Diversity Prop by Jonah Goldberg on National Review Online many of the nation's top colleges and grad schools used quotas to keep Jews out Harvard fa mously de cided it had too m any"J ews and implemented a" silent quota. "Until Lionel Trilling, Columbia never even had a tenured Jewish professor When four out of five winners of N.Y. Regents scholarships were Jewish, notes historian d avid brion d avis. m ost n ew y ork m edical s chools ha d a s trict anti-Jewish quota- in the name of diversity. The dean of Columbia University's medical school de fended his school's quota by arguing, "The racial and religious makeup in medicine ought to be kept fairly parallel with the population makeup Nobody c an re asonably di spute t hat t here w as a n ol d boy ne twork w hich discriminated not only against Jews, blacks, and what few Asians there were around and, of course, against women- but against middle-class ethnic whites as well What people forget is that the Sat and a host of other measures were created in the 1950s and 1960s in order to dismantle the old boy network to give the poor and socially disadvantaged a chance to compete with the sons and daughters of privilege And it w as r emarkably s uccessful on th at s core. a merica's el ite co lleges an d universities became vastly more integrated -ideologically, socially, and racially because A merica m ade the de cision to live up to the m eritocratic ideal (the marketplace and the g.I. bill probably had a lot to do with it, too). The average IQ at e lite U. S. schools s oared as the dul ler children of privilege were forc ed to compete w ith middle-class Jews, C atholics, and b lacks in ways they never had before. But there were costs. Higher education became much more of a national job-training program and less of an incubator of virtue and good citizenship. Local communities lost some of their best and brightest to the big cities because, for the first time, their best and brightest had an opportunity to compete there on a fair level. And, yes the self-esteem of some groups suffered as fair chances failed to yield"fair"results And just as the meritocracy had costs, so does diversity. In fact, it would have costs even if mi nority ap plicants h ad i dentical acad emic r ecords an d sat scores indistinguishable from t he g eneral pool of s tudents be cause t he c oncept of proportional re presentation is ul timately arbitrary w hen set a gainst the riot of desires, aspirations, abilities, and attitudes of the college-bound population. Children of Asian immigrants may disproportionately want to become engineers and doctors while Jews may cluster around, say, law or journalism. blacks may be more inclined toward education or business Whatever. The point isn't to play pin the stereotypical career on the ethnicity. TI point is that to say that any given room must have at least X percent of blacks, Ymany of the nation's top colleges and grad schools used quotas to keep Jews out. Harvard fa mously de cided it ha d " too m any" J ews a nd implemented a " silent quota." Until Lionel Trilling, Columbia never even had a tenured Jewish professor. When four out of five winners of N.Y. Regents scholarships were Jewish, notes historian D avid Bri on D avis, m ost N ew Y ork m edical s chools ha d a s trict anti-Jewish quota — in the name of diversity. The dean of Columbia University's medical school defended his school's quota by arguing, "The racial and religious makeup in medicine ought to be kept fairly parallel with the population makeup." Nobody c an re asonably di spute t hat t here w as a n ol d boy ne twork w hich discriminated not only against Jews, blacks, and what few Asians there were around — and, of course, against women — but against middle-class ethnic whites as well. What people forget is that the SAT and a host of other measures were created in the 1950s and 1960s in order to dismantle the old boy network, to give the poor and socially disadvantaged a chance to compete with the sons and daughters of privilege. And i t w as r emarkably s uccessful o n th at s core. A merica's el ite co lleges an d universities became vastly more integrated — ideologically, socially, and racially — because A merica m ade t he de cision t o l ive up t o t he m eritocratic i deal (t he marketplace and the G.I. bill probably had a lot to do with it, too). The average IQ at e lite U .S. schools s oared a s t he duller c hildren of privilege were forc ed t o compete with middle-class J ews, C atholics, an d b lacks in ways th ey n ever h ad before. But there were costs. Higher education became much more of a national job-training program and less of an incubator of virtue and good citizenship. Local communities lost some of their best and brightest to the big cities because, for the first time, their best and brightest had an opportunity to compete there on a fair level. And, yes, the self-esteem of some groups suffered as fair chances failed to yield "fair" results. And just as the meritocracy had costs, so does diversity. In fact, it would have costs even i f mi nority ap plicants h ad i dentical acad emic r ecords an d S AT s cores indistinguishable from t he g eneral pool of s tudents be cause t he c oncept of proportional re presentation i s ul timately a rbitrary w hen s et a gainst t he ri ot of desires, aspirations, abilities, and attitudes of the college-bound population. Children of Asian immigrants may disproportionately want to become engineers and doctors while Jews may cluster around, say, law or journalism. Blacks may be more inclined toward education or business. Whatever. The point isn't to play pin the stereotypical career on the ethnicity. The point is that to say that any given room must have at least X percent of blacks, Y Diversity Prop by Jonah Goldberg on National Review Online 3 of 5