Speaker 1: Welcome back to a Numbers Game with Ryan Gerdusky. I'm
Speaker 1: your host. Thank you all for being here for another week.
Speaker 1: If you find yourself bored, lonely, depressed, looking for something
Speaker 1: to do, I just want to say I have the
Speaker 1: idea for you. Please like and subscribe this podcast. Give
Speaker 1: me a five star review. If you have the chance
Speaker 1: of your time, you won't miss an episode. You'll learn something,
Speaker 1: you'll be smarter. I try to bring it twice a
Speaker 1: week every week, so I appreciate you all being here.
Speaker 1: Please make sure you're here every time. And now I
Speaker 1: want to talk to you and I want to ask
Speaker 1: you if you were to sit there and think, what
Speaker 1: was the most consequential thing the Supreme Court has done
Speaker 1: in the last five years? Right, really since the end
Speaker 1: of the first Trump term. Probably most of you, nine
Speaker 1: out of ten would say abortion right Roe v. Wait,
Speaker 1: Because it's the most politically engaging and toxic and energetic.
Speaker 1: Depends on what side of the aisle you fall on.
Speaker 1: It's where people pay attentions for. Politicians give a lot
Speaker 1: of focus to. But to me, the decision, the most
Speaker 1: important decision the Supreme Court made over the last five years,
Speaker 1: the one that will have the biggest impact over most
Speaker 1: of our lives was the Students for Fair Emission versus
Speaker 1: Harvard case. That case examined the illegality of race based
Speaker 1: emissions in higher education, ruling that it was unconstitutional that
Speaker 1: the school at Harvard had discriminated against Asian applicants Asian
Speaker 1: American applicants in favor of black and latinos. Now, unlike
Speaker 1: the overturning of Row, which was a deeply divided issue,
Speaker 1: ending race based admissions to colleges was extremely popular with
Speaker 1: the American people. A poll from Pew Research in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three found that fifty percent of American adults disapproved
Speaker 1: of universities considering race when it comes to emission. Just
Speaker 1: thirty three percent approved, and there was a stark political divide.
Speaker 1: Seventy four percent of Republicans opposed using race and fifty
Speaker 1: four percent of Democrats approved of it, but overwhelmingly when
Speaker 1: you ask independents and still a large chunk of Democrats,
Speaker 1: they disapproved of it. Most of the country did, but
Speaker 1: once the Harvard case happened, other ivy leagues and top
Speaker 1: colleges began following student dropping race and ethnicity as a
Speaker 1: requirement or part of their emissions process. According to The
Speaker 1: New York Times, which reviewed sixty six colleges in the
Speaker 1: aftermath that changes to emissions, they found that black and
Speaker 1: Latino enrollment dropped by one percent overall in the top
Speaker 1: schools and in the IVY leagues in one percent of
Speaker 1: Hispanics one percent of blacks. MIT's enrollment dropped by ten
Speaker 1: points among black applicants from sixteen percent to six. Amherst
Speaker 1: University fell by twelve point five to three point six.
Speaker 1: John Hopkins went from eleven point six black to four
Speaker 1: point one black, and Columbia fell from twenty percent to
Speaker 1: twelve percent. For Latino students in John Hopkins they fell
Speaker 1: in half, from twenty five to twelve point five. NYU
Speaker 1: went from twenty one percent Latino to thirteen percent the
Speaker 1: incoming class I'm talking about. Cornell went from seventeen to
Speaker 1: ten and Carnegie Mail went from fourteen to eight. The
Speaker 1: share of Asian students went up in a number of
Speaker 1: top schools, including Barnard and it in Columbia, and for
Speaker 1: white students they also ticked up significantly. And the vein
Speaker 1: of that case, the focus of that case was really
Speaker 1: just on Asian emissions that became the victim of this
Speaker 1: entire scandal of race based admissions. Now the case behind Harvard, Right,
Speaker 1: they specifically said, as I said before, Asians were the
Speaker 1: name target of this mass discrimination. And you saw this
Speaker 1: in Harvard and John Hopkins and a number of universities
Speaker 1: where right after the Supreme Court rule there was a
Speaker 1: huge spike of Asian enrollment. But what about white applicants? Right?
Speaker 1: What what if I were to tell you that white
Speaker 1: students were more discriminated than other groups at the some
Speaker 1: of the most major universities in some of the biggest
Speaker 1: ivy leagues in this country. A study by Georgetown University
Speaker 1: found that if college admission were based solely on test scores,
Speaker 1: the proportion of Asian students a top colleges would actually
Speaker 1: fall from eleven percent to ten percent. Conversely, white students
Speaker 1: applicants would increase from sixty six percent to seventy five percent.
Speaker 1: Affirmative action is anti white in many of these cases.
Speaker 1: A study by Zach Goldberg was released just last week
Speaker 1: that found that racial discrimination wasn't just a thing for
Speaker 1: the left wing colleges like Harvard, No, it's actually being
Speaker 1: committed at the Naval Academy, the prime group facing discrimination
Speaker 1: is not Asians, it's white men. Goldberg found that a
Speaker 1: white applicant with the same exact test scores as a
Speaker 1: black applicant is significantly less likely to get admitted to
Speaker 1: the US Naval Academy. A black applicant with a five
Speaker 1: percent chance of emissions, their odds would jump to fifty
Speaker 1: percent if evaluate as being Black, They'd be fifteen percent
Speaker 1: chance to get if they were Hispanic, and eighteen percent
Speaker 1: chance to be in if they were Asian. A white
Speaker 1: applicant with a twenty five percent baseline emission, because that's
Speaker 1: you know, on average where their grades were well, they
Speaker 1: would be eighty seven percent as likely if they were Black,
Speaker 1: fifty two percent if they were Hispanic, and fifty nine
Speaker 1: percent if they were Asian. Asians in the Naval Academy
Speaker 1: actually had a higher level of chance of getting in,
Speaker 1: and then even Hispanics when DEI was applied. Goldberg further
Speaker 1: states that across five admission cycles, roughly two thirds of
Speaker 1: black applicants and one third of Asian and Hispanic applicants
Speaker 1: would not have been admitted had it been absent of
Speaker 1: their race. Had been a completely blind emission no race
Speaker 1: looked at whatsoever, just meritocracy, just great scores and ability
Speaker 1: and all the rest of that. A tremendous amount of
Speaker 1: non white applicants would have not gotten into the Naval
Speaker 1: Academy by admitting students were less qualified to attend, but
Speaker 1: brought greater racial diversity. It didn't improve testing standards, it
Speaker 1: lowered them. Black and Hispanic students performed worse once they
Speaker 1: were in the Naval Academy than the overall average. So
Speaker 1: it's not like this is a liberal theory that they have.
Speaker 1: Is if you get an applicant who maybe they're not
Speaker 1: qualified because their SAT scores or you know, their scores
Speaker 1: aren't high enough, but once they get in the academy,
Speaker 1: they'll be around other smart people and they're going to surge.
Speaker 1: They're going to do so so well. That has never
Speaker 1: been proven to be true, and it is not true
Speaker 1: in the Naval Academy, as black and Hispanic students who
Speaker 1: had gotten in in part because of their race were
Speaker 1: struggling with subjects like calculus and science, So it didn't
Speaker 1: make the overall student population smarter. It just made them
Speaker 1: more racially diverse. For the sake of racial diversity. The
Speaker 1: degree to which white applicants are discriminated against at the
Speaker 1: US Naval Academy is difficult for me to describe alone
Speaker 1: because this is a very long article of very long
Speaker 1: substack posts, well over one hundred pages. I did go
Speaker 1: through it, but I got the man himself, the man
Speaker 1: who did all the research, who could describe what's actually
Speaker 1: happening at the US Naval Academy and other federal government
Speaker 1: backed schools about diversity, equity, inclusion, and anti white discrimination.
Speaker 1: Please just stay with me for his tour de force investigation.
Speaker 1: Zach Goldberg's next Stay tuned. Zach Goldberg is an independent
Speaker 1: researcher who has an absolutely incredible substack Zach Goldberg dot
Speaker 1: substack dot com. I've been a fan of his for years.
Speaker 1: I can't recommend his subsecond enough. Thank you for being here, Zach.
Speaker 2: Thank you for having me on. Ryan.
Speaker 1: So, Okay, first things first, go over your data. What
Speaker 1: are the main finding showing that there's a discrimination against
Speaker 1: whites at the US Naval Academy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'll just before I get into that, I just
Speaker 2: want to say, like, until this report, until this case,
Speaker 2: the public really like the understanding of what was going
Speaker 2: on behind the scenes of the Naval Academy or just
Speaker 2: other service adam in general is really off limits. Okay.
Speaker 2: And now with this lawsuit. During the discovery that case,
Speaker 2: student of the Naval Academy was forced to hand over
Speaker 2: some admission of data, and that data was Peter or Arcido,
Speaker 2: who also worked on the Harvard case. And what RCAD
Speaker 2: finds is rather, you know, in contrary to the Naval
Speaker 2: Academy claims of their consideration of race being limited, nondeterminative,
Speaker 2: you know, one factor among many other factors, the holistic
Speaker 2: you know, consideration. What he finds is well, for instance,
Speaker 2: if white applicant with a five percent chance of getting
Speaker 2: into the Naval Academy would have almost a fifty five
Speaker 2: percent chance if treated as black, twenty five percent chance.
Speaker 2: If a white Daftan had a twenty five percent chance
Speaker 2: to get a game, he would have, you know, an
Speaker 2: over eighty five percent chance of getting in it treated
Speaker 2: as black. Now I mentioned I see a lot blacks
Speaker 2: because they the preferences for them are the strongest. But
Speaker 2: unlike Harvard, were Asians were also getting you know, we're
Speaker 2: also disadvantage in the emission process. Here are Asians also
Speaker 2: going to boost so whites are whites, and the class
Speaker 2: of Apple didn't declare a race whatsoever, which is interesting
Speaker 2: because they're just as disadvantages as white you know once
Speaker 2: are the I guess the victims here of you know
Speaker 2: discrimination or these race based emissions apprentices. And just a
Speaker 2: one more final data point is that if not for
Speaker 2: racial preferences, destimated that over seventy percent of black admits
Speaker 2: would not have getten gotten in. For Hispanics and Asians,
Speaker 2: for the preferences are significance, but not as much as blacks,
Speaker 2: as it's a brown like one and three whenever.
Speaker 1: So then to round that up, if an applicant was
Speaker 1: white and had you know, they had a decent grade
Speaker 1: point average or whatever, but they would only have a
Speaker 1: five percent chance and fifty percent chance if they were black,
Speaker 1: and significantly higher chances if they were both Asian and Hispanic.
Speaker 1: And there would be an immense fall off for applicants
Speaker 1: if it was just equally based on grades, which is
Speaker 1: what a study by I think it was Georgetown University found.
Speaker 1: If you I mentioned at the top of the show
Speaker 1: George and University said it there was if everything was
Speaker 1: based on race, their discrimination against whites would show that
Speaker 1: it is actually higher than any other group including agents.
Speaker 1: Now you mentioned the Harvard case, which is obviously where
Speaker 1: a lot of this stuff information is forced to come
Speaker 1: out from in all different universities. How is this and
Speaker 1: you mentioned this different as different any other way aside
Speaker 1: from justice, not just asians and whites, it's just whites.
Speaker 2: Well, I guess if you were to, like I know,
Speaker 2: in the Harvard case, our CD of sous analysis, he
Speaker 2: had also a decile analysis where he's looking at the
Speaker 2: admission rates. I the admissions indexed Descyle, So you have
Speaker 2: ten deciles, and he looked, okay, what is the rate
Speaker 2: for different advocates in this decile. Now with Harvard, you
Speaker 2: see obviously at the bottom decile, know, nobody's really getting
Speaker 2: and then you see outside of the bottom descol you
Speaker 2: really see just a kind of a linear increase in
Speaker 2: the black mission rates, and you really even up to
Speaker 2: the final doestyle where I think, wats, maybe you're like
Speaker 2: ninety percent vereas whites. I think, for a while, since
Speaker 2: I read the cancer seen that data for whites, I
Speaker 2: think maybe the next they get to in the top
Speaker 2: decile is like fifty percent. In this case with the
Speaker 2: naval academy. The greatest displays are not at the well
Speaker 2: in both cases, they are the displies are at the bottom.
Speaker 2: In this case, they tend to be greatest towards the
Speaker 2: middle regions of middlessiles of the distribution.
Speaker 1: That's fascinating.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and uh, well, because once you get to the top,
Speaker 2: I mean, everybody's well still, once you get to the
Speaker 2: top descil, there's still about a fifteen point gap, let's say,
Speaker 2: or maybe even let me look at the numbers again.
Speaker 2: Whites are also getting and I think like around seventy
Speaker 2: percent of the time, Blacks are beginning in like ninety
Speaker 2: percent of the time. So still but not as much
Speaker 2: as you see in the Harbor case. But there's still
Speaker 2: substantial differences even in the top.
Speaker 1: Does administrations defend this move? I mean, I saw something
Speaker 1: about military readiness, But is that that that the military,
Speaker 1: if it's diverses, more ready for combat? But is there
Speaker 1: any evidence behind that?
Speaker 2: Uh? Well, that's the thing is that rather than really
Speaker 2: rebutting this analysis with data, they went all in, or
Speaker 2: when I say they, I mean the the DOJ Underminding
Speaker 2: who was defending the USNA in this case. They went
Speaker 2: all in on a diversity defense. Uh, and a lot
Speaker 2: of the arguments really just copied straight out of other
Speaker 2: firm compacts, a firm demanding cases and uh. But what
Speaker 2: really was was really no about is whereas these cases
Speaker 2: we're talking about getting the benefit the educational benefits of
Speaker 2: a diverse class, now we're talking about the military benefits,
Speaker 2: the lethality benefits. So the claim is that a racially
Speaker 2: diverse officer corps enhances military effectiveness, unique lethality, it promotes cohesion.
Speaker 2: Now what's the evidence for that? Well, the truth of
Speaker 2: the matter is is the evidence is so barren on
Speaker 2: this front that our expert diversity witnesses or expert they
Speaker 2: had to resort even to well just citing papers that
Speaker 2: had really nothing to do They had nothing to do
Speaker 2: with raciel diversity whatsoever, and something to do with diversity
Speaker 2: just in a different context outside of a military context,
Speaker 2: didn't relate to race diversity. So they're kind of grasping
Speaker 2: a trust, trying to just citation paths and hoping people
Speaker 2: don't actually look at the citations. But when you look
Speaker 2: at the citations, you see there's really nothing there. There's
Speaker 2: no to take evidence, And in truth, that's not their
Speaker 2: fault because the pertative Defense themselves admitted that we've actually
Speaker 2: never studied the relationship between racial diversity and military effectiveness.
Speaker 2: We don't know whether variations in position for units more
Speaker 2: diverse units performed better and less diverse years.
Speaker 1: I'm they never study that.
Speaker 2: That is crazy.
Speaker 1: I think in a race of society like America, you
Speaker 1: would have studied, someone would have studied that. In the military,
Speaker 1: they never studied that.
Speaker 2: That's what's incredible is they've had decades to which to
Speaker 2: produce such data, and you think, if you know, well,
Speaker 2: that's the thing. Either they actually have done the studies
Speaker 2: and the studies don't support the narrative, or they just
Speaker 2: don't care about the data whatsoever. They they are they're
Speaker 2: more comfortable. This isn't kind of it's the thing. We
Speaker 2: want federal policy to be evidence based, it to be
Speaker 2: based on rigorous analysis, and in this case, it seems
Speaker 2: like they are more comfortable just you know, advancing the
Speaker 2: ideological uh, you know, moral priorities over absolute seeing. Does
Speaker 2: this actually make sense empirically, because on one hand, the
Speaker 2: Department of Defense, in the Naval Academy, they say, listen,
Speaker 2: we're not doing this for racial diversity. Sake, racial diversity
Speaker 2: is merely a means to an end, and that end
Speaker 2: is improve military effectiveness. But if that's the case, then
Speaker 2: you know, and they also plan to value all sorts
Speaker 2: of diversity, not just race. You know, they say they
Speaker 2: value all sorts of diversity, but when you actually look
Speaker 2: at the models, you know, like economics, socio economic diversity,
Speaker 2: it gets no way, it gets in effect, it gets
Speaker 2: almost no way whatsoever. It's all race. So it's hard
Speaker 2: not to walk away with the conclusion that, uh, they
Speaker 2: don't really care the e this is a lot.
Speaker 1: Of this is right right right, Well that's why you
Speaker 1: see those commercials you know of like it used to
Speaker 1: be to join the military, be the best you could be,
Speaker 1: and now it's like, you know, join the military. We
Speaker 1: have girls here too. Speaking of seeing is there was
Speaker 1: there a sex discrimination with white women?
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, well I mean I didn't see the data
Speaker 2: like you know, inter wrapt sex by race, But what
Speaker 2: I can say is that, uh, females or women are
Speaker 2: definitely have It's not as much as the race preference.
Speaker 2: It's maybe like you know, a fraction of difference given
Speaker 2: to blacks, but women are definitely getting a leg up
Speaker 2: in the admissions process, which is this piece wasn't about
Speaker 2: gender discrimination, so this.
Speaker 1: Wasn't the no. I just definitely I just got curious
Speaker 1: reading the information. I just was like, I wonder if
Speaker 1: this is only about white men and not white women
Speaker 1: as well. But I didn't know, and I didn't see it.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you had read it somewhere.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I would imagine just based on the coefficient
Speaker 2: that the disadvantage just for being white for but is
Speaker 2: kind of offset for I mean, I guess what I'm
Speaker 2: saying is that the white woman will get due to
Speaker 2: their there's their sex, a boost over white men, but
Speaker 2: probably not the boost that black women are getting, right,
Speaker 2: I got you. You know, obviously the raw data, you know,
Speaker 2: it's it's a privileged information, so you know, I can't
Speaker 2: really run the analysis on that, but that would be
Speaker 2: just looking at the coefficients and seeing uh you know,
Speaker 2: the models. You know, that would be my prediction at least.
Speaker 1: So all of this white man make up the majority
Speaker 1: of military. And how did how does this affect recruitment?
Speaker 2: Well that's the thing is that, uh you know, in
Speaker 2: terms of this turning off recruitment, Well, there's a recruitment
Speaker 2: I guess crisis across the board, or at least but
Speaker 2: the recruitment.
Speaker 1: Crisis across the board. People always sort of the recruitment crisis.
Speaker 1: The recruitment crisis primarily during the Biden years was that
Speaker 1: white men were not joining the military.
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Where the decline in military enrollment came from was not
Speaker 1: among black or Hispanic men. It was among white men
Speaker 1: who left joining the military and droves in a significant way.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, there is some evidence that some of
Speaker 2: that is d I related. And what's interesting is one
Speaker 2: of the their own studies that USNA produced during the report,
Speaker 2: which is this climate study we're just looking at, you know,
Speaker 2: it's it's kind of measuring that the temperature. In terms
Speaker 2: of diversity climates, you know, is there focus on race?
Speaker 2: Is there not enough focus on race in the uh,
Speaker 2: you know, the worst diversity climates. You have a lot
Speaker 2: of I mean it's not just whites but other whites,
Speaker 2: I mean probably substantial number ones saying that there's too
Speaker 2: much of an emphasis. And because that data is linked
Speaker 2: to retention data subsequent retention, you could see that a
Speaker 2: lot of whites are more likely to leave, and a
Speaker 2: lot of those whites that leave are ones had said that,
Speaker 2: you know, there's just too much of an emphasis on
Speaker 2: race and DEI and diversity training and that what have you.
Speaker 1: Because if this is about recruitment, then what does it
Speaker 1: also say about people getting promotions in the military. Would
Speaker 1: a white applicant be less inclined to get a promotion?
Speaker 2: Well, here's the thing is that they're the affirmative action here,
Speaker 2: at least as far as the Department of Defense is
Speaker 2: willing to admit, occurs you know, at the front end,
Speaker 2: you know, meaning at the admission gate. Now, once they
Speaker 2: graduate in these academies, uh, and they they get assigned
Speaker 2: to a naval community and they kind of enter the
Speaker 2: officer pipeline. Now, what's really frustrated the Navy is that
Speaker 2: the promotion rates among especially blacks, tends to be very
Speaker 2: low at a certain above a certain rank. It just
Speaker 2: stabates completely. Now that's not due to discrimination. I mean,
Speaker 2: this has been studied. And the bottom line is is
Speaker 2: that you know, and this is kind of what's interesting
Speaker 2: about racial preferences, that they're kind of self defeating, or
Speaker 2: at least they they're self restricting in the sense of
Speaker 2: you know, being the ability to affect the bottom line here,
Speaker 2: which is the diversity of the least diverse military, you know,
Speaker 2: naval communities. And one of the strongest predictors of promotion
Speaker 2: is how you did you know you're acting, your performance
Speaker 2: the naval ga It's not something that people that decide
Speaker 2: on promotions directly consider, but the traits associated with performance,
Speaker 2: you know, your academic performance, your midlity. This is predictive
Speaker 2: of promotion, and so racial preferences. I admitting lesser qualified
Speaker 2: applicants setting them up cannot be promoted to have a
Speaker 2: less likelihood of being promoted once they get to the
Speaker 2: officer pipeline. Now their could in this kind of story
Speaker 2: is that if they want, if they really want to
Speaker 2: increase the diversity, you know, up and down the ranks,
Speaker 2: they could lower the promotion standards or lower the accession
Speaker 2: standards to certain elite naval communities, which produce an outside
Speaker 2: share of the higher ranks, but obviously comes with risks. Says,
Speaker 2: now you know you want willing to study?
Speaker 1: If they're not willing to study, If diversity makes the
Speaker 1: military better, what are the chances they've studied? If diversity
Speaker 1: makes lowing of lowering the standards makes it. Word, don't
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, I don't know that answer,
Speaker 1: but that is this is the military. This is what
Speaker 1: you're this is the area of the government that probably
Speaker 1: has the most amount of trust of anyone else.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's it's worrisome how the extent that the
Speaker 2: military and I just this is kind of fresh off
Speaker 2: the press because I just spent last night I life
Speaker 2: just looking at every single uh National Defense Appropriation Act,
Speaker 2: which started in May seven. Before then it was the
Speaker 2: Defense of Appropriations anyways, and you look through that and
Speaker 2: it's just clear over time that the extent that it's
Speaker 2: becoming a vehicle for advancing DEI. No, it's mostly it
Speaker 2: eventually started, Okay, we're just funning missiles, new airplanes, and
Speaker 2: over time it's kind of been commandeered. I don't want
Speaker 2: to just single out members of the Black Caucus, but
Speaker 2: they're they're definitely very active on inserting UH, you know,
Speaker 2: DEI related provisions of the bill. It started with contracting
Speaker 2: in the early nineties and support early colleges, and then
Speaker 2: the two thousands you start to see a real entrenchment
Speaker 2: and institutional than of the DEI, especially over the past
Speaker 2: ten years. And that's relevant because when defending these preferences
Speaker 2: are defending or actually the ruling in favor of the government.
Speaker 2: The judge in the case, Richard D. Bennett, he cited
Speaker 2: a lot of the these so called commissions that came
Speaker 2: out of these d these diversity commission reports that came
Speaker 2: out of these NDA permissions that were stuck in. You know,
Speaker 2: build a military Leadership Diversity commission to make recommendation, how
Speaker 2: do we diversify? So the judge said, of that, like, see,
Speaker 2: this has bipartisan consensus. You know, everybody believes that. Now.
Speaker 2: You know, diversity is a national security imperative. Republic ANAVI
Speaker 2: is endorsed by Congress, and it's like, no, this commission,
Speaker 2: this report that you speak to was snuck in by
Speaker 2: Ben Cardon of Maryland with the support of a couple
Speaker 2: members of the Black Caucus. You know, most people.
Speaker 1: One time I was when I was in a green
Speaker 1: room for a television show. I was doing a new
Speaker 1: show and I was with a military combat bet colonel
Speaker 1: who said to me, and he said, one of the
Speaker 1: most there was something I've never looked into us. I
Speaker 1: don't know if it's true. I don't know if I
Speaker 1: believe it, but he said to me. Something that's stuck
Speaker 1: with me since he has said it. He said, most
Speaker 1: parts of the military are just a jobs program that
Speaker 1: we do not need the military size or force that
Speaker 1: not forced, but the size that we do of standing army,
Speaker 1: because it is just specifically for jobs we don't like.
Speaker 1: He said, most people will never see combat, will never
Speaker 1: do anything to promote national security. It is just to
Speaker 1: higher people. And I've always thought of that whenever these
Speaker 1: conversations come up of was he right. I don't know
Speaker 1: the answer to it, but I think about it consotly.
Speaker 1: Is now, this is the federal government making this kind
Speaker 1: of DEI decision. And this predates Biden, is clear?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean the racial preferences, Yes, they do predate Biden.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this wasn't a new thing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, listen. And this is what's incredible is that even
Speaker 2: during the Trump one, you know, the first Trump term, Yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean Trump's second is Mark Esper. This is the one.
Speaker 2: A few weeks after Florida incidents, he produced a memorandum saying,
Speaker 2: we need to establish a diversity Inclusion Board within the Pentagon.
Speaker 2: You know that is going to make recommendations about how
Speaker 2: to increase the diversity inc.
Speaker 1: I actually never heard of that before. That is I,
Speaker 1: I don't believe you. I did not know that that happened.
Speaker 2: That Trump had no idea or just maybe his priority
Speaker 2: he is focusing on other things the time. It was
Speaker 2: a hot moment.
Speaker 1: Yeah we had COVID going on in re election yet Yeah,
Speaker 1: but like, uh, you know in.
Speaker 2: High tech there's a lot of things going on, even
Speaker 2: among Republican presidents. And part of the reason is is
Speaker 2: because you know, they don't call it discrimination against whites,
Speaker 2: or they don't call or you know, or they don't
Speaker 2: say racial preferences specifically, they kind of you know, use
Speaker 2: very laundered language, you know, and some of these bills
Speaker 2: that make this seem like it's all about that is
Speaker 2: the functrating.
Speaker 1: Thing about di conversations is like, I have no opposition
Speaker 1: for funds that go for poor people, whether they are
Speaker 1: black or Hispanic or white. But that is not what
Speaker 1: DEI is. DEI is anti white discrimination primarily. That's really
Speaker 1: what DEI is. It's not it's not, oh, we give
Speaker 1: extra money to poor black kids in this area of
Speaker 1: the country or that of the country that I don't
Speaker 1: care about, no one does. It's when you purposely discriminate
Speaker 1: or lower standards in order to prevent one group from
Speaker 1: succeeding in order for another group to succeed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and to your point, I mean this came up
Speaker 2: in the case. You know, it's because obviously, in order
Speaker 2: to pass the narrowly tailored standard of strict scrutiny, they
Speaker 2: have to show that Navy has to show that they've
Speaker 2: exhausted all race neutral alternatives, and one race neutral alternative
Speaker 2: alternative is socioeconomic preferences, you know, just giving a leg
Speaker 2: up for students were regardless of the race, and you know,
Speaker 2: the deed of emissions, you know, was asked why they
Speaker 2: didn't utilize sees space preferences instead, and his response was really, well,
Speaker 2: just remarkable, remarkably, I guess, just really disgusting. He said that, well,
Speaker 2: we determined that if we did that, there'd be a
Speaker 2: lot of quote unquote non diverse applicants who would also benefit,
Speaker 2: which is translation, you know, there'd be too many poor
Speaker 2: white applicants.
Speaker 1: Is that happened North Carolina when they were trying to
Speaker 1: make the univers system less DEI and they said let's
Speaker 1: just do it by income. They said, well, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of poor whites that would benefit from it too.
Speaker 1: My last question is do you believe there's any other
Speaker 1: areas of the thorough government that are doing this exact
Speaker 1: same thing right now?
Speaker 2: I believe every other I mean, the other firm service
Speaker 2: academy cases are are still well, they might be headed
Speaker 2: for mooded cases, but I know they're they're probably going
Speaker 2: on there. In terms of other areas of the federal government,
Speaker 2: it wouldn't surprise me. I mean, I only know the
Speaker 2: data related to this case. But what is particularly shocking
Speaker 2: and which this ruling in this case upholds essentially, is
Speaker 2: that the government, if they just wants to support or
Speaker 2: advance a DII effort, you know, a discriminatory policy, essentially,
Speaker 2: the judge it just allows so that they only have
Speaker 2: to invoke national security, you know, right, because the judge
Speaker 2: really just completely total competes relates into the government interests.
Speaker 2: You know, it's just national security.
Speaker 1: With everything. Is that the say national security enough times,
Speaker 1: you kind of get your way unless you're rually gelling
Speaker 1: a rank or president you say nine eleven enough times,
Speaker 1: you don't get your way, but otherwise you do get
Speaker 1: your way.
Speaker 2: Yes, So because of this president, you can imagine featured
Speaker 2: administrations justifying you know, such preferences or policies in other
Speaker 2: domains government if it's not already going on, you know,
Speaker 2: and they could just evoke national security and come up
Speaker 2: with all some sort of talking baby rationale of how
Speaker 2: this relates, you know, by furthering diversity. This furthers our
Speaker 2: bottom line in terms of this compelling national goal.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you are absolutely, Can I say brilliant I have
Speaker 1: been people probably have read Zach's work without knowing it.
Speaker 1: Zach that study about the mainstream media's application of woke terminology,
Speaker 1: that was Zach Like. There were so many times where
Speaker 1: I'm like, oh, Zach's works being cited again over and
Speaker 1: over and over again. You really deserve way more credit
Speaker 1: than you have given so far because your work really
Speaker 1: is top tier. And this this fun thing you've you've
Speaker 1: done on the Naval Academy is it is a tour
Speaker 1: de force. Really what is brilliant and it is on yourself.
Speaker 1: Where can people go to get your stuff?
Speaker 2: Well, my substract is now used to be Zach's newsletter.
Speaker 2: Now it's called Unwoke by the Numbers hopefully catchy enough.
Speaker 1: To remember Unwoke by the Numbers or.
Speaker 2: Maybe Zach's snowsletter is easier. But anyways, one woke by
Speaker 2: the numbers Twitter handle isa G nine three.
Speaker 1: Two that should be shortened down, but as that's the
Speaker 1: nine to Zach zac Ch and you can find your
Speaker 1: substack Zach, Zach zac h remember the age, Zachgoldberg dot
Speaker 1: substack dot dot com. I also dot Hepa dot com,
Speaker 1: Zach Goldberg dot substock dot com. Zach, You're this is
Speaker 1: incredible work. If you produce something else, I'd love to
Speaker 1: have you on this podcast again. You're just I mean, brilliant, brilliant, brilliance.
Speaker 2: You want to say one final thing?
Speaker 1: Just sure?
Speaker 2: I mean, first of all, thanks for having me on.
Speaker 2: Because the current moment, everybody's focused on time of seaportations,
Speaker 2: what have you. You know, it's hard to get through
Speaker 2: about the story are now I mean, wasn't great, but uh,
Speaker 2: you know, everybody celebrating the post opening is premature. All
Speaker 2: these policies are going to easily be snapped back in place,
Speaker 2: so it's important. And that's what I'm when I get
Speaker 2: off a few of them, to have to be talking
Speaker 2: with somebody who's trying to insert a racial preferences. Ben
Speaker 2: and Service academies into the twenty twenty six National Defense
Speaker 2: Appropriation Acts. That'd be great be able to come on
Speaker 2: the show and talk more about that.
Speaker 1: I should introduce you a few Congressmen and Senators that
Speaker 1: I know and try to get that going because.
Speaker 2: This would be awesome.
Speaker 1: Really at Gilbert, thank you for being here. I really
Speaker 1: really appreciate it. Thanks you having you're listening to It's
Speaker 1: The Numbers Game with Ryan Gerdowski. We'll be right back
Speaker 1: after this message for the Ask Me Anything segment where
Speaker 1: you can email me about any somebody that I know
Speaker 1: the matter, I know about, I know anything degree of
Speaker 1: information about, or I could do the research for. Please
Speaker 1: don't email it with sports because I don't know much
Speaker 1: about it, but anything else email me Ryan at Numbers
Speaker 1: Gamepodcast dot com. That is Ryan at Numbers Game Podcast
Speaker 1: plural Numbers Numbers Gamepodcast dot com. I really look forward
Speaker 1: it really helps his podcast by submitting questions on anything.
Speaker 1: I got a question from a guy named Sam today
Speaker 1: who said, who do you think is the worst member
Speaker 1: of worst Republican member of Congress. This is the easiest,
Speaker 1: easiest question in the world to answer. It is Maria
Speaker 1: Salazar from Florida's I think thirty six district thirty seventh
Speaker 1: district one of the two. I didn't look that up
Speaker 1: before him.
Speaker 2: I should have.
Speaker 1: Marie Salazar is a former television host who very very
Speaker 1: very well and it's forgotten now, but it did happen
Speaker 1: a lot during the twenty sixteen election. She was kind
Speaker 1: of always attacking Trump and saying that she was slated
Speaker 1: to have interviews and he canceled because he was afraid
Speaker 1: of her. And I think they did sit down at
Speaker 1: one point, but she was on Bill O'Reilly at the time,
Speaker 1: bashing Trump. Anyway, she ran for office in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: and one. She flipped a Democratic seat, which many people
Speaker 1: did not believe that was going to be Republican. But
Speaker 1: as the coalitions has changed and as her district, which
Speaker 1: is very heavily Hispanic has become more Republican, it's now
Speaker 1: a super Republican seat. It's a seat that Trump won
Speaker 1: by double digits, and this used to be a Democratic seat.
Speaker 1: It is in South Florida, is in Miami proper, and
Speaker 1: she is represented now. She had won her last election
Speaker 1: in a landslide. This one wakes up morning, noon, and
Speaker 1: night thinking about amnesty for illegal aliens, how to increase
Speaker 1: legal immigration, how to give to make sure people aren't deported.
Speaker 1: She's horrible. She's horrible on the issue. She's actually not
Speaker 1: been super loud lately. But I have a story when
Speaker 1: the last Congress was going on and Trump wasn't in office.
Speaker 1: This is when Biden was in office, Stephen Miller, Trump's advisor,
Speaker 1: Steven Miller, was giving a presentation. I heard this remember
Speaker 1: of Congress, so I wasn't in the room, but this
Speaker 1: came from a good source. Steven Miller was giving a
Speaker 1: presentation and Maria Salis are attended, even though she was
Speaker 1: not a member of the Republican Study Committee, and began
Speaker 1: yelling and berating him about hating Hispanics and hating Latinos
Speaker 1: and making all these attack and accusations against him. And
Speaker 1: apparently he handled it very very well. He was a
Speaker 1: perfect gentleman, calmed her down. She left the room and
Speaker 1: immediately started calling reporters and bashing the Republican Study Committee
Speaker 1: and Stephen Miller. There is a number of times where
Speaker 1: people I know have been around her and she has
Speaker 1: shown signs of being very unhinged, very crazy, and her
Speaker 1: policies are terrible, and if there was a Republican primary her,
Speaker 1: it's worth it because her seat is a super safe
Speaker 1: Republican seat now, unlike more moderate members. So I don't
Speaker 1: necessarily always agree with Brian Fitzpatrick. He still represents a
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris district, although it has moved to the right.
Speaker 1: He's fine for the seat that he holds. I have
Speaker 1: no issue with a moderate Republican holding a holding a seat.
Speaker 1: Murkowski is not great. Murkowski is a perfect example. He's
Speaker 1: Murkowski from Alaska who begs Trump for things for Alaska.
Speaker 1: He always gives it, and then she goes to the
Speaker 1: media and attacks him. Maria Salazar is out there for
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants. That's her prime constituency are non citizens. So
Speaker 1: have a big problem with that. And if there's any
Speaker 1: Republican who should not be in office in the House
Speaker 1: Representatives is Maria Salazar from Florida. Thank you again for
Speaker 1: listening for this episode of A numbers Game. Please like
Speaker 1: and subscribe on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcast. We'll see you on Thursday. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much.