I’m Relaunching—and Here’s Why

A personal note about my new direction, my departure from the Manhattan Institute, and a major investigative report on racial preferences at the U.S. Naval Academy

When I launched this Substack back in 2021 (then simply called Zach’s Newsletter), my goal was straightforward: to share careful, data-driven analyses on controversial issues that others often shy away from. After publishing a couple of well-received pieces, I soon joined the Manhattan Institute as a policy analyst (eventually promoted to fellow), shifting my writing focus entirely to their platform, where I published actively through 2022 and 2023.

Then came 2024—and things got complicated.

For much of the past year, I’ve been immersed in research examining youth mental health, ideological trends, and the influence of social media. That work culminated in a book chapter for AEI and a comprehensive report recently published by the Manhattan Institute—which I plan to discuss here (and on X) soon in greater detail.

But the most significant project I’ve been working on in recent months is a thorough autopsy of a 2024 lawsuit you’ve probably never heard of: Students for Fair Admissions v. United States Naval Academy, a constitutional challenge to race-based admissions at U.S. service academies. A federal judge upheld those preferences in December 2024, in a ruling that, in my view, sets a deeply troubling precedent—one that could allow the military to indefinitely exempt itself from equal protection constraints simply by citing “national security.”

Today, I’m releasing a report that takes a hard, empirical look at how race-based admissions actually operated at the Naval Academy. Drawing on the public record of the case—including thousands of pages of filings, depositions, expert reports, and internal admissions data—it condenses the most important evidence into a single, accessible 100+ page analysis. The report critiques the court’s reasoning, examines the military’s “diversity rationale,” and outlines judicial, legislative, and executive strategies to ensure these policies don’t quietly return under a future administration.

I’ve always gravitated toward long-form, data-driven research—especially on complex or sensitive topics where the details really matter. This report is no exception. Given its scope and depth, I decided the best way to do it justice was to publish it independently—right here, on Unwoke by the Numbers, the newly renamed version of this Substack.

This report represents exactly the kind of rigorous, deeply researched project that defines my approach to scholarship and writing—an approach that doesn’t always align with institutional incentives to produce faster, shorter, or less controversial work. It’s one reason I’m no longer at the Manhattan Institute. My goal, as always, is to get the story right rather than fast. And this particular story has too much at stake—constitutional principles, military effectiveness, fairness in admissions—to be rushed or watered down.

If you’re looking for hot takes or surface-level commentary, this might not be the Substack for you. But if you’re interested in careful, methodical, data-driven analysis—especially when the findings challenge conventional wisdom or reveal uncomfortable truths—then welcome home.

I’m proud of this report, grateful for your readership, and excited about what’s next. I’ve begun pitching both short and long-form summary versions of the report to major media outlets—and will keep you posted on where they land. In the meantime, the full, detailed analysis is now live here—a report that brings long-hidden data and courtroom evidence into public view for the first time.

Given the scope of the material, I also plan to publish a series of follow-up articles right here on Unwoke by the Numbers—each diving deeper into specific themes, findings, or implications raised in the report. If you’re interested in the intersection of data, law, and public policy—especially when it challenges prevailing narratives—I hope you’ll stick around!