Politics and Prosperity
Seeing the world clearly
Tag Archives: John McWhorter
Who's Obsessing, Professor McWhorter?
Posted on July 22, 2017 by Loquitur Veritatem
A black scholar named John McWhorter has issued a demand to "Stop Obsessing Over Race and IQ" (National Review, July 5, 2017). McWhorter opens with this:
Suppose it's true.
Suppose that, at the end of the day, people of African descent have lower IQs on average than do other groups of humans, and that this gap is caused, at least in part, by genetic differences….
There is, however, a question that those claiming black people are genetically predisposed to have lower IQs than others fail to answer: What, precisely, would we gain from discussing this particular issue?
In fact, Jared Taylor addressed McWhorter's challenge nine years before McWhorter issued it. This is from Taylor's "Egalitarian Orthodoxy: Noble Fiction — Or Noxious Poison?" (VDARE.com, June 24, 2008):
It is … the dogma of equality that makes … policy mischief, because it requires identical racial outcomes. The notorious No Child Left Behind Act brands schools as failures if they cannot close the achievement gap between blacks (and Hispanics) and whites (and Asians). Because not one of the approximately 90,000 public schools in the country has managed to do this, every "diverse" school in America would be declared a failure—if the government followed its own rules….
But there is much worse. The "noble fiction" of racial equality does terrible damage to race relations. According to the fiction, blacks, Hispanics, whites, and Asians are all equally smart and hard-working. They are precisely, mathematically, geometrically equal. Even the slightest deviation in outcomes has only one cause: white racism, past and present. (The fact that Asians do better than whites is conveniently omitted from this argument.)
This means we are constantly telling blacks that white people are cheating them. If blacks are not as rich as whites, if they are more likely that whites to be in jail or on drugs or have AIDS or be on welfare or get shot or knocked up, it is because vicious, systematic racism did it to them. They are responsible for none of it….
[A]ccording to the "noble fiction," blacks are never allowed to grow up. If they lost the race it was only because they were cheated. We tell them that if they are behind as a group, it is never their responsibility. It is because—and only because—whitey hates them and holds them down. If our goal were to teach blacks to hate white people, it would be hard to think of a better way to do it (along, of course, with constant reminders of slavery, lynching, and Jim Crow).
I have addressed the issue several times. In "Race and Reason: The Victims of Affirmative Action", I say this of affirmative action and other efforts to force racial equality:
[B]lameless Americans have been burdened with equal employment opportunity (EEO), about which more below; minority lending preferences, which contributed to the Great Recession by encouraging mortgage loans to low-income borrowers; public-accommodations laws, a.k.a. theft of property rights and denial of freedom of association; the expansion of the welfare state, which led to welfare dependency, broken families, and crime; and the prosecution and persecution of politically incorrect views as "hate crimes" and "inappropriate" expressions of thought.
Of those burdens, I am most familiar with EEO (a.k.a. affirmative action) because I had to contend with its enforcement and consequences in my job as the chief financial and administrative officer of a private, federally funded, research organization….
Blacks constitute the identity group most likely to seek "protection" under the rubric of EEO. On balance, the (effectively) forced hiring of under-qualified blacks causes significant economic damage — as well as resentment of and condescension toward blacks as "affirmative action hires."…
Reverse discrimination in favor of blacks has victimized millions of Americans, in at least three ways:
The aforementioned combination of resentment and condescension has undoubtedly impeded the advance of racial harmony.
Many whites have suffered the loss of opportunities and income in the workplace — opportunities and income that would have been theirs if blacks were held to the same standards as whites with respect to hiring and promotion.
Many blacks have suffered, in the not-so-long run, because reverse discrimination has set them up for failure.
In "The Harmful Myth of Inherent Equality" I give a lot of space to Richard Sander, who has shown that aspiring blacks are chief among the victims of the form of racial preferences. Five years ago, Sander was a guest blogger at The Volokh Conspiracy, where he posted thrice on the subject. In his first post, Sander writes:
As some readers will recall, a little more than seven years ago I published an analysis of law school affirmative action in the Stanford Law Review. The article was the first to present detailed data on the operation and effects of racial preferences in law schools (focusing on blacks).
I also laid out evidence suggesting that large preferences seemed to be worsening black outcomes. I argued that this was plausibly due to a "mismatch effect"; students receiving large preferences (for whatever reason) were likely to find themselves in academic environments where they had to struggle just to keep up; professor instruction would typically be aimed at the "median" student, so students with weaker academic preparation would tend to fall behind, and, even if they did not become discouraged and give up, would tend to learn less than they would have learned in an environment where their level of academic preparation was closer to the class median.
I suggested that the "mismatch effect" could explain as much as half of the black-white gap in first-time bar passage rates (the full gap is thirty to forty percentage points). I also suggested that "mismatch" might so worsen black outcomes that, on net, contemporary affirmative action was not adding to the total number of black lawyers, and might even be lowering the total number of new, licensed black attorneys.
This is from Sander's second post:
Some of the most significant recent work on affirmative action concerns a phenomenon called "science mismatch". The idea behind science mismatch is very intuitive: if you are a high school senior interested in becoming, for example, a chemist, you may seriously harm your chances of success by attending a school where most of the other would-be chemists have stronger academic preparation than you do. Professors will tend to pitch their class at the median student, not you; and if you struggle or fall behind in the first semester of inorganic chemistry, you will be in even worse shape in the second semester, and in very serious trouble when you hit organic chemistry. You are likely to get bad grades and to either transfer out of chemistry or fail to graduate altogether….
Duke economists Peter Arcidiacono, Esteban Aucejo, and Ken Spenner last year completed a study that looked at a number of ways that differences in admissions standards at Duke affected academic outcomes. In one of many useful analyses they did, they found that 54% of black men at Duke who, as freshmen, had been interested in STEM fields or economics, had switched out of those fields before graduation; the comparative rate for white men was 8%. Importantly, they found that "these cross-race differences in switching patterns can be fully explained by differences in academic background." In other words, preferences – not race – was the culprit.
In research conducted by FTC economist Marc Luppino and me, using data from the University of California, we have found important peer effects and mismatch effects that affect students of all races; our results show that one's chances of completing a science degree fall sharply, at a given level of academic preparation, as one attends more and more elite schools within the UC system. At Berkeley, there is a seven-fold difference in STEM degree completion between students with high and low pre-college credentials.
As is always the case with affirmative action, ironies abound. Although young blacks are about one-seventh as likely as young whites to eventually earn a Ph.D. in STEM fields, academically strong blacks in high school are more likely than similar whites to aspire to science careers. And although a U.S. Civil Rights Commission report in 2010 documented the "science mismatch" phenomenon in some detail, President Obama's new initiative to improve the nation's production of scientists neither recognizes nor addresses mismatch….
Science mismatch is, of course, relevant to the general affirmative action debate in showing that preferences can boomerang on their intended beneficiaries. But it also has a special relevance to Fisher v. University of Texas. The university's main announced purpose in reintroducing racial preferences in 2004 was to increase "classroom" diversity. The university contended that, even though over a fifth of its undergraduates were black or Hispanic, many classrooms had no underrepresented minorities. It sought to use direct (and very large) racial preferences to increase campus URM numbers and thus increase the number of URMs in classes that lacked them. But science mismatch shows that this strategy, too, can be self-defeating. The larger a university's preferences, the more likely it is that preferenced students will have trouble competing in STEM fields and other majors that are demanding and grade sternly. These students will tend to drop out of the tough fields and congregate in comparatively less demanding ones. Large preferences, in other words, can increase racial segregation across majors and courses within a university, and thus hurt classroom diversity.
And this is from Sander's third post:
[In the previous post] I discussed a body of research – all of it uncontroverted – that documents a serious flaw in affirmative action programs pursued by elite colleges. Students who receive large preferences and arrive on campus hoping to major in STEM fields (e.g., Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) tend to migrate out of those fields at very high rates, or, if they remain in those fields, often either fail to graduate or graduate with very low GPAs. There is thus a strong tension between receiving a large admissions preference to a more elite school, and one's ability to pursue a STEM career.
Is it possible for contemporary American universities to engage constructively with this type of research? …
Colleges and universities are committed to the mythology that diversity happens merely because they want it and put resources into it, and that all admitted students arrive with all the prerequisites necessary to flourish in any way they choose. Administrators work hard to conceal the actual differences in academic preparation that almost invariably accompany the aggressive use of preferences. Any research that documents the operation and effects of affirmative action therefore violates this "color-blind" mythology and accompanying norms; minority students are upset, correctly realizing that either the research is wrong or that administrators have misled them. In this scenario, administrators invariably resort to the same strategy: dismiss the research without actually lying about it; reassure the students that the researchers are misguided, but that the university can't actually punish the researchers because of "academic freedom"….
Affirmative action and similar race-based preferences are harmful to blacks. But those preferences persist because most Americans do not understand that there are inherent racial differences that prevent blacks, on the whole, from doing as well as whites (and Asians) in school and in jobs that require above-average intelligence. But magical thinkers (like McWhorter) want to deny reality. He admits to being driven by hope: "I have always hoped the black–white IQ gap was due to environmental causes." And this hope clearly colors his entire essay.
Magical thinking — which is rife on the left — plays into the hands of politicians, most of whom couldn't care less about the truth. They just want the votes of those blacks who relish being told, time and again, that they are "down" because they are "victims", and Big Daddy government will come to their rescue. But unless you are the unusual black of above-average intelligence, or the more usual black who has exceptional athletic skills, dependence on Big Daddy is self-defeating because (like a drug addiction) it only leads to more of the same. The destructive cycle of dependency can be broken only by willful resistance to the junk being peddled by cynical politicians.
It is for the sake of blacks that the truth about race and intelligence ought to be pursued — and widely publicized. If they read and hear the truth often enough, perhaps they will begin to realize that the best way to better themselves is to make the best of available opportunities instead of moaning abut racism and relying on preferences and handouts.
This advice is far from new, and it has been given by prominent blacks — who, for their candor, have been vilified. But that is no reason to deny the truth or cease to pursue it.
Related reading: Steve Sailer, "NYT: 'Blacks and Hispanics Are More Underrepresented at Top Colleges Than 35 Years Ago'", The Unz Review, August 24, 2017
Race and Reason: The Victims of Affirmative Action
Race and Reason: The Achievement Gap — Causes and Implications
"Conversing" about Race
Evolution and Race
"Wading" into Race, Culture, and IQ
Evolution, Culture, and "Diversity"
The Harmful Myth of Inherent Equality
Let's Have That "Conversation" about Race
Affirmative Action Comes Home to Roost
The IQ of Nations
Race and Social Engineering
Posted in Affirmative Action - Immigration - Race, Intelligence - Personality - Psychology	/ Tagged Jared Taylor, John McWhorter, race and intelligence, Richard Sander
Loquitur Veritatem
My pen name, Loquitur Veritatem, means truth-teller.
"Trump's Polling and Re-election Watch – Click image for explanation
Abortion Q & A
My Moral Profile
Constitution for the 21st Century
Constitution: Myths and Realities
Economic Growth Since World War II
Economics: A Survey
Einstein's Errors
Freespace and Me
Keynesian Multiplier: Fiction vs. Fact
Leftism: A Bibliography
Modeling, Science, and "Reason"
Monarchs of England
Presidents: Key Dates and Various Trivia
Social Norms and Liberty
Spygate (a.k.a Russiagate)
The British Roots of the Founding, and of Liberty in America
U.S. Supreme Court: Lines of Succession and Ideological Alignment
Writing: A Guide
Trump's Polling and Re-election Watch, Updated January 20, 2020
A Warning Too Late? January 19, 2020
An Implication of Universal Connectedness January 17, 2020
A Footnote to "Is the GAO Impartial?" January 17, 2020
A Footnote to "Peak Civilization" January 16, 2020
Is the GAO Impartial? January 16, 2020
Trump's Polling and Re-election Watch January 16, 2020
Trump's Tactical Mastery in the Iran Crisis January 9, 2020
Economics Explained — Part III: The Principles Illustrated January 8, 2020
Peak Civilization? January 5, 2020
American Foreign Policy: Feckless no More? January 3, 2020
Whither (Wither) Classical Liberalism — and America? January 1, 2020
Economics Explained — Part II: Economic Principles in Perspective December 29, 2019
Existence and Knowledge December 28, 2019
Happy Christmas to All! December 25, 2019
Wicked Problems: The Pretense of Rationality December 23, 2019
Ruthless Reason December 22, 2019
Looking for the Perfect Movie? December 19, 2019
Impeachment? Big Whoop! December 19, 2019
Another Look into the Vanished Past December 18, 2019
Intelligence, Personality, Politics, and Happiness
Trump's Polling and Re-election Watch
A Warning Too Late?
Trump's Polling and Re-election Watch, Updated
Peak Civilization?
The Midwest Is a State of Mind
Trump's Tactical Mastery in the Iran Crisis
An Implication of Universal Connectedness
American Spectator, The
Americana, Etc.
askblog (Arnold Kling)
College Fix, The
Conversible Economist
Daily Signal, The (Heritage Foundation)
Dalrymple, Theodore (at Taki'sl Magazine)
Dissecting Leftism (John J. Ray)
Federalist, The
Greenie Watch (John J. Ray)
Hanson, Victor Davis
Imlac's Journal
Le*gal In*sur*rec*tion
Liberty Corner, The Original
Maverick Philosopher (Bill Vallicella)
Motus Mentis
Originalism Blog, The
Political Correctness Watch (John J. Ray)
Right Coast, The
Spencer, Roy (Ph.D.)
Thompson, James (at The Unz Review)
Volokh Conspiracy, The
Archives Select Month January 2020 (12) December 2019 (21) November 2019 (18) October 2019 (25) September 2019 (20) August 2019 (34) July 2019 (31) June 2019 (33) May 2019 (16) April 2019 (21) March 2019 (3) February 2019 (8) January 2019 (11) December 2018 (11) November 2018 (18) October 2018 (19) September 2018 (8) August 2018 (16) July 2018 (14) June 2018 (10) May 2018 (10) April 2018 (10) March 2018 (24) February 2018 (12) January 2018 (19) December 2017 (17) November 2017 (10) October 2017 (10) September 2017 (17) August 2017 (13) July 2017 (13) June 2017 (13) May 2017 (20) April 2017 (20) March 2017 (14) February 2017 (18) January 2017 (14) December 2016 (15) November 2016 (23) October 2016 (12) September 2016 (16) August 2016 (22) July 2016 (26) June 2016 (16) May 2016 (16) April 2016 (13) March 2016 (27) February 2016 (26) January 2016 (4) December 2015 (1) November 2015 (2) September 2015 (1) August 2015 (3) July 2015 (17) June 2015 (13) May 2015 (5) April 2015 (13) March 2015 (9) February 2015 (12) January 2015 (2) December 2014 (7) November 2014 (8) October 2014 (13) September 2014 (14) August 2014 (11) July 2014 (14) June 2014 (9) May 2014 (10) April 2014 (8) March 2014 (13) February 2014 (8) January 2014 (9) December 2013 (5) November 2013 (15) October 2013 (15) September 2013 (16) August 2013 (12) July 2013 (21) June 2013 (3) May 2013 (3) April 2013 (11) February 2013 (2) January 2013 (2) December 2012 (2) November 2012 (12) October 2012 (14) September 2012 (16) August 2012 (7) July 2012 (13) June 2012 (13) May 2012 (15) April 2012 (11) March 2012 (15) February 2012 (9) January 2012 (15) December 2011 (15) November 2011 (23) October 2011 (20) September 2011 (25) August 2011 (31) July 2011 (25) June 2011 (18) May 2011 (11) April 2011 (9) March 2011 (17) February 2011 (18) January 2011 (18) December 2010 (15) November 2010 (25) October 2010 (23) September 2010 (27) August 2010 (17) July 2010 (15) June 2010 (16) May 2010 (22) April 2010 (44) March 2010 (7) February 2010 (1) December 2009 (3) November 2009 (2) October 2009 (8) September 2009 (9) August 2009 (14) July 2009 (15) June 2009 (12) May 2009 (15) April 2009 (12) March 2009 (10) February 2009 (5) January 2009 (3) December 2008 (4) November 2008 (9) October 2008 (12) September 2008 (7) August 2008 (8) July 2008 (7) June 2008 (16) May 2008 (13) April 2008 (34) March 2008 (40) February 2008 (34) January 2008 (42) December 2007 (39) November 2007 (30) October 2007 (54) September 2007 (43) August 2007 (40) July 2007 (23) June 2007 (2) April 2007 (1) March 2007 (1) February 2007 (1) January 2007 (5) November 2006 (12) October 2006 (25) September 2006 (33) August 2006 (41) July 2006 (37) June 2006 (42) May 2006 (35) April 2006 (40) March 2006 (55) February 2006 (51) January 2006 (53) December 2005 (48) November 2005 (54) October 2005 (27) September 2005 (42) August 2005 (32) July 2005 (37) June 2005 (28) May 2005 (42) April 2005 (35) March 2005 (50) February 2005 (32) January 2005 (31) December 2004 (23) November 2004 (73) October 2004 (128) September 2004 (177) August 2004 (144) July 2004 (62) June 2004 (57) May 2004 (16) April 2004 (28) March 2004 (37)
Academic Freedom – Civil Liberties – Privacy (163)
Affirmative Action – Immigration – Race (144)
Baseball and Lesser Sports (124)
Blogs – Bloggers – Blogging (83)
Climate Change and Environmentalism (75)
Constitution – Courts – Law – Justice (620)
Culture – Language – The Arts (367)
Economics: Principles and Issues (710)
Electoral Politics (200)
Enemies: Foreign and Domestic (180)
Health and Health Care (21)
Humor – Satire – Wry Commentary (108)
Intelligence – Personality – Psychology (207)
Leftism – Statism – Democracy (625)
Liberty – Libertarianism – Rights (419)
Media Matters & Reportage (126)
Nostalgia – Trivia – Popular Culture (107)
Philosophy – Religion – Science – Pseudoscience (196)
Political Economy & Civil Society (387)
Political Movements & Theories (205)
Politics – Politicians – Government in Action (502)
Public Education and Homeschooling (23)
Science and Understanding (239)
Self Ownership: Abortion – Euthanasia – Gender – Etc. (104)
Social Commentary (36)
Thinkers: Famous and Infamous (183)
War – Peace – Foreign Affairs (423)
abortion AGW altruism atheism Austin baseball civil society climate change conservatism Constitution creation crime defense democracy Donald Trump economic growth economics economic stagnation election 2014 election 2016 existence fascism freedom of speech GDP GDP growth global warming God Golden Rule government spending Great Recession Hillary Clinton income inequality intelligence Keynesianism leftism leftists liberalism libertarianism libertarian paternalism liberty morality natural rights negative rights Obama Obamacare paternalism political correctness politics preemptive war probability progressivism pseudo-libertarianism psychology race race and intelligence racism Rahn Curve real unemployment rate redistribution regulation same-sex marriage science secession social justice social norms Social Security social welfare society statism Supreme Court terrorism Trump unemployment utilitarianism welfare state
Comments & Correspondence
Now that this blog is in hiatus, I have closed comments on all posts. If you wish to communicate privately, you may e-mail me at the Germanic nickname for Friedrich followed by the last name of the great Austrian economist and Nobel laureate whose first name is Friedrich followed by the 3rd and 4th digits of his birth year followed by the usual typographic symbol followed by the domain and extension for Google's e-mail service — all run together.
On Liberty and Libertarianism
What is liberty? It is peaceful, willing coexistence and its concomitant: beneficially cooperative behavior.
John Stuart Mill opined that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." But who determines whether an act is harmful or harmless? Acts deemed harmless by an individual are not harmless if they subvert the societal bonds of trust and self-restraint upon which liberty itself depends.
Which is not to say that all social regimes are regimes of liberty. Liberty requires voice -- the freedom to dissent -- and exit -- the freedom to choose one's neighbors and associates. Voice and exit depend, in turn, on the rule of law under a minimal state.
Liberty, because it is a social phenomenon and not an innate condition of humanity, must be won and preserved by an unflinching defense of a polity that fosters liberty through its norms, and the swift and certain administration of justice within that polity. The governments in and of the United States have long since ceased to foster liberty, but most Americans are captives in their own land and have no choice but to strive for the restoration of liberty, or something closer to it.
Who can restore liberty? Certainly not the self-proclaimed libertarians who are fixated on Mill's empty harm principle and align with the left on social norms. Traditional (i.e., Burkean) conservatism fosters the preservation and adherence of beneficial norms (e.g., the last six of the Ten Commandments). Thus, by necessity, the only true libertarianism is found in traditional conservatism. I am a traditional conservative, which makes me a libertarian -- a true one.
Notes about Usage
"State" (with a capital "S") refers to one of the United States, and "States" refers to two or more of them. "State" and "States," thus used, are proper nouns because they refer to a unique entity or entities: one or more of the United States, the union of which, under the terms and conditions stated in the Constitution, is the raison d'être for the nation. I reserve the uncapitalized word "state" for a government, or hierarchy of them, which exerts a monopoly of force within its boundaries.
Marriage, in the Western tradition, predates the state and legitimates the union of one man and one woman. As such, it is an institution that is vital to civil society and therefore to the enjoyment of liberty. The recognition of a more-or-less permanent homosexual pairing as a kind of marriage is both ill-advised and illegitimate. Such an arrangement is therefore a "marriage" (in quotation marks) or, more accurately, a homosexual cohabitation contract (HCC).
The words "liberal", "progressive", and their variants are usually enclosed in quotation marks (sneer quotes) because they refer to persons and movements whose statist policies are, in fact, destructive of liberty and progress. I sometimes italicize the words, just to reduce visual clutter.
I have reverted to the British style of punctuating in-line quotations, which I followed 40 years ago when I published a weekly newspaper. The British style is to enclose within quotation marks only (a) the punctuation that appears in quoted text or (b) the title of a work (e.g., a blog post) that is usually placed within quotation marks.
I have reverted because of the confusion and unsightliness caused by the American style. It calls for the placement of periods and commas within quotation marks, even if the periods and commas don't occur in the quoted material or title. Also, if there is a question mark at the end of quoted material, it replaces the comma or period that might otherwise be placed there.
If I had continued to follow American style, I would have ended a sentence in a recent post with this:
… "A New (Cold) Civil War or Secession?" "The Culture War," "Polarization and De-facto Partition," and "Civil War?"
What a hodge-podge. There's no comma between the first two entries, and the sentence ends with an inappropriate question mark. With two titles ending in question marks, there was no way for me to avoid a series in which a comma is lacking. I could have avoided the sentence-ending question mark by recasting the list, but the items are listed chronologically, which is how they should be read.
I solved these problems easily by reverting to the British style:
… "A New (Cold) Civil War or Secession?", "The Culture War", "Polarization and De-facto Partition", and "Civil War?".
This not only eliminates the hodge-podge, but is also more logical and accurate. All items are separated by commas, commas aren't displaced by question marks, and the declarative sentence ends with a period instead of a question mark.
For much more see "Writing: A Guide".