If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Freedom of Speech
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
A professor at Sussex University has provoked a call for his resignation from the student union after publishing an article entitled "There's nothing wrong with racism" on his personal website.
Guardian report
The university has distanced itself from the professor, but has not sacked him.
Sussex uni press release
The professor has now removed the article from his website, but has not retracted the content.
In his words
So should he go or not? Is he fit to teach and mark the work of students who he considers to be "genetically inferior" without bias?
Guardian report
The university has distanced itself from the professor, but has not sacked him.
Sussex uni press release
The professor has now removed the article from his website, but has not retracted the content.
In his words
So should he go or not? Is he fit to teach and mark the work of students who he considers to be "genetically inferior" without bias?
0
Comments
<IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Politically correct: to live a canard; to prevaricate and conceal a nefarious agenda - too dishonest to reveal what they really think, and too chickenshit to back it up; the stronghold of the weak and cowardly.
The politically correct have not the comprehension of honesty or honor, and prove it with their twisted passive/aggressive lives. Their joy is destroying whatever it is which makes you who you are, and will not be happy until the world is all vanilla.
May God strike me dead before He allow me to sink to the fetid mire of the politically correct. <img src="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/brdflick.gif" alt="image">
[ 18-05-2002: Message edited by: Thanatos...AGAIN ]
But they do have the right to have an unbiased teacher marking their work.Thanatos, this wasn't about political correctness, this is about bias.
How unbiased do you think a teacher who hates blacks and jews will be when marking a black student's exam paper?
[ 18-05-2002: Message edited by: PussyKatty ]
[ 18-05-2002: Message edited by: PussyKatty ]
It depends. Our teachers marked our coursework themselves. They knew who we were, and if we failed we wouldn't get through to the second year.
Admittedly this isn't a problem for students further up the system where work is marked externally, but for the first year it is done by the lecturers.
I have no innate fear of confronting the "bias" of an instructor. When I was in high school, I was given a failing grade because I quoted a Supreme Court Justice (William O. Douglas) within a term paper... and the 5'0", 245 lb, never been asked on a date and confirmed manhating little troll of a female took issue that my reference source was an interview in Playboy magazine... <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
And it went deeper. Although I had been published while in high school, the only year (of four) when I did not receive my school's literary award was the single year that the troll was the advisor for the school literary magazine. She hated male athletes - with an intellect - with a preditory passion...
When my son was in high school, his principle (Head Schoolmaster to you?)(Doctorate level) argued that "Communism is the only hope to save the world", and Thanatos Jr met her every argument until she left the classroom in tears, crushed and vanquished.
Some run from the fight, and some jump in.
EVERYONE has their prejudice and "bias", whether they are honest about them, or seek to hide them. When there is a bias which offends me, I do not cower: I go for the jugular. I confront them openly, and publicly disembowel them. I do not seek to have someone stab them in the back, fight my fight for me. You dis-empower them by confronting them, not by eliminating them.
[ 18-05-2002: Message edited by: Thanatos...AGAIN ]
There are several points about this story that stuck out...
1. He is a university lecturer. He teaches students of all nationalities and backgrounds. Is he going to give preferential treatment to those that he doesn't consider to be "genetically inferior"?
Counter-argument: most university work is marked using anonymous ID codes, not names. And if anyone had suspected that he was biased in the help he gave to some students, someone would have complained by now.
2.As a university professor, he represents an authority, and has influence over the students he teaches.
Counter-argument: university students are old enough to make up their own minds about these issues, particularly those concerning race.
3.As a representative of the university, he should avoid causing offence to any university students, particularly foreign students.
Counter-argument: the article was posted on his own private website, and although there was a link from his university webpage, this has been removed.
It's a clear conflict between the individual's right to freedom of speech, and the university's responsibility to provide an equal education to all of it's students regardless of sex, race, disability etc.
I just wonder why he felt the need to publicise his views over the internet, and use his university professor status to give it authority...
I remember a double Nobel Laureate ~ Linus Pauling (? never been good with names ?) ~ who was labeled a "racist" by the PC throng because he remarked that the intellect of the "black race" was in decline. His perspective ~ defensible ~ was that the intellectuals of the black race were exhibiting restraint in over-population by practicing birth control, and the uneducated/ignorant of the race were merrily procreating away. Since intelligence is a genetic trait, the median intellect was in decline.
Think about it...
Was not racist, but observant...
However, Mother Nature might be resorting to the Darwin Effect by way of HIV... <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> Perhaps Pauling got her attention, and Mother Nature be NOT prejudiced! <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
[ 18-05-2002: Message edited by: PussyKatty ]
Roger that.
But it was particularly offensive to the PC Police...
are you saying that aids is natural selection pruning the 'undesirables' of our society, thanatos? Because if you are, I'd take issue with that in a big way. But I've probably misinterpreted it so please set me straight if I have.
As for the actual issue - it seems to me that whilst every individual has the right to an opinion, no matter how offensive, when they are responsible for the grades of pupils in their care who may well be black, they should not be employed. If there is any evidence that this man's views would influence his teaching and grading he should be immediately sacked. Having only read selective quotes from a different article - is there a copy of the original anywhere, does anyone know? - it's difficult to make a judgement on this for sure. One other thing: even if they're marked by code number, he'll still mark essays etc. throughout their courses, and hence have a major effect on their quality of education. ALso, he'd surely probably recognize their handwriting?
Oh yeah, a PS:
really, diesel? how sad. Overly PC people, as ridiculous as they may be, are ultimately motivated by a desire to see equality and generosity of sprit, a desire to remove barriers to people other than straight caucasian males gettign a fair crack of the whip. Racists are ultimately motivated by fear, hatred, and ignorance. I know which I'd rather be.
Speaking veeerrry slooooowly so it can understand...
IF (emphasis upon IF, for the reading comprehension challenged) the median intellect of the "black race" is in decline, then perhaps aids is Mother Nature's way of putting the "check and balance" into the equation to eliminate the ignorant and stupid, and bring the median intellect back up.
And YES!, aids hits primarily the ignorant/stupid/careless/immoral amongst us, them who cannot keep their pants zipped... Return to a moral lifestyle is the quickest way to eliminate the disease.
If you cannot accept that reality, tough shit. Your edification awaits...
The PC would rather just fuck with everyone else rather than have the guts to take a stand on what they personally believe.
Cannot speak for UK, because I have not - and WILL NOT - go there, but the most virulent racism can be found in the US within them that bleat the loudest about it.
Before you label me as a "racist" ~ within your general ignorance ~ consider: when I was knifed at 16, and shot at 17, BOTH times, the attacker was black, and the cause for the attack was the color of my skin.
The Brother who gave his life to carry me wounded and unconscious to safety in Vn WAS a "brother", and I still wear the ring he wore back then. I judge individuals by what they bring to the table, individually.
AIDS is most common in africa, where, through no fault of their own, very many people are ignorant of the risks of unprotected sex. The west is richer not through greater intelligence but rather, at root, through more hospitable land. So what are you saying? that if you get aids you probably deserve it? Well that's total fucking bollocks. Stop saying 'my edification awaits.' Repetition makes you look stupid.
Now I'm going to speak slowly so YOU understand...(see? childish, isn't it?) You entirely miss my point re: the PC thing. Why are you talking about policially correct racists? that doesn't exactly address what I was saying, which was simply this: I would rather be PC than a racist. Whatever you say, I stand by that. that was the only point I was making.
By the way, the reason that that thing this man Pauling apparently said is so unattractive is that for no apparent reason it singles out the black race when that logic applies to ALL races. What other reason could there be apart from racism?
Tea, Coffee, Cocoa, Diamonds, Gold, Platinum, Oil.
ALL found in African/'third world' countries....
and please explain how hospitable land will make a difference to the intelligence of a nation...surely it is more about lifestyles...
<STRONG>
Apart from transfusion and blood products, this virus is passed on as a result of sexual intercourse and drug abuse.
yes there are exceptions, but most people will contract the disease through their own stupidity.
Can you show me how it could be anything else?
<STRONG>
I would rather stand up for what I believe, whether it is PC or not. Being PC first is cowardly, if you TRULY believe something you should be prepared to stand up for it rather than back down in the face of opposition.
The PC approach to life discourages open discussion.
All of which are based on primary mining and farming industry, which provide few opportunities for ordinary people, and as you (presumably) well know have resulted in corruption right across the third world (Africa included). </STRONG>
MoK, please explain to me how differences in lifestyle affect intelligence <IMG SRC="confused.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> </STRONG>
What if your beliefs were based on ignorance? Would you feel the same way about political correctness then? </STRONG>
Rubbish. This very thread demonstrates that. Political correctness has both good and bad consequences. One of the good consequences is open discussion of these issues. PC has brought controversial issues to the public's attention and has challenged everyone to re-assess their views...
[ 19-05-2002: Message edited by: Kentish ]
The fact that when Pauling made the statement, the black segment of the US population was growing at a faster rate than other races? No, that would bring logic to your emotional argument, and requisite insistence upon taking offense before you understand the issue presented.
Thank you, MoK... A pleasure to have an intelligent person in the conversation, rather than simply the contentious and pretentious emotionally challenged... <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Damn, MoK! <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> Gonna ruin your social standing if you agree with this ol' curmudgeon too often! <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> LMFAO! <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Homework assignment for Prufrock: Get out your dictionary, and look up the definition for "edification". How about WE are awaiting your edification??? That less hurtful to your feelings? <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Few opportunities except jobs...and I am happy to admit that these workers have been 'exploited' in comparision to the huge profits made by companies such as Lonrho over the years.
Is it the West's fault that there is corruption then? Or individual greed.
Is it the West's fault that these resources weren't exploited by their host nations?
<STRONG> </STRONG>
Many of the 'advances' in human existence have come from the 'west' and have been driven by the way in which we live. How man samll tribal groups do you find in the 'west' still living off of the land?
Were we able to 'exploit' Africa through being able to feed ourselves, or because of the 'advances' we had made in military technonlogy and strategy?
If you believe geneticists, Africa is the birth place of humans, so why is it that the 'west' holds the power?
<STRONG>
There is a difference between accepting you are wrong and changing what you say purely because you may offend someone.
Look at what this lecturer has done. He he has removed his thoughts from his website, not because he doesn't believe it but because it is politically correct to do so.
I don't abuse minorities. Not because it is politically correct, but because I honestly believe in equality.
<STRONG>
Try discussion if there is a weaker sex, and you will be called sexist.
Try, as the lecturer did, to suggest thta there <STRONG>are</STRONG> genetic differences between races which may affect intellect and you are deemed racist. These are instant reactions. No-one asked the lecturer to explain why, he was just labelled.
Try to suggest that you don't agree with European integration and some people will automatically assume that you hate the other Europeans...
PC closes the discussion more than it opens it. It is the anti-PC approach which stimulates the debate, because people won;t accept being told what the can/cannot say or think. People will rebel against restrictions like these.
100% there, MoK!
There are no significant genetic differences between the races. One year ago a group of molecular biologists completed a study using mitochondrial DNA samples of 10,000 people from every country in the world. Using computers to calculate the effects of genetic drift and mutation, they proved to a very high certainty that every human on the planet is descended from one small group of ape/humans in Africa.
So that argument is bullshit. I completely support the professors right to argue his opinion, but there's no logical basis behind it.
[ 19-05-2002: Message edited by: Alessandro ]
[ 19-05-2002: Message edited by: Alessandro ]
I didn't suggest that it was... </STRONG>
But I am not talking about who has the better lifestyle, I asked how lifestyle affects intelligence - you seem to be suggesting that African tribal people are less intelligent... </STRONG>
The point is that hunter-gatherer types have to spend all day just looking for food, whereas we have the luxury of having farms which produce enough food for everyone...not really an intelligence issue though is it? </STRONG>
Well if Africa is where we all came from, where did we get our intelligence from? If the average intelligence is diminishing, then surely the Africans should be the most intelligent of all. </STRONG>
Is there?
If you are saying something offensive then it is wrong, no? </STRONG>
...or looking at it another way, he has removed them because he accepts that he was wrong to put them there in the first place. </STRONG>
= political correctness, just without the usual soundbites. </STRONG>
Very true, but you only get labelled if you offer no explanation for your views, or if you are simply wrong (cf BNP). Of course debate is good, and if the whole PC culture has encouraged us to talk about these things, even as a backlash against it, then that must be a good thing. Certainly better than ignorance and stubbornness, which summed up most people before PC 'existed'.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and should be allowed to express their opinion. However, if their views are offensive, or simply wrong, then they need to be told. There is nothing more harmful to a tolerant society than everyone spouting unfounded rubbish about people who are superficially different from them.
No, you're right you didn't. I read an insination into your comment about how minerals had created corrution in the third world.
My mistake.
I'm not talking about better lifestyles either. If anything the Tribal lifestyle is the better one. But we were talking about intelligence.
Perhaps I should have used the word educated instead. Because tribes understand less about the world they are easy to exploit, that is why the west took so much power (well, that and military might). Low education increases gullibility.
Additionally, by not know what advances man is making they are less able to build on those advances and therefore retain a simple way of life.
The 'western' lifestyle encourages education, hence steam power, petrol engines, electricity etc
How many of the world changing inventions have come from Africa?
<STRONG>
Which is why our lifestyle increase our ability to educate ourselves, and thus improve the intellect of the nation.
<STRONG>
No. We changed the way we live. We learned to adapt to different surroundings, rather than stick to a way of life we understood.
By finding new challenges the tribes that moved on - to Europe/Asia - found that they needed to adapt easily...and that not only did they need the skills they brought from Africa, but they also had to develop new ones...
<STRONG>
No, that's too symplistic.
I can tell someone with buck teeth that they <STRONG>have</STRONG> buck teeth. They might be offended by my pointing this out, but does that mean I am wrong?
<STRONG>
Does that make his views wrong though? Why was it wrong for him to voice them, on a <STRONG>personal</STRONG> webspace?
What he is being told is that he cannot hold those views, becuase someone else is offended by them. The discussion on what those views were, and whether they are correct, has become a side issue to whether or not he should voice them.
Thus PC has stifled the debate.
No. I believe it is true. I don't say that equality is correct just becuase I may offend someone if I said the opposite.
Political correctness means that avoiding offence comes first, true belief comes second.
<STRONG>
Again, I refer you back to our lecturer. The debate has become one about freedom of speech, not one about if his views are correct.
~~~~~~~~~
Thanatos, sometimes mate even you can be right <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
[ 19-05-2002: Message edited by: Man Of Kent ]
I will and shall say what I think and deem appropriate. If my beliefs are ignorant then I accept the consequences, just as I always do. If I turn out to have been wrong then I expect to have my argument shot down in flames by factual counterexamples.
The spirit of debate is hard and dispassionate. Anything may be said, any argument attacked. This attacking is done without pity or mercy -- but also without hard feeling.
The so-called "freedom of speech" is not about being able to say what you want -- one can always do that, and accept the consequences, back straight and chin high. "Freedom of speech" is a policy of not immediately executing those with whom one disagrees or who are a little unpopular.
[ 19-05-2002: Message edited by: MacKenZie ]
Education is different from intelligence <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">.
Yes, we have perhaps moved on technologically at a much faster rate compared with the (e.g.) African nations. But that is not necessarily because of inherent intelligence. They maybe don't know how to operate a dishwasher, I couldn't track a pack of wildebeest. Different, not less intelligent <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">. Perhaps it's the standardised IQ (or equivalent) tests that are flawed - not the black person's brain.
Political correctness is not all bad. Yes, officialdom has been pandering to the minority pressure groups in recent times, and sometimes for no reason other than the sake of it. But without PC we would still be calling black people 'negroes' (or the worse alternative which I believe is automatically censored by theSite's PC PC <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">), women wouldn't have equal opportunities in the workplace, neither would the disabled, and we would be living ignorant lives, not knowing what is offensive to certain people.
Freedom of speech is different from political correctness. Let's not confuse them.
Both of me are schizoid, but all four of us have fun! <img src="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/rolleyes.gif" alt="image">
We took a vote, and have come to the informed conclusion that we are right, even when you are wrong. We are in complete agreement upon the issue... <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Most people who get aids do so through IGNORANCE - because most people get aids get it in Africa where sex education is largely very basic. As MoK eventually said, there is a difference between level of education and intelligence.
I know what edification is, Thanatos. I was just pointing out that you use that phrase the whole damn time and it gets a little old.
If you're looking for logic, Thanatos, look at Allesandro's post, which was made by someone who patently has far more knowledge about this than any of us. Even without this evidence, Pauling's argument is bullshit - because it fails to take into account the socio-economic factors involved. Look at any race and you'll find that poorer people have more children than the richer. A higher proportion of black people in AMerica were poor at the time- because, I might add, of historic racism - and hence their poulation grew faster. Simple.
You and Thanatos have both missed my point. I'm not saying I think it's great to be overly PC and hypocritical - I even said the worst kind of racism is the hidden kind. I'm saying that being overly PC is the lesser of the two evils because the factors that lead to it are admirable in many ways, whereas it's difficult to think of reasons to be a racist save blind hate.
I worry at how close several posters have come to saying that they believe black people are stupider than white people. This is patently not true. But perhaps I'm misinterpreting; if I am I apologise.
You're applying freedom of speech inconsistently, which is a big mistake because it's pretty damn important. Lots of people do this: they say something controversial and then when someone disagrees they cry 'stop abusing my freedom of speech!' they aren't. they're simply pointing out why they disagree, not stopping you say what you want to.
This man wasn't forced to take his comments down. He chose to: under pressure, perhaps, but not letting them pressurise him is a block to their freedom of speech, isn't it? And if he's got a job where being a racist can effect other people adversely it ceases being a freedom of speech issue: it becomes a question of whether we will let this man's views fuck up other people's lives. You're allowed to be a nazi: you aren't allowed to murder jews. Same principle.
Is there something wrong with his assertion that genetics can affect intellect?