I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised. Intellectual powerhouse and blogger James McConvill wears another hat as editor of the Deakin Law Review. This no doubt estimable publication will be carrying the musings on race(ism) and intelligence of Macquarie Uni Law academic Andrew Fraser. In the article, Fraser will reportedly have a go at Keith Windschuttle for being too lily livered – as Windy doesn’t “accept the reality of racial difference”.
Macquarie V-C Di Yerbury prevented Fraser from using his university affiliation to propagate his views on race and crime on the grounds that they did not fall within his areas of expertise of public law and constitutional theory.
Professor Yerbury had not had time to read the article yesterday but said: “If it is an article which deals with the alleged links between race and IQ, or race and propensity for violence, I am advised that the relevant expertise would at least have to include cognitive psychology, genetics and anthropology.
“These are not Drew Fraser’s qualifications.”
That’s presumably ok, as McConvill thinks that academic lawyers should be interdisciplinary. Presumably Fraser, an academic martyr according to McConvill, quickly got up to speed on cognitive psychology, genetics and anthropology.
McConvill, a shy, retiring type always willing to avoid a daily headline, apparently hesitated before rushing Fraser’s piece – elaborating on ideas whose dissemination he’d previously supported, into print.
Deakin journal editor and law lecturer James McConvill said there had been “some hesitation (about publishing the article), I guess, simply because of the drama that Macquarie got itself into”.He said the Fraser article dealt with public policy and fell within the journal’s charter “to raise legal, moral and social issues”.
Journal policy was to act on advice from “double blind” academic review — neither author nor reviewer should know each other’s identity.
But Professor Fraser’s authorship was clear to two potential reviewers who “rejected it in terms of not wanting to consider it”, Mr McConvill said.
Two other reviewers — a legal academic and a sociologist with expertise in the White Australia policy — advised publication.
Mr McConvill said he could not reveal the identity of the reviewers.
Asked whether he expected the decision to publish would attract criticism or protest, he said: “From my perspective, it was quite a well-considered piece, it wasn’t overly rhetorical. Before people could judge, they should actually read the article.” The university suspended Professor Fraser from lecturing in July when he declared he would ignore an edict that he stop using his position to express his views on race, which included a claim that Africans had low IQs and were therefore a high crime risk.
Professor Fraser has admitted to links with the Patriotic Youth League but has denied the neo-Nazi group’s claim that he was its legal adviser.
I wonder whether Deakin University will be nominating the Law School for the research quality assessment. Research is measured, among other things, on its impact. After all, under the great leader and intellectual, Mirko Bagaric, the School has surely one of the highest public profiles of any, if only for the constant output of op/eds.
Ken Parish wrote in reference to Bagaric, McConvill and Fraser:
You can’t help wondering about legal academics. What with Deakin University’s Mirko Bagaric waxing lyrical about the inherent morality of torture, and his colleague James McConvill arguing a variety of increasingly bizarre propositions (most recently today’s article claiming that insider trading is a wonderful thing that shouldn’t be illegal), you could be forgiven for concluding that academic lawyers’ grasp of the world of ideas beyond black letter law is more than a tad deficient.
As an academic lawyer himself, Ken did a sterling job of demolishing Fraser’s opinions. But I guess he’s not on the list of referees selected by McConvill for his journal.
Update [by Mark]: Some of the links to McConvill’s post no longer work – I’ve just noticed that McConvill seems to be engaging in self-censorship retrospectively – about half the posts on his blog have disappeared – including the one where he describes his boss as a “great leader and intellectual”, the one about libertinism and legal philosophy, and the one where he attacks “conservative” academics and bloggers Norton and Bahnisch.
Maybe someone at Deakin decided that all publicity is not good publicity?
Further Update: Jason has his say at Catallaxy.
Free speech is bad, mmmkay.
I’m not questioning the decision to publish on the grounds of right to speak, EP, but on grounds of motive and qualification.
Fraser:
Get
A
Blog
Do you question the motive and qualification of academics who publish left-wing views? There are an awful lot of those, but they don’rt seem to cop the same treatment as Fraser does.
I don’t question the motive and qualification of academics who publish views based on careful research and expertise, EP.
I bet I can guess the identity of the reviewers.
No, you only challenge the motive and qualification of academics who publish views with which you disagree.
Academics who publish left-wing views get a free pass.
How about Kim’s criticisms of David McKnight, EP? McKnight is a former CPA member, and describes himself as a “progressive”.
Free speech isnt the issue EP – he can, and has, published his views elsewhere. Academic journals, on the other hand, are not op-ed spots. They are refereed by anonymous academic peers for quality and contribution to knowledge. Universities get a proportion of their research funding as a result of number of refereed publications by staff, so there’s a very real accountabilty issue.
Wiritng completely outside one’s field, and passing it off as refereed “research” is equivalent to fraud of public monies. Except that the university, rather than the author, ultimately benefits.
If its an unrefereed journal – this argument Ive just made doesnt apply. But it seems to be peer-reviewed from the above post.
More broadly – The Age, eg, wont publish a letter to the ed using the “Dr.” title unless its an issue related to the letter writer’s doctoral field. I think thats fair enough. This guy wants an academic imprimatur on his completely unrelated rantings.
Incidentally, Im reliably informed that the Deakin Law Faculty does very poorly on attracting research income. Very poorly indeed. If they think this ambo-chasing, headline-ho approach is going to do them any favours – indivdually or collectively, they’re quite mistaken. Best they’ll get is a few conference keynote junkets from OT RWDB thinktanks in the US. No serious research money.
No-one’s arguing against the publication, EP, they’re critiquing the motives for publication and the quality of the journal in which the publication will appear.
You seem to have confused criticism with censorship.
Which of course, is what McConvill himself does, Kate.
And what Lefty E said.
How about KimÄôs criticisms of David McKnight, EP? McKnight is a former CPA member, and describes himself as a “progressive”.
The contrast between Kim’s two articles illustrates my point.
In McKnight’s case, Kim addresses his arguments but doesn’t question his right to have them published.
In Fraser’s case, Kim doesn’t address his arguments, but questions his right to have them published.
It’s a clear case of double standards — even down to the political affiliations of the authors, since Communism is just as destructive as Nazism.
McKnight is no longer a communist, EP, and if you knew anything about the post 60s CPA, they were to the right of the Labor Left on many issues arguably.
And Kim clearly didn’t question “his right to have them published” as both she and Lefty E demonstrated.
No doubt she, and others, will address his arguments when they are published. I’ll look forward to reading what Keith Windschuttle has to say, among others.
Wiritng completely outside oneÄôs field, and passing it off as refereed “research” is equivalent to fraud of public monies.
I eagerly await the prosecution of The Lancet for its politically-motivated publication of a poorly researched, un-peer-reviewed and inaccurate estimate of Iraqi war casualties immediately prior to the US election.
Oh, but wait — all you lefties supported that.
Nonsense, Mark.
Fraser has been suspended from teaching — a clear case of politically-motivated suppression.
Furthermore, Kim in the avbove article mutters darkly about “research quality assessments” to be applied to Deakin in retaliation for this publication.
Clearly it is her intent that any institution which publishes Fraser’s ideas should be published.
I doubt that this is the only case of a lawyer publishing opinions on fields other than law in a law journal. The reason Fraser gets picked on is purely political, and has nothing to do with the quality of research or the integrity of a publication.
Here in the reality based community, EP, I don’t see Kim stating a view on Yerbury’s actions in suspending him from teaching, and I read her comment about the “research quality assessment” (one of Nelson’s great ideas rather than an evil Lefty plot) as an ironic reference to McConvill’s boosterism about his and Bagaric’s efforts.
Fraser’s views, as reported, do not appear to be based on research at all.
You should also be well aware as a regular here that I and Kim have both attacked sociobiological research with ostensibly left wing implications. But at least it’s rigorous scientific research, much as I might question the methods and assumptions.
If Fraser wants to publish his stuff, I’m sure he could do so in Quadrant or somewhere else. Except even they might not touch it as it’s clearly offensive personal opinion rather than anything grounded in science or empirical fact.
Id suggest, EP that the reason he gets airtime at all for his ill-informed, unqualified “research” is a result of the extremism of his views, and his headline-chasing attempts to grab attention by being “oh so un-PC” etc (yawn).
If he then can’t handle axamination and criticism of his “research”, which is entirely normal in academic life, he should get out of the kitchen.
The constant attempts of the right to reinterpret criticism of poor arguments into “censorship” always makes me laugh when I read about it on the front page of the dailies, time after time. Some ‘censorship’!
Its just a disingenous attempt to avoid accountability and scrutinty.
EP, you misunderstand the distinction between free speech and academic freedom.
For instance, when I submitted my masters dissertation, I expected the examiners to challenge any holes in my argument, or reading of the literature, or interpretation of the data.
I’m not able just to write “my opinion”.
In fact that’s the sort of ultra-relativism that the Right normally attack as part of po/mo dumbing down.
Ps – Thanks Naomi!
And Fraser’s article was peer-reviewed prior to publication.
So what’s your problem?
There’s peer review and peer review, EP. It can be dodgy in obscure journals. Consider this – McConvill publicly praises Fraser, Fraser submits his article to McConvill’s journal, two referees reject the paper on the grounds that they know Fraser is the author, McConvill finds two more referees and sounds them out about the paper, they approve it.
Well, its being published too, Mr Censorship-Watch.
So whats your problem?
To add to Kim’s point – as someone who’s had papers reviewed and who’s been a reviewer of papers, it’s often not hard at all to pick up who the referees are, and who the author is – with the degree of specialisation existing and the size of Australian disciplines, you tend to know or know of others working in the same field.
Good editors use a variety of procedures to minimise this occurring.
It’s most unusual that the journal doesn’t set out its refereeing procedures on its website. They have to be pretty rigorous to meet the DEST requirements.
There’s a lot of concern both within the academic community and the Government at the moment about sloppy refereeing procedures for conference papers and in less well known journals. Thus, it’s likely that conference papers will no longer attract research money and the whole point of the research quality assessment Kim mentioned is to make sure that only the best research is rewarded.
What’s no doubt at issue here is the expertise of the referees (not in general, but to comment on this paper). McConvill is a law academic. He gives the paper to another law academic (what’s the bet it’s Bagaric?) and a sociologist (I think I can guess which one). There’s clearly a doubt in McConvill’s mind from his reported comments as to whether the paper falls within the remit of a law journal. Nor can he be expected, as the editor of a law journal to call on say, social anthropologists and criminologists or behavioural scientists with the requisite expertise.
The real test would be if Fraser submitted the paper to a journal in one of these disciplines and if it were examined by people expert in the area.
Nevertheless, we will be able to subject it to criticism when it appears, and I have no doubt it will be as expected. Both Fraser and McConvill may well have made mistakes here – Fraser because he’ll actually have to respond to informed critique, and McConvill because if the paper is poor, it will reflect poorly on his journal.
You could also infer from what McConvill says that the first two referees didn’t want to touch the paper with a barge pole. That’s my guess as to what happened.
Yep – referee hunting after rejection is not exactly de rigeur.
Equally, I wonder if McC was telling the whole truth about “rejecting it in terms of not wanting to consider it”. Id wager they rejected it in terms of having read and considered it worthless as “research”. This is quite different to “opinion”, as we’ve noted. Ive never heard of a referee “refusing to consider” an anonymous article unless they just dont have time to read it.
Sounds like McC was determined to publish for profile purposes. Bit dodgy, but hey, let it stand and fall on merit when it comes out.
Yes, my feeling too, Lefty E – I’ve never heard of that either. My strong suspicion is that the first referees said “reject”, and then McConvill went looking for more. His explanation is too complex by half and doesn’t perhaps ring true.
I find it astonishing that no information is given about the refereeing procedures on the website as well.
Where were all you refereeing purists when the Lancet “study” into Iraqi war deaths came out?
I don’t know anything about it, EP, and never looked into it.
Must confess ignorance too EP. Does it claim to be a peer-refereed journal?
It seems Fraser is getting a bit more peer review here http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16601391-1702,00.html
Or is Newhouse stepping outside his level of expertise?
In my opinion, observa, one couldn’t make judgements about the degree to which the article constitutes racial vilification without having read it. It may well. I’d be enormously surprised if it constitutes good research based on Fraser’s previous statements – see the thread by Ken that Kim linked to for a relevant discussion.
I think EP with his lancet study and you with this are just trying to throw in a few red herrings. Presumably neither of you support Fraser’s views about race, IQ and social order.
You get the distinct impression Bracks Law is gunna get embroiled in all of this at some stage too.
All the more grist for McConvill and Fraser’s publicity machines, then, observa.
Here we see the full ugliness of political censorship in action.
I haven’t seen what Fraser has to say, but I think there is a credible argument that IQ and behaviour are to a large extent genetically determined.
I would like to see reasoned debate and research on the subject, as opposed to suppression and witch-hunting.
The rather predictable reactions to this issue reinforce my belief that universities are factories for political indoctrination, rather than places of learning and debate.
Fortunately, we no longer need academia, now that we have the Internet.
Hyperbole, EP.
And would you draw the same inferences from this “credible argument” that Fraser does?
It’s not political censorship when you question the methods people use to get published. It has been published, it’s just that the process of peer-reviewing seems to have been an absolute joke. I can get my mates to referee my work as well, but if I do, I don’t expect anyone to take it seriously.
I still read Kez Windschuttle’s latest book on White Australia. The principle is quite similar. It was a dodgy book that wouldn’t have been published had Kez not owned his own press.
Is this University of the Internet of EP’s going to employ Nic White as a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy?
Hyperbole? It’s an attempt at outright political censorship, Mark:
It sure looks like he’s trying to stop publication to me.
As to what inferences I make, that would depend on what the research showed. So far, there has not been enough research, because of political suppression.
“Here we see the full ugliness of political censorship in action.”
This doesnt strike you as tautological EP?
I love the persecution fantasies that motivate this whole line of RW complaint.
I can see Fraser on page one now, getting more aritime than any journal will ever give him with a side-splitting “Ive been censored!” gripe about the liberal media and academia.
Best show in town. Wouldnt miss it for quids.
It seems to have already been accepted by the journal. From Kim’s link:
Latest science is a field for scientists. The past is a field for historians. As far as I know Fraser is trained as neither.
It’s true that in the age of the Internet, attempts to impose censorship tend to be self-defeating.
That doesn’t decrease the moral culpability of would-be censors, or those who support them, though.
Persecution fantasies are the domain of left-wingers who think anti-terrorism laws will turn Australia into Mexico.
The reality is that Fraser has been suspended from his job and is facing legal action, all because he said something politically unpalatable. Where are the supporters of “academic freedom”? Nowhere to be seen.
Dr. Evil Pundit, B.Blog(Hons), MA(ad hominem), Grad Dip of Hyperbole, University of the Internet:
So do we need academia or don’t we? Apparently the University of the Internet just isn’t up to scratch.
We need something to replace the functions of the corrupted academic system. It isn’t all there yet, but it’s a-building.
Hey, lay off the pussycat! The rest of us know a bucket of shite by the smell. EP prefers to reserve judgement until he’s had a good chew.
Thanks for that typically worthwhile contribution to intelligent debate, Fyodor.
Yes, I look forward to hearing of his primary research among Sudanese communities.
What? He hasnt done any? Oh.
Well, never mind, I look forward to his critical review of the secondary psychological literature.
What? He has no track record or expertise in that field? Oh.
So, its just opinion masquarading as research?
Well, in that case, why not compare Sundanese criminality rates against those of certain early Anglo-Celtic settlers here in OZ.
What , they were all crims? SHIT! Does that mean we’re stoopid?
Would you have preferred it if I called you a faux-wit?
I love it. LE reviews an article that he hasn’t read on the basis of pure speculation, and complains that someone else is doing sloppy research. Very droll.
How about the real issue here — political censorship of academic debate?
I take it none of you will complain if Brendan Nelson sacks all the academics who criticise Liberal Party policy, since you’re all okay with Di Yerbury’s actions.
We can start by sacking that Professor of Education who said English teachers were failing in their task because Howard was re-elected.
Since he’s not a political scientist, he’s obviously not qualified to make such remarks and should have his employment terminated.
Kim’s explained for you, EP, what academic freedom is.
It doesn’t mean the basis to give credence to one’s views based on a university title or position without having any particular expertise.
Whatever, EP. Has anyone on this thead argued that Fraser should be sacked, or expressed any opinion whatever on Yerbury’s actions?
As usual, you’re imputing opinions to people.
For the record, the article above is wrong in detail. Fraser was not stopped from teaching because of his views. He’s been stopped from lecturing because he himself has expressed a fear for his own safety in the local press.
He is still doing teaching work in supervision of postgraduates and is still employed as a research academic, as far as I know.
EP, sticking up for a racist with neo-Nazi links.
Blow me down with a feather.
A racist with noe-Nazi links is no worse than a leftist with Communist links.
They both have a right to freedom of speech, but usually one of the two will be persecuted.
“A racist with noe-Nazi links is no worse than a leftist with Communist links.”
OK, hands up who didn’t see this one coming.
Of course they are worse. What have the communists done in Australia in the last 30 years? What have the neo-nazis done in Australia in the same time? Burned houses and businesses, beaten up people, desecrated graves and harassed people. Communists like Fred Hollows set up foundations to treat the poor.
Nazis murdered 50 million people last century. Communists murdered 100 million people last century.
I suspect there has been just as much Communist violence as Nazi violence in Australia over the years.
Both are totalitarian ideologies based on suppression of dissent by brute force, and both have committed genocide.
Communists are no better and no worse than Nazis.
“How about the real issue here Äî political censorship of academic debate?”
EP, Are you persisting with this paranoid delusion that he’s been gagged? We’re debating it here, it’ll happen in the press, and in academic circles once the ‘research’ is published. Its called deliberation, its common to democratic societies. I can’t work out what your gripe is.
Ours is perfectly clear – adademic research is not the same as ‘opinion’. Academic freedom involves separate issues to free speech, seperate responsibilities to free speech, and carries with it a level of funding that gives rise to serious accountability issues – all outlined above.
Well Mark I do think there are a lot of herrings swimming about the ether at the moment and they will cause many to see red. Let’s gather up the net a bit shall we?
Christian IDers broadly believe we (each individual) are all God’s creations or intelligent design in some way. ie we’re all unique, valued and special. That is largely a non-racial viewpoint. Muslims largely do too, unless you’re an infidel, or worse still a Jew. That is not so culturally or racially tolerant. Evolutionists reckon all this ID stuff is a lot of hooey and it’s all about empirical observation. Welcome to their dilemma with the Windschuttles, Frasers and John Rays, etc. Hard to support empiricism and argue some empirical researchers should be banned because you personally don’t like their subject matter or results and ditto their cheer squads, who should be forced to shutup with a Bracks Law.(You can add anti-terrorist laws in here too)
So broadly we have this God, nature and nurture tension pulling us in all directions at present and you’ll have your own personal leanings. What do I make of it all? Well personally I do think there are observable genetic racial differences and I don’t object to studying them. Actually I heard a nutritionist on radio this morning discussing metabolic rates and genetic food uptake. She pointed out how aboriginals developed metabolisms to cope with maximum takeup of calories from scarce food in arid areas. Consequently, their higher fat, higher sugar diets today cause more obesity and diabetes, liver, kidney problems than for Europeans on similar diets. Sounds reasonable to me. Having said that, I think nurture is far more important than nature in outcomes and clearly the God and his/your values that you are inculcated with have important consequences here. We have ample evidence of the bad consequences of bad value nurturing, or simply coexisting among such values. I don’t like the product of Hitler Youth anymore than Sharia Law here and don’t want to invite such cultures into my own. They can stay where they are. I can tolerate the God in many Christians, Hindus, Bhuddists, Jewry and moderate(read middle class) Muslims, if not the God of a Jim Jones, where the values are those of tolerant middle/working class Australians. This is largely an Anglo-Saxon/European culture, to which can be added similar middle class cultures. I agree with Fraser, that tribal African culture has little in common with my own, in much the same way as Arabic Islam. Yes there are many middle class Africans and Arabs that would fit in well here and we shouldn’t discriminate against them migrating here if they add to our society. They will be a small minority in their own countries though. Basically we should stop all immigration bar business migration. We are not the world’s Centrelink, although we can give humanitarian and military aid generously to assist those less well off, or suffering tyranny. We should be guided by empirical research, as to the makeup of the ‘best’ immigrants from a self-interested point of view. I concede that in many cases, the offspring of humanitarian refugees may be nurtured well by our values, but nevertheless, we often cannot afford the social costs of the adults that haven’t(ie the Sheikh Omrans) I think Fraser is merely pointing out the glaringly obvious to many, after the London bombings and perhaps NO. Australians don’t like cultural and economic ghettoes generally and believe that’s best left to national boundaries.
The University of the Internet is now enrolling…
I suggest EP as an appropriate referee for observa’s comment, Dr Liam.
I’m just plain old Mr. Hogan until I submit and have the thesis accepted, Mark. Not for a while yet. Tsk. The pesky demands of peer-reviewing of research…
I thought you might have had an honorary Doctorate of STOUSH from UoInternet, Liam.
I see, because communists killed more people, you’re willing to give racists a free pass. How nice.
I’d love you to stop flogging your hobbyhorse to death, EP. Racism should transcend your left/right obsession.
Luke Connor, the spokesperson for the neo-nazi organisation, The Patriotic Youth League, has admitted during an interview, that Drew Fraser is their political advisor.
Speaking of censorship, right now your RWDB brethren are defending the actions of Federal Labor MP Michael Danby in his attempts to exert political pressure on Melbourne University Publishing (MUP), to not publish Antony Loewenstein’s new book. Where do you stand on that issue?
Oops, link didn’t work.
Try this
He was sacked because of his views.Gee I must be unemployable with my outlook on life.
The reason he was sacked is because there is something right in what he said,and that ladies and gentlemen terrifies the left.
Actually, no one was sacked, Larado, as Liam makes clear in comments.
It scares me that racism is being redeeemed these days, yes. You’d hope that the twentieth century expereience of Nazism and other forms of ethnicide would have buried it forever.
Absolutely, Lefty E, the correct response to EP’s insulting and offensive comparison of millions killed is to ask what was it in the 20th century and ealier history that produced this structural evil.
Legitimising racism in the name of purported free speech is abhorrent, and McConvill should hang his head in shame.
“Racism should transcend your left/right obsession.”
David, I’m not so sure you could argue that. It may well be that soft racism between say Greek and Italian immigrants(think ethnic soccer rivalries here)could be regarded as transcending the social problems of mixing same race nazis and communists in say Western Sydney. In actual fact, it may be virtually impossible to distil out pure racism, from religious, cultural and political differences in any case. Would it really concern the victim, of the holocaust or the gulag, what was the reason provided for their plight? Is the notion of an infidel racist or religist? Is the antipathy for Jews by Muslim Arabs, or ex-Malaysian PMs racist? Would my support for Israel on the grounds of shared liberal democratic values, automatically be racist toward Palestinians? What about the reverse case of leftists, who side with Palestinians, or their general antipathy toward Americans? Personally, I’d find it as hard to work out what all the fuss was about at a Hutu vs Tsutsi soccer match in Rwanda, as they would between Greeks and Italians in Australia. Is savagery between Hutus and Tsutsis due to genetcally evolved racial differences here? Who knows and who really cares, except when it comes to idiots who want to plonk large numbers of clearly frictional groups in places like Western Sydney. Then I bloody well care, particularly if the idiot dilletants doing the mixing don’t wear the direct consequences of their naive multi-cultural/racial/religious/political experimentation.
correction
It may well be that soft racism between say Greek and Italian immigrants(think ethnic soccer rivalries here)could NOT be regarded as transcending the social problems of mixing same race nazis and communists in say Western Sydney.
Evil people with evil intent who get their hands on the levers of power are what create these ‘structural evils’, Mark, and ride them to unimaginable consequences. Most of them have been of the left, this past century.
as I said in comments over on my blog, my cynical reading of this is that McConvil is seeking a short cut to pubic intellectual status through stirring the pot of controversy.
err, I meant *public* intellectual status
You got it right first time, Jase. There’re few things worse than a dickhead chasing pubicity.
Observa, you might find that Western Sydney is a whole lot nicer than the cross between Chechnya and Rodney-King-era-LA you’re imagining. By all means mock us inner-city leftists, but give the westies a break.
Jason’s right on the money there. The “rejected, wouldnt even consider it” line is just part of the build up. Nothing hits the press like a manufactured anti -PC campaign.
More broadly, sections of the Australian right are in danger of losing a sense of basic decency in sponsoring some of this racist drivel.
Take a big step back – Fraser’s views are simply rehashed eugenicism, part of the ideological roots of Nazism.
Mass murder based on ideology, as practised by Communists, is no better or worse than mass murder based on race, as practised by Nazis.
The Left claims to hate discrimination based on race (while actually practising it), yet justifies discrimination based on ideology.
The Left fears the consequences of free thought and free speech, and thus seeks to suppress ideas it doesn’t like rather than debating them.
This is an issue that highlight’s the Left’s hypocrisy and its moral cowardice.
So whose definition of intelligence are we using? Last time I looked, (late 90′s) one researcher had come up with seven different forms of intelligence he felt were definite, and was looking to expand the list. Which one of these is Frazer using, or is he using a different measure all together? Is he relying on a standard IQ test? I think many of us would probably rate poorly on an American IQ test because it is designed to test American thoughts and theories and knowledge. Just as an IQ test designed for Australian students would confound many Americans. I think before this guy goes about claiming that people of a different skin colour are less intelligent he needs to show what research parameters he is using. Oh hang on, it’s just his opinion isn’t it, it’s not actually based on any research.
You ever thought of taking up squash EP? You’d make a great wall.
Just guessing Mindy, but Fraser’s opinion could be based on this research.
And as you correctly point out, the concept of IQ is still not very well defined — though it does seem to have some meaning and measurability.
All the more reason to fund increased research in this field.
“to fund increased research in this field”
Which will be carried out by who? InterUni?
No, EP, silly. Fraser’s opinion is no doubt based on this research. These are the good Prof’s own words:
One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the sino-fascists will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our new sinese overlords, particularly if they’re as clever and decent as our Jase. I’d like to remind them that, as a trusted blogging personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground academic sweatshops.
“to fund increased research in this field”
Which will be carried out by who? InterUni?
The legacy institutions might as well make themselves useful while they last.
I envisage that in future, there will be decentralised nodes of research carried out by individuals, groups or corporations, linked by the Internet. Such researchers would be more independent of ideology, and more closely linked with the public, than current academics. But that’s a bit off-topic for this thread.
Hey Fyodor, save me a postdoctorate fellowship for 2008 or so. I’ll be as decentralised and nodal as I can possibly be.
aw shucks, Fyodor. your tribute is most welcome. Just pay a tithe and I’ll make sure you merely get a tracking device implanted in your butt rather than have to be chained to your desk.
from Fyodor’s link above:
I don’t see what all the fuss is about. We’re just trying to help these people! And, of course, EP’s Platonic ideology isn’t an ideology at all, but an ideology to do away with ALL ideologies! Marvellous! Doesn’t sound so bad:
Sign me up to the nearest re-education facility! I never liked democracy anyway.
I have long known that our Professor Fraser frequents the Majority Rights blog where the most moderate writer(!) is our dear old John Ray. He makes John Ray look like Al Graasby – here he is attacking Ray for being ‘soft’ on immigration and advocating direct action
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/896/
The transformation of Australian universities points the way to the fate of the Australian nation generally. Thirty years ago one could walk around the campus of universities in Australia and hardly see a non-white face. In those days, the univerities still harboured a few academics attempting to pass on the cultural heritage of Western civilization from one generation to the next. Nowadays, one could be forgiven for thinking that one is in Hong Kong when entering the library or other public spaces on campus. Quite obviously, the universities are now in the business of subverting antipodean Western civilization, replacing Australian students with non-English speaking foreigners. True,this policy of race replacement at the micro-level hasnÄôt (yet) resulted in race riots on campus. But why isnÄôt it an “ethnic problem” (for white Australians) just the same?
Is John suggesting, in effect, that only open and violent resistance to the Third World invasion would persuade him and the other tender-minded managers and professionals who run the corporate state that they have created a demographic time-bomb. If not, how else will they come to recognize the mess they are making of our lives and the lives of our childrenÄôs children?
Our much-vaunted civility has allowed our rulers and their new-found immigrant constituents to take white Australians for suckers. Clearly, the masses of non-white aliens crowding into our cities are much more conscious of the need to promote and protect their own particularistic ethnic interests. Perhaps itÄôs time for the natives to get seriously restless!
Posted by Drew Fraser on 05/29 at 02:21 AM
Next he’ll be crying foul when Anglo women marry Asian men, and when Asian women marry Anglo men. Get a grip loser. I notice that he is also using the RWDB tactic of lumping all people of Asian descent together in one homogenous group. This neatly ignores that large numbers of Asian students at Australian universities are Australian born, and are Australian. Most Asian non-Australian born students that I studied with were keen to go back home with a Aussie Uni degree/Masters and get a high paying Govt job in their home country. I really can’t see his problem.
Jesus. That’s shocking. Is he really suggesting that whites need to start ‘rioting’ to keep Asians out of our cities?
What a nasty piece of work.
“…forgiven for thinking that one is in Hong Kong.”
Does he mean that low-taxing, low-regulation, freewheeling entreprenenurial entrepot so often held up by his kind of tighty whitey righties as an examplar of the free market in action? Thes kinda folks always think they have their new year’s eve sticky cake and eat it too.
I certainly don’t endorse Fraser’s sentiments as quoted by Jason above.
However, he has as much right to express his opinion as anyone else does.
Okay EP riddle me this: why is it ok for Frazer to spout his political views in the classroom, but not ok for lefty teachers to do the same?
Ive read plenty of mainstream and labour journals of the 1890, and have heard & seen all this stuff before. Its just rehashed 1890s eugenicism, competitive racism, sameness = equality, and therefore the possibility of democracy, leavened by a hilarious dash white male sexual insecurity.
Oh, and the Asians are smarter than the Black ones was popular then too. Try White against Yellow: Race War AD 1908 by Willam Lane (1888).
Oh, and EP, crying “suppression” is rapidly becoming a way of avoiding open debate and criticism. I suspect that the line Fraser will take too.
Oh, and sorry I forget to mention the many crimes of Stalinism while attacking the resurgence of the racialist dogma that fed Nazism. Its just that I dont havent seen a resurgence in anti -running dog/ bourgeois revisonist/ counter-revolutionary kulak propaganda around here lately.
But you’re probably right, “balance” is more important than relevance.
Is he spouting his political views in the classroom? If he is, he shouldn’t be.
But this thread started off with a complaint about Fraser spouting his views in a law journal.
And EP, do we have a right to criticise his views?
Its become clear lately that this “im being suppressed” fantasy is just a way of avoiding legitimate criticism and debate when your arguments are thin. I suspect its the line Fraser will take.
Oh, and EP, sorry I forgot to mention the many crimes of Stalinism when attackign teh resurgence of the racialist dogma that fed Nazism. Its just that I ahvent seen a big upsurge in anti- bourgeois revisonist/ running dog/ counter-revolutionary kulak propaganda around here lately.
But you’re right: ‘balance’ is always more important than relevance.
test
His views should not be spouted in a law journal because they’re not research – just personal prejudiced bile, EP. Is it so hard to understand the point of the thread?
Its become clear lately that this “im being suppressed” fantasy is just a way of avoiding legitimate criticism and debate when your arguments are thin. I suspect its the line Fraser will take.
Oh, and EP, sorry I forgot to mention the many crimes of Stalinism when attacking the resurgence of the racialist dogma that fed Nazism. Its just that I havent seen a big upsurge in anti- bourgeois revisonist/ running dog/ counter-revolutionary kulak propaganda around here lately.
But you’re right: ‘balance’ is always more important than relevance.
Its become clear lately that this “im being suppressed” fantasy is just a way of avoiding legitimate criticism and debate when your arguments are thin. I suspect its the line Fraser will take.
No Fraser can spout whatever nonsense he wants to in his spare time as long as he doesn’t invoke his academic title if that would be contrary to the interests of his employer. My point in highlighting that quote is that Fraser is not, even by neo-nazi standards, quite the ‘moderate’ professor he may seem to be, pursuing the distinterested search for the truth, some contemporary Galileo quashed by the powers that be.
Oh, and EP, sorry I forgot to mention the many crimes of Stalinism when attacking the resurgence of the racialist dogma that fed Nazism. Its just that I havent seen a big upsurge in anti- bourgeois revisionist/ running dog/ counter-revolutionary kulak propaganda around Australia lately.
But you’re right: ‘balance’ is always more important than relevance.
Oh, and EP, sorry I forgot to mention the many crimes of Stalinism when attacking the resurgence of the racialist dogma that fed Nazism. Its just that I havent seen a big upsurge in anti- bourgeois revisionist/ running dog/ counter-revolutionary kulak propaganda around Australia lately.
But you’re right: ‘balance’ is always more important than relevance.
Oh, and EP, sorry I forgot to mention the many crimes of Stalinism when attacking the resurgence of the racialist dogma that fed Nazism. Its just that I havent seen a big upsurge in anti- bourgeois revisionist/ running dog/ counter-revolutionary kulak propaganda around Australia lately. But you’re right: ‘balance’ is always more important than relevance.
Oh, and EP, sorry I forgot to mention the many crimes of Stalinism when attacking the resurgence of the racialist dogma that fed Nazism.
Its just that I havent seen a big upsurge in anti- bourgeois revisionist/ running dog/ counter-revolutionary kulak propaganda around Australia lately.
But you’re right: ‘balance’ is always more important than relevance.
His views should not be spouted in a law journal because theyÄôre not research – just personal prejudiced bile
That’s never stopped anyone publishing in an academic journal before. Why should it stop Fraser now?
Oh yeah, and EP, sorry I forgot to mention the many crimes of Stalinism when attacking the resurgence of the racialist dogma that fed Nazism. Its just that I havent seen a big upsurge in anti- bourgeois revisionist/ running dog/ counter-revolutionary kulak propaganda around Australia lately.
But you’re right: ‘balance’ is more important than relevance.
Oh yeah, sorry I forgot to mention the many crimes of Stalinism when attacking the resurgence of racialist dogma that fed Nazism. Its just that I havent seen a big upsurge in anti- bourgeois revisionist/ running dog/ counter-revolutionary kulak propaganda around Australia lately.
But you’re right: ‘balance’ is always more important than relevance.
You read lots of academic journals, do you, EP?
Oh, and EP, sorry I forgot to mention Stalinism when attacking the resurgence of the racialist dogma that fed Nazism. Its just that I havent seen a big upsurge in anti- bourgeois revisionist/ running dog/ counter-revolutionary kulak propaganda around Australia lately.
I keep forgetting ‘balance’ is more important than relevance.
Interestingly, McConvill seems to be engaging in self-censorship retrospectively – about half the posts on his blog have disappeared – including the one where he describes his boss as a “great leader and intellectual”, the one about libertinism and legal philosophy, and the one where he attacks conservative academics and bloggers Norton and Bahnisch.
Maybe someone at Deakin decided that all publicity is not good publicity?
No, I don’t have the time to waste.
But from examples like this, it’s obvious that personally prejudiced bile is perfectly acceptable in academic publications.
This nonsense differs from Fraser’s opinions only in the fact that it was extravagantly funded by public money, and as far as I know, has not resulted in the suspension of any of its authors.
Good work there, EP – Nelson should have appointed you rather than Paddy McGuiness to his new committee to scrutinise the titles of grant applications.
I don’t suppose you’ve read the article.
There’s a fair bit of reseach in political psychology which looks at the motivations of political leaders having some characteristics in common. It doesn’t imply that there’s a moral equation between these people.
I suppose if the study had “lumped together” Bill Clinton and Stalin, you’d applaud it though?
“This nonsense differs from FraserÄôs opinions only in the fact…”
Well, you haven’t shown that its authors advocate race riots on campus so that the public will realise the Asian invasion is under way…
I don’t need to read a study that claims conservatism is a mental illness to know that it’s rubbish.
There are many, many academic “studies” that merely reflect the political prejudices of their authors. Much of the work done in the humanities departments of universities is merely left-wing propaganda dressed up in pseudointellectual clothing to make it appear more respectable.
There is very little real research being done in fields other than the hard sciences. Most of what passes for research in “soft” sciences is merely political advocacy or status seeking.
This is why I think universities have outlived their usefulness to society.
You haven’t demonstrated that the study claims that, EP. And if you never look at any academic studies, how do you know they’re all left-wing propaganda?
Anyway, it seems you’re supporting the right of Deakin Law Review to publish neo-Nazi propaganda.
I support the right of Deakin Law Review to publish neo-Nazi propaganda, just as I support the right of other academic journals to publish neo-Communist propaganda. Both are of equal moral worth.
But I look forward to a future where such journals, and the institutions that produce them, are obsolete.
Well, thanks for that clarification, EP.
Im with EP, a peasant economy would be fun. Its been ages since we lefties have had a good old forced collectivisation drive among Kulak hordes.
Oh crap, I forget to ‘balance’ that comment with a swipe at Nazis.
[...] I have been reluctant to give more undeserved publicity to the sadly mistaken ‘Drew’ Fraser but in light of his new found veneer of semi-respectability given that an article of his has been accepted for publication by Deakin Law Review I’ve decided it appropriate to highlight a recent comment of his on the white ethnic nationalist Majority Rights blog which should be sufficient evidence that the man is not and has never been some disinterested pursuer of the truth suppressed by the Powers That Be (i.e. those who pay his wage) or a latter day Galileo but is rather just another racist demagogue, albeit one with a university degree. [...]
Trackback.
“support the right of Deakin Law Review to publish neo-Nazi propaganda, just as I support the right of other academic journals to publish neo-Communist propaganda. Both are of equal moral worth.”
EP
they clearly are not of “of equal moral worth”, ideas that in reality opress certain groups (women, gays, blacks etc) in society should have no place anywhere and more peolpe should be willing to take a hard stance against them and make it absolutely clear that it is not O.K to say these things whatever your academic title and qualifications not doing so only gives confidence to Nazis and Liberals to throw their weight around as has been happening lately. (a Nazi gang recently attacked a “lefty” bookshop after years of being too scared to show their faces around. Howard attacking Muslims etc..)
and i dont think anybody should have to defend their biased against right wing academics, th more biased and sensorship of these ideas the better, thats why the arguement with “freedom of speech” is problematic it is not about freedom of anything but legitimising opression and nobody should be free to that.
P.S.now for my own right to academic expression: i hope people like Fraser and Bagaric get shot and hung upside down in front of Flinders street station with racist spraypainted on their forheadss for everyone to see, i’m sure i could write an essay on how acts such as these would benifit society if they happened on a mass scale.
Deakin U’s best and brightest on display.
Sir, I salute your academic acumen.
Hear hear. Deakin student, I look forward to reading your work in the Deakin Law Review. Or perhaps on the toilet wall. Or both.
the big chill in academia
Whilst away in Melbourne I wondered about the approaching chill in academy concerning academic freedom in Australia. Things do seem to be closing down a bit. I had in mind this case about Professor Andrew Fraser, an associate professor in public law at…
The main area of interest about Andrew Fraser is not if he is right or wrong, but if his detractors are right or wrong. And if so, about what? Their theme seems to be that Fraser is misguided or racist or both and his published views should not be taken seriously – at best – or made effectively unavailable to the public. OK, so much for Fraser.
But what do his detractors believe? That all humans are an intellectual blank slate just waiting for the right home? At this point they become a little quieter as DNA still hides more than Andrew Fraser and his detractors can possibly know.
Race and IQ is not a debate. It is a drama. Fraser’s detractors concentrate on Fraser and his character and nothing else, least of all a body of evidence to bolster any counter argument. Rather they would deconstruct the very idea of race which would go right over the head of the last Martian that landed. Darwin too, probably. Deconstruction basically scuppers conversation. And scuppering conversation is what it is all about.
Fraser detractors show the same morality that once led efficient clergy and concerned citizens to expose people who doubted the existence of God. And the use of words was similar, “heretic” literally painting a persons character as “racist” does today.
The cruelest cut of all is the possibilty that the drama aspect will work against the very people who are central to the debate – the sub saharan Africans who are dying in droves and have been for years and years – still counting. Remember them? The consequences of Fraser being right and his detractors wrong are predicatable in the unforgiving evolutionary world.
Better to face up to an unpleasant truth if it saves so many from an on going Holocaust.
And that is something that Fraser’s detractors, more concerned with their moral vanity or jobs, will never do.
I’m having difficulty grasping your point, Nick. No one here – as far as I know – is arguing that there shouldn’t be research on IQ. I am not. Though I have reservations about its suitability as a measure.
However, such research is not what Fraser is doing. He is putting forward a personal opinion and bolstering it with citations from hate publications which consistently misrepresent science and statistics.
He is putting forward a personal opinion and bolstering it with citations from hate publications which consistently misrepresent science and statistics.
In other words, he is doing exactly the same thing that feminist academics do.
Yet feminists don’t cop the same attacks from the Left, because their hate literature is politically acceptable.
Nick for a body of evidence that counters Fraser’s arguments why don’t you check out this for a start:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~cjscopy/articles/wahlsten.html
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-10/19wise.cfm
Nick, his character in all of this is relevant to the whole debate. We have heard stories about admitted links to the PYL, tacit support for a race hate campaign in Toowoomba- so its only natural to be rather skeptical about his credibility in the whole debate.
To act on the whims of one man’s paranoia and personal fears, which strangely enough he supressed until one year before his retirement would fly in the face of reality one thinks. See if Fraser was such a courageous hero Nick as some people on the right are putting him forward as, perhaps you could explain that if he felt that things were getting so bad in Australia, why did he not bother to come forward earlier- and the answer probably lies in his search for personal glory more than any attempt at a genuine academic debate.
Looking at the incidence of violence against women with the intention of reducing men’s mortality rates? Interesting definition of hate EP. Cruel to be kind? Feminist schadenfreude? Any specific objections to the study as detailed as the ones on Fraser or are we just googling “research” and “patriarchy”? I’d be geniunely interested.
Mark said “IÄôm having difficulty grasping your point, Nick. No one here – as far as I know – is arguing that there shouldnÄôt be research on IQ. I am not.”
Well points I guess but I hope repeating the following will suffice:
‘The cruelest cut of all is the possibilty that the drama aspect will work against the very people who are central to the debate – the sub saharan Africans who are dying in droves and have been for years and years – still counting.’
Somewhat more important than either Fraser’s character or his detractors motives I would have thought.
Yes, but I’m not sure how you think this will or might occur, Nick.
Simon says “Nick, his character in all of this is relevant to the whole debate.”
Well no. The issue is independent of Fraser, even his very existence.
Nazis’ thought smoking caused lung cancer (in the 1930s). The first thing the Yanks did after the Nazis were defeated was to send several billion cigarettes to Germany.
Simon you make the understandable mistake of assuming that because people of bad (or even evil) character believe something to be true, then that something MUST be false.
Lots of paid up German Nazi researchers also thought that swept wings were the way to go for handling high speed jet aircraft. Do you think about that when you look out of the window at 35,000 feet?
I havn’t read all the posts on the thread – but I’ll offer this opinion on IQ tests, in particular, with regards to pattern recognition questions.
Given a finite set of data, there are a very large if not infinite set of patterns that “underly” that data, and so, unless you word a pattern recognition question very carefully, it won’t be a unique answer.
What meaning do these questions then have?
Mark said “Yes, but IÄôm not sure how you think this will or might occur, Nick”
Well I am not sure myself but one can only blame the colonialists (and the West in general) for so long for the holocaust we are seeing in Africa. A holocaust, IMHO, that should not just have a single capital at the begining, but entirely.
Turning the torch, what are the consequences (for Africa let alone Australia) of the Frasers’ of this world being correct? What would we see? What should we do that we haven’t done before?
In a nutshell, the consequences of a link between race and IQ are far more frightening for Africans than Fraser is himself.
Evolutionary success is not about the strongest and/or the smartest but the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. Obviously no one wants the last 45 years of sub saharan Africa projected into the future and for that reason alone I think the debate should run free without rancour. Unfortunately there are other agendas that seem more important like finding “racism” under every rock.
Nick- the point I was referring to was related to bias and objectivity. Can a person indeed be objective in writing about race considering his earlier public statements, alleged links to groups such as the PYL?
You asked the question of what are the consequences of people like Fraser being correct- well should we listen to Fraser, Nick? At this point in time genetic research into crime is hardly definitive, although Fraser would have you believe that it is. Certainly it has to be said that we are a long way away from providing anything definitive on this area, and until such time we must proceed with caution with the Fraser’s of this world.
Post september 11 there has been a wave of what has been described as “paranoid nationalism” and it seems at this point in time Fraser is riding that wave with his own agenda.
Simon said “Can a person indeed be objective in writing about race considering his earlier public statements, alleged links to groups such as the PYL?”
I assume the PYL is not an organisation to respect. Well even so, it is irrelevant – as I explained in my post – to the truth of the issue. Communism has had an awful track record in terms of human rights but I don’t think that it means an ex communist (or a present one) cannot have a valid opinion.
Simon said “You asked the question of what are the consequences of people like Fraser being correct- well should we listen to Fraser, Nick?”
Well if he was correct, then why not?
One point of criticism is the fact that Fraser is talking outside of his field of expertise (constitutional law). Well maybe, but I don’t have a problem with Norm Chomsky (an expert on language development) talking about the hopeless position the US finds itself in Iraq. Should I?
PYL is a neo-fascist organisation that promotes racial violence.
As to Chomsky, he is careful to draw upon documented empirical fact and scholarship within the areas he comments on politically. He’s not really a theorist of international relations, though, and you can take or leave his opinion without worrying too much about his authority. But it would be wise to pay attention to the factual material he presents, even if you disagree with the interpretation.
As I said above, Fraser does no research in the accepted sense of the term and relies only on hate literature which is not scientific.
Nick I’m not implying that someone such as Fraser can’t have a valid opinion- I am only suggesting that someone with such an obvious bias against “third worlders” and “Asians” as he suggests could hardly be objective in writing about race. Factor that in with his own personal opinions and weak research then can we realistically say he maybe correct or not?
Chomsky compared to Fraser is like comparing cars to jetskis- love Chomsky or hate him, at least he makes an effort to provide well researched evidence for his arguments. Perhaps you should read some of Fraser’s sources for yourself and then the critiques of those arguments- and you can judge for yourself whether you think Fraser is onto something.
Mark said “PYL is a neo-fascist organisation that promotes racial violence.”
That’s what they say about themselves or what you say about them? In other words would they agree with your words?
Simon said “Chomsky compared to Fraser is like comparing cars to jetskis”
Somehow I suspect if Fraser was talking, instead, about the the US/Iraq quagmire you wouldn’t have a problem with him. Am I right?
BTW, this page is a S L O W scroll on dial up.
Nick, see this comment by Fraser.
And if you want to find out about PYL, I suggest you visit Darp and Fight Dem Back.
Nick- maybe this will answer your question:
Think conflict of interest- IE for example if you were working for a major PR firm representing McDonalds, you would likely find yourself out of a job if you pointed out the negative aspects of McDonalds such as the fat content etc.
(Sorry to any PR workers out there, but couldn’t think of a better example)
Now this maybe an extreme example of what I am trying to say- however Fraser’s bias, Frasers objectivity is central to what he writes and the research he chooses to include. It has been suggested in response to people such as Rushton, that they in fact reach predetermined conclusions before they set out to research, and that is what Fraser has done. We already know Fraser has little chance of being objective in this matter, as anything else would ruin his repuation as a man of courage amongst his right wing supporters.
Hmmm. So let me get this straight. If you suspect there is a link between Race and IQ then you will carry this bias into the research through to the end. If you think there isn’t, you won’t. I am not trying to be smart but to get a clear answer.
No one has addressed the issue of the consequences for Africa if the “linkers” are right. Doesn’t seem a major concern at all, which is a pity considering their plight.
For any research, you need a hypothesis. Such a hypothesis should be derived from existing literature, or should be a proposition that the data can either confirm or falsify. If you want to research race and IQ, you’d need very tight definitions of both to ensure construct validity as a very first start.
What Fraser does is in no sense social scientific research, as I’ve said again and again. In any social scientific discipline, it would be failed as a first year essay regardless of its political slant.
As to Africa, I’m very concerned. But I’m inclined to think that the problems have far more to do with current political/economic structures and the legacies of colonialism than anything to do with IQ.
A recent Scientific American offers suggestions as to the reasons for some of the problems confronting Africans, in particular, problems in agriculture that are related to the climate.
Mark said “For any research, you need a hypothesis. Such a hypothesis should be derived from existing literature, or should be a proposition that the data can either confirm or falsify.”
Well Darwin was brave. Not much previous literature (Malthus, Owen, his grandfather), unaware of Mendel, and 100 years before Crick and Watson.
But he got the big picture mainly right even if he couldn’t provide the actual detailed mechanics for it.
And brave he was considering the opposition and the nature of their attacks including ridicule – a favourite of 2nd rate thinkers.
Curious to muse on what Darwin would have thought about this debate once he got up to date.
NL
I’m talking about social scientific research, which is what Fraser is allegedly doing (or legal research?), Nick. Inductive reasoning in science is different. And Fraser wouldn’t try to publish his stuff in a scientific journal because I think even he would concede it in no way resembles any known method of doing science.
Nick from my perspective, the ‘linkers’ as you call them are simply seeking justification for the end of non-white immigration as a whole. I have little doubt that if they express any concern for the plight of Africans than it is purely a means to an end.
You ask what the consequences of not listening to people like Fraser might be. Yet his argument that “experience practically everywhere else shows us…” lacks any evidentary support for his opinion. He makes the big mistake of assuming that crime is genetically based- which is far from definitive. Research into violent crime in Australia for example, although noting intelligence as a factor in violent crime, rates it less signifcant than the environment and other social factors. The ‘Color of Crime’ for example argues that blacks cause more crime because they are black. Anyone with an even elementary knowledge of criminology will tell you otherwise.
Fraser is simply playing to a paranoid agenda- an agenda set ever since september 11 and the rise of a paranoid nationalism never before seen in this country.
Not much previous literature eh? My Penguin Classics copy of The Origin of Species includes Darwin’s “Historical Sketch of the Progressof Opinion on the Origin of Species Previously to the Publication of the First Edition of this Work”. In it Darwin cites Aristotle as a classical thinker who alludes to evolution before passing on to some of the idea’s modern exponents; Buffon, Lamarck, Geoffrey St-Hilaire, Dr W C Wells in a paper read to the Royal Society in 1813, the Hon and Rev W Herbert one Professor Grant, Mr Patrick Matthew, Mr Wallace, Von Buch, Rafinesque, Professor Haldeman, M J d’Omalius d’Halloy, Professor Owen, M Isidore Geoffrey Saint-Hilaire, Dr Freke, Mr Herbert Spencer, M Naudin, Count Keyserling, Dr Schaafhuasen, M Lecoq, the Rev Baden Powell, Mr Wallace again, Von Baer, Professor Huxley and finally Dr Hooker. According to the book’s editor, this list was still considered a bit light on (omits Erasmus Darwin, Diderot, Maupertois among others). This doesn’t in any way detract from Darwin’s bravery but its clear that his belief that species had evolved over time wasn’t unprecedented. His particular achievement was to provide a credible mechanism – natural selection.
What would Darwin think of this debate if we somehow revived or reconstituted him and brought him up to date? Well, bear in mind that the bloke very doggedly, through scrupulous research, developed a theory that was at odds with some of the most cherished ideas of his contemporaries; their belief in the truth of the Bible. Would he go with the sort of views he expressed in Chapter VII of The Descent of Man? Or, once we’d brought him up to speed on population genetics, modern statistical methods and a few other relevant subjects, would he set about demolishing the widely cherished idea that white folks are smarter than most other people but not, unfortunately, all of them? My guess is the latter but then I would say that, wouldn’t I?
The race and IQ debate is one thing and it may be related to immigration. I do think that it is a vitriolic debate and more’s the pity. Just yesterday I heard Beattie say we have to have “draconian” anti – terrorism laws because of the threat of “homegrown” (Howard, I think) problems.
If this had been spelt out 35 years ago, when debate on the subject became a non-debate, then it would have been rejected for reasons less to do with “racism” than simple self defending common sense.
That is one reason that I believe the debate should should run free. Australia in 30 years time. The plight of Africa is probably, in terms of numbers, more important but it is another issue.
Mark said “As to Africa, IÄôm very concerned. But IÄôm inclined to think that the problems have far more to do with current political/economic structures and the legacies of colonialism than anything to do with IQ.”
Well, as I have said, that reason can only last so long. The sub continent (India etc) was under a colonial yoke for a lot longer than Africa (and I am only thinking of the Brits) and despite its difficulties, doesn’t seem to have the same sort of problems.
I have to say, I am beginning to distrust the use of “racist” as an adjective. As in “racist post”, “racist view”. The purpose is to immediately invalidate the opinion of whoever the comment is directed at. And that is always a low blow in debate.
Gummo said “Not much previous literature eh?” re Darwin. Well relatively not much. Perhaps Humboldt and Darwin’s contemporary Wallace should be added. But, by and large, he stood alone although he did use proxies to fight his fight occasionally.
Part of the reason why africa is such a mess is because borders between states were drawn by multiple colonial powers without regard to the tribal/ethnic/religious makeup of the resident population, essentially mashing togerther different groups with different languages and customs together and saying ‘hey you guys are a nation now’.
When India was partitioned something similar happened, but it was one partition, under one colonial authority. It wasn’t pretty at all, but Africa is that times 30 odd. (There are other reasons why Africa is screwed up in comparison to India and others but that’s a huge glaring one)
I suspect that Africa will continue to be a mess for exactly the same amount of time that the colonialism is blamed for it.
Leanad makes a good point (one that I am not totally conviced by) about multiple colonial powers in Africa being the major cause of the problem. So when the resident colonialist warned of a pending disaster (which turned out to be bigger than even they imagined) well they were right.
But the welfare of Africans is less important, it seems, than questioning the motives, morals and lifestyles of those colonialists.
So now, nearly 50 years after Nigerian independence, and TENS of millions of avoidable deaths later, we have in Africa countless UN troops and agencys who are on short term contracts and probably can’t wait to get out of there. No long term investment for most of them or their families. Maybe that would make a difference.
Perhaps we should ask the Africans themselves (apart from the ruling cliques) what they would prefer. Old style colonialism that their grandparents remembered; a UN presence; or more of the present same (this means yet another new start BTW). A radical questionaire indeed, and not one that will have much support in Glebe or St Lucia which is why it will never happen.
Ok, these long threads get very hard to read, so I’ll close this one and refer people who want to comment further on Fraser to this new post.