April 29, 2001
My daughter has done well enough in the PSAT to trigger the National Merit process, and is receiving a deluge of mail from colleges.
As you know, the brochures are marketing pieces, and so I examine them with a keen eye towards the images that our best universities present to prospective students and parents, as opposed to real picture that lies behind the cold, hard numbers in the standard college catalogues.
The brochures illuminate the difference between what the institutions would have you believe, and what is actually true.
In the competition for student eyeballs, the state universities must be ever on the alert that a copy of any brochure they send out will inevitably end up in the hands of state legislators to whom they report. Thus, I have come to expect institutions that are in fact mostly minority to be essentially truthful in their self-portraits, and picture almost nothing but blacks or Hispanics in their brochures.
I should note parenthetically that my daughter hasn't received a single piece of mail from any of these institutions. I know this only from pictorial guides I have seen and purchased at bookstores.
Likewise, those public institutions that have very few non-whites will also picture mostly blacks and Hispanics in their brochures. For public institutions, whites are simply too controversial to picture in anything approaching proportionate numbers.
Based on the marketing materials, you would think that our nation's colleges and universities were majority black and Hispanic, as opposed to overwhelmingly white and Asian.
About 10 years ago, the contrived look was de-rigueur, with the notorious "one-of-each" shots - visibly improbable random groupings - dominating the literature produced by colleges and universities.
Today, most admissions departments hire marketing consultants and ad agencies, and the "one-of-each" shots are definitely out.
But the true diversity of image comes from the private universities, although curiously, many of the private universities do the same thing as the public universities by presenting an image of a student body that is wildly at odds with the reality. In the majority of cases, what you see in the brochure is precisely the opposite of what you are likely to encounter on campus.
Just one more example of how life in the multi-racial/ethnic state is based on lies.
So it was with particular interest that I started reading a brochure sent by Harvard inviting my daughter to attend a summer school session. On a purely personal level, that is a strange way to market to my daughter. After all, as Harvard knows, she attends an intensely competitive high school, and is taking five AP courses as a junior. She has worked her tail off all year and Harvard thinks she is going to want more during this summer?? Good plan, Harvard!
Frankly, she is better off getting a job and taking a break from the pressures of study.
And, of course, from a parent's perspective, I can't help but notice that Harvard wants to get into my shorts to the tune of about $7,000 for this summer session.
Now this raises all sorts of interesting questions. How many students do you suppose can afford to forgo summer employment and pay Harvard seven thou? Here we have the very citadel of our secular religion of equality, the very epicenter of liberal whining and kvetching against "the rich" and against "the privileged" with a clear message that only the very very rich and very privileged need apply. Nice message, Harvard!
Now it is possible that Harvard matched my daughter's address on the PSAT results tape they purchased from ETS down to the census tract level (about 100 homes) and determined, based on housing values, that her parents were unlikely to take offense at the piece. However, if this brochure was mailed to everyone with comparable test scores, more than half are likely to be offended at the blatant hypocrisy of it.
Further, it is an invitation to students and parents to begin connecting the dots. It is apparent from the other brochures we get that my daughter has an excellent chance of getting academic aid from a number of outstanding schools.
Yet Harvard's pitch is quite different. They want us to pay through the nose. Now the neocons at the Wall Street Journal complain from time to time about the fact that Harvard has no economic reason to be charging tuition at all. It would require only about 5% of just the interest income (and none of the capital gains) from their massive endowment to make tuition free for all students.
Now one of my biggest complaints about my fellow descendants of European Christendom is that they seem instinctively incapable of making what appear to me to be fairly obvious logical connections.
So let's begin the process of connecting the dots!
If Harvard doesn't have an economic reason for their money grubbing ways, then perhaps there is a compelling non-economic reason.
There are approximately 45,000 (((270m/60)*.5)*.02)) students each year with scores that would place them in the top half of Harvard's freshman class. Of these, Harvard gets only 800 per year (total class size 1600). Substitute .01 for the final multiplier above and you are very nearly down to the group receiving national merit awards, of whom Harvard gets about 450 per year. Obviously, eliminating tuition would increase the percentage of top students accepting Harvard's admissions offer, and thus allow Harvard to upgrade the academic quality of its student body, if that were its objective. So scratch academic achievement. That objective isn't on the table.
But then an obvious side effect of eliminating tuition would be intensified competition for the available seats at Harvard from bright middle class students who now flock to the honors programs at state universities because of price. Free tuition would invite intense parental scrutiny of exactly what criteria Harvard does use for its admissions. Now that isn't to say that my fellow American descendants of European Christendom would necessarily learn to connect the dots, but it would present a distinct risk by increasing the motivation to do so.
So what is the real objective?
For clues lets analyze the published numbers concerning Harvard's racial and ethnic composition as set forth in Diversity's Losers - Part II. updated to the present time.
Harvard claims that its undergraduate student body is 45% "white". Hillel's guide to campus life states that Harvard's undergraduate student body is 25% inner party. That leaves about 20% for the children of American Descendants of European Christendom. It is unclear what percentage of that residue of "white" is taken by offspring of inner party mixed marriages, which ran at a rate in excess of 50% 20 years ago, and how much is taken by children of non-citizens, including wealthy Turkish, Arabic, and Latin American elites.
In the U.S., the American descendants of European Christendom are 70% of the population and have about 55% of the children described in the test categories above. Based on population, we are under-represented by a factor of 3.5 times, and based on our numbers at the relevant IQ and test score levels, by a factor of 2.7 times. Good show, Harvard!
Couple the above statistical information about Harvard's undergraduate student body with data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth which shows that the median income of American Descendants of European Christendom is far less at each level of IQ than the median incomes of Inner party, blacks and Hispanics of the same IQ, and you have a clear reason why Harvard may wish to be a stickler about money.
For the truth is that the American Descendants of European Christendom simply do not have the incomes and assets to send their children to Harvard. High tuition guarantees that uniform admissions standards will result in disproportionate rates of acceptance by inner party kids with parents who can afford the tuition. In addition, high tuition gives Harvard the flexibility to use financial aid to engineer the complexion of the remainder of its student body in the manner that they prefer, even as Harvard diligently propagates the myth that it is the American Descendants of European Christendom who are disproportionately and unjustly "rich" and "privileged".
The critical point here is that a loan is not really financial aid.
Borrowing money to go to a college means that you are paying full freight plus interest. A loan is no financial aid at all.
Like most schools, Harvard deceptively lumps its lending activity as well as campus work programs together with real financial aid in its public disclosures in the Barron's guide, making it appear that over 65% of the students receive financial aid. Absent this deceptive form of disclosure, they would get far fewer applications and their competitiveness rating would suffer. However, Harvard does not disclose the percentage that get real financial aid - tuition discounts commonly known as "scholarships".
The proof of demographic engineering is in the final results.
Indeed, Harvard has been doing this for a long time, as two of my wife's brothers were offered admission to Harvard, but were denied need-based tuition discounts or "scholarships" despite the most compelling of need-based circumstances. One actually borrowed the money and attended, while the other accepted a "full ride" at my alma mater instead.
Interestingly, while the Harvard grad and I do not discuss politics, it is nevertheless clear that the real education he picked up at Harvard wasn't quite what Harvard intended, as I recall distinctly some very pointed remarks he made to his inner party fiancee while my wife an I were visiting at her Park Avenue apartment. In response to one of her fairly standard observations about economic inequality and injustice in our society, he countered that all the rich people he had ever met were, like her, from West Judea.
She seemed strangely excited by this abuse, as perhaps it made her rebellious attempt to hop on the Aryanizing train all the more authentic and daring. As I have mentioned in previous essays, much of the inner party has imprinted upon a sexual aesthetic that makes them modern day "sondercommando" in their own disappearance or transformation, however you may prefer to view it. But I digress again.
In any event, extensive political discussion with this brother-in-law simply isn't needed, as it is clear that he and I view our World through similar lenses.
Whatever else may be true about Harvard, they are remarkably adroit about creating the smokescreen that enables them to indulge their passion for demographic engineering to the disadvantage of the American Descendants of European Christendom. Sadly, it is a deception that seems to work, except of course on those who have had some actual contact with the place.
Now a curious thing appears to be happening within our empire's higher education system.
For the past four years, I have attended all four of the academic awards ceremonies at my daughter's high school. It is clearly one of the best non-magnet public schools in the country as it produces about 20 or so National Merits each year.
Now, wonder of wonders, the printed awards program lists all of these top students individually along with the colleges they are applying to. A treasure trove of valuable data.
And I cannot help but notice that the four Ivies with the highest concentrations of inner party students - Harvard, Columbia, Penn and Yale - have never appeared on the list. Equally curious, students from this high school have applied to and attended Princeton, Cornell and Dartmouth. Wow!
An alumna from Harvard dutifully schleps her Harvard book award to a student at that school every spring, all to no avail.
Equally curious, most of these kids have techie parents who have moved here from other states, so the parents are a geographically diverse group of well-paid engineers and middle managers broadly representative of corporate America. Among these students there is a fairly large contingent of Asians but very few inner party kids. Notably absent is any hint of political leftism among the student body, certainly nothing like what I encountered at the inner party dominated magnet school I attended nearly 40 years ago.
From my observations at the local high school, and from the published data, it has become clear that the advent of co-education has produced unintended consequences, as have so many other items on the universalist-egalitarian agenda.
Nowadays, kids actually visit campuses and see what the students look like. While your kid will never admit it, and indeed may not even be conscious of it, they almost invariably pick a school with large and visible concentrations of kids from the opposite sex whom they would want to date.
The mating mind is rapidly segregating our institutions of higher learning along fairly narrow aesthetic lines.
Overwhelmingly, the American Descendants of European Christendom at this suburban high school select sun belt schools with very high concentrations of students just like themselves. Most of the outstanding students get full rides in highly regarded honors programs maintained by state universities, or at highly regarded private institutions that compete with Harvard and make no secret of the availability of merit based tuition discounts.
A happy marriage of social preference for the kids and economics for the parents. This looks like an unstoppable trend!
It reminds me of one of my late father-in-law's favorite jokes - to the effect that a successful university president need understand only two things - that undergraduates want sex and the faculty wants close-in reserved parking!
The innate and universal preference among all life forms for genetic self-similarity is taking hold with a vengeance on our nation's campuses. While most university administrators are universalist-egalitarians who would very much like to fight that trend, we have too many universities competing for a limited pool of students. Thus, there are practical limitations on the ability of any one university to combat it effectively.
Only a very few have that "luxury".
So, with that background in mind, lets take a look at the Harvard brochure!
The front cover pictures a blond girl and a blond white guy conversing with a second white girl! Not even the slightest nod to our standard image of diversity on the cover.
Not much diversity in the rest of the 22 pages of color photos of what purports to be life at Harvard either. A few scattered Asians and a Brooklyn nebbish with a Brandeis sweatshirt, but that is about it.
Most outlandish is the full page shot of students changing class, which might just as easily have been shot at Miami of Ohio or the University of Edinburg across the pond, for that matter.
Indeed, I search in vain through 22 pages of color photos of life at Harvard for a picture of a black. Wait! On page 3 there is a very small picture of what might be a very light skinned black. Hard to tell for sure as a hat covers much of his face.
There is also a full page shot of a statue of a dead white guy who is very obviously from my very own tribe!
Finally, even the campus radical passing out communist literature has a distinct northern European look that would pass for a typical college Republican on any midwestern campus.
Stunning! And strange, very strange!
When you visit the Harvard campus, you get the distinct feeling that it is a school maintained for United Nations staff along with a sizable yeshiva thrown in for good measure - which is precisely what you would expect given the published numbers.
Now there is no way in hell that I am going to pay Harvard seven grand to present a two month long sales pitch to my daughter! But I would easily pay 500 bucks to be a fly on the wall of the committee which produced that brochure, and maybe a grand to read the mind of the decisionmaker who ultimately approved it for distribution.
Now that would have been a real education!
My first though was that this must be a targeted mailer attempting to portray the Harvard student body in a way that might appeal to my daughter - sent to selected students based on last name and the demographics of the zip code and census tract in which they live.
But that explanation makes no sense. If Harvard wanted more American Descendants of European Christendom, it would simply give more tuition discounts to those admitted or admit more! It gets plenty of applications!
The next step is to test the simple explanation that any consultant hired by Harvard would proffer as an explanation for the pictures selected for this brochure, namely, that nobody is going to sign up for the summer session if you show ugly kids in your brochure. The hair on girls legs and the funny little caps won't pass!
Of course, since Hollywood is in control of the transmission belt for such images in our culture, and those images are well understood by all on the committee, no further explanation of the suggested photographs would be required.
But the problem with the simple explanation is that it assumes the students who actually attend Harvard, unlike the rest of the biological world, and contrary to the trend thoughout the rest of the country, are not attracted by genetic self- similarity and are not repelled to some degree by genetic dissimilarity.
Further, it fails to account for the conspicuous omission of the standard images of diversity that everyone has come to expect in a college mailer - especially from such an impassioned advocate of diversity.
What might they gain by displaying themselves as a non-diverse place?
For clues, we turn to the complaint of Alan Dershowitz, a member of the faculty at Harvard who observes, on page 62 of his tome "The Vanishing American Jew":
"Even in my thirty-plus years of teaching at Harvard, I have seen a significant change: Jewish students are simply not as outstanding as they once seemed to be. As they have become more "normalized" - more accepted, less discriminated against - they have also become less driven, less creative, less obsessed with proving themselves. They are also less compassionate, less willing to identify with the downtrodden than they once seemed to be; although still apparently more than the average person is."
I offer only a hypothesis:
Perhaps Harvard is seeking the kind of student who feels a need to crash through the gates of "white privilege", and will be motivated by a brochure that keeps alive the myth that Harvard is just such a place.
Perhaps Harvard doesn't want the kind of inner party student who is motivated by genetic self similarity - the complacent and satisfied types that flock to the comfortable social terrain they will find at Penn, for example.
Perhaps Harvard realizes, in its deepest collective soul, that the leftist ideological commitment it seeks is utterly dependent on the identification of a racial and ethnic enemy.
Perhaps Harvard realizes that if its target audience discovers that there are no rich wasps at Harvard, (or more accurately, that wasps from any economic strata are so rare at Harvard as to be virtually invisible) they might cease to attend - reasoning like Groucho Marx "that any club that would admit me isn't worth joining."
The hypothesis is consistent also with the summary of student opinion at Harvard published in Princeton Review's guide to the 310 best colleges:
"'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."
Indeed, it is time for professor Dershowitz to despair.
Not only have Harvard's inner party recruits lost their competitive edge, they have lost the ability to read a simple college catalogue and understand the numbers!
Harvard is now admitting retards! How on earth could they be surprised at the heterogeneity of Harvard when the most recent three presidents of Harvard have all been inner party members? Where on earth does Harvard find these kids who sound like they just fell off the turnip truck?
What rock have they all been living under?
Are we to be led by kids who fantasize that battalions of young Republican wasps will be waiting assembled on the quad ready to defend their turf when the published numbers indicate the impossibility of that fantasy?
Most excellent foolishness! Such excellent comic diversion!
Dear reader, like many things in life, the brochure my daughter received in the mail from Harvard will forever remain a mystery.
But the trends I see quite clearly in the admissions data indicate that Harvard has lost is grip over a very wide and important population group in this American Empire - both parents and children.
The sweep of history is bypassing them.
I see the brochure as confirmation of weakness - either an expensive but half-hearted and ineffectual attempt to lure back some of what they have lost over the past 30 years; or more likely, a rear guard action to continue to attract students from a shrinking pool of the deluded and paranoid.
And in any event, the stuff you see on this web page is a hell of a lot more original and interesting than anything that has come out of Harvard's Poly Sci department in the past 30 years!
So there it is!!
Any way you slice it, it looks like good news to me.
Back to the White Awakenings Page
(c) 1999 Yggdrasil. All rights reserved. Distribute Freely.