubscribe" in the Subject line. Allow one day.