Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Being Frank

Today's BBC Radio 5 Live debate centred on Dr Frank Ellis, a Leeds University lecturer who is facing a petition from the Student Union for his sacking. His crime is to cite a vast body of scientific research in forming his opinion that, on average, blacks are less intelligent than whites.

According to the usual suspects who called in to attack him, this makes him a racist, despite the university insisting that they double-mark his papers and have found absolutely no evidence of discrimination in his treatment of students, and his own denial that this is the foundation of his argument.

What's more interesting is the number of blacks who called and emailed into the show to support him, either for his right to think that based on the research he has done and freedom of speech, even if they disagree, or in most instances, to actually concur that he might be right and that his voice should be heard. Dr Ellis was very clear that it is only the average that shows this, and that of course there are vast numbers of dim whites and brilliant blacks.

Not only that, but according to both Ellis and many callers, hard work and seizing opportunity can tip the scales, although this is so distorted by the current victimhood complex of most ethnic minorities, perpetuated by the self-flagellating white liberal classes who (patronisingly) want to help them through positive discrimination to reach an "equal" level in society.

Naturally the (to quote Greg Dyke "hideously white") BBC spent plenty of time trying to make him admit he was a racist, and he duly wiped the floor with white, university-educated presenter Victoria Derbyshire. He trounced her on accusations that he thought blacks were inferior, and showed the total lack of a convincing counter-argument posed by her or in fact anyone else.

Ellis went even further, to posit that it is politically incorrect for him to state what does seem on the evidence to be pretty inassailable fact. He says that journals and papers consistently show IQ tests to be fair and not favourable to blacks, but that scientists have to say something else in public to avoid being pilloried. One reason is because of the ramifications for positive discrimination or "affirmative action" as it is known in the USA.

The essence of the problem of black underachievement, we are told, lies in discrimination and lack of opportunity. Through affirmative action, could it be that we merely shift the problem to whites and other less organised ethnic minorities? In fact, the key to resolving underachievement is in proper anonymity of entrants and exams, and improvement of access to and awareness of opportunity, not giving it on a plate. The emphasis is therefore on self-help and self-improvement instead of artificially propping up the numbers.

Part of the effort to discredit Dr Ellis centres on some of his other radical statements. For example he believes in the "humane repatriation" of immigrants. When one actually delves into his view, he is saying exactly what the Tories and New Labour do, which is that Britain is not a charity and you cannot come here solly with the intention to leech off - or indeed preach against the existence of - the state. If you do, you are liable to be evicted.

Another example is Ellis's opinion that the Macpherson Report was unduly harsh on the police in claiming vast institutional racism. A version of ORFTORFU springs to mind. Cherie Blair says that Palestinians have no option but to become suicide bombers because of the terrible circumstances of oppression and poverty - the IDF are an instrument of repressive behaviour that perpetuates and worsens their circumstances. Applied to Britain, we should assume that the reason blacks carry out crimes in vastly disproportionate levels to their numbers (as shown statistically by all independent research), is because they are oppressed and poor - the police are an instrument of repressive behaviour that perpetuates and worsens their circumstances.

What is inconvenient to point out is that whilst without a doubt there are many IDF soldiers who already hate Palestinians before serving, and many policemen already hate blacks before joining the force, many more will find that their experience in facing disproportionate Palestinian terror and black crime increases their blanket discrimination against innocent Palestinians and blacks respectively. This may in turn lead to a reaction from the innocent who feel unduly oppressed, but we should be under no illusion as to where the cycle begins, and that any reaction that allows people to feel justified in choosing terror or crime, further delegitimises their causes and makes the policing parties harshen their approach.

It is much easier to side with the perceived victim; all the more so if they are not white, middle class men.

Having said all this, Freedmanslife does not necessarily like or support Dr Ellis's views. But he has clearly based them on thorough scientific research, and the way to argue back is by quoting alternative credible science like that of Stephen Jay Gould at Harvard, not PC shrieking and the mudslinging use of the word "racism".

No comments: