Thursday, June 19, 2014

Elite white universities discriminate against Asians using reverse "affirmative action"

"In those days, if you were black, you were starting," 
--Connie Hawkins on the NBA's "informal" white quota designed to keep out better qualified, more talented black players so whites could have more slots..

Came across this excellent analysis by conservative Ron Unz, showing that elite white universities discriminate against Asians using reverse "affirmative action" to keep out "too many" Asians. This phenomenon has been largely swept under the rug by white elites and Asians compradors, but the average Asian parent raised protests when California state policy threatened recently to restore AA "quotas" that freeze out Asians.

This pattern is reminiscent of what blacks endured in the early NBA. As credible histories show, on into the 1960s NBA teams used "informal" white quotas to limit the number of blacks playing, with the result that more talented, more skillful, harder working black players were frozen out of lineups so lesser whites could get team slots. Sometimes the "informal" white quotas extended to starting lineups. As old-line NBA legend Connie "The Hawk" Hawkins  said on his biography: "In those days, if you were black, you were starting," going on to say that team rosters that could have been filled with good black players, were reserved for more mediocre whites and only a few black "stars" were allowed- in starting lineups. 

It was a shrewd strategy. How could anyone make a discrimination case if you had 1 or 2 black guys starting? As team owners figured out, few people looked at the bench and at depth charts. Elite white colleges and their supporters have used a similar "rope a dope" obfuscation strategy. The quota systems so obsessed over by the white masses have a dual purpose. It is not merely handing a few quota slots to blacks and browns (note there are those blacks and browns who don't need quotas by the way), but quota systems also LIMIT the number of better qualified Asians, to the benefit of white people. And the real good bonus about this strategy is that the spotlight can be turned on black scapegoats if things get ugly.

Unz's analysis is solid - as the excerpt below indicates. The full article is shown here:

<> BEGIN EXCERPT----------------------------

Asian Quotas in the Ivy League? "We See Nothing! Nothing!"

Democrats in the California State Legislature had unanimously backed SCA-5, a proposed 2014 ballot measure intended to repeal Prop. 209 and thereby restore Affirmative Action, banned in 1996. Since the 1990s, California had effectively become a one-party Democratic state, and many expected the voters would roll back that controversial legacy of the Pete Wilson Era. Every Asian in the Legislature is a Democrat and every Asian had supported the repeal without hesitation.

But once word of the proposal filtered out into the general Asian-American community, massive opposition spontaneously erupted, and within three weeks nearly 120,000 Asians had signed an electronic petition denouncing the proposal. Their intense hostility centered on the restoration of racially-conscious admissions policies for the prestigious state university system, reflecting their widespread belief that this would eventually result in the establishment of “Asian Quotas,” denying Asian students an equal chance for admission to public universities.

When over a hundred thousand individuals unexpectedly join a grassroots protest, politicians pay attention and within a few days every Asian legislator had reversed course and declared opposition to the measure. California Asians are a core Democratic constituency, usually backing that party’s candidates in the 75% range, and the stunned Democratic leadership quickly tabled the suddenly divisive proposal, which threatened to split their electoral base.

During the weeks that have followed, liberal advocates of Affirmative Action policies argued that Asian-American fears of a looming Asian Quota were totally mistaken, the product of dishonest conservative propaganda and misleading coverage in the ethnic media. Indeed, these were exactly the arguments advanced by two of my fellow panelists, OiYan Poon of Loyola University and Robert Teranishi of UCLA. But although my presentation did not focus on the particulars of the recent California controversy, I think I demonstrated the underlying roots of the concern that had so galvanized the Asian community.

In late 2012 I had published The Myth of American Meritocracy, a lengthy critique of the admissions policies of America’s elite academic institutions. One of my central points was the overwhelming statistical evidence for the existence of “Asian Quotas” at Harvard, Yale, and the other elite Ivy League schools.

Over the last twenty years, America’s population of college-age Asians has roughly doubled and Asian academic achievement has reached new heights, but there has been no increase whatsoever in Asian enrollment in those elite universities and indeed substantial declines at Harvard and several other Ivies. Meanwhile, other top colleges such as Caltech that admit students based on a strictly meritocratic and objective standard have seen Asian numbers increase fully in line with the growth of the Asian population. These results were summarized in one of my graphs, soon afterward republished in a contentious New York Times symposium inspired by my findings.


(The public ethnic and gender enrollment history for Harvard and every other American university is now conveniently available on our website).

Ivy League schools admit their students by a totally opaque and subjective process, only somewhat related to academic performance or other objective factors, and leading American journalists such as Pulitzer-Prize winner Daniel Golden have documented the powerful evidence that this system is laced with favoritism and even outright corruption. In recent years, Asian enrollments at all the Ivies have converged to a very narrow range and remained relatively constant from year to year, a remarkably suspicious result that seems strongly suggestive of an implicit Asian Quota. Indeed, the statistical evidence for a present-day Asian Quota is arguably stronger than that for the notorious Jewish Quota of the Ivies during the 1920s and 1930s, the existence of which was widely denied at the time by university administrators but is now universally accepted.

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, there had been widespread accusations of a similar policy of anti-Asian bias in admissions at the University of California system, but the passage of Prop. 209 outlawed the use of racial factors in admissions, and recent statistics indicate that Asian students are now admitted to leading UC campuses closely in line with their academic performance and without any numerical ceiling on their numbers. Asian parents in California can see with their own two eyes obvious evidence of an Asian Quota at most of America’s top national universities leading to their deep concern that a similar policy might eventually return to the University of California campuses.

Furthermore, Asian elected officials, Asian activists, and most Asian-American advocacy groups have kept silent on the likely existence of Asian Quotas at elite universities, thereby squandering any credibility they might have had during the contentious California debate. My own long article ran over eighteen months ago and despite its original publication in a magazine with a tiny circulation, quickly accumulated over 200,000 pageviews while the analysis was soon widely discussed in the New York Times and numerous other prominent publications. Indeed, Times columnist David Brooks ranked the piece as perhaps the best American magazine article of the year. But not a single Asian officeholder or traditional advocacy group took any notice or made any effort to hold the Ivies accountable on a matter of greatest concern to their own community.

In my writings, I have repeatedly noted that although the Ivies freely release their ethnic admissions and ethnic enrollment statistics, they refuse to release their ethnic application totals, data which is freely provided by the University of California and other universities. I strongly suspect that the reason for such reticence is that admission rates for Asians have plummeted relative to all other groups during the last twenty years, a necessary consequence of a determined effort to sharply restrict Asian numbers even while the Asian population has doubled. Asian elected officials or prominent activists could easily apply enormous pressure on the Ivies to release this simple data, but not a single one has chosen to do so.

Such timidity is far from surprising. Most prominent Asian activists are either affiliated with universities or have close ties with individuals who are. Regularly denouncing the perceived misdeeds of “white supremacists,” rightwingers, or even merely Republicans is an easy position to take given that those groups possess negligible influence within the academic community. But Harvard University and its peers dominate higher education like a colossus, and leveling criticism against such targets is hardly conducive to academic career advancement. Thus Asians found in ethnic studies departments readily seek out the most obscure and insignificant examples of anti-Asian discrimination in throughout the wider world but remain totally silent about the massively visible biases in the most prestigious portions of their own academy.

To date, the stonewalling of the Ivies on this issue has largely succeeded and the entire topic has disappeared from the mainstream media and public discussion, although ordinary Asians remain just as unhappy as ever about the obvious racial discrimination their children face in applying to most elite universities. Unless either the media or prominent political figures begin putting pressure on Harvard and its fellow elite universities to reveal their ethnic admissions rates, I see no likelihood that this situation will change. And ordinary Asian families will become more and more doubtful that their interests are being represented either in government or in the media. Hence the backlash over SCA-5.

<> END EXCERPT ---------------------------

What's behind the seeming paradox of whites supposedly "giving away" stuff to blacks so "generously?"

Unz's analysis helps explain the mystery of why white universities would SEEMINGLY "hurt" white student admissions with so-called "quotas for blacks" and other non-Asian minorities. Assorted "HBD" types explain it all as evil "liberal do-goodism" and "white guilt" or "self-hate." But a true "race realist understands the REAL white game.

While knee-jerk head count admissions may have begun as a "response" to ghetto unrest and activism in the 1960/ 1970s, those times are long gone, and in any event were closely controlled and limited. White people today are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. The so-called "quotas for blacks" are a smokescreen whites may be using to LIMIT ASIAN NUMBERS, via admission formulas that allow whites to gain slots on things other than strict test scores.

For example, lets say you get extra points for "community service"or "civic engagement." While all those
Asian kids are grinding away and going to cram schools solely for the best test score number, the extra points given for "civic engagement" will favor whites, who typically, on the average, can show more of such extracurricular activity. These extra point can tip an admission slot towards a more "well rounded" white candidate, beating out the Asian with a higher number. "Community service" might be only one such "tipping" factor. There are other factors that weigh in college admissions- including Essay writing, Teacher recommendation, Counselor recommendation, Class rank, Portfolio, Extracurricular activities, Work and so on. These factors have helped SOME black candidates build up enough points for admission, but they ALSO work in favor of whites to cut back on Asian slots. Think about it. Why would white people be so incredibly generous as to hurt their own via this wave of "black quotas" alleged by assorted right wingers? They aren't- for 3 reasons:

1) The number of black students admitted under quotas is small and AA quotas have been carefully controlled and limited since the 1970s eg. Bakke. As noted in earlier posts, there is no vast horde of blacks on campus due to "quotas" and quotas are primarily operative on high-end campuses with very few minorities. (Gurin et al 2003. How does Racial/Ethnic Diversity Promote Education? WJBS. 27:1) found that affirmative action exists primarily in hifghly selective colleges that barely have more than 8-10% black students. Such campuses are not where the vast majority, the OTHER 90-92% of black students attend. The famous Hopwood decision of the late 1990s showed that in 1996-97- right before the AA ban by the court, Black enrollments weighed in at an allegedly "massive" 4.7%, of the total enrollment at the elite Texas Law school- hardly the huge wave "swamping white people" assorted propagandists would have us to believe.  And keep in mind that not all blacks admitted to these schools needed quotas. In short, as far as college educations, affirmative action is a minor player for blacks. As far as teachers, affirmative action has been a rather small player there too:

"The catastrophic scenarios conjured by the neo-conservatives and the [Jewish] agencies never came to pass. In fact between 1968 and 1973, blacks' share of total university faculty jobs grew from 2.2 to 2.9 percent; with historically black colleges and universities removed from the calculations, blacks made up only 0.9 percent of the professoriate. Over the next twenty years, black representation among full-time faculty members grew only .05 percent."
-- Mark Major (2010) "Where Do We Go From here,"

2) Admission "point" systems allegedly "helping only" blacks are MORE helping whites, by enabling them to bypass and squeeze ahead of Asians who may post better raw numbers. Unz's analysis suggests that certain elite institutions can manipulate a variety of factors, not because of "guilt" or "self-hate" but to help whites edge out the Asian competition- you know- via that prototypical "well rounded" candidate. Translation: less "narrow" Asian grinders on campus. A similar pattern operated to screen out Jews in years past.

3) Blacks can be used as front-men and scapegoats for the above- taking the heat from assorted bigots, bashers and baiters. In the meantime, behind the scenes, the admission structures are manipulated to hinder or slow down the real competition- Asians.

Assorted hereditarians continually express amazement and puzzlement at why whites are allegedly "hurting themselves" with so-called "giveways to blacks." It makes for a great propaganda narrative- an enemy "Other "to focus anger on- red meat for "the faithful" to fulminate against "the liberals" and "self-hate." But that narrative is for the gullible. As Synnott 2010 below shows- for whites the real competition is Asians, and "Affirmative action" helps cut back on Asians in favor of white alumni/legacy admits. These legacy admits generally perform below regular admittees. If strict merit was used for admissions, many more white people would never make it, and more slots would be taken up by Asians.

Of course its not only the gullible in the mix. Also there are cynical propagandists who know the real facts, but keep churning out distortions and "fake news" to screen the real deal- white profit and benefit. It is like the massive amounts of new government spending that went to schools during the desegregation era. Most of it was pocketed by white school regimes that quickly fired hundreds of black teachers and tore down numerous once thriving black schools - end result: more cash, more facilities and more jobs for mostly white people as the federal largesse flowed.  When the full picture is examined, and the easy propaganda narratives broken down, are white people really "hurting" themselves or helping themselves?

This non-Ivy League man's favorite drink? Why, WATAAAAAAAA!!!!!!


Some gays find welcome home in the 'alt-right' as nationalist organizations step up recruitment

Sowell 3- new data shows backward tropical evolution? Wealth and Poverty- An International Perspective in Trump era

Sowell 2- Wealth, Poverty and Politics- International Perspective - Trump era to bring these issues into sharper focus?

Sowell- Liberal intellectuals and hard questions about race differences- Trump era may force them to focus?

Trump properties discriminated against black tenants lawsuit finds

Stealing credibility- Dinesh D'souza has prison epiphany- after hanging with the homies- Hallelujah Hilary!

Shame on you, and your guilt too- A review of Shelby Steele's 'Shame'

Go with the flow 3- more DNA and cranial studies show ancient African migration to, or African presence in ancient Europe

Go with the flow 2- African gene flow into Europe in various eras

DNA studies show African movement to Europe from very ancient times

Guilt3- Why the "white privilege industry" is not all there

Guilt2- Media collaborates with guilt mongers - or how to play the white victim card

How Obama plays on white guilt

Blacks oppose free speech- more ramshackle "research" from "the East"..

Hands off the Confederate flag

Despite much more wealth than blacks, whites collect about the same rate of welfare and are treated more generously

African "boat people" ushering in European demographic decline

The forgotten Holocaust- King Leopold's "Congo Free State" - 10 million victims

Are violent minorities taking over California and the West?

Presidential hopeful Ben Carson meets and Greeks

Contra "ISIS" partisans, there have been some beneficial effects of Christianity

The social construction of race, compared to biology- Graves

Why HBD or hereditarianism lacks credibility

Leading Scientists criticize hereditarian claims

Thai me down - Thais fall behind genetically related southern Chinese, Tibetans below genetically related East Asians like Koreans and other Chinese

Time for liberals to respect "the south" ... in a way of speaking.. the south of Egypt that is..

Irony 2: touted High IQ "G-men" cannot reproduce themselves

Race, IQ, and Wealth: What the facts tell us about a taboo subject By Ron Unz

Evolution, brain size, and the national IQ of peoples ... - Jelte Wicherts 2010

Why national IQs do not support evolutionary theories of intelligence - WIcherts, Borsboom and Dolan 2010
Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 91-96
----------------------------- -------------

Are intelligence tests measurement invariant over time? by JM Wicherts - ?2004
 --Dolan, Wicherts et al 2004. Investigating the nature of the Flynn effect. Intelligence 32 (2004) 509-537

---------------- -------


Race and other misadventures: essays in honor of Ashley Montagu... By Larry T. Reynolds, Leonard Lieberman

Race and intelligence: separating science from myth. By Jefferson M. Fish. Routledge 2002. See Templeton's detailed article referenced above also inside the book
---------------- -------

Oubre, A (2011) Race Genes and Ability: Rethinking Ethnic Differences, vol 1 and 2. BTI Press
For summary see:
---------------- -------


--S OY Keita, R A Kittles, et al. "Conceptualizing human variation," Nature Genetics 36, S17 - S20 (2004)

--S.O.Y. Keita and Rick Kittles. (1997) *The Persistence ofRacial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence. AJPA, 99:3
---------------- -------

Alan Templeton. "The Genetic and Evolutionary significnce oF Human Races." pp 31-56. IN: J. FiSh (2002) Race and Intelligence: Separating scinnce from myth.

 J. FiSh (2002) Race and Intelligence: Separating science from myth.


-------------------------------- ---------------------

Oubre, A (2011) Race Genes and Ability: Rethinking Ethnic Differences, vol 1 and 2. BTI Press

Krimsky, S, Sloan.K (2011) Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture

Wicherts and Johnson, 2009. Group differences in the heritability of items and test scores


--Joseph Graves, 2006. What We Know and What We Don’t Know: Human Genetic Variation and the Social Construction of Race

J. Kahn (2013) How a Drug Becomes "Ethnic" - Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law and Ethics, v4:1

------------------------------------ -----------------

-------------------------------------------- ----------------------------


Elite white universities discriminate against Asians using reverse "affirmative action"

Deteriorating state of white America

Racial Cartels (The Affirmative Action Propaganda machine- part 2

Exploding nonsense: the 10,000 Year Explosion

We need "rational racism"?

The Affirmative Action Propaganda Machine- part 1

Two rules for being "really" black- no white wimmen, no Republican

The Axial age reconsidered

Cannibal seasonings: dark meat on white

"Affirmative Action" in the form of court remedies has been around a long time- since the 1930s- benefiting white union workers against discrimination by employers

Mugged by reality 1: White quotas, special preferences and government jobs

Lightweight enforcement of EEO laws contradicts claims of "flood" of minorities "taking jobs"

Railroaded 3: white violence and intimidation imposed quotas

Railroaded 2: how white quotas and special preferences blockade black progress...

Railroaded 1: How white affirmative action and white special preferences destroyed black railroad employment...

Affirmative action: primary beneficiaries are white women

7 reasons certain libertarians and right-wingers are wrong about the Civil Right Act

Assorted "Role models" debunked

Social philosophy of Thomas Sowell

Bogus "biodiversity" theories of Kanazawa, Ruston, Lynn debunked

JP Rushton, Michael Levin, Richard Lynn debunked. Weaknesses of Jared Diamond's approach.

In the Blood- debunking "HBD" and Neo-Nazi appropriation of ancient Egypt

early Europeans and middle Easterners looked like Africans. Peoples returning or "backflowing" to Africa would already be looking like Africans

 Ancient Egypt: one of the world's most advanced civilizations- created by tropical peoples

Playing the "Greek defence" -debunking claims of Greeks as paragons of virtue or exemplars of goodness

Quotations from mainstream academic research on the Nile Valley peoples


No comments: