Political correctness 

Political correctness

Politicaly incorrect material is content which may offend, or insult others, usually on the bases of race, religion, sex, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, age, etc.

This type of material is avoided by politicians - since it is often unpopular.

Unfortunately some people take offense more easily than others. Also, some people are offended by true statements.

Political correctness is OK at cocktail parties and political rallies.

However, it has no place in scientific discourse. There truth is determined by testing - not by a popularity contest - or by consideration of what people want to hear.

Unfortunately, recently, political correctness has been causing some scientists to lose their jobs, for publicly expressing views that are accurate - but unpopular.

Lawrence Summers

One was the president of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers. He was reported to have said that innate differences between men and women might be one reason fewer women succeed in science and math careers. Quite right.

Details may be found in the article Summers' remarks on women draw fire.

Summers wound up losing his job not long afterwards.

Chris Brand

Chris Brand wrote a book about intelligence - called 'The g factor'.

Then he lost the he had held at Edinburgh University for the past 27 years, for his supposed "gross misconduct" - the exact details of which were never made clear.

Details are here.

Frank Ellis

Frank Ellis - a lecturer in Russian and Slavonic Studies at Leeds University told a student newspaper there was a "persistent gap" in IQ levels. He was suspended and then lost his job.

Details are here and here and here.

James Watson

Another was James Watson. Watson's sin was essentially to point out that Africans do poorly on intelligence tests. This has been a well-known fact for decades. Watson also wound up losing his job over the issue.

Watson's original comments - as published by the Sunday Times - can be found in the article - The elementary DNA of Dr Watson.

Watson isn't permitted to get a whole sentence out. Instead his comments are presented as a patchwork of sentence fragments. These are then juxtaposed with a quote from Watson's book - apparently to make it look as though Watson thought the inequalities he was discussing had a genetic basis.

The resulting fiasco in the press has been capably analysed in the article James Watson Tells the Inconvenient Truth: Faces the Consequences.

Dawkins characterised the results as follows:

"What is ethically wrong is the hounding, by what can only be described as an illiberal and intolerant 'thought police', of one of the most distinguished scientists of our time, out of the Science Museum, and maybe even out of the laboratory that [he] has devoted much of his life to building up a world-class reputation"

- http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3078883.ece

My letters in support of James Watson

The press treated Watson appallingly throughout the affair. Among the offenders were the magazine Nature and The Federation of American Scientists.

The Federation of American Scientists wrote an article called FAS condemns comments made by Dr. James Watson.

I wrote this letter to them - asking them to back up their comments with evidence, or withdraw them and apologise.

Then I wrote this letter to them - repeating these requests.

The Federation of American Scientists appears to have taken no action to rectify the situation.

Nature published an editorial entitled Watson's Folly. The article containing factual errors, showing the author had not bothered to properly read or understand Watson's comments. I wrote to the editors of Nature this letter requesting that they print a correction, or take similar remedial action.

Nature sent me three replies. The first telling me my issue had been forwarded to the "correspondence" department, the second telling me that they would get back to me soon, and the third advising me that my article has not been accepted for publication, and would I like to submit my opinions to this nature blog about Watson instead?

These organisations apparently think it is OK to leave these comments on record, without correction or apology. This earns them my contempt.

Legislation

To quote from the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, CHAPTER 34:

Every body or other person specified in Schedule 1A or of a description falling within that Schedule shall, in carrying out its functions, have due regard to the need:
  • (a) to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; and
  • (b) to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups.

These obligations apply to the police, armed forces, local government and educational bodies.

This is the legislation that was cited by Leeds University when they suspended Frank Ellis:

As a public body, the university is required under that Act to promote good relations between people of different racial groups. [source]

The university has a point: it is the legislation which is at fault. It should be made clear that such legislation should not be used to put scientists out of work for discussing human biology.

In closing

It is a serious problem for humanity if scientists cannot publicly speak their views about human biology, for fear of losing their jobs.

These events represent political correctness gone mad.

People need to get a grip on these "equality" issues. Nature doesn't do equality. When scientists point this out - as they are inevitably going to continue to do - they should not be maltreated.

Tim Tyler | Contact