Patterico's Pontifications

5/3/2010

The “Racist” E-Mail That Wasn’t

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:15 pm



For a few days now, I have been wanting to write a post about how wrong the entire approach of this Feministe post is — essentially trying to make it off-limits to have a discussion about possible genetic differences among races, even one that is purely fact-based. But I haven’t had the necessary time.

Eugene Volokh posts what I would have wanted to say, so I don’t have to.

27 Responses to “The “Racist” E-Mail That Wasn’t”

  1. Jill from Feministe did reprise the treatment accorded Larry Summers to the author of the email. The left, which claims it supports science, is actually full of nonscientific faith-based beliefs.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  2. I am going to denounce and condemn all of you right now.

    JD (150c8d)

  3. There is no denying that the most beautiful women in the world are from Sparta, Greece.

    Anybody want to disagree with that?

    On intelligence, what is the point? Are German Jews the smartest, proof Einstein? Or the British, proof Newton? Isn’t there a point in the curve where we can say “We’re all smart enough” and the rest are just wonderful exceptions to the general run of the human race?

    nk (db4a41)

  4. What I find amazing is the number of commenters who criticized the author of the email for expressing an unpopular opinion … when in fact the author did not actually express an opinion on the issue in question. The author merely stated a desire for more evidence before being asked to reach a conclusion.

    aunursa (2680ce)

  5. So Jill from Feministe must also condemn research into racially-linked diseases. Because the idea that genetics could make some races more susceptible to certain diseases is unfair and racist, so it must not be true. Mother Gaia would never allow that.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  6. My genetic disease is a protection against malaria. Shucks, forget Africans. If Eskimos had any brains, would they live in the Arctic? Why the heck don’t they travel south a little? We adapt to our environment and our measure is how well we do in it.

    nk (db4a41)

  7. Thing is, her email seemed to be a response to a criticism that she HAD ruled out the genetic possibility. In other words, she was taking the PC line, and was criticized for not allowing the genetic possibility (and the reveal about who she was talking to seems to further indicate this was the case).

    Gawker is really running hog wild with this, as they did with Kosinski’s beastiality pics (again, very dishonest to assert that). Anything for a few more pageclicks.

    I don’t really care what her views were. She should be able to have a speculation about touchy subjects in private with her classmates without having her career destroyed. Even if she did have a flawed view, since she’s talking about her views, the solution would be to explain the flaw (not that there is one in this case, really).

    Instead, so many, from the Dean to major organizations to many blogs, are deeming her to be a bigot who should not dare discuss this issue. That’s the story, for me. I am sure she will keep her prestigious clerkship, but I’m sorry she didn’t defend herself for her right to have a private conversation about tough issues. Too many people refuse to, and that’s why we have so much knee jerk sloppy thinking, such as her Dean’s.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  8. aunursa #4 – consider it in the light that most of us seem to project ourselves into how we respond/react to things like words …

    I’m of the “we are all of one race – with variations within that race” group – so I read the email’s words as I suspect you did – “What’s the evidence ?” …

    Since I know both explicit bigots and implicit (liberal guilt) bigots, I recognise both types in the commenters’ responses … I have yet to work out which is more noxious – the “white racist” – or the “black racist” …

    nk – so are you high-melanin-content ? Or are you high-“semitic”-content ? Or some other grouping of which I am not yet aware ? (grin)

    FWIW, the whole haplotypes and haplogroups discussion/research is truly fascinating …

    Alasdair (0e7b33)

  9. Eric Holder would call Jill from Feministe a coward.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  10. Alasdair – the anti-malaria genetic defect appears in populations through out Africa and into the Mediterranean basin. Basically anywhere that malaria is or has been endemic.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  11. The statement that the Dean of Harvard Law released has to be one of the most craven tongue baths ever awarded to a grievance group. What a truly weak and mealy-mouthed woman Dean Minow must be. Obama is sure to appoint her to a spot on the Court of Appeals — maybe she has vaulted to the top of the list for the Supreme Court opening — since she seems to be an kindred soul ideologically.

    You know what would have been an appropriate response from the dean? “This message was contained in a private email and Harvard Law will not have an institutional response to a student’s private message.”

    JVW (08e86a)

  12. Mr Fikes, my daughter was very much concerned about sickle-cell anemia for her son since he’s 50 percent black, but was very pleased to find out the chances absolutely plummeted due to the 50 percent that is non-black. So, “race”-based genetics is very important in determining how to go about dealing with people, medically speaking. And if “race”-based genetics plays a role in medicine, it very well could play a role in other theatres of science.

    Like Alasdair, I believe the human race is a single race. And, like Alasdair, I believe that single race has its own spectrum.

    I view issues like this, scientifically speaking, as multiple variants in gene-pool focusing. I suspect if everyone who was half Irish traced his or her lineage back seven generations, nearly all would find a connection in the family tree, thus a sharing of genetic material with its enhancements and drawbacks. Melanin content is one aspect of shared genetic material, obviously. But Melanin content was a result of generational adaptation to environmental input. And as people spread across the world from a single locale, the other genetic code went with them. Certain focal points in that genetic code would likely have been amplified while other points would likely have been downgraded over the generations.

    My meager understanding of statistics allows me to understand the concepts of outliers and standard deviations. My understanding of social structures allows me to accept the stereotype of the super-achieving Asian and the poorly-achieving Black. But I believe it is the social structure and not the genetic code which causes those statistically valid stereotypes. The Asian “die before dishonoring your family” approach forces the youngsters to excel in their studies while the Black culture in the US is heavily father-absent and “everyone owes me something because I can’t go it alone,” which enables the underachiever.

    Genetics could well play a major role in the question; I am not certain that is the case, but the social aspect dramatically skews the results downward. And liberals act as enablers in that downward skewing.

    John Hitchcock (9e8ad9)

  13. So genetics can control the color of your hair, height, skin color, facial features but some how have nothing to do with how your brain developes?

    Gerald A (d8fe52)

  14. The best way to stop discriminating by race is to stop discriminating by race. No affirmative action, no liberal ‘it’s ok you poor soul.’ Let’s just judge everone by the same objective yardstick.
    If you cannot overcome your cultural heritage to gain entry into a Top School, then too bad.

    pitchforksntorches (888cb1)

  15. I recommend “PC MD” by Dr. Sally Satel myself. Confronts the nonsense straight on.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  16. I recommend the approach Theoden took to Saruman in Lord of the Rings:

    “(F)or were you ten times as wise you would have no right to rule me and mine for your own profit as you desired . . .”

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  17. i wrote this over at althouse and i think it works here:

    Jesus H, Christ. This certainly settles the question of academic stupidity. What a bunch of well-educated morons.

    I have personally witnessed the academic panic that sets in on racial issues. I wrote a piece published where I was trying to explain how people in the founding era of the 14th Amendment saw equal opportunity. I wrote something pretty close to this: “the color a person’s skin is technically a difference, but it is not a significant difference.”

    So the day comes to sourcesite it, and a guy read that line and actually wrote in the margins, I sh– you not, “poppycock! There is no difference between black people and white people.” Yes, he really said poppycock. I don’t think I have ever heard that word in conversation before or since, except in movies and in telling this story to other people.

    So I called the guy out and said something close to this:

    Me: “Black people tend to be black, right?”

    Him: “Yes.”

    “And white people tend to be white, right?”

    “Yes.”

    “And that is technically a difference, right?”

    “Yes.”

    “But it doesn’t mean one group is dumber than the other, or less moral, right?”

    “Yes.”

    “So its technically a difference, but not a significant difference, right?”

    Grumble. “Yes.”

    Sheesh. Sheer panic.

    As for this 3L, nothing could be more unscientific than how they are behaving there..

    Here’s the facts. Intelligence is genetic. Smart people have smart kids. Even learning disabilities run in families, and I say that as a person who has learning disabilities.

    There is also no perfect IQ test. Trust me I have seen hundreds of them. intelligence is impossible to measure precisely for many of the same reasons why science is always a pain in the kiester when humans are involved. And certainly genetic based intelligence is doubly impossible to measure. Not to mention the problem of determining who belongs to what race. For instance, is our president actually black or white? As a social construct you can say he is black. But genetically I understand him to be equal portions of both.

    But if there was a perfect IQ test, and we could eliminate environmental factors, or somehow quantify them and determine the true genetic IQ of everyone on earth, and solve all of those other problems, I can assure you that the chances that the races would come out exactly equal are about slim and none. I would expect a point or two difference, in the average. And indeed I would expect it fluctuate. In one year Steven Hawkings dies and suddenly white people are slightly dumber on average than black people. Or Keith Olbermann might pass away, removing his black hole of intelligence from the stats.

    I would add that it is equally undeniable that there are people of both colors who are greatly above average in intelligence, and greatly below average.

    Now I take it as a matter of faith that the races are essentially equal—that the difference is a matter of inches rather than miles. I also believe that even if there was a significant difference, what of it? why use color as a proxy for what you are looking for, when you can look instead to the thing itself. If you want the smartest employee, then look for the smartest. Why bother with color at all? Seriously, if you have to hire a president of a media company, and you have on one hand the President of BET, a black man, and on the other hand, some random white dude from the mailroom, do you think their skin color is the best way to make that call?

    But what is disturbing here is it is just a statement of open mindedness. I may take the essential equality of the races as a matter of faith, but I recognize it as faith and not science. I am not going to fault someone for refusing to belong to my religion, be it Christianity or my faith in the equality of the races. And Harvard should be ashamed of itself for this latest crushing of dissenting thought.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  18. The folks as feministe can gin up Teh Outrage as good as anyone. Surely SEK will jump in and join them.

    JD (cc3aa7)

  19. A very thoughtful post in #17, A.W.

    GeneralMalaise (33f99a)

  20. Consider this, the law student who wrote the email laid out the facts of the case in very careful, deliberate and long winded manner.

    Yet apparently no student at Harvard, formerly thought to be home of best and the brightest,attempted to refute the facts of the case,as presented.

    No rather than disputing the facts, some students complained about the email because they were offended.

    At Harvard, so feelings trump facts?

    Is there no offended party at Harvard willing and able to refute the facts of the email as written?

    Does Harvard’s admission policy seek to avoid blacks smart enough to refute the facts of the email? If so what value is a degree from Harvard Law?

    DavidL (e74857)

  21. I took this away from the article: We can never know whether any race is genetically smarter than any other for 100% positive, because there may be another question asked that delves more correctly into the controversy, and thus the current truth is removed in favor of the new truth.

    The exception to this rule is Anthro. Global Warming. That science is settled! Just ask famous scientist Al Gore. There is no further debate needed or wanted. 100% certainty.

    TimothyJ (8fb937)

  22. #6, nk wrote “…If Eskimos had any brains, would they live in the Arctic? Why the heck don’t they travel south a little? We adapt to our environment and our measure is how well we do in it.”

    Brains isn’t the issue, Eskimos have plenty of brains, they’re smart enough to live and prosper in a place where nearly everyone else wouldn’t last from Christmas Eve to New Years Day. Any attempt to establish themselves further south would have brought them into conflict with more powerful Algonquin tribes.

    Eskimos live in the Arctic for essentially the same reason Bushmen live in the Kalahari Desert, or the Spirits of the Yellow Leaves live in the mountains of northern Thailand: to escape from more numerous and better armed competitors. It’s more or less the same the world over, the people who occupy the most marginal lands are the ones least able to defend themselves from hostile neighbors.

    nk, by your own measure, Eskimos have adapted themselves rather well to an extremely difficult environment.

    ropelight (858557)

  23. nk is an Eskimo-ist.

    JD (cc3aa7)

  24. One part of this issue is how questions of observable and testable facts should be handled, which is part I of Prof. Volokh’s discussion that is linked above. AW and others discuss this above.

    A second point has to do with “so what”?

    It must be a fundamental and unavoidable fact of a universe that functions according to established principles that truth will ultimately be exposed as truth, whether people like it or not. This apparently includes not only “laws of nature” but thinking and communication of humans in regards to what is “real” in the universe.

    In other words, intellectual dishonesty and logical fallacy ultimately get revealed.

    What is supposedly one of the major values held by the left? “Diversity” and “multiculturalism”. Well, this issue exposes how mistaken or dihonest they are in their thinking and conclusions. You see, they reveal that they inherently believe that to be “more intelligent” is important. Diversity in some things is good, multiple behaviors are good, but that is all secondary to the issue of intelligence. Since intelligence is so intimately linked with being human and being a worthwhile human, an important human, (for these folk), it would be a foundation-shattering event to find that the bell curve of “intelligence” is not identical for all “races”, i.e., totally independent of skin pigmentation.

    Now, for those who view everything from an evolutionary viewpoint, including the development of human behavior and social structure, this is an odd paradox, for it would seem that in certain environments specific physical attributes would promote survival, such as surviving malaria because of a genetic “irregularity”. Other physical attributes might provide a “survival advantage”, such as the proverbial “I don’t need to run faster than a bear, or a lion, I just need to run faster than you!”

    In other situations, perhaps physical characteristics within the human spectrum cannot give a survival advantage, but characteristics of mental function can.

    Now, if one truly was committed to the idea of “diversity”, one could embrace the importance of all people, as groups and as individuals, whether one was “smarter” than another or not. But this presents the leftist philosophy with a huge fundamental problem. That truly radical view would be consistent with the idea of inherent dignity or importance of the individual, and would be in diametric opposition to the idea that people are attributed worth according to what they contribute to society. It is easy to abort a “potential child” when it does not have inherent dignity or established utility, as it is the live “result of a botched abortion”, or the severly handicapped infant, or the infirm elderly, or the hordes of people that need to be sacrificed in the revolution for the “greater good”.

    It is the traditional JudeoChristian world view, or any worldview that holds to an inherent dignity of the human individual for whatever reason, that gives the intellectual foundation for true acceptance of each other, no matter what the skin coloration, the color of hair, lingusitic ability, mechanical aptitude, or whatever.

    But then the committed leftist cannot face evidence and logic that is contrary to their view, so they say “science” when they think it is to their advantage, and “how dare you” when necessary.

    It makes about much sense as saying the likely suspect in planting a bomb in Times Square is a Tea party member upset about ObamaCare.

    MD in Philly (ea3785)

  25. I’m not convinced that *whatever it is we measure with IQ tests* is all that important. Give me a focused, motivated, average IQ over brilliant unfocused and unmotivated any day.

    quasimodo (4af144)

  26. Sorry if I am keeping alive a played-out thread, but I found a very interesting post on NRO’s Phi Beta Cons blog which discussed another brouhaha at Harvard Law almost 20 years ago sparked by law students’ behavior. The author of the post, David French, makes a great point: As the campus PC crusaders continue to define offensiveness to include more trivial things, we are left wondering what next will lead to massive demonstrations and calls for job-offer rescissions. At what point does society (in this case law schools for crying out loud!) go back to the old standard of “what you said was very offensive, but you have every right to express your opinion” and “if I do not like your private behavior then my recourse is to shun you socially, not destroy you professionally”?

    JVW (08e86a)

  27. A.W. #17 – “… it is equally undeniable that there are people of both colors …” ?

    So you have something against those poor motley unfortunates who are condemned to be piebald, eh ?

    (grin)

    Actually, if I remember correctly, they (the mysterious they) finally came up with something to kill off the thingie that was destroying melanocytes (if my memory serves me correctly) …

    Alasdair (6ce78d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0941 secs.