Diversity's Losers - Part II - The Universities

A slogan oft seen on this newsgroup is that "no group loses as a result of diversity." Is the slogan truth or advertising?

This series entitled "diversity's losers" is intended to answer that question.

In this second installment of the series on diversity's losers, we are going to ask two questions:

Who is the under-represented minority?

What does "diversity" really mean?

Let's put some numbers around these terms.

Below is a spreadsheet of the top 15 National Universities from the U.S. News rankings, in order of their ranking.

The Ole Ygg attended one of these universities about 30 years ago, and learned, among other things, that when someone asks for the number of "whites" attending such a university, you must ask "which whites?" The term "white" conjures images of rich wasps who attend exclusive prep schools.

So let's examine the numbers!

How many white gentiles actually attend these elite universities? Are they over-represented or under-represented?

As gatekeepers for access to the most desirable graduate schools and jobs, what definition of "diversity" is being applied? What concept of "Justice" underlies their actions?

When used by these elite institutions, does the term "diversity" mean that all groups are represented in rough proportion to their share in the general population?

Or does "diversity" mean excluding as many white gentiles as is politically possible?

The answer to this question varies by institution.

Courtesy of the Princeton Review, and its publication "Hillel Guide To Jewish Life on Campus," I have listed the enrollments at each university, including undergraduate and graduate schools.

In the next column, you will find the percent of "white" students from The Princeton Review's 1997 "The Best 310 Colleges." These percents were checked against those published in Barron's 1997 "Profiles of American Colleges."

Again, courtesy of the Hillel Guide, we have the number of Jews attending each institution. Through the miracle of simple subtraction, we then get the number and percentage of white gentiles attending each of these institutions.

Nationally, blacks constitute 12% of our population, hispanics 9% and asians 3%. Whites are 75% of the population. Jews comprise 2.4% of the population, so non-hispanic white gentiles make up 73% of the total.

If we are really going to have "quotas" and "affirmative action" to correct for statistical imbalances in our institutions, you would expect that black and brown minorities would be preferred until the number of "whites" has fallen to 75%. At that point, we have a "diverse" student body.

But setting aside the question of "which whites" for the time being, not one of the above institutions match the percentage of whites in the population, and only 7 out of 15 on the above list (Yale, Princeton, Duke, Brown, Northwestern, Cornell and Hopkins) have enrollments that are within 10% of the population total of 75% white.

Whites are clearly under-represented at Harvard, MIT, Stanford Dartmouth, CalTech, Columbia, Chicago and Penn, but the numbers do not appear alarming on the surface, given a reasonable margin for group differences in IQ (Jews) and educational effort (Asians).

But are the student bodies at these universities really diverse?

White gentiles, comprising 73% of the general population get only 18% of the seats at Harvard. They are under-represented by a _factor_ of 4 times. If blacks were similarly under-represented at Harvard, they would have only 3% of the seats. In fact, they have 8%.

At Harvard, white gentiles are 3 times more under-represented, relative to their share of the population, than blacks.

When you look at the totals for all 15 schools, you see that white gentiles comprise only 38% of the student population, approximately half their share in the general population.

Jews have an average IQ that is .84 standard deviations above that of white gentiles. The average for white gentiles is 100. For Jews it is 112. Based on this higher average, we would expect them to be represented at a rate of 4 to 5 times their share of the population at the IQ range of 140, which populates Harvard. That means 10 to 12% of the seats, not 27%.

Indeed, CalTech, the school with the highest SAT scores (both verbal and math) and the smartest students, has only 5% Jews.

Thus, it becomes clear that the dramatic differences in percents of white gentiles between CalTech and Princeton at one end of the scale, and Harvard and Columbia, at the other, are based on policy preferences of the institution, and not on the size of the talent pool.

The variation in the numbers of white gentiles between schools demonstrates that these variances are the result of deliberate policy choices made by the particular university.

Below is a spreadsheet setting forth the undergraduate enrollment of each of the above institutions, along with the combined SAT cutoff for the bottom 25%, the average or 50th percentile, and the SAT cutoff for the top 25%.

Indeed, each one of the above institutions has at least a 200 point spread between the 25th percentile and the 75th percentile. In every case except Duke, the average is closer to the cut-off for the bottom 25% than to the top 25%.

This means that, other than Duke, none of the schools maintains a statistically "normal" shaped distribution curve based on talent. Rather, at most of the institutions, you get a group of super-bright kids in the top 25%, with a 100 to 150 point "air pocket" between them and the group that is willing to pay full tuition for prestige. It is a group that tends to cluster around the cutoff for the bottom 25%.

Indeed, this is precisely what an economist would predict. Only those at the bottom of the class accrue benefits from the name on the diploma that equal the value of the tuition payment.

Those in the top 25% at these schools can get full scholarships, if not with the institution they attend, at least with a competing institution or at a leading state institution with a top honors program. There is no reason for any of them to pay tuition.

Every one of these institutions has ample room within their odd distributions of talent to attain their own mix of financial and social objectives. With two exceptions, enrolling a representative number of white gentiles is obviously no longer one of those objectives.

The above numbers give you clear evidence that the clamor for "diversity" is really, in the minds of more than half of our elite institutions, a call for exclusion of as many white gentiles as is politically possible.

Now you might reasonably assume that the elite schools are small, and it does not really matter what they do as long as talented white gentiles are free to attend state schools.

A reasonable position.

However, I have bad news.

"Affirmative Action" is a very important tool in the government's arsenal of force and fraud. The average white thinks that government reserves only 20% of the slots for blacks and browns and that their kids are free to compete for the remainder.

But here is a typical story, from the September 2, 1996 edition of National Review Magazine, page 24:

IN the summer of 1994 Ward Connerly, a new regent of the University of California, was visited by Jerry and Ellen Cook. The Cooks' son, a Phi Beta Kappa undergrad, had been accepted to the combined Harvard/ MIT health sciences program, and was one of two California students admitted to Johns Hopkins Medical School. But he was turned away from the medical school at UC San Diego, just around the block from his home, which he hoped to attend to be near his ailing grandparents. The Cooks couldn't believe it.

It is a story you hear over and over in Newport Beach and other predominantly white gentile suburbs. "My kid had grades and scores well above average for Berkeley/UCLA but was rejected."

Indeed!

Below is a listing of the U.C. System Universities in order of their U.S. News ranking, starting with Berkeley, number 26, and extending through U.C. Santa Barbara, number 46, and then including the two "second tier" Universities, U.C. Riverside and U.C. Santa Cruz.

Non-hispanic whites make up approximately 57% of the population of California. Approximately 53% are non-hispanic white gentiles. Asians are 9.6% of the California population; hispanics, 26% and blacks 7.4%

By statute, the top 12% of all high school students in the state are eligible for admission. The administration in Berkeley reports that 20% of all whites qualify, and 40% of all Asians. Thus, we would expect that whites would be _over-represented_, on all campuses. But instead we find that they are under-represented throughout the U.C. system, but most conspicuously at Berkeley and UCLA.

The question then becomes: where did these whites go? And why aren't there more at Berkeley and UCLA?

To follow the social engineering that is going on, you will need another spreadsheet.

The table above is the same as for the top 15 rated "national" universities, except that I have added a column to indicate the number of students in the top 25%, all of whom would be above the 75th percentile at most of the top 15 national universities. The point of the final column is that the state universities have tens of thousands of students who are academically indistinguishable from the top 75% of students at the top 15 national universities.

You will notice that there is a 250 point spread between the 25th percentile and the 75th percentile at Berkeley. The spread is comparable at each of the other campuses.

But you can also see an enormous overlap between institutions. The top 25% at Davis and Santa Barbara are well above the cut off for the bottom 25% at Berkeley.

There are two critical differences between the University of California and the top 15 national universities. First, there is no economic need for the 200 point spread. U.C. Tuition is only $4000 per year, and not $20,000. Thus, there is no need to lower the standards at Berkeley in order to attract paying students. Many more students can afford to pay $4000 than can afford $20,000.

The second difference is that these campuses are not economic competitors. They are all administered and directed by a single bureaucracy in Berkeley.

If that is so, then why the enormous spreads between the top 25% and the large number of relatively stupid kids in the bottom 25% at Berkeley? Why doesn't Berkeley just admit all the smart kids? Why are there so many relatively stupid ones as well?

The answer is that, unlike the Ivy League schools, where some of the spread is attributable to economic objectives, the huge spread in abilities at Berkeley and UCLA is entirely attributable to social engineering in the U.C. system.

And that should raise alarm bells.

White Californians are incredibly naive if they think that social engineering in the U.C. system will end with the demise of "affirmative action." The degree of social engineering that is going on is massively in excess of what the administration could accomplish with a mere 20% of the slots.

All the demise of "affirmative action" has done is to make the UC Administration scramble for a new explanation of why the numbers are so terribly skewed to the disadvantage of whites.

And indeed, the massive under-representation of white gentiles in the system, and particularly at Berkeley and UCLA, indicates that the administration is arbitrarily rejecting thousands of whites with above average scores for Berkeley and UCLA in the hopes that they will attend one of the other institutions.

Every year Asian students of mixed ancestry, who are aware of the under-representation of whites at Berkeley and UCLA, ask me if they would have a better chance of admission if they claimed to be "white." My answer is always in the form of a question - "What makes you think that they aren't deliberately excluding whites by applying higher standards to whites than asians?" After all, that is the numeric result they are achieving! Who is to say it is not intended?

Do all states behave like California?

Compare the California system results with the University of Texas, the University of Michigan, the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, and Ohio State!

You will notice that the percent of white gentiles at each of these universities is roughly proportionate to the their number in the general population. Michigan and Texas are virtually indistinguishable from Berkeley academically, and the tens of thousands of students in the top 25% at these schools all meet or exceed the qualifications for the top 75% at the top 15 national universities.

The significant difference between these four schools and the California system is that they practice "affirmative action" in the sense that it is understood by white gentiles -- that under-represented groups will be preferred until the percentage of white gentiles is in line with their share of the total population.

But this is not what Jews, Blacks, Mexicans and Asians mean when they use the term "diversity."

Indeed old stereotypes die hard. The Princeton Review's guide to the best 310 colleges has this to say about the student body at Harvard:

"'Brilliant' is the word most often used by Harvard students to describe each other; 'preppy' is the second most common description. Still many students indicated surprise at how heterogeneous the student body here is."

"Preppy" is a term applied to rich WASPs. If there are any at Harvard, it is a tiny minority of less than 18%. The above quote is important because it indicates that in a school dominated by Jews, Asians, Blacks and Browns, no matter how few white gentiles attend, it is still too many.

About the student body at Columbia, the Princeton Review Guide had this to say:

"Students give themselves high marks in ethnic diversity/interaction, and openness/acceptance of alternative lifestyles, all hallmarks of a liberal student body."

Why would students at an institution in which white gentiles are only a third their share of the general population pride themselves on their diversity? If that is true, then the term "diversity" can only be a code word for the absence of white gentiles.

Here is a quote from Princeton Review's discussion of UC Santa Barbara, a school which is 55% white gentile:

"'Warning: Everyone here is blond,' is how a UCSB student characterizes his classmates...Adds an Asian Student, 'This school is not ethnically diverse at all, but I'm getting used to it.'"

At best, one out of 10 UCSB students will be blonde.

But in the eyes of a typical Asian student, a school with 55% white gentiles is "not ethnically diverse at all."

This means that Asian (Jewish, Black, Mexican) students are uniformly uncomfortable on a campus with more than a token number of whites. Any more than 10% whites and the school is not "diverse."

This meaning of the term "diversity" is very important.

Whenever minorities lobby for diversity efforts in college admissions or in employment, whites imagine that they mean "proportionate to their share of the population." But the minorities themselves mean that the proportion of whites must be driven down to something like 10%.

Once the EEO police hired by Harvard, Columbia, Stanford or the University of California understand what it takes to make the Asian, Jewish, Black, and Mecha members of their community "comfortable," white gentiles are on their way out.

That is what we hear if we listen.

That is what we see in the numbers.

The portents for White America once their numbers fall to less than 50% are grim indeed.

Yggdrasil-

Back to Main Page

(c) 1996 Yggdrasil. All rights reserved. Distribute Freely.