 Let's jump in with Harvard and with this lawsuit. So Harvard was sued in 2014 by a non-profit group called Students for Fair Admissions. And they sued them because they alleged that the school was passing over Asians in admissions because of their race. That they were basically not taking on Asians because they had a quota for Asians. And that quota seems to be around 20% for years and years and years. Asian enrollment at Harvard is Harvard around 20%. So if you go back to 1992, it was 19% in 2013. It was 18%. It's always been somewhere between 15% or 20%. And that's pretty weird. Because if you look at Asian enrollment at other universities around the country, it has gone up significantly over that period of time, particularly at elite universities. So take, for example, the California Institute of Technology, which has grown from 25% to 43% between 92 and 2013. So I didn't know that. But almost half of all the students at CIT, probably one of the top two, three technology schools in the country are Asians now. And the argument is that California Institute of Technology is colorblind, is raceblind, and that Harvard has race quotas. And it's running this base in race quotas. The other reason why it's weird that it would stay static is that the number of applicants for Harvard has gone up dramatically. And yet they're accepting a smaller and smaller number of applicants. Add to that that the SAT scores of the Asian applicants are significantly higher than others. For example, if you compare them to, I guess, white students, Asians who get accepted to Harvard have SAT scores of about 140 points higher than their white peers. So all their statistical evidence suggests that Harvard is discriminating against Asians. Now, let's be very clear. From my perspective, Harvard is a private university and should have the right to do whatever it wants in terms of admissions. It should be able to admit anybody it wants by whatever standard it wants. And we have the right to engage with Harvard and engage with Harvard based on our preferences. We have a right to discriminate against Harvard if we don't like or not to send our kids to Harvard or not to do anything with Harvard if we don't like the way they do their admissions if we think they're being irrational in their admission policies. But since Harvard does get money from the government, I think there are only two schools in the United States, university schools that do not get money from the government. One is Hillsdale College and the other is, can't remember the name. But every other, every other university because of that is required to follow the Civil Rights Act, the non-discrimination aspects of the Civil Rights Act. They're not allowed supposedly to discriminate. And so Harvard is sued under the Civil Rights Act that in my view those portions of the Civil Rights Act shouldn't exist and we'll get into more of why they exist in a minute. But they do, that's the law of the land and this is in front of a judge based on, based on the law of the land. So here we are, we've got plenty of this statistical evidence that this is how Harvard, that Harvard has this quota. Now, what is Harvard's response? Harvard's response says no, we don't have a quota. Harvard says the problem, the issue is that we don't only use SAT scores. We also use what they call a holistic measure of a student's fitness, if you will, with Harvard. We have, we look at other characteristics that are involved in a person's life and we try to evaluate the character and we try to evaluate who and what they are. And that is what drives admittance and what they're saying is that while Asian students might do very well in tests, Asian students do not do it well in other parts and other aspects of the admittance process. They don't exhibit the same characteristics. In other words, they have personalities that according to Harvard don't fit well with the Harvard student body. They focus, they're overly focused on studies and they don't do enough of the other kind of activities that are involved, right? So it's called a subjective personal rating. And Asians, at Harvard, get a significant lower rating on these subjective elements that do Hispanics, blacks and white applicants. Now, this is of course interesting, particularly given the fact that they keep getting lower and lower estimates so that their number stays at 20% at the university. So it's an interesting, statistically, one would have to argue that it sure looks like just a quota and that they're using all these other things as rationalizations. But that's Harvard's argument. They've got these subjective personal criteria. Now, it's interesting just historically to know that these subjective personal ratings that Harvard uses in order to decide who to take at the university or not, were actually developed almost 100 years ago. And they were developed over 100 years ago basically to exclude one particular group. And they were not just developed at Harvard, other Ivy League universities used the same thing. And they were explicitly, ultimately, had the effect of, but also acknowledged as a means to reduce the number of Jews at Ivy League universities. So if you go back in history, Harvard's freshman class in 1925 had nearly 30% Jews, 30% of Harvard's class in 1925. The next year it fell to 15% and it stayed there for 20 years, 15%. And part of the reason that was given was that while Jews excelled in academics, while Jews excelled in test scores, while they got high SATs and they had great grades in high school, they were dead personality deficiencies. They didn't fit the culture at Harvard. They had peculiar and quote different social characteristics. They were clannish and they studied too hard. And therefore Harvard excluded them. It's interesting, horrifically interesting, that the same kind of arguments are being made now about Asians. Again, if Harvard, if there was no civil rights law, that particular part of the civil rights law that I think is offensive, then Harvard should be able to define its own criteria. And if this is the criteria defined, I would consider it horrific and stupid and irrational but still the right to do. But now they're being sued under civil rights act because they're under this law. That is the law of the land. So it's sad to hear that Asians don't possess the personal qualities that Harvard is looking for at the same rate as white applicants. This, by the way, is what the judge said. Asians, American applicants, disproportionate strength in academics comes at the expense of other skills and traits that Harvard values. So here we have a case where it's pretty obvious that there's discrimination. It's pretty obvious that there are quotas being imposed. It's pretty obvious that those excuse or the excuse is given for those quotas or the rationalization given for the quotas is biased in and of itself. Asians have bad, certain personalities. Asians have certain social skills that are unacceptable to Harvard, on average. Really? But this is the world we live in and this is the kind of attitude that go for, this is Harvard. This is one of the top universities in the world. This is what goes for criteria for establishing a healthy, diverse, interesting, motivated student body in one of the top universities in the world. Anyway, this went to court and the judge, I think basically as expected, as would be expected ruled, that this was fine, that this did not violate the Civil Rights Act, that this was consistent with previous decisions by the Supreme Court and it was actually okay for Harvard to use race as a criteria. So actually, the judge went further than what Harvard admitted to. Harvard said, no, no, race is not a criteria. It just happens to be that Asian, Scorpolian personality tests, so we reject them. The judge actually said, it's okay if you want to say it's race. So this is part of her argument. So I'm going to read your paragraph from her decision. For the purposes of this case, at least for now, ensuring diversity, and by the way, we'll get back to at least for now in a minute, ensuring diversity at Harvard relies in part on race conscious admissions. The students who admitted to Harvard and choose to attend will live and learn surrounded by all sorts of people with all sorts of experiences, beliefs, and talents. They will have the opportunity to know and understand one another beyond race as whole individuals with unique histories and experiences. It is this at Harvard and elsewhere that will move us one day to the point where we see that race is a fact, but not the defining fact, and not the fact that tells us what is important, but we are not there yet. So the judge is basically saying, and this is the logic that was being used during the Civil Rights Act when affirmative action was passed. The look, we have this history of racism. Race is too big of a deal today. Race is a huge deal today. People are judged based on their race. People are discriminated against based on their race. And in order to get to our ideal, which is a colorblind society, we need to engage in some reverse racism. We need to engage in benefiting those who are being discriminated against, blacks and Hispanics and people of color primarily. And penalize in a sense, those who are being discriminated in favor of, this is the whole idea of privilege that is so common today, primarily whites. And the idea is that by doing that, we create diverse work environment. We create diverse school environments. And over time, people will learn, that race is not important, that race should be ignored. And we will get therefore to a point one day where we can do away with the quotas. We can do away with the idea of affirmative action. And we can truly have a colorblind society. Now, this is the benevolent, supposedly benevolent reason behind the Civil Rights Act. This is benevolent reason behind this reverse discrimination, affirmative action. And indeed, when the Supreme Court upheld the right or the ability to use race in decisions about admissions to universities, Sandra de O'Connor wrote, and this is in 2003, Sandra de O'Connor, the former Supreme Court Justice, considered a conservative on the right, she wrote that the party is only constitutional, right? Because there's the whole issue of how does this fly with the 14th Amendment? How does this fly given the anti-discriminatory nature of the 14th Amendment? She says this only can fly if it is temporary. She wrote to quote her, 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary. Now, we're nine years away from that. Does anybody believe we're gonna get rid of these quotas over the next nine years? So this idea that through reverse discrimination, we can somehow end racism. I mean, it is so illogical. It is so irrational that not only is it not working, I would argue, it's making things worse. It's increasing the level of racism, not decreasing it. It's increasing people's frustration. So for example, so the left doesn't like this argument, doesn't like this argument. They don't like this argument that we will become colorblind one day, that somehow we won't need affirmative action in the future, no. So there's a New York Times op-ed that says, oh no, this was the right decision to side with Harvard. But the reasoning is all wrong. It assumes that this is temporary. But the fact is it's not temporary, they tell us. Racism, discrimination is always gonna be with us. It's institutionalized into every aspect of our culture, every aspect of our life. We cannot be non-discriminatory, we cannot be non-racist. It is part of who we are by necessity. What we need, they tell us, is affirmative action not to help bring about in the future, to bring about diversity so that one day in the future we will have a colorblind society. Colorblindness, racial indifference is impossible, they tell us. Racial bias is built into who we are. Racial bias has thousands of years of history and it's not gonna disappear in 25 years. It's not gonna disappear in nine years. And look, because there's been thousands of years of discrimination against, let's say blacks, we need now thousands of years of discrimination in favor of blacks to undo the harm of thousands of years of discrimination. And this view of course comes from the more modern attitude towards race, which is that race is an important factor of who we are. So in the 1960s, people like Martin Luther King, he would say, you know, don't judge me by my race, by the color of my skin, but the contents of my character. Well today, a race theorists argue on the left that you can't separate the color of my skin from my character. That the two determine one another by being white, one is inherently racist, by being white, one is inherently bad, one is inherently gonna seek to try to be superior and to master over others. And in some sense by being black, one is inherently virtuous. The whole idea of intersectionality, you know, is an application of altruism to human relationship in one of the most bizarre, evil way possible. But it's the idea of, you know, you gain virtue the more you're being, the more historically you've been discriminated against, the more needy you are and therefore the more everybody else must sacrifice to you. I mean, intersectionality is the ultimate in the manifestation of altruism in the academic world, in the world of the left. But their idea is that race and character, race and character cannot be separated. You are determined by your race. And therefore we must all aggregate around our little racial culture, racial groups. And the racial groups that have had in the past privileged, supposedly privileged must be penalized. But it's not just because they have a bad past. It's because in every one of those white people, there is the seed of evil, there is the seed of racism, there's the seed of discrimination and therefore they must be put in their place until we drive that out of them. I don't know, hundreds, thousands of years that it takes in order to get it out of them. They truly believe that race is everything. And that the only way, the only way to have a just society is to discriminate, to be a racist. And this is where the left and the right have united. On the right, they call them race realists, but race realists agree with the left. We are fundamentally determined by our race. Our race is what determines us. Therefore we should stick with our own people, stick with our own racial groups and we should penalize the other races. They can't change, they are determined. So there is a complete agreement now between the people on the wacky left and people on the wacky right. They are united by their racism. Now you might ask, what does this have to do with Asians? I mean, the Asians after all are not white, right? And by the way, I've said before, I think all of these categorizations are bizarre, ridiculous, nutty, crazy, irrational, irrelevant, but anyway. I mean, what does an Asian even mean? I mean, Israel's in Asia, Arabs are Asian, Mongolia's different than China, different than India, that's different than the Philippines, that's different than Russia is mostly in Asia. So the whole thing is stupid. And we all have, a big percentage of us have the genes of Genghis Khan, so to some extent we're all Asians and we all started in Africa, so to some extent we're all African. So the whole issue of race is stupid. But why are we discriminating Asians? What have they done? Right, you know, you can somewhat understand they're discriminating against whites. Whites are evil, according to the left. They have other ones that have to be put down because they're the ones who've been discriminating for all these hundreds or thousands of years. But Asians haven't, Asians are known slaves in America. Asians didn't fight for the South in the Civil War. Asians didn't put together Jim Crow laws. So why penalize them? And of course, the judge, the judge is saying, well, we just need a diversity of races and the problem is the Asians are so smart that they would dominate Harvard. So we need diversity because diversity is what leads this social beneficial outcome of everybody realizing, everybody realizing that racism is a bad thing. Asians have been discriminated against. I mean, Japanese were intern during World War II. You know, you should see the treatment of the Chinese in California when they came over the 19th century. I mean, what have they got against Asians? Well, it's obvious what they've got against Asians. Again, altruism. All of these policies, all of these ideas are driven by altruism. What they've got against Asians is Asians are successful. What they've got against Asians is that Asians are smart. What they've got against Asians is that Asians study hard, get good grades, focus on an education, care about education. We're living in a world that in which race is becoming more and more and more central to people's identity, more and more and more central to people's decisions. Where ability, character, moral character, talent, achievement are less and less important. A need and race are the standards. And we're in a world in which this is now embraced by left and right, by the intellectuals on both extremes. I mean, in a sense, they come together of the so-called political spectrum. I mean, racism is treating people based on an insignificant, irrational character, insignificant characteristic they have. It is irrational. The color of their skin, the ethnic group they belong to. Racism is by definition evil. It is a form of collectivism. It rejects the idea of the individual. It rejects the idea of self-determination. It rejects the idea of free will. It rejects the idea of one's responsibility and ability to create and build one's own character and one's responsibility for one's own character. And it places everything on biological accident, on biological irrelevancies. And this is the culture in which is growing, which the court is supporting, which the court is embracing. Now, it'll be interesting to see what happens in the Supreme Court, but I'll be shocked if they ever turn this. Now, it's funny because from Harvard's perspective, because Harvard claims that it's there because it's trying to create a certain social environment. It's trying to have certain types of people. But it turns out that a major percentage of people admitted to Harvard have nothing to do with tests, have nothing to do with character, have nothing to do with their social skills and everything to do with who their parents are. Now, again, Harvard can do whatever they want, but it's worth pointing out that 43% of white students at Harvard are legacy or special admissions. In other words, they're there because their parents went to Harvard or because their parents gave a big contribution to Harvard or because their parents are faculty at Harvard or because they're athletes. 43% have nothing to do with the stated criteria that Harvard says it's trying to embrace and therefore by that standard, it's excluding Asians. So, if they wanna make some space for some Asians, for some good students, for students to actually take their studies seriously and theoretically they could restrict or limit the number of legacies that they take on. But of course, Harvard would never do that. All right, so it's depressing. It's depressing that we live in a world in an environment where race plays such a big role. And I'd say to a large extent this is because of affirmative action. What the Civil Rights Act did is institutionalize racism for the long run. If Jim Crow laws had been eliminated, if the uproar against Jim Crow and against the racism that was so prevalent in America in the 1950s and 60s had just, if that had just been sustained without engaging in reverse discrimination, but just declaring to the world that racism is evil, that racism is bad, that the government will not tolerate it in public institutions. Private citizens, we leave you alone to do what you were with it, but you are responsible for your own actions. Then I believe that today we would be in a much better situation than we are. Instead, in the name of resolving past discrimination, in the name of past racism, in the name of trying to solve the prevalent racial attitudes that existed at the time, the idea was to reverse it, to ban discrimination in private institutions and to allow affirmative action, to allow reverse discrimination. By doing that, you raised racism to something to be considered always and into the future. I think I've told you the story, I've told you the story in the past of when my son was born and my first son was born and the nurse comes in and she's filling out the birth certificate and they go through the different items in the birth certificate, name and so on, and they get, and she gets the point, she says, what is the race of the baby? And she was a black woman and I literally looked at her and said, what, is this Nazi Germany? Why would anybody ask that question? Well, because the civil rights bill in a sense requires us to know that information because now we have to be measured about how many people of what race, in what neighborhood, go to what school, get what job, get what university. So it maintains it at top of consciousness. Instead of letting racism die, instead of let racism become something that is so abhorrent, something considered so immoral and stupid that it just gets eliminated, it stays at top of consciousness and everybody just accepts it. White, black, Asian, unidentified, we fill out the surveys at every doctor's office, at every government institution, at every place, there's a question there, what is your race? In the census, you have a question, what is your race? Now I refuse to fill out those things unless it's a kind of doctor where your genetic background matters to the potential of disease. I refuse to answer that question. And when I don't answer the race question in the census, they always come knocking at the door and bugging me and I've told them, I said, I won't answer it, come arrest me. It's none of your business and I don't consider it a legitimate question for the government to ask. I don't consider it a legitimate question for anybody to ask. It's not relevant to anything. It's not relevant to anything in life. What group do you belong to? What tribe do you belong to? What tribe did your ancestors belong to? Judge me by who I am. Judge me by what I do. Judge me by the nature of my character. Don't judge me by my tribe. Don't judge me by my ancestors. I don't care who my ancestors were. It's irrelevant. It's uninteresting. But because I think the civil rights, because of affirmative action, the civil rights law, this one aspect of the civil rights law that prohibited discrimination, I think we are becoming more and more racist in this country, in both directions. I think white against black, black against white, Hispanic against white and black against Hispanic and all in every direction. We're becoming more and more tribal, more and more racist, more and more believers in determinism, less and less interested in moral character and inaction, and more and more willing to judge based on irrelevant, irrelevancies. And to me, it's one of the great tragedies of America. In a sense, it's always been one of the great tragedies of America, because unfortunately America was founded on this one original sin of slavery. And we can't seem to escape it. We can't seem to escape this racism. It's all around us. It's everywhere. And it's now institutionalized into our institutions in the name of combating racism. You know that the modern definition of racism says that racism can only apply in one direction. It can only apply by a group that is the majority or by a group that has power over others so that the power less can never be racist, which is a complete negation of the concept and a complete ignoring of what racism actually means. It means judging a person based on their race, judging a person based on their race, based on their tribe, based on their ancestry, based on their ethnicity. That is what racism is. And everybody can be a racist. Doesn't matter what your race is or how you define your race, because I'm not sure what race is to begin with. Doesn't matter how you define your race, you can be a racist. And indeed today, you have racists on the left who are often minorities and racists on the right who are almost all white and those two portions in society, those two elements of society are only growing, only growing. And Asians, unfortunately, are always gonna be discriminated against by everybody because people who come from that part of the world, from Asia, who have immigrated to the United States tend to emphasize education, tend to focus on education, tend therefore to excel, and excellence is found upon. Excellence is reason to be discriminated against. Excellence places you at the top of the exploitation pyramid, and therefore you must be discriminated against in order to fix the fact that you are so good, that you're so able, that you're so talented, that you work so hard. None of those things are good. We want equality. To be quality, we have to knock you down and raise everybody up, but raising is hard, so it's easier to knock the able down, which is exactly what is happening, which is exactly the whole racial identity thing is all an attempt to knock people of ability down in the name of their racists. All right. Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social, or political significance to a man's genetic lineage. The notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry, which means in practice that a man is to be judged not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors. Racism claims that the content of a man's mind, not his cognitive apparatus, but its content is inherited. That a man's convictions, values, and character are determined before he is born by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman's version of the doctrine of innate ideas or of inherited knowledge, which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men. Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species, his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man's life, reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination. The respectable family that supports worthless relatives or covers up their crimes in order to protect the family name as if the moral stature of one man could be damaged by the actions of another. The bum who boasts that his great grandfather was an empire builder, or the small town spinster who boasts that her maternal great uncle was a state senator and her third cousin gave a concert at Carnegie Hall as if the achievements of one man could rub off on the mediocrity of another. The parents who searched genealogical trees in order to evaluate their prospective sons-in-law, the celebrity who starts his autobiography with a detailed account of his family history. All these are samples of racism, the atavistic manifestations of a doctrine whose full expression is the tribal warfare of pre-historical savages, the theory that holds good blood or bad blood as a moral intellectual criterion can lead to nothing but torrents of blood in practice. Root force is the only avenue of action open to men who regard themselves as mindless aggregates of chemicals. Just as there is no such thing as a collective or racial mind, so there is no such thing as a collective or racial achievement. There are only individual minds and individual achievements and a culture is not the anonymous product of undifferentiated masses, but the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men. Using the super chat, and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you stepped forward and actually supported the show for the first time, so I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity, go to uranbrookshow.com slash support or go to subscribestar.com uranbrookshow and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not showing the next...