deogeo

And yet Black students are better represented than non-Jewish White students. Princeton vs US demographics (in %), from most to least represented:

          Princeton  US    ratio
  Asian   20.9       5.3    3.94
  Jewish   8.0       2.15   3.72
  Black    7.7      12.7    0.61
  White   34.7      59.3    0.58
  Latino   9.5      17.6    0.54

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews (using average of 2.15%)

https://hillel.org/college-guide/list/record/princeton-unive...

https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/princeton-university...

Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

Of course, when faced with a few loud complainers, you would never consider yourself to be right, and them wrong. You would recognize the folly of your ways, and the wisdom of the crowd that was right all along.

"Software Craftsmanship is Sexist and Must be Scrapped" -- https://medium.com/@alandevlin7/software-craftsmanship-is-se...

It seems what he wrote was accurate. What problem do you have with it, specifically?

For the benefit of those less up to date, why don't you link them.

If one digs deeper, one sees that of the 25 university heads, 11 (44%) are Jewish (2% of the US). Meaning of the 25, only 12 (48%) are non-Jewish white (58% of the US) (NYT counted 13, but Jahanian is Iranian, which surely qualifies as a minority).

For the supreme court, 3 (33%) are Jewish, and 4 (44%) non-Jewish white.

Of the major news organization heads, 4 (27%) are Jewish, and 53% non-Jewish white.

Of the top TV and Hollywood heads, 7 (28%) are Jewish, and 60% non-Jewish white.

So it turns out, looking at only non-Jewish whites, they're more often than not under-represented.

> But what business does a foreign company have drawing precious resources from a US desert to offset a lack of resources halfway around the globe?

Surprisingly nativist rhetoric coming from the Guardian.

> Few tears will be shed for the SAT and ACT exams, even though they were once infamous for causing Harvard to be overpopulated with high-scoring “undesirables” like Jews and Catholics, forcing the school to add letters of reference and personal essays to help restore the WASP balance.

Tangential, but this is highly misleading. Jewish students are still over 5x over-represented, and non-Jewish white students are 0.6x under-represented, according to Harvard's own diversity report and polling done by Jewish organizations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23764422

> Another person who signed, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in an effort to stay out of the growing storm, said she did not know who all the other signatories were when she agreed to participate, and if she had, she may not have signed.

Always condemn 'the enemy', even when you agree with them. Anything else could be interpreted as a sign of disloyalty.

That is correct.

While still greatly over-represented (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23764422), Hillel tends to over-count Jewish students, according to https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/how-many-jewish-undergraduat...

Only 12% of Harvard students are international: https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics

It's illuminating to also compare Harvard demographics vs the US. Sorted by most to least represented:

    Jewish: 14.0% vs 2.6% (5.38x)
    Asian American: 25.3% vs 5.3% (4.77x)
    Native Hawaiian: 0.6% vs 0.2% (3.00x)
    Native American: 1.8% vs 0.7% (2.57x)
    African American: 14.3% vs 12.7% (1.13x)
    Hispanic or Latino: 12.2% vs 17.6% (0.69x)
    non-Jewish white: 33.0% vs 58.9% (0.56x)

Sources:

https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics from 2019

https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/how-many-jewish-undergraduat...

https://features.thecrimson.com/2016/freshman-survey/lifesty...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews, upper estimate used

You're correct regarding the law, but I wouldn't be so quick to claim it's not as bad. Suppose a business refused to serve union activists? Environmentalists? Feminists? Suppose many large businesses did so?

Yet the CIA-modern art connection has been confirmed:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_expressionism#Abstrac...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_the_Cultural_Cold_War

> Well, first they'd need to be over-represented ;)

Not at all - behold, an entire article complaining about too many whites on Harvard [1], despite being the most under-represented group [2].

[1] https://slate.com/business/2019/09/harvard-admissions-affirm...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21130080

Claiming Asians in the US have never benefited from privilege implies exactly that, unless you tweak the definition of privilege depending on what group you're judging.

> I didn't say anything about whites.

When you say "odds are stacked against" someone, you have to compare to some other group to see what the "default" odds are. And privilege is not limited to the law. If a white person preferentially hires or promotes other whites, you'd claim those whites benefited from privilege. But you won't say the same for Asians, because of the Chinese Exclusion Act? Or because you just don't believe such a thing happens, despite evidence to the contrary [1,2]?

[1] https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Elekta-RVW...

[2] https://qz.com/india/889524/the-us-says-oracle-is-encouragin...

Slavery is not exclusive to black people either.

Would it also be okay to suggest Asians are over-represented because of unearned Asian privilege?

What about suggesting whites are (hypothetically) over-represented because they've made attaining education a priority?

Forgive me for noticing, but "one-sided" doesn't even begin to describe this debate.

> Research has pointed out that students are more likely to regard teachers of the same race and ethnicity as role models, and due to proximity to them, put more effort into education and have higher college ambitions.

Is this claiming that students in homogeneous societies are at an advantage, because they are more likely to share their teacher's ethnicity?

Not just STEM - in Harvard too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21130080

> the US’s “holistic” college admissions system, with its baffling-to-foreigners emphasis on “character,” “leadership,” “well-roundedness,” etc. rather than test scores, originated in a successful push a century ago by the presidents of Harvard, Princeton, and Yale to keep Jewish enrollments down. Today the system fulfills precisely the same function, except against Asian-Americans rather than Jews.)

"Fulfills" implies it is effective, but enrollment statistics show this to be utterly false: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21130080

> in line with the present administration's immigration policies outside of COVID.

According to [1], the immigration rate under Trump has slightly increased compared to under Obama, and is at 3x what it was during 1960-1975. So the policies you refer to are nothing but ineffectual noise.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Stat..., table "Persons obtaining legal permanent resident status by fiscal year"

No expectation of privacy (arguable, but okay) doesn't imply it's OK to build mass surveillance infrastructure there.

Yes, mass surveillance is A-OK as long as it's not racist.

> John Deere and other manufacturers have made it impossible to perform "unauthorized" repair on farm equipment, which farmers see as an attack on their sovereignty

I think this is the key point. All other harms of DRM are just symptoms, enabled by loss of sovereignty - of having some corporation make itself arbiter of what you're allowed to do with hardware that is supposedly yours.

"Willingly" might be overstating things - Google is expert at misleading privacy notifications, and just like they wouldn't expect the local baker to keep logs of what they buy and when, and sell them to data collectors, maybe they have a naive idea that buying something on their phone is similar. They're just not aware how deeply hostile and backstabbing the entities they're dealing with are - like most humans, they're adapted to dealing with neighbors and people they know, not amoral international conglomerates.

I believe Belyayev had a control group, yes.

Even so, the change in behavior seems genuine, when compared to what it was initially. The experimental fault also seems easy to fix - just compare behavior to other fur-farm foxes, instead of wild ones.