Education, History, Top Stories

Jews Revolutionized the Universities. Will Asians Do the Same?

In 1905, Harvard College adopted the College Entrance Examination Board tests as the principal basis for student admission, a blind test that favored intelligent applicants even if they lacked poise or polish. By 1908, Jews—most the children of immigrants—constituted 7% of the school’s student population—double the percentage of Jews in the U.S. general population. By 1916, Jewish enrolment was 15%, and by 1922 it was more than 21%.

Harvard’s president, Abbot Lawrence Lowell, became alarmed by what he perceived as a serious problem. This was not because (or not only because ) Lowell harbored anti-Semitic views. As he wrote to a colleague in 1922, “The summer hotel that is ruined by admitting Jews meets its fate, not because the Jews it admits are of bad character, but because they drive away the Gentiles.” (His observation was not incorrect—although he was wrong to assume that Jews in universities would have the same off-putting effect as in hotels.)

Today, we are watching what may well be a reprise of this scenario, with Asian-Americans as the targeted group: Harvard stands accused of “racial balancing” by keeping Asian-American admissions at or under a 20% threshold, and of using a bogus “personal rating” as a back-door method of keeping out Asian applicants who are stereotyped as bland workaholics.

For its part, Harvard does not deny that it weighs its entrance scales to favor groups it considers more disadvantaged than whites or Asian-Americans—namely blacks and Hispanics—but defends such measures on the grounds that “colleges and universities must have the freedom and flexibility to create the diverse communities that are vital to the learning experience of every student.”

The historical parallel between Jews and Asians is striking for a number of reasons—including the fact that both cases involve an explicit rejection of the idea that academic merit alone could be a tenable basis for admission. Like today’s affirmative-action supporters at Harvard, the gentiles of a century ago also started poking into applicants’ personal lives to discover what their “character” might be. And what a weasel word that turned out to be.

The winnowing campaign a century ago began with a request for personal essays by candidates, describing their activities and interests, and promoting their leadership abilities. Fine: That sort of thing still goes on now. But then, the universities also began asking for photographs (wink, wink). By the fall of 1922, Jerome Karabel wrote in his 2005 book The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, “applicants were required to answer questions on ‘Race and Color,’ ‘Religious Preference,’ ‘Birthplace of Father,’ and ‘What change, if any, has been made since birth in your own name or that of your father? (Explain fully).’”

Finally, a personal interview assumed importance, Karabel writes, “to ensure that ‘undesirables’ were identified and to assess important but subtle indicators of background and breeding such as speech, dress, deportment and physical appearance.” By 1933, when Lowell’s term ended, he had achieved his goal of a 15% cap on Jews.

When these histories are told today, men such as Lowell take their natural role as a villain. And it is true that he, along with his counterparts at other schools, effectively acted as enforcers for a sort of gentleman’s anti-Semitism. Yet we must grudgingly acknowledge that these men were correct to predict that Jews would change the character of their universities—though scarcely in the way they imagined. For while the intellectual Brahmin of the day fretted about the individual “character” of incoming men, it was in their collective intellectual force that Jews changed the political and ideological face of education over the last century—and not always in ways that I, or other Jews, would applaud.

* * *

In the 1920 novel, This Side of Paradise, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s hero looks to Princeton University as the ideal campus, “with its atmosphere of bright colors and its alluring reputation as the pleasantest country club in America.” Knowledge acquisition was certainly part of the Ivy League tradition in those days, when its student population was almost entirely white, Christian and upper class. But the more important task of elite universities was to provide a final, shiny social-networking lamination to the characters of well-groomed students with expectations of leadership roles to come. Norman Podhoretz, similarly, once described Columbia University in its virtually all-WASP days as “the college of Old New York society—a kind of finishing school for young gentlemen who would soon enter the governing elite of the nation.” Upscale young women received a similar message. In 1936, Wellesley described its program as conceived for “girls of fine character, mental keenness and qualities of leadership.”

In his 2012 book, America-Lite: How Imperial Academia Dismantled Our Culture, conservative Yale professor David Gelernter illuminates the transition of American universities from centers of social networking that taught the western canon—“society colleges”—to “intellectuals’ colleges,” where left-liberal ideas and theories became the standard against which all learning was judged: “As the old social and schoolmasterly missions lapsed, elite colleges took up a new mission: to become centers and sounding boards for the theories of intellectuals; to become intellectualized; to renounce WASPdom.”

Gelernter, a former senior fellow in Jewish thought at the Shalem Center, took no pains to disguise his contempt for the new breed of campus authorities, who, he says, see themselves as “separated by a cultural Grand Canyon from the nation at large, with Harvard and The New York Times and the Boston Symphony and science and technology and iPhones and organic truffled latte on their side—and guns, churches and NASCAR on the other.” (He is describing former President Obama, the first president to have been wholly educated under the reign of the intellectuals he derides. The full subtitle of his book included the bracketed words “and Ushered in the Obamacrats.”)

Here, in both a chicken and egg way, is where the Jews come in. At the beginning of the counterculture movement of the 1960s—which is when this transition from “society colleges” to “intellectuals’ colleges” took place—Jews were not particularly well-represented in North American university faculties, and were entirely unrepresented in the higher levels of administrations, even though they were typically over-represented among students. But that would soon change.

I studied English Literature at the University of Toronto from 1960 to 1964, just before things really began to change. The arts program then was divided among four colleges. Three were denominational: Catholic, Anglican and United Church. The fourth, University College, was non-denominational. So that was where all the Jews went. In my cohort, it seemed to me that at least half the college or perhaps more was Jewish. Yet I don’t remember studying under a single Jewish professor, let alone a Jewish dean, provost or president. As for my English literature professors’ rhetorical style, my experience jibes with Camille Paglia’s assessment of her professors at Yale in the late 1960s: “They were courtly and genteel, a High Protestant middlebrow style. Voices were hushed, and propriety ruled at the Yale department of English: I once described it as ‘walking on eggs at the funeral home.’”

But while the Jewish presence was still negligible among the staff at most North American universities, it was strong at the student political level. One thinks immediately of such intellectual firebrands as David Horowitz (who edited the flagship anti-war voice of the New Left, Ramparts, during his Berkeley tenure in the late 1960s and early 1970s), Todd Gitlin, Mark Rudd, Saul Alinsky, Jerry Rubin, Abby Hoffman, Allen Ginsburg, Jerry Brown, Michael Lerner, and many others. All were very far left (although of course Horowitz, like the above-quoted Norman Podhoretz, would pivot hard rightward later in life). On the distaff side, the Jewish Betty Friedan produced The Feminine Mystique, which ushered in America’s feminist revolution, in large part thanks to such now-familiar Jewish names as Gloria Steinem, Susan Sontag, Judith Butler, Judy Chicago, Andrea Dworkin, Shulamit Firestone and Phyllis Chesler.

The outsized Jewish presence at the junction of literature, activism, entertainment and academia became so pronounced in the late 20th century that it simply was taken for granted as part of the intellectual landscape. I recently read and enjoyed Michelle Dean’s Sharp: The Women Who Made an Art of Having an Opinion, chronicling the (sometimes intertwined) lives and professional trajectories of 10 female American writers, whose high intelligence, rhetorical prowess and/or wit earned them national respect. Over half of the subjects—Dorothy Parker, Hannah Arendt, Renata Adler, Nora Ephron, Susan Sontag, Pauline Kael—were Jewish. The fact of their Jewish identity was noted by Dean in each case; but Sharp did not suggest that the sum of these common facts added up to more than their parts.

Many of these women were of the generation that, by 1970, had begun to make inroads not only as contributors to, but leaders of, intellectual life on campuses across North America. In virtually all cases, Gelernter argues, three attributes marked the most successful Jewish minds: political leftism, extreme admiration for intellectualism, and a polemical style—“expert and aggressive”—that he claims as a particularly “Jewish way of argument.”

As Gelernter’s own example shows, however, there have been right-leaning exceptions to the pattern he sketches out—a category that would include such brilliant Jewish conservatives as Nathan Glazer, the late Irving Kristol, and his son William (editor of the Weekly Standard), along with the Podhoretzes, Norman and John (former and current editors of Commentary magazine). And while leftist Jewish academics have been prominent in shifting cultural values through their access to youthful minds (“We’ll get you through your children,” a frustrated Allen Ginsburg snarled to Norman Podhoretz during an argument), it can be argued that, on balance, Jewish intellectuals who turned rightward have had at least as much political influence as their liberal counterparts. Norman Podhoretz wrote Daniel Moynihan’s clarion speech at the UN that turned the tide on the “Zionism is racism” motion in 1975. And George W. Bush was deeply influenced by the neo-conservative movement, largely conceived by, and densely populated with Jewish intellectuals such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Ledeen, David Frum and Robert Kagan.

Most of the secular left-leaning Jewish intellectuals came by their political views in their homes. Some were products of the “red diaper” syndrome—Jewish children raised by Communist parents—and were completely immersed in Marxist dogmas at Communist-run schools and summer camps, as David Horowitz most famously was, which prepared these Jews from toddlerhood for a life of single-minded political proselytism. (The name of Horowitz’s summer camp, “Wo-Chi-Ca” in Tolland, MA, has an Indigenous ring to it; but it was just a sobriquet for the considerably more lumpen “Workers’ Children’s Camp.”)

Lionel Trilling, who held the distinction of being the first Jew ever hired by the Columbia University English Literature department, worried about his fellow Jews’ fanaticism. He had flirted with Marxism in the 1930s, like almost all the other Jewish intellectuals, but pushed away from it once be observed the appalling rise of Stalinist barbarism. Trilling wrote in a letter to theatre scholar Eric Bentley in 1936: “I live in deep fear of Stalinism.” He goes on to observe that communism was worse than fascism because “it has taken all the great hopes and all the great slogans [and] has recruited the people who have shared my background and culture and corrupted them.” (Horowitz’s parents and their circle, by contrast, never repudiated Stalin and remained faithful to Soviet-style communism to the grave.)

All told, American Jewish intellectuals moved the universities leftward over the last 50 years—even if, as noted, some of the most notable and influential specimens shifted rightward in their older years. Like all Marxists, these Jews, Gelernter writes, encouraged a focus on intellectualism—the idea that knowledge may be derived from pure reason—as opposed to the more conservative model that governed my cohort’s pre-countercultural learning environment, which focused on the accretion of knowledge largely for its own sake. Gelernter claims that “the distinctively Jewish worldview” that spurred cultural change on campuses took root in Jews having spent 3,000 years being “obsessed with literary and religious beauty and social justice and ethics and sanctity and God—which gave them plenty to talk about.”

Persecution throughout those years also played its part in the development of the Jewish style of argumentation. During most of their history, Jews could not defend themselves with weaponry. All they had was their intelligence and their words. Friedrich Nietzsche once observed that Christians felt no need to sharpen their polemical skills because they were accustomed to being believed and trusted, while a Jew always had to make a case for being believed. And in many instances, much more was at stake than winning an argument.

Even to this day, you will find that Jews who have never seen the inside of a synagogue will still, by well-learned cultural reflex, argue in the Talmudic tradition of logic and ratiocination, often in a full-throated manner that is out of step with the modern penchant for safe spaces and staying in one’s lane. As Gelernter writes: “The classic Jewish argument drills and blasts as deep as necessary, or deeper (the essence of Jewish genius is not knowing where to stop); it summons ideas from the ends of the earth to make a point.”

Norman Podhoretz would concur, I think, having once said, “in the world of the ‘Jewish establishment,’ it was almost considered bad form, or a mark of low intelligence, to say anything kind in conversation about any other member of the group.” In his 2000 book Ex Friends: Falling Out with Allen Ginsberg, Lionel and Diana Trilling, Lillian Hellman, Hannah Arendt, and Norman Mailer, Podhoretz describes the breakup of his friendships with six fellow Jewish intellectuals, all more or less leftists. He explains that intellectuals do not become friends in the first place for the usual reasons of common pleasures, professions or personalities. An intellectual is “someone who lives for, by and off ideas.” And when ideas are debated in the public forum, they can influence a nation’s sense of itself. That, at any rate, was the working hypothesis of intellectuals such as Horowitz and Podhoretz and the leftists they battled with. Anticipating the flame wars of the digital era, they believed a perceived “heresy” could not be disassociated from its perpetrator, and so he or she was liable to be ex-communicated by their “friends.”

And that was the attitude that many Jewish intellectuals took as educators during my lifetime. There were and are, of course, many brilliant non-Jewish intellectuals in the universities. But in my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, they are less likely to display quite the same take-no-prisoners polemical style, and are more wont to adopt an air of disinterestedness or cheerfulness when they argue.

In the world of ideas journalism, I think of Dick Cavett and Tom Wolfe: both gentile, both always droll, bemused, personally detached from the ridiculous human antics they delighted in skewering, even when dealing with grave subjects. Many decades later, I saw this spirit echoed by actor Stephen Fry, who told a Munk Debate audience in Toronto this year that the traditional essence of the high college experience at Oxford and Cambridge is the learned ability to discuss big Ideas in a “playful and graceful” way.

The absolute king of happy warriordom was, of course, William F. Buckley, whose high intellectual seriousness was couched in playful tones—giving the sense that of course the matter under discussion was important, but not so important that one couldn’t have fun with it. Buckley’s eye rarely lost its twinkle. And when it did (as in his famous fight with Gore Vidal on ABC in the run-up to the 1968  Democratic convention), it was such a startling departure from his puckish norm that the incident achieved instant and lasting notoriety. Mark Steyn (who has said that “the last Jewish female in my line was one of my paternal great-grandmothers”) is also brilliant and funny, even when visibly aroused to anger—as for example, in responding to historian Simon Schama on the issue of refugee policy in another Munk Debate (this one in 2016). For Christopher Hitchens, too, polemics generally went hand in hand with socializing. He sometimes even would engage with his opponents while tipsy, a practice, it is safe to say, that is generally alien to the Talmudic tradition.

Jews are stereotyped as argumentative. And there is truth in that. But even so, ideas are not something Jews usually juggle for the entertainment of others. We don’t boast the champagne sparkle of a Wilde or a Buckley. We take pride, rather, in the gloomy tungsten of Spinoza and Allan Dershowitz. Ideas are fascinating to us, but they are not playthings. Throughout history, ideas that have passed in and out of imperial fancy have by turns led us to slaughter, then salvation, then slaughter again.

On the subject of modern Israel, in particular, Jews have been tearing themselves to pieces since the 19th century. And it is now simply taken for granted—even among gentiles, who often will act as bystanders to such arguments—that the subject can arouse great spasms of ruthless intellectualism that serve to destroy any conceit of intra-Semitic solidarity.

Here in Canada, for instance, Michael Neumann, a professor of philosophy at Trent University, once declared that Jews bear a special responsibility to speak out against Israel,” and avowed that “I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose…If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don’t come to light, I don’t care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism, or reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don’t care. If it means encouraging vicious racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the state of Israel, I still don’t care.” It’s hard to imagine such words levelled at any other minority by a member of his or her own group.

On the other side of this political divide within Judaism is Jonathan Neumann (no relation, to my knowledge), whose new book, To Heal the World?: How the Jewish Left Corrupts Judaism and Endangers Israel, argues that anti-Zionist Jews have co-opted the liturgical injunction to “repair the world”—rendered in Hebrew as tikkun olam—to advance a number of illiberal causes.

Neumann argues that the Tikkun Olam movement, which has become influential throughout the educational infrastructure of liberal Judaism, goes well beyond traditional debates over Israel, and now seeks to make “social justice” the sine qua non of “authentic” Judaism, full stop. Just as an earlier generation of Jews went all in on Marxist summer camps, today’s progressive Jews have done the same with social justice—so much so that it is now common in Jewish ritual life to reject Jewish particularism in favor of broad universalistic gestures.

According to the Tikkun Olam playbook, for instance, a Passover Seder should not focus excessively on the Hebrew exodus and march to nationhood—except insofar as it may be treated allegorically in a way that raises attendees’ consciousness about the plight of illegal immigrants or transgender youth. The Joseph story, likewise, can’t be about Joseph rising to power in order to further Jewish fortunes; it has to be part of a parable that venerates statist food-distribution policies. And here is Daniel Sieradski, creator of the “Occupy Judaism” branch of the Occupy Movement, channeling a famous question—“Is this the fast I have chosen?”—offered by the Prophet Isaiah: “A real fast—a fast of Isaiah—is one in which you fast from your capitalist lifestyle and pour out love and compassion for your fellow man, putting people over profit.”

I will say one thing for the old Jewish Marxists: They did not read Das Kapital into the Torah. In choosing Communism, the secular Jews of the early 20th century deliberately renounced their burdensome religious particularism, in the (false, but sincere) belief that by plunging into the universalist utopia that they believed Marxism represented, Jews might finally shed their legacy of persecution and join the Brotherhood of Man as equals. And while Jewish intellectuals of the late 20th century were less inclined to send their children to communist summer camps, their attachment to the left was infused by much the same universalistic aspirations.

In 1920, when Leon Trotsky, a Jew, né Bronstein, headed up the Red Army, Moscow’s chief rabbi, Rabbi Jacob Mazeh, begged him to command the army to protect Jews from further pogroms. Trotsky reportedly replied: “Why do you come to me? I am not a Jew,” to which Rabbi Mazeh responded: “That’s the tragedy. It’s the Trotskys who make revolutions, and it’s the Bronsteins who pay the price.”

I would argue that, figuratively speaking, pro-Israel Jews on university campuses are today’s Bronsteins. The “Trostskyites” are committed progressives, often allied with anti-Semites, who undermine Zionism and Israel in the name of a Judaism they have tailored from political cloth.

* * *

In the end, however, I would ask readers to look forward, not backward. I began this essay with a sort of tongue-in-cheek apologia for the soft Ivy League anti-Semites of the early 20th-Century. As I’ve shown, their cynical WASP concerns over “character” were indeed prophetic, even if only accidentally so. And the same could well be true of Harvard’s exclusionary policies today: Certainly, it is interesting to ask what effect the recent surge of Asian students will have on the intellectual life of my grandchildren and great-grandchildren—especially if the lawsuit against Harvard is successful, and leads to a wholesale dismantling of similar policies that penalize Asian university applicants across the country.

Both North American Jews and Asian Americans are products of ancient cultures, though with radically different histories. Four and a half billion people rooted geographically in a great land mass, home to dozens of ancient civilizations, most of which have never experienced protracted periods of exile or persecution, will have a different sense of themselves as compared to a tiny people (today, at 11.5 million, fewer than the pre-Holocaust 14 million), most of whose history has been spent in dispersion throughout Europe, North Africa and the Middle East among largely hostile host nations.

I cannot say how Asians will affect the way North Americans think, write, study and argue half a century from now. But the Jewish precedent suggests that they will change campus life in profound ways. For the intellectual life of a people is part of the larger practice of self-expression. And cultural self-expression lies downstream from historical experience.


Barbara Kay is a columnist for the National Post. Follow her on Twitter at @BarbaraRKay.


  1. Ray Andrews says

    Where else but here does anyone have the guts to hardly even mention Jews, let alone discuss their merrits with such offhand coolness, as if the thoughtpolice didn’t even exist?

    • MagnusMino says

      She’s only permitted to write this article because she’s Jewish, duh.

      I perused her Twitter feed and found much to like, until I came across this:

      Here, she’s openly advocating for Canadian Universities firing faculty members who show insufficient deference to Israel. So of course Quilter publishes her, right after a sequence of articles about threats to academic free speech.

      This site’s editorial double standard, on the topic of zionists bullying academics into silence, is an outrage and an organized hypocrisy.

      Barbara, I like what you say about men’s rights (which are indeed under assault by the misandrist hatemongering on campuses lately), but I cannot forgive your calling for Trudeau to defund Canadian universities, for refusing to fire faculty who won’t stay silent in the face of ongoing atrocities by the Chosen, the most privileged perpetual victim group there is.

      Making apologies for war crimes isn’t in their job description, even if Trudeau yells at places like McGill to tell them to silence BDS activists. Which they did. Shame on you, and them. Every time such a brazen act of interference in Canadian academics’ freedoms happens, you alienate more people against your cause.

      Quillette debases itself by publishing articles supposedly pro-Free Speech in Academia while turning a blind eye to authors making blatant calls to defund universities. I don’t get it. Honestly, how does one square that circle. The level of cognitive dissonance in the editorial policy of this site is astonishing. Academic freedom is a cornerstone of freedom of thought and inquiry, and yet Quillette publishes stuff by people who openly call for the abolition of universities unless they help whitewash war crimes halfway around the world.

      What is going on here?

      • ga gamba says

        What is going on here?

        Perhaps the editors here don’t review the authors’ Tweeter and Facebook words and rants for evidence of right think or wrong. If were an editor here, I wouldn’t.

        When I read questions such as yours, which are not uncommon, I think to myself: Gosh, why didn’t s/he click the About link atop the webpage? So much could be answered.

        Allow me to take the trouble on your behalf: Quillette is a platform for free thought. We respect ideas, even dangerous ones. We also believe that free expression and the free exchange of ideas help human societies flourish and progress. Quillette aims to provide a platform for this exchange.

        A mission statement that’s clear and concise to boot.

        It may sound counterintuitive to some, but the support of free speech includes allowing the anti-speech camp to have their say. This is that free exchange of ideas. It’s certainly is not only allowing speech for the likeminded. That’s the progressives’ barmy idea.

        So, no, Quillette does not debase itself by allowing such speech as well as authors of such ideas to write here. By adhering to the principle Quillette buttresses the vitality of speech liberty.

        Now, good on you for digging; in part it’s what the readers’ comments section is here for. You’ve brought to light Ms Kay’s inconsistencies to those who are unfamiliar with her work. The ball is her court to respond.

        • Ray Andrews says

          @ga gamba

          Thanks, you saved me saying the same thing. Claire is not required to vet the entire history of an author and whoever they may be, they have the right to pitch their point of view anyway. As you point out, it is fine for folks to dig up anything relevant tho.

          Glorious that ‘anti-Semitism’ is permitted here! The label is so over used as to be near useless anyway. Who cares? I’m half Jewish and if anyone want’s to half hate me for it they are more than welcome. But, as an opponent of Zionism, I’m usually labeled as a self-hating half-Jew. I don’t give a damn.

          • @ray andrews, When you say you’re an ‘opponent of Zionism,” what do you mean? I ask sincerely as to me what that means is that you are an ‘opponent of national self-determination for the Jewish people and no one else in the entire world.” So when you say you ‘oppose’ Zionism that to me ipso facto means you are an anti-semite, since you are not saying you ‘oppose,’ say, “china” or “oppose” Pakistan or any other nation that has had egregious land grabs or is created fairly artificially recently. Note I am not saying one should excuse any action by the Israeli government.

            Btw, no one ‘hates’ you. You are making yourself too important. I despise racism against Jews but that doesn’t mean I’m targeting you yourself for hate.

            But I’d like to hear your reasoning behind your statement and what you mean by being ‘anti-Zionist.” What facts do you base this on and what is your solution? Thanks.

          • Ray Andrews says


            “or any other nation that has had egregious land grabs or is created fairly artificially recently”

            I’m opposed to anyone stealing land from anyone else. As you say this is par for the course throughout history, but only in the case of Israel does the dispossession have a name: ‘Zionism’. It is also somewhat more odious given the hypocrisy of the perpetrators who should know better than anyone that treating other people as untermensch isn’t very nice.

            Actually, come to that, I’m a sort of Zionist myself, I have no problem with Jews in Palestine, but I think they should pay for what they take, as they did at first. If the Jews bought and paid for the entirely of Palestine now, that would be honorable, but they prefer to steal it piecemeal. It drove my dad into renouncing his Jewish heritage.

        • Barbara Kay says

          If the Jews “stole” land – which they emphatically did not, as they paid for it and *over*paid for it when it was worthless to Arabs, because they Arabs knew how much it meant to them – it would have been from the Ottoman Empire. The only “Palestinians” at the time were the Jews, who were in fact called Palestinians. The “nation” of Palestine only came into being as a constructed political act following a suggestion by Russia after Jordan et al lost the 1967 war.

  2. concurious says

    Interesting analysis.

    My sense is that increasing the proportion of Asian American students will make college life more meritocratic, but not necessarily in a good way.

    I imagine students, and later, leaders in universities being more conformist and more inclined towards encouraging conformism.

    I also worry that the tiger-mom approach to parenting will become more accepted because that will become the only way to compete effectively in scholastic and professional milieus where tiger-cubs (those raised by tiger-moms) will progressively up the ante.

    Too much of what makes America what it is, is likely to be lost in this hyper-competitive environment — concern for the less advantaged, whimsy and wonder, a sense of humor, the joy of creativity, enjoyment of music, sports, poetry and the like, etc. In short, a sense of abundance and possibility will be sacrificed at the altar of the Gods of scarcity.

    All of which is not to say that I favor Harvard’s policies of artificially suppressing the numbers of Asian-American students. Whatever may be the perceived worries about changing the policy, fairness requires that ALL students be treated fairly.

    So, how to balance the two “goods”? I think the answer lies in inserting some level of randomness into the college selection process.

    Create a points-based system, similar to that used by Canada and Australia for skills-based immigration — that is, based on ability (preparedness) to benefit from education at elite institutions AND ability to contribute to college life. Create a pool of all students who receive aggregate points above a certain benchmark. Then randomly select from this pool.

    • Steve Sailer says

      One thing I feel confident in saying is that Harvard, over its last 382 years, has been quite skilled at promoting and protecting the Harvard brand name.

      My guess is that Harvard keeping a cap on its Jewish percentage during the F. Scott Fitzgerald -J.C. Leyendecker Era probably helped Harvard’s brand name in the 20th Century. After all, Jews flocked to Harvard when the quota was lifted in the 1950s (to the detriment of nearby Brandeis).

      And Harvard keeping a cap on its Asian percentage helps Harvard’s brand name in the 21st Century. Letting in a 3rd generation Harvard legacy like Malia Obama probably does more for Harvard’s glamor than letting in another Asian applicant with perfect test scores.

  3. xyz and such says

    Oh no, it’s an article that talks about ‘Jews’… I’ll be checking back here for all the anti-semitic comments that will parade about as ‘legitimate criticism of Israel and zionists’. Thanks in advance!

    • Florin says

      in other words, criticidm of Israel (or Judaism, or Jews qua group), unlike of any other nation state, or religion, or people – is CrimeThink.

      Seems like a Jewish Supremacist whine to me.

      • MagnusMino says

        Pro-Palestinians aren’t anti-semites. We gladly consume western made content, which, let’s face it, is dominated by Jews (look at the credits of any TV show or movie). We’re often avid fans of Woody Allen, Spielberg, Abrams, etc (the list of Jewish entertainment accomplishments is absurdly long). But that doesn’t excuse the zionist project’s war crimes.

        Those who conflate anti-zionism with anti-semitism are doing Jews a craven disservice. Most of the planet is either non-zionist or anti-zionists (the entire muslim world, at least at the population level, e.g. murderous Saudi despots love the Zionists and are close buddies).

        What’s sad is that padding the numbers of anti-semites to include those who are critical of Israeli war crimes — and if you look hard enough, basically the entire history of the country from inception until now is a deliberate war crime, one which far predates the Nazi Holocaust — inflates the “threat” to include many young American Jews, who increasingly not only don’t hold Israel in their heart, but are beginning to actively oppose it and join BDS themselves. Zionism is a toxic blight on humanity. We don’t hate Jews, we hate injustice. There is a massive difference.

        The comments section on this site is chock full of “IDW” types who actually believe that being pro-zionist isn’t 100% mainstream, and that Islamophobia in the US isn’t a real problem, so, sure let’s ban muslims refugees from countries we bombed, sure, Hillary Clinton agrees with Trump, so there’s bipartisan support to reduce the planet’s 1.3 billion muslims to terrorists, when a tiny fraction of a single percent participate in it. Collective guilt is such a libertarian concept. Oh wait, isn’t that what this entire website is supposedly opposed to? Identity politics? The chief proponents of identity politics, have long since mastered it: Zionists viciously blacklist and defund and make calls to get people fired if they dare critize the master race.

        The untermenschen must not be allowed to criticize the ubermenschen. It is unthinkable. So the only people who are permitted to criticize Jews are other Jews. And even then, they get called self-loathing Jews, for actually siding with the oppressed instead of powerful racial supremacists who happen to share similar last names (or maybe genetic material, although that last part is irrelevant and dubious. Race isn’t deterministic of politics, if it is, and Jews must fundamentally be Zionists unless they are deranged, then there is no greater threat to them, as it would indeed mean that anti-zionism was rooted in anti-semitism. Tell that to Holocaust survivor Israel Shahak, and many others who are on the right side of history).

        This is the fundamental hypocrisy of supposedly liberal (or libertarian, or classical liberal) zionists like Barbara Kay. They actually see themselves as powerless victims, sidelined, but they have control over both parties and all branches of the US government, and all parties in the Canadian government as well. Trudeau’s foreign policy is exactly the same as Harper, but he’s still insufficiently rabidly pro-Israel for them, so he must be attacked viciously. 100 / 100 US Senators voted to give Israel more funds to murder defenseless civilians. This is a better batting average than any fascist dictator or tinpot puppet like Mubarak.

        Public service announcement to zionists: if what you’re saying is true, that criticism of Israel implies anti-Jewish hatred, then you have massively multiplied the numbers of anti-semites. This is just fine for the persecution complex, but in practice, it will only backfire, because most of the planet is anti-zionist, even if our leaders and institutions are cowed into silence and complicity. To be blunt, if you want to turn anti-zionists into genuine anti-semites, keep doing what you’re doing. There is a limit to our patience at being your perpetual punching bags. If you ally yourselves with the right-wingers, be careful, they are the ones who actually detest Jews, instead of professing a religion-based thralldom to your ethnostate and to your race, by proxy. But make no mistake, most actual anti-semites are right-wingers, even if there some left-wingers who genuinely detest Jews, they are a tiny minority. There’s a self-fullfilling prophecy here. Israel murders unarmed protesters, journalists, medics, tortures children, blows them up with US-made drone weapons while they play soccer on the beach, and this makes people angry. Then when they get angry, rightfully, the Hasbara war-crimes apology brigade shows up to spew double-think at us, to tell us, if we disapprove it’s because we hate Jews. Well, don’t be surprised when that does in fact result in more and more people hating Jews. It’s getting harder and harder to resist. Encourage people to hate you long enough, and suppress their own moral conscience, don’t be surprised when they do end up picking their moral conscience than bow down to your pathetic slander. The slur “anti-semite” has long since lost its meaning, having been abused to such an extent that it makes the “boy who cried (Hitler)-Wolf” seem like it was taken to be a template rather than a cautionary tale.

        Demand that people worship your cause or oppose you, and eventually people will start to. Once Israel loses support in the west, Israel’s done for. They are hastening this outcome by annexing the rest of Palestine, and eventually it will dawn on US taxpayers that the cognitive dissonance of supporting a country which bars half the people living in their borders from voting, based on which race / religion they have is a dead end, politically.

        I encourage anyone who thinks it’s racist to criticize a country where interracial marriage is illegal to take their head out of their rear ends. Nobody is buying your “victimhood” spiel any longer. That time is over.

        • Howard Shuman says

          Other than an anti-Jewish screed, how do your comments relate to the article? By the way, the State of Israel is the only Democracy in the Middle East and all its citizens participate in the political process.

        • “What’s sad is that padding the numbers of anti-semites to include those who are critical of Israeli war crimes — and if you look hard enough, basically the entire history of the country from inception until now is a deliberate war crime, one which far predates the Nazi Holocaust”

          How much must one twist history and lie to assert this ignorant nonsense.
          Only a true antisemite could puke this garbage.

          Just to make it clear: to be antizionist before 1948 was a matter of ideology. Jews fiercely debated among themselves about its feasibility and rightfulness.

          To be an antizionist after 1948 is only for true Nazi heirs, because it means the destruction of Israel and the demise of more than half of extant Jewish population.

          • “I dont believe Jews should have an ethnosate” =/= “I wish for the demise of half the Jewish population”

        • The fundamental law of civilization is that those who start a war and lose should not complain when they suffer the consequences. The Sudeten Germans and East Prussians who survived got on with their lives,

      • Israel is surrounded by hostile inferiors that vastly outnumber them. If they didn’t behave as they do they would be dead by now.

        The thing to learn from Israel is that we should all act like Israel.

        • MagnusMino says

          “Israel is surrounded by hostile inferiors that vastly outnumber them. ”

          Racial supremacist.

          • Gordo says

            Let me define what I think is meant by “hostile inferiors”. The Arab states surrounding Israel are by any analytical measure “inferior” in culture, religion, rule of law and system of governance to that of Israel. Disagree? Please explain to us how Islam, Sharia Law and Muslim modern culture in any form can been seen as aligned to any notion of progressive human advancement in the last 200 years.

          • Charlie says

            Even though heavily outnumber the Jewish people, the arabs lost wars in 1948, 1967 and 1973. When it comes to technology and science they have produce far fewer patents and Nobel prize winners than Israel.

            It was the Arab attacks on Jewish communities from 1936-39 which led Orde Wingate, perhaps the first Special Forces officer of WW2, to form the Special Night Squads where British Officers and NCOs (many who went to serve in the Chindits) trained Jewish settlers. Moshe Dayan was a sergeant in the SNS. Wingate’s training became the basis for the IDF. Many Jewish people served in in elite units in WW2- Commandos, Parachute , Independent Companies of the Parachute Regiment, SAS, SBS, SOE, Guards Regiments , fighter and bomber crew units which meant they had exceptional skills by 1948. The arabs supported Hitler, apart from the Libyans who fought the Italians . The only Arab unit which showed much competence in 1948 was Jordanian Army was led by John Glubb. King Abdullah of Jordan was the only Arab leader who attempted a peaceful solution with the Jewish people. If Arabs had served in elite Allied units rather than supporting the Nazis they may have had the skills to defeat the Jewish people. Stalin supported Israel- he allowed the Czechs to supply arms. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a friend of Himmler and supported the Final Solution. He also encouraged Muslim Bosniacs to join the SS who undertook some of the worst massacres of partisans in the Balkans which alienated the communists.

            There is nothing secret about producing an elite military unit, it just requires very high pain thresholds, the ability to absorb vast amounts of knowledge; to produce people who can improvise and adapt to overcome problems. The basis of selection and training of Commandos , SAS, SOE and aircrew was largely worked out by 1942 so why have the Aabs not learnt ? A scientific /technical education system to replicate Cambridge, Imperial , MIT , etc, etc is open for all to copy, there are no secrets.

            Israel has learnt to create a technically advanced country with a robust defence capability : why haven’t the Arabs? We keep on hearing saying how advanced Arab/Muslim science was, so why are they not the technical leaders of the World ?

    • X. Citoyen says


      Ain’t that the truth. It’s already in full swing. The all-Palestinian-children-all-the-time channel would do well to heed Kirk Lazarus’s advice in Tropic Thunder, “Never go full retard.”

      • xyz and such says

        And just now coming back to check on my stew! Thank you all for your participation! Excellent work!

  4. Jason Kim says

    I go to an art school in NYC. Past 4 years Chinese students in my school went from 200 – 800, thanks to my school’s deliberate plan to attract more wealthy students. There are more variety of culture between a dozen American students here than 95 percent of the Chinese students. Surely, cultural diversity is desireable to certain extent.

    I think the same situation applies to Ivy Leagues. Do you want 30-40%+ of your university to be a mono-culture of ‘forced by their tiger moms’ bookworms, test preppers and violin or cello players?

    I think Harvard and other universities have absolute right to discriminate on the basis of culture and culture aligns very close to one’s race. Well, boo hoo.

    • Innominata says

      @Jason Kim:

      Thanks for your thoughts. Your comments seem to step outside the “You’re racist!” “No, you’re the racist!” dialogue that so often degenerates on this topic. And you’re forthright, which I like.

      “Surely, cultural diversity is desireable to certain extent.”

      I would respond that many things are “desirable;” but enforcing what is desirable is tricky and often brings about more of the problem one’s trying to correct (when you have children, the foregoing statement will take on a whole new depth). It’s a paradox.

      Speaking of paradoxes, here’s an interesting trivium: in an etymological sense, the opposite of the word “university” is “diversity.”

      The mission of the university in the early days was to UNIFY, bring students together to study a virtually identical and well-established canon dealing with all sorts of timeless human questions. That canon was incredibly diverse: you had thinkers from Jesus and Plato to Descartes and Shakespeare writing widely different conceptions about what it meant to think, to be human, to conceive of God, what is beauty? etc. Most students studied the same texts, bringing their diverse minds to bear on what those texts meant. Diversity was found in the EVOLUTION of thought, both in the canon and in the students. This model was tremendously successful in many ways. There was diversity of ideas, but around a unifying theme through time.

      Now we see the opposite: one can take a bird’s-nest grab-bag of classes centered around books by the Sophist of the Week (Ta-Nehisi Coates springs to mind) who recycles old ideas stripped of context, stewed to mediocrity, and painted in complicated neologisms. (“Blackness”, capital B! Take that, Plato!) Diversity in this sense has come to mean SPECIATION. As a metaphor, the old diversity of ideas meant thinking about dinosaurs, mammals and everything of consequence in between. Now, it means just looking at every variation of the most recent mammals. There is no unifying theme or acknowledgment of time, just a huge mess of ever-expanding NOW NOW NOW.

      It is, in a very real sense, intellectual Creationism.

      Without some unifying theme, speciation and exploration are just cacophony and meandering. It doesn’t matter how many cultures one experiences if one doesn’t have any structure of understanding in which to put them, no personal compass. That’s what college used to be about: a framework, a grounding to see the world. Now, that’s styled “racist,” because the grounding was Western. So we’ve just removed the tiller from students’ boats and wished them happy sailing. The results are not in doubt.

      • X. Citoyen says


        You’ve raised an important aspect of the new education that doesn’t get nearly enough attention: The intellectual depth, breadth, and richness of the traditional canon is being replaced with a superficial set of feelings, slogans, and postures.

        Consider the multiculturalist. He is wide open to “other cultures,” he says, and he’s quick to condemn anyone who isn’t. But ask him what he knows about any other culture and you’ll get a blank stare. He knows absolutely nothing about anything beyond the sentiments of the progressive academic subculture—and, as the old proverb predicts, his self-righteousness is proportionate to his ignorance.

        Frankly, I find the hollowing-out of education more disturbing than the political monoculture. The monoculture is bad, yes, but it doesn’t preclude the dissemination of knowledge and the development of reflective and thoughtful minds. But this particular monoculture is producing ever larger numbers of unreflective ignoramuses who imagine that their feelings are moral laws, that their slogans are knowledge, and that anyone who doesn’t share both is inherently evil.

    • Ray Andrews says

      @Jason Kim

      Let’s rediscover freedom of association. Until desegregation all-black colleges and universities thrived and whitey wasn’t there to be blamed for anything/everything, so the all-black students and the all-black staff just got on with the business of education and did a pretty decent job. If the KKK wants to found an all-white school, let them. Harvard should be able to discriminate any way they want to provided no public money is involved. If public money IS involved then any and all discriminations must stop, ‘diversity’ notwithstanding.

    • Diversity = mediocre non-entities that allbeluef the same thing…but have different skin colors!

      I’ll take the Asian grinds over that any day. They don’t need critical theory to justify themselves. They just accomplish what they need to justify themselves.

  5. That ongoing bandwidth-sucking comedy of manners we love to call “diversity” is once again playing out in the halls and yards of Harvard.

    Not content just to keep the noisy and argumentative Jews out a hundred years ago, now our betters want to continue the proud tradition by limiting the number of drone-y and boring Asians admitted today. Although for different reasons: In the 1930s, it was to preserve the mediocre, inbred WASP royalty of the Northeast, and now it is to ensure that Harvard “looks like America” (code for “has enough blacks and Hispanics”) even if that means that it admits hundreds of much-lower-performing blacks who wouldn’t stand a chance of getting in if not for the self-loathing and white guilt of the school’s administrators (which is itself a motivating subset of that vast racial rewards system that guides the children of the black upper middle class smoothly through their adult lives in what they are taught at Harvard and elsewhere is the unspeakable and unrelenting horror that is racist America).

    Just how undeserving of admission are the overwhelmingly middle-class black applicants who are accepted at Harvard? According to the analysis conducted by the plaintiff’s legal team in the Harvard discrimination lawsuit, if Harvard simply selected admittees randomly among the top ten percent of its applicants (as measured on test scores and high school GPA), the black share of applicants admitted would vanish from its current sixteen percent to under one percent. (Meanwhile, the percentage of Asians would double.)

    What if Asian-Americans lose the lawsuit at Harvard, and the current (or another) racist de facto quota system continues? Here, the example of mid-20th century Jews is instructive: Asians will end up at lesser schools, with huge chips on their shoulders, and that injustice will inform the remainder of their lives, just as it did with all the brilliant Jewish kids unfairly denied admission to the Ivies in the thirties and forties and who ended up attending City College and the state universities of the Midwest. These kids ultimately produced some of the best science and literature in twentieth century America. In other words, like most very smart and focused people, the rejected Asians will do fine, although there’s nothing yet to suggest that they’ll transform the cultural and intellectual life of America the way that Jews did. The first- and second-generation immigrant culture of American Jews in the last century and the current immigrant culture of northeast Asians share the same drive for success, but not the ingredients for transforming culture, as far as I can see. Of course, the fact that they’ll otherwise do fine -– likely populating many of the highest-paid professions in America — doesn’t begin to make Harvard’s racism anything other than awful.

    In the case of both Jews and northeast Asians, you have a group of people who are, on average, empirically smarter than everyone else –- the two groups top the charts in average measured IQ -– but who may have just been too smart for their own good. Asians, lacking melanin or a sufficient sob story or the necessary cultural charisma, and possessing just enough taint from success in white America, are beginning to get a taste of what it can mean to be good at what you do in these modern United States –- the new United States in which the concept of meritocracy is officially considered a “microaggression” at many of the universities to which they are applying, and ‘diversity” and “inclusion” are often more likely to relate (if you’re actually paying attention and being intellectually honest) to rent-seeking and mediocrity than real achievement — only it’s much, much worse, for Asians, because frankly, right out of the gate they’re just so much better than anyone else.

    So, welcome to America, Asian-Americans. Welcome to our glorious diversity. Ain’t it grand?

    • Farris says

      Very well made points.
      Regarding this statement: “What if Asian-Americans lose the lawsuit at Harvard, and the current (or another) racist de facto quota system continues?”
      I do not intend to be cynical but:
      The Court will most likely declare Harvard’s admissions criterion discriminatory and require the school to cease a desist. Harvard will comply but will also find another stereotypical marker that is generally either most applicable to Asians or Blacks and Hispanics. If said markers readily identifies Asians, they will be down graded but if these markers readily identify Black and Hispanic applicants, they will be upgraded. Afterwards the whole process will resume until the next court case. This has been the consistent pattern and will be the pattern up and until the courts mandate or the Universities agree to a relatively blind admissions process.

  6. professor puppypants says

    I’m confused. If Jews and Asians are so Unimaginably Smart, it stands to reason that by now, they would have built Jewish Harvard and Asian Harvard on their own, using nothing but those giant legendary brains of theirs. You know, just like the dumb, dirty Catholics did.

    Instead they formed a pair of human battering-rams to force their way into a White institution whose prestige they did not create, and which was intended to foster and instruct the White future elites of a nation and a society which had been conceived and built by Whites.

    Places where these genius groups are greatly over-represented: Harvard, Stanford, UCI.

    Places where they are greatly under-represented: Arlington National Cemetery.

    • Something something systematic oppression something something…

      • Florin says

        Jews are under-represented at Arlington.

        Funny how that works.

    • Brad Brzezinski says

      They did start a couple of universities at least. American Jewish University was religious and. Brandeis was explicitly non-sectarian. Anyway you’re missing the point that the Jews about whom you’re agonising were not consciously seeking to impose something Jewish onto “White institutions,” they simply wanted to participate in American life. Ditto the Chinese now. Any influence they exert that is governed by their particular cultural traits is incidental. Also hinted at is that in the case of Jews, many of these traits are a result of how they were treated by the larger world.

      • Barbara Kay says

        Exactly. Those Jews were very secular and wanted desperately to integrate into American life. There is irony in the fact that they used their intelligence and polemical skills to insist that they were American first. The great novelist Philip Roth was always very annoyed when people referred to him as “Jewish-American”. He wanted “American”. Factoid: Thomas Wolfe, the novelist, who was widely acclaimed in the early 20th century, was the first to identify Jews as being just as American as anyone else. He had grown up in North Carolina in an anti-Semitic environment, so his first significant contact with Jews was, after studying at Harvard, teaching at City College of New York, where his English classes were almost all immigrant Jews. They scared the hell out of him with their “knowing” looks, their high intellectual confidence and their aggressive curiosity, which he felt he could not satisfy. He wrote to a friend in anguish: “I teach! I teach! Jews! Jews!”

        • Ray Andrews says

          @Barbara Kay

          As for me, I’m an unapologetic cultural supremisist. If the Jews and the Asians can ‘do’ my culture better than I can, then fine, let them do it. Jews are hugely over-represented as contributors to Western culture anyway. Let the best prevail.

      • Steve Sailer says

        American Jews built many first-rate hospitals and country clubs — a 1925 article in “American Hebrew” magazine by the Italian-American golf champion Gene Sarazen said that a higher percentage of Jews than of Protestants were members of country clubs. And that was 93 years ago.

        But Jews didn’t show much spark at institution building when it came to higher education. The shortage of Jewish colleges is rather puzzling.

        Perhaps it has something to do with Harvard lifting its quota on Jewish undergrads less than a decade after Brandeis was founded. If quotas had been maintained, Brandeis would likely be a top 10 or top 5 college today. But Jewish students and donors quickly turned toward old brand name colleges. So, today, the list of top colleges isn’t all that different than in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s day.

        • Baila says

          You are looking in the wrong places for Jews building institutions of higher education. The Yeshiva and Kollel system is huge with 1000s of student. These are located in the religious communities–Brooklyn, Far Rockaway, Monsey, Lakewood, Skokie, LA.

  7. E. Olson says

    Pure meritocracy is perceived as dangerous by school administration in large part because of the uncertainty it creates regarding donations from successful alumni and successful parents of alumni. The WASPs of old had long traditions of community service and generous donations that helped build the facilities and reputations of the Ivy League, and there were of course administrative concern that Jews wouldn’t be so generous with their time or money, while their increasing presence might at the same time drive away some of the generous WASPs. I think there is similar uncertainty today regarding Asian students – sure they are great students, but will they or their parents give us as many $millions out of gratitude as the WASPs they replace?

    • Mercurius says

      Barbara Kay has nothing to say about who loses when a repository of 400 years of American cuture is subordinated to a body of ideas scarcely40 year old.

      The postmodern ethos of the SJW’s running the Ivies istructurally resembles that of the Creationists. Both reject the concept of deep time, and the intellectual universe of the Intersectionalists was created certainly no earlier than 1848, or later that the death of Foucault.

      The ethinic cleansing of Harvard began somewhat earlier, but since he siege of University Hall in 1968, Harvard has not had a single ‘legacy’ president , Brahmin or otherwise. When Kay’s litany of New York intellectuals arived for their college education after World War II, a majority of their classmates shared a single demographic identity with a significant fraction of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences: The Social Register,

      By sheer proximity, that volume’s cultural norms did much to shape the mannersof minority students of all colors , creeds and national origins. But forget the lost world of Lowell. What no longer exists is the system of education Conant and Pusey presided over from 1933 to 1971. The Harvard houses Lowell created to polish the rougher diamonds to gain admission have suffered homogenization in the name of diversity- gone are the days when a house master could make roomates of the children of Matisse, James Joyce and the Aga Khan just to see what would happen.

      Today that great neopuritan Leveler Dean Khurana refuses to be called Master of Quincy House lest it trigger memories of Uncle Tom.

      The fact is that Harvard’s exceptionalism perished under Faust along with its Charter of 1650, in an administarative coup d’etat abetted by the faculty. so little remains to sustain Kay’s dream of founding an alun=mnae dynasty. Even if the intolerant intersectionalists could abide anything so elitist, the student body as lost its capacite civilatrice , Those enrolling today may well emerge less polished than roughened by interaction with a demographic construct designed for ease of progressive indoctrintion .

      She might consider sending her posterity to Princeton or Oriel College instead., for our new Neopuritan masters celebrated President Bacows inaugural by striking out ;

      ‘Til the stock of the Putitan’s die
      as the closing lyric of Fair Harvard.

      (edited from an un-spellchecked draft posted in haste some hours ago)

  8. I miss Vicky, our new commenter and antisemite, on this thread, she must have something to say here, I would think. It’s free thinking here, after all.

    • dellingdog says

      Maybe “Vicky” is engaging in some kind of performance art and decided that commenting on this article would be too obvious.

  9. Luke Lea says

    I have a suggestion. Harvard College (which is a private institution after all and presumably can do as it pleases) should consider separating its liberal arts program (history, literature, philosophy, etc) from the hard science (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.), placing them in two separate schools. In the former the policy would be “affirmative action for all,” meaning that the goal would be to recruit a student body that reflects the ethnic, cultural, and geographic diversity of America. In the latter by contrast (whose departments depend heavily on federal grant money) the policy would be “affirmative action for none,” meaning that admission would be based primarily on SAT test scores.

    The logic of this distinction would be based on the recognition of the fact that Harvard is (and always has been) a uniquely cultural institution whose purpose was to select a student body from which many of the future leaders of our nation’s major cultural institutions—in law, publishing, finance, government, etc. — would be drawn.

    Back when America was a predominantly Anglo-Protestant society this did not present any particular problem. But now that we have become an irretrievably multi-racial, multi-ethnic society composed of diverse population groups that vary quite significantly in their talents, interests, and personality traits, many of which are deeply rooted in the genes that they carry—we need to be honest about this!— it is time that institutions like Harvard take a more realistic approach.

    For unless they are careful, our representative democracy could easily turn into a racially-stratified cast society whose governing elites have little sympathy with or understanding of the groups that they govern. Not a formula for lasting success.

  10. James Lee says

    Interesting piece, but what appears to be an underlying premise is incorrect. Sure, there have been many brilliant Jews who can be found among the early leaders of the Social Justice religion. But there is not something unique about Jews (not intellect nor arguing style) which has caused the injection of this all encompassing and radical social justice ideology into academia and the broader intellectual landscape.

    The ideology itself is totalizing, just like Communism and historical Fascism was. It’s most extreme adherents are currently indoctrinating small children.

    One can find the ideology in modern Western Buddhist groups, who hold diversity trainings and repeat the rhetoric of “white privilege” and implicit bias.

    One can find the ideology in many Western Christian denominations. A key reason why the mainstream media has given the Pope a pass about the new round of child molestation accusations/coverup is because he speaks the language of Social Justice.

    And of course it has spread to education, Hollywood, the music industry, sports, government agencies, the British police forces, and now corporations.

    As Andrew pointed out in an earlier comment thread, the essential basis of Social Justice ideology has no conceptual boundaries. When Equality is the one True God, then any form of social engineering is on the table in order to achieve the most holy of goals.

    • James Lee says

      I probably read too much into Ms. Kay’s article.

      I think she is saying that an influx of bright Jewish people from a non-WASP culture influenced formerly WASPy American universities? And that an influx of bright people from a variety of Asian ethnic and cultural backgrounds might also influence American universities?

      Is there something I’m missing?

      • Florin says

        She seems to not consider that Talmudic reasoning, which is often simply rhetorical legerdemain to get at a result desired a priori, has negatively impacted liberal arts programs’ academic vigor, resumting in the nonsense of intersectional identity politics and other hand me downs from the overwhelmingly Jewish and reflexively anti-European, anti-Christian Frankfurt School.

        Asians’ increasing power in science and tech is a massive challenge to Jewish power and privilege, particularly as they are not nearly as worried about Jewish suffering or religious myths.

        The author is worried that Jews are losing the power to have more power than they ‘should’ based on merit.

  11. Raphaël says

    The Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, one of the best universities in the world (as well as the oldest and most prestigious in Israel) does not discriminate in favour of minorities, but it still has the same percentage of Arabs in its student body as in the population of the State of Israel as a whole. Arab graduates of the Technion are considered at the same level as Jewish graduates. They don’t see themselves and aren’t regarded as “quota kids” like the African Americans at Harvard.

  12. Perhaps it’s because Asians aren’t “a group,” nor are Jews, Whites, Men, Women, etc. You can group them in your mind, but all those individuals are not a part in a group.

    • Ray Andrews says

      @david of Kirkland

      One might say that our identity groups are … a social construction.

  13. Bill Ginnosar says

    Could it be simply similar cultures? I notice that a lot of small retail businesses that were once mostly run by immigrant Jews (grocery, electronics etc.) are now run by Asians.They probably also work long hours and make sure their kids go to school and get good grades. The result,Lots of hard working successful Asian students at University. They will probably contribute to the society more than their proportionate numbers.

  14. I suspect it will improve things considerably, and people will one day look back on attempts to minimize their presence on campus with the same derision that we currently heap on attempts to limit Jewish numbers. Judging individuals on the basis of ethnicity is always a bad thing.

  15. codadmin says

    In other words, is America in better or worse shape since leftist Jews stormed the throne room of academia?

  16. Florin says

    Jews are over-represented at top schools, and the lazy assumption by Jewish chauvanists like the author is that this is simply merit. Jews are just so smart. However, it is reasonable to suppose that greater wealth and ethnic favorotism by Jewish admins plays a role in admitting more Jews than ‘should’ be there by merit, largely by excluding both better qualified Asians, as well as better qualified European-Americans.

    Jewish levels of over-representation, in otger words, are not simply a reflection of merit, and the *under-representation* of qualified Asian and non-Jewish white applicants mean Jews have soent decades advocating for ‘diversity’ at top schools – but leaving their massive over-representation out of it, while lesser qualified blacks and Latinos take seats fron Asians and non-Jewish whites.


    I think Jews who summon the ‘heal the world’ motiff from their Chosen mythos lack the intellectual depth to consider the possibility that we mere non-Jews may neither need nor want a world ‘repaired’ by people so ethnocentric and arrogant.

    • Raphaël says

      > Jews are over-represented at top schools, and the lazy assumption by Jewish chauvanists like the author is that this is simply merit. Jews are just so smart. However, it is reasonable to suppose that greater wealth and ethnic favorotism by Jewish admins plays a role in admitting more Jews than ‘should’ be there by merit, largely by excluding both better qualified Asians, as well as better qualified European-Americans.

      You’re underestimating the IQ required to be society’s elite, and don’t seem to understand that the tails of a normal distribution drop off rapidly. 110-115 means you’re about smart enough to graduate from a public four year college, which isn’t very impressive and more like a minimum for being moderately successful in society. The average doctor, investment banker, startup bro, or other member of the 1% is probably more like 135 or so (honestly having gone to an elite college it sounds a little low to me, the middle 50% of our SAT scores for admitted students, including legacies and recruited athletes, corresponds to IQs of 140-152), which would be about 2.2 standard deviations above the non-jewish white average of 100, or only 1.2 standard deviations above the jewish average of 115.

      63% of Americans are non-hispanic white, but 7 million of them are jewish, so assuming a US population of about 350 million, that leaves us with about 213 million non-jewish, non-hispanic whites and 7 million Jews.

      The population >= 2.2 standard deviations is expected to be about 1%, so that leaves us with 2.1 million elite-IQ level non-jewish whites.

      The population >= 1.2 standard deviations is expected to be more like 11.5%, so that now gives us 0.8 million elite-IQ level jews.

      If you raise the level of elite IQ to 145, which is probably the bare minimum for an Harvard student, a fortune 500 CEO, or a national media personality, or the other groups of people antisemites like to focus on as being disproportionately Jewish, you get 277,000 non-jewish whites and 159,000 Jews. Go even higher to 160 or so, the level of Nobel prize winners, and now you’ve got 9,100 American jews and only 6,700 non-jewish Americans.

      • codadmin says

        Either Jews, in the average, are successful because of intelligence or ethnic nepotism ( racism )? It’s a binary question.

        If the former is true, then the obvious question arises….what about groups with low average intelligence?

        Either way, it raises uncomfortable questions.

      • 115 IQ may be a bit on the big side for Jewish average. It could be more like 110. It certainly seems to vary a bit based on intellectual ability type.

        Also, not all American Jews are the high IQ sect. Probably 5-6 million is more likely not 7 million.

        Finally Jewish TFR is very low, especially amongst smart secular Jews. There is also the issue of outmarraige. Jewish accomplishment seems to be waning in younger generations, after a boost from many who emigrated after the end of the Cold War.

        Even these minor changes make a big difference to your numbers above.

        Jews are perhaps 25% of the Ivy League. That’s a lot, even considering the high IQ.

        Moreover, Jewish specialty is verbal. If the Ivy’s were to move away from verbal focused professions (law, etc) and towards harder science or engineering that would favor Asians talents more.

        I think Asians are kept below 20% because they are a threat. At 20% they are a minority partner that has t do as they are told. At 40% they can’t be co-opted or domesticated.

        • Steve Sailer says

          “Finally Jewish TFR is very low”

          My impression is that the Jewish Total Fertility Rate, even leaving aside the ultra-orthodox and the like, isn’t quite as low as you assume. It’s not as high in the U.S. as in Israel, where even secular Jews are at replacement TFR, but it’s not quite as low as found among people of similar education level and similar expensive regions.

          Having some family money to help with down payments boosts fertility.

          • I don’t know how bad the secular high IQ Jewish TFR would be compared to a “white liberal women with grad degrees” as a comparable, but its safe to say both are in the toilet (sub 1.0). That means a lot less participants in the high IQ pool each generation.

        • Song For the Deaf says

          At 40% they co-opt and domesticate us, like the Jews have done for the last 60 years.

          • To do what? Asians don’t have a weird fucked up anti-white ideology guiding them. They want to make the trains run on time. Beats what we have now.

          • Song For the Deaf says

            “Asians don’t have a weird fucked up anti-white ideology guiding them.”

            Twenty years ago, I would have agreed with you. I grew up with Asian friends and they fit right in. But the Left is turning them against us, with narratives about their being a model minority designed to give them a complex about white friendship. Look at all the Asian Democrats out there, they far outnumber the Asian Republicans, even if they are more socially conservative. Their politicians are mostly Dem, Ted Lieu types pushing insane immigration policies designed to screw us over.

            Yes, northeast Asians are more likeable than Jews; yes, they don’t have the atavistic hostility to white people that Jews have. But Jewish-run institutions are doing everything to change that.

      • Steve Sailer says

        “If you raise the level of elite IQ to 145, which is probably the bare minimum for an Harvard student, a fortune 500 CEO, or a national media personality,”

        I doubt if 145 if the “bare minimum” to be a Harvard professor, much less those three categories. A 130 IQ, high energy, ambition, and an appealing personality can take people a long way.

    • Stephanie says

      Florin, it is not a “lazy assumption,” it is a simple observation that Jews on average are more intelligent. It has been studied and measured.

    • Song For the Deaf says

      “I think Jews who summon the ‘heal the world’ motiff from their Chosen mythos lack the intellectual depth to consider the possibility that we mere non-Jews may neither need nor want a world ‘repaired’ by people so ethnocentric and arrogant.”

      Yeah, it never occurs to them that other people don’t want our world fixed in their neurotic image. This article certainly agrees with my sense that the American Left has come to take all political differences personally under Jewish influence.

      “But we are called to be a light unto the nations.”

      That’s great, except the nations never asked you to be a light unto us. Please stop trying to repair other people’s world.

  17. Stephanie says

    The discrimination against Asians is unacceptable. I think it would be fair to judge based on language skills, but the use of ethnicity to exclude is exactly what civil rights legislation is supposed to prevent.

    Depriving Asians of what they earned to elevate people of the preferred races undermines the cause of equality, and stinks of paternalistic attitude towards black and brown people. How would those individuals feel if they knew they got accepted at the expense of someone more qualified? Could they look that person in the eye and judge the decision correct? I think most people would be horrified. Not least because it shatters your sense of self-worth to know your most impressive accomplishment amounts to charity by school administrators with lower standards for your race.

  18. Song For the Deaf says

    Here’s a thought:

    Jews were wildly unpopular in every country they ever inhabited in large numbers, and now we see why: they use their influential positions to the detriment of the host population (as we see with the Jewish-written immigration policy that is demographically undermining American whites), they tend to be obsessed with politics and they use politics as an expression of their neuroses, etc.

    Iow, as the author pointed out, the WASPs were absolutely right to discriminate against them and the only bad thing about it was that they failed to stop the Jews, who eventually pushed them out.

    Now let us ask ourselves this: the Overseas Chinese are wildly unpopular everywhere in Asia. They’re a wealthy middleman minority with a knack for dominating other countries’ economies and running their political systems to their own benefit and the detriment of their host populations. Ask the Filipinos, Malays, Indonesians, Vietnamese, et all what they think of the Overseas Chinese. They’re basically the Jews of Asia, but on a far larger scale.

    Now we have millions of Overseas Chinese immigrants pouring into this country. How do you think that’s going to work out for us?

    • The southeast Asians you mention are low IQ trash that are lucky to have Chinese running the place and keeping them from sinking to third world status. Malaysia is a shithole that treats it’s chinese as second class citizens even though they create all the wealth.

      Is all of China a middle man minority? Who the fuck is doing the work building that place if they are all middle men. Come on!

      I’ve spent much of my life around Asians and I’d take an Asian elite over an SJW elite any day, even if they have white skin. They are pragmatic. They don’t hate us. They think progressivism is retarded. That’s literally better then what we’ve got.

      • Song For the Deaf says

        The Dems are doing everything they can to turn Asian immigrants against whites. Judging by Asian voting patterns, they’re succeeding wildly.

        • Are Asians that much more leftist than their relevant peer groups? We are talking educated people living in coastal metros working in leftist industries for leftist companies. Are we convinced that Asian Google programmer are more leftist than White Google programmers? I’m not. Especially if we limit Asian to East Asian, separate from low performing brown-is Asians.

          • Song For the Deaf says

            When did “more left-wing than white Silicon Valley programmers” become our measuring stick for Asian immigrants’ politics? They overwhelmingly vote Democrat. They overwhelmingly support ruinous immigration policies. They increasingly subscribe to the Left’s anti-white narrative (cf. Sarah Jeong). Stop looking at how nice and shy they are and start looking at how their interests align or conflict with yours, as expressed in their voting patterns.

          • If comparable whites overwhelmingly vote democrat, they its something other than being Asian that is at issue.

            Asians have voted the most “right” of all minority groups, especially if you drill down to just East Asians (the Asian “cap” is basically a Han cap).

            At issue here is if a more Asian elite would be more or less hostile to non-elite whites. Given the comparable it seems to me the answer is less.

          • Space Viking says

            From my experiences with Asians, they are not natural leftists thought they’re not naturally rightists either. Recent immigrants tend to be supportive of Democrats for the practical reason they often rely on forms of government assistance. Asian college kids seem to be hardcore leftists but more often than not that arises from their Confucian tendencies to respect teachers and to prefer consensus. Sure, you take an Asian kid and run him/her through the UC Berkley engineering program and send them to Google, they’re going to be lefties. But that same student were to gain employment at the Texas Industries facility north of Dallas, they’ll tend to lose the craziness.

          • Song For the Deaf says

            What is your evidence for this?

            My evidence is the fact that, after Jews took over the institutions, or at least started pushing them in the direction they wanted to go, the white people who wanted to join those institutions had to adopt anti-white politics in order to get by. What reason do you have for believing Asians won’t be similarly incentivized, especially given their current track record?

          • They will be less incentived than liberal whites (who are desperate to avoid guilt/shame) and minorities (who need the entire system to continue because they can’t justify their own existence).

            If 20% of the slots currently going to liberal whites and minorities went to Asians I think that would make these institutions less leftist than the status quo. Moreover, being 40% of Harvards student body would give Asians the power to say no to leftist demands, whereas currently they know they will be crushed if they stand up against even the most insane decrees.

    • @ Song for the Deaf

      You write: “[T]he Overseas Chinese… They’re basically the Jews of Asia, but on a far larger scale.
      Now we have millions of Overseas Chinese immigrants pouring into this country. How do you think that’s going to work out for us?”

      Probably well, I would think.

      Let’s start with the basics. We know that Jews (at least the Ashkenazi) and Chinese are smarter, on average, than the rest of us. We know this because such a thing as intelligence exists, and we also know it can be accurately measured. The results of these measurements disclose a real but not terribly significant average advantage for the Chinese over persons of European descent (of about five IQ points) and a substantial advantage for Ashkenazi Jews (of about twelve points). Among the broad middle range of European, Chinese, and Jewish people in the US that advantage doesn’t make all that much difference, but once you get to the far right end of the bell curves, the Chinese, and especially Jews, pull away from the rest of us. Proportionally, there are a lot more of them toward the end of the curve — say, at around the 99.95 percentile. And these are the people — the ones toward the very, very end of the curves — who are going to be making the big differences in our lives as we move deeper and deeper into the late information age. As an American, I want as many of these people in my country as possible, and I want them to receive the best and most advanced education possible, and not to have these opportunities wasted on those groups who are unable to obtain admission to elite universities without the huge preferences provided by affirmative action, and who have yet to show any ability to perform at the highest levels in science, technology, and innovation. The intellectual talents of Asian-Americans and Jews — and ultimately their loyalties (I’m worried about Chinese-Americans but not Jewish Americans in this regard) — will be crucial if we (and the rest of the world) want to forestall the rise of China as the world’s dominant power. Mexican-Americans (average IQ at around 90) aren’t going to be factors in this project, nor are the twelve percent in the United States who are of sub-Saharan ancestry (average IQ at around 85) — the right ends of their bell curves are nowhere near those of Jews and northeast Asians.

      The fact that Jews and Chinese are resented wherever they go throughout their histories (and this is certainly true) has a lot to do with the fact that they achieve success far more quickly and rapidly than those in the host populations — this directly being the result of possessing higher IQ (and being raised and sustained in higher functioning cultures as a result) — and this inevitably produces a backlash among the “natives” and a tendency to find sinister explanations for their success. But the real explanation is that the they’re just better at meeting and exceeding the requirements of (especially modern) life.

      If we discriminate against them — as you seem to be recommending — we are acting against the best interests of the country, just as certainly as we are when we provide opportunities at places like Harvard to groups who have consistently shown themselves to be unable to earn them based on their own abilities or merit. Both these tendencies — discriminating against the deserving, and favoring the undeserving — apart from being racist, are counterproductive to the common good.

      • Song For the Deaf says

        Nobody resents them for being successful. It’s never just about success. People of other groups resent them for using their power to the detriment of those groups.

        Left-wing Jews have absolutely used their power to undermine white people in this country at every turn. What makes you think smart, wealthy, well connected Chinese wouldn’t do the same, especially considering they have a long history of doing that very thing in other Asian countries? Why wouldn’t they?

  19. Song For the Deaf says

    “But the real explanation is that the they’re just better at meeting and exceeding the requirements of (especially modern) life.”

    That’s only part of it. The other part is that Jews in this country have a long history of demanding entry into other groups’ networks while excluding those other groups from their own networks.

    You seem to think that they got where they did entirely based on merit, but as any left-winger will tell you, true meritocracy doesn’t exist.

  20. TheSnark says

    The old, WASP-y Ivy-league elite is the group that ran the country from when it was a few settlers strung along the East Coast all the way to when it became the world’s main superpower. Despite their shortcomings, one has to admit that their way of doing things worked.

    That Ivy-league culture has changed over the past few decades, which the author attributes to the Jewish influence and their interest in intellectual constructs. Given our current situation, I’m not sure the results have been as good.

    Perhaps the Asian influence will bring things back to a balance? In my experience, while Asians may be very academic, they are less interested in intellectual theory and more interested in results.

  21. Mercurius says

    I can forgive Innominata’s shouting, fo she has unleashed a significant epiphany-

    “Diversity in this sense has come to mean SPECIATION….the old diversity of ideas meant thinking about dinosaurs, mammals and everything of consequence in between. Now, it means just looking at…the…ever-expanding NOW NOW NOW.

    It is, in a very real sense, intellectual Creationism.”

    Barbara Kay has nothing to say about who loses when a university i culturally 400 years deep is suddeny subordinate dto 40 year old ideas by a cadre whose intellectual universe was created no earlier than 1848.

    The ethinic cleansing of Harvard began with the siege of University Hall in 1968, and it has not since had a single ‘legacy’ president , Brahmin or otherwise-. The college system Lowell presided over no longer exists.- the houses he created have been utterly homogenized in the name of diversity, and Harvard’s exceptionalism perished, along with its Charter of 1650, in an administarative & faculty coup d’etat some years ago

    Kay’s dream of a dynasty of alumnae legacies can no longer be fulfilled here, for the simple reason that student body lost its capacite civilatrice a generation ago, Those enrolling today may well emege more roughened than polished by the experience. Perhaps she should consider sending her posterity to Oriel College instead.

    To finalize matters our new Neopuritan masters have taken the intersectional step of striking off the closing lyric of Fair Harvard; ‘Til the stock of the Putitan’s die

  22. Tylerfaith says

    Kay started to allude to the influence of Jews in academia before her tangent took her off course to discussing mainly “public” intellectuals who are not primarily employees of a university.

    but I think there’s an important distinction between the Jews of 60 years ago and today’s Asians: the Jewish students were (and still are) FAR more likely to get involved in university teaching, administration, governance and philanthropy. (briefly mentioned by a couple of other posters).

    my own personal anecdata suggests that while these elite schools range from 20% to 40% Asian undergrads, these folks get their degrees and move on and don’t remain involved in higher education in any capacity . Therefore, they will not have any lasting influence over campus culture

    I don’t see any reason to think that Asian involvement will increase to even a fraction of Jewish involvement.

    but it will be interesting to watch over the next 15-20 years when you start to get a critical mass of Asian legacy applicants. especially given that Asians who allege discrimination often point to legacy admissions as one of the causes of the current problem (along with diversity admissions for blacks/Latinos and athletic preferences.)

    in the interests of full disclosure, my beloved “elite” alma mater has also been accused of discriminating against Asian applicants. it was a federal civil rights complaint that ultimately had no finding of discrimination- not necessarily because our hands are clean. More likely it’s because our admissions office didn’t keep such detailed documentation on the process as their brethren in Harvard did. (I was stunned that Harvard went to such pains to actually create so many smoking guns)

    • Space Viking says

      Currently the Asian population in the US is around 6%. According to this government website Asians make up 10% of our professors (if I’m reading the chart right):

      So they’re actually somewhat over represented as is! I’d imagine the percentage would increase if the admissions bars went away.

      The philanthropy and legacy issues go hand in hand. Confucian philosophy emphasizes charity within the family and to a lesser extent the tribe. It’s likely general alumni giving would go down but there may be an increase in specific donations such as Asian specific scholarships or gifts directed at specific programs. As to legacy admissions that’s generally thought to be used to keep alumni engaged. If new demographics result in less engagement anyhow, perhaps legagcies will go away or become less common.

  23. Alphonse Credenza says

    There is no such thing as an “Asian.” Asia, a term out of the late Middle Ages, is a massive territory from Iraq (or thereabouts) to Japan, from Siberia to Indonesia, with thousands of distinct languages, cultures and ways of life.

    An Asian (in the U.S.) refers only to a federal government classification which is now taken as Truth, but it is a great falsehood and a fraud. No self-respecting Chinese would ever wish to be lumped together with Japanese and vice-versa, etc.

    It’s time we stopped adducing this stupid political term, used only as a passive claim to aggression against other “races.” Those who use it demonstrate just how little they know about the peoples who populate that geography, and the descendants of “Asian” peoples in America know next to nothing about the peoples they claim to be so proud of.

    • Anyone who is paying attention knows that the “Asian cap” is a high IQ East Asian cap, with special interest in keeping down the Han. I don’t think your shocking people by noting that Hmong aren’t like Chinese.

  24. Charlie says

    What is being ignored is who so many wealthy American schools, apparently dating from 1905 performed so poorly ? It would appear that the wealthy were not being well educated at their prep schools. There were Jewish people in Britain and there were no quotas for universities . There was no disproportionate number of Jewish people at university in Britain. Is part of the problem that American universities have allowed in sub-standard legacy children ? I can remember seeing an entrance exam for Harvard from the nineteenth century which required a knowledge of Greek and Latin. Why were the entrance exams stopped? Historically children started Latin at 7-8 years of age and Greek a year later. By the age of 13 years they could translate Caesar and Xenophon. Shakespeare could read Latin by the age of 8 year s and left school at the age of 14 knowing some Greek as well. Surely it would be better to improve the standard of schools rather than worry about the number of Jewish and Asian students?

    When it comes to debate Glasgow University produces some of the best, quick and witty. Surely American schools have debating and public speaking societies and do not the universities have the equivalent of the Oxford Union? It sounds like parents should be asking money back from the prep schools for so poorly educating their children.

    When it comes to IQ what is ignored is spatial awareness and comprehending perspective. Many Jewish people make good scientists but they do not produce so many engineers, artists or composers. Jewish people produce many great musicians they do not appear to produce as many composers. Can Asians and Jewish people visualise- create images in their minds as well some westerners? The Renaissance started in Italy and then the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions started in Britain. Michelangelo said he saw the statue in the rock and just removed the surplus. IQ may measure the ability to learn but how does one measure the creative genius of Brunelleschi, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Rafael, Newton, Darwin, Clerke Maxwell, Bach, Mozart, Shakespeare, Brindley ,A Darby, Newcomen and Watt who created the steam engine and Stephenson railways plus many more ?

  25. Alexandros Katechis says

    Jews are a good source of clean burning energy, and their women give great head …but why do they have to push their left-wing politics on the host countries they infiltrate? I mean whether it’s Original Flavored Marxism or today’s post-modern social justice bullshit, they are always stirring the pot! It’s no wonder they make enemies wherever they go!

    • John Smith says

      In their defense, I think don’t think they can help themselves.

  26. james ginn says

    Free speech is a great thing…but if we can just get Barbara Kay to understand that Zionism is a mental illness then we can move forward a bit.

Comments are closed.