The demographic profile of Stanford University’s class of 2026 is out, with 1,736 matriculated students in the freshman class of one of the world’s most prestigious universities. But as some perceptive critics were quick to notice, one key demographic is disproportionately underrepresented: While whites make up more than 50 percent of the nation’s adolescent population, per 2019 Office of Population Affairs numbers, they were only 22 percent of Stanford’s class of 2026. A Twitter user by the name of Fischer King was one of the first to flag the disparity, adding: “Now I’m speculating, but admitted white men are likely connected — legacies, or just bought way in. The rural math genius like John Nash — he has no chance.”
Progressive journalist Elizabeth Spiers, on the other hand, suggests this is simply meritocracy at work:
Of course, if Spiers and her counterparts believe that the underrepresentation of whites is simply the result of merit, they would ostensibly be fine with ending affirmative action — after all, the stated purpose of affirmative action was “to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body,” as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in the majority opinion for the Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling on the matter, Grutter v. Bollinger. Now that said “diversity” is apparently attainable without the artificial engineering of race-conscious admissions, we can return to colorblind candidate selection. Right?
Spiers, for her part, goes on to attribute the fact that there are more women than men in Stanford’s class of 2026 — 54 to 46 percent — to the fact “that girls outperform boys in school,” maintaining: “Given that we know that empirically, anyone who is confused about why there might be slightly more women than men is just asserting their own biases.” Excellent: We’ve relegated Ibram X. Kendi’s “all disparities are proof of discrimination” — “when I see racial disparities, I see racism” — to the dustbin of history where it belongs. Overrepresentation of one group, and underrepresentation of another, in a particular institution is no longer proof, in and of itself, of systemic bias. I look forward to Spiers extending that logic to the nation’s prison system, policing, crime, income inequality, marriage rates, Fortune 500 C-suites, the so-called “wage gap,” and heavily male-dominated careers in STEM. (Read more from “Stanford’s Class of 2026 Doesn’t ‘Look Like America’” HERE)
Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.
