What do you think?
Rate this book
An Inconvenient Minority: the attack on Asian American excellence and the fight for meritocracy
From a journalist on the frontlines of the Students for Fair Admission (SFFA) v. Harvard case comes a probing examination of affirmative action, the false narrative of American meritocracy, and the attack on Asian American excellence with its far-reaching implications--from seedy test-prep centers to gleaming gifted-and-talented magnet schools, to top colleges and elite business, media, and political positions across America
The Asian American minority, transcending its impoverished history, has quietly assumed mastery of the nation's technical and intellectual machinery and become essential to the workforce that makes modern American life possible. Yet, they've been forced to do so in the face of policy proposals--written in the name of diversity--that serve to exclude them from the upper ranks of the elite.
In An Inconvenient Minority, journalist Kenny Xu, who has covered the sensational Students for Fair Admission (SFFA) v. Harvard case since its inception, traces White America's longstanding unease about a minority potentially upending them in the race for group status. Their policy proposals, such as eliminating standardized testing, doling out racial preferences to non-Asian minorities, inflaming anti-Asian stereotypes, and lumping Asians into "privileged" categories despite their deprived historical experiences have forced Asian Americans to fight back--a battle given a boots-on-the-ground perspective here.
Going beyond the Harvard case, Xu unearths the skewed logic that has had ripple effects throughout the US, from Governor Bill de Blasio's attempted makeover of the New York City Specialized School programs to the battle over diversity quotas in Google's and Facebook's progressive epicenters, to the rise of Asian American political activism in response to unfair perceptions and admission practices.
For too long, Asian Americans have stood in the shadows, operating the machinery in the back. But their time is now. An Inconvenient Minority chronicles the political and economic repression and renaissance of a long ignored racial identity group--and how they are central to reversing America's cultural decline and preserving the dynamism of the free world.
The Asian American minority, transcending its impoverished history, has quietly assumed mastery of the nation's technical and intellectual machinery and become essential to the workforce that makes modern American life possible. Yet, they've been forced to do so in the face of policy proposals--written in the name of diversity--that serve to exclude them from the upper ranks of the elite.
In An Inconvenient Minority, journalist Kenny Xu, who has covered the sensational Students for Fair Admission (SFFA) v. Harvard case since its inception, traces White America's longstanding unease about a minority potentially upending them in the race for group status. Their policy proposals, such as eliminating standardized testing, doling out racial preferences to non-Asian minorities, inflaming anti-Asian stereotypes, and lumping Asians into "privileged" categories despite their deprived historical experiences have forced Asian Americans to fight back--a battle given a boots-on-the-ground perspective here.
Going beyond the Harvard case, Xu unearths the skewed logic that has had ripple effects throughout the US, from Governor Bill de Blasio's attempted makeover of the New York City Specialized School programs to the battle over diversity quotas in Google's and Facebook's progressive epicenters, to the rise of Asian American political activism in response to unfair perceptions and admission practices.
For too long, Asian Americans have stood in the shadows, operating the machinery in the back. But their time is now. An Inconvenient Minority chronicles the political and economic repression and renaissance of a long ignored racial identity group--and how they are central to reversing America's cultural decline and preserving the dynamism of the free world.
360 pages, Kindle Edition
First published July 13, 2021
132 people are currently reading
983 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 - 30 of 44 reviews
November 6, 2022
Xu's thesis is that Asians in the U.S. were historically and legally discriminated against, notably by 1884 Asian Exclusion Act and the World War II Japanese internment camps,
and
are also victimized by current diversity initiatives in both universities and corporate America. Several hundred thousand Vietnamese refugees have arrived in the U.S. since 1975, 3M from China, 2M from Philippines, many of these fleeing communism and government corruption, arriving with no money, no language skills, no inherited wealth, no established social network, but a strong work ethic and desire to succeed. They flourish despite having no teachers of their own ethnicity and no representation in the curriculum, both of which we are told are essential to minorities' success. Most Asians in NYC actually qualify for free and reduced lunch and still they rise.
Asians are inconvenient because they reveal the lies behind the only acceptable narrative, actually a religion that brooks no heretics: White supremacy in the United States is insurmountable. Ergo, Asians are called "white adjacent;" they are said to have and hoard privilege (although poor), and "when a class is considered 'privileged,' taking things from them is morally legitimate" (41) in the current climate. As we shall see, the privilege they have is related to cognitive ability, work ethic, and bourgeois values.
In 1940, Asians' income in California was approximately equivalent to that of American Blacks. By 1960, they reached parity with Whites, and by 1980, they exceeded Whites. Asians adhere to the same path that extensive studies indicate leads to wealth (Read Penn Prof. Amy Wax): entrepreneurship; marriage: Asian American children are less than half as likely to be living in a household that is not two-parent than the average American; and education: 51% of American born Vietnamese have a BA or higher, in comparison with 30% of Americans and 17% of Blacks.
Understand that for this book, Xu needs to use Asians as a bloc, not as enormously diverse multiplicities of nations and ethnicities with longstanding national hatreds as well as intra-group competition (Bengali vs. Bengali). In reality, there is no pan-Asianism. It's not like the Japanese, Koreans and Chinese are pals or share a common language, culture, or history. A Japanese oligarch has nothing in common with a poor Bangladeshi (or even an indigenous Ainu). Beyond that, the average IQ in Bangladesh is 81, and over 106 in Japan and Taiwan.
Silicon Valley and Tech
Xu points out that many Asian immigrants, like many of the 2.6M Indians in the U.S., are hired on the basis of merit, despite needing immigration sponsorship and lacking critical language skills, exploited due to H1B visa stipulations and not included as "diversity" in these corporate initiatives. What Xu ignores is that Asians aren't hired simply because they're better than anyone else. They're hired because they're on H1B visas, so they won't expect to be promoted or make trouble. You want the job? You know the terms. Take it or leave it.
Nevertheless, close to half the employees of Google and Meta are Asian. What would a day without Asians look like? Silicon Valley and all its products would shut down. Xu wants programmers to earn much higher salaries. Programmers are a dime a dozen, Kenny. Your profit-sharing idea doesn't fly; it's simple supply and demand.
Tragic ironies
There are so many tragic ironies in the specific situation of Chinese refugees and immigrants to the U.S. First is that U.S. culture is repeating the anti-meritocratic Cultural Revolution of Mao. Second is that the Tang dynasty (618-907 C.E.) instituted civil service exams, a standardized test, so that appointment to those positions was based on merit, not nepotism, connections, or corruption. Many Asian groups excel at standardized exams, which should be a way for them to be recognized for their innate ability and preparation; instead, such exams are being eliminated so Asians can be excluded more effectively. The Chinese strive "to find and develop the best community talent early and quickly" (21), even in primary school. We should be doing the same.
The Business of Education
Xu devotes many pages to education. He recounts the already well-documented elimination of gifted programs, revisions to elite high school admissions, and, of course, the Harvard lawsuit (with more litigation to follow), all based in the perception that Asians were "overrepresented." We should view students as representing themselves; instead we group them by ethnicity, an entirely random category. Why ethnicity of all categories that exist? Infuriatingly, Xu has the audacity to blame educators and schools for the lagging of other ethnic groups, instead of the parents who don't arrange tutoring for their kids, or the reality of cognitive differences of groups.
Education is a business. Public schools are the largest employment project in the country. Schools that can demonstrate that Blacks and Hispanics are lagging academically behind Whites and Asians receive millions of dollars as a corrective. Asians are inconvenient in this regard. The average Asian or White 8th grader in Montgomery Public Schools (MD) scores more than three grade levels higher on standardized tests than the average Black or Hispanic student (200), and Asians are 1.63 grade levels higher than Whites. Because the school district refuses to admit that groups have different cognitive ability, it can only attribute such differences to racial discrimination, which must be corrected by throwing taxpayer money at the problem. After $128M, there was not change, so another $700M was kicked in, but the difference in performance worsened! How embarrassing, but no one wants to face the reality of cognitive differences.
That leads to my main annoyance with this book: Xu is far too cautious and timid for my taste. Come on, Kenny, put out the empirical I.Q. results that show that Asians have more cognitive ability than other groups, understanding that individuals can still diverge from the group averages. This is empirical data, not racism. The failure to admit the facts just reveals that we worship cognitive ability above other talents, which is indefensible. I refer the reader to Fredrik deBoer's book, The Cult of Smart . Every society desperately needs people who have other gifts and talents, from auto repair to plumbing and infinite other categories. No one questions why there aren't more Asians in the NBA (although Asians are starting to facetiously demand equity there).
Discrimination against Asians in education is real. I'm a college counselor. I direct families to never identify as "Asian" on a standardized test or application form in any grade, for any school, even for law or medical school.
Why?
Because for medical school admission, for example, a student with a GPA of 3.2-3.39 and an MCAT score of 24-26 has a 65.8% chance of being admitted if Black, a 34% chance if Hispanic (even though over 60% of Hispanics have only European ancestry), 9.4% chance if White, and just a 7.7% chance if Asian. When I show Asian parents the tables, they are usually uncomprehending, then indignant, and tell me how they arrived to the U.S. with nothing and worked two full-time jobs each, suffered innumerable hardships and delayed gratification to make sure their kid thrived in education, which they saw as the key to success. It's not just that diversity initiatives don't include Asians; it's that they deliberately disadvantage them . Such impediments aren't just unfair to Asians; we all suffer by denying talented people of opportunity to contribute and advance our society in myriad ways.
However, some of this is just a misunderstanding about the U.S. university system. Make no mistake: the Ivy League is an athletic association and its member universities are clubs. 70% of Harvard students come from top 20% income bracket, 15% from the top 1%, but people come to this country and expect to be admitted to its most exclusive clubs? That's absurdly unrealistic. Read my review of The Privileged Poor. Even if admitted, they won't reap the benefit of the clubbiness anyway (see Michelman, Price and Zimmerman, NBER 7/11/21). Due to the lawsuit, Xu is obsessed with Harvard. Why does anyone want to be part of an institution that doesn't want them? Rethink that. It's Groucho Marx all over again. Jews used to be similarly excluded, but Xu doesn't pay any attention to them, which is a peculiar oversight, but Xu is not a sociologist, so I forgive him.
Ron Unz found that Asian Americans at Harvard scored an average of 140 points higher on the SAT than Whites, who scored 310 points higher than Black students, so Asians had to score 450 higher than a Black student to be admitted. Well, sort of. If you read the details of the lawsuit, it's pretty clear that Harvard wants to curate diversity for its bread and butter students. We know that "if academics were exclusively considered with no regards to race," Asian Americans would be 43% of the admitted class, instead of 20%. Peter Arcidiacono (my hero, referenced in several of my other reviews) found that the percentage of Asian admissions to Harvard would increase 19% if the subjective "personality" score, a useful proxy for whatever, were removed (49).
I've been in this business a long time and can state unequivocally that academic ability is just not the most important criterion people think it is. Good grades + ability to pay the entire bill + a standout quality like national yo-yo champion or $100,000 Siemens Award winner or published a novel with a reputable publisher or sailed solo from Maine to Patagonia...or science building was funded by and named for grandparents or parent is Prime Minister; now we're talking. Would that everyone understood two principles:
1. American universities are social engineering experiments. They want an interesting group of people that represents diverse gifts and talents. If you want only academics, such universities exist: check out MIT and CalTech, foreign universities, and some of the large public research universities.
2. Universities are businesses. Yes, Harvard et al. receive government funding, but they are private institutions and should be able to determine their own policies for admission.
Enough pouting about admission to Ivy League and Ivy Plus. It's not merely unbecoming and tiresome; it diverts attention from the proper focus, namely what Xu identifies as the true cost of diversity ideology: Applicants and politicians focus on "building the correct victim story," rather than building skills and knowledge; "racial identity politics seep into the broad reaches of our discourse and infect our young with resentment against white and Asian people in our country, poisoning our talent pool for generations to come" (95). Right on, Kenny. I don't buy his other premise: The "lesser-qualified grads who are hired for leadership in our country do not live up" to the elite university brand and "so damage the top level of our society." Having lived in the NYC area most of my life, I can affirm that there is an invisible very small pond of big fishes that run the country. All is not as it appears.
Xu is just too careful to not step on any toes and wants to avoid any possible charge of racism. I had to wait 154 pages for this brief and mild outburst:
"Diversity is a bureaucratic ideology--invented by bureaucrats to secure their bureaucratic positions--that has secured its future by becoming an expensive moral ideology. For companies that can afford it, investing in the diversity bureaucracy health from a PR perspective, potentially allowing the left to go pick on some other Corporation leave yours alone. But let's be clear: diversity ideology did not form because scientists went out and statistically tested the performance of diverse versus non-diverse companies and concluded that diverse companies were better suited for profit and growth (and virtue, clearly). The diversity ideology came first. The studies and economic cases and showboating came with the goal of perpetuating it" (154). Amen. The most cursory review of the research supports this thesis and I have a bibliography dating back to WWII about how diversity efforts have the opposite effect of the intended. Contact me if you want to review it.
Only diversity of skills really matters, not ethnicities, ages, sexualities, gender identity and whatever other divisive category they invent next. As Yuval Harari points out, Istanbul was the most diverse place on the planet, but the scientific revolution happened in repressive Europe. And Silicon Valley's great innovations came from a pretty homogenous group of White guys.
Xu is at his best when he sticks to the data, which is incredibly damning all by itself, but he overreaches and tends toward petulance. Many of the issues he complains about are trifles not specific to Asians. Is he indulging in the victim fantasy that it's only for Asians that life isn't a straight line meritocracy? It's not at all unusual to experience wild fluctuations in income; in fact, most of the people I know, including myself, have.
Xu's definition of cultural capital: "knowledge and sympathy that other people have of your culture and history" (110) is bizarre, as in, Asians don't have representation in music the way Blacks have rap (and jazz and R&B, which he doesn't mention, oddly), or in film (he hated Crazy Rich Asians). He really goes so far off the rails here, it's not even worth my addressing. Then he tells us that Asian men get no looks on dating sites, but Asian women are sought after, due to sexual stereotypes. That's tantamount to denying the antecedent. Anyway, Kenny, where on earth did you get this from? Cultural capital is the accumulated cultural knowledge and social assets that one has that promote social mobility and confer status and power in a stratified society. By either definition, Asians' cultural capital is low.
In Red, White, and Black: Rescuing American History from Revisionists and Race Hustlers, Coleman Cruz Hughes wrote, "In the history of multi-ethnic societies, it is difficult to find a single example in which a minority group rose from poverty to affluence by pursuing a strategy that focuses primarily on nursing historical grievance (however valid), seeking atonement for them, and stigmatizing those within its ranks that advocated an inward-looking strategy. By contrast, history is replete with examples of minority groups, even ones who have suffered routine political repression and violence, rising to affluence by pursuing the opposite strategy: avoiding politics entirely and focusing single-mindedly on entrepreneurship and education. Rarely does history provide a lesson as unambiguous as this one" (119).
Generally true, but particularly in the [overly detailed] recounting of the story of Prop 16 in California, and throughout this book, Xu makes a pretty good case for building political clout: "Until Asian Americans get a grip on themselves and organize into a coherent political identity, they will increasingly face the wrath of a country increasingly turning against their values" (29). Asians are being discriminated against in the name of equity, which Kamala Harris helpfully tweeted in 11/2o20, strives to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator, and it must stop.
I would have preferred the book feature more like this from the final chapter:
"What racial separatists do, however, is lock in race. Ironically trying to retribute the sins and slights of others, they define people according to factors they cannot control and create a reality in which background matters more than anything else. They work against the American Dream. They take this country from a land of opportunity into the same sort of land that today's immigrants to America have departed.
Worst of all they create an industry out of it. It is an industry of equity money and antiracism that doesn't help low-income Black and Hispanic Americans, of racial preferences that give advantages to the elite and leave the rest behind. It turns people against each other. It fragments American solidarity" (230).
It's not a great book; Xu is a journalist, not a college admissions expert or a sociologist, but it will make you reflect on some of your beliefs and the way diversity initiatives summarily obstruct, exclude, marginalize, and repress a group that excels despite coming to this nation in many cases with nothing but the desire to succeed and work hard.
Asians are inconvenient because they reveal the lies behind the only acceptable narrative, actually a religion that brooks no heretics: White supremacy in the United States is insurmountable. Ergo, Asians are called "white adjacent;" they are said to have and hoard privilege (although poor), and "when a class is considered 'privileged,' taking things from them is morally legitimate" (41) in the current climate. As we shall see, the privilege they have is related to cognitive ability, work ethic, and bourgeois values.
In 1940, Asians' income in California was approximately equivalent to that of American Blacks. By 1960, they reached parity with Whites, and by 1980, they exceeded Whites. Asians adhere to the same path that extensive studies indicate leads to wealth (Read Penn Prof. Amy Wax): entrepreneurship; marriage: Asian American children are less than half as likely to be living in a household that is not two-parent than the average American; and education: 51% of American born Vietnamese have a BA or higher, in comparison with 30% of Americans and 17% of Blacks.
This is a "classic case of what we know to be the American Dream: that your background doesn't matter, but your attitude--your work ethic, your belief in the goodness and opportunity of this country--is what matters" (28).
Understand that for this book, Xu needs to use Asians as a bloc, not as enormously diverse multiplicities of nations and ethnicities with longstanding national hatreds as well as intra-group competition (Bengali vs. Bengali). In reality, there is no pan-Asianism. It's not like the Japanese, Koreans and Chinese are pals or share a common language, culture, or history. A Japanese oligarch has nothing in common with a poor Bangladeshi (or even an indigenous Ainu). Beyond that, the average IQ in Bangladesh is 81, and over 106 in Japan and Taiwan.
Silicon Valley and Tech
Xu points out that many Asian immigrants, like many of the 2.6M Indians in the U.S., are hired on the basis of merit, despite needing immigration sponsorship and lacking critical language skills, exploited due to H1B visa stipulations and not included as "diversity" in these corporate initiatives. What Xu ignores is that Asians aren't hired simply because they're better than anyone else. They're hired because they're on H1B visas, so they won't expect to be promoted or make trouble. You want the job? You know the terms. Take it or leave it.
Nevertheless, close to half the employees of Google and Meta are Asian. What would a day without Asians look like? Silicon Valley and all its products would shut down. Xu wants programmers to earn much higher salaries. Programmers are a dime a dozen, Kenny. Your profit-sharing idea doesn't fly; it's simple supply and demand.
Tragic ironies
There are so many tragic ironies in the specific situation of Chinese refugees and immigrants to the U.S. First is that U.S. culture is repeating the anti-meritocratic Cultural Revolution of Mao. Second is that the Tang dynasty (618-907 C.E.) instituted civil service exams, a standardized test, so that appointment to those positions was based on merit, not nepotism, connections, or corruption. Many Asian groups excel at standardized exams, which should be a way for them to be recognized for their innate ability and preparation; instead, such exams are being eliminated so Asians can be excluded more effectively. The Chinese strive "to find and develop the best community talent early and quickly" (21), even in primary school. We should be doing the same.
The Business of Education
Xu devotes many pages to education. He recounts the already well-documented elimination of gifted programs, revisions to elite high school admissions, and, of course, the Harvard lawsuit (with more litigation to follow), all based in the perception that Asians were "overrepresented." We should view students as representing themselves; instead we group them by ethnicity, an entirely random category. Why ethnicity of all categories that exist? Infuriatingly, Xu has the audacity to blame educators and schools for the lagging of other ethnic groups, instead of the parents who don't arrange tutoring for their kids, or the reality of cognitive differences of groups.
How can it be that immigrants with only elementary school education, whose income is below poverty level, with no social network and no language skills can figure out the importance of tutoring for tests, but people whose roots are perhaps centuries deep can't? It's lack of motivation and lack of cognitive ability and lack of ability to delay gratification.
Education is a business. Public schools are the largest employment project in the country. Schools that can demonstrate that Blacks and Hispanics are lagging academically behind Whites and Asians receive millions of dollars as a corrective. Asians are inconvenient in this regard. The average Asian or White 8th grader in Montgomery Public Schools (MD) scores more than three grade levels higher on standardized tests than the average Black or Hispanic student (200), and Asians are 1.63 grade levels higher than Whites. Because the school district refuses to admit that groups have different cognitive ability, it can only attribute such differences to racial discrimination, which must be corrected by throwing taxpayer money at the problem. After $128M, there was not change, so another $700M was kicked in, but the difference in performance worsened! How embarrassing, but no one wants to face the reality of cognitive differences.
That leads to my main annoyance with this book: Xu is far too cautious and timid for my taste. Come on, Kenny, put out the empirical I.Q. results that show that Asians have more cognitive ability than other groups, understanding that individuals can still diverge from the group averages. This is empirical data, not racism. The failure to admit the facts just reveals that we worship cognitive ability above other talents, which is indefensible. I refer the reader to Fredrik deBoer's book, The Cult of Smart . Every society desperately needs people who have other gifts and talents, from auto repair to plumbing and infinite other categories. No one questions why there aren't more Asians in the NBA (although Asians are starting to facetiously demand equity there).
Discrimination against Asians in education is real. I'm a college counselor. I direct families to never identify as "Asian" on a standardized test or application form in any grade, for any school, even for law or medical school.
Why?
Because for medical school admission, for example, a student with a GPA of 3.2-3.39 and an MCAT score of 24-26 has a 65.8% chance of being admitted if Black, a 34% chance if Hispanic (even though over 60% of Hispanics have only European ancestry), 9.4% chance if White, and just a 7.7% chance if Asian. When I show Asian parents the tables, they are usually uncomprehending, then indignant, and tell me how they arrived to the U.S. with nothing and worked two full-time jobs each, suffered innumerable hardships and delayed gratification to make sure their kid thrived in education, which they saw as the key to success. It's not just that diversity initiatives don't include Asians; it's that they deliberately disadvantage them . Such impediments aren't just unfair to Asians; we all suffer by denying talented people of opportunity to contribute and advance our society in myriad ways.
However, some of this is just a misunderstanding about the U.S. university system. Make no mistake: the Ivy League is an athletic association and its member universities are clubs. 70% of Harvard students come from top 20% income bracket, 15% from the top 1%, but people come to this country and expect to be admitted to its most exclusive clubs? That's absurdly unrealistic. Read my review of The Privileged Poor. Even if admitted, they won't reap the benefit of the clubbiness anyway (see Michelman, Price and Zimmerman, NBER 7/11/21). Due to the lawsuit, Xu is obsessed with Harvard. Why does anyone want to be part of an institution that doesn't want them? Rethink that. It's Groucho Marx all over again. Jews used to be similarly excluded, but Xu doesn't pay any attention to them, which is a peculiar oversight, but Xu is not a sociologist, so I forgive him.
Ron Unz found that Asian Americans at Harvard scored an average of 140 points higher on the SAT than Whites, who scored 310 points higher than Black students, so Asians had to score 450 higher than a Black student to be admitted. Well, sort of. If you read the details of the lawsuit, it's pretty clear that Harvard wants to curate diversity for its bread and butter students. We know that "if academics were exclusively considered with no regards to race," Asian Americans would be 43% of the admitted class, instead of 20%. Peter Arcidiacono (my hero, referenced in several of my other reviews) found that the percentage of Asian admissions to Harvard would increase 19% if the subjective "personality" score, a useful proxy for whatever, were removed (49).
I've been in this business a long time and can state unequivocally that academic ability is just not the most important criterion people think it is. Good grades + ability to pay the entire bill + a standout quality like national yo-yo champion or $100,000 Siemens Award winner or published a novel with a reputable publisher or sailed solo from Maine to Patagonia...or science building was funded by and named for grandparents or parent is Prime Minister; now we're talking. Would that everyone understood two principles:
1. American universities are social engineering experiments. They want an interesting group of people that represents diverse gifts and talents. If you want only academics, such universities exist: check out MIT and CalTech, foreign universities, and some of the large public research universities.
2. Universities are businesses. Yes, Harvard et al. receive government funding, but they are private institutions and should be able to determine their own policies for admission.
Enough pouting about admission to Ivy League and Ivy Plus. It's not merely unbecoming and tiresome; it diverts attention from the proper focus, namely what Xu identifies as the true cost of diversity ideology: Applicants and politicians focus on "building the correct victim story," rather than building skills and knowledge; "racial identity politics seep into the broad reaches of our discourse and infect our young with resentment against white and Asian people in our country, poisoning our talent pool for generations to come" (95). Right on, Kenny. I don't buy his other premise: The "lesser-qualified grads who are hired for leadership in our country do not live up" to the elite university brand and "so damage the top level of our society." Having lived in the NYC area most of my life, I can affirm that there is an invisible very small pond of big fishes that run the country. All is not as it appears.
Xu is just too careful to not step on any toes and wants to avoid any possible charge of racism. I had to wait 154 pages for this brief and mild outburst:
"Diversity is a bureaucratic ideology--invented by bureaucrats to secure their bureaucratic positions--that has secured its future by becoming an expensive moral ideology. For companies that can afford it, investing in the diversity bureaucracy health from a PR perspective, potentially allowing the left to go pick on some other Corporation leave yours alone. But let's be clear: diversity ideology did not form because scientists went out and statistically tested the performance of diverse versus non-diverse companies and concluded that diverse companies were better suited for profit and growth (and virtue, clearly). The diversity ideology came first. The studies and economic cases and showboating came with the goal of perpetuating it" (154). Amen. The most cursory review of the research supports this thesis and I have a bibliography dating back to WWII about how diversity efforts have the opposite effect of the intended. Contact me if you want to review it.
Only diversity of skills really matters, not ethnicities, ages, sexualities, gender identity and whatever other divisive category they invent next. As Yuval Harari points out, Istanbul was the most diverse place on the planet, but the scientific revolution happened in repressive Europe. And Silicon Valley's great innovations came from a pretty homogenous group of White guys.
Xu is at his best when he sticks to the data, which is incredibly damning all by itself, but he overreaches and tends toward petulance. Many of the issues he complains about are trifles not specific to Asians. Is he indulging in the victim fantasy that it's only for Asians that life isn't a straight line meritocracy? It's not at all unusual to experience wild fluctuations in income; in fact, most of the people I know, including myself, have.
Xu's definition of cultural capital: "knowledge and sympathy that other people have of your culture and history" (110) is bizarre, as in, Asians don't have representation in music the way Blacks have rap (and jazz and R&B, which he doesn't mention, oddly), or in film (he hated Crazy Rich Asians). He really goes so far off the rails here, it's not even worth my addressing. Then he tells us that Asian men get no looks on dating sites, but Asian women are sought after, due to sexual stereotypes. That's tantamount to denying the antecedent. Anyway, Kenny, where on earth did you get this from? Cultural capital is the accumulated cultural knowledge and social assets that one has that promote social mobility and confer status and power in a stratified society. By either definition, Asians' cultural capital is low.
In Red, White, and Black: Rescuing American History from Revisionists and Race Hustlers, Coleman Cruz Hughes wrote, "In the history of multi-ethnic societies, it is difficult to find a single example in which a minority group rose from poverty to affluence by pursuing a strategy that focuses primarily on nursing historical grievance (however valid), seeking atonement for them, and stigmatizing those within its ranks that advocated an inward-looking strategy. By contrast, history is replete with examples of minority groups, even ones who have suffered routine political repression and violence, rising to affluence by pursuing the opposite strategy: avoiding politics entirely and focusing single-mindedly on entrepreneurship and education. Rarely does history provide a lesson as unambiguous as this one" (119).
Generally true, but particularly in the [overly detailed] recounting of the story of Prop 16 in California, and throughout this book, Xu makes a pretty good case for building political clout: "Until Asian Americans get a grip on themselves and organize into a coherent political identity, they will increasingly face the wrath of a country increasingly turning against their values" (29). Asians are being discriminated against in the name of equity, which Kamala Harris helpfully tweeted in 11/2o20, strives to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator, and it must stop.
I would have preferred the book feature more like this from the final chapter:
"What racial separatists do, however, is lock in race. Ironically trying to retribute the sins and slights of others, they define people according to factors they cannot control and create a reality in which background matters more than anything else. They work against the American Dream. They take this country from a land of opportunity into the same sort of land that today's immigrants to America have departed.
Worst of all they create an industry out of it. It is an industry of equity money and antiracism that doesn't help low-income Black and Hispanic Americans, of racial preferences that give advantages to the elite and leave the rest behind. It turns people against each other. It fragments American solidarity" (230).
It's not a great book; Xu is a journalist, not a college admissions expert or a sociologist, but it will make you reflect on some of your beliefs and the way diversity initiatives summarily obstruct, exclude, marginalize, and repress a group that excels despite coming to this nation in many cases with nothing but the desire to succeed and work hard.
August 28, 2021
Thoughts tomorrow. What has occurred in vast portions of USA education is highly disturbing. This issue only being one aspect. His case is fairly typical of outcomes too.
Added later:
This is one of those books most people should read, but few will. It only made me laugh once. But I did. It was on page 12- a listing of the Asian parent "rules". I had a German father and a Sicilian mother but the rules were nearly identical. Especially the one in which all A minus/ B's were a bad grade. And praise for academic achievement identical too? Outcomes demanded, never praised.
With the personal story beyond all the stats and graphics! Excellent eyes to where we are going too in the USA. Despicable to be wasting such math and innovative skills- in this day of lowest levels accepted as sufficient. Beyond all that the personal prejudice held for Asian males is even worse, if possible. And not for only the academic. Read these stats and outcomes. Once again the "empathetic" crowd is heartless.
Added later:
This is one of those books most people should read, but few will. It only made me laugh once. But I did. It was on page 12- a listing of the Asian parent "rules". I had a German father and a Sicilian mother but the rules were nearly identical. Especially the one in which all A minus/ B's were a bad grade. And praise for academic achievement identical too? Outcomes demanded, never praised.
With the personal story beyond all the stats and graphics! Excellent eyes to where we are going too in the USA. Despicable to be wasting such math and innovative skills- in this day of lowest levels accepted as sufficient. Beyond all that the personal prejudice held for Asian males is even worse, if possible. And not for only the academic. Read these stats and outcomes. Once again the "empathetic" crowd is heartless.
January 18, 2023
While I vehemently oppose the preachiness and conservative slant that Xu takes in expressing his views on the struggles of Asian Americans today, I acknowledge that Xu has a perspective on these issues that deserves to be heard. His argument advocating for better Asian-American representation in media is the highlight of this read. I find, however, the Xu's reliance on anecdotes, emotionally opinionated political asides, and disregard for any logical elaboration on his limited definition of meritocracy, severely hinders his perspective from being fully developed and appreciated in a nuanced manner.
August 6, 2022
Xu sometimes gets a bit strident and polemical here, but he makes a solid case that current Diversity/Equity/Inclusion policies are harmful to certain minority groups and violate commonly accepted principles of merit and fair play.
Carolyn wrote a great review:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Carolyn wrote a great review:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
November 5, 2021
My oldest child is currently receiving marketing material from colleges and universities that promote diversity and inclusion. I also am researching webinars and articles about universities’ shift to test-optional policies as the pandemic excluded some students from having access to the College Board exams (SAT/ ACT). So coming across this novel was a timely read for myself.
As a personal reflection, I received my education in California’s UC system at a time the state’s voters moved to remove affirmative action programs from their admissions process. So I appreciated this novel’s attempt to visit the UC system decades later as well as other schools (CalTech) which also do not follow blatant affirmative action programs.
This novel provides a history of the diversity/ inclusion business industry since the era of President Johnson. Additionally learning the history of the standardized tests for NYC HS to overcome the exclusion of Jewish applicants gives a different perspective to those standardized tests. Also what happens to diversification in corporate America if the same variety of applicants keep applying, while other highly sought applicants do not apply? The chapter about Hollywood and online dating success of Asians in America seemed irrelevant to the novel, so I would suggest future readers just skip that chapter.
This was a challenging book to read, challenging because it provides an alternative view to trendy, popular tag-lines we have grown up praising. Challenging because stereotypes are written by the author for you to read in print (like the online dating chapter). He is suggesting these generalizations directly to me, when I’ve never heard Asian communities categorized so matter of fact, unsettling language to hear if true, perhaps these statements are the author’s ideas? So for that issue, I didn’t like some of the novel’s material. However for the purposes of challenging my thinking and the socially-acceptable praises of equity and inclusion programs, hearing another perspective of a large group of hard-working Americans, digesting the consequences of specialized elitism while removing generations-familiar testing standards…it sits within me as food-for-thought. Also, those long-standing Ivy League institutions do get a few more cracks in their elitist facade after reading this novel.
Certainly a read worthy for the curious and open-minded.
As a personal reflection, I received my education in California’s UC system at a time the state’s voters moved to remove affirmative action programs from their admissions process. So I appreciated this novel’s attempt to visit the UC system decades later as well as other schools (CalTech) which also do not follow blatant affirmative action programs.
This novel provides a history of the diversity/ inclusion business industry since the era of President Johnson. Additionally learning the history of the standardized tests for NYC HS to overcome the exclusion of Jewish applicants gives a different perspective to those standardized tests. Also what happens to diversification in corporate America if the same variety of applicants keep applying, while other highly sought applicants do not apply? The chapter about Hollywood and online dating success of Asians in America seemed irrelevant to the novel, so I would suggest future readers just skip that chapter.
This was a challenging book to read, challenging because it provides an alternative view to trendy, popular tag-lines we have grown up praising. Challenging because stereotypes are written by the author for you to read in print (like the online dating chapter). He is suggesting these generalizations directly to me, when I’ve never heard Asian communities categorized so matter of fact, unsettling language to hear if true, perhaps these statements are the author’s ideas? So for that issue, I didn’t like some of the novel’s material. However for the purposes of challenging my thinking and the socially-acceptable praises of equity and inclusion programs, hearing another perspective of a large group of hard-working Americans, digesting the consequences of specialized elitism while removing generations-familiar testing standards…it sits within me as food-for-thought. Also, those long-standing Ivy League institutions do get a few more cracks in their elitist facade after reading this novel.
Certainly a read worthy for the curious and open-minded.
December 14, 2021
This is a good example of someone not letting the data speak for itself. 2.5 stars. I went into this already agreeing with him but found his rhetoric (and copious exclamation points) obnoxious. I can't imagine this convincing anyone more skeptical of his thesis.
An Inconvenient Minority documents the history of the Supreme Court cases on Affirmative Action; the Harvard lawsuit; California's Affirmative Action ban and the failed 2020 attempt to reverse it; as well as the history of the Chinese Exclusion Act, Japanese internment, and other obstacles Asian immigrants faced. Harvard's decades-long Jewish quota is compared to its modern-day treatment of Asian applicants.
The stats from the lawsuit are terrible. Asian students must, on average, score 450 points higher than black students to get into Harvard; Asians consistently receive the lowest "personal ratings" from Harvard admissions staff (their opinion on an applicant's personality) among all races. The examples of K-12 grade inflation are disturbing: New York schools passing 80-94% of students in math while only 2-15% are able to pass the math exams. The campaign to scrap the SHSAT in New York is covered (which, had it been successful, would have decreased Asian acceptance to New York's top high schools by 31%).
All of this stands on its own. There is no need for the partisan rants and conspiracy theories. He spends a lot of time slamming the woke Left while falling into the same traps. Random anecdotes and a study of 571 people are not evidence of American views at large. I skipped 50 pages in the middle when he started complaining that sexual attraction is "polite racism". He frequently inserted woke complaints into his anti-woke arguments. I almost DNF'd halfway through.
This is an important topic, but there are many online articles (and interviews with the author) that cover the same facts without the rally-style rhetoric.
An Inconvenient Minority documents the history of the Supreme Court cases on Affirmative Action; the Harvard lawsuit; California's Affirmative Action ban and the failed 2020 attempt to reverse it; as well as the history of the Chinese Exclusion Act, Japanese internment, and other obstacles Asian immigrants faced. Harvard's decades-long Jewish quota is compared to its modern-day treatment of Asian applicants.
The stats from the lawsuit are terrible. Asian students must, on average, score 450 points higher than black students to get into Harvard; Asians consistently receive the lowest "personal ratings" from Harvard admissions staff (their opinion on an applicant's personality) among all races. The examples of K-12 grade inflation are disturbing: New York schools passing 80-94% of students in math while only 2-15% are able to pass the math exams. The campaign to scrap the SHSAT in New York is covered (which, had it been successful, would have decreased Asian acceptance to New York's top high schools by 31%).
All of this stands on its own. There is no need for the partisan rants and conspiracy theories. He spends a lot of time slamming the woke Left while falling into the same traps. Random anecdotes and a study of 571 people are not evidence of American views at large. I skipped 50 pages in the middle when he started complaining that sexual attraction is "polite racism". He frequently inserted woke complaints into his anti-woke arguments. I almost DNF'd halfway through.
This is an important topic, but there are many online articles (and interviews with the author) that cover the same facts without the rally-style rhetoric.
July 31, 2021
Kenny Xu wrote this book with the definite idea that Asian-Americans were treated and judged differently than other minorities. He points out reasons and statistics showing how Asian-Americans are discriminated against because they out preform other races including in many cases white Americans and because they do this, they do not fit into the CRT narrative. He makes his point! Boy does he make his point, over and over and over again. I am not big on repetition. Xu could have stopped after chapter 3 and still convinced the reader of his argument. Sometimes less is best.
August 10, 2021
A unique perspective on critical race theory.
White suppression and black victimization is the dominate theme in my liberal circle. " Catholic guilt" has been replaced by "white guilt." This book brings a new player into the discussion--Asian Americans. Is the Asian American experience as a minority similar to the black American experience, and if not, why not? Kenny Xi presents ideas worthy of thought.
White suppression and black victimization is the dominate theme in my liberal circle. " Catholic guilt" has been replaced by "white guilt." This book brings a new player into the discussion--Asian Americans. Is the Asian American experience as a minority similar to the black American experience, and if not, why not? Kenny Xi presents ideas worthy of thought.
February 26, 2022
Good points. A POV that definitely should be more widely known. But personally this is not to my taste, from a tone perspective. Very one-sided, very preachy edging on whiny.
December 20, 2021
It's about time for an Asian American author to write about the awkward positions our race-obsessed society has put Asian Americans in. In that sense, it's a ground-breaking. The book is well researched and a phenomenal accomplishment for a recent college graduate. I wish the author didn't use partisan languages in certain parts of the book as the facts he presented are sufficiently persuasive to convince most of his readers who is willing to approach them with a reasonable mind.
July 5, 2025
As someone with conservative leanings, I like what he said and I think it's important to say it, but as someone who also has liberal leanings (you could call me a centrist), I was occasionally frustrated by the lack of nuance in some of the more conservative opinions. Those were dominant because Xu is a conservative. This guy is like 26 so to me still kind of a kid, so I took it with a grain of salt. I found the book to be more nuanced and digestible than the author's interviews on news and podcasts.
I'm inclined to think an editor served him well more often than not, given how ranty and kind of inarticulate he is in interviews, but there were some weird moments. One example was where he called Betsy DeVos the secretary of state. The word "decried" was used incredibly wrong once. There were sentences that were grammatically nonsensical. The chapter on dating while interesting (and sad) felt really salty and entirely disconnected from the rest of the book. I legit wondered if he's an incel. Actually his saltiness and general unlikeability caused his afterword, which is like his origin story as a salty, self-aggrandizing activist, to kind of do him dirty. Like he actually describes himself domineering a group interview over 3 girls and not giving them an inch edgewise and then describes how unfair it was that he didn't get that internship, on the grounds of being domineering. Like... come on. You're a jerk so people are treating you like a jerk. It's not that deep.
But in general this book is important because when the left talks about racism, which honestly they do entirely too much, 99% of the time they're talking strictly about black people and socioeconomic patterns that they perceive both rightly and wrongly at times to be remnants of policies and attitudes dating back to slavery or Jim Crow. The problem is there are way more minority demographics than just black people, and it's literally racist to exclude those groups. I like that he frequently mentions anti-semitism and how poisonous it is, and how a lot of the meritocratic systems currently being challenged (i.e. the specialized high school entrance exam in my hometown of NYC) actually originated to prevent the deliberate exclusion of Jews. I remember the row over that test and the stuff progressives were saying about it (that it was created out of white supremacy etc) was enraging, ahistorical, ignorant BS and it was embarrassing.
I concede the point that if your workplace or school is 50% white and 45% Asian then that's a profoundly un-diverse school or workplace, but in the instance of schools, there needs to be a holistic examination of the underlying reasons that black and hispanic kids are underperforming (largely public school quality, public school funding structures being based on property tax rates, lack of school choice, and removal of gifted & talented programs due to incorrect shrieking about how racist they were) rather than eliminating the concept of meritocracy. In the instance of jobs, some groups just gravitate towards certain types of jobs. Applying the concept of equity to employment categories makes literally no sense. I don't understand why people refuse to examine this in a nuanced way. It's infuriating.
And some of the racist stuff I've heard both black and white progressives say about Asians is just appallingly offensive and ignorant. I mean it's disgusting actually. Theirs is a voice that gets really lost in the wind because of this country's decision to narrow down all conversations about race into an attempt to "come to terms" and "have a reckoning" with slavery, something which by the way I don't think will ever happen bceause no one allows it (or dare I say wants it) to happen. I think the left's toxic reshaping of the conversation about racism in the US is deeply myopic and problematic, and Asians have been part of the fallout. This book, though sort of annoyingly written (not as annoying as Kenny is on podcasts though) does do a good job of pointing out one of those categories of failure.
I'm inclined to think an editor served him well more often than not, given how ranty and kind of inarticulate he is in interviews, but there were some weird moments. One example was where he called Betsy DeVos the secretary of state. The word "decried" was used incredibly wrong once. There were sentences that were grammatically nonsensical. The chapter on dating while interesting (and sad) felt really salty and entirely disconnected from the rest of the book. I legit wondered if he's an incel. Actually his saltiness and general unlikeability caused his afterword, which is like his origin story as a salty, self-aggrandizing activist, to kind of do him dirty. Like he actually describes himself domineering a group interview over 3 girls and not giving them an inch edgewise and then describes how unfair it was that he didn't get that internship, on the grounds of being domineering. Like... come on. You're a jerk so people are treating you like a jerk. It's not that deep.
But in general this book is important because when the left talks about racism, which honestly they do entirely too much, 99% of the time they're talking strictly about black people and socioeconomic patterns that they perceive both rightly and wrongly at times to be remnants of policies and attitudes dating back to slavery or Jim Crow. The problem is there are way more minority demographics than just black people, and it's literally racist to exclude those groups. I like that he frequently mentions anti-semitism and how poisonous it is, and how a lot of the meritocratic systems currently being challenged (i.e. the specialized high school entrance exam in my hometown of NYC) actually originated to prevent the deliberate exclusion of Jews. I remember the row over that test and the stuff progressives were saying about it (that it was created out of white supremacy etc) was enraging, ahistorical, ignorant BS and it was embarrassing.
I concede the point that if your workplace or school is 50% white and 45% Asian then that's a profoundly un-diverse school or workplace, but in the instance of schools, there needs to be a holistic examination of the underlying reasons that black and hispanic kids are underperforming (largely public school quality, public school funding structures being based on property tax rates, lack of school choice, and removal of gifted & talented programs due to incorrect shrieking about how racist they were) rather than eliminating the concept of meritocracy. In the instance of jobs, some groups just gravitate towards certain types of jobs. Applying the concept of equity to employment categories makes literally no sense. I don't understand why people refuse to examine this in a nuanced way. It's infuriating.
And some of the racist stuff I've heard both black and white progressives say about Asians is just appallingly offensive and ignorant. I mean it's disgusting actually. Theirs is a voice that gets really lost in the wind because of this country's decision to narrow down all conversations about race into an attempt to "come to terms" and "have a reckoning" with slavery, something which by the way I don't think will ever happen bceause no one allows it (or dare I say wants it) to happen. I think the left's toxic reshaping of the conversation about racism in the US is deeply myopic and problematic, and Asians have been part of the fallout. This book, though sort of annoyingly written (not as annoying as Kenny is on podcasts though) does do a good job of pointing out one of those categories of failure.
October 6, 2022
Skimmed.
I wanted to be sympathetic but the author is way too bitter and whiny.
On the other hand, the anecdote about the kid who had to settle for CMU and felt NOTHING at graduation was perfect.
I wanted to be sympathetic but the author is way too bitter and whiny.
On the other hand, the anecdote about the kid who had to settle for CMU and felt NOTHING at graduation was perfect.
March 13, 2022
An Inconvenient Minority : The Attack on Asian American Excellence and the Fight for Meritocracy (2021) by Kenny Xu looks at systemic racism in the United States, that is real systemic racism where Asian Americans are discriminated against when apply for the US’s top colleges. The book also looks at the discrimination Asian Americans face in America.
To most people outside the US the US college admission process is bizarre. In Australia and most part of the world there are serious tests at the end of high school, students get a ranking and a score (an ATAR in Australia) and then apply for whatever courses they can get into where ever they want. There are no essays about students themselves nor weighting on extra curricular activities. It is simple, transparent and works well. In the US perhaps only the superb Caltech works this way. The idea of huge admissions offices with staff is just strange. In the book Xu shows how these admissions offices that used to keep Jews out of top schools are now keeping Asians who do very well out of these schools. What is particularly strange and odious about this is that it is being done in the name of trying to not be racist. Asian Americans have faced long term serious discrimination in America and have overcome it through their own efforts. But now they face a new form of discrimination.
Xu points out just how well Asian Americans do, and indeed that they out perform Caucasian Americans in terms of education and earnings. Also that they are more law abiding than other groups.
The US also has a number of excellent, academically elite high schools where entrance is by test and grades. Here too there are people pushing to make entry random or to discriminate on racial grounds or abolish straightforward tests. Again, in Australia in NSW there are a number of academically selective high schools that do very well. Entrance is simple, get a certain score on a test. Again it works really well.
Xu points out that the US technology sector has a workforce that is wildly disproportionately Asian but bizarrely the fact that it is very racially diverse is not played up. With about 40% of big US tech companies being Asian it’s so strange that they don’t point out that they have a historically persecuted minority being a large part of their very well paid workforce. They are meritocratic. Xu also points out that in management the proportion of Asians suddenly declines compared to their share of the staff.
An Inconvenient Minority makes its case well. The US would do better being transparently meritocratic where ever possible.
To most people outside the US the US college admission process is bizarre. In Australia and most part of the world there are serious tests at the end of high school, students get a ranking and a score (an ATAR in Australia) and then apply for whatever courses they can get into where ever they want. There are no essays about students themselves nor weighting on extra curricular activities. It is simple, transparent and works well. In the US perhaps only the superb Caltech works this way. The idea of huge admissions offices with staff is just strange. In the book Xu shows how these admissions offices that used to keep Jews out of top schools are now keeping Asians who do very well out of these schools. What is particularly strange and odious about this is that it is being done in the name of trying to not be racist. Asian Americans have faced long term serious discrimination in America and have overcome it through their own efforts. But now they face a new form of discrimination.
Xu points out just how well Asian Americans do, and indeed that they out perform Caucasian Americans in terms of education and earnings. Also that they are more law abiding than other groups.
The US also has a number of excellent, academically elite high schools where entrance is by test and grades. Here too there are people pushing to make entry random or to discriminate on racial grounds or abolish straightforward tests. Again, in Australia in NSW there are a number of academically selective high schools that do very well. Entrance is simple, get a certain score on a test. Again it works really well.
Xu points out that the US technology sector has a workforce that is wildly disproportionately Asian but bizarrely the fact that it is very racially diverse is not played up. With about 40% of big US tech companies being Asian it’s so strange that they don’t point out that they have a historically persecuted minority being a large part of their very well paid workforce. They are meritocratic. Xu also points out that in management the proportion of Asians suddenly declines compared to their share of the staff.
An Inconvenient Minority makes its case well. The US would do better being transparently meritocratic where ever possible.
February 21, 2022
The identity politics severely dividing America is troubling. Therefore, when I first learned of this book, I was interested in reading an Asian American's perspective on today's racial nonsense. This book was indeed educational. Kenny Xu does not exaggerate when he refers to Asian Americans as "an inconvenient minority." Drawing from history, current events, and statistics, Xu divulges how the left's race ideology is destroying not only Asian Americans but any non minority American who pursues their dreams through hard work. Who is a non minority, you ask? Anyone who doesn't fit the left's narrative. The obessession with oppressing blacks and stealing land from Native Americans has people forgetting (ignoring in some cases) the Vietnamese, Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Japanese; many who suffered under Communism and government oppression. Thanks to Kenny Xu and everyone else who made this book possible, people's eyes will be opened to a minority who is truly suffering from racism that is disguised as diversity.
I cannot dive into all the book's logical points in this review, but I do want to share some of the parts that stood out to me:
"The intellectual Left likes to divide the world into privileged and oppressed classes based on racial status." (Preface)
"In pushing for diversity, Harvard eliminated a true hope of Americans of all races of this country - that people would be able to sculpt their own narratives for living rather than be trapped into archetypes of a group in which they did not choose to participate." (p. 60)
"True openness requires a humility of spirit. It requires that accepting that humankind's diversity means the priorities of others may not immediately seem as valuable as priorities we're pursuing. This is true diversity, deeper than the surface level - one that is rich because it represents the whole of not only one's background but the choices one makes in light of that background.
This is the kind of diversity I would imagine is envisioned by the majority of Americans. A blend of cultures, all choosing to go on their own paths, all finding something to contribute to society. All finding success and pride in their own contributions, and most importantly, all tolerating the paths that others take so long as that path is orderly.
Diversity and inclusion, on the other hand, propogates a version of diversity that does not mean what is envisioned in the eyes of most Americans. Diversity and inclusion puts people who do not choose the same path as others artifically put on that same path in order to make it more representative of the population. That is not open and inclusive. That is enforced sameness." (p.163)
I recommend to all concerned with America's deteriorating status, regardless of race or political leaning views. This is an important book.
I cannot dive into all the book's logical points in this review, but I do want to share some of the parts that stood out to me:
"The intellectual Left likes to divide the world into privileged and oppressed classes based on racial status." (Preface)
"In pushing for diversity, Harvard eliminated a true hope of Americans of all races of this country - that people would be able to sculpt their own narratives for living rather than be trapped into archetypes of a group in which they did not choose to participate." (p. 60)
"True openness requires a humility of spirit. It requires that accepting that humankind's diversity means the priorities of others may not immediately seem as valuable as priorities we're pursuing. This is true diversity, deeper than the surface level - one that is rich because it represents the whole of not only one's background but the choices one makes in light of that background.
This is the kind of diversity I would imagine is envisioned by the majority of Americans. A blend of cultures, all choosing to go on their own paths, all finding something to contribute to society. All finding success and pride in their own contributions, and most importantly, all tolerating the paths that others take so long as that path is orderly.
Diversity and inclusion, on the other hand, propogates a version of diversity that does not mean what is envisioned in the eyes of most Americans. Diversity and inclusion puts people who do not choose the same path as others artifically put on that same path in order to make it more representative of the population. That is not open and inclusive. That is enforced sameness." (p.163)
I recommend to all concerned with America's deteriorating status, regardless of race or political leaning views. This is an important book.
October 12, 2021
Incredibly thankful that the author has lent his voice in talking about meritocracy and Critical Race Theory in this country. It's great to read different perspectives on this subject and my eyes were definitely opened during and after reading this book.
September 7, 2021
I found the book interesting and well-written. The book's thesis is that using "race" as a proxy for "disadvantageous" people who could receive benefits (e.g., affirmative action) hurts Asian Americans because, on average, the latter group comes from less advantageous backgrounds and still seem to manage to perform at competitive levels.
The book is a good start for conversations not often discussed in America (and here, my viewpoint is biased because I am a foreigner living here). Most people would agree that providing some help (reward) to people who overcome more challenges than others to achieve a similar outcome is something good that can benefit society. I believe the issue is whether or not "race" (skin color, last name, heritage, etc.) per se is an accurate proxy to identify those disadvantageous people (in contrast to, say, family income).
The book is a good start for conversations not often discussed in America (and here, my viewpoint is biased because I am a foreigner living here). Most people would agree that providing some help (reward) to people who overcome more challenges than others to achieve a similar outcome is something good that can benefit society. I believe the issue is whether or not "race" (skin color, last name, heritage, etc.) per se is an accurate proxy to identify those disadvantageous people (in contrast to, say, family income).
August 13, 2025
Kenny Xu pulls no punches in this scathing critique of how DEI (aka diversity, equity, and inclusion) undermines meritocracy, especially but not exclusively at the expense of Asian-Americans. The book is equal parts anger, research, and humor. And although the logic here is hard to fault -- America should be a meritocracy -- what keeps the book out of five-star territory for me is that the writing seems a bit uneven, meaning occasionally sloppy or repetitive. But this is an important book, and Kenny Xu's authorial voice is refreshing rather than strident. If you're interested in the American Experiment (past, present, or future), you should read this.
August 12, 2021
an interesting and fresh perspective on distortions of conventional concerns over racism
May 26, 2022
A fascinating and thorough discussion of the systemic racism faced by Asian Americans.
Quotes:
“Critical Race Theory pushes the idea that one’s racial and ethnic background should be made more materially relevant, not less, … As if re-making one of the worst mistakes of our past wasn’t bad enough, Critical Race Theory also openly denigrates a key American virtue-- merit, that combination of talent and hard work that makes for genuine, well-earned sucess…
In Critical Race Theory, merit is considered a feature of ‘white supremacy culture’, so those who believe in it and succeed by it must be upholding white supremacy- even if they are Asian.” -James Lindsay, p. Viii, ix
“It is not clear if, had the Cultural Revolution carried on for another fifty years, the minds of Chinese folk would have become molded into sincere camaraderie for the forthcoming peasant paradise, but early returns were not splendid.” -p. 19
“Vietnamese Americans are a classic case of what we know to be the American Dream: that your background doesn’t matter, but your attitude- your work ethic, your belief in the goodness and opportunity of this country- is what matters…
(Asian Americans) have been the victims of historical exclusion and discrimination in America for centuries. Yet whenever they are allowed to compete, they often outcompete the privileged students of the socially inbred elite…
As the country begins to wake up to the contradictions that Asian Americans stab in the heart of sociopolitical narratives across the spectrum, resentment against Asian Americans will grow and fester.” -p. 28
“The application of the word ‘privilege’ to Asians is a dog whistle… In Left-speak, when a class is considered ‘privileged,’ taking things from them is morally legitimate.” -p. 41
“By uniformly calling Asian Americans ‘privileged,’ today’s progressive intellectuals foster Asian American guilt about their achievement… The lasting imprint of the Left’s diversity ideology might not actually wreak any significant increase in Black and Hispanic success, but will likely wreak damage to Asian American consciousness.” -p. 45
“The modern zeal you see for ‘diverse’ workplaces and businesses is a product of nearly forty years of grandstanding, an ideology that clawed its way out of deregulation by completely wedding itself to corporatism and managerialism…
“D&I (diversity & inclusion) has wormed its way into nearly every major Big Tech corporate center in the country. Without serious opposition, it will run roughshod over merit…
Diversity and inclusion… is anti-meritocratic: it specifically emphasizes the hiring of LESS QUALIFIED candidates for the sake of racial inclusion or political tradeoff.” -p. 154, 158
“Good business leaders implicitly understand that ediversity that matters represents far more than race. RAce isn’t even the tip of the iceberg- it’s the storm current that distracts, that PULLS YOU AWAY from the real iceberg. This is the society we want: one where people are rewarded according to their merit, disregarding their ancillary characteristics.” -p. 162
“True openness requires a humility of spirit. It requires accepting that humankind’s diversity means the priorities of others may not immediately seem as valuable as the priorities WE’RE pursuing. This is true diversity, deeper than the surface level- one that is rich because it represents the whole of not only one’s background but the choices one makes in light of that background.” -p. 163
“The division of people into empowered and disempowered groups- privileged white people and oppressed Black people- is the fundamental assumption of American critical race theory…
In Ibram X. Kendi’s America, discrimination can be a GOOD thing if it is antiracist- that is to say, creating geater racial equity…
Kendi would see us sacrifice meritocratic excellence for unmerited equity in a heartbeat.”
” -p. 196-98
(School administrators eliminating entrance exams for elite high schools) “took from those who worked hard and play by the rules to artificially grant spots for their preferred races.” -p. 204
“But we cannot stand to allow policies that continue to divide our nation on the basis of race and allow for discrimination to occur. We must target the media, government, and education systems that attempt to divide our country to infighting racial blocs. Only then can we stand up- not just for Asian Americans, but against envy, bitterness, and resentment of anyone on the basis of their skin color.” -p. 240
Quotes:
“Critical Race Theory pushes the idea that one’s racial and ethnic background should be made more materially relevant, not less, … As if re-making one of the worst mistakes of our past wasn’t bad enough, Critical Race Theory also openly denigrates a key American virtue-- merit, that combination of talent and hard work that makes for genuine, well-earned sucess…
In Critical Race Theory, merit is considered a feature of ‘white supremacy culture’, so those who believe in it and succeed by it must be upholding white supremacy- even if they are Asian.” -James Lindsay, p. Viii, ix
“It is not clear if, had the Cultural Revolution carried on for another fifty years, the minds of Chinese folk would have become molded into sincere camaraderie for the forthcoming peasant paradise, but early returns were not splendid.” -p. 19
“Vietnamese Americans are a classic case of what we know to be the American Dream: that your background doesn’t matter, but your attitude- your work ethic, your belief in the goodness and opportunity of this country- is what matters…
(Asian Americans) have been the victims of historical exclusion and discrimination in America for centuries. Yet whenever they are allowed to compete, they often outcompete the privileged students of the socially inbred elite…
As the country begins to wake up to the contradictions that Asian Americans stab in the heart of sociopolitical narratives across the spectrum, resentment against Asian Americans will grow and fester.” -p. 28
“The application of the word ‘privilege’ to Asians is a dog whistle… In Left-speak, when a class is considered ‘privileged,’ taking things from them is morally legitimate.” -p. 41
“By uniformly calling Asian Americans ‘privileged,’ today’s progressive intellectuals foster Asian American guilt about their achievement… The lasting imprint of the Left’s diversity ideology might not actually wreak any significant increase in Black and Hispanic success, but will likely wreak damage to Asian American consciousness.” -p. 45
“The modern zeal you see for ‘diverse’ workplaces and businesses is a product of nearly forty years of grandstanding, an ideology that clawed its way out of deregulation by completely wedding itself to corporatism and managerialism…
“D&I (diversity & inclusion) has wormed its way into nearly every major Big Tech corporate center in the country. Without serious opposition, it will run roughshod over merit…
Diversity and inclusion… is anti-meritocratic: it specifically emphasizes the hiring of LESS QUALIFIED candidates for the sake of racial inclusion or political tradeoff.” -p. 154, 158
“Good business leaders implicitly understand that ediversity that matters represents far more than race. RAce isn’t even the tip of the iceberg- it’s the storm current that distracts, that PULLS YOU AWAY from the real iceberg. This is the society we want: one where people are rewarded according to their merit, disregarding their ancillary characteristics.” -p. 162
“True openness requires a humility of spirit. It requires accepting that humankind’s diversity means the priorities of others may not immediately seem as valuable as the priorities WE’RE pursuing. This is true diversity, deeper than the surface level- one that is rich because it represents the whole of not only one’s background but the choices one makes in light of that background.” -p. 163
“The division of people into empowered and disempowered groups- privileged white people and oppressed Black people- is the fundamental assumption of American critical race theory…
In Ibram X. Kendi’s America, discrimination can be a GOOD thing if it is antiracist- that is to say, creating geater racial equity…
Kendi would see us sacrifice meritocratic excellence for unmerited equity in a heartbeat.”
” -p. 196-98
(School administrators eliminating entrance exams for elite high schools) “took from those who worked hard and play by the rules to artificially grant spots for their preferred races.” -p. 204
“But we cannot stand to allow policies that continue to divide our nation on the basis of race and allow for discrimination to occur. We must target the media, government, and education systems that attempt to divide our country to infighting racial blocs. Only then can we stand up- not just for Asian Americans, but against envy, bitterness, and resentment of anyone on the basis of their skin color.” -p. 240
July 25, 2024
Seldom do I write a bad review, but this book compelled me to action. I found An Inconvenient Minority to be repetitive, simplistic, and internally inconsistent in its ideas and its arguments. Mr Xu repeatedly mentions the systemic racism that Asian Americans must overcome, only to switch tactics and claim that systemic racism does not exist. It picks and chooses data to support its argument while ignoring contradictory information and simplifying the world to one basic premise: Asian children succeed despite discrimination because their parents value education more than other parents. As I read this and other tropes throughout the book, I found them racist, and they seemed to border on apologetics for white nationalism.
Mr. Xu does not adequately address anti-Asian discrimination in the context of other discrimination and social exclusions that impact other disenfranchised groups, and he insists on portraying those he considers liberals as hypocrites who complain when Asians succeed. In the first part of the book, he limits his discussion of anti-Asian discrimination to the educational setting, ignoring the historical benefits reaped by the Asian-American community through diversity and affirmative action programs. It is not until halfway through the book that Xu begins to note that despite educational success, graduates continue to be underpaid relative to their academic achievements and continue to encounter barriers to success post-college. (I mentioned that he seems to believe racial discrimination is no longer relevant, right? Well, this is where he seems to do an about-face, saying that Asians in Big Tech “need to demand their voice be heard,” almost as if he suddenly realizes that race can influence one’s admission to the higher echelons.
He caricatures and stereotypes the “Asian” family as if all Asian cultures were the same and does not address the impact of Americanization across generations. (Sorry, he does talk about Vietnamese working in nail salons.) Nor does he adequately address the damage done to disenfranchised students through miseducation in their grade and high school years or the differential social and economic stigmas placed on other minorities, all but suggesting they are relatively uniform across groups.
Once I started, I had to keep reading to see if it got any better. It didn’t. Indeed, it veered into weird sub-channels, such as disparaging the acting of Constance Wu and Henry Golding in Crazy Rich Asians (admittedly, not my favorite movie), blaming the CDC for the deaths from the COVID-19 outbreak, and comments about the Trump presidency—two topics do not seem to be related in any way to the thesis of the book. He takes quotes out of context.
Even when he began to address the Chinese stereotype of being hardworking, he couldn’t stay on track. The author notes that a stereotype “is a weapon and instrument of power.” I figured I’d finally found something solid in this book, but I was soon disappointed. Xu began discussing the stereotype of the industrious Asian, went off in a totally different direction, and later seemed to support the stereotype. He did better with addressing sexual stereotypes but quickly began to talk about how Jewish men seem to be “especially attracted—and attractive—to Asian women,” citing their similar education levels as the reason.
The author sees no innate value in diversity, stating that “over the past ten years, D&I has wormed its way into nearly every major Big Tech corporate center in the country. Without serious opposition, it will run roughshod over merit.” The question of diversity and inclusion may be controversial in some quarters, but the number of leading, emotional weasel words he uses should strike alarm bells, as should his limited choice, either-or arguments.
In short, save your money. There are far better, more coherent books on this topic by authors who can complete a thought without contradicting themselves.
Mr. Xu does not adequately address anti-Asian discrimination in the context of other discrimination and social exclusions that impact other disenfranchised groups, and he insists on portraying those he considers liberals as hypocrites who complain when Asians succeed. In the first part of the book, he limits his discussion of anti-Asian discrimination to the educational setting, ignoring the historical benefits reaped by the Asian-American community through diversity and affirmative action programs. It is not until halfway through the book that Xu begins to note that despite educational success, graduates continue to be underpaid relative to their academic achievements and continue to encounter barriers to success post-college. (I mentioned that he seems to believe racial discrimination is no longer relevant, right? Well, this is where he seems to do an about-face, saying that Asians in Big Tech “need to demand their voice be heard,” almost as if he suddenly realizes that race can influence one’s admission to the higher echelons.
He caricatures and stereotypes the “Asian” family as if all Asian cultures were the same and does not address the impact of Americanization across generations. (Sorry, he does talk about Vietnamese working in nail salons.) Nor does he adequately address the damage done to disenfranchised students through miseducation in their grade and high school years or the differential social and economic stigmas placed on other minorities, all but suggesting they are relatively uniform across groups.
Once I started, I had to keep reading to see if it got any better. It didn’t. Indeed, it veered into weird sub-channels, such as disparaging the acting of Constance Wu and Henry Golding in Crazy Rich Asians (admittedly, not my favorite movie), blaming the CDC for the deaths from the COVID-19 outbreak, and comments about the Trump presidency—two topics do not seem to be related in any way to the thesis of the book. He takes quotes out of context.
Even when he began to address the Chinese stereotype of being hardworking, he couldn’t stay on track. The author notes that a stereotype “is a weapon and instrument of power.” I figured I’d finally found something solid in this book, but I was soon disappointed. Xu began discussing the stereotype of the industrious Asian, went off in a totally different direction, and later seemed to support the stereotype. He did better with addressing sexual stereotypes but quickly began to talk about how Jewish men seem to be “especially attracted—and attractive—to Asian women,” citing their similar education levels as the reason.
The author sees no innate value in diversity, stating that “over the past ten years, D&I has wormed its way into nearly every major Big Tech corporate center in the country. Without serious opposition, it will run roughshod over merit.” The question of diversity and inclusion may be controversial in some quarters, but the number of leading, emotional weasel words he uses should strike alarm bells, as should his limited choice, either-or arguments.
In short, save your money. There are far better, more coherent books on this topic by authors who can complete a thought without contradicting themselves.
July 2, 2025
While I respect the fact that everyone is entitled to their opinion on this forum, some reviews on here are examples of unfair bias that misrepresent the item being reviewed. For example, someone claimed "the author sees no inherent value in diversity'. This is a complete mis-characterization of Kenny Xu's book. Kenny's argument is for meritocracy (earning based on merit) over diversity. There is no inherent value in diversity if it diversity isn't helping society get better. The book discusses diversity throughout but with an eye towards, "what's the actual end goal." Are we going to value diversity for diversity's sake or are we going to value diversity because it helps the country become better (aka meritocracy).
Moreover, Kenny starts the book acknowledging the evil of racial discrimination and the sordid history of black Americans. He acknowledges it but is arguing that greater than the ills of society, people should be based on a commonly, agreed upon standard of merit.
I'm still reading the book but I am a better person for doing so.
I only gave the book 4 stars because while comprehensive, it isn't perfect. Kenny is trying to put a lot of information together in this one volume and it shows. Moreover, while I think meritocracy is generally a good idea, hard work alone isn't always enough. Mercy and grace for those who are disenfranchised and want better should also be available.
That being said, we need more courageous writers like Kenny Xu.
Kenny says a lot of things I've been thinking about the whole diversity debate but haven't been able to fully articulate. As a member of one of the "privileged" ethnicities that "diversity" programs strive so hard to pander to, the narrative is getting old, it's extremely hypocritical ("let's discriminate against other ethnicities in order to correct discrimination" seems a rather poor tactic to me) and the infantilization of perceived "lower class ethnicities" is actually an insult, a kind of reverse, backhanded racism taken from the concepts solidified in Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".
Society fares better if we reward those who work their butts off to succeed, who strive to maintain family structures and culture, who stick together as a community to help each other and build each other up, with actual success and progression up the societal ladder. It incentivizes others to do the same and such incentives help us all pull together to be better. The current system is a breeding ground for much of the entitlement and resentment we currently "enjoy".
Meritocracy is the premise of Kenny's book and I think we'd all be better off if we started moving in that direction. Of course there needs to be room for compassion for those with learning disabilities, those who are marginalized due to circumstances outside their control and other factors that keep the poor poorer, but meritocracy as a general framework isn't a bad idea.
Moreover, Kenny starts the book acknowledging the evil of racial discrimination and the sordid history of black Americans. He acknowledges it but is arguing that greater than the ills of society, people should be based on a commonly, agreed upon standard of merit.
I'm still reading the book but I am a better person for doing so.
I only gave the book 4 stars because while comprehensive, it isn't perfect. Kenny is trying to put a lot of information together in this one volume and it shows. Moreover, while I think meritocracy is generally a good idea, hard work alone isn't always enough. Mercy and grace for those who are disenfranchised and want better should also be available.
That being said, we need more courageous writers like Kenny Xu.
Kenny says a lot of things I've been thinking about the whole diversity debate but haven't been able to fully articulate. As a member of one of the "privileged" ethnicities that "diversity" programs strive so hard to pander to, the narrative is getting old, it's extremely hypocritical ("let's discriminate against other ethnicities in order to correct discrimination" seems a rather poor tactic to me) and the infantilization of perceived "lower class ethnicities" is actually an insult, a kind of reverse, backhanded racism taken from the concepts solidified in Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".
Society fares better if we reward those who work their butts off to succeed, who strive to maintain family structures and culture, who stick together as a community to help each other and build each other up, with actual success and progression up the societal ladder. It incentivizes others to do the same and such incentives help us all pull together to be better. The current system is a breeding ground for much of the entitlement and resentment we currently "enjoy".
Meritocracy is the premise of Kenny's book and I think we'd all be better off if we started moving in that direction. Of course there needs to be room for compassion for those with learning disabilities, those who are marginalized due to circumstances outside their control and other factors that keep the poor poorer, but meritocracy as a general framework isn't a bad idea.
April 8, 2024
Americans with backgrounds from East and South Asia are without a doubt the most successful immigrant group, and it's a shame that their merit is ironically being held back in education by DEI initiatives that are apparently more like excuses to racial profile and set arbitrary racial quotas.
As for the leadership roles, I'm not sure this book is convincing enough to prove that Asians are not represented enough. Unlike colleges or engineering roles, you can't take a test to prove you're qualified to be part of leadership. There's definitely a lot more qualitative factors taken into consideration, and that includes contacts, belonging and relating to the culture. I'm sure that with time and effort they can become more and more integrated though. This is but a short-term holdback.
There's times when it just feels like a rant, some examples seem pretty repetitive. Hardworking Chinese student that wasn't accepted to some top school, unfortunate, but I got the point 100 pages ago. Also the diction is quite odd, the author will have some GRE-type words and then you'll have really colloquial words like 'gaslighting'.
This isn't a major point in the book, but I the references to China or socialism didn't feel right. The author says "the Soviet Union and its satellite states collapsed and utterly shattered its economic fortunes after transitioning from socialism to capitalism, China did not break. Instead, during the ’80s, ’90s, and 2000s, it grew exponentially." The Soviet Union did not collapse because it transitioned to capitalism, it collapsed because it was a failed socialist state that ran up unmanagable debts, especially after the Afghan campaign. Varieties of capitalist systems only came after the collapse when socialism clearly failed. As for China, of course it grew exponentially if it had been held back in poverty for decades, not that that's not worth praising, but the author seems to step out of his operational knowledge to make some outlandish point. Another example of that is the Chinese exam system placed during Xiaoping. India has a similar system I believe but doesn't have the same level of success, so can you really make a case for these state exams?
As for the leadership roles, I'm not sure this book is convincing enough to prove that Asians are not represented enough. Unlike colleges or engineering roles, you can't take a test to prove you're qualified to be part of leadership. There's definitely a lot more qualitative factors taken into consideration, and that includes contacts, belonging and relating to the culture. I'm sure that with time and effort they can become more and more integrated though. This is but a short-term holdback.
There's times when it just feels like a rant, some examples seem pretty repetitive. Hardworking Chinese student that wasn't accepted to some top school, unfortunate, but I got the point 100 pages ago. Also the diction is quite odd, the author will have some GRE-type words and then you'll have really colloquial words like 'gaslighting'.
This isn't a major point in the book, but I the references to China or socialism didn't feel right. The author says "the Soviet Union and its satellite states collapsed and utterly shattered its economic fortunes after transitioning from socialism to capitalism, China did not break. Instead, during the ’80s, ’90s, and 2000s, it grew exponentially." The Soviet Union did not collapse because it transitioned to capitalism, it collapsed because it was a failed socialist state that ran up unmanagable debts, especially after the Afghan campaign. Varieties of capitalist systems only came after the collapse when socialism clearly failed. As for China, of course it grew exponentially if it had been held back in poverty for decades, not that that's not worth praising, but the author seems to step out of his operational knowledge to make some outlandish point. Another example of that is the Chinese exam system placed during Xiaoping. India has a similar system I believe but doesn't have the same level of success, so can you really make a case for these state exams?
January 24, 2024
Asians, especially the Chinese are not considered diverse in the progressive tech world. Or in the academy, or in applying for schools, despite unequivocally being a racial minority as only 6-8 percent of the total population.
Asain Americans represent 41.8 percent of Googles workforce. Yet in Googles 2020 Annual Diversity Report Asain Americans are barely mentioned.
Meritocracy, a foundation of Asain culture isnt rewarded. They get pigdeoned holed as white adjacent by the racist, regressive left who fear the loss of their preferred racial justice narrative.
"When we measure whether a company has an inclusive climate, what are the statistics that we should really should be measuring? The percentage of people of various races who come in and start working for the company, or the percentage of people who become leaders and drive the company focus and culture? ...Presumably more inclusive cultures would mean more people of different races see better paths to success"
"Diversity Ideology did not form because scientists went out and statistically tested the performance of diverse veresus nondiverse companies and concluded that diverse companies were better suited for profit and growth (and virtue). The diversity ideology came first. The studies and economic cases and showboating came with the goal of perpetuating it. "
Asain Americans represent 41.8 percent of Googles workforce. Yet in Googles 2020 Annual Diversity Report Asain Americans are barely mentioned.
Meritocracy, a foundation of Asain culture isnt rewarded. They get pigdeoned holed as white adjacent by the racist, regressive left who fear the loss of their preferred racial justice narrative.
"When we measure whether a company has an inclusive climate, what are the statistics that we should really should be measuring? The percentage of people of various races who come in and start working for the company, or the percentage of people who become leaders and drive the company focus and culture? ...Presumably more inclusive cultures would mean more people of different races see better paths to success"
"Diversity Ideology did not form because scientists went out and statistically tested the performance of diverse veresus nondiverse companies and concluded that diverse companies were better suited for profit and growth (and virtue). The diversity ideology came first. The studies and economic cases and showboating came with the goal of perpetuating it. "
November 23, 2021
While I agree with virtually everything laid out in this book regarding merit based inclusions, it barely touched on what it will take to make this a non-issue.
There are too many politicians running for office, promising more handouts to their constituents which do nothing to raise them up—and actually do the opposite. Instead of the Al Sharptons of the world telling anyone who'll listen how oppressed his people are, maybe a better tact would be to single out those who do better and put THOSE people on a pedestal for all to see. Because people emulate and assimilate to what is presented. The news networks, who are really there to sell ad time, know this and nothing stirs the pot and sells ad time better than some good ol' fashion pot stirring.
That which you put your attention on, grows.
There are too many politicians running for office, promising more handouts to their constituents which do nothing to raise them up—and actually do the opposite. Instead of the Al Sharptons of the world telling anyone who'll listen how oppressed his people are, maybe a better tact would be to single out those who do better and put THOSE people on a pedestal for all to see. Because people emulate and assimilate to what is presented. The news networks, who are really there to sell ad time, know this and nothing stirs the pot and sells ad time better than some good ol' fashion pot stirring.
That which you put your attention on, grows.
November 25, 2023
I read 51% of this. It's interesting. It mentions some new stuff. However, what made me stop reading it is, just disregarding what Americans did to the American-Japanese. And the writer mentioning how those American-japanese helped America and Japan have a good relationship with each other after WWII. that's just insane. America nuked Japan. And Japan was allowed to have no army, that's not a threat to anyone. Japan doesn't have an option of "Friendship" with anyone. They are made weak. When you are weak you need to please everyone. Be a "friend" to everyone. And when it comes to USA, Japan is occupied by USA. It has shit load of military bases, soldiers, fighter planes there. That's what occupation is. Ofc the occupier will say but we are good guys and it's all done for good.
December 31, 2024
For a side that gushes over protecting the rights of minorities so much, Kenny Xu drives into what Harvard's and the rest of the liberal elite institutions' real angle was for their diversity and inclusion programs excluding a minority group. Xu argues that since the collective of Asian Americans doesn't fit the liberal narrative of victimhood and oppression, they are seen as white-adjacent. Lo and behold, the history of Asian Americans in the United States hasn't been glamorous and has been filled with mistreatment. Why do the Left elite paint a false narrative? Xu implies that it's ultimately about competition, and the elites don't want that. It has some ring of truth to it. Dr. Claud Anderson talks about the Buffer Class in the same fashion.
June 20, 2022
This book brings up some very good points as a defense of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race. Especially as a member of a group that has no guilt or privilege in this society. The Asians. All discrimination on the basis of race should be abolished. At one time this would have been a liberal and progressive statement. The book gets a little tiresome in the middle but picks up again toward the end, especially with the story of Ward Connerly.
September 5, 2022
In the first half of the 20th century, Harvard and other similar elite institutions established quotas limiting Jews. This book shows how a similar playbook is used today to limit Asians. A thorough explanation of the intended and unintended consequences of "equity" policies and identity politics. Rather chilling, actually, if you believe people should be judged by the content of their character, not their skin color.
November 16, 2023
How the elite ivy league institutions like Harvard and others are discriminating against Asian Americans and destroying meritocracy by having quotas for black/hispanics and the fight against it is the essence of the book. Though the author mentions Asian Americans all the time, it is primarily written from Chinese Americans perspective only. But it is an eye opener to understand the level of hatred America is cultivating against the Asian Americans and Jews. A must read.
September 2, 2024
This is an important topic and I think the author is on the right track but this book lacks…something. It’s not solely focused on Harvard so the title is misleading. The author needs some separation between the rejection he experienced before tackling this to come across with authority and not with bitterness. He has excellent points to argue but the emotional charge in the pages won’t drive them home.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews