McWhorter: Harvard, Brown and Other Top Schools Are Thinking About Black Freshmen the Wrong Way

Interesting suggestion on how to interpret the numbers:

Several highly selective universities have recently reported that in their first freshman classes admitted after the Supreme Court banned racial preferences in admissions, the number of Black and Latino students has fallen.

The percentage of Black freshman at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for instance, declined from 15 percent last fall to 5 percent for this fall. At Amherst College the number fell from 11 percent to 3 percent. Other schools have reported less precipitous but still noticeable drops, such as from 18 percent to 14 percent at Harvard, 10.5 percent to 7.8 percent at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill — a taxpayer-supported public university in a state where 23 percent of the population is Black — and 15 percent to 9 percent at Brown University, a school that has spent considerable energy looking at its early ties to the slave trade. Yale and Princeton held relatively steady, but an overall trend is clear.

The conventional wisdom is that this is alarming, but I’m not seeing it that way. We are trained to regard news on racial preferences in a way that makes us see tragedy where, through different glasses, we might just see change.

A first question to ask: Will Black students who weren’t admitted be OK? There is every reason to suppose so. Racial preferences were banned for the University of California in 1996, and the way critics discussed it back then, one would almost have thought that the highly selective U.C. Berkeley and U.C.L.A. were the only campuses in the entire university system. I taught at Berkeley at the time, and some young Black filmmakers had me audition (long story) for a film about a fictional Black teenager who was so devastated by being denied admission because of the new rules that he took his own life in despair.

In real life it was hard to see tragedy in a Black student having to go instead to one of the many other excellent options, like U.C. Davis and U.C. Santa Cruz. As regards that student’s future success, time has borne out that intuition. A study by the Berkeley economist Zachary Bleemer found that the ban had no effect on the post-college wages of Black applicants to University of California schools. (There was, however, a differential for Latinos, an effect that was difficult to explain.)

A second question to ask is whether the universities themselves are OK. There seems to be an assumption that they suffer if Black students are represented at less than our 14 percent presence in the population. But it is difficult to specify just what that assumption is based on.

For example, at Brown, almost one in 10 freshmen is Black (and that doesn’t count applicants who did not specify their race). Black America has suffered too much genuine tragedy for it to be considered ominous that “only” one in 10 students in a matriculating class at an Ivy League school is Black.

Nevertheless we are told to bemoan the decrease in general diversity. But wait — how many Black students do the white ones need in order to get an acceptable dose of diversity? The same question applies to whether Black students will feel there are enough people who look like them to feel at home at the school. I would think that at Chapel Hill, for example, 7.8 percent — about one in 12 freshmen — is enough to build a healthy community.

Plus, there is no real evidence that diversity enhances a good college education. No reasonable person is seeking lily-white campuses. But the idea that diversity means, specifically, better learning has turned out to be difficult to prove. Terrance Sandalow and others observe that what are considered Black views — on topics like police conduct or the availability of quality schooling — are as likely to be aired by non-Black students as by Black ones (a good thing, by the way).

The 1999 report by the psychologist Patricia Gurin, which is often cited as demonstrating that diversity improves college education, was based on students self-reporting vague, self-congratulatory qualities such as whether they came out of college with a drive to achieve or with a sense of satisfaction with their college work. Nor is there much proven benefit post-graduation: This spring, a meta-analysis of 615 studies has shown that workplace diversity does not substantially enhance team performance and cooperation.

There is, however, one other argument for giving extra points to Black applicants. Despite the California data I mentioned, nationwide it is true that going to an Ivy League school rather than a solid non-Ivy increases lifelong earnings, as well as the chance of attending graduate school or getting a job at a top-ranked law firm.

But that one advantage is not worth the endless dissonance that racial preferences in admissions would continue to create, whether we liked it or not.

There would always have been a sense among many non-Black students (and even professors) that many Black applicants got in for different reasons than white and Asian applicants did.

Asian families would always have felt they were evaluated more stringently than Black students, as was clearly shown to be the case at Harvard. This feeling would have persisted especially because they, too, are part of minority groups that experience racism.

Eliminating both Black students’ stigma and Asian students’ sense of foul play is more important than closing any gap in future earnings, which in any case hardly indicates that Black students outside of the Ivies are relegated to washing cars for a living. Admissions preferences intended to promote socio-economic rather than just racial diversity would encounter much less pushback and confusion.

Here’s a proposal, radical though it may (unfortunately) seem: Colleges should be very happy with the new numbers. Brown, for example, should be saying, “Hey look — even without that outdated and condescending Blackness bonus, we’re still at 9 percent!” Getting into an elite college is hard, and we should celebrate Black applicants pulling it off in such high numbers, even if they don’t happen to fall precisely at 14 percent. We are taught that on race, professional pessimism is enlightened. I don’t get it.

Source: Harvard, Brown and Other Top Schools Are Thinking About Black Freshmen the Wrong Way

Lederman: Russians at War is an exceptional documentary and needs to be seen

Of note, joins the genre of movies such as Das Boot, Los Chicos de la Guerra, and All Quiet on the Western Front, albeit all of these were made after the wars ended, not during hostilities. Interesting question, will this film be shown in Russia or not?:

…The feature film All Quiet on the Western Front, which also humanized the “wrong” side of the First World War with its devastating portrayal of a young German soldier’s experiences, won four Academy Awards last year, including best international feature film.

Russians at War, which dispels the myth that there is any glory involved in war whatsoever, deserves similar recognition. It certainly deserves a chance to be seen.

Of course, Russians is much more sensitive. It is a documentary to begin with, but also because this catastrophe is happening right now. It is bringing agony to Ukrainians at this very moment. Nobody should have to experience what Ukrainians are suffering through at the hands of Russia.

This film in no way discounts that. If anything, it emphasizes it.

It does not disregard the inhumanity of war to humanize the low-level members of the aggressor’s army: Russian soldiers and medics as young as 20 who are sent to the front lines along with their hopes and dreams – and their not-quite-yet-fully-developed prefrontal cortexes. The opposite, in fact.

Russian fighters – some drafted, some indoctrinated, some there to keep their families fed back home or a friend company at the front, some there because they don’t know why – are also victims of this war. As one notes in the film, they are at war with themselves. “Slavs against Slavs.”

Thousands and thousands of people, Ukrainian and Russian, have been ripped from their lives to further a madman’s dream.

And a talented filmmaker, without an official posting or even a press pass, followed them almost all the way to the front so that we could know about it. And be outraged. Not at the film; at the war.

Censoring art is never a good idea. But keeping this film under wraps is denying the public of more than the experience of seeing an excellent movie. It is restricting access to a vital message: an unforgiving indictment of war.

Peace.

Source: Russians at War is an exceptional documentary and needs to be seen

Hopeful immigrants to Canada are learning French after other paths to permanent residency prove difficult

Not entirely unexpected as many applicants will explore different options. Some of the individual cases cited suggest a level of determination and work ethic that make them likely to be successful immigrants:

…Some economists have criticized prioritizing French-language skills for immigrant selection, saying it affects Canada’s ability to attract top talent.

University of Waterloo’s Prof. Skuterud points out that giving priority to French-language speakers with lower scores means that a large number of applicants with scores above 500 – who have the potential of making higher incomes but don’t speak French – aren’t invited to apply.

“This is the trade-off we have: computer science students at the University of Waterloo are getting frustrated and saying I’m going somewhere else,” Prof. Skuterud said. “This is a huge problem if what you care about is productivity, which is what everybody is talking about now.”

It comes down to the society’s priority whether it’s for labour market success or letting in immigrants that will assimilate into Francophone culture, said Philip Oreopoulos, an economics professor at the University of Toronto.

Prof. Oreopoulos agrees that the new category doesn’t maximize chances for immigrants’ productivity. “I don’t think outside of Quebec, favouring more points for knowing French would lead to better labour market success than, say, favouring graduate education,” he said.

Jeffrey MacDonald, a communications adviser at the Ministry of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, points out that supporting francophone immigration is part of an obligation Canada made in its Official Languages Act. And, he added in an e-mail, the new French-language category “will contribute to stronger and more prosperous Francophone communities for generations to come.”

Source: Hopeful immigrants to Canada are learning French after other paths to permanent residency prove difficult

COVID-19 Immigration Effects – July 2024 update

Highlights:

  • Permanent residents admissions: PR Admissions: Increase from 44,530 in June to 47,770 in July. July year-over-year change (change from 2022 in parentheses): Economic – PNP 34.9% (15.0%), Economic – Federal 11.7% (0.7%), Family 2.8% (-2.1%), Refugees 14.4% (30.8%)
  • TR2PR (Those already in Canada): Increase from 19,170 in June (43% of all PRs) to 22,100 in July (46.3% of all PRs). July year-over-year change (change from 2022): 10.6% (32.5%)
  • TRs-IMP: Decrease from 70,435 in June to 61,510 in July. July year-over-year (change from 2022): Agreements: 205.6% (-32.8%), Canadian Interests: -27.7% (29.9%), Other IMP Participants -56.1% (430.3%), Not stated -18.0% (-17.7%)
  • TRs-TFWs: Decrease from 19,230 in June to15,330 in July. July year-over-year change (change from 2022): Caregivers -18.8% (0.0%), Agriculture -23.0% (-19.5%) and Other LMIA -9.4% (79.4%).
  • NEW: TRs by occupation code (June, will be updated quarterly): 58 % low-wage (D), year-over-year change (change from 2022) 18.5% (571.3%): 
  • Students: Increase from 29,420 in June to 35,105 in July. July year-over-year change (change from 2023): -35.4% post-secondary -41.5% (-5.1%). Year-to date 2024 compared to 2023 decline of 4 percent 
  • Asylum Claimants: Stable, from 14,485 in June to 14,825 in July. July year-over-year change (change from 2022): 23.4% (90.1%)
  • Citizenship: Increase from 33,179 in June to 36,070 in July. July year-over-year change (change from 2022): 15.4% (25.0%). Year-to date 2024 compared to 2023 increase of 16 percent
  • Visitor Visas: Increase from 118,402 in June to 127,399 in July. July year-over-year change (change from 2022): -19.7% (37.6%).Slide 3 has the overall numbers and change.

https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/canadian-immigration-tracker-key-slides-july-2024-pdf/271760138

LILLEY: Poilievre promises to cap immigration, tie it to housing

The devil, as in all areas of policy, and particularly in immigration and citizenship policy, will lie in the details and how a Conservative government deals with pressures from the business community and provincial governments:

Part of Pierre Poilievre’s plan to deal with Canada’s housing crisis will be to cap immigration. The Conservative leader said if he wins the next election, he’ll bring sanity back to Canada’s immigration system.

Poilievre was speaking with reporters ahead of Parliament’s return from the summer break. He said that when MPs return to Ottawa next Monday, he will try and defeat the government and force an election as soon as possible.

If he wins the election, he promises across-the-board changes on immigration.

“We will cap population growth so that the housing stock always grows faster than the population,” Poilievre said.

In the middle of a housing crisis, at a time when we are bringing in more than 1 million people per year, his statement sounds like common sense. While Poilievre said exact numbers would come before the next election, he said this policy idea is really about math, not immigration.

“We’re building like 240,000 homes, that’s like a 1.4% increase in our housing supply. You can’t grow the population faster than that, unless you’re going to have worse housing shortages,” he said.

“Under Trudeau and the NDP, we’ve been growing the population by almost 3%, but we grow the housing stock by 1.4%. No wonder we’re running out of homes.”

He also said he’d scale back the international student program.

“We’re going to bring home the international student system we had before Justin Trudeau. Which was a modest number of young people who were extremely promising could come here and study, and if they excel, they followed the law, they learned English or French, they could join the Canadian family,” Poilievre said.

He noted stories showing more than 20 international students living in the basement of one home in Brampton as an example of how off the rails the program has become the last few years. There were just over 350,00 foreign students in Canada when the Trudeau Liberals took over in 2015, but more than 1 million last year.

It’s not just the housing market that is also being impacted by the massive swell in immigration, both permanent and temporary. The most recent unemployment report from Statistics Canada showed unemployment growing from 6.4% in July to 6.6% in August, and a big part of that was population growth driven by immigration.

We added 96,400 people to the working age population, meaning those 15 and older. That’s a massive number in just one month, but it’s been going on like this for the last couple of years.

While there were some new jobs added, they were mostly part-time and didn’t keep pace with population growth. There were 44,000 full-time jobs lost last month, and we added 60,000 people to the unemployment rolls.

Statistics Canada has been warning about this for more than a year, noting time and again that job growth is not keeping pace with population growth.

“Given this pace of population growth, employment growth of approximately 50,000 per month is required for the employment rate to remain constant,” the agency warned a year ago.

We haven’t been hitting those numbers, and that’s why our unemployment rate has gone from 5% to 6.6%.

“That’s not even a question of whether you support or not immigration, it’s a question of whether you support mathematics,” Poilievre said when speaking about the housing crunch, but it applies to the impact on the job market as well.

Last April, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that we were bringing in people faster than we could absorb them. Since he made those comments, we’ve added more than 500,000 people to Canada.

How does it make sense to keep immigration levels where they are when we are facing a housing shortage, a housing affordability crisis due to a lack of housing and growing unemployment.

It simply doesn’t and to carry on isn’t fair to anyone.

The Trudeau Liberals made this mess; they don’t seem to be in a hurry to fix it. Maybe it’s time to give Poilievre a turn.

Source: LILLEY: Poilievre promises to cap immigration, tie it to housing

U.S. border patrol reports record number of encounters with migrants at the Canadian border

Quite a shift from most coming North to many going South:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection says it recorded a record-high number of encounters with migrants between border posts on the Canada-U.S. border between October 2023 and July of this year.

It’s a pattern experts say could be a problem for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government as the question of illegal immigration heats up in a close-fought U.S. election.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) records an “encounter” in its database when it comes across someone who is inadmissable to the U.S., or when border patrol officers find someone who has illegally crossed the border into the U.S. between border posts.

CBP reported encountering 19,498 migrants between border posts on the northern border between October 2023 and July 2024 — 15,612 of them in the Swanton Sector, which runs along the Quebec’s border with New York and Vermont.

While the numbers still pale in comparison with the U.S southern border, that’s more than twice as many as the 7,630 encountered between border posts during the same time period the previous year.

The year before that, CBP reported encountering only 2,238 migrants between border posts at the northern border.

U.S. news coverage of the surge in migration over its northern border intensified over the summer. In an interview with Fox News on Aug. 22, after complaining about illegal migration over the southern border, former president Donald Trump said the U.S. now had a problem on the northern border with migrants coming in from Canada.

Kelly Sundberg of Mount Royal University said the matter could become a political hot potato for the Trudeau government, regardless of who becomes the next president of the United States.

“I hate to admit it, but I think that Donald Trump is right on this, that there is a need to focus north,” said Sundberg, who worked for many years as an enforcement officer with the Canada Border Services Agency.

“But it’s not just the Trump campaign. The [Kamala Harris] campaign has indicated also that they have acknowledged that there’s concerns on the northern border.”

RCMP Sgt. Charles Poirier said “there isn’t a day or night where there isn’t a crossing.” In Quebec alone, the RCMP intercepts an average of more than 100 people per week on the Canadian side of the border and Poirier said that’s only a portion of those headed for the U.S….

Source: U.S. border patrol reports record number of encounters with migrants at the Canadian border

Europe’s largest economy just enacted border closures. Will others follow?

Of note, undermining Schengen:

The German government says it is cracking down on irregular migration and crime following recent extremist attacks, and plans to extend temporary border controls to all nine of its frontiers next week.

Last month, a deadly knife attack by a Syrian asylum-seeker in Soligen killed three people. The perpetrator claimed to be inspired by the Islamic State group. In June, a knife attack by an Afghan immigrant left a police officer dead and four other people wounded.

The border closures are set to last six months and are threatening to test European unity. Most of Germany’s neighbors are fellow members of the European Union, a 27-country bloc based on the principles of free trade and travel. And Germany – the EU’s economic motor in the heart of Europe – shares more borders with other countries than any other member state.

The Polish prime minister on Tuesday denounced the closures as “unacceptable” and Austria said it won’t accept migrants rejected by Germany….

Source: Europe’s largest economy just enacted border closures. Will others follow?

The decline and fall of Tariq Ramadan

Of interest:

Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and a well-known figure in the Islamic world, has been convicted of the rape and sexual coercion of a woman in a Geneva hotel, after a court overturned an earlier acquittal. Professor Ramadan has been jailed for three years, two suspended, over the 2008 incident.

The verdict marks a remarkable fall from grace for Ramadan, who was raised in exile in Switzerland, and skilfully navigated the Francophone, English and Arabic speaking worlds as an academic, campaigner and theologian. His father, Said Ramadan, was central to the Muslim Brotherhood’s development in Europe.

While Ramadan was convicted in a court in Switzerland, the repercussions of his downfall will be felt here in the UK. Ramadan’s X account currently gives his location as the United Kingdom and contains the description ‘Emeritus Professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies at the University of Oxford.’ He boasts a following of 721,000, numbers that many politicians or religious leaders could only dream of.

For a period, especially following 7/7, Ramadan was a poster boy for those in authority in this country who sought an Islam that the West could not only do business with, but more importantly feel comfortable about. Bright-eyed, handsome and articulate, Ramadan proved to be a very successful salesman, with audiences as diverse as the Metropolitan Police through to the leftist European Social Forum.

Ramadan’s talk of reform, a European Islam and apparent doubt about Islamic hudood punishments (these include amputation, stoning and flogging) were music to the ears of his audience. In his memoir, the former Head of Scotland Yard’s Muslim Contact Unit, Bob Lambert, thanks Ramadan in the acknowledgments. In 2008, Ramadan addressed the ‘Countering Insurgency and Terrorism’ conference, jointly organised by the Swedish National Defence College and UK Defence Academy.

To his critics, Ramadan was instead guilty of ‘doublespeak’ – saying one thing to western audiences, and another to Islamic audiences. Appointed to the Home Office’s ‘Preventing Extremism together’ taskforce in the wake of the 7/7 bombings in 2005, Ramadan would condemn violence, but not the Salafist ideology from which it has often emerged. That such beliefs are a rival to liberal democracy, and that giving them a leg-up may be a bad idea, seemed to be overlooked by many in power.

In 2014, Professor Ramadan sat on Baroness Warsi’s Foreign Office Advisory Group on freedom of religion or belief. Such commitments did not prevent Ramadan moving in elite circles in areas hardly known for such freedoms, most notably the Gulf. The post he formerly held at Oxford is officially known as the His Highness Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani Professor in Contemporary Islamic Studies, and is made possible by a benefaction by the Qatar Foundation, running into the millions.

Despite the seriousness of the accusations against him, Ramadan’s status ensured lofty support. In 2017, when accusations about Ramadan first emerged in France, concerns that they were motivated by his status as a ‘prominent Muslim’ ensured that the University of Oxford allowed him to continue teaching for three weeks, before granting a leave of absence. Eugene Rogan, Director of Oxford’s Middle East Centre stated:

‘It’s not just about sexual violence. For some students it’s just another way for Europeans to gang up against a prominent Muslim intellectual. We must protect Muslim students who believe and trust in him, and protect that trust.’

Here an element of snobbery also emerges; it is hard to imagine a university porter being given leave of absence, or attracting academic supporters, in such circumstances. In 2018, when Ramadan was remanded in custody in France, Muslim lobbyists MEND referred to a ‘weak accusation’ and demanded his release on health and human rights grounds.

By 2020, Ramadan had been released but remained indicted, prompting dozens of academics, politicians and activists to denounce the French legal system in a round-robin letter. Their number included high-profile broadcasters and the great and the good from the Islamic world.

Their letter asked: ‘Is there one form of justice for Muslims in France and another for everyone else?’ In June 2024, a French court decided charges against Ramadan could proceed. As due process has now been followed in Switzerland, a period of reflection should follow. Activists who promoted Professor Ramadan, and his supporters in the fields of counter-extremism, policing and academia have plenty to think about.

Source: The decline and fall of Tariq Ramadan

Kuwait revokes citizenship of more than 10,000 people with dual nationality

Of note (mainly from neighbouring countries):

Kuwait’s Central Agency for Remedying Illegal Residents’ Status (CARIRS) has revoked the citizenship of more than 10,000 people with dual nationality between 2011 and last month, the KUNA news agency has reported.

According to the agency, the step is the result of a full decade of Kuwaiti efforts to address the dual nationality file, and comes as a culmination of a campaign that began last year to confront those who obtain Kuwaiti citizenship illegally. Almost 1,000 such people have been detected to date. Kuwait does not recognise dual nationality and children with dual nationality have two years after reaching the age of 18 to decide whether to retain Kuwaiti nationality or keep their other nationality.

The Director of the Situation Amendment Department in CARIRS, General Muhammad Al-Wahib, told KUNA that 6,054 residents’ status had been changed to Saudi nationality; 1,188 to Iraqi nationality; 868 to Syrian nationality; 131 to Iranian nationality; 53 to Jordanian nationality; and 1,962 to other nationalities.

Al-Wahib pointed out that these statistics include individuals who have parents or relatives who own documents from different nationalities and do not include those who have other relatives with proven nationality.

He called on those wishing to amend their status to visit CARIRS in the Eastern Region, to settle their residencies and regularise their status according to the residency laws in force in Kuwait.

The Gulf state has in recent years intensified efforts to amend the status of those residing illegally in the country.

Source: Kuwait revokes citizenship of more than 10,000 people with dual nationality

Chris Selley: Canada’s ‘immigration consensus’ endures, despite Ottawa’s worst efforts

Correct interpretation IMO. However, the current government’s approach undermines public trust in government competence in immigration and other areas, even as some corrective action is taking place:

….Environics also inquired as to why the shift occurred. And it’s very obviously for one major reason: The housing crisis. In 2022, 15 per cent of respondents agreed that “immigrants drive up housing prices (and lead to) less housing for other Canadians”; in 2023, 38 per cent agreed.

And they’re right. Add demand for a scarce product and prices go up. Canada absolutely should be able to cope with current or higher levels of immigration, and indeed thrive off of it. We’re not exactly short on land or high on population density. But our politicians have never been more motivated to address housing scarcity, and the results have been utterly dismal. For heaven’s sake there were fewer home starts in June 2024 than in June 2022, according to CMHC data.

On the issues more typically associated with anti-immigration sentiment per se, the Environics data show no alarming spikes at all. Only four per cent of respondents cited “security risk” as a factor influencing their desire for less immigration. One-quarter said “immigrants are a drain on public finances (or) cost too much,” or are “bad for (the) economy (and) take jobs from other Canadians” — up from 23 per cent and 21 per cent, respectively, which is hardly any change at all in the polling world.

In 2022 and 2023 alike, just 19 per cent of respondents told Environics there were “already too many people in Canada” — the strongest suggestion, I submit, that what we’re seeing here isn’t a backlash against immigration, let alone against individual immigrants and immigrant populations, but a call for some restraint until we get our crap together. Just nine per cent of respondents told Environics they thought immigrants make their community worse; 42 per cent said they make it better.

For 30 years, Environics has asked Canadians whether they think “there are too many immigrants coming into this country who are not adopting Canadian values” — something you hear often from people who could fairly be called anti-immigration. In 1993, 72 per cent of Canadians agreed with that proposition. Three decades later, amid this so-called “backlash,” the figure was 48 per cent.

Especially at a time when Canadians seem more angst-ridden about the country’s economic future than I can ever remember — potentially fertile soil for xenophobic sentiments, as history shows — these don’t strike me as alarming numbers at all. That’s especially true considering we’ve been admitting more immigrants per capita than at any time since the Hungarian Revolution in 1956, and watching tens of thousands of people traipse illegally across the Canada-U.S. border claiming asylum, and been lectured about racism and intolerance by a government that has basically conceded all of its opponents’ points on the immigration file.

Wanting less immigration isn’t inherently a “backlash” unless the optimal number of immigrants is infinite, which it obviously is not. We have enough problems to deal with without inventing new ones. The immigration consensus lives, despite the federal government’s worst efforts.

Source: Chris Selley: Canada’s ‘immigration consensus’ endures, despite Ottawa’s worst efforts