Note: we at The Boyd Institute are currently running an essay contest with a top prize of $2,500 to answer the following question: “How can America improve its problem-solving capacity?”

If, after listening to this interview, you feel inspired to tackle that question, please go check out our article with more information. Submissions close March 15th.

Boyd Essay Contest: Call for Submissions — The Boyd Institute

The Lost Generation article.

Summary by Chatty

Timestamps & Topics

[00:00 – 01:30]

Jacob Savage is a ticket scalper, former aspiring screenwriter, and brilliant writer living in LA. He wrote a viral article for Compact called “The Lost Generation” about how DEI policies disproportionately affected younger white men in high-status industries.

[01:30 – 06:00] The Article’s Core Argument

Jacob lays out the thesis: DEI created real losers, specifically younger white men, while older white men in power didn’t have to move aside. He cites the stat that white male lower-level TV writers went from 48% to 11% in under a decade. The host shares a similar experience in his Stanford PhD program. They discuss how older professors seemed oblivious to (or unwilling to acknowledge) the shift.

[06:00 – 09:30] Responses & Pushback to the Article

Discussion of critics who conflated the total demographic composition of institutions (still majority white) with what was happening in the hiring pipeline (dramatically shifted). The host finds this conflation frustrating; Jacob notes nobody could point to a single institution that got more white and male.

[09:30 – 13:15] Categories of Response

Jacob breaks down three types of responses to his article:

1. Blue Sky deniers — “It’s not happening, everything is still racist.”

2. “It’s not that bad” / Matt Bruenig-type — Acknowledges reality but minimizes it using aggregate stats.

3. Centrist liberals (Noah Smith, Matt Yglesias types) — “We went too far.”

[13:15 – 16:45] Generational Experience Gap

Jacob discusses “stolen valor” among millennial women who invoke their mothers’ experiences with sexism. The host talks about how boomers still picture institutions (like UVA) as they were decades ago and refuse to update their mental models. Both agree there’s a huge experience gap between their generation and their parents’.

[16:45 – 21:15] Did the Article Change Minds?

Jacob thinks it reached people who already had doubts but didn’t convert ideologues. Discussion of a California ballot proposition to legalize affirmative action in hiring that was defeated 60-40 even in 2020. They discuss how affirmative action made more sense in an 85/15 demographic split but became untenable when expanded far beyond its original scope.

[21:15 – 28:00] Where Is This Heading? / Democratic Party Leadership

The host worries that the pipeline of people hired under DEI will become future decision-makers, perpetuating the cycle. Jacob argues you’d need something like a Democratic leader explicitly repudiating DEI — a “papal bull” moment — but doesn’t see it happening. They briefly discuss Gavin Newsom and other potential leaders.

[28:00 – 33:00] What Going Viral Was Like

Jacob describes the experience: glued to his phone for two weeks, an “out of body experience,” getting retweeted by J.D. Vance, emails from strangers — but still just picking up his kids from school like a normal person. The article went viral immediately but peaked over a few days. He waited for a substantive rebuttal but never found one.

[33:00 – 36:00] Writing After Going Viral

Jacob discusses the pressure of the follow-up. His next piece will be about kids’ books losing their moral storytelling — a deliberate reset to avoid chasing the viral high. He notes that despite tons of interest from editors and literary agents, not a single Hollywood person reached out about his screenwriting.

[36:00 – 41:30] Why Nobody in Hollywood Responded / Why Nobody Sues

Hollywood wants to pretend none of this happened. The trades ignored the article entirely. On litigation: suing means you’ll never work in the industry again, the legal outcome is uncertain, and there’s a shame culture around complaining — you’re seen as the guy who “couldn’t make it.”

[41:30 – 48:00] How DEI Changed Their Politics

Jacob says his politics “broke” in 2020. He compares how he feels about the Democratic Party to how a Black person might reasonably have felt about Republicans in the 1980s — they’d prefer he didn’t exist as a political actor. They discuss the Harris campaign’s tone-deaf outreach to men (the “real men” ad, the porn ad) and how Democrats divide voters into micro-segments instead of offering a universal message.

[48:00 – 52:30] The “Anti-DEI Czar” Hypothetical

Asked what he’d do with total power, Jacob says he wouldn’t need to change any laws — just enforce existing ones. He’d launch congressional investigations of academic institutions with discovery, put them under receivership, and create consequences (lawsuits, public hearings). He references the Singapore model of strictly punishing any racial rhetoric from any direction.

[52:30 – 58:00] Can Institutions Make Themselves Irrelevant?

Discussion of whether institutions will simply decline in relevance. Hollywood’s quality dropped partly due to DEI-driven hiring. Video games and academia pursued increasingly niche products that audiences rejected. Jacob sees some hope in new universities and media outlets arising outside the captured system, but notes Harvard has endless money and prestige to persist indefinitely.

[58:00 – 1:01:30] Declining Institutional Prestige & Signal

They discuss how a Harvard degree no longer signals what it once did. The New Yorker could swap 90% of its staff with Substack writers and most readers wouldn’t notice. More Harvard students now watch Asmongold than listen to NPR. Institutions still demand prestige but fewer people actually consume their output.