Recent Updates by Topic

Popular Opinion Pieces

Op-Ed

Open Doors, Open Hearts, Closed Minds

Print: Email: Share:

Infomaniacs Anonymous

Infomaniacs Anonymous

Last week, I published a controversial column decrying the crucifixion of Nobel Laureate James Watson over his remarks about average group differences in intelligence (specifically his contention that the black-white I.Q. gap was mostly genetic). The buzz was immediate and lasting — as of Sunday, “In Defense of Dr. Watson” had generated over 40 posts on the website and was still listed as the most “popular“ opinion piece. To my pleasant surprise, the e-mails and Facebook messages I received were overwhelmingly supportive (despite one characteristically incoherent piece of hate mail from departed Sun columnist Jeff Purcell ’05).

After reflecting on the column, however, I realized I'd made a terrible mistake. I'd gone too far. And so, to those who were offended, I apologize … I should’ve mentioned Francis Crick by name as Watson’s co-discoverer of the double helix (not to mention Rosalind Franklin, whose work set the stage for their breakthrough). I know how seriously people on this campus take proper dispensation of academic credit, and I should've been more careful. Please forgive me.

As for those of you who were hoping I’d recant the substance of my column, don't hold your breath. The truth is that while Watson’s opinions are by no means outside the scientific mainstream, I never even endorsed them in my column. In fact, I wrote that “from my own layman’s reading of the recent scientific literature, I believe that most — if not all — of the gaps between those of European and African ancestry could be accounted for by obvious historical legacies (poverty, racism, slavery and colonialism among them) and other, less obvious non-genetic explanations (the phenomenon of stereotype threat comes to mind, as do the geographical endowments explored in Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel).”

While I don’t necessarily agree with what Watson says, however, I don’t find it inherently ridiculous. His conclusion, after all, follows from a scientific consensus — that individual differences in intelligence (however we define and measure it) are substantially heritable — and simple evolutionary logic: Populations faced selection pressures that, over thousands of generations, predisposed their members to possess certain traits and abilities demanded by their respective physical and cultural environments. (This is obvious for skin color and other bodily features.) Regarding genes that influence cognitive performance, it is certainly possible that aggregate selection pressures were identical across the globe. But to assume so without evidence is a leap of faith.

I don’t do faith; I do science.

As I argued last week, a good scientist approaches a perplexing question without prejudging the answer. In this case, the question is why blacks fare more poorly than whites on intelligence tests — in America, about one standard deviation (or 15 I.Q. points) — and, more broadly, why all racial groups perform differently. (And, yes, beneath the social construction of race remains a biological reality — another controversial but scientifically accepted fact.) Environmental factors explain at least some, probably most, and possibly all of these gaps. But we do not yet have enough data to judge definitively whether genetics are involved. That will likely change in the coming decades — the Human Genome Project is still in its infancy — but until then, the debate will continue.

If you don’t wish to hear that debate, fine — cover your ears. Or perhaps scientific journals could adopt a system whereby they flag every controversial article with a movie-like rating indicating who might find it troubling: P.C. for the politically correct; R.F. for religious fundamentalists; O.C. for oil companies and so on.

I have a better suggestion: Grow up.

In the space remaining, let me address two important points that have been aired in these pages since last week; one is outright false, the other true but misleading.

The first is that Watson has retracted his remarks. As a rule of thumb, one shouldn't put any more stock in forced apologies than in forced confessions, but it’s moot here — Watson did not disavow his views.

Here’s what he wrote: “To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief.”

The key word was “inferior” — as Watson proceeded to write, “This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers.”

The second point is that Watson has a history of off-color comments. This is true. His over-the-top statement that “people who have to deal with black employees find [they are not as smart as white employees]” was but one example. Incidentally, he also told Esquire magazine in January that he believed “some anti-Semitism is justified.” And Aristotle was a misogynist.

It’s beside the point.

Whatever your feelings about James Watson the person — he’s clearly no saint — James Watson the scientist was still expressing an opinion shared by enough of his peers that it deserves an impartial hearing. The reality is that even had Watson framed his remarks more scientifically, leaving out the crack about black employees, the reaction would not have been very different. People were reacting to what he said more than to how he said it.

But, make no mistake, how we say these things matters. People are sensitive when it comes to race, and for good reason. The history of humankind is one of groups — defined variously by religion, race and nationality — dehumanizing members of other groups. Three of my four grandparents lost their families to a murderous regime that saw Jews and others as subhuman beings. That’s how the European settlers saw the native peoples of this land when they committed genocide against them. This country tolerated slavery, and later segregation, for the same reason.

We’ve come a long way since then — to the point where a Barack Obama can make a serious run for the presidency. We now at least pay lip service to the notion of racial equality. But we still find ourselves unable to discuss race candidly, even (especially) in an academic setting. Until we reach that point where we can be honest with each other, we should at least be honest with ourselves. Censoring science for the sake of racial harmony might feel like progress, but it smells more like fear.

Ben Birnbaum is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted at bbirnbaum@c­or­ne­llsun.com. Infomaniacs Anonymous appears Tuesdays.

• Add new comment
• Printer-friendly version
• send to friend