The Persecution of Race Realists, Including Me
Posted by John Engelman
This speech was given at the 1996 American Renaissance conference in Louisville, Kentucky.Sam T. Francis, American Renaissance, May 26, 1996
This speech was given at the 1996 American Renaissance conference in Louisville, Kentucky.Sam T. Francis, American Renaissance, May 26, 1996
Independent Thinker Edit:
The bitterly hostile reaction to The Bell Curve and Professor Rushton’s work, the dishonest and cowardly treatment of the American Renaissance conference in D’Souza’s book, the crusade mounted in the press against this conference, similar crusades against talk show host Bob Grant in New York and against British psychologist Christopher Brand’s new book, The G Factor, in Great Britain, the difficulty that both Professor Michael Levin and apparently Arthur Jensen are experiencing in finding publishers for their own major new books, and finally but by no means least the late unpleasantness that I experienced at The Washington Times — all lead me to believe that we, or certainly I, had seriously underestimated the resistance that frank and serious discussion of race would encounter...
Professor Rushton’s problems began soon after he delivered a paper at the January, 1989 convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco. His paper was a précis of the research on racial differences that he later published and has discussed in his remarks this morning, and it immediately generated attacks in the media...
Rushton’s own efforts to debate or explain his theory further on television were probably not helpful, since the debate format was usually stacked against him and dwelt on the supposed political rather than the actual scientific meaning of his theory, and on one occasion he was greeted with a hostile and jeering audience of some 2,000.
By early February, the Mayor of London, Ontario had formed a committee to “investigate” Rushton and his theories to determine whether they violated Canadian law...
The investigation took six months and eventually concluded that while he had not violated the law, “it is the overwhelming opinion of academics questioned that in many cases your conclusions . . . have been drawn on misinterpreted and/or questionable data. This has resulted in your presentation to the AAAS falling noticeably short of expected professional standards.” Apparently, in Canada, it is the business of the police to reach conclusions on matters of scientific interest...
The dean of social science at the university published a letter in the university newspaper in which she attacked Rushton’s theory, and in July, 1989, he was given an “unsatisfactory” rating on his three-year performance evaluation by his department chairman and denied a usually routine pay increase. Under university rules, teachers who receive such evaluations three times in a row can be dismissed from their jobs...
In 1991, Rushton’s classes were disrupted on at least three occasions by protestors and he was physically attacked on one such occasion. Despite warnings from the university that it would prosecute disrupters, it had not done so by the spring of 1991, and student protestors, mainly made up of African or Caribbean students or New Left elements, continued to disrupt his classes...
Professor Levin’s experiences at the City College of New York resemble those of Professor Rushton. Levin’s original crime against humanity consisted of publishing a letter in the New York Times in 1988 arguing that shopkeepers had the right not to open their doors to black males if they feared robbery. The publication of such shocking opinions apparently mobilized cadres of student leftists to break down the door of the university president, who admitted that the students had the right to picket Levin’s classes. Professor Levin was considerately provided with a bodyguard.
The group known as the International Committee against Racism (InCAR), a Maoist group, circulated Levin’s letter to the Times on campus, but the controversy was further excited by an article Levin published in an Australian magazine called Quadrant in which he apparently argued that the decline of American education was in part due to the rise of radical feminism and to affirmative action and its promotion of lower IQ black students. The reaction against this article came mainly from the faculty rather than from student activists, and on October 20, 1988 the faculty senate voted to condemn Levin’s article as “racist” and as “lacking cogency or empirical support.”...
This was followed by Levin’s being told by the dean of humanities and the philosophy department chairman that Levin should voluntarily withdraw from teaching his introductory philosophy course, and if he didn’t voluntarily withdraw, the chairman would come to the first class and invite the students to transfer to another section. Believing this would be temporary, Levin agreed to this proposal, but later learned that it was meant to be permanent and would be extended to any required course that Levin taught. This kind of restriction severely limits a teacher’s ability to recruit students for advanced work and represented a long-term threat to Levin’s academic career...
When the American Philosophical Association concluded that blacks were underrepresented in teaching philosophy, Levin published a letter in the Proceedings of the APA arguing that the reason had to do with the lower black IQ. This led the humanities dean at his school to send a letter to each of Levin’s students warning them that their professor harbored what the dean called “controversial” views about race and sex and offering them an alternative section if they were unable to cope with the trauma of being exposed to controversy in the course of studying philosophy. Finally, the president got down to business by forming a committee to inquire into whether Levin had engaged in “conduct unbecoming a faculty member,” a phrase usually associated with efforts to break tenure and dismiss the faculty member...
Derogatory and dismissive comments on the academic’s ideas can serve to harm his career and professional stature, disciplinary action by chairmen, deans, committees, and university presidents can actually cost him his job or at least disrupt and subvert his academic work in teaching and research.
---------
Here I disagree. Old leftist that I am, I think the most powerful elite in the United States is the elite of wealthy stock holders, business executives, and business owners. These are not threatened by the findings of men like Professors Rushton and Levin. They are not threatened by attacks on men like Professors Rushton and Levin either. Indeed, race realists provide an alternative target for the Left, and one that absorbs energy that would otherwise be directed against the corporate elite that owns and substantially runs the United States.
On a more personal level, affluent whites have usually known few blacks. Those few have been exceptional, or they have occupied subordinate positions without resentment.
In order to know what most blacks are really like one must usually see them up close on terms of approximate equality in environments where blacks are in the majority.
For affluent whites diversity is an Ethiopian restaurant nearby and the Chinese American family next door where the son attends MIT, and the daughter is learning classical ballet.
For the whites who support President Trump and who are attracted to the alt right, including American Renaissance, diversity is losing a job opportunity to a less capable black person because of affirmative action one day, and being robbed by several blacks several weeks later.
Nevertheless, those whites are white nationalists, not race realists. I am often flamed on American Renaissance when I draw attention to the fact that Orientals tend to have higher IQ's than white Gentiles, and that Orientals also have lower rates of crime and illegitimacy. I believe that superior races are characterized by intelligence, obedience to the law, and monogamy. These are the qualities that are necessary for successful civilizations. Political reform, social welfare spending, and foreign aid cannot compensate with a population where these characteristics are exceptional. Ashkenazi Jews have an average IQ that is even higher than Orientals. I have not found data on how rates of crime and illegitimacy compare for Ashkenazi Jews and white Gentiles (of whom I am one). I suspect that the Ashkenazim behave better than white Gentiles on the average.
After years of praising Jews and Orientals on American Renaissance, and quoting Professor Rushton and Jared Taylor to substantiate my arguments, I was finally banned for praising Ethiopian immigrants in the following pictorial thread.
https://www.amren.com/features/2017/05/silver-spring-third-world-melting-pot-in-maryland-multicultural/
I invite you to scan through the comments, read mine, and decide for yourself if you think my comments were ban worthy.
After a year's exile I have been allowed to post on American Renaissance again. Let's see how long that lasts. In my humble opinion a website that condemns the persecution of race realists should allow the polite comments posted by the most consistent race realist who posts on American Renaissance.
During my exile I continued to access American Renaissance, to submit news stories, and to contribute an occasional widower's mite to the website. Jared Taylor is one of my favorite political commentators. He remained one during my exile. I wish he had a broader audience. I believe that by allowing me to comment on American Renaissance, in my little way I give him cover against those who condemn him for being a white Gentile supremacist, and who would like to shut down American Renaissance.
Comments
Post a Comment