Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us 350 times …
General
Ron Unz on Meritocracy: Non-Jewish Whites as the Most Underrepresented Group at Elite Universities
Editor’s note: I just posted an Ann Coulter column on the legacy admission issue which has become a big deal in the wake of the SCOTUS affirmative action ruling. It’s an interesting article but doesn’t separate out Jews from non-Jewish Whites. Here Ron Unz fills that void. It was always an interesting question whether Jews would support affirmative action for Blacks and Hispanics, the two underperforming racial categories.
Black-Jewish interests diverged when affirmative action and quotas for Black college admission became a divisive issue in the 1970s.[1] It was not only neoconservatives who worried about affirmative action: The main Jewish activist groups—the AJCommittee, the AJCongress, and the ADL—sided with Allan P. Bakke in a landmark case on racial quota systems in the University of California–Davis medical school, thereby promoting meritocracy and presumably assuming Jews would benefit from such a policy. However, in recent years mainstream Jewish groups such as the AJCommittee have supported some forms of affirmative action, as in the 2003 University of Michigan case, and in the recent Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action in which Asians were the plaintiffs, the ADL sided with Harvard, claiming there was no evidence of quotas at Harvard.
Therefore it’s interesting that Ron Unz has shown that, although the representation of non-Jewish Whites has declined as a result of affirmative action for Blacks and Latinos, this has not been the case for Jewish representation despite lower academic performance as measured by scores on the National Merit Scholarship exam. Unz’s paper was cited by the plaintiffs in the case.
Unz’s recent article, Affirmative Action and the Jewish Elephant in the Room, quotes from his original 2012 paper:
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.
Furthermore, the Harvard enrollment changes over the last decade have been even more unusual when we compare them to changes in the underlying demographics. Between 2000 and 2011, the relative percentage of college-age blacks enrolled at Harvard dropped by 18 percent, along with declines of 13 percent for Asians and 11 percent for Hispanics, while only whites increased, expanding their relative enrollment by 16 percent. However, this is merely an optical illusion: in fact, the figure for non-Jewish whites slightly declined, while the relative enrollment of Jews increased by over 35 percent, probably reaching the highest level in Harvard’s entire history. Thus, the relative presence of Jews rose sharply while that of all other groups declined, and this occurred during exactly the period when the once-remarkable academic performance of Jewish high school students seemed to suddenly collapse.
Most of the other Ivy League schools appear to follow a fairly similar trajectory. Between 1980 and 2011, the official figures indicate that non-Jewish white enrollment dropped by 63 percent at Yale, 44 percent at Princeton, 52 percent at Dartmouth, 69 percent at Columbia, 62 percent at Cornell, 66 percent at Penn, and 64 percent at Brown. If we confine our attention to the last decade or so, the relative proportion of college-age non-Jewish whites enrolled at Yale has dropped 23 percent since 2000, with drops of 28 percent at Princeton, 18 percent at Dartmouth, 19 percent at Columbia and Penn, 24 percent at Cornell, and 23 percent at Brown. For most of these universities, non-white groups have followed a mixed pattern, mostly increasing but with some substantial drops. I have only located yearly Jewish enrollment percentages back to 2006, but during the six years since then, there is a uniform pattern of often substantial rises: increases of roughly 25 percent at Yale, 45 percent at Columbia, 10 percent at Cornell, 15 percent at Brown, and no declines anywhere.
[1] Friedman, M. (1995). What Went Wrong? The Creation and Collapse of the Black-Jewish Alliance. New York: Free Press, 72.
Could Somebody Keep Trump’s Promises?
If there is hope for America — and I’m doubtful — it came at 10 a.m. Monday in Eagle Pass, Texas, when Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis unveiled his immigration plan.
Much of the document is strikingly similar to Donald Trump’s immigration plan from waaaaay back in 2016, the only minor exceptions being that DeSantis understands what it says and fully intends to carry it out.
QUESTION: Why is it still possible to run on all of Trump’s immigration promises? If broken promises were bricks, we’d have a wall.
On the wall, DeSantis says: “The left tries to make fun of a border wall, but walls work. Israel built a 152-mile-long fence along its border with Egypt. Once completed, illegal crossings dropped by more than 99% year-over-year.” (You’d think with Jared Kushner running the country, someone would’ve remembered that.)
It’s also clear that DeSantis, since he actually served in the military and didn’t evade the draft with a serious case of “bone spurs,” knows that the words “wage WAR on the drug cartels” is not just claptrap to fool the rubes. He promises to confront drug smugglers at the border “with the use of force,” and further “reserves the right to operate across the border to secure our territory from Mexican cartel activities.”
Then there is Heavy D’s magnificent section on anchor babies.
The crackpot idea that children born to illegals are automatically “U.S. citizens” first appeared in the idle musings of Justice William Brennan as dicta — i.e., not part of the court’s holding — in a footnote of a 1982 case. That’s all the authority it took to wreck our country. No court ruling or law passed by Congress has ever conferred citizenship on the kids of illegals. It’s a total con.
Speaking of cons, Trump won the hearts of voters — and the eternal enmity of the media — by promising to torpedo anchor babies (“The anchor baby, it’s over, not going to happen”). But once he became president, he completely forgot about them. That is, until Oct. 30, 2018 — one week before the midterm elections — when he made the grand announcement that he intended to sign an executive order ending the anchor baby scam.
It took more time to say he was going to do it than to just do it. Nonetheless, Trump’s allegation about his future intention was BIG NEWS:
— Exclusive: Trump targeting birthright citizenship with executive order — Axios, Oct. 30, 2018
— Trump eyes ending birthright citizenship with executive order — The Washington Post, Oct. 30, 2018
— President Wants To Use Executive Order To End Birthright Citizenship — The New York Times, Oct. 30, 2018
— Trump announces plan to end birthright citizenship by executive order — Politico, Oct. 30, 2018
And hundreds more in that vein.
Midterms over, the promised executive order went the way of the wall.
Until now. He’s running for president, so guess what he’s promising?
— Trump vows to end birthright citizenship for children of immigrants in U.S. illegally — Reuters, May 30, 2023
The idea that the 14th Amendment had anything to do with illegal aliens is insane. As the Supreme Court has affirmed over and over and over again, the sole purpose of the 14th Amendment — adopted in the wake of the Civil War — was to guarantee the citizenship of former slaves — not future cartel mules.
DeSantis: “This idea that you can come across the border and two days later have a child, and somehow that’s an American citizen? That was not the original understanding of the 14th Amendment.”
MSNBC host and student of the Constitution (It’s racist!) Joy Reid: “Yeah it was.”
In fact, the 14th Amendment didn’t even grant citizenship to American Indians! In Elk v. Wilkins — decided 16 years after ratification of the 14th Amendment — the Supreme Court rejected Elk’s claimed citizenship, finding: “[A]n Indian cannot make himself a citizen of the United States, without the consent and cooperation of the government.”
But now we’re supposed to believe a Mexican can make himself a citizen of the United States without the consent and cooperation of the government, PROVIDED his mother ran across the border when she was 8 1/2 months pregnant.
It’s crazy enough to imagine that the country decided to adopt an amendment granting citizenship to the kids of illegal aliens. But now that we have become a gigantic welfare state, the promise of FREE MONEY to any fleet-footed, pregnant foreigner is a suicide pact.
In 2006 — or about 5 million anchor babies ago — the Los Angeles Times’ star investigative reporter Sam Quinones (more recently, author of The Least of Us) previewed the new country our politicians were designing for us in a story about a Mexican illegal immigrant, Angela Magdaleno, who had just given birth to quadruplets.
That made it 10 anchor babies for Angela and her husband, Alfredo Anzaldo, also an illegal, who had three additional children with two other women.
Shockingly, Alfredo was unable to support his wife and 13 children on a maximum salary of $400 a week as a carpet installer. Nonetheless, before the quadruplets, Angela had given birth to triplets, at age 36, after undergoing an operation to reverse her tubal ligation and taking gargantuan amounts of fertility drugs — because her husband wanted a son.
The U.S. taxpayer was on the hook for her fertility treatments and multiple pregnancies. Also the free school lunches, subsidized housing and $700 a month in Social Security payments. Not to mention 100% of the health care needs of this very pricey family.
Four of Angela’s anchor babies were born underweight, one with hydrocephalus. The hydrocephalic kid had already undergone three taxpayer-funded brain operations “and will require several more,” Angela observed.
Neither Angela nor Alfredo spoke English, despite having lived in this country for 22 and 28 years, respectively. Nor did their teenage children.
Two of Angela’s illegal alien sisters — out of 10 siblings in the country illegally — had already fled California for Lexington, Kentucky, because, as one of them said, there were “fewer Mexicans there.” The sister raved about Kentucky, saying, “We’re in a state where there’s nothing but Americans,” citing the clean streets, police presence and lack of gang activity.
She’s right! Doesn’t it sound lovely? But unless DeSantis is our next president, soon she won’t be able to find a place like that anywhere on Planet Earth.
COPYRIGHT 2023 ANN COULTER
O’Keefe Media: BlackRock Recruiter Who ‘Decides People’s Fate’ Says ‘War is Good for Business’ While Spilling Info on Asset Giant
$10 trillion in assets under management by a company with major Jewish involvement (headed by Larry Fink) and committed to ESG. What could go wrong?
TRUMP IS THE MEDIA’S NEW DAVID DUKE
The media are so desperate to get Donald Trump the Republican presidential nomination that they’re acting like the fat lady has sung — and they don’t mean Chris Christie. They refer to Trump exclusively as the “front-runner” and gloatingly note that he’s dominating the polls so they can sneer at Republican voters for their cultlike devotion to a psychopath.
Trump is the David Duke of this election cycle. The media’s usual attack on Republican presidential candidates is to tar them with Duke, endlessly asking them to “disavow” him, despite the fact that they don’t know Duke, have never mentioned him and, for all anyone knows, he died several years ago.
This year, every Republican candidate has to answer endless questions about Trump.
Interviewing former Vice President Mike Pence on “Meet the Press” this past weekend, literally every question Chuck Todd asked was about Trump. Why are you running against Trump? Were the midterms about Trump? What do you think about Trump’s position on abortion? What do you think about Trump’s position on Social Security? What do you think about Trump’s position on Ukraine? Should Trump’s trial be completed before the election? What if Trump is found guilty? OK, let’s move off Trump and talk about your campaign. Do Trump supporters like you?
We get it, media. You dearly want Republicans to nominate him again so you can kick back and enjoy the GOP’s fourth consecutive loss.
Apparently, the media haven’t noticed, but Trump’s current status is: Wicked Witch of the West After Having Bucket of Water Dumped on Her.
A list of the first 5,000 things voters care about does not include Trump. How about the open border, spiraling crime, fentanyl, homelessness, deaths of despair, inflation, jobs going to foreign workers, cities and states collapsing under the invasion by illegals, boys in girls’ sports, bathrooms, prisons and sororities?
The excuse that Trump is THE FRONT-RUNNER is preposterous. Polls 17 months before an election have as much predictive power as sticking your finger in the wind to determine what the weather will be on Boxing Day 2038. Until the voting starts — or at least until the debates begin — presidential polls are nothing but name-recognition contests.
Was every Republican required to stake out a position on Elizabeth Dole in 1999? One year before the 2000 election, Dole, the wife of the prior Republican presidential nominee, was nearly tied in polls with front-runner George W. Bush, son of the prior Republican president.
In 2007, the year before the next contested Republican presidential primary, poll after poll showed that the undisputed front-runner was world-famous former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Forty-four percent of Republicans said he had the best chance of winning and was the most “likable.” Actor Fred Thompson was in second place.
In December 2011, Newt Gingrich was far and away the leading contender for the 2012 presidential nomination, with Republicans favoring him 37% to Mitt Romney’s 22%.
In the end, I got as many delegates as Dole and Giuliani did. Gingrich won only two primaries — South Carolina and his home state of Georgia — coming in behind Ron Paul. President Thompson got nine delegates.
At this stage, most people aren’t paying attention to politics and have no idea who’s even running. They know (and care) as much about politics as I do about professional football. Pollsters will tell you that people think polls are IQ tests and they’re trying to get the answer right. Trump — wasn’t that guy president?
In a poll two months ago, 11% admitted to never having heard of Ron DeSantis. In another poll, 22% admitted to not having heard “enough” about DeSantis to have an opinion. Nobody hasn’t heard of Trump.
As the cliche goes, “The only poll that matters is the one taken on Election Day.” Not to be persnickety, but not one Republican has cast a vote yet. And based on the last three election cycles, it appears that actual voters would prefer any Republican to Trump.
Before the 2018 midterms, Trump said — accurately — that the elections were “a referendum about me.” Result: total wipeout. Democrats picked up 41 House seats, returning Nancy Pelosi to the speakership.
In 2020, there was a red wave everywhere — except for Trump. Across the nation, down-ballot Republicans got more votes than the incumbent president. In Texas, for example, Sen. John Cornyn won more votes than Trump — the first time a senator has bested a presidential candidate of the same party in two decades. Similarly, in California’s conservative Orange County, 10% of voters were ticket-splitters, supporting GOP congressional candidates but voting for Joe Biden as president.
In 2022, the terrible, awful, rotten midterms for the GOP, Republicans running for the House actually won the popular vote. According to The New York Times’ Nate Cohn, they improved upon Trump’s 2020 performance in nearly every state — including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia and Nevada.
How could Republicans win the popular vote in the House races in these states, but not pick up Senate seats?
Only one reason: Trump’s ridiculous candidates, whom he chose based on their commitment to making the “stolen” 2020 election a central campaign issue — Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania, Kari Lake in Arizona, Herschel Walker in Georgia and Adam Laxalt in Nevada.
In each of those states, Republican House candidates won more votes than the Democrats. The GOP could have run an AI-generated “generic Republican” and won the Senate races — provided there was no mention of Trump.
Which is exactly why the media won’t stop talking about him.
COPYRIGHT 2023 ANN COULTER
Tucker on the Biden exoneration
As always, Tucker is the best mainstream commenter out there. So far, 10.8 million views, far more than his audience on Fox.
Ep. 5 As in most of the developing world, it's safer to be the president's son than his opponent. pic.twitter.com/AtRRaxYSjs
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) June 20, 2023
The Trump Indictment
Last week’s indictment of Donald Trump is the latest example of why liberals really should have read my book, Resistance Is Futile. Or Aesop’s fable “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” Either one.
After years of making insane accusations against Trump, from Russian collusion to indicting him for misdemeanor record-keeping errors in his blackmail payments to a porn star, liberals finally have him dead to rights committing serious felonies. And no one believes them.
It’s your own fault, liberals.
Much to my surprise, the documents Trump had spirited away to Mar-a-Lago were not cheesy souvenirs appealing to his juvenile sensibility, like Shaquille O’Neal’s shoe or a picture with Kim Kardashian.
No, the documents he’d stuffed in Mar-a-Lago’s ballroom, bathroom and shower (among other highly secure locations) included information about our nuclear weapons programs, the defense capabilities of the U.S. and other countries, potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack, and plans for possible retaliation.
As Trump’s Attorney General Bill Barr said in an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” these were “among the most sensitive secrets the country has.”
Plans to attack Iran drawn up by the Pentagon are NOT — as alleged in Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal five days after the indictment was released — “newspapers, press clippings, letters, notes, cards, [and] photographs [gathered by President Trump].” (Good to see the Dominion lawsuit has forced Murdoch’s companies to start being honest with conservatives!)
In another reminder that Trump defenders need to wait a beat before repeating his claims like trained seals, the government has Trump on audiotape boasting about how incredibly “secret” and “highly confidential” the documents are — as he showed them off to people at his Bedminster Club. “As president I could have declassified it,” he told the non-security-cleared person, “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”
How many Republicans have sworn up and down that Trump had declassified all the papers he removed from the White House? Now he’s on tape admitting that that was a lie.
Trump’s excuses — I declassified all of them! I complied with the Presidential Papers Act! It’s a political hit job! — are not only false, but irrelevant to the obstruction of justice counts against him. You can be completely innocent of the underlying charge, but you still have to produce documents in response to a subpoena. If a grand jury requested it, you’d have to produce Shaquille O’Neal’s shoe.
This is a basic requirement of Anglo-Saxon law. Otherwise, targets of investigations would fire up the shredding machines, evidence would disappear, and the legal system would grind to a halt [i.e., exactly what Hillary did].
Just last year, a lawyer in the U.K. was ordered to pay more than $700,000 for telling an IT manager to “burn” a message app in response to a search warrant for electronic communications. He wanted the messages destroyed for purely personal reasons, having nothing to do with the case.
But as an Above the Law column remarked at the time: “[H]ere’s a free tip [to lawyers] that is guaranteed to make your practice better: don’t tell clients to ‘burn’ evidence — yes, even if the contents are potentially embarrassing.”
Trump’s argument that he had a right to hide these documents from the government is the equivalent of Democrats’ “EVERYBODY DOES IT!” defense of Bill Clinton’s perjury in the Paula Jones case. (Fine, you’ve convinced me: All Democrats engage in oral sex with interns young enough to be their daughters.)
Like Trump, Clinton thought the underlying lawsuit against him was a political hit job, nobody’s business, his “private life.” So he perjured himself dozens of times during his sworn deposition.
After a DNA-stained blue dress proved he’d lied under oath, every single Supreme Court justice boycotted Clinton’s next state of the union address. They’d react the same way to Trump’s obstruction today. You can’t have a legal system if people lie under oath and defy subpoenas. It’s unfathomable that a president or ex-president would do these things.
Clinton’s criminal case ended with a deal. In exchange for not going to trial, he (finally) produced a “forthright admission that he gave false testimony under oath” — as The Washington Post put it — accepted a five year suspension of his law license, paid $25,000 in fees, and agreed not to request reimbursement of his legal fees. He also paid Paula Jones $850,000 and another $90,000 to her lawyers for contempt, described by The New York Times as “part of the unprecedented finding of contempt of court against a President of the United States by a Federal judge.”
Trump’s case could end with something like that, or it could end with a report, reciting his crimes, but declining to prosecute, as happened to Hillary.
But it won’t, principally because prosecuting Trump helps Biden get reelected by revving up the Trump crazies, and — with any luck — winning him the nomination, rather than a sane person who could point out that Joe is visibly decomposing before our eyes, Kamala is an imbecile, and their combined track record is appalling.
Trump’s argument isn’t that he didn’t do it, but deflection. What about Hillary? What about Hunter Biden? It’s a double standard!
YOU DIDN’T ALREADY KNOW THERE WAS A DOUBLE STANDARD???
Any Republican who thought he could get away with doing something illegal because Democrats did it first is too stupid to be our champion, much less the Republican nominee for president.
You want to do something about the double standard, right-wingers? Run someone who enrages the left by winning, not by constantly creating legal messes benefiting no one but himself.
COPYRIGHT 2023 ANN COULTER
Also available at Barnes & Noble
Also available at Barnes & Noble
