The dangers of remaining silent

Craven silence will get you no where. The “anti-racist” tyranny will not end until you force a truly open conversation about race. It will only get worse. Comments in a recent journal article by University of London critical race professor David Gillborn demonstrate this point well:

This Article examines the costs of so-called “free speech” in relation to race, particularly with reference to debates about a supposed link between race and intelligence/educability. Drawing on an analysis of media coverage in the United Kingdom, I show how Whiteness (a regime of beliefs and attitudes that embodies the interests and assumptions of White people) operates to privilege racist assumptions and silence minoritized voices despite the presence of formal restrictions and editorial controls similar to those once associated with the Fairness Doctrine in the United States. Under the guise of “free speech,” White people are free to engage in speculation about the nature of intelligence, without risk to themselves, in a situation where the costs are borne entirely by minoritized groups. These debates continually reinstate the possibility of a race/educability link (despite its debunking in the natural and social sciences) and reinforce common racist stereotypes that can be seen at work in the racial disparities associated with hierarchical educational grouping practices (such as tracking in the united States and England’s “gifted and talented” initiative) which systematically advantage White young people while disadvantaging their African-American and Black-British counterparts

Gillborn would see to it that discussions of hate facts, such as the known association between race and intelligence in the UK (let alone the US), are outlawed. Under the tyranny of those of his ilk, one could do a PsychNet search and look up studies such as “Frederickson and Petrides, 2010.Ethnic, gender, and socio-economic group differences in academic performance and secondary school selection: A longitudinal analysis” and read them, but one could not discuss the findings, let alone speculate about the causes of the found differences. Apparently, White people would not be even be allowed to speculate “about the nature of intelligence” (or, presumably, criminality and beauty).

To appreciate the radicalness of Gillborn’s position, it’s important to make clear what he’s saying. He is not merely saying that speculations about the cause of racial differences in intelligence should be criminalized. He’s arguing that even discussions of the reality of racial intelligence differences should be criminalized. (Of course, he contends that the reality of such differences have been debunked in the “social sciences” — but this is demonstrably false). Why? Because the reality of intelligence differences undermines the narrative of institutional racism and white iniquity.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to The dangers of remaining silent

  1. M says:

    Although it pains me, I think the best thing to do from a personal perspective is just to weather the storm: the personal costs associated with fighting the status quo are large, the probability of success low. Perhaps this particular taboo will pass within my lifetime? In the meantime you can move somewhere like China, where this is not so much of a practical problem…

    • Chuck says:

      “Although it pains me, I think the best thing to do from a personal perspective is just to weather the storm: the personal costs associated with fighting the status quo are large, the probability of success low.”

      Thanks for the comment. I used to think similarly. And I wasn’t persuaded otherwise due to the moral righteousnesses of the cause. Rather, I came down with a nasty encephalopathology — which is progressively showing in these posts and which has liberated me from concerns of future personal social status — and decided to make the best of this disaster. So, were I going along life as normal, I would be doing the same as you.

      Let me ask, how might we lower the cost of challenging the status quo? This is what needs to be figured out.

  2. Unamused says:

    Every line in that quote is a despicable lie, but this is undoubtedly typical for professors of “critical race” studies, “critical white” studies, “Africana” and “Chicano” studies, and other made-up subjects.

    I hope one day I have the opportunity to walk up to him and tell him to his face, with a smile, that blacks are less intelligent and more criminal than whites, and that this is not merely true, but obviously true. I want to see his meltdown firsthand.

    • Chuck says:


      I have been looking through the data on UK Blacks and, to be honest, it is makes me question my global hereditarian views (African Americans are not exactly a representative sample of Africans). Would you mind looking through the following and give me your analysis:

      Strand, S. (2011). The White British-Black Caribbean achievement gap: Tests, tiers and teacher expectations. British Educational Research Journal, in press. Link to journal article / pre-print

      Strand, S. (2010). Do some schools narrow the gap? Differential school effectiveness by ethnicity, gender, poverty and prior attainment. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21, (3), 289-314. Link to Journal article / pre-print

      Strand, S. (2010). The limits of social class in explaining ethnic gaps in educational attainment. British Educational Research Journal, in press. Link to iFirst journal article at / pre-print

      My thinking;
      The maximum UK Black-White academic gap (~age 17) is only about ~ 3-.5 SD. Assuming a .8 IQ g-achievement correlation, that allows for a max an age 17 .4-.6 IQ g gap. Which at most could genetically amplify to .7-.9 SD by adulthood. Let’s assume African/Caribbean immigrants are 1 SD above the geneotypic and phenotypic mean and and that the genotypic mean is 80 (which is what Lynn and Galton proposed). (This fits with Susan Model’s work). We would have first generation geneotypic adult IQs .3 SD below the white mean, with phenotypic IQs maybe 1 SD below the white mean. The second generation would regress to .6 above the mean (.6 X 1) (IQ of 89). Assuming the Black population in the UK is relatively endogenous the 3rd… would remain there. This gives us our .7 to .9 SD gap.

      What do you think?

  3. Unamused says:

    I’m looking through them, and maybe I’m just too tired, but I can’t figure out, based on the assumptions about the immigrants,
    (a) where the low first-generation phenotypic IQ comes from
    (b) why the (genotypic? phenotypic?) IQ regresses that way in the second generation

    • Chuck says:

      “based on the assumptions about the immigrants,
      (a) where the low first-generation phenotypic IQ comes from
      (b) why the (genotypic? phenotypic?) IQ regresses that way in the second generation”
      (a) I’m trying to reconcile the relatively small 2nd generation academic achievement gap with the Hereditarian hypothesis. To do this I am proposing that the 1st generation genotypic gap is around 0 despite their being a phenotypic gap. The low phenotypic gap comes from IQ estimates and estimates of Brit Black GMA from IOP — refer to my post on the GMA of Black Brits. (The average Black British 1st generation phenotypic IQ is ~ 90.) Basically, I would contend that Black immigrants are 1SD above the norm, phenotypically and genotypically. The Average African phenotypic IQ is ~70 to ~75; the hereditarian hypothesis proposes that the average Black genotypic IQ is between 80 and 85 (cf Galton, Lynn, and Rushton). So the British Blacks Phenotypic/genotypic IQ would be 85-90 and 95 to 100 respectively.

      b) Now, the second generation should genotypically regress. Regression = .6n, where n is the SD above the norm. So, the Second generation should have a genotypic IQ of ~88 by the time they are adults.

  4. Unamused says:

    Alright, I’ll buy that explanation. I wonder if anyone’s ever studied how black immigrants to the UK measure up to black immigrants to the US…

    In some ways they’re similar: knife violence there, gun violence (and knife violence, and every other kind of violence) here.

  5. Unamused says:

    Emailed you a draft of that flyer.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s