Trending Topics:

The meritocracy is rigged

on 33 Comments

In the last couple of days, several friends have sent me this explosive piece at The American Conservative, which argues that the famed Jewish excellence on standardized college-admissions tests “suddenly collapsed” in the last ten years but that Jews continue to get about 1/4 of places at Ivy League schools through a form of “ethnic discrimination.”

Written by Ron Unz, a Jewish graduate of Harvard, the article deals with a delicate but important issue I have repeatedly brought up here, the outsize Jewish presence in what Unz calls “America’s ruling elites.” Unz is saying that Jews have rigged the system much as WASPs did in an earlier generation, and his appeal for greater fairness recalls E. Digby Baltzell’s work in the 1960s calling on the “Protestant establishment” to make way for talented Jews. For my part, I have written about the ways that Jewish kinship networks helped my career in journalism; and I have wondered if ethnic favoritism was not a factor in some elite appointments, from Council on Foreign Relations experts to the Treasury Department’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.

In “The Myth of American Meritocracy,” Unz, The American Conservative publisher, says he was shocked to discover the downward trend in Jewish performance on tests.  But he deplores what he calls the preference shown to young Jews by Ivy League administrations which, he reasons, are comfortable seeking out their own ethnic type because these administrations contain large numbers of Jews and because of a tradition of fighting quotas on Jewish entrance.

Here’s a summary of his argument:

Ivy League schools are the “funnel” for creating our ruling elites, and there is more and more competition for places in these schools. In the 1980s, the numbers of Asian-Americans doing well on standardized tests soared with the result that Ivy League schools began accepting more and more of them. But then in the mid-1990s, Asian admissions hit a fixed ceiling of about 16 percent of Ivy places. Unz says that this ceiling came into being even as the raw number of young Asian-Americans in our society was doubling. He believes that a “de facto ethnic quota system,” similar to the “longstanding” quotas established against soaring Jewish admissions in the Ivy League in the 1920s, was established for Asian-American admissions. (In the case of American Jews, those quotas were ultimately rolled back, Unz says, in large part because of the American Jewish presence in the media, where this violation of the alleged meritocracy was repeatedly assailed. “By contrast, Asian-Americans today neither own nor control even a single significant media outlet”; and have never made a public issue of the de facto quota.)

As for Jewish performance on standardized tests and other measures of academic achievement, Unz has collected evidence that in the last ten years the celebrated tradition of Jewish intellectual performance has collapsed. “From my own perspective, I found these statistical results surprising, even shocking.” He cites the pool of National Merit Scholar semifinalists–  a group of “America’s highest-ability 16,000 graduating seniors; of these, fewer than 1000 are Jewish,” or less than 6 percent of the total. Unz’s methods are admittedly inexact, based on last names, but he says the figure was over 8 percent 25 years ago.

“This consistent picture of stark ethnic decline recurs” in several high school talent competitions he cites: Putnam Exam winners, the Science Talent Search, and the US Math Olympiad.  In that last case, top scoring students averaged over 40 percent Jewish in the 1970s, then 33 percent in the 80s and 90s. “However, during the thirteen years since 2000, just two names out of 78 or 2.5 percent appear to be Jewish,” he writes.

Unz attributes the Jewish decline to the loss of our outsider status in US society. “[A]chievement is a function of both ability and effort, and today’s overwhelmingly affluent Jewish students may be far less diligent in their work habits or driven in their studies than were their parents or grandparents, who lived much closer to the bracing challenges of the immigrant experience,” he says.

But the result is a bizarre one: “[O]ver the last decade or two, meritocracy and Jewish numbers have become opposing forces: the stricter the meritocratic standard, the fewer the Jews admitted.” This decline is reflected at Cal Tech, which accepts students purely on the basis of standardized scores– and where only 5.5 percent of undergrads are Jewish, and 39 percent are Asian-American. “It is intriguing that the school which admits students based on the strictest, most objective academic standards has by a very wide margin the lowest Jewish enrollment for any elite university.”

By contrast, the student bodies at Harvard, Yale and Columbia are all about 25 percent Jewish — a higher Jewish enrollment than the numbers of non-Jewish whites.

Unz ascribes the unfair numbers to Jewish presence inside university administrations. “It would be unreasonable to ignore the salient fact that this massive apparent bias in favor of far less-qualified Jewish applicants coincides with an equally massive ethnic skew at the topmost administrative ranks of the universities in question,” he writes. Another “unconscious bias,” he writes is college admissions’ officers’ fears of charges of anti-Semitic discrimination in rejecting Jewish applicants.

I do not share Unz’s general criticism of colleges’ search for greater diversity in enrollment, or his concern about Asian-American and white student populations. We live in a multicultural, postracial era; and affirmative action has always seemed to me the fair price of getting our society to overcome traditional forms of discrimination. Jews don’t fit that category, but these pumped-up Ivy numbers suggest that our society would be better off with random selection, as Unz quips.

He writes, “Over the last few decades America’s ruling elites have been produced largely as a consequence of the particular selection methods adopted by our top national universities in the late 1960s. Leaving aside the question of whether these methods have been fair or have instead been based on corruption and ethnic favoritism, the elites they have produced have clearly done a very poor job of leading our country, and we must change the methods used to select them.”

Disclosure: This article contains quotations from Ron Unz and references to Unz, who was a financial supporter of our website at the time the article was published.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

33 Responses

  1. DICKERSON3870 on November 28, 2012, 3:54 pm

    ● RE: “I have wondered if ethnic favoritism was not a factor in some elite appointments, from Council on Foreign Relations experts to the Treasury Department’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.” ~ Weiss

    ● SEE: “From Irgun to AIPAC: Israel Lobby’s US Treasury Follies Hurt”, by Grant F. Smith, Dissident Voice, 12/16/08

    [EXCERPT]. . . AIPAC and its associated think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), were instrumental in lobbying the president for the creation of the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence unit early in 2004. The Israel lobby also vetted Stuart Levey [David Cohen’s predecessor] who President Bush approved to lead the new unit. TFI claims to be “safeguarding the financial system against illicit use and combating rogue nations, terrorist facilitators, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferators, money launderers, drug kingpins, and other national security threats.” However its actions—and more important, inactions—reveal it to be a sharp-edged tool forged principally to serve the Israel lobby. . .


  2. Rusty Pipes on November 28, 2012, 4:51 pm

    Other factors in the percentage of Jewish students in proportion to merit (as judged by test scores) at America’s elite private schools include “legacy” and family finances. The children of previous generations of Jewish alums (especially generous donors or boosters) are just as eligible for extra consideration in admissions as are those of WASP (or Catholic) parents. In addition, even when schools are able to offer adequate financial aid packages, students whose families do not have to borrow for college have more freedom in choosing which institutions they will attend (and during the past decade, with the nation’s recession, sending children to college, especially elite private colleges, has been more difficult for middle to lower income families). Even though many Jewish families, like many other American families, have to borrow money to send their children to college, there are enough prosperous Jewish, WASP and Catholic families to account for their outsized representation at elite private schools.

  3. Les on November 28, 2012, 5:01 pm


    This is fascinating and opens new avenues of discussion. I shared Unz’s article with a subject heading suggesting that Jews had become the new WASPs, just as Asians have become the new Jews..

    Give Unz credit for citing Karabel who acknowledges the ownership of so much of our major media by Jews and the fact that that is important. Mondoweiss followers are aware of the impact it has on the images of Israel and the Palestinians presented to Americans by that very same media. (What we still do not know is why 100% support such distorted reporting.)

    Unz’s piece must be added to the growing criticism of the self-serving (and suffocating) entrentchment of Ivy League elitism. I am happy to share Unz’s work with Harvard graduates including an Asian.

    Thanks again for calling this to our attention.

    • bilal a on November 29, 2012, 2:19 am

      Supremacism may be a hidden issue in college discrimination against Asians and white evangelicals, and it is becoming increasingly open in Israel today:

      “There can be no doubt that Judaism is racist in some sense,” Feiglin went on to say in that interview. “And when they asserted at the United Nations that Zionism was racist, I did not find much reason to protest. The people who take racism to mean a distinction between races – and this is a very primitive distinction – must argue that Zionism is racist.”

      Later in the interview, Feiglin addressed the Palestinians. “There is no Palestinian nation. There is only an Arab-speaking public which has suddenly identified itself as a people, a negative of the Zionist movement, parasites. The fact that they hadn’t done so earlier only serves to prove how inferior they are. The Africans have no nations either. Only Zulus, Tutsis.” ”

      • RoHa on November 29, 2012, 6:01 am

        “The Africans have no nations either. Only Zulus, Tutsis.”

        How is a “nation” different from a tribe? And why is it so important to be a “nation”?

      • W.Jones on November 29, 2012, 1:15 pm

        Maybe he would answer: A nation means prestige and unity over a big collection of civilized people, not some bunches of Africans living in huts. It’s important to be a nation so that you are civilized, educated and can continue to be superior.

        Oh well, there isn’t really yet an American “nationality” and there’s tons of very smart, kind orphans in America who don’t know their national heritage background, so maybe it is not all bad being inferior to the superior “nations.”

      • MRW on November 29, 2012, 3:55 pm

        The Africans have no nations either. Only Zulus, Tutsis.”

        Proving Unz’s point? lol.

        Africa is a continent. There are 54 ‘nations’ or states fully recognized as members of the United Nations, and all except Morocco are members of the African Union.

        He’s never heard of Tunisia? Uganda? Sudan?

  4. marc b. on November 28, 2012, 5:19 pm

    so it’s not a meritocracy? huh. i cannot wait to read unz’s piece in full, but this is not news to anyone paying attention. i have pointed out here and elsewhere the trend to deemphasize test scores, a trend that more or less correlates to the increasing relative success of ‘asians’ on standardized admissions tests. the so-called ‘bamboo ceiling’. also, unless i missed it, there’s no mention of the increasingly difficult task of paying for elite education. as i understand it, harvard et al are effectively turning away poorer qualified candidates and prefer to select those whose family can pay the full nut, or have simply discouraged applicants because of their miserly reputation for doling out aid. (the old 60s-ish refrain was that the ‘elites’ always found a way to finance qualified candidates for admission, and that no one would be turned away on account of inability to pay. i know this to be BS as i have several clients whose children were admitted to ivies, but ‘chose’ to attend private, equally expensive second tier universities or state schools due to the disparity of aid offered. one recent example was admitted to cornell and dartmouth but wound up at NorthEastern due to the impossibility of paying tuition at the two ivies.)

  5. MRW on November 28, 2012, 5:30 pm

    the elites they have produced have clearly done a very poor job of leading our country, and we must change the methods used to select them.

    No kidding. As a foreign-named commenter said on here months ago (and which I have stolen shamelessly): Bring Back the WASPs!

  6. marc b. on November 28, 2012, 5:34 pm

    perfect subtitle: ‘how corrupt are ivy league admissions?’ a case where the ‘when did you stop beating your wife’-style interrogation is appropriate.

  7. MRW on November 28, 2012, 5:35 pm

    I wonder if Ron Unz is same Ron Unz who started this site, a researcher’s dream that a Library of Congress librarian turned me onto:

    From the homepage

    This web site is intended to provide an extensive free library of written content to everyone on the Internet, eventually containing a comprehensive collection of high-quality books and periodical issues.

    Since all this content is intended to be permanently and transparently available, students, academics, and journalists may freely use this valuable content, perhaps producing additional writings hyperlinked to these important source materials. This content is provided, in part, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

    A written index for a book or a periodical is merely the precursor of a search-engine; a footnote in a book or article is merely the precursor of a hyperlink. This web site might ultimately allow an unlimited amount of previously produced written content to be easily enhanced with these new capabilities.


    Ron Unz, Chairman

  8. W.Jones on November 28, 2012, 5:36 pm

    Thanks for the article. There are everyday college students graduating from school and looking around and seeing none of the jobs available to them matching the fun themes they worked on in college like anthropology.

  9. yourstruly on November 28, 2012, 6:42 pm

    perhaps there should be a quota on the percentage of positions in the meritocracy that get filled from ivy league schools?

  10. American on November 28, 2012, 6:50 pm

    I don’t know why you are surprised at this Phil, several of us here have explained the natural phenomenon and cycle of immigrants coming on strong, rising, and then lasping or topping out.
    And also that Jewish meritocracy isn’t any more meritorious than the WASP meritocracy is…’s networking. ..getting a foot in the door and bringing in others.
    It’s like the old saying that getting a job isn’t what you know but who you know…and it’s true a lot of the time. Look at the revolving door of abject failures cycling in and out of every US adm’s appointments just because they are in the club.

  11. YoungMassJew on November 28, 2012, 11:40 pm

    I’m not going to lie, this kind of article makes me feel better about not having that +10 Ashkenazi IQ thing. Something tells me that Mr. Johns Hopkins from my birthright trip who repeats re-cycled hasbara and who told me to ” Lay off the Noam Chomsky cowgirl” for me calling out the IDF for what they just did in Gaza, might fall into the category of not-deserving of his elite-status.

    • W.Jones on November 29, 2012, 6:42 am

      Young Mass,

      Back in about 1992 I took a summer class at Hopkins. One or two of the teachers told me that in the 1967 war, Israeli forces destroyed the army in Egypt and “the road was open to Cairo”, but that the US government told them to stop. The connotation I got from the conversation was that Arab forces kept having conflicts with Israeli forces for a long time, and there was a disappointed sense that the US government was an outside force imposing this on the victors. The conversation was the first time I remember that someone told me ideas from one side of the conflicts in the Middle East.

      Later on I went to a good private school, where we read Herzel in world cultures class. Still largely unaware of the issues, I pointed out to the teacher that one place in the text appeared to portray Africans as stereotypical “low-lifes”, and the teacher seemed to agree.

    • marc b. on November 29, 2012, 8:57 am

      who told me to ” Lay off the Noam Chomsky cowgirl”

      jeez, i was really hoping that the story ended with a description of your fist full of keys in the face of ‘mr. j.hopkins’.

  12. Krauss on November 29, 2012, 12:20 am

    I read his piece, it’s a good piece. But the collapse in Jewish achievement started in the 1990s. The best way to look at this is the National Merit Scholar.

    A lot of science competitions etc are very niche and not all the brightest students go for them. Usually you need to have a mindset that is pretty status-obsessed.

    Not so National Merit Scholar. Roughly half of all high school students in America participate, you can only take the test once. Although you can prep for it and many Asians do so for years, something Unz omitted. Nevertheless, Jewish achievement on the NMS tests was high throughout the 1980s and then beginning in the 1990s fell off a cliff from 20-30% during the 60s, 70s and much of the 80s into higher single digits during the 1990s as a percentage of the top 1% who get the honor of being a semi-finalist.

    Today it’s about 6% and WASPs are at about 66%, despite that WASPs are about 52% of the high school population(sans Jews, Arabs etc).

    Asians are the real overperformers, though. Still, if the PSAT(pure meritocracy) scores would hold instead of affirmative action etc, Harvard’s WASP population should essentially triple and the Jewish population should decline by about 75%.

    Asians are the new Jews, though. Although it appears that Jewish involvement in media, politics and so on is not something that they jump on. Many are prepping for tests all their life up until about 25-26 years of age, then get children and just chip away at whatever their job is.

    Just look at the total passivity there has been from Asians in the political arena. You don’t have a Chinese lobby, for instance. Sure, there’s Chinese-American organizations but they’re very reactive and just do something meaningful whenever there’s an offensive ad or something.

    The coverage of China, for instance, is quite negative these days in prestige media such as the NYT, without even a peep of protest from the by now sizable Chinese-American population. There isn’t also any pressure to get closer with India from Indian-Americans.

    I’ve written about self-segregation from Asian-Americans on campus before, I got a lot of pushback, but also support from some Asians on this website, saying it was true. Then again, American campuses, despite all their diversity, seem to become balkanized anyway with most ethnic groups just hanging out with each other.

    There is a cultural phenomenom that I did pick up though, and that is in the cultural arena. Again it’s a defensive, not an offensive, stance. And it concerns anti-Asian stereotypes, and specifically for men. I think the media stereotypes of Asians, and Asian men, have improved a lot the past 20 years even if there are a few outbursts here and there(like the show 2 broke girls that had the Asian manager who is work-obsessed, short and has no sexlife, and a small penis.)

    But as these stereotypes recede, then what? You can’t really rail against ‘the WASP establishment’ the way you could in the 1960s as WASPs are less than 25% at Harvard or Yale. Jews are about 40 to 50% of the richest Americans. That might decline in the coming years and much of that will be picked up by Asians probably.

    Also, a final note on affirmative action. A poll on millenials found that while large majorities of hispanics and blacks support it, only 8%(!) of white millenials support affirmative action for college admissions.

    So it’s very unpopular with the vast majority of the white left, too, among the college kids and people in their age range.

    Asians weren’t polled, for some bizarre reason, but I did find a poll on Asian-American attitudes from september this year(I can’t find the link, but I remember the results) and a whopping 70%(!) supported affirmative action when asked. That is higher than latinos in some cases.

    And we tend to forget that most Asians aren’t Ivy grads. There’s a lot of poor Asians like Hmong, parts of the Filipino and Vietnamese communities has a lot of poverty. There’s a lot of illegal immigrants that are Asians too(estimated at about 1.5 millions) which many do not know about. Asian businessmen and women get government preferences because of affirmative action and much more.

    WASPs on the other hand, gets neither of this. I think the racializing of American politics will at some point ultimately make a portion of them start openly lobbying for themselves like every other ethnic group does. It’s probably inevitable.

    But doing so, the last (and in some sense, the most idealistic) group in America finally would abandon the notion of the melting pot and engage in serious identity politics as the nation is carved out into small ethnic enclaves to an even greater extent.

    Not sure if that is progress, but I see it as inevitable.

    • RoHa on November 29, 2012, 5:57 am

      “The coverage of China, for instance, is quite negative these days in prestige media such as the NYT, without even a peep of protest from the by now sizable Chinese-American population.”

      They are Americans. Why should they care about negative coverage of China?

      • Keith on November 29, 2012, 6:38 pm

        ROHA- “They are Americans. Why should they care about negative coverage of China?”

        Replace “…Chinese-American population.” with Jewish-American population and then ask if you would say ‘They are Americans. Why should they care about negative coverage of Israel?” The difference is stark, and Krauss is correct to call attention to it.

      • RoHa on December 2, 2012, 6:31 pm

        “…Chinese-American population.” with Jewish-American population and then ask if you would say ‘They are Americans. Why should they care about negative coverage of Israel?”

        The Chinese-Americans are just Americans with Chinese ancestors. They aren’t really Chinese at all. A lot of Jewish-Americans are Jews (by religion) as well as being Americans.
        ‘They are Americans. Why should they care about negative coverage of Israel?’
        is a really good question.

    • American on November 29, 2012, 9:08 am

      But doing so, the last (and in some sense, the most idealistic) group in America finally would abandon the notion of the melting pot and engage in serious identity politics as the nation is carved out into small ethnic enclaves to an even greater extent.”………Krauss

      I think we see that now to some extent. Unfortunately it comes across as racist, or is portrayed as racist– and is racist in some cases. But there is some non racist validity in it also…….people regard policies and programs geared for certain ethincs or classes as giving them an unearned advantage or being unfair to other citizens. I remember when affirmative action started people complaining about losing out on jobs they were more qualified for than applicant selected based on race. The other day on the news I saw a Hispanic American talking about the illegal immigrant situation and what he had to do to become a US citizen and saying the illegals should have to go thru the same process and not be given an easier road than previous immigrants had. I don’t think that kind of attitude always comes from a selfish..’I had to do it so you should have to also’…….I do think there are some normal feelings of ‘what is fair’ to all citizens involved in this among many.

    • Keith on November 29, 2012, 6:48 pm

      KRAUSS- First of all, your comment was spot on!

      The Diaspora Chinese populations around the globe are at least somewhat similar to the Jewish Diaspora populations around the globe. In many ways, the same situation prevails. The big difference is that the Chinese do not seek out political power, whereas the Jews do. Perhaps that will change. Whether for better or worse is debatable.

  13. doug on November 29, 2012, 12:55 am


    Very Nice! Thanks.

  14. bilal a on November 29, 2012, 2:07 am

    A friend at a Harvard Phd program once told me that the qualifying exams for entrance to the dissertation phase were fixed The Phd committee told him to study hard on this one exam since they intended to exclude all of the students except him. With 20% of the grading purely qualitative, there was plenty of room to choose whom to grade severely, and whom to affirm. Although in this case it was an example of Jewish networking, it was clear to me that the Insider info and preferences were conducted without any knowing ethnic preferences; people help people like themselves. Ethnic focus and unity then comes about after the fact, when these micro decisions are reflected in inordinate over representation. The preferenced group rallies and justifies the selection process. But every ethnic preference system has a targeted discriminatory object. In the case of the Ivies I doubt the target is Asian Americans, rather Asian Americans with quantitative aptitude , which is a relative weakness in Jewish IQ testing (witness CalTech).

    Most likely, the target is the mainstream white culture from Middle America. fly over country, and especially the Christian evangelicals in this group. My friend said he never met a single white evangelical male or female in various Phd programs he interacted with, and not a single tenured professor.

  15. YoungMassJew on November 29, 2012, 2:30 am

    I know Johns Hopkins isnt an Ivy, but still elite reputation. Also, there were at least 5-10 kids on our birthright bus who all went to Cornell. This in a group of about 50 ish. One in particular I roomed with did not seem so bright. Hmmm. I love it when Phil talks about “the elite issue.” good stuff

    • W.Jones on November 29, 2012, 12:38 pm

      Yes, I am sometimes surprised when I have met people in “good” schools, or studied with them there, who do not seem too bright (to put it very mildly). I am talking much dumber than Bush, who was in Harvard Business School.

      Then there was the individual who dressed a certain way who was caught cheating in an extreme way in a school that should have high honor standards and tons of people knew it, and stayed. I am all for second and even fourth chances, and am just pointing out that tons of people do not get them by comparison.

    • Chu on November 29, 2012, 1:36 pm

      I know what you mean.

      And hard data. What a gift. I know someone on this site
      who is not gonna like this article.

  16. John Smithson on November 29, 2012, 8:41 am

    Out here in the boonies (mid-west) it is fairly well understood/known that you may or may NOT be getting a bright person when you meet/consider hiring a Notre Dame graduate. That’s because legacy can count for so much with them.

    Perhaps a Harvard graduate will be looked at similarly – if Jewish, maybe the kid isn’t really all that bright.

    Reality bites.

  17. marc b. on November 29, 2012, 8:55 am

    This decline is reflected at Cal Tech, which accepts students purely on the basis of standardized scores– and where only 5.5 percent of undergrads are Jewish, and 39 percent are Asian-American.

    that’s an interesting bit. i’d be curious to know the percentages of ‘jewish’ and ‘asian-american’ applicants to caltech, as it appears from other sources that certain groups/classes of people favor applying to institutions where they know/believe that they will be given preferential treatment. the predictive value of standardized test scores is a subject of controversy as well, where economic status plays a significant part in scoring (the difference of scores between persons who can afford to pay for $1000s of prep tests and tutors vs. those who can’t)

  18. Keith on November 29, 2012, 6:26 pm

    Two comments seem appropriate. First, I have long felt that a significant aspect of an Ivy League education is the concomitant Ivy League indoctrination. Graduates of the Harvard, Yale, etc tend to be supporters of empire, American exceptionalism, and corporate/financial rule. There may be exceptions, but they are few and far between.

    The second is that the invocation of ‘meritocracy’ is basically a defense of power and privilege. Power provides the educational opportunities which facilitate high test scores which, in turn, justify elite education, which, in turn, justify preferential placement which ensures elite ‘success.’ The cart is before the horse! What is, in reality, a consequence of power is misrepresented as a justification for power. But then, the elites need to continually justify their power and privilege, don’t they?

    • marc b. on November 30, 2012, 10:19 am

      keith, i agree with your two points, but the controversy here is much more focused than the cynicism and perverse logic of the ‘elites’. unz is examining the corruption of higher education by a particular racial/ethnic group, not some broad, amorphous collective. and frankly, although he has, to his credit, authored this post, weiss’s potted interpretation of unz’s article seems to blunt or ignore many of the points unz has made about the relative intelligence of various ethnic categories and their representation at elite schools. the most important points unz makes are 1. specifically ‘jewish’ corruption undermines meritocratic principles in higher eduction (and beyond); 2. jewish intellectual superiority is a myth (see unz’s points on ‘asian’ vs. ‘jewish’ achievement, but also his comparative analysis of other ethnicities, e.g. comparable IQ scores for ‘jews’ and other ‘white’ sub-groups, and more specifically, higher IQ scores of some sub-groups, such as episcopalians); 3. 1. and 2. are at least partly responsible for the collection of incompetents we have running the nation.

Leave a Reply