What do you think?
Rate this book
The Diversity Myth : Multiculturalism and Political Intolerance on Campus
This is a powerful exploration of the debilitating impact that politically-correct “multiculturalism” has had upon higher education and academic freedom in the United States. In the name of diversity, many leading academic and cultural institutions are working to silence dissent and stifle intellectual life. This book exposes the real impact of multiculturalism on the institution most closely identified with the politically correct decline of higher education—Stanford University. Authored by two Stanford graduates, this book is a compelling insider’s tour of a world of speech codes, “dumbed-down” admissions standards and curricula, campus witch hunts, and anti-Western zealotry that masquerades as legitimate scholarly inquiry. Sacks and Thiel use numerous primary sources—the Stanford Daily, class readings, official university publications—to reveal a pattern of politicized classes, housing, budget priorities, and more. They trace the connections between such disparate trends as political correctness, the gender wars, Generation X nihilism, and culture wars, showing how these have played a role in shaping multiculturalism at institutions like Stanford. The authors convincingly show that multiculturalism is not about learning more; it is actually about learning less. They end their comprehensive study by detailing the changes necessary to reverse the tragic disintegration of American universities and restore true academic excellence.
320 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 1996
105 people are currently reading
1319 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
April 1, 2013
Just about as false as one can get, this book actually has the audacity to celebrate Columbus' travels to the New World as a "multicultural" journey. These two dimwit authors, who have a politically charged agenda that could not be any more overt and misinformed, try and convince the reader that Columbus celebrated the individuality of the native Taino, who they call "noble savages," without the quotes.
But Columbus is soured when he comes across their mortal enemy (punchline: they're NOT referring to the Spanish who will soon enslave them). The Carib tribe and their warring, cannibalistic ways shock and dismay Columbus. So, he apparently gives up on all humanity afterwards and just says "Screw it," and enslaves tens of thousands of natives in the Caribbean and North America.
What a joke of a book, but thanks for writing it, you callous jerks. You've made my research into the fear and paranoia associated with multiculturalism and political correctness in the United States much easier.
But Columbus is soured when he comes across their mortal enemy (punchline: they're NOT referring to the Spanish who will soon enslave them). The Carib tribe and their warring, cannibalistic ways shock and dismay Columbus. So, he apparently gives up on all humanity afterwards and just says "Screw it," and enslaves tens of thousands of natives in the Caribbean and North America.
What a joke of a book, but thanks for writing it, you callous jerks. You've made my research into the fear and paranoia associated with multiculturalism and political correctness in the United States much easier.
January 30, 2016
“The Diversity Myth” is a twenty-year-old book that nobody would remember, despite its many virtues, were it not for that its authors (and many of the young figures in its pages) have since then become highly-visible billionaires, and, in the case of Peter Thiel, prominent public intellectuals. None of them knew that then, though (presumably!), which makes the book even more interesting.
And everything old is new again. This book has, since I started writing this review, taken on new relevancy, with the puerile and ignorant, yet vicious, happenings at the University of Missouri, Dartmouth, Yale, Oberlin and other colleges last fall (2015). But let’s take the book as it is.
It’s possible, and instructive, to draw a line from William F. Buckley’s “God And Man At Yale,” published in 1951, through this book (published in 1999) to today. A descending line, showing the cratering of the American academy. The declined Yale of the late 1940s and early 1950s criticized by Buckley was a paragon of excellence compared to Stanford in the 1990s, much less compared to universities today.
As with any book that deals with political conflicts of the past, it is easy to see where the authors were right and where the authors were wrong. Unfortunately, they were right about the problem and wrong that it was on the way to being fixed. In fact, the problem of enforced leftist ideological conformity escaped the confines of Stanford and similar universities long ago, mutating and growing along the way, until now it not only suffocates all university discourse, but infects the entire nation’s discourse.
So, for example, a few months ago (November 2015), Obama’s Department of Justice announced that an Illinois school district would be punished by the federal government if they did not let a boy teenager with a mental illness, believing himself to be a girl, use the girl’s locker room with no restrictions. (Of course, they don’t call it a mental illness—they say he “identifies as a girl,” and therefore is one.) If, in 1995, someone had suggested that any of this could ever happen, he would have been treated as unbalanced at best. Similarly, Thiel and Sacks identified lots of problems with what in the 1990s was called multiculturalism, but they could not have seen the inversions of logic and reality to come.
Although the book’s title mentions “diversity,” that word did not have exactly the same meaning in 1995 as it does today, and Thiel and Sacks actually focus almost exclusively on “multiculturalism,” which was the watchword of the coercive Left in the 1990s. Today, “diversity” has taken center-stage. Today, diversity means, in the academic or workplace context, the granting of unearned rewards to the unqualified, under the guise of remedying past or present discrimination, bolstered by (always totally unsupported) claims that selecting awardees to favor chosen racial or other groups creates its own fantastic value, and of course has zero costs.
Shrill demands for diversity today are everywhere in life. But “Multiculturalism” today is an also-ran, essentially folded into diversity, perhaps because multiculturalism as practiced wasn’t multicultural at all, in the sense of wanting to create an environment of cultural openness, but rather a mechanism for creating a united, interlocking front to benefit the political causes of the Left (and to denigrate the superior accomplishments of the West, which denigration is a core political cause of Left). This is the core point of the book, and perhaps the term “multiculturalism” itself has largely disappeared because it lost its propaganda value when the immediate political goals were achieved and it became apparent that the term itself was a lie.
So what was the norm at Stanford is now the norm nationwide. And at universities now, what we have is a bizarre environment consisting of, among other dubious accomplishments of Western civilization, “trigger warnings,” demands to end “cultural appropriation”, tearing down Cecil Rhodes’s statue, and attempting to ban the wheat sheaves on the Harvard seal because the family they represent, who gave money to found Harvard, owned slaves.
Thiel’s and Sacks’s story and analysis is narrowly focused on Stanford. The first part of the book says what diversity/multiculturalism is not (or was not); the second says what it is (or was). In brief, what it is not is the West, which it defines itself in antithesis to. What it is a new, alien culture, based on (largely fake) victim status, but to its proponents the New Jerusalem. (Like all ideological leftist movements, diversity/multiculturalism is largely a religion substitute, in which the proponents achieve redemption and transcendence through their rituals.)
Much of the book is taken up with a catalog of anecdotal horrors (many of which seem mild by comparison to today’s behavior), organized by topic. Apparently some people think this undercuts the probative value of the book—looking at other reviews, accusations of cherry-picking seem pretty common. But anecdotes buttressed by statements and actions by all those in power supporting the behavior in the anecdotes is pretty much the only way to prove behavior. Those who suggest that the anecdotes give a false picture seem unlikely to be convinced by any evidence.
There are quite a few funny lines in the book. Noting the attack by a legal “scholar” on the West, exalting native Hawaiian culture as superior because there was “no money, no idea or practice of surplus appropriation,” Thiel and Sacks note that “Only Western societies have a problem with the exploitation of surplus value because such societies are the only ones that produce much surplus value to be exploited. Digging for taro roots and fishing for seafood [activities praised by the speaker] are quite different from the kind of work one imagines people do at the Center for Hawaiian Studies—a center whose very existence requires more surplus value than Native Hawaiian culture ever generated.” Ha ha. Similarly, they explicitly compare the multiculture to primitive societies, “with its hunger fasts, expulsions and ritual scapegoatings.” And there are also keen insights. “Multicultural victimology is so powerful because it taps into two base emotions that are not often found together—self-pity and self-importance.”
Although the authors don’t mention it, perhaps the best lens for evaluating the inception and metastasizing of diversity/multiculturalism is the “repressive tolerance” of Herbert Marcuse, a leading member of the poisonous Frankfurt School (composed of German refugees who created the philosophical backbone of the New Left, which is now dominant). Marcuse’s 1965 polemic against freedom, contained in the book “A Critique Of Pure Tolerance,” introduced the Orwellian idea that real tolerance consisted of intolerance. Or, as Wikipedia summarizes the idea, “Revolutionary minorities hold the truth and the majority has to be liberated from error by being re-educated in the truth by this minority. The revolutionary minority are entitled, Marcuse claims, to suppress rival and harmful opinions.”
The Marcusian lens explains WHY proponents of diversity/multiculturalism push their ideology. It has nothing to do with justice, the righting of wrongs, or the spread of forgotten or suppressed ideas. Instead, it is purely a mechanism for the totalitarian Left to gain total power, or as close to it as possible. The paths to this are several. The main theme is the self-admitted goal of total destruction of existing cultural values and their replacement by new values—being, as the authors note that Lenin said, “the engineers of souls.” And the immediate 1990s goal (successfully achieved nationwide in educational institutions) was the total replacement of the culture that is the common inheritance of the West with a mishmash of relativism, ignorance and idiocy. Too bad.
Thiel and Sacks point out that multiculturalism is the polar opposite of universalism. In a universalist approach to learning, the goal is to understand and communicate universal, objective truths that are available to everyone. In the multiculturalist approach, there are no universal truths, only ideas available only to victims, and subordinated in service to the achievement of power in a zero-sum game, using the all-purpose victim card.
Fortunately, perhaps, this suggests the solution to the cancer of diversity/multiculturalism—a return to universal principles, and in application of those principles, a focus on competition for excellence and productivity. (It’s a logical conclusion that members of ethnic groups that push diversity/multiculturalism do so in large part because they fear or know that they can’t compete with the ethnic groups, such as Asians, that don’t spend their time shrieking demands for more diversity.) But that solution is not likely in the current environment.
Thiel and Sacks end on an optimistic note, claiming that the “fall of Stanford” had begun. Unfortunately not—not only has the rot spread nationwide, and mutated into something much worse, but its effects are greater. This is because the role of universities today is no longer to educate (except in technical fields), but to act as filter for entrance into the ruling class, the “cognitive elite” of Charles Murray. The authors do seem to be correct in that Stanford, while still certainly narrowly and nastily ideologically conformist, is no longer a leader, and in fact has moved in a technocratic direction since the book was written—a direction that 1990s university leaders sneeringly denigrated as beneath the role of a great university.
Of course, even some liberals, such as Jonthan Haidt, have realized that this will end very badly. To his credit, Obama has also recently been speaking out, even if softly, about the pernicious effects of the more extreme versions of diversity/multiculturalism. (Of course, becoming more extreme is a necessary consequence of any revolutionary movement, which inevitably eat their own until the collapse comes.) Either it will corrode society so badly that we will become a third-rate country, or there will be a vicious backlash. Perhaps after the backlash, the academy can be reformed on principles pre-dating the current decline (i.e., sometime before 1950). And then everything old will really be new again. Sounds good to me.
Sadly, Thiel and especially Sacks now appear to have backed somewhat off their views in this book. (It is amusing, though, that the book contains negative attention to “early” gay rights initiatives, and yet Thiel and at least one major conservative character in the book have since come out as gay themselves. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems.) In part this is because it is clearly written by very smart, yet very young, men. In places, it is florid, and uses the metaphors and tropes of immature writers. But mostly it is because Thiel and Sacks now live in the tech world, which while it has libertarian elements, is strongly dominated by hardcore leftists, and there is no room at all for traditional conservatives. I guess none of this is surprising, though.
While the focus here is on the then-current complaints of the proponents of diversity/multiculturalism, today’s major areas of focus are nearly all seen in embryo. (One exception is the accusation of creation of stigma, the modern darling of the totalitarian left, which is used as an all-purpose weapon once leftist aggressors realized that it required no victim at all, just a feeling that others didn’t approve of what you were dong. Nor are bizarre inversions of reality like claims of gender fluidity seen here.) Microagressions are seen in passing where a student complains of “all the very small daily daggers one feels in the environment.” Puritanic regulation of sexual conduct while at the same time demanding total sexual freedom. Institutional racism as an unwashable Original Sin. This makes for interesting, if depressing, hindsight reading.
Now, like the Stay-Puft Man in Ghostbusters, these embryonic ideas have assumed monstrous proportions. I’m not sure what to do about that. There is probably little to actively do, except wait and see whether there will be an opportunity to reclaim the culture, or whether all that’s left to do is wait, on dune and headland, for the fire to sink. The arc of our culture since this book was written suggests the latter.
And everything old is new again. This book has, since I started writing this review, taken on new relevancy, with the puerile and ignorant, yet vicious, happenings at the University of Missouri, Dartmouth, Yale, Oberlin and other colleges last fall (2015). But let’s take the book as it is.
It’s possible, and instructive, to draw a line from William F. Buckley’s “God And Man At Yale,” published in 1951, through this book (published in 1999) to today. A descending line, showing the cratering of the American academy. The declined Yale of the late 1940s and early 1950s criticized by Buckley was a paragon of excellence compared to Stanford in the 1990s, much less compared to universities today.
As with any book that deals with political conflicts of the past, it is easy to see where the authors were right and where the authors were wrong. Unfortunately, they were right about the problem and wrong that it was on the way to being fixed. In fact, the problem of enforced leftist ideological conformity escaped the confines of Stanford and similar universities long ago, mutating and growing along the way, until now it not only suffocates all university discourse, but infects the entire nation’s discourse.
So, for example, a few months ago (November 2015), Obama’s Department of Justice announced that an Illinois school district would be punished by the federal government if they did not let a boy teenager with a mental illness, believing himself to be a girl, use the girl’s locker room with no restrictions. (Of course, they don’t call it a mental illness—they say he “identifies as a girl,” and therefore is one.) If, in 1995, someone had suggested that any of this could ever happen, he would have been treated as unbalanced at best. Similarly, Thiel and Sacks identified lots of problems with what in the 1990s was called multiculturalism, but they could not have seen the inversions of logic and reality to come.
Although the book’s title mentions “diversity,” that word did not have exactly the same meaning in 1995 as it does today, and Thiel and Sacks actually focus almost exclusively on “multiculturalism,” which was the watchword of the coercive Left in the 1990s. Today, “diversity” has taken center-stage. Today, diversity means, in the academic or workplace context, the granting of unearned rewards to the unqualified, under the guise of remedying past or present discrimination, bolstered by (always totally unsupported) claims that selecting awardees to favor chosen racial or other groups creates its own fantastic value, and of course has zero costs.
Shrill demands for diversity today are everywhere in life. But “Multiculturalism” today is an also-ran, essentially folded into diversity, perhaps because multiculturalism as practiced wasn’t multicultural at all, in the sense of wanting to create an environment of cultural openness, but rather a mechanism for creating a united, interlocking front to benefit the political causes of the Left (and to denigrate the superior accomplishments of the West, which denigration is a core political cause of Left). This is the core point of the book, and perhaps the term “multiculturalism” itself has largely disappeared because it lost its propaganda value when the immediate political goals were achieved and it became apparent that the term itself was a lie.
So what was the norm at Stanford is now the norm nationwide. And at universities now, what we have is a bizarre environment consisting of, among other dubious accomplishments of Western civilization, “trigger warnings,” demands to end “cultural appropriation”, tearing down Cecil Rhodes’s statue, and attempting to ban the wheat sheaves on the Harvard seal because the family they represent, who gave money to found Harvard, owned slaves.
Thiel’s and Sacks’s story and analysis is narrowly focused on Stanford. The first part of the book says what diversity/multiculturalism is not (or was not); the second says what it is (or was). In brief, what it is not is the West, which it defines itself in antithesis to. What it is a new, alien culture, based on (largely fake) victim status, but to its proponents the New Jerusalem. (Like all ideological leftist movements, diversity/multiculturalism is largely a religion substitute, in which the proponents achieve redemption and transcendence through their rituals.)
Much of the book is taken up with a catalog of anecdotal horrors (many of which seem mild by comparison to today’s behavior), organized by topic. Apparently some people think this undercuts the probative value of the book—looking at other reviews, accusations of cherry-picking seem pretty common. But anecdotes buttressed by statements and actions by all those in power supporting the behavior in the anecdotes is pretty much the only way to prove behavior. Those who suggest that the anecdotes give a false picture seem unlikely to be convinced by any evidence.
There are quite a few funny lines in the book. Noting the attack by a legal “scholar” on the West, exalting native Hawaiian culture as superior because there was “no money, no idea or practice of surplus appropriation,” Thiel and Sacks note that “Only Western societies have a problem with the exploitation of surplus value because such societies are the only ones that produce much surplus value to be exploited. Digging for taro roots and fishing for seafood [activities praised by the speaker] are quite different from the kind of work one imagines people do at the Center for Hawaiian Studies—a center whose very existence requires more surplus value than Native Hawaiian culture ever generated.” Ha ha. Similarly, they explicitly compare the multiculture to primitive societies, “with its hunger fasts, expulsions and ritual scapegoatings.” And there are also keen insights. “Multicultural victimology is so powerful because it taps into two base emotions that are not often found together—self-pity and self-importance.”
Although the authors don’t mention it, perhaps the best lens for evaluating the inception and metastasizing of diversity/multiculturalism is the “repressive tolerance” of Herbert Marcuse, a leading member of the poisonous Frankfurt School (composed of German refugees who created the philosophical backbone of the New Left, which is now dominant). Marcuse’s 1965 polemic against freedom, contained in the book “A Critique Of Pure Tolerance,” introduced the Orwellian idea that real tolerance consisted of intolerance. Or, as Wikipedia summarizes the idea, “Revolutionary minorities hold the truth and the majority has to be liberated from error by being re-educated in the truth by this minority. The revolutionary minority are entitled, Marcuse claims, to suppress rival and harmful opinions.”
The Marcusian lens explains WHY proponents of diversity/multiculturalism push their ideology. It has nothing to do with justice, the righting of wrongs, or the spread of forgotten or suppressed ideas. Instead, it is purely a mechanism for the totalitarian Left to gain total power, or as close to it as possible. The paths to this are several. The main theme is the self-admitted goal of total destruction of existing cultural values and their replacement by new values—being, as the authors note that Lenin said, “the engineers of souls.” And the immediate 1990s goal (successfully achieved nationwide in educational institutions) was the total replacement of the culture that is the common inheritance of the West with a mishmash of relativism, ignorance and idiocy. Too bad.
Thiel and Sacks point out that multiculturalism is the polar opposite of universalism. In a universalist approach to learning, the goal is to understand and communicate universal, objective truths that are available to everyone. In the multiculturalist approach, there are no universal truths, only ideas available only to victims, and subordinated in service to the achievement of power in a zero-sum game, using the all-purpose victim card.
Fortunately, perhaps, this suggests the solution to the cancer of diversity/multiculturalism—a return to universal principles, and in application of those principles, a focus on competition for excellence and productivity. (It’s a logical conclusion that members of ethnic groups that push diversity/multiculturalism do so in large part because they fear or know that they can’t compete with the ethnic groups, such as Asians, that don’t spend their time shrieking demands for more diversity.) But that solution is not likely in the current environment.
Thiel and Sacks end on an optimistic note, claiming that the “fall of Stanford” had begun. Unfortunately not—not only has the rot spread nationwide, and mutated into something much worse, but its effects are greater. This is because the role of universities today is no longer to educate (except in technical fields), but to act as filter for entrance into the ruling class, the “cognitive elite” of Charles Murray. The authors do seem to be correct in that Stanford, while still certainly narrowly and nastily ideologically conformist, is no longer a leader, and in fact has moved in a technocratic direction since the book was written—a direction that 1990s university leaders sneeringly denigrated as beneath the role of a great university.
Of course, even some liberals, such as Jonthan Haidt, have realized that this will end very badly. To his credit, Obama has also recently been speaking out, even if softly, about the pernicious effects of the more extreme versions of diversity/multiculturalism. (Of course, becoming more extreme is a necessary consequence of any revolutionary movement, which inevitably eat their own until the collapse comes.) Either it will corrode society so badly that we will become a third-rate country, or there will be a vicious backlash. Perhaps after the backlash, the academy can be reformed on principles pre-dating the current decline (i.e., sometime before 1950). And then everything old will really be new again. Sounds good to me.
Sadly, Thiel and especially Sacks now appear to have backed somewhat off their views in this book. (It is amusing, though, that the book contains negative attention to “early” gay rights initiatives, and yet Thiel and at least one major conservative character in the book have since come out as gay themselves. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems.) In part this is because it is clearly written by very smart, yet very young, men. In places, it is florid, and uses the metaphors and tropes of immature writers. But mostly it is because Thiel and Sacks now live in the tech world, which while it has libertarian elements, is strongly dominated by hardcore leftists, and there is no room at all for traditional conservatives. I guess none of this is surprising, though.
While the focus here is on the then-current complaints of the proponents of diversity/multiculturalism, today’s major areas of focus are nearly all seen in embryo. (One exception is the accusation of creation of stigma, the modern darling of the totalitarian left, which is used as an all-purpose weapon once leftist aggressors realized that it required no victim at all, just a feeling that others didn’t approve of what you were dong. Nor are bizarre inversions of reality like claims of gender fluidity seen here.) Microagressions are seen in passing where a student complains of “all the very small daily daggers one feels in the environment.” Puritanic regulation of sexual conduct while at the same time demanding total sexual freedom. Institutional racism as an unwashable Original Sin. This makes for interesting, if depressing, hindsight reading.
Now, like the Stay-Puft Man in Ghostbusters, these embryonic ideas have assumed monstrous proportions. I’m not sure what to do about that. There is probably little to actively do, except wait and see whether there will be an opportunity to reclaim the culture, or whether all that’s left to do is wait, on dune and headland, for the fire to sink. The arc of our culture since this book was written suggests the latter.
January 11, 2018
A few weeks ago, there was a salacious cover story published in Stanford Politics titled How Peter Thiel and the Stanford Review Built a Silicon Valley Empire. The piece began carefully, focusing on Thiel’s ongoing involvement with the newspaper with necessary backstory. Gradually, though, it zeroed in on the network of people connected to the Stanford Review. I wondered why this merited a cover story, but then recalled that Peter Thiel (and, by association, the newspaper he started) had conservative and libertarian leanings, which meant that these likeminded people sticking together was an act of villainy. The article included a screenshot of an email pertaining to a secret meeting of a small group of Review editors at Thiel’s house. By the end, the author took to mapping out the career outcomes of nearly every alumnus of the newspaper, included a spreadsheet, and for good measure mentioned that 88% of those who held the Editor in Chief position were white.
When I got home from work that day, I dusted off The Diversity Myth by David Sacks and Peter Thiel.
Imagine for a moment that it’s July 1996 and this book was just published. If you handed it to the average American, he would classify it as a work of fiction. While Stanford was ground zero for Multiculturalism and political correctness in the late 1980s, it took much longer for these ideas to permeate American culture. One could coherently argue that, even in the wake of the Duke lacrosse scandal, many universities didn’t feel the impact of this movement (and its derivatives) until 2015.
The Diversity Myth is the story of the founding of The Stanford Review, the school’s independent conservative student newspaper. Not literally, but more in the sense of, this book recounts the reasons that Thiel thought it so important to found, fund, and support an independent newspaper. Faced with such an outrageous, maddening campus climate, Thiel established a bastion of common sense that stood in stark opposition to campus plurality.
To borrow a quip from the authors, many of the incidents and examples contained in this book read as if they are Saturday Night Live sketches parodying hypersensitivity and wanton victimization.
The book starts by detailing the wild protests surrounding Stanford’s Western Culture curriculum. Students were protesting the curriculum’s focus on “dead white men” and western ideals. The protest turned into a riot under the guidance of Jesse Jackson, at which point he urged the protestors to please calm down. They didn’t.
The core curriculum was revamped and administrators straddled the fence fearing what this new brand of protestors was capable of. They announced “sweeping changes” to students but “minor changes” to parents and alumni. Then bent over backwards for multiculturalism for the next several years, in what was deemed Stanford’s Great Experiment.
There were truly no bounds to what the Stanford students would take issue with or how they would take justice into their own hands. The administration was stuck. Any wrong move would be attacked as intolerant and, on the other end, it turns out that the president of the university was seriously misallocating federal grant money.
For reasons not articulated, anything associated with Greek life was viewed unfavorably. There was a 1986 special council investigation resulting in the recommendation that Greek houses be eliminated completely (because it was privileged housing—no shit). The dean of students didn’t allow that to happen. Then, in the early 90s, someone tried killing members of Delta Kappa Epsilon. On two separate occasions, drinks in the house were found to have been poisoned. Grape juice was mixed with paint thinner and a pot of coffee was tainted with plant fertilizer. Then, someone turned the oven all the way up and put containers of lighter fluid inside. After that, someone set a bush on fire. This almost resulted in the fraternity getting kicked off, but not out of concern for their safety. The casualness of the newspaper reports and the fact that the investigations into arson and attempted murder didn’t seem to have been taken seriously is chilling.
In another incident, a professor insisted that Beethoven was black. Two white students took to a flier on their dorm’s bulletin board and colored a picture of Beethoven the color black. They were kicked out of university housing and a meeting followed in which their RA had something of a seizure and leagues of their disgruntled classmates went into hysterics. One of the students’ older brothers later exercised his right to free speech, yelling “Faggot” in the same dorm. He was effectively forced out of Stanford law school after students condemned him and wrote letters to every law firm in California imploring them not to offer him a job. His name is Keith Rabois and he went on to be a member of the Paypal Mafia.
The issue that is important for those who choose to be complacent as student bodies are continually brought to their knees is where do we draw the line. Thiel and Sacks note repeatedly that the line is wherever the group arbitrarily decides. For example, historically discriminated against groups in America such as Irish and Slavics have been afforded no special treatment. Taking this to the realm of Halloween costumes, Irishmen and Eastern Europeans (both of which I identify as) continue to be depicted as drunk leprechauns and mobsters in Adidas tracksuits. But wearing a headdress like Pocahontas or a sombrero and thick mustache is grounds for getting kicked out of school. It’s arbitrary. Of further interest of “victims” showing their own racial biases, when Asian students at Stanford demanded an “Asian Studies” major following Chicano students successfully protesting for a “Chicano Studies” major, they were ignored by everyone including the soldiers of the minority coalition.
Some parts of the book are weak. There is one example of a freshman girl who was weeks away from her 18th birthday. She had what on paper appeared to be consensual sex with a senior in his dorm room, but later reported it as rape. Some of the details in favor of his innocence included that she had twice voluntarily left his room to use the restroom downstairs and was somewhat of the aggressor in the sexual tryst. The authors mention that the girl admitted to taking eight shots of liquor that evening. This bothered me because there is something predatory and creepy about a senior feeding a freshman girl that much liquor.
Regardless of which side of this issue you’re on, it’s hard to deny that this brand of activism wastes the time of those who so desperately want to learn at a time where learning is most accessible. It’s a distraction and disruption and is something that is allowed free reign at far too many schools. The authors deserve credit for their bravery in writing with such intensity. Surely, they had to know that things would get worse and that these opinions would perhaps always be viewed as extreme and insensitive.
There is also the issue of campus hookup culture (before the term was coined). The party scene which was centered around fraternity houses was greatly criticized for many of the issues on campus. There was lecturing regarding proper sexual conduct amongst heterosexuals, but, in the greatest factoid supplied—glory holes were allowed to exist and flourish in well-known meeting spots for homosexual activity. And, yes, Peter Thiel is gay. In Move Fast and Break Things, he is actually criticized for being gay and writing what he did and defending his friend’s use of homophobic slurs. To me, it made his arguments more genuine.
Toward the end, Thiel exposes his thoughts on the downfall of the modern educational institution. Basically, he thinks that professional training (Doctors, Lawyers, etc) and technical training (Engineering, Math, Science) are of the most value, and that liberal arts is mostly worthless (though this is not phrased explicitly). All these years later, he’s stuck to that by offering students The Thiel Fellowship to forego college. All this time, I never realized that one of the driving factors behind Thiel’s disdain for college was that he wanted to provide bright minds with a way to avoid having to deal with all the nonsensical bullshit that is so commonplace today.
This book will always be vilified and its proponents will always be labeled ignorant and intolerant. Plainly, it’s one of the most useful ways that you can begin to understand the new way of thinking that was incubated on college campuses and has now pervaded most aspects of daily life in America. I think that it is important to talk openly about issues like these, and hope that this review can attract more readers to engage with and share opinions of the issues recounted in this book.
When I got home from work that day, I dusted off The Diversity Myth by David Sacks and Peter Thiel.
Imagine for a moment that it’s July 1996 and this book was just published. If you handed it to the average American, he would classify it as a work of fiction. While Stanford was ground zero for Multiculturalism and political correctness in the late 1980s, it took much longer for these ideas to permeate American culture. One could coherently argue that, even in the wake of the Duke lacrosse scandal, many universities didn’t feel the impact of this movement (and its derivatives) until 2015.
The Diversity Myth is the story of the founding of The Stanford Review, the school’s independent conservative student newspaper. Not literally, but more in the sense of, this book recounts the reasons that Thiel thought it so important to found, fund, and support an independent newspaper. Faced with such an outrageous, maddening campus climate, Thiel established a bastion of common sense that stood in stark opposition to campus plurality.
To borrow a quip from the authors, many of the incidents and examples contained in this book read as if they are Saturday Night Live sketches parodying hypersensitivity and wanton victimization.
The book starts by detailing the wild protests surrounding Stanford’s Western Culture curriculum. Students were protesting the curriculum’s focus on “dead white men” and western ideals. The protest turned into a riot under the guidance of Jesse Jackson, at which point he urged the protestors to please calm down. They didn’t.
The core curriculum was revamped and administrators straddled the fence fearing what this new brand of protestors was capable of. They announced “sweeping changes” to students but “minor changes” to parents and alumni. Then bent over backwards for multiculturalism for the next several years, in what was deemed Stanford’s Great Experiment.
There were truly no bounds to what the Stanford students would take issue with or how they would take justice into their own hands. The administration was stuck. Any wrong move would be attacked as intolerant and, on the other end, it turns out that the president of the university was seriously misallocating federal grant money.
For reasons not articulated, anything associated with Greek life was viewed unfavorably. There was a 1986 special council investigation resulting in the recommendation that Greek houses be eliminated completely (because it was privileged housing—no shit). The dean of students didn’t allow that to happen. Then, in the early 90s, someone tried killing members of Delta Kappa Epsilon. On two separate occasions, drinks in the house were found to have been poisoned. Grape juice was mixed with paint thinner and a pot of coffee was tainted with plant fertilizer. Then, someone turned the oven all the way up and put containers of lighter fluid inside. After that, someone set a bush on fire. This almost resulted in the fraternity getting kicked off, but not out of concern for their safety. The casualness of the newspaper reports and the fact that the investigations into arson and attempted murder didn’t seem to have been taken seriously is chilling.
In another incident, a professor insisted that Beethoven was black. Two white students took to a flier on their dorm’s bulletin board and colored a picture of Beethoven the color black. They were kicked out of university housing and a meeting followed in which their RA had something of a seizure and leagues of their disgruntled classmates went into hysterics. One of the students’ older brothers later exercised his right to free speech, yelling “Faggot” in the same dorm. He was effectively forced out of Stanford law school after students condemned him and wrote letters to every law firm in California imploring them not to offer him a job. His name is Keith Rabois and he went on to be a member of the Paypal Mafia.
The issue that is important for those who choose to be complacent as student bodies are continually brought to their knees is where do we draw the line. Thiel and Sacks note repeatedly that the line is wherever the group arbitrarily decides. For example, historically discriminated against groups in America such as Irish and Slavics have been afforded no special treatment. Taking this to the realm of Halloween costumes, Irishmen and Eastern Europeans (both of which I identify as) continue to be depicted as drunk leprechauns and mobsters in Adidas tracksuits. But wearing a headdress like Pocahontas or a sombrero and thick mustache is grounds for getting kicked out of school. It’s arbitrary. Of further interest of “victims” showing their own racial biases, when Asian students at Stanford demanded an “Asian Studies” major following Chicano students successfully protesting for a “Chicano Studies” major, they were ignored by everyone including the soldiers of the minority coalition.
Some parts of the book are weak. There is one example of a freshman girl who was weeks away from her 18th birthday. She had what on paper appeared to be consensual sex with a senior in his dorm room, but later reported it as rape. Some of the details in favor of his innocence included that she had twice voluntarily left his room to use the restroom downstairs and was somewhat of the aggressor in the sexual tryst. The authors mention that the girl admitted to taking eight shots of liquor that evening. This bothered me because there is something predatory and creepy about a senior feeding a freshman girl that much liquor.
Regardless of which side of this issue you’re on, it’s hard to deny that this brand of activism wastes the time of those who so desperately want to learn at a time where learning is most accessible. It’s a distraction and disruption and is something that is allowed free reign at far too many schools. The authors deserve credit for their bravery in writing with such intensity. Surely, they had to know that things would get worse and that these opinions would perhaps always be viewed as extreme and insensitive.
There is also the issue of campus hookup culture (before the term was coined). The party scene which was centered around fraternity houses was greatly criticized for many of the issues on campus. There was lecturing regarding proper sexual conduct amongst heterosexuals, but, in the greatest factoid supplied—glory holes were allowed to exist and flourish in well-known meeting spots for homosexual activity. And, yes, Peter Thiel is gay. In Move Fast and Break Things, he is actually criticized for being gay and writing what he did and defending his friend’s use of homophobic slurs. To me, it made his arguments more genuine.
Toward the end, Thiel exposes his thoughts on the downfall of the modern educational institution. Basically, he thinks that professional training (Doctors, Lawyers, etc) and technical training (Engineering, Math, Science) are of the most value, and that liberal arts is mostly worthless (though this is not phrased explicitly). All these years later, he’s stuck to that by offering students The Thiel Fellowship to forego college. All this time, I never realized that one of the driving factors behind Thiel’s disdain for college was that he wanted to provide bright minds with a way to avoid having to deal with all the nonsensical bullshit that is so commonplace today.
This book will always be vilified and its proponents will always be labeled ignorant and intolerant. Plainly, it’s one of the most useful ways that you can begin to understand the new way of thinking that was incubated on college campuses and has now pervaded most aspects of daily life in America. I think that it is important to talk openly about issues like these, and hope that this review can attract more readers to engage with and share opinions of the issues recounted in this book.
July 30, 2017
Not as bad as expected
This book came up sometime last year in the heat of the 2016 campaign, when Peter Thiel (cofounder of PayPal, and co-author with David Sacks) came out in support of Trump. The way you'd hear it described, it was racist and everything wrong with white males in America. Not quite. While I don't agree with a lot of the conclusions Thiel and Sacks draw from the "multicultural experiment" at Stanford, they quite accurately pointed out some hypocrisy in it. While "Hey ho! Western culture's got to go!" is "throwing out the mother with the bathwater" as they put it, to deny that there are still unresolved issues in Western culture is equally counterproductive. There are areas for reflection and improvements in gender and race relations regardless of whether or not the most pernicious manifestations of those problems have largely been eradicated. There was also a chapter dealing with an indirect costs scandal that I felt to be tangentially related at best to the authors complaints about curriculum reformation, speech codes, etc. Yes, misusing funds intended for research is wrong, but suggesting it had something to do with a far-reaching multicultural agenda instead of personal enrichment is a bit dishonest because it assigns motives to people where none were clearly established. All things considered, this book seems like as much of an overreaction as the multicultural experiment itself was. And still, I agreed with the stance on individual rights and against a culture of victimhood. The book is more of a curiosity than anything, but there are valuable issues raised and points made among all of handwringing over multiculturalism and diversity.
This book came up sometime last year in the heat of the 2016 campaign, when Peter Thiel (cofounder of PayPal, and co-author with David Sacks) came out in support of Trump. The way you'd hear it described, it was racist and everything wrong with white males in America. Not quite. While I don't agree with a lot of the conclusions Thiel and Sacks draw from the "multicultural experiment" at Stanford, they quite accurately pointed out some hypocrisy in it. While "Hey ho! Western culture's got to go!" is "throwing out the mother with the bathwater" as they put it, to deny that there are still unresolved issues in Western culture is equally counterproductive. There are areas for reflection and improvements in gender and race relations regardless of whether or not the most pernicious manifestations of those problems have largely been eradicated. There was also a chapter dealing with an indirect costs scandal that I felt to be tangentially related at best to the authors complaints about curriculum reformation, speech codes, etc. Yes, misusing funds intended for research is wrong, but suggesting it had something to do with a far-reaching multicultural agenda instead of personal enrichment is a bit dishonest because it assigns motives to people where none were clearly established. All things considered, this book seems like as much of an overreaction as the multicultural experiment itself was. And still, I agreed with the stance on individual rights and against a culture of victimhood. The book is more of a curiosity than anything, but there are valuable issues raised and points made among all of handwringing over multiculturalism and diversity.
July 6, 2024
A rather fascinating and well written if limiting book about Stanford's embrace of Multiculturalism, which, along with certain scandals, hobbled the university. Where the book is limited is its bias; the brief section on Bill Clinton is laughably obtuse. So as a history book it is useful, but one where not all can be readily accepted. Indeed, I kept wondering how the Hoover Institution weathered the storm that unfolds in the pages, whether it be the "cancelling" of Keith Rabois or the hypocrisy and malfeasance that brought down the administration.
However, the authors accurately saw that multiculturalism (what would today be called "woke") was really an attempt to replace one culture with another. To the authors, elites and activists are far important than the masses, although the mass culture of that time did much to limit Multiculturalism. After all, its unpopularity is one reason the term Multiculturalism was dropped. Of particular interest are the solutions Sacks and Thiel propose. In essence, they wanted a doubling down on liberalism. This worked for a time, but once liberalism took some knocks in the 2000s, Multiculturalism swept in. After all, it offers people answers, belonging, greater purpose, and perhaps even community. The authors see this appeal, but failed to see how their liberalism was rather shallow. To be fair, most liberals, emboldened by the defeat of monarchy, fascism, and communism, were flush with victory and complacent. How the mighty have fallen, and shockingly enough fell to people lacking the raw might of the old opponents.
However, the authors accurately saw that multiculturalism (what would today be called "woke") was really an attempt to replace one culture with another. To the authors, elites and activists are far important than the masses, although the mass culture of that time did much to limit Multiculturalism. After all, its unpopularity is one reason the term Multiculturalism was dropped. Of particular interest are the solutions Sacks and Thiel propose. In essence, they wanted a doubling down on liberalism. This worked for a time, but once liberalism took some knocks in the 2000s, Multiculturalism swept in. After all, it offers people answers, belonging, greater purpose, and perhaps even community. The authors see this appeal, but failed to see how their liberalism was rather shallow. To be fair, most liberals, emboldened by the defeat of monarchy, fascism, and communism, were flush with victory and complacent. How the mighty have fallen, and shockingly enough fell to people lacking the raw might of the old opponents.
May 31, 2019
I enjoyed this immensely. One gets to see a younger Peter Thiel, who was a lot more vocal, and unapologetically exhaustive about issues that were more or less happening right next to him in the very intellectual environment he matured from. A tour-de-force, and touted to be prescient about how dogma and egoism drove agendas that are still present in today's American colleges & universities.
I was kind of a liberal arts outcast, so I shared many sentiments from this cultural tour-de-force. A little brazen and imaginative here and there, but I appreciate many other insights, and through this I also realized how deep the issues have been building in the US system. I had gone for a lot of the classics, and my high school days in Singapore also sort of forced me into certain traditions in philosophy and Western Thought (I did enough to know who Shakespeare was, or name-call Greek wise old men in my casual convos), and somehow I could never identify with various diversity efforts on my own campus. Fortunately I did not get into too many weird "multicultural" fads, for I am also by taste not very certain about relativism (hah!), but I also felt that I was not getting a lot of the things I was interested in.
I suspected many of my peers (Vietnamese people with a high school/ middle school experience in Vietnam who then went on to have an US undergraduate education) felt the same way--there was not a lot of substance in the humanities, and STEM was the all-time trend, after economics and business got diluted enough. A small group became converts, fervent activists who would bring up banners and introduce many multicultural ideas into Vietnamese society (this received limited attention, since we are quite homogeneous in the first place, and we don't have a strong tendency to discourse, and it was hard to regurgitate irrelevant issues). But most of us experienced some form of disconnect: we focused on the hard sciences and building networks, become somewhat apolitical, or kind of just following what the herd had to say. Of course, it is also hard to be into multicultural debates when you had to struggle to even read English literature, but I believe the environment was against true discourse in the first place. Whatever the case, there was not a lot of engaging critical thinking, or at least an attempt at having a stronger standard for Western thought for what amounted to quite expensive school fees.
Zero to One is a lot more toned down and optimistic, but both share a deep and insightful probing into issues. I should also give David Sacks some credit.
I was kind of a liberal arts outcast, so I shared many sentiments from this cultural tour-de-force. A little brazen and imaginative here and there, but I appreciate many other insights, and through this I also realized how deep the issues have been building in the US system. I had gone for a lot of the classics, and my high school days in Singapore also sort of forced me into certain traditions in philosophy and Western Thought (I did enough to know who Shakespeare was, or name-call Greek wise old men in my casual convos), and somehow I could never identify with various diversity efforts on my own campus. Fortunately I did not get into too many weird "multicultural" fads, for I am also by taste not very certain about relativism (hah!), but I also felt that I was not getting a lot of the things I was interested in.
I suspected many of my peers (Vietnamese people with a high school/ middle school experience in Vietnam who then went on to have an US undergraduate education) felt the same way--there was not a lot of substance in the humanities, and STEM was the all-time trend, after economics and business got diluted enough. A small group became converts, fervent activists who would bring up banners and introduce many multicultural ideas into Vietnamese society (this received limited attention, since we are quite homogeneous in the first place, and we don't have a strong tendency to discourse, and it was hard to regurgitate irrelevant issues). But most of us experienced some form of disconnect: we focused on the hard sciences and building networks, become somewhat apolitical, or kind of just following what the herd had to say. Of course, it is also hard to be into multicultural debates when you had to struggle to even read English literature, but I believe the environment was against true discourse in the first place. Whatever the case, there was not a lot of engaging critical thinking, or at least an attempt at having a stronger standard for Western thought for what amounted to quite expensive school fees.
Zero to One is a lot more toned down and optimistic, but both share a deep and insightful probing into issues. I should also give David Sacks some credit.
May 4, 2019
This book was authored by David Sacks and Peter Thiel, who later became well known (and wealthy) as one of the founders of Paypal. It ably chronicles the "politically correct" nonsense the authors witnessed as students at Stanford University in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The book addresses an important subject in the wave of left-wing nonsense that has engulfed American universities over the past few decades, and everything it says is true and well documented. As such, it makes an important contribution to the literature on this subject, and is worthwhile and deserves to be read. Where it falls short, like so many other jeremiads, is that the authors fail to suggest any realistic solution to the simmering problem. That is the challenge we face today.
September 9, 2019
who better than two of the PayPal godfathers to provide a solid argument against something a deeply believe in: the value of diversity. It’s truly mind boggling just how related Stanford’s experience with the multi-cultural wars in the 80s relates to the identity-politics campaigns on college campuses today. Some of the material really did not age well, but it’s fairly easy to dismiss in order to appreciate the book’s thesis at its strongest. Sacks and Thiel are so thorough in their takedown of Stanford’s multi-cultural campaigns, citing their sources every time they say something that the reader might not believe. Overall, the book provides many examples of unintended consequences of separatism among acute minorities in higher education, and how if left unchallenged can get hijacked and distorted by special interests seeking a criticism-proof ideology to carry out their aims. Honestly, you don’t have to agree with the thesis to appreciate the masterclass in interdisciplinary argumentation it provides
January 20, 2021
Despite having a four-year liberals arts degree from a reputable university, I have learned little about the West’s greatest legacies. Thiel and Sachs forecasted this “empty curriculum” students experience today. Instead of learning from Thoreau, Plato, and Plutarch, students taste four years of grade-inflated nothingness.
January 30, 2024
Eye opening
Multiculturalism ('90s eqv for wokeism) is in essence a perversion of the Judeo-Christian tradition of taking care of victims (both tell the story from victim perspective: Jewish people at large, Christ unfairly persecuted) vs earlier pagan religions. Wokeism reinstates pagan ritual of scapegoating, only here the scapegoats are the (imagined y/n) oppressors of (imagined y/n) victims. As opposed to these two religions (the cradle of anti-multiculturism aka "civilization") there is no notion of forgiveness, redemption, or progress. There is only cyclical pagan ritual of cancel culture.
See also Rene Girard (Austin university lectures Jonathan Bi).
Prescient conclusions
- pessimistic on the value of university education ("university" becoming a multiversity where validity of knowledge depends on the identity of the proponent)
- US increasingly a nation of victims (the rise of woke)
- the intellectual vacuum university thought police will leave will make way for increasing "popularity of radio talk show" , and "intellectual discussion between citizens across borders on new networks of computers". Thiel saw the money making (& ideological) opportunity in Facebook. Podcasts
- "so long as Stanford could hate America, it would not have to hate itself. As multiculturalism moves from Stanford to America and from there to the rest of the world, this escape valve is disappearing. With no outside left and no others to attack, the citizens of Caliban's Kingdom may be forced to turn against on another"
- Gender strife hits home in a way that black reparations movement does not. How men and women interact determines the nature and composition of families, the building block of society. Over the last centuries, the replacement of the extended family with the nuclear family has precipitated a seismic shift in the social order. As bonds of family have dissipated, the government has come to play an increasing role in providing a larger safety net, though cause and effect are up for debate). The multicultural reshaping of the family will likely have ramifications of similar magnitude.
- there is no silver bullet to stop the multiculture: the antidote is civilization and individual agency one person at a time
Optimistic side-note: as detailed in the latest Musk bio, Elon has visited Sacks many times for advice on X.com
Multiculturalism ('90s eqv for wokeism) is in essence a perversion of the Judeo-Christian tradition of taking care of victims (both tell the story from victim perspective: Jewish people at large, Christ unfairly persecuted) vs earlier pagan religions. Wokeism reinstates pagan ritual of scapegoating, only here the scapegoats are the (imagined y/n) oppressors of (imagined y/n) victims. As opposed to these two religions (the cradle of anti-multiculturism aka "civilization") there is no notion of forgiveness, redemption, or progress. There is only cyclical pagan ritual of cancel culture.
See also Rene Girard (Austin university lectures Jonathan Bi).
Prescient conclusions
- pessimistic on the value of university education ("university" becoming a multiversity where validity of knowledge depends on the identity of the proponent)
- US increasingly a nation of victims (the rise of woke)
- the intellectual vacuum university thought police will leave will make way for increasing "popularity of radio talk show" , and "intellectual discussion between citizens across borders on new networks of computers". Thiel saw the money making (& ideological) opportunity in Facebook. Podcasts
- "so long as Stanford could hate America, it would not have to hate itself. As multiculturalism moves from Stanford to America and from there to the rest of the world, this escape valve is disappearing. With no outside left and no others to attack, the citizens of Caliban's Kingdom may be forced to turn against on another"
- Gender strife hits home in a way that black reparations movement does not. How men and women interact determines the nature and composition of families, the building block of society. Over the last centuries, the replacement of the extended family with the nuclear family has precipitated a seismic shift in the social order. As bonds of family have dissipated, the government has come to play an increasing role in providing a larger safety net, though cause and effect are up for debate). The multicultural reshaping of the family will likely have ramifications of similar magnitude.
- there is no silver bullet to stop the multiculture: the antidote is civilization and individual agency one person at a time
Optimistic side-note: as detailed in the latest Musk bio, Elon has visited Sacks many times for advice on X.com
December 2, 2025
This reads like a lot of grievances from two white male college students, which is exactly what it is. Claims are not adequately documented, such as using the author's college news article as the only source in an event. This book should not be read. Both authors have stepped away from it. In 2016 Sacks stated "This is college journalism written over 20 years ago. It does not represent who I am or what I believe today. I'm embarrassed by some of my former views and regret writing them" (in an interview with Kara Swisher). Peter Thiel made a similar statement to Forbes magazine. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/...
They did a lot of damage with this book. Since they are wealthy, I think they should buy up all the existing copies so they don't wrongfully influence someone again. I read it this year since the authors are part of the American/Trump-backing "broligarchy". It was worse than I feared.
They did a lot of damage with this book. Since they are wealthy, I think they should buy up all the existing copies so they don't wrongfully influence someone again. I read it this year since the authors are part of the American/Trump-backing "broligarchy". It was worse than I feared.
July 21, 2024
There are few times in history when moral panic turns out to have been necessary. It doesn’t seem the rage over college diversity will be an exception. How many years were there between elite universities serving as finishing schools for the wealthy and the so-called tyranny of multiculturalism? Was it from the end of the 1950s Jew quota to Stanford’s 1968 affirmative action policy? Ten or so years? The fantasy period fueling the authors’ sense of imperiled entitlement is not real. And so, the text is dumbed down by the authors’ naive idealism and unexamined fetish for meritocracy. Whatever the case, the book reads like a tedious Reefer Madness, and college admissions are more competitive than ever.
April 1, 2019
One-sided but prescient
I don’t agree with everything the authors put forward but their descriptions of Stanford campus life in the nineties seem to have portended much of what is happening at elite academic institutions across the country today.
I don’t agree with everything the authors put forward but their descriptions of Stanford campus life in the nineties seem to have portended much of what is happening at elite academic institutions across the country today.
April 27, 2021
Multiculturalism starting at Stanford campus is tribalism covered in euphemism, and also rejection of hard work. Hard stuff nobody wants to discuss about.
May 1, 2021
Good anecdotes, but the overall morale of the story is missing / becomes pretty clear after the first chapter.
bookscollection
July 13, 2017Published in 1998, by two Stanford graduates. This book exposes the real impact of multiculturalism on the institution most closely identified with the politically correct decline of higher education—Stanford University. The book review on Amazon is quite interesting. Not like the review when I first encounter in "Move Fast and Break Things: How Facebook, Google, and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy", which is quite negative.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews