Friday, 15 April 2011

David Cameron and real ‘Scandal’ of the Universities

Political Correctness and the Death of Academic Freedom

By Tim Heydon

Nowhere is the sinister effect of the imposition of false ‘Equality’ in the snuffing out of liberty more obvious than in the groves of academe. If the supposed repositories of the disinterested pursuit of truth aren’t safe, no one is. One might think. But it was in fact the universities which first surrendered to the insidious doctrine of Political Correctness and precipitated what became known as the ‘Cultural Revolution’.

False Equality is the Bedrock of Leftism

The idea that all are actually and really equal regardless of social class, race, culture, religion or any other factor and ought to be treated such is the bedrock of modern Marxist leftism. Without this denial of truth, the claim that any social inequality is evidence of ‘oppression,’ such as David Cameron’s claim that the scarcity of black faces in the student intake at Oxford is 'shocking', begins to fall apart and with it the whole house of cards that is modern leftist theory.

That is why the mounting evidence for inherited personal and racial differences is so bitterly resisted by the forces of left-liberalism, in the universities as elsewhere. As Glayde Witney remarked in his 1995 Presidential address to the American Behaviour Genetics Society, in severe cases, this attitude includes an unbending intellectual absolutism akin to medieval scholasticism. ‘It is lethal to honest science,’ he said.

The Real Oppression is of Us

The real oppression is of those who must live under leftist policies which are designed to right wrongs which don’t exist because they are the products not of environment but of inheritance, thus denying those who deserve it because of their superior intelligence and other characteristics of their rightful rewards. The fact that only one Afro Caribbean was admitted to Oxford might be be attributable to cultural factors. But linked with this and far more importantly, the non-appearance of Afro-Caribbeans is really attributable, not to any great injustice, but largely to the low average IQ’s of Afro- Caribbeans in general. The mean IQ of blacks in the Caribbean itself is 70, ie the mental ability of the average white 11 year-old, but there is evidence of selection for intelligence in immigrants, producing a mean IQ somewhat below 86. (The mean IQ of sub-Saharan blacks in Britain, the first generation of which have a higher level of university graduates than Afro-Caribbeans, is 86. The IQ of whites in Britain is 100. Richard Lynn, The Global Bell Curve p88.)

Cameron’s implication that something must be done to rectify the ‘injustice’ of low black presence in Oxford will, if other such instances are anything to go by, result in real injustice by ending in discrimination against those who deserve a place at Oxford by virtue of their superior abilities and achievements but who are not Afro-Caribbean or simply Black.
When a Professor threatened a Student with Death : Cornell University and the Cultural Revolution

In his highly influential book, ‘The Closing of the American Mind,’ Allan Bloom, a Professor of Philosophy at Cornell in the USA when that University was the scene of gun-toting ‘revolutionaries’ in the 1960’s, recounted what happened when he confronted the University’s Provost over an incident where a black student’s life had been threatened by one of the academic staff for refusing to join in a demonstration:-

Black Radicals, Guns, Ideology and Weakness
‘He, of course, fully sympathised with the young man’s plight. However …..there was nothing he could do to stop such behaviour in the black student association. He personally hoped there would soon be better communication with the radical black students (this was before the guns emerged and permitted much clearer communication)......He added that no university in the country could expel radical black students, or dismiss the faculty members who incited them because the students at large would not permit it.’
The Rule of Fear and the Destruction of Freedom

‘Obvious questions were no longer obvious: Why could not a black student be expelled as a white student would be if he failed his courses or disobeyed the rules that make a university community possible? Why could not the Provost call the police if order was threatened? Any man of weight would have fired the professor who threatened the life of a student. The issue was not complicated. Only the casuistry of weakness and ideology made it so. Ordinary decency dictated the proper response. No one who knew or cared about what university is would have acquiesced in this travesty.. (Alan Bloom, ‘The Closing of American Mind’pp316 /7)

Political Correctness and Terror triumph over the free Pursuit of Truth and Justice

The anti-democratic , anti-free-speech capitulation to ideology and the fear-driven surrender to the potentially violent forces of the left shown by Cornell University’s Provost on that occasion and by others like him round about the same time have marked the attitude of the Universities in the USA , in Britain and elsewhere in the West ever since. True, guns are no longer in evidence because the revolution has triumphed. But ideology and fear have seen to it that dissent from approved political thinking (Political Correctness) continues to be snuffed out. Here is a list of Academics who have dared to raise their heads above the Parapet and who have suffered as a result, either through losing their jobs or facing other disciplinary action including being gagged when they talked about race or other related matters:-

Academic Persecution in the USA and Canada

Larry Summers

Summers was President of Harvard, possibly the USA’s most prestigious university, when in 2005 he dared to suggest that women were underrepresented in the top echelons of the Hard Science Faculties in Universities, not because they were discriminated against but because that compared to men, they simply weren’t good enough. They had ‘different availability of aptitude at the high end.’ He called for clear thinking on these matters. But there is no room for clear, rational thought and freedom of speech where political correctness is involved. You simply can’t say these things, even if you are President of Harvard. Heretical thoughts about the non-Equality of the Races, the Sexes, Religions and Cultures are simply not tolerated, regardless, or even because of the evidence. Summers paid the penalty for his candour. He subsequently ‘resigned’ from his position. He was though appointed as an economics advisor by Obama.

James Watson

Watson is the Nobel-prize-winning co-discoverer of the structure of DNA who suggested in 2000 that dark- skinned people had stronger libidos than lighter-skinned ones. Extracts of melanin - which gives skin its colour – had been found to boost subjects' sex drive. "That's why you have Latin lovers," he said. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient." On October 25, 2007, Watson had to resign from his position as head of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York after he was reported as saying ‘I am inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa (because) all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.’ Watson had apparently made similar remarks about women, without it seems quite realising how much such suggestions are a heresy against the Cult of Equality, punishable by excommunication.

Kevin B. MacDonald

Macdonald is a professor of psychology at California University, Long Beach. Using evolutionary psychology, he has developed a theory of Judaism as a "group evolutionary strategy." According to this theory, traits attributed to Jews such as higher-than-average verbal intelligence and ethnocentrism have eugenically evolved to enhance the ability of Jews to conspire to out-compete non-Jews for resources while undermining the power and self-confidence of the white majorities in Europe and America whom, he insists, Jews seek to dispossess, working indirectly through such ideologies as neo-conservativism which, like Freudian psychoanalysis and Marxism, uses arguments that appeal to non-Jews, rather than appealing explicitly to Jewish interests.

MacDonald questions claims that racial differences are unimportant or illusory and that racial and cultural assimilation will be an easy process.] He believes that blacks and Latinos are by and large genetically intellectually inferior to whites and Asian. He stated in connection with mass immigration that:

‘The alternative (to having an ethno state from which non- Europeans are excluded) faced by Europeans throughout the Western world is to place themselves in a position of enormous vulnerability in which their destinies will be determined by other peoples, many of whom hold deep historically conditioned hatreds toward them. Europeans' promotion of their own displacement is the ultimate foolishness—an historical mistake of catastrophic proportions.’
Many may think that this sums the situation up very neatly. Unsurprisingly in the present climate, the University Senate and his colleagues in the university’s psychology department have formally dissociated themselves from his work. The Senate described his views as Anti-Semitic and white ethnocentric. Apart from this condemnation on the grounds of Political Correctness, no substantive criticism of the correctness of his opinions appears to have been offered. Apparently, while Macdonald’s work may be described as ethnocentric and anti-semitic and justify attempts to gag and to possibly to remove him from his post; that Jews are anti –white and ethnocentric is either dismissed out of hand or is beyond criticism.

Arthur Jensen

Jensen is a major proponent of heriditarian position in the nature / nurture debate. He concluded from his studies that the Head Start programmes designed to boost African-American IQ scores had failed, and that this was likely never to be remedied, largely because, in his estimation, heritability of IQ was over 0.7 of the within-race IQ variability, and the 0.3 left over was due to non-shared environmental influences. (J Philippe Rushton has established that there have been no black gains in reading and mathematics in five decades . The vast amounts of public money poured into this scheme on the assumption that American blacks are equally intelligent to whites and other races, has been largely wasted.

After Jensen’s paper was released, students and faculty staged large protests outside Jensen's University of California Office at Berkeley. He was denied reprints of his work by his publishers and was not permitted to reply in response to letters of criticism—both extremely unusual policies for their day.

Jensen's 1998 ‘The g factor: The Science of Mental Ability’ suggests that a genetic component is implicated in the white-black difference in IQ .

In 2005, Jensen's article, co-written with J Philippe Rushton named ‘Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability", was published in the APA journal Psychology, Public Policy and Law. They present ten categories of evidence in support of the notion that IQ differences between whites and blacks are partly genetic in origin.

Glayde Whitney

Glayde Whitney was a behavioural genetics and psychology professor at Florida State University. Whitney drew the wrath of the liberal establishment when in his Presidential address to the Behavior Genetics Association in 1995 he suggested that there was a need to investigate the possibility of genetic factors behind the high incidence of black crime in America.

Whitney caused further controversy when he wrote a sympathetic foreword to David Duke’s autobography, ‘My Awakening’. He described it as ‘’a painstakingly documented, academically excellent work of sociobiological-political history ... provid[ing] on the order of a thousand references and footnotes.’ He wrote," I discovered that Duke's 'racism' was not born of hatred, but of science and history. In reading Duke's work, Whitney noted, "As the hard scientific data came in, it became more certain that genetic differences (heredity) played a large role in the discrepancy. But in public it became politically incorrect to even to acknowledge that there was a difference."

Whitney argued that opponents of genetic research into racial differences are positioned against the scientific tradition of open inquiry, maintained even when one detests another's subject. When he received death threats he stated that "races are different for many genetic systems that influence everything from behavior and psychology to physiology, medicine and sports [...] Screaming nasty words does not change the reality." Whitney's views regarding race and intelligence prompted the Florida Senate to pass Resolution 2742 in 1999, "condemning the racism and bigotry espoused by Florida State University Professor Glayde Whitney."

J Philippe Rushton

Rushton is Professor of Psychology at The University of Western Ontario. His book ‘Race, Evolution and Behaviour’ which applies the r-K life-history theory to racial differences in IQ and other racial traits was greeted with widespread hostility and criticism, such as that of Robert Sussman the Editor of the American Anthropologist. When he refused to place ads for the book in the Magazine, Sussman said in explanation that

‘This is an insidious attempt to legitimize Rushton’s racist propaganda and is tantamount to publishing ads for white supremacy and the neo-Nazi party. If you have any question about the validity of the “science” of Rushton’s trash you should read any one of his articles and the many rebuttals by ashamed scientist’.]

(Hmm. Sussman’s main complaint seems to be ideological rather than scientific, doesn’t it?).

Nevertheless, Rushton was backed by some of the most eminent Academics in the field including Hans Eysenck, one of the most influential psychologists of the later twentieth century who was his doctoral supervisor at the University of London and who said of him that he ‘ is widely known and respected for the unusual combination of rigour and originality in his work... (and commenting on Rushton's book Race, Evolution and Behavior) ... Few concerned with understanding the problems associated with race can afford to disregard this storehouse of well-integrated information which gives rise to a remarkable synthesis.’ (

Academic Persecution in the UK

Chris Brand

Brand was a lecturer in Psychology at Edinburgh University. After an almost year-long investigation by the University, he was sacked from this tenured post which he had held for 27 years because of his views on Race, IQ and women and because of remarks he made about paedophilia. His 1996 book ‘The g Factor: General Intelligence and Its Implications’ led to accusations of ‘scientific racism’ and sexism and his lectures were protested and closed by the Anti Nazi league of Edinburgh. Brand describes himself as a ‘race realist.’

Geoffrey Sampson

is Professor of Natural Language Computing in the Department of Informatics, University of Sussex. He was elected as a Tory to Wealdon District Council in 2001. In 2002 he resigned having been attacked by Labour Party and Lib Dem ministers and councillors for publishing an article on his website, ‘There's Nothing Wrong with Racism (Except the Name)’. The Conservative Party Central Office endorsed his resignation saying that it was "in the best interests of all concerned ...the Conservative party is opposed to all forms of racial discrimination".

Satoshi Kanazawa

Kanazawa is an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economic. He got himself into serious trouble when he published a paper alleging that African states were poor and suffered chronic ill-health because their populations were less intelligent than people in richer countries. Kanazawa was accused of ‘reviving the politics of eugenics’ by publishing the research which concluded that low IQ levels, rather than poverty and disease, are the reason why life expectancy is low and infant mortality high. His paper, published in the British Journal of Health Psychology, compared IQ scores with indicators of ill health in 126 countries and claimed that nations at the top of the ill health league also have the lowest intelligence ratings.

‘The Guardian’
said that ‘the reaction to Kanazawa's paper would ’reopen the simmering debate about whether academics are entitled to express opinions that many people may find offensive’. No surprise there. The Guardian will always be opposed to the expression of the truth if it is less than flattering to some non-white male group which will be ‘offended’ by it. Apparently truth should be concealed or never revealed or isn’t truth, if this is the case. It’s called sweeping unpleasant facts under the carpet; deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room, etc etc. If you buy The Guardian, you won’t get the truth. So why bother?

Kanazawa survived, quite possibly because, not being white, he was held to be less guilty than if a white person had made the same arguments.

Armand Leroi

Leroi is Professor of Evolutionary Developmental Biology at Imperial College, London. He attracted much hostile attention when in 2005 he published an article ‘A Family Tree in every Gene’ which underlined the importance of gene expression in confirming the reality of Race. Naturally, any scientific work which serves to deny that race is merely a ’social construct’ must be not just wrong, but evil, because leftist ideology says it is. So far, Leroi has survived academically.

Frank Ellis

Frank Ellis is the lecturer in Russian and Slavonic studies at Leeds University who dared to support the ‘Bell Curve’ theory. This theory of course holds that black people are less intelligent than whites – enough to have Ellis figuratively burned at the academic stake. But Ellis also believes that women did not have the same intellectual capacity as men and backed the 'humane' repatriation of ethnic minorities. Whilst the University appeared initially to have tried to back Ellis, in the end, it seems, it failed to hold out against the pressure from protesting students and teaching staff. Ellis ‘took early retirement.’

David Coleman

Coleman is University Professor of Demography at Oxford. He lists his interests as ‘the causes and consequences of low fertility and the ageing of populations in the developed countries; international migration; the demographic transition to low birth and death rates in the third world; problems of excessive or inadequate rates of population growth and policy responses to them’. His researches include ‘the comparative demographic trends of the industrial world, particularly the reasons for the persistence of substantial international differences in birth and death rates and in family structure. .. Also immigration trends and policies and the demography of ethnic minorities and. .. housing policy.’

Coleman’s warnings about the immigrants’ takeover of Britain through their differential birthrates have, like the work of the other academics mentioned here, attracted hostile criticism from the usual quarters. Like the others mentioned above he has been the victim of academic gagging.

Richard Lynn

Richard Lynn
, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of Ulster is currently probably the most prominent British Scientist in the field of IQ and other racial differences. Among his writings are ‘ IQ and the Wealth of Nations (Human Evolution, Behaviour and Intelligence)’ co-authored with Tatu Vanhanen), ‘The Global Bell Curve’ and ‘Race Differences in Intelligence.’

It is no coincidence that Lynn’s prominence in this field arose after his retirement from the University with the honorific title ‘Professor Emeritus’. As with the others mentioned here (those who have not been sacked, that is) Lynn was gagged from discussing racial matters whilst actually in post. Like J Philippe Rushton, he has only managed to get his work known through small private Publishers.

Academic Persecution Elsewhere

An example is:-

Helmut Nyborg

Nyborg, Professor of Developmental Psychology at Aarhus University is probably Denmark’s best know and most controversial Psychologist. He has identified a 5-point average IQ difference in favour of men. Through research, Nyborg has also concluded, inter alia, that white people tend to be more intelligent than blacks.

In 2005, Nyborg published his paper, ‘ Sex-related differences in general intelligence g, brain size, and social status’. Even though this passed peer review in an expert scientific journal, Aarhus University investigated accusations of scientific fraud in the results. The resulting report concluded that there although there was some statistical errors (which were not in fact of major significance in the results) there was no evidence of fraud.

Notwithstanding this, the University reacted to the report by suspending Nyborg in 2006.
And so on and on.

What do we gather from all of this? That the claims of Academic Freedom are dead in the era of Political Correctness. And that If highly important and respected Scientists like those mentioned above can be attacked, sacked, vilified and silenced in the way they have been for pursuing lines of research which conflict with the prevailing Marxist ideology, it is certain that there are many, many more in the shadows who substantially agree with their views but who lack their courage and determination, preferring a quiet life and living with the perniciously evil lie of ‘equality’. Even given the understandable fears of what that the truth of race differences have led to in the light of the horrific history of Nazi Germany, what we have now is censorship and oppression, pure and simple and the result is not the oppression of women and/or minorities but the oppression of the rest.

This is totalitarian Left-Liberalism in action..


misterfox said...

I have written on this subject myself. An appalling example was the treatment of Robert Henderson by his MP Frank Dobson, and even Blair himself, who tried to have him arrested. It gives a clear example of how the BBC falsify the comments of those they put on trial.

Anonymous said...


Frank Ellis would appear to be important enough to have a hatchet job done on him:

...but not important enough to have his own wikipedia entry any longer:

I am fairly sure there was one, and recall visiting it. This page seems to back that up:

The first link above describes Ellis as "controversial" and quotes someone saying his views were "abhorrent".

Wikipeda seem to be happy to present one side of the story but not present anything good about Ellis.

A watch needs to be kept on Wikipedia - I do not think they are unbiased.


Anonymous said...


Following on from my previous comments about the bias of Wikipedia, check how they describe Robert Henderson:

Dissident? This is the language of the Soviet...

Troll? Presumably meaning someone who the speaker disagrees with...

alanorei said...

Thank you, Sarah

I note that the work of Arthur Jensen is mentioned and it appears that he is consistent in his conclusions about the disparity between black and white intelligence.

I recall in an earlier set of comments a certain individual claiming to have 'refuted' Jensen.

I think the appropriate conclusion here is, for 'refuted,' read 'denied.'

Anonymous said...

"Aarhus University investigated accusations of scientific fraud in the results."

Interesting that no womens studies types have ever been investigated to see where the 30% difference in hourly wage rates comes from.

Yes it had been down to 23% but Labour, and thus Harriet Harman, had been in power for 13 years.