Best quote on the Richwine case

From the great Derb:

I assumed that Harvard professors eminent enough to be sitting on a  dissertation committee would be tenured. To be on the safe side I checked this  point…all three are tenured.

That means they have nothing to lose by taking a clear stand for  disinterested scholarship, for the reputation of their college, and for  their own names. Why didn’t they stand up for Richwine against the mob?

The entire justification for academic tenure is that it allows the best  intellects among us to roam freely in their research without any need to fear  political consequences.

Eminent professors at distinguished universities are the guardians of our  civilization, front-line troops in the never-ending war against barbarism. For  the Richwine Three to desert their posts like this is civilizational high  treason.

The  Chinese scholar Sima Qian spoke up for a friend who had earned the wrath of  the Emperor. Thus further infuriated, the Emperor ordered Sima Qian to suffer  the penalty of castration, and this penalty was carried out.

We live in gentler times, thank goodness. Profs. Borjas, Zeckhauser, and  Jencks are in no peril of castration for their offenses against State Ideology.  But really, in their cases, what difference would it make?

Full article here.

Advertisements

About Polymath

Discoverable with effort
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Best quote on the Richwine case

  1. Polymath says:

    The truly frightening thing about the Richwine controversy is that not a single person that I have read, out of dozens criticizing Richwine, has offered any argument whatsoever that the research on Hispanic ethnicity and IQ in Richwine’s PhD thesis, which was good enough for Harvard, was incorrect. Nonetheless, this was enough to supposedly discredit the Heritage Foundation study he worked on, even though that study had nothing to do with race, ethnicity, or IQ. We are therefore to conclude the following:

    ***Any piece of research for which any member of the team that produced the research ever studied relationships between race or ethnicity and IQ is to be rejected as fatally tainted and not read or evaluated on its merits.***

    I dare any opponent of Richwine to EITHER agree OR disagree with the above statement.

    The whole point of this witch hunt is that the statement I just highlighted is intended BOTH to be absorbed by everyone and never challenged, AND never to be publicly affirmed either. Everyone is supposed to absorb the socially coded message but never speak about it.

    John Horgan, a very successful science writer, wrote today in his blog for Scientific American that research into race and IQ should be banned. He cites the following quote from Chomsky with approval:

    “Surely people differ in their biologically determined qualities. The world would be too horrible to contemplate if they did not. But discovery of a correlation between some of these qualities is of no scientific interest and of no social significance, except to racists, sexists and the like. Those who argue that there is a correlation between race and IQ and those who deny this claim are contributing to racism and other disorders, because what they are saying is based on the assumption that the answer to the question makes a difference; it does not, except to racists, sexists and the like.”

    Then he asks:

    “Why, given all the world’s problems and needs, would someone choose to investigate this thesis? What good could come of it? Are we really going to base policies on immigration, education and other social programs on allegedly innate racial differences?”

    What is mind-bogglingly stupid about this is that it ignores that we are ALREADY basing policies on the assumption that there are no innate racial differences, and if you are going to base policies on a factual premise, it is better for it to be a true premise than a false one. The reason I care about race and IQ is NOT because I enjoy feeling superior to members of other races; it’s because the false assumption of no innate differences leads to the false conclusion that the underperformance of blacks and Hispanics is White People’s Fault. This false conclusion is then used against me in many different ways: my children get discriminated against by colleges, and I have to pay for the increasingly expensive and misguided project of closing unclosable “gaps”. I’d be perfectly happy to ignore race completely, except for all the people who are NOT ignoring it and are using false scientific premises against me.

  2. There is a very large discrepancy – on the one hand, liberals hail diversity. On the other, they fanatically refuse to acknowledge these differences when the conclusion is that Hispanics and Blacks have lower-IQs. If Richwine had stated blacks and hispanics have HIGHER IQs, there would have been no complaint.

    No one has passed a moral judgment, and as is argued @ NRO yesterday (VerBruggen) no one, least of all a conservative, would argue that one should treat people based on expected averages. Yet the left automatically infers that asserting differences in expected averages leads to discrimination. Which relates to my comment in the other thread: people have prejudices for a good reason – it helps them deal with gaps in their information sets, a psychological fact. What reason teaches us is how to deal with these gaps most appropriately. We discriminate because acquiring additional information can be expensive in terms of time and even money. Therefore like a bank issuing loans, we set a price (the discount rate) that will includes covering our cost of risk, risk being a calculated assessment (the other part of a discount rate is opportunity cost – all banks use discount rates to price their products). But while people discriminate on the one hand (in order to manage risk) we use moral reasoning on the other hand to teach them that all people’s, regardless of race or creed are moral equals in the eyes of God. Something only Christians believe, by the way (Islam and Jews believe they have special priviliges).

    So the liberals infer that there is a moral consequence to lower IQ. They also get mad only when the conclusion indicates their policy ideas are counter-productive, not whether it’s true or not.

    The only rational explanation for supporting a counter-productive policy is because you desire a counter-productive result, hence Roger Scuton’s “oikophobia”. A hate of one’s on home, heritage and culture. And the only rational explanation for believing in moral consequences to lower IQ is, in fact, inherent racism.

    This is what liberalism boils down to. Liberals are both racist and oikophobic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s