It's necessary for elite institutions to discriminate against non-elite whites in order to expose elites to diversity, because if elites are not exposed to diversity it would undermine their ability to attack non-elite whites for being racist.
Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
15 comments:
"It's necessary for elite institutions to discriminate against non-elite whites in order to expose elites to diversity, because if elites are not exposed to diversity it would undermine their ability to attack non-elite whites for being racist."
Here's one problem with that sentiment, and I'm echoing Espenshade here. If I recall correctly, he argued that if you were to get rid of all forms of AA at elite universities, the overall proportion of whites admitted would remain roughly the same, but the composition of whites would be different. This should be obvious since part of the problem is that elite whites benefit from legacy and athletic admissions at the expense of what you describe as non-elite whites.
Race is one part of the question, but money is obviously another big part which you've left out. If this country were 100% white, non-elite whites would still suffer because elite whites would benefit from legacy and athletic admissions, which are essentially forms of affirmative action which primarily exist to benefit the financial circumstances/prestige of these elite institutions.
How about exposing elite whites to non-elite blacks, the sort that beat up people in buses and schools?
Why is it that elite whites get to mix with the better kind of blacks like Obama who won't rob them or beat them up whereas poor whites must mix with the likes of Mike Tyson(via section 8 and etc)?
I say expose elite whites to black thugs who flashmob stores. That way, they'll understand what kind of racial assault that poor whites have to deal with on a daily basis.
The problem in this country is not non-elite whites oppressing blacks but blacks beating up, robbing, raping, and murdering non-elite whites.
And if we want non-elite whites to have a favorable view of blacks, I have a better idea. I say let's expose non-elite whites to elite blacks(who don't commit crime). That way, non-elite whites will have a more favorable view of blacks.
As for elite whites, I say let's expose them to non-elite run-of-the-mill blacks. And let's see how long they remain 'progressive' and pro-'diversity'.
How about exposing elite whites to non-elite blacks, the sort that beat up people in buses and schools?
Why is it that elite whites get to mix with the better kind of blacks like Obama who won't rob them or beat them up whereas poor whites must mix with the likes of Mike Tyson(via section 8 and etc)?
I say expose elite whites to black thugs who flashmob stores. That way, they'll understand what kind of racial assault that poor whites have to deal with on a daily basis.
The problem in this country is not non-elite whites oppressing blacks but blacks beating up, robbing, raping, and murdering non-elite whites.
And if we want non-elite whites to have a favorable view of blacks, I have a better idea. I say let's expose non-elite whites to elite blacks(who don't commit crime). That way, non-elite whites will have a more favorable view of blacks.
As for elite whites, I say let's expose them to non-elite run-of-the-mill blacks. And let's see how long they remain 'progressive' and pro-'diversity'.
The elites don't really expose themselves to diversity though.
Seems to me that the Occam's Razor explanation is that explicit preferences are the best way to avoid being dragged into the EEOC complaint process, or worse, court. After all, almost all institutions support AA (read preferences), not just 'Elite' universities.
Strange assumption here: exposure breed tolerance? Perhaps. But, perhaps, too, exposure exaggerates perceived differences and has the opposite of the intended effect.
"This should be obvious since part of the problem is that elite whites benefit from legacy and athletic [???] admissions at the expense of what you describe as non-elite whites."
Legacy admissions are not affirmative action. Legacy admissions are a policy which recognizes that the people that came before contributed to an institution --helped build it -- and thus their immediate descendants should be given a greater chance to benefit from it. They are quite Burkean in nature, and very different from affirmative action -- which benefits an entire class of people for no reason whatsoever.
The very last thing the current governing class wants is for well-off white people to feel even a drop of solidarity with the less well-off white people down the road or in another part of the country. If university campuses had lots of white kids on scholarships walking around then some dangerous bonding and empathy might develop. Much better to keep these people down there in "flyover country" in their "white trash" trailer parks.
It's necessary for elite institutions to allow diversity because that's the only time the profs and the other elites will mix with the rabble, isn't it?
Here's one problem with that sentiment, and I'm echoing Espenshade here. If I recall correctly, he argued that if you were to get rid of all forms of AA at elite universities, the overall proportion of whites admitted would remain roughly the same, but the composition of whites would be different.
It depends on how you define elite. Espenshade looked only at eight elite schools, apparently mostly Ivy League ones. If you consider all selective schools, getting rid of affirmative action would indeed increase the number of white students. See this paper for proof. Moreover, Espenshade's study suggested that those eight elite schools actively discriminate against working-class whites compared to richer whites and poor non-whites.
"Legacy admissions are a policy which recognizes that the people that came before contributed to an institution --helped build it -- and thus their immediate descendants should be given a greater chance to benefit from it."
Ha! If only universities were so idealistic! I think the real motivation is the idea that an alumnus is more likely to donate to the school if you admit his or her children...
"Moreover, Espenshade's study suggested that those eight elite schools actively discriminate against working-class whites compared to richer whites and poor non-whites."
Yes -- according to a summary I read, poorer whites are seven times less likely to be admitted to elite universities than are poorer Asians, and the disparity grows compared to blacks and hispanics
Under current AA regimes, hardly any mixing at all takes place. I've never seen anyone mention it, but this was the central idiocy of O'Connor's "25-year" notion. People should read John McWhorter more. He writes about how, before 209, almost all blacks at Berkeley clustered into ethnic studies and other classes devoted to the victimhood narrative. In the
'90's, all anyone had to do was stroll through Sproul Plaza every day and see blacks' self-segregation near the student union building. You know that for awhile now black students have insisted on separate graduations, right? It's all-separatism all the time. They might not have the same hairstyles, but the Panther mentality lives on.
Yan Man says: "elite whites benefit from legacy and athletic admissions"
At 'elite' universities, Asian Americans benefit from legacy admissions more than White Americans, assuming that legacy admission means points added to the applications of the children of alumni.
Asians have been more overrepresented at 'elite' universities than whites since way back when Tiger Mom was going to Harvard, and so the kids of Asian Americans are more likely to get legacy points than whites.
Sorry to freak you out Yan.
I think the nut of that observation was already pretty well established by Jerome Karabel's book The Chosen earlier in the last decade: when meritocracy administrators locate merit it tends to comport with whatever qualities they had possessed abundantly.
Post a Comment