EDINBURGH CANCELS HUME:  Instapundit readers deserve a little satire today.

(The part about canceling Hume is true, of course.  Alas.)

HOT, HOT, HOT: NEW REPORT RELEASED TODAY: My progressive colleagues on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights apparently are happy to have adults with Down Syndrome lose their jobs. I wish I were teasing.

BEZOS SHOULD LISTEN TO THE RABBIS:  “100 Orthodox Rabbis to Jeff Bezos:  Stop Using Southern Poverty Law Center to Classify Hate Groups.”   (You’ll find a bit about the SPLC’s history here.)

IF PROPOSITION 16 PASSES, CALIFORNIA’S FUTURE COULD LOOK LIKE THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN IN 2005: On Saturday, I posted enrollment statistics from 1995 at UC-Berkeley. Here are statistics from the University of Michigan in 2005 (before Michigan passed its version of Proposition 209, but after the twin Supreme Court cases against the University of Michigan in 2003):

Median total SAT scores of admittees by race/ethnicity:

1160 – Black

1260 – Hispanic

1350 – White

1400 – Asian

Median high school GPA of admittees by race/ethnicity:

3.4 – Black

3.6 – Hispanic

3.9 – White

3.8 – Asian

Admission rates by race/ethnicity:

71% — Black

79% — Hispanic

62% — White

54% — Asian

The message here is if you thought race preferences in college and university admissions were just a gentle thumb on the scale in otherwise close cases, you thought wrong. And if you thought that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger would cause the University of Michigan to decrease the size of preferences, you thought wrong about that too. Preferences got larger instead.

These figures come from a report by Dr. Althea Nagai at the Center for Equality Opportunity.

Nagai reports that “[c]ontrolling for other factors, odds ratios showed Michigan awarding a great deal of preference to black over white applicants (70 to 1) and to Hispanics over whites (roughly 46 to 1).” On the other hand, Michigan “gave whites a small preference over Asians.” She calculated the Asian to white odds ratio at 0.69 to 1.

By contrast, controlling for race and other factors, the odds ratio of in-state over out-of-state applicants was 1.05 to 1 (which was not statistically significant).

ENOUGH READING TO LAST A LIFETIME:  Bill Ever’s has posted a great bibliography which he has titled “The Crisis in Civil Rights:  Best Books and Articles on Race, Police, and the Welfare State.”  It’s really four reading lists–one on anti-semitism, one on police reform, one on poverty and the welfare state, and one on race and civil rights.  You won’t run out of things to read.  Highly recommended.

IF PROPOSITION 16 PASSES, CALIFORNIA’S FUTURE MAY LOOK LIKE THIS: If you think that universities that engage in race-preferential admissions simply put a gentle thumb on the scale in favor of targeted minority members, here are some statistics that may surprise you:

In 1995, before the ban on race-preferential admissions, the level of preference at UC-Berkeley was very high. Here are the median math SAT scores for enrollees by race/ethnicity:

510 (blacks)

560 (Hispanics)

710 (Asians)

690 (whites)

Here are the median verbal SAT scores for enrollees by race/ethnicity:

450 (blacks)

480 (Hispanics)

590 (Asians)

600 (whites)

Here are the median high school GPAs for enrollees by race/ethnicity:

3.42 (blacks)

3.75 (Hispanics)

4.00 (Asians)

4.00 (whites)

These figures come from a report by the Center for Equal Opportunity. CEO has been prying this information out of colleges and universities for decades, but it’s only this past week that Dr. Althea Nagai has put some of the data from several schools into one summary report.

HERE WE GO AGAIN: The Boston Globe purports to be concerned that African American girls are being disciplined in school more often than white girls. If they’d looked, they probably would’ve also found that white girls are disciplined more often than Asian American girls and that boys are disciplined more often than girls. None of this, however, is proof of discrimination. The Commission on Civil Rights did a poorly reasoned report on this last year. Here is my dissent from that report, which (among other things) discusses the fact that students report their own misconduct at rates that differ by race.

A DEVASTATING CRITIQUE: A week of so ago, the New York Times ran a piece about a new study that purports to find that Proposition 209, passed back in 1996, rendered California’s under-represented minority students worse off. The implication, of course, was that California readers should vote in favor of Prop 16, which, if passed, will repeal Prop 209.

The study the NYT was heralding was done by a mere grad student and had not yet been peer-reviewed. Moreover, its findings contradicted peer-reviewed studies by distinguished economists. The latter studies had based on data that were available to any scholar who might be skeptical of their findings. By contrast, the grad student’s study was based in large part on data that he claimed to be prohibited from disclosing.

This is an excellent example of “political usefulness bias.” Has the NYT ever reported on the peer-reviewed studies that find that Prop 209 has actually increased the GPAs and graduation rates of under-represented minorities? Or increased the numbers of under-represented minority STEM majors? Of course not. What about the peer-reviewed studies that suggest Prop 209 is likely to have increased bar passage rates for minorities? Perish the thought that the NYT would report such things.

On Tuesday, Dr. Richard Sander presented a devastating critique of the student study. Among other things, it seems that when the student did use publicly available data, he used the wrong data.

But here’s the kicker: The University of California Office of the President admits that the data came from it and that the student was acting as its employee. Well … there’s a history to this. UCOP had previously denied scholars like Sander—who is a UCLA professor—access to the data (while allowing access to other scholars access). In yesterday’s LA Times, the story contains this quote:

“Why is [UC], which is prohibited from engaging in political activity, allowing its confidential data to be used in an amateurish, inaccurate paper that has been prominently injected into a political debate, for what certainly looks [like] an attempt to influence the fate of Prop. 16. on the November ballot?” [UCLA Law Professor Richard] Sander asked. “It’s not hard to connect the dots and see that the university is using its data as a political weapon, to be withheld from objective scholars who might report ‘”inconvenient truths.'”

Why indeed.

“NO on PROP 16” WARRIORS COULD USE AN INSTALANCHE:  Can I ask a favor?  If you have just a second, I’m told clicking on the Californians for Equal Rights/NO on 16 web site will help our Google ranking.  If you have more than a second, then by all means take a look around the website.

If you still haven’t heard about Prop 16, this OC Register editorial is a quick read.

(p.s. THANK YOU to all of you who have already contributed to our campaign.  Instapundit readers really are the best.)

SLAVERY OR FREEDOM:  THE CONCEPTION OF AMERICA:  This sounds like an interesting program.  A number of great people will be participating, including Bill Allen, Chuck DeVore, Peter Kirsanow, Wilfred Reilly, Peter Wood, and Cathy Young, all of whom are very much worth listening to.  Here’s the program description:

How should we teach American history?  The New York Times’ 1619 Project and associated curriculum disseminated by the Pulitzer Center teaches a polemical narrative of oppression, shorn of nuance, context, or historical accuracy.  Yet this narrative has had success in persuading minds across the nation and beyond that the “America the exceptional nation” story is wrong,  misguided and fails to tell the whole truth. …

This webinar conference will address how we understand and teach America’s founding:  should we place the ideals of liberty or the institution of slavery as the foundation of American history?

It takes place over the course of five days, September 14-18 and it sponsored by the Alexander Hamilton Institute, the Texas Public Policy Institute and the National Association of Scholars.  Watch a little or a lot.

I’M PROUD TO BE ACCUSED OF BEING OFFENSIVE: A week or so ago, several of us from the “NO on Proposition 16” campaign attended a zoom meeting with members of the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle. We knew that the likelihood that they would come out on our side was zero. It’s the San Francisco Chronicle for goodness sake! Our goal was more modest—to show them that we don’t have horns and a forked tail.

We may have failed even in that. Yesterday, the Chronicle endorsed Prop 16, which, if passed, will repeal the following words from the state constitution: “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.” (See California’s Prop 209, passed in 1996.)

Here’s the part that gets me. In endorsing Prop 16, it pronounced our “mismatch” argument against it “offensive.” That’s so annoying.

Still, I view it as a backhanded endorsement. These days when someone cannot actually respond to an argument, they call it offensive in hopes that that the speaker will shut up.  That’s what they’re hoping we’ll do.  They’re going to be disappointed.

Loyal Instapundit readers has seen these links on mismatch before, but maybe some of you haven’t:

Want to Be a Doctor? A Scientist? An Engineer? An Affirmative Action Leg Up May Hurt Your Chances.

A Dubious Expediency: How Race Preferential Admissions on Campus Hurt Minority Students.

If you haven’t read the articles, you can get the flavor from the titles. But there is a mountain of highly sophisticated research behind the argument.  If you don’t believe me, read the articles.  In the end, it is either true or it’s false that “an affirmative action leg up” can hurt the chances of a student to enter a number high-prestige careers. That’s something the country needs to care about.

By the way, I spent the weekend updating “A Dubious Expediency” for an anthology that I am editing with my USD colleague Maimon Schwarzschild.  The book, which I hope will come out in a few months will also contain essays from Peter Kirsanow and Heather Mac Donald (among others).

WHAT’S IN STORE FOR CALIFORNIA?:  A radical race agenda, that’s what.  The California Senate has now passed a bill establishing a slave reparations task force.  Meanwhile, it has also approved a bill that requires race/sexual orientation quotas for corporate boards of directors. A somewhat different version of the corporate board bill has already passed the Assembly, so it’s unlikely they will balk this time around.  And, of course, the Legislature has already passed a bill asking voters to rip up the state constitution’s prohibition on discrimination and preferential treatment on the basis of race or sex.  It’s all so breathtaking.  Sorry I don’t have time to write more …

UPDATE (FROM GLENN): Kurt Schlichter’s The People’s Republic wasn’t supposed to be a how-to manual. But if you want an idea of where California is headed, well, it’s the thing to read first.

JOHN FUND:  “John Muir Is Cancelled.  Who’s Next?“

MORE ON THE INSANITY AT SANDIA NATIONAL LABS:  “Illegal retaliation at Sandia Labs for opposing reverse discrimination?”

“IN DEFENSE OF LOOTING“:  David and Glenn commented on this asinine new book a few minutes ago.  HuffPost has now joins NPR in showcasing it.  Donald Trump just inched a little closer to a second term.

CHRISTOPHER RUFO:  There is a civil war erupting at Sandia National Labs.  One brave guy is pushing back on the systemic racism narrative.

UH OH … NOT SURE EVERYBODY WANTS TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION:  Who killed George Floyd?

THE WRONGHEADED DRIVE TO REPEAL PROP 209:  Whither Race-Neutrality in California?

WOMEN ARE UNLIKELY TO GET AN UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS PREFERENCE IF PROPOSITION 209 IS REPEALED:  I’m told that one of the arguments that polls best for the repeal effort in California is that it will help women get into college.  Perhaps I should point out that women aren’t having any difficulty getting into college.  They are “over-repressented” and a repeal of Proposition 209 will not result in general preferences for women at the undergraduate admissions level.  It may even result in a preference for men.

NEVER TAKE INVESTMENT ADVICE FROM ME:  Just for fun, I bought a modest amount of stock in Lowe’s about a year ago for about $100 a share.  When it got to about $130 in July I was astonished and decided it couldn’t possibly last, so I sold.  It is currently at $165.

RE-LITIGATING PROPOSITION 209 IN CALIFORNIA: Twenty-four years ago, California voters adopted Proposition 209 by a margin of 55% to 45%. I am proud to have co-chaired that campaign.

Its operative clause, which is now part of the California Constitution, reads as follows:

“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

Proposition 209 thus outlaws race-preferential admissions policies, race- and sex-preferential hiring, and preferences for minority- or women-owned businesses.

The California Legislature has been gunning for it ever since. Proposition 209 supporters have twice beat back repeal efforts. But this year the lockdown made political organizing more difficult. This time our overwhelmingly Democratic legislators managed to place the repeal on the ballot for November. We are fighting back as best as we can. (And twenty-four years later, I am again co-chair of the campaign.)

Loyal Instapundit readers may recall that we had a dress rehearsal for this last year. Washington State voters successfully defeated an effort to repeal I-200 (Washington State’s 209 clone) at the ballot box. It was truly an Election Day miracle and a great tribute to the determination of Asian American grassroots organizations in Washington State (helped out by donations from generous Instapundit readers!).

This time there’s at least as much at stake, so I am asking for help again.

To California Voters: Please vote NO on the repeal effort (Proposition 16). (There are many reasons to vote no, but here some reasons that are less well known.)

To Everyone: Many of you probably have one or more California friends.   Please make sure they know about Proposition 16. If you have a California friend who is tempted to vote in favor of the repeal, please hog tie them and throw them in the cellar until Election Day try to persuade them otherwise. And if you have some extra money, please consider sending it our way. Right now our opposition is much better funded than we are. That’s okay. We don’t need as much money; we have much better grassroots support than they have. But we need more money than we have now. If we lose this referendum, the MSM will treat it as gospel that public opinion has permanently shifted on this issue. There will be no going back.

ANOTHER POTENTIAL ELECTION FIASCO:  Vanishing volunteers to act as election judges.

IF YOU WATCH SPORTS TO GET AWAY FROM POLITICS, YOU’RE OUT OF LUCK:  California pro sports teams are falling all over themselves to endorse Prop 16, which would repeal Prop 209 from the California Constitution, thus allowing the state to grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin.  Friends of mine with a sense of humor have answered back with a petition demanding that these teams to allocate 15% of their positions to Asian Americans.  (Asian Americans are about 15% of the California population.)  Go ahead, sign it.  You know you want to.

I GUESS IT’S POSSIBLE:  Will the Dam Break After Clinesmith’s Plea?  Of course, it’s not so easy the get news coverage.  (Media:  “Who is Clinesmith? Never heard of him.”)

(Bumped.)

MINDING THE CAMPUS:  This is serious!  You’re not allowed to argue against race-based admissions policies anymore.