It has been documented for some time that Asian applicants to the Ivies face a stiff test-score penalty in the admissions process—Asians have to get higher SAT scores than members of other races to have an equal chance of admission. But it’s one thing to have a higher bar for Asians. It’s still worse to have an Asian quota.
Ron Unz took the evidence of discrimination against Asians to a new level in a long article in the current issue of American Conservative, “The Myth of American Meritocracy.” As Steve Sailer has noted, Unz’s findings have received astonishingly little coverage. “Astonishingly,” because Unz has documented what looks very much like a tacitly common policy on the part of the Ivies to cap Asian admissions at about 16% of undergraduates, give or take a few percentage points, no matter what the quality of Asian applicants might be.That’s a strong statement, but consider the data that Unz has assembled.
From 1980 through the early 1990s, Asian enrollment increased at all the Ivy League colleges. It subsequently continued to rise at the schools with the lowest Asian enrollment, Dartmouth and Princeton. Elsewhere, Asian enrollment hit its peak in 1993 for Columbia and Harvard, 1995 for Cornell, 1996 for Brown and Yale, and 2001 for Penn. What’s more, Asian representation at all eight of the Ivies has converged on a narrow range. In the most recent five years, the average percentage of Asians in the eight Ivies has been 15.7%, and the difference between the highest and lowest percentage of Asians in the eight Ivies has averaged just 3.7 percentage points. Call it the 16±2% solution. The convergence of the Ivies is vividly shown in this figure, using Unz’s data.
We can be sure that the reason for the convergence on the 16±2% solution does not reflect a plateau in Asian applications. As Unz notes, America’s Asian population has more than doubled since 1993. In The Power of Privilege, Joseph Soares documented that Asians are about twice as likely to apply to elite schools as students from other races. It is certain that the Ivies have seen skyrocketing Asian applications over the last twenty years. Not only that, they have been swamped with more and more superbly qualified Asian applicants. A sampling of the data Unz presents:
National Merit Scholarship (NMS) semifinalists represent about the top half of one percent of a given state’s scores on the PSAT, the short version of the SAT. In 2010 in Texas, Asians were 3.8% of the population but more than a quarter of all NMS semifinalists; in New York, Asians were 7.3% of the population and more than a third of NMS semifinalists; in California, Asians were 11% of the high school students and more than 60% of NMS semifinalists. Nationwide, Unz estimates that 25–30% of NMS semifinalists in 2010 were Asians, far higher than their enrollment in the Ivies.
In the US Math Olympiad, Asians have grown from 10% of the winners during the 1980s to 58% in the 2000s. In the computing Olympiad, Asians have grown from 20% of the winners in the 1990′s to 50% in 2009–2010 and 75% in 2011–2012. Among the Science Talent Search finalists, Asians were 22% of the total in the 1980′s, 29% in the 1990′s, 36% in the 2000′s, and 64% in the last two years.
There’s much more in Unz’s article (and the eight online appendixes that go with it), but consider just these two final comparisons. Caltech is acknowledged to have the most strictly meritocratic admissions criteria in the country. During the same period from the mid 1990′s when the Ivies converged on the 16±2% solution, Asians at Caltech rose from 28% to 39% of the student body. If Caltech is too narrowly science-oriented for you, consider the comparison between Stanford, which uses the same “holistic” admissions procedures as the Ivies (“holistic” means considering the whole applicant, not merely academic achievement) and Berkeley, the most elite of California’s public universities, which is required by law to have a transparent set of criteria for admission. Stanford’s Asian enrollment averaged 23% from 1995–2011. Berkeley’s Asian enrollment averaged 41% during the same period—almost double Stanford’s.
The Ivies would have us believe that their holistic admissions policies limit Asian admissions because Asian applicants tend to be one-dimensional, obsessed with academics to the exclusion of all those wonderful other personal experiences that the Ivies value so highly. I submit that this is nonsense. An abundance of Asian applicants have punched all the right extracurricular and community-service tickets to go along with their sensational academic credentials, and there’s no reason to think that Asian young people are, on average, any less compassionate, charming, industrious, or otherwise of good character than applicants of other races.
I propose this challenge to any Ivy League school that denies it has a de facto quota for Asian admissions. Let a third party—any number of highly respected research organizations could handle this task—randomly select a large sample of applications from which the 2012 entering class was selected. Delete all material identifying race or ethnicity. Then, applying the criteria and the weighting system that the university claims to be using, have expert judges make simulated admissions decisions. Let’s see what percentage of Asians get in under race-blind conditions. I’m betting 25% at least, with 30–40% as more probable.
None of the Ivies will take me up on it, of course. The people in their admissions offices know that their incoming classes are not supposed to have “too many” Asian faces, and part of their job is to make sure that they don’t. I just want them to admit publicly what they’re doing, and state their rationale, which presumably goes something like this: The Ivies are not supposed to be strict academic meritocracies. They need students with a variety of strengths and personality types. And even 16% Asian students is more than three times the Asian proportion of the American population.
I don’t have a problem with the need for a student body with diverse strengths and personality types. Harvard is a better place because it does not select a class consisting exclusively of applicants with perfect SAT scores. But a candid statement of the rationale that has led to the 16±2% solution can’t stop there. It needs to say that apart from the need for a variety of strengths and personality types, the Ivies have decided that they just don’t want too many epicanthic folds in their student bodies. Because there’s no getting past the naked fact that students from an ethnic minority are now being turned down because they have the wrong ethnicity. It is exactly the same thing that Ivy League admissions officers did to Jewish applicants in the 1920s, when it was decided that too many Jews were getting into their schools. They too had a rationale for putting a quota on Jews that they too believed was justified. What I don’t understand is this: Why do we all accept that what the Ivies did to limit Jewish enrollment was racist and un-American, while what they’re doing to limit Asian enrollment is not even considered newsworthy?
Dr. Murray is smart enough not to get “The *** thing”, see
http://johnderbyshire.com/Reviews/HumanSciences/cultureofcritique.html
Still, I appreciate very much his opinion.
The problem with “Asians” contains the question about “Noblesse oblige”.
Does Asian community feel an obligation to preserve USA with its structure?
Or it wants advantages of this society only?
Reading Amy Chua’s “World on Fire”, I did not get the feeling of this “Noblesse oblige” thing.
(I am yet to read her “Battle Cry of Tiger Mother”.)
Excuse me, do black or hispanic communities feel an obligation to preserve USA with its structure? How about far-left whites?
Noblesse oblige is a European thing, not an American thing.
How do you not see how your “noblesse oblige” rationalization is in itself discriminatory (Asians aren’t American and therefore lack patriotism)?
As (my other beloved author) John Derbyshire writes, see
http://www.jewcy.com/post/where_should_jews_stand_immigration_0
important part of the problem is in numbers.
To accomodate, say, about 10 million of *** was (and is) quite a difficult task for the USA.
To accomodate potentially 2.5 billion of “Asians” is the task, the difficulty of which we can not even imagine, as of now.
There is an opportunity here for Asian, Jewish and other interested political, educational, and business leaders to form one or more elite American universities which absolutely refuse to discriminate against anyone. Such places would quickly assume top tier status, at the expense of the overrated Ivies.
Come on boys, let’s do it!
“one or more elite American universities which absolutely refuse to discriminate against anyone. Such places would quickly assume top tier status, at the expense of the overrated Ivies.”
These places have tried to exist, in the form of UC-Berkeley. They are regarded highly, but will never attain the social cachet/image of the Ivies, which is built on the TYPE of person who attends these schools, and not the intelligence of the students.
It would be nice if Harvard were more honest about it’s admissions policies, but ultimately I wonder what the fuss is about. If Harvard selects worse applicants, this will be reflected in worse graduates, and Harvard will lose it’s reputation. No sign of that happening yet. In the meantime, Harvard is a private institution and can admit whomever it damn well pleases.
“In the meantime, Harvard is a private institution and can admit whomever it damn well pleases.”
Federal law says otherwise. Discrimination is illegal. Of course, if it is PC racism practiced by liberals against Asians and non-Jewish whites you may be able to get away with it. It’s still illegal.
“Come on Boys?” Adam, you have a great idea but nevertheless display another perverse and insidious prejudice. I posit that if there would be no discrimination in admissions except for merit, vision, drive and overall achievement, among those enrolled you’d find a preponderance of women! – And of course, Asians – far out of proportion to their numbers in the U.S. population. As for American Jews as a group, not sure anymore as they seem to have lost that fighting edge, but certainly many Israelis, who have learned to keep thinking and innovating to save their skins, and preserve and enhance life itself. And many dark skinned immigrants from third world countries where education and high achievement are becoming increasingly valued as the best way to be lifted out of poverty. I would love to see such an institution, or many of them, blossom, and turn out tomorrow’s leaders who would be visionaries and independent thinkers not held hostage by Leftist PC thuggery and group think now found at the Ivies.
1. Admissions officers at elite universities disproportionately vote for and donate to Democratic political candidates.
2. These same people willfully discriminate against well-qualified Asian applicants.
3. Republicans by and large advocate race-blind admissions.
4. Asians vote overwhelmingly Democratic.
Something’s not adding up.
You better ask Karl Rove and Mitt Romney for that. Asian groups were mostly ignored in Romney’s campaign, while Obama tried hard to court us. Reduction of rhetorics on war and religious agenda such as absolute pro-life stand will help to get some of us back.
Well, the Japanese used to bayonet babies for sport, and the Chi-coms to this day snuff out female babies in utero, so I can see why you’re not impressed by this whole “sanctity of life” thing.
P.S. Romney should not have had to “court” you based on your ethnicity. You don’t have any special “needs or concerns” just because you’re Asian, black, female, gay, straight, etc. He’ll address you as an American, not an Asian-American.
nope, he’ll address you as a rich american or not address you at all.
A couple observations, Brian:
1. Asian-Americans don’t have any special needs or concerns based on the function of their race? Then, pray tell, what exactly is this entire article about, you moron?
2. I don’t think I need to go into the details of why historical brutalities against children in select Asian countries have less than nothing to do with Asian-American views on the “sanctity of life,” but just to make it tangible for you, that’s akin to arguing that Americans of German would somehow support greater executive powers for the president and limiting the rights of minorities by virtue of being of German descent – nonsense.
3. Admissions officers’ and Asian-Americans’ political alignment being identical despite being on opposite ends of this issue is likely the result of a hidden variable here: education levels. Both of these groups are comprised of relatively highly educated populations. As such, it’s unlikely they’d choose how to vote based on a single point of animosity between them (a.k.a. spite), but rather based on a rational assessment of which party’s platform is going to leave them, their affiliation group, or the country as a whole (depending on how altruistic vs. self-interested they are) better off 4 years from now. And just as a side note, it looks like they weren’t in alone in their assessment of that question. So, thankfully, Romney won’t be addressing or courting too much for now.
1. No special needs or concerns as far as presidential candidates are concerned. AFAIK, Asians were not barred from Romney’s rallies or myriad appearances nationwide–appearances that did not pander to any one race or religion. Again, you’re an American, not an Asian-American. The ghettoization of American politics has gone on long enough.
2. You’re lucky I didn’t bring the sadistic Norks into the equation, or how the Japanese are depopulating at an alarming rate. Life is cheap in the Far East.
3. So you willingly signed up for four more years of record unemployment/underemployment, record food stamp usage, massive deficits, green energy boondoggles, wasteful stimulus packages, Obamacare, Fast and Furious, serial use of the race card to deflect from administrative incompetence, a moronic VP who analogies political opponent to slave owners, and White House coverups regarding dead embassy personnel? I thought Asians were supposed to be the SMART ones.
So, because of atrocities committed during WWII and a controversial policy of the Chinese government, all Asians are not impressed by the sanctity of life thing?
Actually Romney’s top policy folks were Asian.. How did Obama court Asians? Courting asians should be about k thru 12 school choice, anti-affirmative action, opposing quotas.. Asians are the latest victims and are comfortable with the democratic party now..
I continue to be amused to think that most white Republicans think AA is a big deal for Asians. It isn’t.
In fact, over 70% support it.
http://www.naasurvey.com/resources/Home/NAAS12-sep25-issues.pdf
Page 16. A major poll done just before the election.
Asians are just following the herd of the cultural left. In other words, the words “Out of many; one” is just words these days. De facto assimilation has been since long abandoned in favor of an aggressive multiculturalism where white Americans are demonized. It’s a classic tactic: the best way to keep a diverse, incohesive group together is by creating an external enemy. Of course, that enemy isn’t painted in life or death terms. But they, whites, are painted as obstacles to progress for all minorities, basically.
So for blacks; it’s economics since blacks have done well in the cultural sphere(music, movies etc). For Asians, it’s not economics but instead culture, where Asians haven’t done as well. The recipe is the same for both instances: demonize another racial group.
No amount of specific policy proposals will reverse this, only a cultural change. And go into any university in the humanities. If you count even one non-leftist(mind you: not liberal, but leftist) you’ve done well or you are hallucinating, probably both.
There’s an obvious flaw with this tactic.
If you build your cultural glue on racial demonization, particularly on a shrinking ethnic group, that group will at some point lash out, as all groups will(as they should). Second, if that group’s influence continues to decline it will be difficult to claim that they control everything. And then what? If you built the culture on a lie, and if that lie continues to be disproven more and more every day, where do you go? You end up with an architecture that is incapable of changing course.
It’ll be interesting to see how America will change the next ten years, as we’ll have permanent occupation of the WH by a democrat, and, subsequently, as even white democrats get cleansed from office.
Where do the demonizers go then? What do they do? And what happens if whites start to, in a bumbling and clumsy first step, to slowly start speak out on their own behalf?
Interesting times ahead.
My calculations show that Chinese people and educated Indians have moved politically right. Chinese people might be more Republican than whites.
http://theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com/2012/12/inscrutable-voters.html
Remember the poor Puerto Rican delegate at the Republican Convention who was shouted down by chants of “USA, USA, USA” – that’s why minorities (including Asians) won’t vote Republican even if it might be in our narrow economic interests. Because the Republicans only want “real Americans” not riff raff like us who bayonet babies.
Racist policy, in my opinion. Enacted by white people in positions of power to keep white people in positions of power. This is also why we need affirmative action for *under*represented minorities. White people don’t need special protections to stay advantaged in American society. We are already advantaged thanks in part to racist policies that have been practiced here since the founding of the country.
“Enacted by white people in positions of power to keep white people in positions of power”
Bullshit. Enacted by white people in positions of power to help them sleep easy at night because they’re admitting “adequate” numbers of blacks and Latinos. The Ivies are not giving special protections to white applicants, no ma’am.
By definition, capping the number of qualified Asians who are accepted would be a “special protection” for anyone who is not Asian, whites, blacks, latinos etc. It’s a special protection for anyone who is accepted at the expense of a more qualified Asian applicant.
Some populations (Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans) are entitled special protections based on historic discrimination. White people do not require such a leg up, so “protecting” them from stronger Asian applicants is not necessary. The increased Asian admissions should come at the expense of white candidates slots in the Ivy League.
It’s not like the white candidates would be denied a college education. They can just attend their safety schools as the rejected Asian candidates would otherwise have done.
Gina, Asian applicants are overwhelmingly rejected in favor of black and Hispanic applicants, not white applicants. According to research by Thomas Espenshade, if racial preferences were eliminated in elite colleges, the share of black and Hispanic students would decline precipitously, the share of white students would hardly change at all, and the share of Asians would skyrocket.
Racial preferences have nothing to do historic discrimination. For example, Asians have certainly been historically discriminated against more than Hispanics, yet they don’t get preferential treatment. In reality, preferences are all about racial differences in intelligence and other academically relevant characteristics.
By the way, do you know which demographics are the most underrepresented in Ivy League schools? White Protestants and white Catholics. Jews are the most overrepresented, and Unz argues, with some pretty good evidence, that this is because elite schools discriminate in favor of Jews. This is the most politically incorrect claim in Unz’s article and the real reason why so few mainstream commentators want to touch it — Murray eschews the topic, too.
Actually, you are incorrect.
According to this study conducted by scholars from Princeton University (who one would expect to be biased in the OTHER direction!), whites are not discriminated against in the name of affirmative action. Their numbers stay the same with or without affirmative action. It is primarily Asian applicants who are losing their spots to so called under-represented minorities.
http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Opportunity%20Cost%20of%20Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20June%202005.pdf
Additionally, you should ask yourself: are American universities national…or world institutions? I think the 10%+ population of international at students at HYPS… even less renowned schools such as U Delaware demonstrate that American Universities serve the world…their applicant pool is anyone from any country. Therefore, to better match demographics of their true applicant pool, whites should be around 20%, not 60-70.
UM,
“whites are not discriminated against in the name of affirmative action. Their numbers stay the same with or without affirmative action”
If you read Unz’s article, you will find considerable evidence that all whites are not created equal. At one time, Jewish whites were admitted in proportion to their talents and achievements. Since then Jewish achievement has declined markedly. Jewish admissions have not. At this point, elite university admissions are strikingly biased against non-Jewish whites with no apparent justification other than raw prejudice.
Do you have a sense for how much of this is caused by legacy admissions, who for historical reasons I assume would be mostly white?
That is they are 16% of the total admissions but I would guess that they would be a higher percentage of the non-legacy admissions. If there were no “cap” I would expect that to be close to the admissions rates at Berkley.
Whether or not we should be conferring tax-free status on institutions that operate as charities for the wealthy is of course another question…
What do you mean by ‘white’?
40% of all the people on the richest Fortune 500 list are Jews. Their kids most likely get plenty of legacy admissions.
50 years ago, legacy admissions were primarily rich WASP kids. Today? Far from it. But of course, the universities won’t break the numbers down. But nobody should be surprised if, say, Harvard had a higher Jewish share of the legacy admissions than non-Jewish whites. After all, the student body is already more Jewish than either Asian or non-Jewish white.
A lot of folks haven’t done their homework.
look…the mission of most Ivy League schools is to create a diverse student population. In fact, I was at a meeting with the Dean of Columbia College, James Valentini, the other day for a student council function. he came in and spoke to us and actually told us that the dean of admissions wants “every voice heard” by the undergraduate population at Columbia University. if students are let in based on some “meritocracy” with “objective” standards of academic success (SAT scores and GPA).
look you stupid idiot…THEY HAVE QUOTAS FOR EVERY THING. it’s not just “epicanthic” discrimination. they are “discriminating” against EVERY SINGLE facet of identity.
they want a variety of people. how can you get a variety without using quotas? that is literally impossible. so they have a quota for gender, race, ethnicity, religious background, perfection on the SATs, national merit, geographic origin, nationality. i bet they even try to sort through applications to find enough gays.
that’s not racist. or sexist. or whatever you want to call it. that’s a logical way to ARTIFICIALLY MANUFACTURE diversity. which is their intended goal.
so instead of looking at Ivy League schools (and specifically at Columbia, because as a student and elected member of the student council I can actually speak about that institution with some expertise), as bastions of meritocratic and academic success…look at them as bastions of diversity.
students at Ivy Leagues are both successful by your ridiculous objective standards and diverse, and that’s more important than your stupid objections to an Asian quota.
*if students are let in based on some “meritocracy” with “objective” standards of academic success (SAT scores and GPA)…then they will not have a diverse population. they’ll just have a bunch of really smart nerds who never did anything except be nerdy. and nerds are good to have. trust me, they have a quota for nerds too.
Mr. Murray is making a number of important points. However, one of the core ones is this.
If today’s restrictions on Asians are somehow OK, then it is time to stop denouncing Lowell and Harvard as “racist” for restricting Jews. If today’s restrictions are just an updated version of 1920s “racism”, then they need to stop.
Of course, the truth is that “racism” is only objectionable when the practitioners are WASPs/conservatives/Republicans/etc. If nice Democrats are doing it, then it’s downright virtuous.
In the days when Harvard restricted Jews, they were probably not trying to achieve anything that could be called a “balance.” They were trying to keep Harvard looking like it had always looked. Not to say that the current institutional guardians’ idea of “balance” isn’t also more advantageous for some groups than others, but today it’s not totally exclusionary.
Your last two sentences had nothing to do with the article, or the comment that you were replying to.
“Of course, the truth is that “racism” is only objectionable when the practitioners are WASPs/conservatives/Republicans/etc. If nice Democrats are doing it, then it’s downright virtuous.”
Aside from being true, this is one of Murray’s core points. Let me quote.
“What I don’t understand is this: Why do we all accept that what the Ivies did to limit Jewish enrollment was racist and un-American, while what they’re doing to limit Asian enrollment is not even considered newsworthy?”
I think at the time, when the Ivies did limit Jewish enrollment, it was war time & the maneuver was considered non racist & a very American thing to do because they were the majority were non Jewish (thus non racist , atleast to them ) & thus as American as Pilgrim’s Progress by Paul Bunyan. In retrospect, finally, they did see some alleviation after they suffered terribly & it is no exaggeration. I mean, not to re-live the painful past but signs in Baltimore read, no blacks, no Jews. And the handful of other Asians were not considered colored, etc… So, maybe the entrance bar is hidden without blatant signs because, otherwise, it would be newsworthy. As long as the entrance bar is “hidden” there is “no discrimination”. I say sue them or let G*d take vengence. Afterall, they are experiencing the worst snow, hail & hurricaines that end up in fire- scriptural wake up calls. It’s sad but true. We need to wise up, America & be ethical …. I think Henry ’75 Cornell has the right idea.
I’m honestly very surprised that someone who went through Columbia’s Core would have to preface an argument with “look you stupid idiot”.
Furthermore you’re merely parroting the same story that’s been told by all the Ivies repeatedly, and it assumes that superficial diversity (ethnic background) somehow translates into a more cosmopolitan milieu while ignoring that URMs who benefit from this admissions process underperform (and arguably receive less from their education than they would have had they attended an institution which matched their capabilities). Asians are still over-represented in Phi Betta Kappa, etc…
Finally I’d like to point out that a lot of Ivy Leaguers who preach the virtues of imposed diversity are simply unable to imagine admissions being done differently. They imagine that all the meaningful conversations late-night they have are a product of ‘diversity’, when it may very well be that meaningful conversations are simply a product of being surrounded by intelligent people.
Anon at 4:56 PM: We may not be as informed as you about admissions at Ivy League schools, but that does not make us stupid idiots. You, clearly, were admitted to fill the arrogant, ignorant, asshole quota.
Think about it, Dummy. How many are invited to meet with the Dean of Columbia College? You are privy to some inside information. Good for you. That no more makes you better or smarted than we readers than knowing how to weld makes me better than non-welders.
Diversification is important. Sports, family structures, iq, national merit, geographic origin, family tax background, etc etc.
But can we not base anything on skin color? Wrap it up in all kinds of pretty gift paper you can get in the 99cent stores: “ethnicity”, “race”, “culture based on family” etc etc., in the end you’re talking about skin color. And in 1920s, they’re talking about religion.
You can say that students are Ivy Leagues are successful due to diversity, but I think the main point is, “What kind of diversity?”
Race shouldn’t be a quota thing. That’s because race shouldn’t matter because it’s how you look. It’s a physical characteristic that doesn’t impede a person’s ability to think, study, diversify, or whatever.
It’s like having a quota on how much attractive people should be admitted.
The last time the Ivy League tried this nonsense, the effect was to raise the prestige of previously unknown universities. I suspect the same will be true this time.
Why are quotas OK for Asians but not for Jews?
One obvious answer is that Jews are more political than Asians, and have more political power. But I think it may be more than that. I think it may have something to do with the liberal establishment being embarrassed by the success of Asians, as a non-white minority, in “racist America,” because it calls into question their preferred explanation for the low achievement of blacks. You can see this embarrassment in the anger provoked by talk of Asians as a “model minority,” and the even greater anger provoked by the question “If Asians can succeed despite racism, then why can’t blacks?” Asians make blacks look bad, and the establishment doesn’t like it, not at all.
I think the result is a certain amount of diffuse and unacknowledged ill will towards Asians and Asian achievement. The origin of this ill will is different than the ill will harbored against whites and white achievement (i.e., whites deserve to suffer today because of the way they treated blacks in the past), but the consequence is the same: discrimination against Asians just doesn’t feel wrong.
You do a great job of ignoring the great number of Asians in our country who, despite the achievement of some, are still members of the underclass in America. Exalting the achievements of the great students who have done well in spite of the racism they have faced does a disservice to those who are often struggling.
And you do a great job of not disentangling Asians from Asians.
If we are talking about Chinese-Americans or Indian-Americans we’re talking about communities that are not only mostly middle-class but in fact even upper middle-class.
On the other hand, if we’re talking about the Hmong or the Cambodians then we’re talking a lot more poverty.
The term ‘Asian’ hides a lot. Most people tend to mean East Asians(as in Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese) or South Asian(basically, Indian-American).
But the latter group(s) are very much so quite well off. To deny that is nonsense. There’s always poverty but that poverty is concentrated among the Hmong, Cambodians and to a lesser extent the Vietnamese. Among the others? Not so much. Do the math.
Your comments on the diversity within the communities designated as Asian is pertinent. You have, however, left out a rather large part of mix. Are you referring only to Asian Americans or do you also want to include Asians who are foreign nationals? There are huge differences (and often very high walls) between ABCs and those coming from Hong Kong or the Mainland or Taiwan. So too for Korean Americans and Koreans etc.
One look at the biggest growth among colleges and universities across the US will demonstrate that the numbers of Chinese nationals has increased by orders of magnitude. Why? Their ‘key’ high schools (similar in some ways to say Stuyvesant except much, much more competitive), prepare students for academic and social success at virtually any school in the world. So too for the top schools in Korea, Singapore, India etc. Most other schools are rushing to China to get these student partly for the academics and partly for the money. Unstated in this article, or almost anywhere else, is another secret.
Although some of the Ivies say they are need blind for admission for international students a look at those international students who do end up getting money will raise some serious questions. Since there are already great students from some Asian countries who can pay, the chances of giving need based aid to one of their fellow countrymen often goes down. They would never admit this in public of course, but the data shows that they use their need based money to increase diversity from other parts of the world. This is fine if they would simply admit it. It is their money after all. But it misleads lots of kids who are genius level, but are unfortunate enough to be from the ‘wrong’ country.
“Harvard is a better place because it does not select a class consisting exclusively of applicants with perfect SAT scores.”
This is a good argument for too many jews being in Harvard, too…, even as today (now they are even favored for). Wow, American are hypocrite at their best.
I’m not surprised that Charles Murray managed to completely and utterly miss the point. Yes, there are quotas against Asians but Jews are given slots which are way disproportionate to any actual ability(and that wasn’t the case, say, in the 1970s, 40 years ago).
If you’d go for true merit, WASP kids would get a majority of the slots at Harvard, now they get less than 18%.
But of course, we can’t have true merit, because that’d be advocating for whites. Can’t have that. So you gotta dress it up into somekind of phony Asian crusade.
Modern conservatism in a nutshell.
If the Democratic party is the evil party, then indeed, the GOP is the stupid party.
Murray, of all people, shouldn’t have fallen into this trap.
And if Murray can’t guard against completely omitting the major points of the essay, because he is scared, then what hope is it for the lesser men below him?
David,
I rather doubt that Mr. Murray missed the point… and yes you are correct. Let it be noted that when Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford found overt bias against students who take leadership positions in ROTC, FFA, 4-H, etc. they were almost entirely ignored. Some types of discrimination are more equal than others.
Some people are more equal than others.
These are private universities founded by white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant Christians, often with the aid of religious intstitutions, and in some cases with the primary purpose of educating clergy. They have no obligation to admit any Asians, or Jews, or blacks, or Hispanics, or even white Christians. They are *private.*
They discriminate deliberately for blacks and Hispanics who have not truly earned their way in, which means by definition they must discriminate *against* someone who would otherwise have earned his way in. They may even do a better job actively discriminating against middle class whites, especially of the conservative persuasion, than they do discriminating against Asians.
Nonsensical.
True merit is the way to go. Skip all diversity fanfare, get rid of the noxious legacy admissions, throw out the athletic requirements.
How good you are at a flute shouldn’t be of any importance if you’re applying to become a top-class historian or a scientist.
Neither should your race or family income(and that goes both ways; by which I mean lower-income preferences as well as preferences for super rich kids with loaded parents).
“Why do we all accept that what the Ivies did to limit Jewish enrollment was racist and un-American, while what they’re doing to limit Asian enrollment is not even considered newsworthy?”
Because Asians don’t control the media?
“Because Asians don’t control the media?”
That part of it. However, several commenters have pointed out that Asians (with exceptions) just don’t seem all that put out by overt anti-Asian bias in university admissions. Several factors appears to be at work.
1. Asians are (so far) less politically inclined than other groups. Why isn’t clear and is (in this context) immaterial. As long as it is true, we aren’t going to here much about discrimination against Asians.
2. Many (a majority?) of Asians have chosen to adopt outsider mentality at least when it comes to politics. As a consequence, they willingly participate in a coalition that demonizes the historic mainstream as the “other” even if they are losers at the hands of the rest of the coalition.
3. It’s probably true, that most Asians living in the USA aren’t all that aware of the depth and magnitude of anti-Asian bias in university admissions. Of course, the media has a lot to do with this as well.
Maybe the underlying reason for the Asian quota is to discourage the culture of overworked, hypercompetitive children. For those of us who live in Asian communities we know that this is a big problem. Children are denied a childhood by narrow minded, over controlling parents. Since there is no limit to competition and how far you can push a child this kind of culture is equivalent to substance abuse where a person is just spiraling in one direction until they are destroyed. I am glad the Ivies are penalizing this kind of culture.
Way to pander stereotypes. All Asian students are emotionless math drones whose personality has been sucked out by their overbearing parents, right? What a load of garbage.
What makes you think that Asian parents are any more demanding than Jewish parents or parents of other children who make their way into the Ives? Show a me a systematic study that confirms this…oh wait, there isn’t one. I’m Asian and have had a fairly successful educational record, but not once did my parents push me to do anything I didn’t want to.
Clearly, it is working in the opposite direction. By having a quota, Asians now have to compete for an even limited number of seats, so the competition is even more fierce, the denial of childhood that you talk about is even more stark! If all ethniticies were allowed to compete for all seats as Americans only without making a distinction of black, WASP, poor rural white, Jewish, Asian, Latino et al, there would be much less pressure on the Asians and the poor rural whites
“Why do we all accept that what the Ivies did to limit Jewish enrollment was racist and un-American, while what they’re doing to limit Asian enrollment is not even considered newsworthy?”
Gee, could it be because Jews control the media–indeed even more so than they control the academia–and thereby control the terms of the debate?
Asians are the new Jews… because of the Jews.
Similarly, Palestinians in Occupied ghettos are the new Jews… because of the Jews.
But how much sympathy for Palestinians is there?
About as much as there if for white conservatives in America where Jews gloat that white power is finished and celebrate that old white people are dropping dead like flies.
Wow… and consider how many Jews check “white” on the demographic sheet on any application. Sad. If you guys control the media, which I don’t doubt, then why don’t you try to address this problem in justice & fairness like the Scriptures say ? I’m completely serious.
Mr. Murray raises important issues. Just recently I posted the same graph on my blog. I asked how it could happen that all the Ivies could arrive at a similar percentage of Asians. I had hoped to get some comments. Not a one.
The issue first became significant when the data in “No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal” showed how much more difficult it was for Asians to be admitted to selective schools, and not just the Ivies. The book was written with other issues than this one, and the data remained largely unreported. The same for the Asian data in the controversial and largely unreported book “Mismatch”.
As the fastest growing immigrant population in the US, the politicians may start to pay attention soon. Anyone convinced that Asian students don’t change things in the world, read the blurbs in the blog entry below and the one from the day before. In just one high school, these students have altered politics, the arts, and many other areas not normally assumed to be the strengths of these students.
http://onlyconnectparke.blogspot.com/2012/11/asian-invasion-ivy-walls-are-very-high.html
As an Asian high schooler I can greatly testify to the general Asian population’s frustration with having a higher bar set. I do not think that race has anything to do with how competent you are and the fact that Ivy Leagues are setting these quotas is just reinforcing these racial boundaries. However, the difference in environments is obviously a huge factor. Many of my Asian friends are academically successful yet they grudgingly do such academic activities because of their parents, all of their Asian friends are doing it so they have the need to “match up” to them, or the pressure to get into a good college. That is not impressive at all. Those successes are born out of superficiality. Using generalities, most minorities are not in as high pressure environment. So to have a minority go out and be just as academically successful means that they were successful because of their passion for learning and exploring. Of course, this is based on GENERALITIES; there are definitely many Asians (including myself) who are avid learners and many minorities who have many opportunities because of relatives or wealth. I do not believe that the system for selecting who gets into where should be a total meritocracy, instead it should be based on what environment you grew up in. How successful you are depends on how you take advantage of your resources and that is what applicants should be viewed on.
And yet, over 70% of Asians support Affirmative Action:
http://www.naasurvey.com/resources/Home/NAAS12-sep25-issues.pdf
Page 16.
Come back when your words have substance to fall back on.
Please enlighten me why there is a plethora of these types of articles then.
Kudos
Interesting insight and analysis
Unz estimates that 65% of the top 1/2 of one percent of academic achievers are white gentiles, but are only 24% of Ivy League undergrads; 6% of those top students are Jews, but they take up 23% of Ivy League undergrad spots; 25% of the top students are Asian, and they are 15% of the Ivy League undergrad body.
Murray’s take-away from all this, is that the Ivy League is anti-Asian. Such is the base cowardliness of what passes for American Conservatism in a nutshell.
In unrelated news, white voter participation plunged by 7 million last election.
You basically summed it up.
He ‘accidentatly’ completely avoided the real bombshell.
But again, the spinelessness of modern conservatism demands that you never, ever even mutter a single word about what you just mentioned. It’s the fear of being attacked. But they should turn that attack on its head and ask a logical question: why is it so controversial to raise these questions for a single group, white gentiles, but okay to do it for virtually everyone else?
But they will never do it. Fear.
Murray, thank you for not deviating from the apparent blogosphere consensus that this is all about discrimination against ‘Asians’. You’re reputation for courage is extended into the 21st century. Thank you for not writing a single word about the main thrust of Unz’s article: massive discrimination against non-Jewish whites.
Adam, your assumption that Asians & Jews are natural allies against current Ivy admissions policies is not supported by Unz’ article. He argues that Asians are penalized, but that Jews are admitted out of proportion to their performance.
Gina, I suspect you did not read Unz’ article. He argues that gentile whites are the most heavily penalized.
I agree with “TGGP” that
“Unz’ article … argues that gentile whites are the most heavily penalized”,
and that *** are strongly discriminated in favor of.
I have actually read Unz’s article in full, it took me about 3 hours to do that.
I do not have first-hand knowledge of the subject to confirm or disprove the statements by Unz. But at least one can not just use the argument “sour grapes” against him, since
1. Unz is of Jewish ethnicity himself,
2. Unz was admitted to Harvard, and
3. graduated from it with degree in Theoretical Physics.
Steve Sailer’s blog has very lively discussion of Dr. Murray’s post:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/12/charles-murray-replies-to-ron-unz.html
Previous posts on Unz’s article:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/12/education-realist-responds-to-unz-essay.html
and
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/12/who-is-interested-in-elite-college.html
(the latter post is entitled “Who is interested in elite college admissions? Right: nobody.”)
I have read Unz’s article. He provides considerable (compelling) evidence that Jewish students were admitted in proportion to the talents and achievements a generation ago. Since then, the overall level of Jewish achievement has fallen markedly while admission levels have not. Since the same can not be said for non-Jewish whites, this constitutes de facto discrimination against non-Jewish whites.
Notably, Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford have found striking evidence indication a deep admission bias against students who have held leadership positions in ROTC, FFA, and 4-H. Not neutral (as in these accomplishments being ignored), but actual prejudice.
I am a liberal who stumbled across this page quite by accident. I have a Chinese daughter, so was interested in the topic. Reading the comments has been extremely enlightening however, and a roadmap as to why the Republicans lost the election. Tone down the racism, people.
You have “a Chinese daughter”, not a Chinese-white, of Chinese-American?
How comes?
Do you live in China?
see what I mean?
Some people believe that all Americans are Americans first and foremost, not Jewish-Americans, not Chinese-Americans, not WASP-Americans. We believe that each citizens loyalty should be to his or her country, not to a race, religion, or ethnicity.
Anon#10 appears to agree with this sentiment. In a free country, you are free to disagree. However, don’t call an explicit rejection of identity politics “racism”, it’s the exact opposite.
Let’s get this straight:
1. Pointing out racism done by non-whites(and in some cases, self-loathing whites) against other whites is somehow racism.
2. See point above.
3. Also, hilarious that you think that a popular majority means that something is true.
4. And by the way, far from all Americans even voted
5. Finally, the vote was on economics not on affirmative action. Most Americans are against it. But granted; there’s a racial divide.
I’m still curious to know why you think pointing out racism against whites is racism itself? Do you actually have any argument or do you just blindly accept whatever talking point is implanted in your brain?
Charles Murray’s Coming Apart, which traces the growing cultural gap between the elite and the populace within the population of white Americans, receives a fair amount of a support in Unz’s article. Unz argues that there’s a fairly large cultural bias against ordinary white americans from within the university. Whether or not there’s an ethnic component to this bias (if you wanted to avoid controversy, you could even take the jewish numbers he provides as a proxy for whites with relatively more urban, liberal, wealthy, and high-education backgrounds), I feel that Unz’s article and “Coming Apart” make essentially the same argument, and I would be interested to hear Murray’s take on this major issue, as opposed to the interesting but already widely discussed theory that elite education institutions discriminate against Asians.
For better or worse, there is conspicuous evidence of discrimination against non-Jewish whites. There is no evidence that the discrimination is explicit or intentional. However, it is very clear that college admission policies have that effect. See “The Roots of White Anxiety” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/opinion/19douthat.html?_r=0). A few quotes (but read it all).
“Last year, two Princeton sociologists, Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford, published a book-length study of admissions and affirmative action at eight highly selective colleges and universities. Unsurprisingly, they found that the admissions process seemed to favor black and Hispanic applicants, while whites and Asians needed higher grades and SAT scores to get in. But what was striking, as Russell K. Nieli pointed out last week on the conservative Web site Minding the Campus, was which whites were most disadvantaged by the process: the downscale, the rural and the working-class.”
“This was particularly pronounced among the private colleges in the study. For minority applicants, the lower a family’s socioeconomic position, the more likely the student was to be admitted. For whites, though, it was the reverse. An upper-middle-class white applicant was three times more likely to be admitted than a lower-class white with similar qualifications.”
“But cultural biases seem to be at work as well. Nieli highlights one of the study’s more remarkable findings: while most extracurricular activities increase your odds of admission to an elite school, holding a leadership role or winning awards in organizations like high school R.O.T.C., 4-H clubs and Future Farmers of America actually works against your chances. Consciously or unconsciously, the gatekeepers of elite education seem to incline against candidates who seem too stereotypically rural or right-wing or “Red America.””
“This provides statistical confirmation for what alumni of highly selective universities already know. The most underrepresented groups on elite campuses often aren’t racial minorities; they’re working-class whites (and white Christians in particular) from conservative states and regions. Inevitably, the same underrepresentation persists in the elite professional ranks these campuses feed into: in law and philanthropy, finance and academia, the media and the arts.”
I don’t think the administrator have an explicit intent to exclude non-Jewish whites. They would be just as biased against a Jewish kid from Nebraska who excelled in ROTC. However, the effect of elite admission preferences is a deep de facto bias
We’re on the same page. Douthat’s column was excellent, and Espenshade’s work grossly under-discussed. I’m just trying to help think of a way to get this discussion into the mainstream discourse without setting off over-sensitive “ethnic prejudice” alarms.
“I don’t think the administrator have an explicit intent to exclude non-Jewish whites. They would be just as biased against a Jewish kid from Nebraska who excelled in ROTC. ”
This is the tack I’m suggesting in my paranthetical aside.
My daughter was in ROTC (she did not excel). The local high school (generally excellent) has lots of 4-H, ROTC, and FFA kids. It’s appalling that this will be held against them.
My view is that each racial group should be given the percentage of the student body that they are of the national population. For example, blacks are 13% of American society, so they should compete for 13% of the spots. Jews are 2.5%, so they compete for 2.5% of the spots, and so on.
Some say the % should be of the state the institution is located in. That’s fine, but I think a state university that wants a national position would have to go by the national %, although it could be balanced with the state percentage. Private schools could do as they wish, but their reputations might suffer, at least morally.
Think this is probably already the case? Think again: One of the schools that I attended, UCSD, was at 2.5% black undergraduate admissions, with high attrition. It has now slipped below 2%!!! (See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/30/68-black-students-will-en_n_630920.html) Another institution I attended, the U of M, had a jewish graduate population of 40%!!! (and it currently has an undergraduate population of 26-50% jewish!!!); and many students were disparagingly calling it “the jew of M.”
Obviously a historically much underrepresented minority such as the American Indian could have their enrollment targeted at twice their %, to help with their civilizations, which many American Indians return to after graduation. So then they, .05% of the population, would be at 2% instead of 1% enrollment.
As for white historically marginalized ethnic groups, e.g. Irish, Italian, etc. – i.e. non-wasps – there could be consideration given. Also too could consideration be given for poor whites, especially in the south, but also elsewhere.
Racial minorities could also be considered according to their economic situation, with the poor and poorer of these groups being given additional consideration in their competition for spaces of their percentage.
Take a look at the enrollment %’s of jewish students at US and Canadian undergraduate “national” institutions below. These are staggering figares. The list is from hillel.org:
26-50% Jewish Undergraduate – 17 Total!! Including Yale, Harvard & Columbia!!!
Barnard College
Binghamton University
Brandeis University
Columbia University
CUNY, Brooklyn College
Emory University
George Washington University
Goucher College
Muhlenberg College
New York University
Oberlin College
Queens College
Sarah Lawrence College
Tulane University
University at Albany
University of Hartford
Yale University
11-25% Jewish Undergraduate – 76 Total!!! Including the total above. This tier includes the rest of the eight Ivy League Schools!!! That is, all the Ivy League Schools are 11% or higher Jewish Undergraduate enrollment, with three at above 26%!!!
American University
Amherst College
Boston University
Brown University
Bryn Mawr College
California State University, Northridge
Carnegie Mellon University
Claremont Colleges
Claremont McKenna College
Clark University
Colgate University
Cornell University
CUNY, Baruch College
Dartmouth College
Earlham College
Emerson College
Florida Atlantic University
Florida International University
Franklin & Marshall College
Hampshire College
Harvard University
Haverford College
Hofstra University
Indiana University
Ithaca College
Johns Hopkins University
Kenyon College
Lafayette College
Lehigh University
Long Island University, Brooklyn Campus
Lynn University
Manhattanville College
Middlebury College
Mitchell College
New College of Florida
Northwestern University
Pennsylvania State University, University Park
Pitzer College
Pomona College
Princeton University
Queensborough Community College
Rhode Island School of Design
Rollins College
Rowan University
Rutgers University, New Brunswick
Scripps College
Skidmore College
SUNY College at Oneonta
SUNY College at Oswego
Swarthmore College
Syracuse University
Trinity College
Tufts University
Union College
University of Arizona
University of California, Santa Barbara
University of California, Santa Cruz
University of Central Florida
University of Chicago
University of Delaware
University of Denver
University of Florida
University of Maryland, College Park
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
University of Miami
University of Michigan
University of Pennsylvania
University of Pittsburgh
University of Rochester
University of Southern California
University of Vermont
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Vanderbilt University
Vassar College
Washington University
Wesleyan University
6-10% Jewish Undergraduate – 109 Total!!!
Adelphi University
Alfred University
Bates College
Beloit College
Bentley University
Bergen Community College
Bowdoin College
Bucknell University
Cabrillo College
California Institute of Technology
California State University, Monterey Bay
California State University, San Francisco
Carleton College
Case Western Reserve University
Chapman University
Cleveland Institute of Music
Colby College
College of Charleston
College of Wooster
Colorado College
Connecticut College
CUNY, College of Staten Island
CUNY, Hunter College
Dalhousie University/King`s College
Dickinson College
Drew University
Drexel University
Duke University
Eastman School of Music at the University of Rochester
Eckerd College
Elon University
Florida State University
Gallaudet University
Georgetown University
Georgia Institute of Technology
Gettysburg College
Grinnell College
Hamilton College
Harvey Mudd College
Hobart and William Smith Colleges
Illinois Institute of Technology
James Madison University
Knox College
Lesley University
Los Angeles Pierce College, Woodland Hills
Los Angeles Valley College, Van Nuys
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
McGill University
Miami University
Michigan State University
Mills College
Northeastern University
Nova Southeastern University
Oakton Community College
Occidental College
Ohio State University
Pace University
Palm Beach State College
Purchase College, SUNY
Queen`s University
Quinnipiac University
Ramapo College
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Rice University
Richard Stockton College of New Jersey
Roger Williams University
Roosevelt University
Ryerson University
San Diego State University
Santa Monica College
Simmons College
Smith College
Sonoma State University
Stanford University
Stevens Institute of Technology
Stony Brook University
SUNY College at Geneseo
Temple University, Main and Ambler
The College of New Jersey
Towson University
University at Buffalo
University of California, Berkeley
University of California, Davis
University of California, Los Angeles
University of California, San Diego
University of Colorado at Boulder
University of Connecticut
University of Georgia
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
University of Kansas
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
University of Oregon
University of Rhode Island
University of Richmond
University of South Florida
University of Tampa
University of Texas, Austin
University of Virginia
University of Washington
University of Western Ontario
Ursinus College
Virginia Tech
Wake Forest University
Wellesley College
Whitman College
Williams College
York University
1-5% Jewish Undergraduate – 227 Total (how many of the 118 are 2.6%+???)
Agnes Scott College
Albion College
Albright College
Algonquin College
Allegheny College
American River College
Arizona State University
Austin College
Birmingham-Southern College
Boston College
Bowling Green State University
Bradley University
Broward College
Butler University
California College of the Arts
California Lutheran University
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
California State University at San Marcos
California State University, Chico
California State University, Fullerton
California State University, Long Beach
California State University, Sacramento
California State University, San Bernardino
Capital University
Carleton University
Central Michigan University
Chatham College
City College of San Francisco
Cleveland Institute of Art
Cleveland State University
College of San Mateo
College of the Desert
College of William and Mary
Colorado State University
Columbia College Chicago
Columbia College of Missouri
Concordia University
Concordia University, Sir George and Loyola Campus
Cooper Union
Cornell College
Creighton University
CUNY, City College
Cuyahoga Community College
Davidson College
De Anza College
Denison University
DePaul University
DePauw University
Drake University
Duquesne University
Eastern Michigan University
Elizabethtown College
Elmira College
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Arizona
Evergreen State College
Fairleigh Dickinson University – Metropolitan Campus
Florida Gulf Coast University
Foothill College
Fordham University
Frostburg State University
Full Sail University
Fullerton College
George Mason University
Georgia College and State University
Georgia Southern University
Golden West College
Greensboro College
Grossmont Community College
Guilford College
Hampden-Sydney College
Hendrix College
High Point University
Hiram College
Houston Community College
Humboldt State University
Illinois State University
Illinois Wesleyan University
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Iowa State University
Irvine Valley College
John Carroll University
Johnson and Wales University – RI
Juniata College
Kalamazoo College
Kean University
Kent State University
Kutztown University
LaGuardia Community College
Lawrence Technological University
Lewis & Clark College
Loyola Marymount University
Loyola University, Chicago
Loyola University, New Orleans
Lynchburg College
Marquette University
McMaster University
Millersville University
Milwaukee Institute of Art and Design
MiraCosta College
Monmouth University
Montgomery County Community College
Moravian College
Mount Holyoke College
National Technical Institute for the Deaf
New Mexico State University
Northeastern Illinois University
Northern Arizona University
Northern Illinois University
Northern Michigan University
Northern Virginia Community College
Oakland University
Ohio University
Ohio Wesleyan University
Old Dominion University
Orange Coast College
Pace University, Pleasantville
Palomar College
Pennsylvania State University, Harrisburg
Portland State University
Purdue University
Radford University
Raymond Walters College
Rider University
Ringling College of Art and Design
Riverside Community College
Roanoke College
Rochester Institute of Technology
Rutgers University, Camden
Sacramento City College
Saint Lawrence University
Sam Houston State University
San Jose State University
Santa Barbara City College
Santa Clara University
Santa Fe College
Savannah College of Art and Design
School of the Art Institute of Chicago
Scottsdale Community College
Shippensburg University
Sierra College
Simon Fraser University
Skyline College
Southern Connecticut State University
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale
Southern Methodist University
Springfield College
St. Edward`s University
St. Louis University
Stephens College
Stetson University
Suffolk University
SUNY College at Brockport
SUNY College at Fredonia
SUNY College at Plattsburgh
Susquehanna University
Texas A&M University
Texas Christian University
Texas Tech University
Transylvania University
Truman State University
United States Military Academy
United States Naval Academy
Universite de Montreal
Universite du Quebec a Montreal
University of Akron
University of Alabama
University of Alberta
University of British Columbia
University of California, Irvine
University of California, Riverside
University of Cincinnati
University of Dayton
University of Detroit, Mercy
University of Houston
University of Illinois, Chicago
University of Iowa
University of Kentucky
University of Mary Washington
University of Memphis
University of Michigan-Dearborn
University of Minnesota
University of Minnesota, Duluth
University of Missouri, Columbia
University of Nevada – Las Vegas
University of Nevada, Reno
University of New Hampshire
University of New Mexico
University of New Orleans
University of North Florida
University of North Texas
University of Oklahoma
University of Ottawa
University of Puget Sound
University of San Francisco
University of South Carolina
University of St. Thomas, Houston
University of Tennessee, Chattanooga
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
University of Texas, San Antonio
University of Toledo
University of Toronto, St. George
University of Tulsa
University of Victoria
University of Waterloo
University of Windsor
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
University of Wyoming
Valencia College
Virginia Commonwealth University
Washington and Jefferson College
Washington and Lee University
Washington College
Washington State University
Wayne State University
Webster University
West Virginia University
Western Michigan University
Western Washington University
Westminster College
Wheaton College
Widener University
Wilfrid Laurier University
William Paterson University
Wittenberg University
Wofford College
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
York College of Pennsylvania
Griffin wrote:
“My view is that each racial group should be given the percentage of the student body that they are of the national population. For example, blacks are 13% of American society, so they should compete for 13% of the spots.”
I am surprised that Griffin did not discuss much better reimbursed profession (in comparison with university graduates): members of National Basketball Association.
Shouldn’t representation in this noble profession also “be given to the percentage of [ that ] body that they are of the national population. For example, blacks are 13% of American society, so they should compete for 13% of the spots” ???
Judging by the comments above, the emphasis of Unz’s post was the discrepancy between academic success at High School level, on one hand, and admission probability, on the other; not the percentage of population per se.