April 21, 2025 • 35 mins
In this episode, Ryan interviews Zach Goldberg, an independent researcher, about his findings on discrimination against white applicants at the U.S. Naval Academy. They discuss the implications of diversity policies, the effectiveness of military recruitment, and the broader impact of DEI initiatives on the military and society. Zach provides insights into the data analysis that reveals significant disparities in admissions based on race and gender, and they explore the potential consequences of these policies on military effectiveness and recruitment. It's a Numbers Game with Ryan Girdusky is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Monday & Thursday.
Check out Zach's Substack HERE
#NavalAcademy #discrimination #diversity #militaryeffectiveness #recruitmentcrisis #DEI #policies #racial #preferences #genderdiscrimination
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Welcome back to a Numbers Game with Ryan Gerdusky. I'm
your host. Thank you all for being here for another week.
If you find yourself bored, lonely, depressed, looking for something
to do, I just want to say I have the
idea for you. Please like and subscribe this podcast. Give
me a five star review. If you have the chance
of your time, you won't miss an episode. You'll learn something,
you'll be smarter. I try to bring it twice a
(00:26):
week every week, so I appreciate you all being here.
Please make sure you're here every time. And now I
want to talk to you and I want to ask
you if you were to sit there and think, what
was the most consequential thing the Supreme Court has done
in the last five years? Right, really since the end
of the first Trump term. Probably most of you, nine
out of ten would say abortion right Roe v. Wait,
(00:49):
Because it's the most politically engaging and toxic and energetic.
Depends on what side of the aisle you fall on.
It's where people pay attentions for. Politicians give a lot
of focus to. But to me, the decision, the most
important decision the Supreme Court made over the last five years,
the one that will have the biggest impact over most
of our lives was the Students for Fair Emission versus
(01:09):
Harvard case. That case examined the illegality of race based
emissions in higher education, ruling that it was unconstitutional that
the school at Harvard had discriminated against Asian applicants Asian
American applicants in favor of black and latinos. Now, unlike
the overturning of Row, which was a deeply divided issue,
ending race based admissions to colleges was extremely popular with
(01:32):
the American people. A poll from Pew Research in twenty
twenty three found that fifty percent of American adults disapproved
of universities considering race when it comes to emission. Just
thirty three percent approved, and there was a stark political divide.
Seventy four percent of Republicans opposed using race and fifty
four percent of Democrats approved of it, but overwhelmingly when
(01:54):
you ask independents and still a large chunk of Democrats,
they disapproved of it. Most of the country did, but
once the Harvard case happened, other ivy leagues and top
colleges began following student dropping race and ethnicity as a
requirement or part of their emissions process. According to The
New York Times, which reviewed sixty six colleges in the
aftermath that changes to emissions, they found that black and
(02:16):
Latino enrollment dropped by one percent overall in the top
schools and in the IVY leagues in one percent of
Hispanics one percent of blacks. MIT's enrollment dropped by ten
points among black applicants from sixteen percent to six. Amherst
University fell by twelve point five to three point six.
John Hopkins went from eleven point six black to four
(02:36):
point one black, and Columbia fell from twenty percent to
twelve percent. For Latino students in John Hopkins they fell
in half, from twenty five to twelve point five. NYU
went from twenty one percent Latino to thirteen percent the
incoming class I'm talking about. Cornell went from seventeen to
ten and Carnegie Mail went from fourteen to eight. The
(02:56):
share of Asian students went up in a number of
top schools, including Barnard and it in Columbia, and for
white students they also ticked up significantly. And the vein
of that case, the focus of that case was really
just on Asian emissions that became the victim of this
entire scandal of race based admissions. Now the case behind Harvard, Right,
they specifically said, as I said before, Asians were the
(03:18):
name target of this mass discrimination. And you saw this
in Harvard and John Hopkins and a number of universities
where right after the Supreme Court rule there was a
huge spike of Asian enrollment. But what about white applicants? Right?
What what if I were to tell you that white
students were more discriminated than other groups at the some
of the most major universities in some of the biggest
(03:40):
ivy leagues in this country. A study by Georgetown University
found that if college admission were based solely on test scores,
the proportion of Asian students a top colleges would actually
fall from eleven percent to ten percent. Conversely, white students
applicants would increase from sixty six percent to seventy five percent.
Affirmative action is anti white in many of these cases.
(04:04):
A study by Zach Goldberg was released just last week
that found that racial discrimination wasn't just a thing for
the left wing colleges like Harvard, No, it's actually being
committed at the Naval Academy, the prime group facing discrimination
is not Asians, it's white men. Goldberg found that a
white applicant with the same exact test scores as a
(04:24):
black applicant is significantly less likely to get admitted to
the US Naval Academy. A black applicant with a five
percent chance of emissions, their odds would jump to fifty
percent if evaluate as being Black, They'd be fifteen percent
chance to get if they were Hispanic, and eighteen percent
chance to be in if they were Asian. A white
applicant with a twenty five percent baseline emission, because that's
(04:46):
you know, on average where their grades were well, they
would be eighty seven percent as likely if they were Black,
fifty two percent if they were Hispanic, and fifty nine
percent if they were Asian. Asians in the Naval Academy
actually had a higher level of chance of getting in,
and then even Hispanics when DEI was applied. Goldberg further
states that across five admission cycles, roughly two thirds of
(05:06):
black applicants and one third of Asian and Hispanic applicants
would not have been admitted had it been absent of
their race. Had been a completely blind emission no race
looked at whatsoever, just meritocracy, just great scores and ability
and all the rest of that. A tremendous amount of
non white applicants would have not gotten into the Naval
(05:28):
Academy by admitting students were less qualified to attend, but
brought greater racial diversity. It didn't improve testing standards, it
lowered them. Black and Hispanic students performed worse once they
were in the Naval Academy than the overall average. So
it's not like this is a liberal theory that they have.
(05:49):
Is if you get an applicant who maybe they're not
qualified because their SAT scores or you know, their scores
aren't high enough, but once they get in the academy,
they'll be around other smart people and they're going to surge.
They're going to do so so well. That has never
been proven to be true, and it is not true
in the Naval Academy, as black and Hispanic students who
(06:09):
had gotten in in part because of their race were
struggling with subjects like calculus and science, So it didn't
make the overall student population smarter. It just made them
more racially diverse. For the sake of racial diversity. The
degree to which white applicants are discriminated against at the
US Naval Academy is difficult for me to describe alone
(06:29):
because this is a very long article of very long
substack posts, well over one hundred pages. I did go
through it, but I got the man himself, the man
who did all the research, who could describe what's actually
happening at the US Naval Academy and other federal government
backed schools about diversity, equity, inclusion, and anti white discrimination.
Please just stay with me for his tour de force investigation.
(06:50):
Zach Goldberg's next Stay tuned. Zach Goldberg is an independent
researcher who has an absolutely incredible substack Zach Goldberg dot
substack dot com. I've been a fan of his for years.
I can't recommend his subsecond enough. Thank you for being here, Zach.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
Thank you for having me on. Ryan.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
So, Okay, first things first, go over your data. What
are the main finding showing that there's a discrimination against
whites at the US Naval Academy.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Yeah, I'll just before I get into that, I just
want to say, like, until this report, until this case,
the public really like the understanding of what was going
on behind the scenes of the Naval Academy or just
other service adam in general is really off limits. Okay.
And now with this lawsuit. During the discovery that case,
(07:39):
student of the Naval Academy was forced to hand over
some admission of data, and that data was Peter or Arcido,
who also worked on the Harvard case. And what RCAD
finds is rather, you know, in contrary to the Naval
(08:02):
Academy claims of their consideration of race being limited, nondeterminative,
you know, one factor among many other factors, the holistic
you know, consideration. What he finds is well, for instance,
if white applicant with a five percent chance of getting
(08:25):
into the Naval Academy would have almost a fifty five
percent chance if treated as black, twenty five percent chance.
If a white Daftan had a twenty five percent chance
to get a game, he would have, you know, an
over eighty five percent chance of getting in it treated
as black. Now I mentioned I see a lot blacks
because they the preferences for them are the strongest. But
(08:47):
unlike Harvard, were Asians were also getting you know, we're
also disadvantage in the emission process. Here are Asians also
going to boost so whites are whites, and the class
of Apple didn't declare a race whatsoever, which is interesting
because they're just as disadvantages as white you know once
(09:08):
are the I guess the victims here of you know
discrimination or these race based emissions apprentices. And just a
one more final data point is that if not for
racial preferences, destimated that over seventy percent of black admits
would not have getten gotten in. For Hispanics and Asians,
(09:31):
for the preferences are significance, but not as much as blacks,
as it's a brown like one and three whenever.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
So then to round that up, if an applicant was
white and had you know, they had a decent grade
point average or whatever, but they would only have a
five percent chance and fifty percent chance if they were black,
and significantly higher chances if they were both Asian and Hispanic.
And there would be an immense fall off for applicants
if it was just equally based on grades, which is
(10:00):
what a study by I think it was Georgetown University found.
If you I mentioned at the top of the show
George and University said it there was if everything was
based on race, their discrimination against whites would show that
it is actually higher than any other group including agents.
Now you mentioned the Harvard case, which is obviously where
a lot of this stuff information is forced to come
(10:20):
out from in all different universities. How is this and
you mentioned this different as different any other way aside
from justice, not just asians and whites, it's just whites.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Well, I guess if you were to, like I know,
in the Harvard case, our CD of sous analysis, he
had also a decile analysis where he's looking at the
admission rates. I the admissions indexed Descyle, So you have
ten deciles, and he looked, okay, what is the rate
for different advocates in this decile. Now with Harvard, you
(10:55):
see obviously at the bottom decile, know, nobody's really getting
and then you see outside of the bottom descol you
really see just a kind of a linear increase in
the black mission rates, and you really even up to
the final doestyle where I think, wats, maybe you're like
(11:16):
ninety percent vereas whites. I think, for a while, since
I read the cancer seen that data for whites, I
think maybe the next they get to in the top
decile is like fifty percent. In this case with the
naval academy. The greatest displays are not at the well
in both cases, they are the displies are at the bottom.
(11:36):
In this case, they tend to be greatest towards the
middle regions of middlessiles of the distribution.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
That's fascinating.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
Yeah, and uh, well, because once you get to the top,
I mean, everybody's well still, once you get to the
top descil, there's still about a fifteen point gap, let's say,
or maybe even let me look at the numbers again.
Whites are also getting and I think like around seventy
percent of the time, Blacks are beginning in like ninety
percent of the time. So still but not as much
(12:06):
as you see in the Harbor case. But there's still
substantial differences even in the top.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
Does administrations defend this move? I mean, I saw something
about military readiness, But is that that that the military,
if it's diverses, more ready for combat? But is there
any evidence behind that?
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Uh? Well, that's the thing is that rather than really
rebutting this analysis with data, they went all in, or
when I say they, I mean the the DOJ Underminding
who was defending the USNA in this case. They went
all in on a diversity defense. Uh, and a lot
of the arguments really just copied straight out of other
(12:45):
firm compacts, a firm demanding cases and uh. But what
really was was really no about is whereas these cases
we're talking about getting the benefit the educational benefits of
a diverse class, now we're talking about the military benefits,
the lethality benefits. So the claim is that a racially
(13:09):
diverse officer corps enhances military effectiveness, unique lethality, it promotes cohesion.
Now what's the evidence for that? Well, the truth of
the matter is is the evidence is so barren on
this front that our expert diversity witnesses or expert they
(13:32):
had to resort even to well just citing papers that
had really nothing to do They had nothing to do
with raciel diversity whatsoever, and something to do with diversity
just in a different context outside of a military context,
didn't relate to race diversity. So they're kind of grasping
a trust, trying to just citation paths and hoping people
(13:54):
don't actually look at the citations. But when you look
at the citations, you see there's really nothing there. There's
no to take evidence, And in truth, that's not their
fault because the pertative Defense themselves admitted that we've actually
never studied the relationship between racial diversity and military effectiveness.
(14:15):
We don't know whether variations in position for units more
diverse units performed better and less diverse years.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
I'm they never study that.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
That is crazy.
Speaker 1 (14:25):
I think in a race of society like America, you
would have studied, someone would have studied that. In the military,
they never studied that.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
That's what's incredible is they've had decades to which to
produce such data, and you think, if you know, well,
that's the thing. Either they actually have done the studies
and the studies don't support the narrative, or they just
don't care about the data whatsoever. They they are they're
(14:53):
more comfortable. This isn't kind of it's the thing. We
want federal policy to be evidence based, it to be
based on rigorous analysis, and in this case, it seems
like they are more comfortable just you know, advancing the
ideological uh, you know, moral priorities over absolute seeing. Does
this actually make sense empirically, because on one hand, the
(15:18):
Department of Defense, in the Naval Academy, they say, listen,
we're not doing this for racial diversity. Sake, racial diversity
is merely a means to an end, and that end
is improve military effectiveness. But if that's the case, then
you know, and they also plan to value all sorts
(15:40):
of diversity, not just race. You know, they say they
value all sorts of diversity, but when you actually look
at the models, you know, like economics, socio economic diversity,
it gets no way, it gets in effect, it gets
almost no way whatsoever. It's all race. So it's hard
not to walk away with the conclusion that, uh, they
(16:01):
don't really care the e this is a lot.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
Of this is right right right, Well that's why you
see those commercials you know of like it used to
be to join the military, be the best you could be,
and now it's like, you know, join the military. We
have girls here too. Speaking of seeing is there was
there a sex discrimination with white women?
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Yes, yes, well I mean I didn't see the data
like you know, inter wrapt sex by race, But what
I can say is that, uh, females or women are
definitely have It's not as much as the race preference.
It's maybe like you know, a fraction of difference given
(16:41):
to blacks, but women are definitely getting a leg up
in the admissions process, which is this piece wasn't about
gender discrimination, so this.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Wasn't the no. I just definitely I just got curious
reading the information. I just was like, I wonder if
this is only about white men and not white women
as well. But I didn't know, and I didn't see it.
I don't know if you had read it somewhere.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
Yeah, well, I would imagine just based on the coefficient
that the disadvantage just for being white for but is
kind of offset for I mean, I guess what I'm
saying is that the white woman will get due to
their there's their sex, a boost over white men, but
probably not the boost that black women are getting, right,
(17:24):
I got you. You know, obviously the raw data, you know,
it's it's a privileged information, so you know, I can't
really run the analysis on that, but that would be
just looking at the coefficients and seeing uh you know,
the models. You know, that would be my prediction at least.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
So all of this white man make up the majority
of military. And how did how does this affect recruitment?
Speaker 2 (17:53):
Well that's the thing is that, uh you know, in
terms of this turning off recruitment, Well, there's a recruitment
I guess crisis across the board, or at least but
the recruitment.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
Crisis across the board. People always sort of the recruitment crisis.
The recruitment crisis primarily during the Biden years was that
white men were not joining the military.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
Where the decline in military enrollment came from was not
among black or Hispanic men. It was among white men
who left joining the military and droves in a significant way.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
Yeah, I mean, there is some evidence that some of
that is d I related. And what's interesting is one
of the their own studies that USNA produced during the report,
which is this climate study we're just looking at, you know,
it's it's kind of measuring that the temperature. In terms
of diversity climates, you know, is there focus on race?
(18:48):
Is there not enough focus on race in the uh,
you know, the worst diversity climates. You have a lot
of I mean it's not just whites but other whites,
I mean probably substantial number ones saying that there's too
much of an emphasis. And because that data is linked
(19:10):
to retention data subsequent retention, you could see that a
lot of whites are more likely to leave, and a
lot of those whites that leave are ones had said that,
you know, there's just too much of an emphasis on
race and DEI and diversity training and that what have you.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
Because if this is about recruitment, then what does it
also say about people getting promotions in the military. Would
a white applicant be less inclined to get a promotion?
Speaker 2 (19:41):
Well, here's the thing is that they're the affirmative action here,
at least as far as the Department of Defense is
willing to admit, occurs you know, at the front end,
you know, meaning at the admission gate. Now, once they
graduate in these academies, uh, and they they get assigned
(20:06):
to a naval community and they kind of enter the
officer pipeline. Now, what's really frustrated the Navy is that
the promotion rates among especially blacks, tends to be very
low at a certain above a certain rank. It just
stabates completely. Now that's not due to discrimination. I mean,
(20:31):
this has been studied. And the bottom line is is
that you know, and this is kind of what's interesting
about racial preferences, that they're kind of self defeating, or
at least they they're self restricting in the sense of
you know, being the ability to affect the bottom line here,
which is the diversity of the least diverse military, you know,
naval communities. And one of the strongest predictors of promotion
(20:57):
is how you did you know you're acting, your performance
the naval ga It's not something that people that decide
on promotions directly consider, but the traits associated with performance,
you know, your academic performance, your midlity. This is predictive
of promotion, and so racial preferences. I admitting lesser qualified
(21:23):
applicants setting them up cannot be promoted to have a
less likelihood of being promoted once they get to the
officer pipeline. Now their could in this kind of story
is that if they want, if they really want to
increase the diversity, you know, up and down the ranks,
they could lower the promotion standards or lower the accession
(21:46):
standards to certain elite naval communities, which produce an outside
share of the higher ranks, but obviously comes with risks. Says,
now you know you want willing to study?
Speaker 1 (22:01):
If they're not willing to study, If diversity makes the
military better, what are the chances they've studied? If diversity
makes lowing of lowering the standards makes it. Word, don't
I don't know. I mean, I don't know that answer,
but that is this is the military. This is what
you're this is the area of the government that probably
has the most amount of trust of anyone else.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
Yeah, and that's it's worrisome how the extent that the
military and I just this is kind of fresh off
the press because I just spent last night I life
just looking at every single uh National Defense Appropriation Act,
which started in May seven. Before then it was the
(22:45):
Defense of Appropriations anyways, and you look through that and
it's just clear over time that the extent that it's
becoming a vehicle for advancing DEI. No, it's mostly it
eventually started, Okay, we're just funning missiles, new airplanes, and
over time it's kind of been commandeered. I don't want
(23:09):
to just single out members of the Black Caucus, but
they're they're definitely very active on inserting UH, you know,
DEI related provisions of the bill. It started with contracting
in the early nineties and support early colleges, and then
the two thousands you start to see a real entrenchment
and institutional than of the DEI, especially over the past
(23:31):
ten years. And that's relevant because when defending these preferences
are defending or actually the ruling in favor of the government.
The judge in the case, Richard D. Bennett, he cited
a lot of the these so called commissions that came
(23:51):
out of these d these diversity commission reports that came
out of these NDA permissions that were stuck in. You know,
build a military Leadership Diversity commission to make recommendation, how
do we diversify? So the judge said, of that, like, see,
this has bipartisan consensus. You know, everybody believes that. Now.
You know, diversity is a national security imperative. Republic ANAVI
(24:13):
is endorsed by Congress, and it's like, no, this commission,
this report that you speak to was snuck in by
Ben Cardon of Maryland with the support of a couple
members of the Black Caucus. You know, most people.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
One time I was when I was in a green
room for a television show. I was doing a new
show and I was with a military combat bet colonel
who said to me, and he said, one of the
most there was something I've never looked into us. I
don't know if it's true. I don't know if I
believe it, but he said to me. Something that's stuck
with me since he has said it. He said, most
parts of the military are just a jobs program that
(24:49):
we do not need the military size or force that
not forced, but the size that we do of standing army,
because it is just specifically for jobs we don't like.
He said, most people will never see combat, will never
do anything to promote national security. It is just to
higher people. And I've always thought of that whenever these
conversations come up of was he right. I don't know
(25:10):
the answer to it, but I think about it consotly.
Is now, this is the federal government making this kind
of DEI decision. And this predates Biden, is clear?
Speaker 2 (25:21):
Yeah, I mean the racial preferences, Yes, they do predate Biden.
Speaker 1 (25:25):
Yeah, this wasn't a new thing.
Speaker 2 (25:28):
Yeah, listen. And this is what's incredible is that even
during the Trump one, you know, the first Trump term, Yeah,
I mean Trump's second is Mark Esper. This is the one.
A few weeks after Florida incidents, he produced a memorandum saying,
we need to establish a diversity Inclusion Board within the Pentagon.
(25:49):
You know that is going to make recommendations about how
to increase the diversity inc.
Speaker 1 (25:53):
I actually never heard of that before. That is I,
I don't believe you. I did not know that that happened.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
That Trump had no idea or just maybe his priority
he is focusing on other things the time. It was
a hot moment.
Speaker 1 (26:07):
Yeah we had COVID going on in re election yet Yeah,
but like, uh, you know in.
Speaker 2 (26:14):
High tech there's a lot of things going on, even
among Republican presidents. And part of the reason is is
because you know, they don't call it discrimination against whites,
or they don't call or you know, or they don't
say racial preferences specifically, they kind of you know, use
very laundered language, you know, and some of these bills
that make this seem like it's all about that is
(26:34):
the functrating.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
Thing about di conversations is like, I have no opposition
for funds that go for poor people, whether they are
black or Hispanic or white. But that is not what
DEI is. DEI is anti white discrimination primarily. That's really
what DEI is. It's not it's not, oh, we give
(26:55):
extra money to poor black kids in this area of
the country or that of the country that I don't
care about, no one does. It's when you purposely discriminate
or lower standards in order to prevent one group from
succeeding in order for another group to succeed.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
Yeah, and to your point, I mean this came up
in the case. You know, it's because obviously, in order
to pass the narrowly tailored standard of strict scrutiny, they
have to show that Navy has to show that they've
exhausted all race neutral alternatives, and one race neutral alternative
alternative is socioeconomic preferences, you know, just giving a leg
(27:34):
up for students were regardless of the race, and you know,
the deed of emissions, you know, was asked why they
didn't utilize sees space preferences instead, and his response was really, well,
just remarkable, remarkably, I guess, just really disgusting. He said that, well,
(27:55):
we determined that if we did that, there'd be a
lot of quote unquote non diverse applicants who would also benefit,
which is translation, you know, there'd be too many poor
white applicants.
Speaker 1 (28:08):
Is that happened North Carolina when they were trying to
make the univers system less DEI and they said let's
just do it by income. They said, well, there's a
lot of poor whites that would benefit from it too.
My last question is do you believe there's any other
areas of the thorough government that are doing this exact
same thing right now?
Speaker 2 (28:24):
I believe every other I mean, the other firm service
academy cases are are still well, they might be headed
for mooded cases, but I know they're they're probably going
on there. In terms of other areas of the federal government,
it wouldn't surprise me. I mean, I only know the
data related to this case. But what is particularly shocking
(28:47):
and which this ruling in this case upholds essentially, is
that the government, if they just wants to support or
advance a DII effort, you know, a discriminatory policy, essentially,
the judge it just allows so that they only have
to invoke national security, you know, right, because the judge
really just completely total competes relates into the government interests.
(29:11):
You know, it's just national security.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
With everything. Is that the say national security enough times,
you kind of get your way unless you're rually gelling
a rank or president you say nine eleven enough times,
you don't get your way, but otherwise you do get
your way.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
Yes, So because of this president, you can imagine featured
administrations justifying you know, such preferences or policies in other
domains government if it's not already going on, you know,
and they could just evoke national security and come up
with all some sort of talking baby rationale of how
(29:44):
this relates, you know, by furthering diversity. This furthers our
bottom line in terms of this compelling national goal.
Speaker 1 (29:52):
Yeah, you are absolutely, Can I say brilliant I have
been people probably have read Zach's work without knowing it.
Zach that study about the mainstream media's application of woke terminology,
that was Zach Like. There were so many times where
I'm like, oh, Zach's works being cited again over and
(30:12):
over and over again. You really deserve way more credit
than you have given so far because your work really
is top tier. And this this fun thing you've you've
done on the Naval Academy is it is a tour
de force. Really what is brilliant and it is on yourself.
Where can people go to get your stuff?
Speaker 2 (30:33):
Well, my substract is now used to be Zach's newsletter.
Now it's called Unwoke by the Numbers hopefully catchy enough.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
To remember Unwoke by the Numbers or.
Speaker 2 (30:45):
Maybe Zach's snowsletter is easier. But anyways, one woke by
the numbers Twitter handle isa G nine three.
Speaker 1 (30:55):
Two that should be shortened down, but as that's the
nine to Zach zac Ch and you can find your
substack Zach, Zach zac h remember the age, Zachgoldberg dot
substack dot dot com. I also dot Hepa dot com,
Zach Goldberg dot substock dot com. Zach, You're this is
(31:18):
incredible work. If you produce something else, I'd love to
have you on this podcast again. You're just I mean, brilliant, brilliant, brilliance.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
You want to say one final thing?
Speaker 1 (31:26):
Just sure?
Speaker 2 (31:27):
I mean, first of all, thanks for having me on.
Because the current moment, everybody's focused on time of seaportations,
what have you. You know, it's hard to get through
about the story are now I mean, wasn't great, but uh,
you know, everybody celebrating the post opening is premature. All
these policies are going to easily be snapped back in place,
so it's important. And that's what I'm when I get
(31:48):
off a few of them, to have to be talking
with somebody who's trying to insert a racial preferences. Ben
and Service academies into the twenty twenty six National Defense
Appropriation Acts. That'd be great be able to come on
the show and talk more about that.
Speaker 1 (32:02):
I should introduce you a few Congressmen and Senators that
I know and try to get that going because.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
This would be awesome.
Speaker 1 (32:07):
Really at Gilbert, thank you for being here. I really
really appreciate it. Thanks you having you're listening to It's
The Numbers Game with Ryan Gerdowski. We'll be right back
after this message for the Ask Me Anything segment where
you can email me about any somebody that I know
the matter, I know about, I know anything degree of
information about, or I could do the research for. Please
(32:29):
don't email it with sports because I don't know much
about it, but anything else email me Ryan at Numbers
Gamepodcast dot com. That is Ryan at Numbers Game Podcast
plural Numbers Numbers Gamepodcast dot com. I really look forward
it really helps his podcast by submitting questions on anything.
I got a question from a guy named Sam today
who said, who do you think is the worst member
(32:50):
of worst Republican member of Congress. This is the easiest,
easiest question in the world to answer. It is Maria
Salazar from Florida's I think thirty six district thirty seventh
district one of the two. I didn't look that up
before him.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
I should have.
Speaker 1 (33:05):
Marie Salazar is a former television host who very very
very well and it's forgotten now, but it did happen
a lot during the twenty sixteen election. She was kind
of always attacking Trump and saying that she was slated
to have interviews and he canceled because he was afraid
of her. And I think they did sit down at
one point, but she was on Bill O'Reilly at the time,
bashing Trump. Anyway, she ran for office in twenty twenty
(33:29):
and one. She flipped a Democratic seat, which many people
did not believe that was going to be Republican. But
as the coalitions has changed and as her district, which
is very heavily Hispanic has become more Republican, it's now
a super Republican seat. It's a seat that Trump won
by double digits, and this used to be a Democratic seat.
It is in South Florida, is in Miami proper, and
she is represented now. She had won her last election
(33:51):
in a landslide. This one wakes up morning, noon, and
night thinking about amnesty for illegal aliens, how to increase
legal immigration, how to give to make sure people aren't deported.
She's horrible. She's horrible on the issue. She's actually not
been super loud lately. But I have a story when
the last Congress was going on and Trump wasn't in office.
(34:12):
This is when Biden was in office, Stephen Miller, Trump's advisor,
Steven Miller, was giving a presentation. I heard this remember
of Congress, so I wasn't in the room, but this
came from a good source. Steven Miller was giving a
presentation and Maria Salis are attended, even though she was
not a member of the Republican Study Committee, and began
yelling and berating him about hating Hispanics and hating Latinos
(34:32):
and making all these attack and accusations against him. And
apparently he handled it very very well. He was a
perfect gentleman, calmed her down. She left the room and
immediately started calling reporters and bashing the Republican Study Committee
and Stephen Miller. There is a number of times where
people I know have been around her and she has
(34:52):
shown signs of being very unhinged, very crazy, and her
policies are terrible, and if there was a Republican primary her,
it's worth it because her seat is a super safe
Republican seat now, unlike more moderate members. So I don't
necessarily always agree with Brian Fitzpatrick. He still represents a
Kamala Harris district, although it has moved to the right.
He's fine for the seat that he holds. I have
no issue with a moderate Republican holding a holding a seat.
(35:16):
Murkowski is not great. Murkowski is a perfect example. He's
Murkowski from Alaska who begs Trump for things for Alaska.
He always gives it, and then she goes to the
media and attacks him. Maria Salazar is out there for
illegal immigrants. That's her prime constituency are non citizens. So
have a big problem with that. And if there's any
Republican who should not be in office in the House
Representatives is Maria Salazar from Florida. Thank you again for
(35:39):
listening for this episode of A numbers Game. Please like
and subscribe on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, wherever you
get your podcast. We'll see you on Thursday. Thank you
so much.
Welcome back to a Numbers Game with Ryan Gerdusky. I'm
your host. Thank you all for being here for another week.
If you find yourself bored, lonely, depressed, looking for something
to do, I just want to say I have the
idea for you. Please like and subscribe this podcast. Give
me a five star review. If you have the chance
of your time, you won't miss an episode. You'll learn something,
you'll be smarter. I try to bring it twice a
(00:26):
week every week, so I appreciate you all being here.
Please make sure you're here every time. And now I
want to talk to you and I want to ask
you if you were to sit there and think, what
was the most consequential thing the Supreme Court has done
in the last five years? Right, really since the end
of the first Trump term. Probably most of you, nine
out of ten would say abortion right Roe v. Wait,
(00:49):
Because it's the most politically engaging and toxic and energetic.
Depends on what side of the aisle you fall on.
It's where people pay attentions for. Politicians give a lot
of focus to. But to me, the decision, the most
important decision the Supreme Court made over the last five years,
the one that will have the biggest impact over most
of our lives was the Students for Fair Emission versus
(01:09):
Harvard case. That case examined the illegality of race based
emissions in higher education, ruling that it was unconstitutional that
the school at Harvard had discriminated against Asian applicants Asian
American applicants in favor of black and latinos. Now, unlike
the overturning of Row, which was a deeply divided issue,
ending race based admissions to colleges was extremely popular with
(01:32):
the American people. A poll from Pew Research in twenty
twenty three found that fifty percent of American adults disapproved
of universities considering race when it comes to emission. Just
thirty three percent approved, and there was a stark political divide.
Seventy four percent of Republicans opposed using race and fifty
four percent of Democrats approved of it, but overwhelmingly when
(01:54):
you ask independents and still a large chunk of Democrats,
they disapproved of it. Most of the country did, but
once the Harvard case happened, other ivy leagues and top
colleges began following student dropping race and ethnicity as a
requirement or part of their emissions process. According to The
New York Times, which reviewed sixty six colleges in the
aftermath that changes to emissions, they found that black and
(02:16):
Latino enrollment dropped by one percent overall in the top
schools and in the IVY leagues in one percent of
Hispanics one percent of blacks. MIT's enrollment dropped by ten
points among black applicants from sixteen percent to six. Amherst
University fell by twelve point five to three point six.
John Hopkins went from eleven point six black to four
(02:36):
point one black, and Columbia fell from twenty percent to
twelve percent. For Latino students in John Hopkins they fell
in half, from twenty five to twelve point five. NYU
went from twenty one percent Latino to thirteen percent the
incoming class I'm talking about. Cornell went from seventeen to
ten and Carnegie Mail went from fourteen to eight. The
(02:56):
share of Asian students went up in a number of
top schools, including Barnard and it in Columbia, and for
white students they also ticked up significantly. And the vein
of that case, the focus of that case was really
just on Asian emissions that became the victim of this
entire scandal of race based admissions. Now the case behind Harvard, Right,
they specifically said, as I said before, Asians were the
(03:18):
name target of this mass discrimination. And you saw this
in Harvard and John Hopkins and a number of universities
where right after the Supreme Court rule there was a
huge spike of Asian enrollment. But what about white applicants? Right?
What what if I were to tell you that white
students were more discriminated than other groups at the some
of the most major universities in some of the biggest
(03:40):
ivy leagues in this country. A study by Georgetown University
found that if college admission were based solely on test scores,
the proportion of Asian students a top colleges would actually
fall from eleven percent to ten percent. Conversely, white students
applicants would increase from sixty six percent to seventy five percent.
Affirmative action is anti white in many of these cases.
(04:04):
A study by Zach Goldberg was released just last week
that found that racial discrimination wasn't just a thing for
the left wing colleges like Harvard, No, it's actually being
committed at the Naval Academy, the prime group facing discrimination
is not Asians, it's white men. Goldberg found that a
white applicant with the same exact test scores as a
(04:24):
black applicant is significantly less likely to get admitted to
the US Naval Academy. A black applicant with a five
percent chance of emissions, their odds would jump to fifty
percent if evaluate as being Black, They'd be fifteen percent
chance to get if they were Hispanic, and eighteen percent
chance to be in if they were Asian. A white
applicant with a twenty five percent baseline emission, because that's
(04:46):
you know, on average where their grades were well, they
would be eighty seven percent as likely if they were Black,
fifty two percent if they were Hispanic, and fifty nine
percent if they were Asian. Asians in the Naval Academy
actually had a higher level of chance of getting in,
and then even Hispanics when DEI was applied. Goldberg further
states that across five admission cycles, roughly two thirds of
(05:06):
black applicants and one third of Asian and Hispanic applicants
would not have been admitted had it been absent of
their race. Had been a completely blind emission no race
looked at whatsoever, just meritocracy, just great scores and ability
and all the rest of that. A tremendous amount of
non white applicants would have not gotten into the Naval
(05:28):
Academy by admitting students were less qualified to attend, but
brought greater racial diversity. It didn't improve testing standards, it
lowered them. Black and Hispanic students performed worse once they
were in the Naval Academy than the overall average. So
it's not like this is a liberal theory that they have.
(05:49):
Is if you get an applicant who maybe they're not
qualified because their SAT scores or you know, their scores
aren't high enough, but once they get in the academy,
they'll be around other smart people and they're going to surge.
They're going to do so so well. That has never
been proven to be true, and it is not true
in the Naval Academy, as black and Hispanic students who
(06:09):
had gotten in in part because of their race were
struggling with subjects like calculus and science, So it didn't
make the overall student population smarter. It just made them
more racially diverse. For the sake of racial diversity. The
degree to which white applicants are discriminated against at the
US Naval Academy is difficult for me to describe alone
(06:29):
because this is a very long article of very long
substack posts, well over one hundred pages. I did go
through it, but I got the man himself, the man
who did all the research, who could describe what's actually
happening at the US Naval Academy and other federal government
backed schools about diversity, equity, inclusion, and anti white discrimination.
Please just stay with me for his tour de force investigation.
(06:50):
Zach Goldberg's next Stay tuned. Zach Goldberg is an independent
researcher who has an absolutely incredible substack Zach Goldberg dot
substack dot com. I've been a fan of his for years.
I can't recommend his subsecond enough. Thank you for being here, Zach.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
Thank you for having me on. Ryan.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
So, Okay, first things first, go over your data. What
are the main finding showing that there's a discrimination against
whites at the US Naval Academy.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Yeah, I'll just before I get into that, I just
want to say, like, until this report, until this case,
the public really like the understanding of what was going
on behind the scenes of the Naval Academy or just
other service adam in general is really off limits. Okay.
And now with this lawsuit. During the discovery that case,
(07:39):
student of the Naval Academy was forced to hand over
some admission of data, and that data was Peter or Arcido,
who also worked on the Harvard case. And what RCAD
finds is rather, you know, in contrary to the Naval
(08:02):
Academy claims of their consideration of race being limited, nondeterminative,
you know, one factor among many other factors, the holistic
you know, consideration. What he finds is well, for instance,
if white applicant with a five percent chance of getting
(08:25):
into the Naval Academy would have almost a fifty five
percent chance if treated as black, twenty five percent chance.
If a white Daftan had a twenty five percent chance
to get a game, he would have, you know, an
over eighty five percent chance of getting in it treated
as black. Now I mentioned I see a lot blacks
because they the preferences for them are the strongest. But
(08:47):
unlike Harvard, were Asians were also getting you know, we're
also disadvantage in the emission process. Here are Asians also
going to boost so whites are whites, and the class
of Apple didn't declare a race whatsoever, which is interesting
because they're just as disadvantages as white you know once
(09:08):
are the I guess the victims here of you know
discrimination or these race based emissions apprentices. And just a
one more final data point is that if not for
racial preferences, destimated that over seventy percent of black admits
would not have getten gotten in. For Hispanics and Asians,
(09:31):
for the preferences are significance, but not as much as blacks,
as it's a brown like one and three whenever.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
So then to round that up, if an applicant was
white and had you know, they had a decent grade
point average or whatever, but they would only have a
five percent chance and fifty percent chance if they were black,
and significantly higher chances if they were both Asian and Hispanic.
And there would be an immense fall off for applicants
if it was just equally based on grades, which is
(10:00):
what a study by I think it was Georgetown University found.
If you I mentioned at the top of the show
George and University said it there was if everything was
based on race, their discrimination against whites would show that
it is actually higher than any other group including agents.
Now you mentioned the Harvard case, which is obviously where
a lot of this stuff information is forced to come
(10:20):
out from in all different universities. How is this and
you mentioned this different as different any other way aside
from justice, not just asians and whites, it's just whites.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Well, I guess if you were to, like I know,
in the Harvard case, our CD of sous analysis, he
had also a decile analysis where he's looking at the
admission rates. I the admissions indexed Descyle, So you have
ten deciles, and he looked, okay, what is the rate
for different advocates in this decile. Now with Harvard, you
(10:55):
see obviously at the bottom decile, know, nobody's really getting
and then you see outside of the bottom descol you
really see just a kind of a linear increase in
the black mission rates, and you really even up to
the final doestyle where I think, wats, maybe you're like
(11:16):
ninety percent vereas whites. I think, for a while, since
I read the cancer seen that data for whites, I
think maybe the next they get to in the top
decile is like fifty percent. In this case with the
naval academy. The greatest displays are not at the well
in both cases, they are the displies are at the bottom.
(11:36):
In this case, they tend to be greatest towards the
middle regions of middlessiles of the distribution.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
That's fascinating.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
Yeah, and uh, well, because once you get to the top,
I mean, everybody's well still, once you get to the
top descil, there's still about a fifteen point gap, let's say,
or maybe even let me look at the numbers again.
Whites are also getting and I think like around seventy
percent of the time, Blacks are beginning in like ninety
percent of the time. So still but not as much
(12:06):
as you see in the Harbor case. But there's still
substantial differences even in the top.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
Does administrations defend this move? I mean, I saw something
about military readiness, But is that that that the military,
if it's diverses, more ready for combat? But is there
any evidence behind that?
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Uh? Well, that's the thing is that rather than really
rebutting this analysis with data, they went all in, or
when I say they, I mean the the DOJ Underminding
who was defending the USNA in this case. They went
all in on a diversity defense. Uh, and a lot
of the arguments really just copied straight out of other
(12:45):
firm compacts, a firm demanding cases and uh. But what
really was was really no about is whereas these cases
we're talking about getting the benefit the educational benefits of
a diverse class, now we're talking about the military benefits,
the lethality benefits. So the claim is that a racially
(13:09):
diverse officer corps enhances military effectiveness, unique lethality, it promotes cohesion.
Now what's the evidence for that? Well, the truth of
the matter is is the evidence is so barren on
this front that our expert diversity witnesses or expert they
(13:32):
had to resort even to well just citing papers that
had really nothing to do They had nothing to do
with raciel diversity whatsoever, and something to do with diversity
just in a different context outside of a military context,
didn't relate to race diversity. So they're kind of grasping
a trust, trying to just citation paths and hoping people
(13:54):
don't actually look at the citations. But when you look
at the citations, you see there's really nothing there. There's
no to take evidence, And in truth, that's not their
fault because the pertative Defense themselves admitted that we've actually
never studied the relationship between racial diversity and military effectiveness.
(14:15):
We don't know whether variations in position for units more
diverse units performed better and less diverse years.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
I'm they never study that.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
That is crazy.
Speaker 1 (14:25):
I think in a race of society like America, you
would have studied, someone would have studied that. In the military,
they never studied that.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
That's what's incredible is they've had decades to which to
produce such data, and you think, if you know, well,
that's the thing. Either they actually have done the studies
and the studies don't support the narrative, or they just
don't care about the data whatsoever. They they are they're
(14:53):
more comfortable. This isn't kind of it's the thing. We
want federal policy to be evidence based, it to be
based on rigorous analysis, and in this case, it seems
like they are more comfortable just you know, advancing the
ideological uh, you know, moral priorities over absolute seeing. Does
this actually make sense empirically, because on one hand, the
(15:18):
Department of Defense, in the Naval Academy, they say, listen,
we're not doing this for racial diversity. Sake, racial diversity
is merely a means to an end, and that end
is improve military effectiveness. But if that's the case, then
you know, and they also plan to value all sorts
(15:40):
of diversity, not just race. You know, they say they
value all sorts of diversity, but when you actually look
at the models, you know, like economics, socio economic diversity,
it gets no way, it gets in effect, it gets
almost no way whatsoever. It's all race. So it's hard
not to walk away with the conclusion that, uh, they
(16:01):
don't really care the e this is a lot.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
Of this is right right right, Well that's why you
see those commercials you know of like it used to
be to join the military, be the best you could be,
and now it's like, you know, join the military. We
have girls here too. Speaking of seeing is there was
there a sex discrimination with white women?
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Yes, yes, well I mean I didn't see the data
like you know, inter wrapt sex by race, But what
I can say is that, uh, females or women are
definitely have It's not as much as the race preference.
It's maybe like you know, a fraction of difference given
(16:41):
to blacks, but women are definitely getting a leg up
in the admissions process, which is this piece wasn't about
gender discrimination, so this.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Wasn't the no. I just definitely I just got curious
reading the information. I just was like, I wonder if
this is only about white men and not white women
as well. But I didn't know, and I didn't see it.
I don't know if you had read it somewhere.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
Yeah, well, I would imagine just based on the coefficient
that the disadvantage just for being white for but is
kind of offset for I mean, I guess what I'm
saying is that the white woman will get due to
their there's their sex, a boost over white men, but
probably not the boost that black women are getting, right,
(17:24):
I got you. You know, obviously the raw data, you know,
it's it's a privileged information, so you know, I can't
really run the analysis on that, but that would be
just looking at the coefficients and seeing uh you know,
the models. You know, that would be my prediction at least.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
So all of this white man make up the majority
of military. And how did how does this affect recruitment?
Speaker 2 (17:53):
Well that's the thing is that, uh you know, in
terms of this turning off recruitment, Well, there's a recruitment
I guess crisis across the board, or at least but
the recruitment.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
Crisis across the board. People always sort of the recruitment crisis.
The recruitment crisis primarily during the Biden years was that
white men were not joining the military.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
Where the decline in military enrollment came from was not
among black or Hispanic men. It was among white men
who left joining the military and droves in a significant way.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
Yeah, I mean, there is some evidence that some of
that is d I related. And what's interesting is one
of the their own studies that USNA produced during the report,
which is this climate study we're just looking at, you know,
it's it's kind of measuring that the temperature. In terms
of diversity climates, you know, is there focus on race?
(18:48):
Is there not enough focus on race in the uh,
you know, the worst diversity climates. You have a lot
of I mean it's not just whites but other whites,
I mean probably substantial number ones saying that there's too
much of an emphasis. And because that data is linked
(19:10):
to retention data subsequent retention, you could see that a
lot of whites are more likely to leave, and a
lot of those whites that leave are ones had said that,
you know, there's just too much of an emphasis on
race and DEI and diversity training and that what have you.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
Because if this is about recruitment, then what does it
also say about people getting promotions in the military. Would
a white applicant be less inclined to get a promotion?
Speaker 2 (19:41):
Well, here's the thing is that they're the affirmative action here,
at least as far as the Department of Defense is
willing to admit, occurs you know, at the front end,
you know, meaning at the admission gate. Now, once they
graduate in these academies, uh, and they they get assigned
(20:06):
to a naval community and they kind of enter the
officer pipeline. Now, what's really frustrated the Navy is that
the promotion rates among especially blacks, tends to be very
low at a certain above a certain rank. It just
stabates completely. Now that's not due to discrimination. I mean,
(20:31):
this has been studied. And the bottom line is is
that you know, and this is kind of what's interesting
about racial preferences, that they're kind of self defeating, or
at least they they're self restricting in the sense of
you know, being the ability to affect the bottom line here,
which is the diversity of the least diverse military, you know,
naval communities. And one of the strongest predictors of promotion
(20:57):
is how you did you know you're acting, your performance
the naval ga It's not something that people that decide
on promotions directly consider, but the traits associated with performance,
you know, your academic performance, your midlity. This is predictive
of promotion, and so racial preferences. I admitting lesser qualified
(21:23):
applicants setting them up cannot be promoted to have a
less likelihood of being promoted once they get to the
officer pipeline. Now their could in this kind of story
is that if they want, if they really want to
increase the diversity, you know, up and down the ranks,
they could lower the promotion standards or lower the accession
(21:46):
standards to certain elite naval communities, which produce an outside
share of the higher ranks, but obviously comes with risks. Says,
now you know you want willing to study?
Speaker 1 (22:01):
If they're not willing to study, If diversity makes the
military better, what are the chances they've studied? If diversity
makes lowing of lowering the standards makes it. Word, don't
I don't know. I mean, I don't know that answer,
but that is this is the military. This is what
you're this is the area of the government that probably
has the most amount of trust of anyone else.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
Yeah, and that's it's worrisome how the extent that the
military and I just this is kind of fresh off
the press because I just spent last night I life
just looking at every single uh National Defense Appropriation Act,
which started in May seven. Before then it was the
(22:45):
Defense of Appropriations anyways, and you look through that and
it's just clear over time that the extent that it's
becoming a vehicle for advancing DEI. No, it's mostly it
eventually started, Okay, we're just funning missiles, new airplanes, and
over time it's kind of been commandeered. I don't want
(23:09):
to just single out members of the Black Caucus, but
they're they're definitely very active on inserting UH, you know,
DEI related provisions of the bill. It started with contracting
in the early nineties and support early colleges, and then
the two thousands you start to see a real entrenchment
and institutional than of the DEI, especially over the past
(23:31):
ten years. And that's relevant because when defending these preferences
are defending or actually the ruling in favor of the government.
The judge in the case, Richard D. Bennett, he cited
a lot of the these so called commissions that came
(23:51):
out of these d these diversity commission reports that came
out of these NDA permissions that were stuck in. You know,
build a military Leadership Diversity commission to make recommendation, how
do we diversify? So the judge said, of that, like, see,
this has bipartisan consensus. You know, everybody believes that. Now.
You know, diversity is a national security imperative. Republic ANAVI
(24:13):
is endorsed by Congress, and it's like, no, this commission,
this report that you speak to was snuck in by
Ben Cardon of Maryland with the support of a couple
members of the Black Caucus. You know, most people.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
One time I was when I was in a green
room for a television show. I was doing a new
show and I was with a military combat bet colonel
who said to me, and he said, one of the
most there was something I've never looked into us. I
don't know if it's true. I don't know if I
believe it, but he said to me. Something that's stuck
with me since he has said it. He said, most
parts of the military are just a jobs program that
(24:49):
we do not need the military size or force that
not forced, but the size that we do of standing army,
because it is just specifically for jobs we don't like.
He said, most people will never see combat, will never
do anything to promote national security. It is just to
higher people. And I've always thought of that whenever these
conversations come up of was he right. I don't know
(25:10):
the answer to it, but I think about it consotly.
Is now, this is the federal government making this kind
of DEI decision. And this predates Biden, is clear?
Speaker 2 (25:21):
Yeah, I mean the racial preferences, Yes, they do predate Biden.
Speaker 1 (25:25):
Yeah, this wasn't a new thing.
Speaker 2 (25:28):
Yeah, listen. And this is what's incredible is that even
during the Trump one, you know, the first Trump term, Yeah,
I mean Trump's second is Mark Esper. This is the one.
A few weeks after Florida incidents, he produced a memorandum saying,
we need to establish a diversity Inclusion Board within the Pentagon.
(25:49):
You know that is going to make recommendations about how
to increase the diversity inc.
Speaker 1 (25:53):
I actually never heard of that before. That is I,
I don't believe you. I did not know that that happened.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
That Trump had no idea or just maybe his priority
he is focusing on other things the time. It was
a hot moment.
Speaker 1 (26:07):
Yeah we had COVID going on in re election yet Yeah,
but like, uh, you know in.
Speaker 2 (26:14):
High tech there's a lot of things going on, even
among Republican presidents. And part of the reason is is
because you know, they don't call it discrimination against whites,
or they don't call or you know, or they don't
say racial preferences specifically, they kind of you know, use
very laundered language, you know, and some of these bills
that make this seem like it's all about that is
(26:34):
the functrating.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
Thing about di conversations is like, I have no opposition
for funds that go for poor people, whether they are
black or Hispanic or white. But that is not what
DEI is. DEI is anti white discrimination primarily. That's really
what DEI is. It's not it's not, oh, we give
(26:55):
extra money to poor black kids in this area of
the country or that of the country that I don't
care about, no one does. It's when you purposely discriminate
or lower standards in order to prevent one group from
succeeding in order for another group to succeed.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
Yeah, and to your point, I mean this came up
in the case. You know, it's because obviously, in order
to pass the narrowly tailored standard of strict scrutiny, they
have to show that Navy has to show that they've
exhausted all race neutral alternatives, and one race neutral alternative
alternative is socioeconomic preferences, you know, just giving a leg
(27:34):
up for students were regardless of the race, and you know,
the deed of emissions, you know, was asked why they
didn't utilize sees space preferences instead, and his response was really, well,
just remarkable, remarkably, I guess, just really disgusting. He said that, well,
(27:55):
we determined that if we did that, there'd be a
lot of quote unquote non diverse applicants who would also benefit,
which is translation, you know, there'd be too many poor
white applicants.
Speaker 1 (28:08):
Is that happened North Carolina when they were trying to
make the univers system less DEI and they said let's
just do it by income. They said, well, there's a
lot of poor whites that would benefit from it too.
My last question is do you believe there's any other
areas of the thorough government that are doing this exact
same thing right now?
Speaker 2 (28:24):
I believe every other I mean, the other firm service
academy cases are are still well, they might be headed
for mooded cases, but I know they're they're probably going
on there. In terms of other areas of the federal government,
it wouldn't surprise me. I mean, I only know the
data related to this case. But what is particularly shocking
(28:47):
and which this ruling in this case upholds essentially, is
that the government, if they just wants to support or
advance a DII effort, you know, a discriminatory policy, essentially,
the judge it just allows so that they only have
to invoke national security, you know, right, because the judge
really just completely total competes relates into the government interests.
(29:11):
You know, it's just national security.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
With everything. Is that the say national security enough times,
you kind of get your way unless you're rually gelling
a rank or president you say nine eleven enough times,
you don't get your way, but otherwise you do get
your way.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
Yes, So because of this president, you can imagine featured
administrations justifying you know, such preferences or policies in other
domains government if it's not already going on, you know,
and they could just evoke national security and come up
with all some sort of talking baby rationale of how
(29:44):
this relates, you know, by furthering diversity. This furthers our
bottom line in terms of this compelling national goal.
Speaker 1 (29:52):
Yeah, you are absolutely, Can I say brilliant I have
been people probably have read Zach's work without knowing it.
Zach that study about the mainstream media's application of woke terminology,
that was Zach Like. There were so many times where
I'm like, oh, Zach's works being cited again over and
(30:12):
over and over again. You really deserve way more credit
than you have given so far because your work really
is top tier. And this this fun thing you've you've
done on the Naval Academy is it is a tour
de force. Really what is brilliant and it is on yourself.
Where can people go to get your stuff?
Speaker 2 (30:33):
Well, my substract is now used to be Zach's newsletter.
Now it's called Unwoke by the Numbers hopefully catchy enough.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
To remember Unwoke by the Numbers or.
Speaker 2 (30:45):
Maybe Zach's snowsletter is easier. But anyways, one woke by
the numbers Twitter handle isa G nine three.
Speaker 1 (30:55):
Two that should be shortened down, but as that's the
nine to Zach zac Ch and you can find your
substack Zach, Zach zac h remember the age, Zachgoldberg dot
substack dot dot com. I also dot Hepa dot com,
Zach Goldberg dot substock dot com. Zach, You're this is
(31:18):
incredible work. If you produce something else, I'd love to
have you on this podcast again. You're just I mean, brilliant, brilliant, brilliance.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
You want to say one final thing?
Speaker 1 (31:26):
Just sure?
Speaker 2 (31:27):
I mean, first of all, thanks for having me on.
Because the current moment, everybody's focused on time of seaportations,
what have you. You know, it's hard to get through
about the story are now I mean, wasn't great, but uh,
you know, everybody celebrating the post opening is premature. All
these policies are going to easily be snapped back in place,
so it's important. And that's what I'm when I get
(31:48):
off a few of them, to have to be talking
with somebody who's trying to insert a racial preferences. Ben
and Service academies into the twenty twenty six National Defense
Appropriation Acts. That'd be great be able to come on
the show and talk more about that.
Speaker 1 (32:02):
I should introduce you a few Congressmen and Senators that
I know and try to get that going because.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
This would be awesome.
Speaker 1 (32:07):
Really at Gilbert, thank you for being here. I really
really appreciate it. Thanks you having you're listening to It's
The Numbers Game with Ryan Gerdowski. We'll be right back
after this message for the Ask Me Anything segment where
you can email me about any somebody that I know
the matter, I know about, I know anything degree of
information about, or I could do the research for. Please
(32:29):
don't email it with sports because I don't know much
about it, but anything else email me Ryan at Numbers
Gamepodcast dot com. That is Ryan at Numbers Game Podcast
plural Numbers Numbers Gamepodcast dot com. I really look forward
it really helps his podcast by submitting questions on anything.
I got a question from a guy named Sam today
who said, who do you think is the worst member
(32:50):
of worst Republican member of Congress. This is the easiest,
easiest question in the world to answer. It is Maria
Salazar from Florida's I think thirty six district thirty seventh
district one of the two. I didn't look that up
before him.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
I should have.
Speaker 1 (33:05):
Marie Salazar is a former television host who very very
very well and it's forgotten now, but it did happen
a lot during the twenty sixteen election. She was kind
of always attacking Trump and saying that she was slated
to have interviews and he canceled because he was afraid
of her. And I think they did sit down at
one point, but she was on Bill O'Reilly at the time,
bashing Trump. Anyway, she ran for office in twenty twenty
(33:29):
and one. She flipped a Democratic seat, which many people
did not believe that was going to be Republican. But
as the coalitions has changed and as her district, which
is very heavily Hispanic has become more Republican, it's now
a super Republican seat. It's a seat that Trump won
by double digits, and this used to be a Democratic seat.
It is in South Florida, is in Miami proper, and
she is represented now. She had won her last election
(33:51):
in a landslide. This one wakes up morning, noon, and
night thinking about amnesty for illegal aliens, how to increase
legal immigration, how to give to make sure people aren't deported.
She's horrible. She's horrible on the issue. She's actually not
been super loud lately. But I have a story when
the last Congress was going on and Trump wasn't in office.
(34:12):
This is when Biden was in office, Stephen Miller, Trump's advisor,
Steven Miller, was giving a presentation. I heard this remember
of Congress, so I wasn't in the room, but this
came from a good source. Steven Miller was giving a
presentation and Maria Salis are attended, even though she was
not a member of the Republican Study Committee, and began
yelling and berating him about hating Hispanics and hating Latinos
(34:32):
and making all these attack and accusations against him. And
apparently he handled it very very well. He was a
perfect gentleman, calmed her down. She left the room and
immediately started calling reporters and bashing the Republican Study Committee
and Stephen Miller. There is a number of times where
people I know have been around her and she has
(34:52):
shown signs of being very unhinged, very crazy, and her
policies are terrible, and if there was a Republican primary her,
it's worth it because her seat is a super safe
Republican seat now, unlike more moderate members. So I don't
necessarily always agree with Brian Fitzpatrick. He still represents a
Kamala Harris district, although it has moved to the right.
He's fine for the seat that he holds. I have
no issue with a moderate Republican holding a holding a seat.
(35:16):
Murkowski is not great. Murkowski is a perfect example. He's
Murkowski from Alaska who begs Trump for things for Alaska.
He always gives it, and then she goes to the
media and attacks him. Maria Salazar is out there for
illegal immigrants. That's her prime constituency are non citizens. So
have a big problem with that. And if there's any
Republican who should not be in office in the House
Representatives is Maria Salazar from Florida. Thank you again for
(35:39):
listening for this episode of A numbers Game. Please like
and subscribe on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, wherever you
get your podcast. We'll see you on Thursday. Thank you
so much.
Host
Gill Alexander
Popular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!