http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf

I guess I’d note the following – if members of any marginalized group explain the bias they personally face, there’s always more than one person who insists that they are too intellectual to accept “anecdata.” So when someone attempts to find some harder data there is always that one guy who insists the study is just too flawed to be valid because it doesn’t control for every “what-if” he can come up with.
Sure there is room to build on this work, to refine it and to investigate the conclusion further – that’s the point of peer review. No one’s asking you to accept this study as having every single answer on this topic, and it’s intellectually lazy to engage with any scientific work only in that framework. The process of scientific study is a matter of gaining data one experiment at a time, and testing conclusions with subsequent experiments that approach the issue from a slightly different angle. That’s actually the right way to do it.
Does this study seem to support the experiences that millions of individuals could and do describe? Yes. That’s only one solid reason the issue merits further study. Another is that millions of individuals have described things like this for a very long time and we’re only now getting around to looking for empirical data to convince people who don’t want to hear them.

France has a policy that doesn’t allow statistics based on racial criteria. There is at least one good reason for this (besides the good intentions not to label people). If you are going to allow publication/study of statistics based on racial criteria then they are potentially misleading if you are BIASED in what types of statistics you choose to (allow to) publish.

For instance, the above charts might suggest that Indians and Chinese are not well represented at universities, when the opposite is the case. But trying to discuss with someone why asians dominate in Berkeley admissions will soon lead to politically sensitive areas that could end up getting you labelled (by colleagues) in a potentially damaging way.

There is bias everywhere, particularly in left-wing blogs and publications

Indians are foreign? They’re Native Americans. Oops, wrong Indians. I actually thought it was talking about Indians as in Apache, Navajo, Choctaw etc.

And before someone accuses me of being politically incorrect, I’m with Chris Eyre who said that “Indians call Indians Indians”. (Full disclosure: I am part Indian.)

Every science became a real science the moment it learned to analyze simple systems first, and isolate interesting behavior before attempting more complex systems. Aristotle failed to get anything right in physics because he was trying to explain whole complicated systems at once (like you ask us to do). Galileo, on the other hand, succeeded because he said, “ignoring air resistance and friction and the curvature of the Earth…”

Reasonable people realise that you can’t analyse society in this stupid manner the same way you can’t analyse the weather in such a simple way (and make sensible predictions/conclusions)

Because it’s much more complicated than these stupid graphs attempt to show.