Racial Discrimination
against non-Jewish Whites, at American universities - Ron Unz
Newsletter published on November 27, 2018
(1) Racial
Discrimination against non-Jewish Whites, at American universities - Ron
Unz
(2) Top 60 American
Universities - percentage of Jewish students - Hillel News
(1) Racial
Discrimination against non-Jewish Whites, at American universities - Ron
Unz
From israel shamir <israel.shamir@gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Ron Unz <<mailto:ronunz1@gmail.com> ronunz1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 16:29
Subject: American Pravda: Racial Discrimination at Harvard,
by Ron Unz
See the Graph at:
Text at
American Pravda: Racial Discrimination at Harvard
by Ron Unz
22 Oct 2018
[...] Although Jewish names are not nearly as distinctive as
Asian ones, they may usually be determined with reasonable accuracy, and
applying Weyl analysis to a subset of the most absolutely characteristic
ones—such as Goldstein, Silverberg, Cohen, and Kaplan—allows us to statistically
validate the results so obtained.
As I thus analyzed the many dozens of statewide NMS lists, I
soon discovered that Jews were far less heavily represented among America’s
highest-performing students than I had expected, probably constituting no more
than 6% of the national NMS total. The lists of the winners of the top
scholastic competitions I had previously examined for Asians produced reasonably
similar results.
Hispanic names are quite distinct and blacks are fewer in
number and somewhat less successful academically, so the NMS totals for those
two groups are also not difficult to determine. Once we subtract the totals of
Asians, Jews, Hispanics, and blacks, what remains is the NMS total of non-Hispanic white Gentiles. And the
results were extremely eye-opening:
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.
Several graphs from my article effectively illustrated these
remarkable findings.
Based on these figures, Jewish students were roughly 1,000% more
likely to be enrolled at Harvard and the rest of the Ivy League than white
Gentiles of similar ability. This was an absolutely astonishing result given
that under-representation in the range of 20% or 30% is often treated by courts
as powerful prima facie evidence of racial discrimination.
Furthermore, I noted the possibility that this discrepancy
might be related to the overwhelming Jewish dominance of the top administration
of those institutions:
It would be unreasonable to ignore the salient fact that this
massive apparent bias in favor of far less-qualified Jewish applicants coincides
with an equally massive ethnic skew at
the topmost administrative ranks of the universities in question, a
situation which once again exactly parallels Karabel’s account from the 1920s.
Indeed, Karabel points out that by 1993 Harvard, Yale, and Princeton all had presidents of Jewish ancestry,
and the same is true for the current presidents of Yale, Penn, Cornell, and
possibly Columbia, as well as Princeton’s president throughout during the 1990s
and Yale’s new incoming president, while all three of Harvard’s most recent
presidents have either had Jewish origins or a Jewish spouse.
At most universities, a provost is the second-ranking
official, being responsible for day-to-day academic operations. Although
Princeton’s current president is not Jewish, all seven of the most recent
Princeton provosts stretching back to 1977 have had such ancestry, with several
of the other Ivies not being far behind. A similar degree of massive
overrepresentation is found throughout the other top administrative ranks of the
rest of the Ivy League, and across American leading educational institutions in
general, and these are the institutions which select our future national
elites.
Since the publication of my 2012 article, Harvard and Princeton have both selected
new presidents, each of them Jewish, while Yale’s Jewish president has remained
in office.
The exact mechanism by which this seemingly enormous bias in
favor of Jewish applicants to our most elite colleges manifests itself is not
entirely clear, and I very doubt that it takes the crude form of top
administrators directing admissions officers to enroll under-qualified Jewish
applicants. Instead, I strongly suggested that a leading factor was the “negative pressure” of America’s
overwhelmingly Jewish media and Jewish activist groups, which might respond
harshly to any significant decline in Jewish numbers:
Meanwhile, any hint of “anti-Semitism” in admissions is
regarded as an absolutely mortal sin, and any significant reduction in Jewish
enrollment may often be denounced as such by the hair-trigger media. For
example, in 1999 Princeton discovered that its Jewish enrollment had declined to
just 500 percent of parity, down from more than 700 percent in the mid-1980s,
and far below the comparable figures for Harvard or Yale. This quickly resulted
in four front-page stories in the Daily Princetonian, a major article in the New
York Observer, and extensive national coverage in both the New York Times and
the Chronicle of Higher Education. These articles included denunciations of
Princeton’s long historical legacy of anti-Semitism and quickly led to official
apologies, followed by an immediate 30 percent rebound in Jewish numbers. During
these same years, non-Jewish White
enrollment across the entire Ivy League had dropped by roughly 50 percent,
reducing those numbers to far below parity, but this was met with media silence
or even occasional congratulations on the further “multicultural” progress of
America’s elite education system.
I suspect that the combined effect of these separate
pressures, rather than any planned or intentional bias, is the primary cause of
the striking enrollment statistics that we have examined above. In effect,
somewhat dim and over-worked admissions officers, generally possessing weak
quantitative skills, have been tasked by their academic superiors and media
monitors with the twin ideological goals of enrolling Jews and enrolling
non-whites, with any major failures risking harsh charges of either
“anti-Semitism” or “racism.” But by inescapable logic maximizing the number of
Jews and non-whites implies minimizing the number of non-Jewish Whites.
I further noted that this 1999 firestorm of media controversy
attacking Princeton for its alleged “anti-Semitism” took place at a time when
university’s president and provost were both Jewish, and the campus had recently
opened a $4.5 million Center for Jewish Life. [...]
(2) Top 60 American
Universities - percentage of Jewish students - Hillel News
by Hillel News |Mar 15, 2018|
Applying to colleges isn't easier, but we're here to help you
narrow
down your choices. Below are the lists of the 2015 top
schools Jews
choose, as published in the Hillel College Guide Magazine and
on
Hillel’s College Guide web page.
Top 60 Schools Jews Choose (A breakdown by percentage)
The following are the top 60 schools with the largest percentage
of
Jewish students
to the total undergraduate student population
Yeshiva University: 2,714 Jewish students, 100%
Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 158 Jewish students,
100%
American Jewish University: 150 Jewish students, 100%
Brandeis University: 1,600 Jewish students, 44%
Tulane University: 2,815 Jewish students, 41%
Barnard College: 850 Jewish students, 33%
Goucher College: 450 Jewish students, 31%
University of Hartford: 1,500 Jewish students, 29%
Boston University: 5,000 Jewish students, 28%
Sarah Lawrence College: 400 Jewish students, 28%
CUNY, Brooklyn College: 4,000 Jewish students, 28%
Binghamton University: 3,700 Jewish students, 27%
University at Albany: 3,500 Jewish students, 27%
George Washington University: 3,000 Jewish students, 26%
Oberlin College: 750 Jewish students, 26%
Muhlenberg College: 613 Jewish students, 25%
Queens College: 4,000 Jewish students, 25%
Columbia University: 1,500 Jewish students, 24%
Haverford College: 300 Jewish students, 24%
Washington University: 1,750 Jewish students, 23%
Hampshire College: 325 Jewish students, 23%
Tufts University: 1,200 Jewish students, 22%
Vassar College: 500 Jewish students, 21%
Cornell University: 3,000 Jewish students, 21%
University of Maryland: 5,800 Jewish students, 20%
American University: 1,600 Jewish students, 20%
Emory University: 1,300 Jewish students, 19%
University of Florida: 6,500 Jewish students, 19%
Skidmore College: 500 Jewish students, 19%
University of Miami: 2,000 Jewish students, 18%
University of Vermont: 2,000 Jewish students, 18%
Mitchell College: 120 Jewish students, 18%
Rutgers University: 6,400 Jewish students, 18%
Clark University: 400 Jewish students, 17%
University of Pennsylvania: 1,750 Jewish students, 17%
Syracuse University: 2,500 Jewish students, 16%
Kenyon College: 275 Jewish students, 16%
Lehigh University: 800 Jewish students, 16%
Northwestern University: 1,300 Jewish students, 16%
University of Michigan: 4,500 Jewish students, 16%
Vanderbilt University: 1,050 Jewish students, 15%
SUNY College at Oswego: 1,050 Jewish students, 15%
Yale University: 800 Jewish students, 15%
Queen's University: 1,500 Jewish students, 14%
Bryn Mawr College: 200 Jewish students, 14%
Brown University: 1,000 Jewish students, 14%
University of Rochester: 900 Jewish students, 14%
University of Chicago: 825 Jewish students, 14%
Union College: 300 Jewish students, 14%
New York University: 3,500 Jewish students, 13%
Nova Southeastern University: 574 Jewish students, 13%
Western University: 300 Jewish students, 13%
Franklin & Marshall College: 300 Jewish students, 13%
University of Wisconsin: 4,200 Jewish students, 13%
University of California, Santa Barbara: 2,850 Jewish
students, 13%
Queensborough Community College: 2,000 Jewish students,
13%
Hofstra University: 850 Jewish students, 12%
University of Delaware: 2,250 Jewish students, 12%
Case Western Reserve University: 630 Jewish students, 12%
Harvard University: 803 Jewish students, 12%
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.