I remember very little about my childhood in the Soviet Union; I was only seven when I left. But one memory I have is being on a bus with one of my parents, and asking something about a conversation we had had at home, in which Stalin and possibly Lenin were mentioned as examples of dictators. My parent took me off the bus at the next stop, even though it wasn’t the place we were originally going.
Perhaps I have some of the details wrong (was it just Stalin, or also Lenin?); childhood memories remembered 35 years later are like that. I’m telling this to explain why I feel so strongly about it, based on my memories; my personal account does not affect the soundness (or unsoundness) of my arguments. But my sense from all I’ve heard is that this is exactly how life was like there, and that no-one who lived there in the 1970s would think the scenario at all improbable.
What’s more, this is so even though most people, including most Communists, knew that Stalin was of course a dictator. The government itself had acknowledged as much. Even Lenin was widely understood to have been a dictator in the sense of someone who didn’t govern through democratic means.
But it’s not the sort of thing that you’d want to say in public, or even to your friends in private. Sssh! — people might hear! Those who hear might draw deeper inferences about what else you might believe. This might get back to the place you work. You might be fired, or blacklisted. By the 1970s, you probably didn’t have to worry much about being shot, or being sent to Siberia; these were not the 1930s. But lost jobs, ruined careers — sure. And a forced public apology: well, of course, that might help a bit.
Now I hasten to say that the controversy at Harvard is only a pale echo of Soviet Communism. With luck, this student won’t have her career ruined, or even much affected. I’ve seen a public call for her to be expelled (a call made by a professor at a different university), but I doubt that this will happen. And even if some of the best future jobs are closed off to her, at least for a while, a Harvard Law diploma will get you to plenty of places. She doesn’t have to worry, I suspect, about not being able to feed herself or her future family.
Yet the public revelation of a private conversation; the public condemnation by management; the obvious danger of serious career ramifications; the apology, which I take it came out of a fear of those ramifications — all for daring to say to friends something that simply represents a basic scientific principle (the need to be open to the possibility that there are racial differences in intelligence, as one is open to other possibilities on other scientific questions) — that just sounded a little too familiar to me.
It’s a pale echo, but of something so bad that we should be wary even of pale echoes. Say, comrade, didn’t I see you reading The Bell Curve and the articles criticizing it? Would you say that this means you “do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent”? Tsk, tsk, comrade, I wonder what the Dean will say. But don’t worry! Perhaps if you publicly apologize, all will be forgiven.
Now of course all societies, even the freest, have their taboos. I’m deeply and constantly grateful to my parents for having brought me to a place that treats many fewer ideas as taboo than the Soviet Union did, or that nearly all societies throughout human history have done. And I understand why this taboo is indeed present in our society.
But that doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t make it right for me to sit quietly, enjoying my tenured professorship, while this is happening.
I say it again: The student’s e-mail expressed an openness to a possibility that has to be understood as a scientifically plausible possibility. Whatever one might suspect about any other beliefs the author might have, that is a highly unreliable suspicion (given that the e-mail is just a portion of a broader conversation, to the rest of which we were not privy), and one that cannot properly form the basis of the sort of public condemnation that the e-mail has received.
And whenever our society labels as taboo an openness to scientific possibilities, even possibilities that are undoubtedly fraught with possible bad consequences — whenever important institutions in our society publicly condemn people for their openness to such possibilities, against a background of possible career retaliation — our society makes itself less free, and makes its science less reliable.
Tim says:
Bravo.
Thank you for putting what so many of us here at HLS are afraid to say into print. This whole incident (especially the dean’s public crucifixion after a disingenuous reading of the original email ) makes me sick. The pursuit of truth shouldn’t be subverted because it would make some things easier to believe. That goes for religious dogma. That also goes for PC dogma.
Sincerely,
a very liberal 3L at HLS who nonetheless hates having to follow scripts and/or not study things because doing so could lead to uncomfortable realities.
April 30, 2010, 4:42 pmbobolinq says:
I think you misrepresent the student’s email. The email did not convey “an openness to a possibility that has to be understood as a scientifically plausible possibility,” as you say. This is what it said:
This conveys two possibilities: (1) African Americans are genetically less intelligent than whites; (2) African Americans are as intelligent as whites.
If the student were “open” to scientific possibilities, the student would recognize a third possibility: (3) African Americans are more intelligent than whites.
By allowing only two possibilities — that African Americans are as smart as, or dumber than (but not smarter than) whites — the student conveyed a racist presupposition about the abilities of African Americans, not mere openness to the possibility of genetic variation in traits that correlates to race (whatever that means).
April 30, 2010, 4:51 pmPlugInMonster says:
Wrong. Now all law firms do an immediate Google-search and they’ll instantly find out about this incident. She might as well become a janitor.
April 30, 2010, 4:55 pmDave Marney says:
The funny thing about thought crimes is that people often “obey” a taboo not out of any personal agreement with it, but merely because they think everybody else agrees with it. What will people think of me!?
So, it’s a form of public shaming. To cure political correctness, we must commit to being more intellectually shameless.
April 30, 2010, 4:56 pmruuffles says:
*chortles* Well that possibility is about as likely as a wise Latina being a better judge than a white man, isn’t it?
April 30, 2010, 4:57 pmCalderon says:
It’s a pale echo, but of something so bad that we should be wary even of pale echoes.
While I generally agree with you, and thought your other posts were well done, I think there’s simply a category difference between (1) a place where the government — with its official monopoly on force –can make you disappear or enslave you in a freezing wilderness because of your speech, and (2) a place where the consequences of speech are to get countered by a lot other speech, even speech that calls for other private actors to inflict negative consequences on the original speaker. To say that people acting as private individuals cannot condem the language of a person such as “Crimson DNA”, or cannot take legal actions not involving force against her, would seem to violate the rights of those people to their own speech and actions.
April 30, 2010, 4:57 pmPlugInMonster says:
An immediate boycott of Harvard is in the offing, methinks.
April 30, 2010, 4:57 pmPlugInMonster says:
And the rest of us real Americans have a right to condemn these PC-police as the bigoted, racist bigots they are.
April 30, 2010, 4:59 pmAngus says:
Actually, it probably would be considered a plus at some conservative firms.
April 30, 2010, 5:00 pmCDU says:
Remember, this was not an isolated email, it was a follow up to an earlier discussion with several other people. The possibilities she raised in the email are presumably the ones that were part of the earlier discussion. So she may not, in fact, be the one who originally defined the possibilities in those terms.
April 30, 2010, 5:06 pmAngus says:
My goodness, it’s remarkable to see the frenzy here by VC bloggers over this incident. In fact, none of the parties comes off good in the exchange. Self-absorbed girl writes email declaring she thinks blacks are genetically inferior. School panics and says she should say such things. Right wing bloggers freak and say this is Stalism, in the process trying to re-interpret the racism out of her letter.
Geez, that’s the beauty of the blogosphere — everyone can be outraged and wrong at the same time. And it seems to be THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN THE UNIVERSE…until the next MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN THE UNIVERSE comes along in a day or two.
April 30, 2010, 5:08 pmAnonsters says:
I would be more sympathetic to this if this person had any connection whatsoever to the scientific community, was engaged in scientific research, was pursuing a degree in science, anything science-related. She wasn’t. She’s a 3L, going to be a clerk for a federal judge. That’s it. This isn’t about openness to scientific possibilities, and to suggest that it is is extremely disingenuous. Rip off 4 long, hand-wringing posts when actual science is being foreclosed.
Protip: Harvard Law students are not in the “pursuit of truth.” They’re not scientists. They’re not researchers. They’re law students and legal academics. I presume that everyone there is manifestly unqualified to evaluate the scientific evidence one way or the other. It’s rebuttable. If they show me their scientific creds, I’ll listen. Until then, STFU.
April 30, 2010, 5:09 pmJAB says:
Amen x10^20
April 30, 2010, 5:10 pmlaw student says:
eh, there’s no such genetic thing as race (not in the sense that we colloquially describe race in the U.S.), so there’s that problem with this whole discussion.
April 30, 2010, 5:11 pmMalcolm Kirkpatrick says:
Trained physical anthropologists can distinguish regional varieties of humans (races) from skeletal anatomy or dentition. Regional varieties (races) of humans differ systematically in their immune response and digestive system function. The people who make the claim that nervous system function must have unique exemption from genetic drift and natural selection, must have ceased to evolve when humans first walked out of Africa, bear the buden of proof for their unusual claim, seems to me.
It makes sense that socialists (broadly speaking) will take offense at the claim that regional varieties (races) might differ systematically in some economically important characteristic, while classical liberals will not take offense. Classical liberals (libertarians, basically) accept that only monozygotic twins are “created equal” and that even these will diverge as they mature. If people negotiate their paths through life free of threats and interpersonal violence, where they find themselves is not anyone else’s business. On the other hand, to socialists, who think in terms of aggregates of humans, disproportionate representation of regional varieties (races) by income level or occupation must reflect bias by policy-makers.
No one I know befriends, dates, marries, or employs blacks, whites, asians, or Pacific Islanders. We befriend, date, marry, and employ individualls.
April 30, 2010, 5:12 pmruuffles says:
In her undergraduate days, she did some research with a sociology professor at Princeton, who, ironically, believes there is no such gap.
April 30, 2010, 5:15 pmAnonsters says:
Since when does undergraduate research in sociology equip one to comment on genetics?
And by the way, there is an enormous scientific literature out there on genetics and “race.” I’m in law school, so I have the luxury of firing up our school’s databases and searching through them.
Why didn’t EV do that before posting 4 long-winded posts about the propriety or accuracy of what this student had to say? If he did, why doesn’t he share with us some of what he thought were the salient positions, based on the research?
Right. Because it’s not about the science, is it?
Then quit the hand-wringing.
April 30, 2010, 5:19 pmq says:
I suppose we should also stop debating about cap-in-trade or health care, because none of us have the credentials to evaluate the scientific evidence on global warming or the evidence on health outcomes.
We might be unqualified to do research, but we certainly are not unqualified to know which scientific theories are more likely to be true. I can say with confidence that evolution and global warming are likely to be true, and base my discussions around that. I can also say with confidence that there is a racial gap in IQ-measured intelligence and that research on why this is so is ongoing and discussion should not be stifled, even amongst non-scientists.
April 30, 2010, 5:21 pmanguslander says:
Bobolinq,
That really looks more like a slip of the pen brought on by the fact that the question they were probably (or may well have been) considering – why do blacks do less well than whites in school – rivets the mind on two alternatives: blacks are, on average, less intelligent or blacks are as intelligent but the environment does not enable them to live up to their potential. To be sure, the third possibility is a possibility, but it is not one that naturally comes to mind when you’re thinking about why blacks have more trouble in school. I’d cut her a break on that one.
Especially given she was continuing a dinner bull-session, she was not trying to make an authoritative statement. That’s what’s absurd about this whole thing. I can guarantee everybody at HLS has engaged in some dinner bull-session on a Big Topic that they are ill-equipped to answer. That is what curious, clever people do. We do not normally hold people responsible for uttering falsehoods (or even monstrosities – I once, in a session analogous, I’d imagine, to the one in which this woman got thrown under the bus, defended the proposition that pederasty was morally permissible) in conversations like that, nor in the emails that, if it was fun enough, invariably follow.
It is, in fact, expected that you’ll utter a falsehood. The main point of these bull-sessions is the argument. It’s a mental exercise in which each competes to gin up half-plausible just so stories, half-thought-through methodological principles, etc. just to see how well they can do it. The all-things-considered plausibility of the positions staked is manifestly not the point.
The bottom line – a pretty prosaic bottom line – is nobody should be saddled with a serious commitment to a position argued at dinner, or in its aftermath. And nobody should have their dinner bull-session parsed to see what it says about their hidden presuppositions. That’s pop psychology gone horribly, horribly creepy.
April 30, 2010, 5:22 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
The amusing thing is that in denouncing one sin, Harvard’s bien-pensants have committed another. If I may quote myself from another forum:
April 30, 2010, 5:22 pmRaven says:
I always very much appreciate your posts of freedom of speech and the repercussions that people face for exercising that right. I rarely comment, but I find the refusal to consider scientific possiblities (for the sake of political correctness, to further your career, etc.) to be really abhorrent. This is very much the equivalent of a creationist demanding that no research into the possibility of evolution should be done, because the creationist might not like the result.
April 30, 2010, 5:24 pmHats off to you, EV, for separating the subject matter from the idea of freedom of expression. You always seem to do a fine job of this, even if you find the expression itself abhorrent (which I don’t think it was in this case). It should never be anathema to seek knowledge and truth, whether or not the truth is what we might desire.
q says:
Why don’t you quit the hand-wringing over his hand-wringing? In fact, Eugene seems more focused on the institution of allowing scientific discourse, not on the actual claims. But we can still have an honest debate about the actual claims without being evolutionary biologists.
Otherwise, perhaps next time there is ever a topic that must be rooted in scientific evidence (which is pretty much every topic in existence), then I will likewise tell you to shut up.
April 30, 2010, 5:24 pmCalderon says:
I wouldn’t use quite those words, but I agree that people have the right to (and, in my opinion, should) push back against the backlash toward her as Prof. Volokh has done in his posts.
April 30, 2010, 5:24 pmMalcolm Kirkpatrick says:
There’s a good example of bias right there. I, on the other hand, will presume that anyone age 12 and up is competent to read evolutionary biology and experimental psychology and comprehend the arguments, until s/he demonstrates otherwise.
April 30, 2010, 5:25 pmAngus says:
Sure, and if someone says: “My conclusion is that it is genetics, and only definitive scientific proof will sway my belief” we are not free to criticize the person?
Now, the Dean should not have gotten involved in any way, and any disciplinary action the University might take (there has been none yet) should be fought against. However, why should the girl be immune to criticism?
April 30, 2010, 5:25 pmD says:
Anonsters,
Are you saying that unless someone is a scientist, then they can’t ever discuss science? If someone isn’t a lawyer, should they never talk about legal issues?
April 30, 2010, 5:26 pmPlugInMonster says:
Liberals believe that conservatives do not even have the right to conduct private conversations without being persecuted. We are living in truly frightening times. The Stalinization of America has now begun.
April 30, 2010, 5:27 pmPlugInMonster says:
Liberals will look for any excuse to persecute a conservative. Scoundrels, every last one of them.
April 30, 2010, 5:28 pmAnonsters says:
Because it’s not about the scientific discourse. It’s about discourse on scientific discourse, covered over as about scientific discourse itself. The hand-wringing is over the possibility that scientific questions could be foreclosed by how people react when someone takes a particular position on a scientific issue. Only that’s not what this whole thing is about.
That’s pretty ridiculous, actually.
April 30, 2010, 5:29 pmAngus says:
Let’s try an exercise and see if you realize how stupid this sounds.
Conservatives will look for any excuse to excuse racism. Bigots, every last one of them.
Now, see how effective that technique is in making an argument?
April 30, 2010, 5:30 pmCDU says:
All people are created equal, but only the select few are entitled to talk about it?
April 30, 2010, 5:33 pmPlugInMonster says:
Anyone espousing “Social Justice” should be confined to a rubber room.
April 30, 2010, 5:33 pmMalcolm Kirkpatrick says:
No. Just generous.
April 30, 2010, 5:34 pmAnonsters says:
So now “all people are created equal” = “all people have the same level of training and understanding of complex scientific subfields?”
I’m super-liberal, but not even I would endorse that kind of equalitarianism.
April 30, 2010, 5:35 pmERH says:
Here’s the thing. Any neutral reading of the email reveals the writer has some pretty backwards ideas on race (I’ll accept that blacks are genetically equal when you prove it to me). Her defenders fall into three categories: 1) those who implicitly or explicitly agree with her ideas, 2) free speech absolutists, 3) those who share certain common socio-economic-educational factors with her.
The fact that the writer of the email has sent a followup apologizing and clarifying that she doesn’t believe that blacks are inferior should be enough end the conversation. Instead we seem now to focus on whether or not forwarding the email, and the subsequent hoo-haa are somehow the equivalent of having the KGB running around. Which of course it is not. The girls about to go clerk at the 9th Circuit. If she’s a racist and bold enough to put such thoughts into email, the public deserves to know.
April 30, 2010, 5:35 pmq says:
Are laymen no longer allowed to discuss controversial scientific topics? And I don’t really believe that many of those who wish to stifle her speech by punishing her are making such a subtle distinction. Even if she was a scientist qualified to research the issue and wrote this e-mail to discuss plausible scientific outcomes, would the outrage have been any less?
Eugene is right to worry about the motivations of those wishing to stifle her speech, because it’s likely those same people would wish to stifle the speech of a qualified research scientist.
April 30, 2010, 5:35 pmwm13 says:
There is certainly a category difference, but I for one would prefer not to live in a society in which Harvard deans said things like, “Those who profess Judaism are despicable morons,” or in which leaders of the bar urged law firms not to hire people who profess Judaism, even though I agree that such behavior would be categorically from the government killing those who profess Judaism.
April 30, 2010, 5:36 pmAnonsters says:
And I know it’s going to make a lot of armchair scientists out there unhappy, but yes, I do in fact believe that it requires either specialized education and training, or a hell of a side-commitment as an amateur, to be able to intelligently discuss complex scientific questions. And no, I’m really not interested in what people who have neither (the education or the amateur commitment) have to say about the science. Sorry. It’s just like I don’t give a shit what Joe the Plumber thinks about the physics of black holes. Scientific questions are not great candidates for public square debate. We have plenty of other issues we can discuss and debate. Leave science to the scientists.
Now, if you want to talk about what the science implies in terms of what social policies we should adopt, that’s a separate question, and certainly everyone should feel free and unconstrained to contribute to that debate. (Provided, of course, that they’re familiar with what the science actually says, as opposed to what they think it says, or what they want it to say.)
Note that the latter (implications of science for social policy/politics) is not in issue here. This whole e-mail stink is about some random 3L opining, a priori, from her Harvard armchair about actual science.
April 30, 2010, 5:40 pmq says:
What backwards ideas? It’s prima facie obvious that blacks are not genetically equal with whites who are not genetically equal with Asians etc. It’s also clear that there are racial gaps in IQ tests and achievement. It’s also possible that intelligence is partly explained by genetics.
She simply takes these propositions and says it leads to the plausible conclusion that the racial gap is explained partly by genetics rather than entirely environmental factors. In what way is this backwards?
Also, if the achievement gap is explained partly by genetics, wouldn’t this have a profound effect on our policies that assume we are a meritocracy?
April 30, 2010, 5:40 pmAnonsters says:
Wrong. At least as applied to me.
April 30, 2010, 5:41 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Ah, good old credentialism. Look, if scientific research can’t be rationally analysed then it’s irrational: and lots of fields train people in rational analysis. So either (some) non-scientists can form valid opinions about scientific research or scientists are some kind of mystic priesthood. Your choice.
April 30, 2010, 5:42 pmAnonsters says:
That’s the problem. What’s “prima facie obvious” to you likely has no basis in, you know, actual genetics. For Christ’s sake, please learn something before you spout off shit.
April 30, 2010, 5:43 pmERH says:
If you take this from the email:
I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances.
and this
Everyone wants someone to take 100 white infants and 100 African American ones and raise them in Disney utopia and prove once and for all that we are all equal on every dimension, or at least the really important ones like intelligence. I am merely not 100% convinced that this is the case.
It seems clear that she does not believe that blacks are on average as intelligent as whites. However, as I stated it seems she has issued an apology and stated that she does not believe that to be the case and I take her at her word.
April 30, 2010, 5:45 pmwm13 says:
So when our friend Mark Field, or the dean of Harvard Law School, say there’s no evidence for genetically based black intellectual inferiority, anonsters condemns their statements?
April 30, 2010, 5:47 pmAnonsters says:
I’m not likely to take their word for it, no.
I’ll go look at the actual science being done, not what people on blogs think.
I know, it’s shocking. I don’t trust random blog commenters, or random law school students, to accurately characterize or otherwise report scientific findings. Imagine that.
April 30, 2010, 5:50 pmAnony says:
This is a response to those who are arguing that she is a racist for closing off the possibility that blacks are more intelligent than whites. I believe that this is an unfair criticism of her for three reasons.
1. The two possibilities she presents are the ones that are discussed in the actual academic literature. If she was trying to give her position on the issue it makes perfect sense that she would speak in the same terms that experts would use.
April 30, 2010, 5:51 pm2. The reason that academics speak of those two possibilities and not about the third possibility is that there is a massive achievement gap between blacks and whites. It is not at all plausible or reasonable to believe that blacks could be more intelligent than whites….explaining away the gap without reference to genetic causes is already more difficult than the posters on this forum realize. All of the arguments used to explain it away preclude the ability of blacks to be more intelligent than whites because they deny that possibility that one “race” can be more intelligent than another race. To open up the possibility that one race is more intelligent than other race would destroy these theories completely. Given this information of course she did not list the third possibility.
3. She was following her a conversation she had a dinner. Of course valid things would be left out (though this is not a valid point so this argument is moor).
Anonsters says:
And what’s more, notice the difference between the two. That is, the difference between reporting what scientific studies have purported to show, and attempting to engage, although manifestly unqualified, in the substantive scientific debate.
April 30, 2010, 5:53 pmBlue says:
Well, that would be relevent if she had been reporting scientific findings. Seeing as she didn’t, you’re way off base.
April 30, 2010, 5:57 pmMalcolm Kirkpatrick says:
“It’s just like I don’t give a shit what Joe the Plumber thinks about the physics of black holes.”
April 30, 2010, 5:58 pmYour loss. How ’bout Albert (Einstein) the patent clerk or George (Boole) the school teacher or Charles (Darwin) the theology student and gentleman’s companion?
Anonsters says:
I wasn’t referring to Harvardgirl. I’m a random law school student. So it’s sort of a way of saying, “I wouldn’t trust random blog commenters, or anyone else who doesn’t have the education or training in science or a substantial background in it (from whatever source).”
April 30, 2010, 6:00 pmq says:
Commendable, but it’s unlikely others are as principled as you are and are as nuanced about this issue.
What? Are you really saying there are no genetic differences across the races? Why am I more susceptible to HepB then?
Rereading my comment, I suppose it could be interpreted that I’m talking about “genetic equality” in intelligence. But I wasn’t, I’m talking about genetic equality in toto, which is simply untrue.
April 30, 2010, 6:01 pmAnonsters says:
Funny thing about all those. They all had some qualifications. Some professional, some substantial “amateur” qualifications. Notice I didn’t foreclose amateur scientists.
April 30, 2010, 6:02 pmq says:
Blacks on average are not as “intelligent” (or whatever IQ measures) as whites, this is undisputed. What she’s actually saying is that she believes it’s possible this difference is explained more by genetic rather than environmental factors. In what way is this backwards?
April 30, 2010, 6:04 pmAnonsters says:
First, I think you’re using “equality” when you mean “identity.”
Second, here’s a blurb of an abstract from the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, article: “Race: Genetic Aspects:”
April 30, 2010, 6:05 pmMalcolm Kirkpatrick says:
Okay. You would not make unfounded criticisms. I must presume, then, that your spies followed this law student from intermediate school through college, and observed all her library loans and Borders purchases, to deduce that she’s not qualified to discuss the possible evolutionary origins of racial differences in nervous system function, right?
April 30, 2010, 6:11 pmq says:
“genetic equality” was a term ERH was using, which I also used for the sake of better communication.
Thanks for the abstract, it pretty much aligns with my thoughts on the matter.
April 30, 2010, 6:12 pmERH says:
Do you believe iq measures overall intelligence. Neither do I. But in her original email ms grace seems to believe that not only are blacks not equal but inferior.
April 30, 2010, 6:12 pmAnonsters says:
Um, from what you’ve said above, I don’t think so.
You appear to think race is some hard-and-fast, genetically-based fact. From what I can tell, scientists have pretty much shitcanned that idea.
April 30, 2010, 6:14 pmCDU says:
So, one has to have “the same level of training and understanding of complex scientific subfields” to discuss scientific ideas? Where, pray tell, is the next generation of scientists going to come from if we confine the discussion of science to the experts? How do we convince the public to fund scientific research if they are not fit to discuss the results? How is scientific knowledge going to guide policy if only the high priests are deemed worthy to discuss it?
Science is far too important to be left to scientists.
April 30, 2010, 6:17 pmPatent Lawyer says:
And in fact, her undergraduate background would appear highly relevant here; a Sociology major who worked with a professor in her department on research concerning racial differences and achievement gaps. I’d take her as an expert over most of you–certainly over Anonsters. I’ve seen people with less relevant expertise called as expert witnesses in patent cases.
April 30, 2010, 6:19 pmq says:
You appear to take the least charitable interpretation of those you are arguing against. I’m well aware that race is a social construct based on external factors, and someone considered “black” could very well have more in common genetically with the average white person than the average black person.
If anything I said implied that racially-correlated genetic differences are absolute, then I take it back.
April 30, 2010, 6:21 pmAnonsters says:
Sociology =/= genetics. Far from it.
April 30, 2010, 6:24 pmq says:
I believe IQ measures some aspect of intelligence, and is currently the best method of testing what we normally consider is “intelligence.” This is more of a linguistic debate, though. Let’s accept that IQ doesn’t measure “overall intelligence.” We should still care about IQ scores because they are correlated with achievement. And that’s ultimately what we should care about.
April 30, 2010, 6:25 pmNicole says:
Another HLS 3L, and I just wanted to say thank you for posting this as well. Too many of us have been having many of the same thoughts about the reactions to this but were too scared to say anything because of the very aggressive, rather one-sided responses.
April 30, 2010, 6:31 pmERH says:
If you believe iq correlates with achievement I would invite you to examine my subpar gpa.
April 30, 2010, 6:32 pmMatthewM says:
Anonster,
Please provide us with your CV, your scientific publications, and your qualifications for discussing genetics.
Otherwise, shut up.
April 30, 2010, 6:35 pmAnonsters says:
Dear Scared HLS 3Ls:
Sack up.
Sincerely,
A non-Ivy 3L.
April 30, 2010, 6:36 pmq says:
The correlation coefficient is obviously not 1. And this isn’t something I “believe,” this is something I know is true.
April 30, 2010, 6:37 pmNicole says:
Touché.
April 30, 2010, 6:50 pmblank says:
EV-this is all wonderful commentary. The points in all of your 4 posts are somewhat obvious-but very well spoken and spoken by someone we can all respect.
I hope the student in question reads this stuff. In fact I would suggest you contact her personally.
April 30, 2010, 7:07 pmMark Field says:
Forget the Harvard Dean. I, however, am unimpeachable.
April 30, 2010, 7:11 pmMatt says:
What qualifies you to talk about this under your own criteria?
April 30, 2010, 7:11 pmAnonsters says:
I’m merely reporting what actual scientists have said (as in, I literally cut and pasted from an article germane to the topic). I’m not trying to debate the merits of it, or conduct thought experiments, or wrestle over the substantive scientific evidence.
Anyway, I probably stated my position a touch too strongly initially.
April 30, 2010, 7:16 pmToday's Tom Sawyer says:
Under Anonster’s standards, he should probably be quiet about the law too, since he is only a student and not a professional or expert on the subject matter yet. Under his credentialing or substantial hobby standard, he isn’t qualified to say anything about the law until he passes the bar and/or is published in multiple peer reviewed journals extensively (which, given the tendencies of law reviews not to be peer-reviewed, he’s out of luck with any possible student notes). Even then, he is only qualified to speak about the law in the state where he passed the bar or the particular area of law in which he is published. This would mean that any statements he made about Constitutional Law should be considered null and void, since that would require him being admitted to the Supreme Court Bar. An extreme example: One should not talk about how pretty flowers are unless they are a licensed florist. Otherwise, he’s just engaging in a hypocritical double-standard meant to confirm his own pre-disposed biases against certain viewpoints.
April 30, 2010, 7:17 pmAnonsters says:
@Today’s Tom Sawyer: Except that the law isn’t science, is it? History isn’t science, either. Either is philosophy (although philosophy can, admittedly, be more difficult than certain other disciplines). Either is literature. Either is… you get the point. I hope.
April 30, 2010, 7:21 pmToday's Tom Sawyer says:
By what standard are you ruling something to be a science or unscience? And to be honest with you, natural philosophy has gotten uppity in the modern age, thinking it’s so much better than normal philosophy.
April 30, 2010, 7:33 pmAnonsters says:
The applicability of the[/some version of the] scientific method is a nice place to start.
Cute.
April 30, 2010, 7:37 pmCareless says:
You and Anonsters both seem to have taken Lewtonin’s Fallacy and thinking derived from it as meaningful. No, a random person of European ancestry will never be more genetically similar to a person of African ancestry (absent us having a significantly mixed-race person in the test). It is, however, possible that with a limited number of loci tested that the test would turn out that way.
April 30, 2010, 7:44 pmToday's Tom Sawyer says:
@Anonster
Hypothesis testing:
H0: My client is not guilty/not liable.
H1: My client is guilty/liable.
The critical value for rejection of H0 is factors A, B, and C.
This test value (factors in this case) are A, B, and D.
Thus, we fail to reject the null hypothesis, and our client is therefore not guilty.
April 30, 2010, 7:47 pmJ says:
Thank you for providing a measured and reasoned response to this, especially the dean’s message.
A tenured and well-respected professor will at least provide some relief to the general hysteria emanating from this incident.
April 30, 2010, 7:48 pmAnonsters says:
@Today’s Tom Sawyer:
Nice try.
April 30, 2010, 7:58 pmGainesvilleGuest says:
I have been a student at a major research university for the past seven years, the last three at the law school, and this series of posts is the first time I have seen tenure used for its intended purpose.
April 30, 2010, 8:01 pmKazinski says:
Anonsters,
So much for Academic Freedom. We’ll have a inner circle that will decide what the science says. No debate will be allowed, at least in Universities.
Then the Social Scientists will want the same status, and then we won’t be able to debate Social Science in the universities.
Then of course the Economists will put their foot down, and make sure that economics can only be discussed within the framework of academic orthodoxy.
And we will know when we’ve reached the end stage when the football coach insists that the student body, or unqualified professors are not allowed to criticize or even discuss the football teams performance because they are “manifestly unqualified to evaluate the
April 30, 2010, 8:07 pmscientific evidenceplay calling one way or the other.”Today's Tom Sawyer says:
I did more formal hypothesis testing in that example than most people do before writing their paper….I was once under the impression that methodology meant something to researchers, but all anyone cares about is the conclusion. Methodology is how you attack a conclusion you don’t like…. just like how people abuse the rules of rhetoric and formal logic to avoid having to discuss a claim on its merits.
April 30, 2010, 8:11 pmRandomReader says:
How many times do Anonster’s laughable “arguments” have to get thoroughly destroyed before he gives up?
April 30, 2010, 8:46 pm*continues lurking*
Mark Field says:
I’m sure just once will suffice.
April 30, 2010, 9:00 pmresh says:
I’m thinkin’ beer summit.
April 30, 2010, 9:03 pmneurodoc says:
Natan Sharansky, another Jew born in Ukraine, has a childhood memory very similar to yours. He recalls that he was 5-years-old when Stalin died. His parents were understandably very happy, but they drummed it into little Natan that at school he had to cry just as intensely as his teachers and the other children were crying.
(BTW, do you remember what your parent said to you once you were off the bus? Have you asked them if they remember the incident?)
April 30, 2010, 10:12 pmCato The Elder says:
How many others are waiting for Anonsters to dazzle us with his knowledge on IQ, human genetics, heritability, seeing how bold he is in pronouncing judgment on those who lack the competence he so manifestly possesses? (Shhhh, this isn’t some ignorant cesspool on the Internet where you can take scientific positions on controversial topic without linking cites and evidence.) In the meantime, laymen who want judge whether the HLS student had a valid scientific position can skim through this blogger’s review of the available evidence here. I read a rather trenchant critique of the hereditarian position this week just his week in fact, but if I were before that asked to give odds, at least against the purely environmental position explaining the IQ deficits, I would have easily bet against it at 2:1.
April 30, 2010, 10:55 pmblender says:
“Wrong. Now all law firms do an immediate Google-search and they’ll instantly find out about this incident. She might as well become a janitor.”
Larry Summers seems to have done alright for himself.
April 30, 2010, 11:06 pmleo marvin says:
Anonsters,
As I said in another thread, bigots obviously revel in the sort of question Grace discusses in her e-mail. But the controversy over questions like that is rooted in our zeitgeist, so it’s inevitable some people will wonder about them innocently. (Yes, I’d say that about almost any question associated with a vile stereotype). Moreover, if being scientifically untrained disqualifies us from speculating intelligently on complicated scientific questions — something I don’t dispute — doesn’t that make uncertainty the only logical position for us dummies to hold on such questions?
For the reasons Orin explained I’m inclined to give Grace the benefit of the doubt on one, out of context, meant to be private e-mail. That said, some people, including Mark Field, whose judgment I trust, say there’s other evidence that’s damning. If so, then damn her. But either way, isn’t what I understand to be EV’s basic proposition valid, i.e., that we shouldn’t allow our proper reluctance to assist coded racist attacks stop us from admitting there are questions about which we don’t have all the answers?
April 30, 2010, 11:17 pmGainesvilleGuest says:
He was a former Treasury secretary, the President of Harvard University, and a multi-millionaire. She’s a recent graduate looking for an entry level job in a terrible economy. That’s not exactly an apples to apples comparison.
April 30, 2010, 11:19 pmAngus says:
She’s already got a prestigious clerkship in the bag, and some conservative law firms will see her statement and the controversy as a plus rather than a minus. Indeed, conservatives have rallied to her defense so strongly that I’d bet she gets a better job coming out of this than she otherwise would have.
April 30, 2010, 11:50 pmMark Field says:
Sorry if I left that impression, but no, I don’t have any special knowledge here beyond the email itself. I’ve drawn my conclusions about the student’s views from that source alone.
In all the discussion at ATL, some of the student’s classmates have suggested that this email is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this student’s views on race, but I don’t credit stuff like that.
May 1, 2010, 12:08 amKazinski says:
I hope she has the fortitude to ride this one out til the end of the term. I don’t think she has to worry about Kozinski pulling the rug out from underneath her. But she must be under tremendous pressure.
May 1, 2010, 3:51 amRob says:
BS. If you didn’t care about the opinions of untrained people, you wouldn’t be arguing on the internet. You’d be ignoring us.
Ah. So I guess you have specialized education and training required to intelligently discuss complex scientific questions?
oh… then let me quote a previous poster:
Oh, was that you saying that law students are ‘manifestly unqualified’ to talk about science? And you’re a law student? Interesting…
May 1, 2010, 3:53 amyankee says:
She’s already got an entry level job (and a much better one than I do).
She could probably get herself made a “Fellow” at the Heritage Foundation today.
May 1, 2010, 6:14 amlibertariansoldier says:
Mark Field:
May 1, 2010, 7:57 am“Forget the Harvard Dean. I, however, am unimpeachable.”
Thread winner–for both sentences.
Sara says:
Well done, EV. You just accused this woman of being a coward and a liar, at the same time. With friends like you . . .
May 1, 2010, 9:07 amSara says:
It is the end of the term, isn’t it?
May 1, 2010, 9:26 amCalderon says:
Would you like to name any of those “conservative law firms” for us? Most large law firms avoid controversies except when those controversies are inevitable in the course of defending their clients. Moreover, most large law firms are very focused on diversity, have diverse teams of lawyers for their matters, and so forth. Hiring her is not going to advance any of these goals, or make the large law firm’s jobs of getting clients any easier.
May 1, 2010, 9:27 amMike McDougal says:
True or False: There are correlations other than -1.0, 0.0, and 1.0.
May 1, 2010, 9:35 amwm13 says:
Let’s not confuse steak and sizzle, or truth and lies for that matter. Most large law firms have a big statement about diversity on their website, gazillions of officially-adopted policies about diversity, diversity committees up the wazoo, etc. Most of them, however, could not muster a racially diverse team of attorneys to prepare an incumbency certificate.
There are several popular responses. Florida-based firms often have a fair number of Cuban-American lawyers, which they tout endlessly. (As if that had any connection to America’s racial history or problems.) Also, if you count women and gays, lots of law firms are diverse. (Then again, so is the English monarchy, for what it’s worth.) Generally, most firms just push on with endless committees and papers and policy statements, but not with, you know, actual black lawyers.
May 1, 2010, 2:14 pmMark Field says:
What wm13 says is all too true.
May 1, 2010, 2:31 pmChris Travers says:
There are three major problems here:
1) The “races” you speak about are MUCH more granular than the “races” most people speak about.
2) More recently, some aspects of craniometry, etc. have come under additional scrutiny. It seems that skull metrics can be in part affected by environmental factors and so one cannot simply draw of the conclusions that that have been typically drawn from it in the past. While it’s been long acknowledged that pots aren’t people, it’s becoming clear that skull forms aren’t peoples.
3) Whether divergence represents superiority in a general sense suggests a very narrow definition of intelligence. One could presumably come up with other definitions of intelligence where the results would be reversed.
This is on top of the basic difficulties regarding human intelligence and its nexus to culture and language.
May 1, 2010, 5:52 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
I’ve been predicting for years that ‘learning-resistance intelligence’ will someday become the the psychometric community’s preferred term for stupidity.
May 1, 2010, 6:15 pmBryan Willman says:
Silly folks, this whole debate is not about intelligence, not about race, not even about political correctness.
It’s about (a) the lie that if somehow “everybody” treats “everybody” as “equals” then the members of groups that have fared not-so-well will then at last have truly equal options through life.
And (b) if you are a member of such a group and have had this sort thing rubbed on your like burning sandpaper for centuries, you will naturally be upset about it, since you and members of your group have long ago learned that “so what?” is answered with millions of small and large very real put-downs and obstructions.
As touchy as (b) is, (a) is the real invisible elephant in the room. Members of all sorts of advantaged groups will find all sorts of ways to keep those advantages. The shrewd ones will keep those advantages while complying with every legal and ethical rule of fairness.
May 1, 2010, 6:31 pmChris Travers says:
I think it’s also about the fact that many people who profess to support equal opportunities in fact don’t treat individuals of other groups as full human beings. The Dean’s letter on this issue provides a window into Harvard, not as a great university of higher learning, but as a community torn apart by politics of race (which fundamentally comes down to the groups you mention).
May 1, 2010, 9:42 pmChris Travers says:
BTW, the Wikipedia article on race and intelligence is worth reading.
However, it seems to me that there is a politically correct way of approaching this topic…
“I cannot rule out the possibility that Asians may be genetically predisposed to a higher intelligence than Caucasians……”
May 1, 2010, 9:48 pmMalcolm Kirkpatrick says:
Chris,
I do not see how anything you wrote rebuts my points. The granularity of groups, defined by phenotypically expressed genetic markers, depends on the markers. Some are broad, some are fine.
I’ll certainly accept that binding your infant to a papoose carrying board will flatten the back of the skull, and binding the feet of female toddlers will fold the toes under the sole. This makes assignment through skeletal anatomy to a regional variety (race) easier, not harder.
I don’t recall using the word “superiority”. I do not argue that intelligence equals superiority, except to the extent that, because the talents we call “intelligence” contribute to income and status in the modern economy, the word has complimentary connotations, for the same reason the Snow White was beautiful in agrarian Europe when peasants labored in the sun, while today a tan indicates lounging on the beach as the pale moorlocks labor underground. I regard the equation “intelligent=superior” as seriously mistaken. Most of history’s greatest assholes were intelligent. In my book, compassion trumps intelligence. Persistence and a work ethic rate at least as high. If you are none of these and have something else to offer, such as musical talent or athletic ability, that’s great.
May 2, 2010, 11:30 amLargo says:
I live in Hong Kong with my wife, who’s a Hong Kong native. (I’m a native of Newfoundland.)
Some years ago (no more than about ten or so), I was reading a book on the Cultural Revolution while on the bus with my wife. I made the following remark to her: “Chairman Mao was an idiot”.
She shushed me! In Hong Kong! In the late 1990s! (or thereafter.)
(Mind you, the wife is always a bit paranoid about triad gangs, what have you.)
May 2, 2010, 11:56 amKevin R.C. O'Brien says:
It’s not the Soviet example I thought of, Eugene. Martha Minow == Trofim Lysenko.
May 2, 2010, 1:00 pmCalderon says:
I probably should have said most large law firms “strive to” have diverse teams. There are various large clients that have been putting pressure on firms to have diverse teams (Sara Lee is a leader on this). Even if the large firm can must only “sizzle” or the superficial appearance of diversity, they’re still going to want to have that appearance. Hiring this student could put a dent in their claims to diversity, and thus make her less likely to be hired. Thus, Angus’s claim that “some conservative law firms will see her statement and the controversy as a plus rather than a minus” is wrong for every firm I’m aware of, which is why I wanted to hear what firms he thought it applied to.
May 2, 2010, 1:15 pmDmitry says:
Let me approach this from a different angle, as a mental exercise. She paid to University for the right to get knowledge and, assuming good grades, for a diploma. Is it somewhere written in the contract she signed with University that she should adopt such and such world view? If not, can she sue University for sticking its nose in something they have no business at all? If she wins, that would be quite a boost to her CV.
University is not a kindergarden, students are adults and have full right to be evolutionists, racists, anarchists, communists, fascists or whatever. University is paid for teaching professional knowledge and skills, and certifying their acquisition. How student uses them is not the University business.
May 2, 2010, 5:33 pmCliveStaples says:
Anon:
Erm, except that she wasn’t really commenting on genetics, was she? She wasn’t advancing a claim, except perhaps the claim “Any hypothesis that hasn’t been proved wrong is possibly true.”
May 2, 2010, 8:38 pmchaosakita says:
Wow, people aren’t allowed to make personal comments about scientific matters until they become a professional scientist? Color me surprised!
(By that logic, the rest of people against her who aren’t directly citing a scientific article, including you, aren’t allowed to make any comments either)
May 2, 2010, 9:21 pmchaosakita says:
Now that I think about it, the most ridiculous thing about this is that just because she said these things, there is NO proof that she has treated black people any worse than anyone else. Perhaps her comments may be perpetuation an “incorrect” philosophy, but they are also personal comments made in response to a discussion group. I think that in all the time people use to cover events such as these, they could actually make some progress in solving real problems.
May 2, 2010, 9:28 pmchaosakita says:
May 2, 2010, 9:31 pmLibertad de expresión y cultura universitaria | Blog jurídico | No se trata de hacer leer says:
[...] el particular en varias partes defendiendo, a mi juicio acertadamente, a la alumna (I, II, III, IV) y da cuenta de un e-mail enviado por un alumno de Harvard donde éste aporta su opinión. A mi [...]
May 3, 2010, 10:53 amJohn Eden says:
Blacks, on average, are hematologically inferior on a genetic level to whites.
May 3, 2010, 5:51 pmsvi says:
enjoy your malaria (i cannot rule out the possibility that you are white).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_trait
May 3, 2010, 11:20 pmLargo says:
svi,
John Eden would be well advised not to speak of inferiority in an absolute way.
Now, would I be unreasonable were I to say “As a person of Northern European Descent [or, as a 'white person']. I am hematologically inferior, compared to an average person, in my ability to survive in tropical regions”?
May 4, 2010, 1:12 amLargo says:
“(i cannot rule out the possibility that you are white).”
Well, that is better than “whitey”.
May 4, 2010, 1:16 amBenjamin says:
Didn’t you just quote an abstract from a sociology journal to back up your claim that race doesn’t have a genetic basis?
May 4, 2010, 7:13 amLocal SEO-Tom says:
I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that Bigoted Liberal Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent.
May 4, 2010, 9:25 amneurodoc says:
What could possibly have warranted that?
May 4, 2010, 9:56 amneurodoc says:
If that isn’t meant to be sarcastic, and there is nothing to indicate that it is, then it comports well with rather ugly eugenic notions.
Also, if this is an allusion to the increased incidence of the sickle cell trait among Blacks and to be seen as evidence that Blacks are thus “hematologically inferior on a genetic level to whites,” then what is to be concluded about Caucasians with the sickle trait? And are Italians, who have an increased incidence of thalassemia, another hemoglobinopathy, “hematologically inferior on a genetic level to” others? Can this thinking about “inferior(ity) on a genetic level” be extended to the great many genetic diseases which are more common among some populations than others?
May 4, 2010, 10:09 amsvi says:
No, you would of course be right. But you must agree that leaving out the qualifiers transforms the the debate.
Essentially I was making the same point you are, a bit more tongue in cheek though.
May 4, 2010, 10:13 amsvi says:
Incidentally, I have a similar story to Eugene’s. It was during the beginning of Perestroyka. I repeated my father’s words about Gorbachev being a filthy liar while in public. “How would you like to move to an orphanage” was my dad’s comment, still don’t know if he was joking.
May 4, 2010, 10:18 amneurodoc says:
Why should he have been joking? Were things so vastly improved in the USSR at that point that one had no reason to fear the consequences of such remarks?
What do you think of the Sharansky story about being instructed by his parents to shed copious tears along with the other children when their teachers lamented the passing of Stalin? That would have been 35 or so years earlier, and I’m quite sure his parents in no way intended a joke. Years later, of course, Sharansky got to experience first-hand and most painfully how the Soviets dealt with those who didn’t go along with the program.
May 4, 2010, 11:32 amLargo says:
By this statement alone, you are my friend!
:-)
May 4, 2010, 11:55 amLargo says:
But I would be inclined to help John Eden to find his qualifiers than to dismiss him. (At least from the context of that one remark. It would put me on guard though.)
BTW, I might not have called you friend, had you not edited your comment earlier. Good on ‘ya.
May 4, 2010, 12:02 pmsvi says:
In the mid-eighties things relaxed considerably. There used to be a saying: “You can be a jew, a drunk, a thief, or an antisovetchik; but never be two at the same time.”
I don’t know if ideological impurity would have been strike two for my father.
May 4, 2010, 12:13 pmsvi says:
hah, i thought it might have been too ham-fisted. anyways have a good day.
May 4, 2010, 12:16 pmHazel Meade says:
Personally, I don’t know that I would downplay this by calling it a “pale echo”. I’m not conviced that the campus orthodoxy can’t be just as intense as the political orthodoxy in many current and past police states.
For most of the population of such countries including the USSR in the 1970s, I’m willing to put forth a guess that such vague anti-Stalin comments usually had few repercussions. It was just the possibility of worse that made people avoid them. Nobody would know who might be blacklisted, or forced to make a public apology. Similarly, just the example of this student is likely to make many, many, other students think twice about what they are willing to say. Even if there is no serious threat of career ramificiations for most of them, just the chance that there could be, has the same silencing effect.
May 4, 2010, 2:07 pmneurodoc says:
I should think “drunk,” followed by “thief” were less serious matters than the other two. And while things may have eased up considerably by the mid-eighties, I think it readily understandable that anyone who came of age only a decade or two earlier, to say nothing of those who experiened the ’50s and before as adults, would be inclined to caution.
May 4, 2010, 2:36 pmJohn Eden says:
Yes. In areas of the world with very high incidences of malaria, you are genetically inferior. Because blacks are more likely to carry a gene that helps them resist malaria better than the average white person. The population groups of blacks and whites carry genes that can convey superior performance in different situations.
May 4, 2010, 11:11 pmLargo says:
John,
Again, you show evidence of lack of care in your reading (in one sense of care) or your writing (in another sense of care).
Your answer to me is “Yes” as in:
The question I asked was:
Show me by word or deed that you care about this lack of care, and I will be most happy to banter with you. As things stand, reading you is a chore.
May 5, 2010, 12:39 amLargo says:
[BTW John, I don't demand any particular degree of perfection, just a care that evinces good well. The kind if misreading you've shown is a kind of misreading to which people of bad faith ofter resort--deliberately resort--to achieve one end or another. Hence my patience with such misreading, in the absence of mitigating qualities, goes not very far.]
May 5, 2010, 12:49 amJohn Eden says:
Genes that encode for diseases are inferior to genes that encode for normal function. And genes that encode for normal function are inferior to those that encode for superior function.
Are you that hesitant to recognize that there are “inferior” and “superior” genes?
May 5, 2010, 10:15 amJohn Eden says:
Has anyone told you that you’re really passive-aggressive?
May 5, 2010, 10:26 amLargo says:
Actually, your the first.
Part of it to do with finding my sea legs here.
Part perhaps because i am neurotically overscrupulous [writing a paragraph to explain that I don’t mean to be taken in a certain way, which only leads me to be taken in a worse way still.
And perhaps I have a bit of an ass in me i had not known before. I do feel in a teasing mood these days!
And if what I say makes no sense… chalk it up to lorazepam and a few beers. I’v been up much to late these nights doing this.
But — I do hope my agressiveness is found in a persistent persistence of persisting, and not real rudeness of bad spirit. Let us banter! Let us all banter!…..
i’m going to sleep now.
May 5, 2010, 10:54 amPeace, I trust.
L.
Skot German says:
Anonsters, You sure are a bossy. You can STFU. I will hand-wring if I want. I will say what I want. I could care less about your opinion of me. You giving orders is just comical.
May 6, 2010, 10:42 amHarry Morgan says:
This idea comes from something called “Lewontin’s Fallacy” – which is the notion that because there is more genetic diversity within groups than between groups (groups that we consider races), the idea of race is incoherent. This is hogwash, and has been shown to be hogwash. Just because there is more genetic diversity within, say, Chihuahuas than between Chihuahuas and German Shepherds, does nothing to dispel the fact that those breeds of dog each come with a predisposition to carry a certain set of genetic traits.
And yes, genetics research has consistently shown that the groups of people that share certain phenotypic traits such that we roughly group them into the major racial categories, also share a lot of non-phenotypically expressed genetic traits.
May 6, 2010, 7:04 pmneurodoc says:
Apropos life in Kiev these days, and the reality of virulent antisemitism, this news of the brutal murder of a yeshiva student by neo-nazis there:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/137437
May 9, 2010, 6:03 pmLifeofthemind says:
Anonsters,
STFU
The best way I think to deal with fascist bullies like Anonsters is to ridicule and then ignore them. They poison any argument they insert themselves into. By their very abuse and efforts to suppress thought they discredit any position they are associated with. As for HLS given that it is not a place where intellectual activity is permitted, indeed ever since Larry Summers was humiliated and fired for suggesting that the differences between men and women are a fit subject for study it has been clear that the entire University is a place controlled by the prior restraint on critical analysis and intellectual activity, such that there is no way to consider the results of their deliberations as reliable, it should be referred for deaccreditition. If their graduates were unhireable, if opposing council could humiliate their graduates in front of a jury by pointing out that nothing that they hear from a HLS graduate could be considered reliable, then the apparatchiks who preside over this farce of a school would be ejected.
May 18, 2010, 8:14 amBill White says:
ESPNNN Wild Sex Issue
July 14, 2010, 11:25 am