38872Re: [evol-psych] Re SSSM
- Nov 30, 2005
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Walsh" <TWALSH@...>
To: "Jim Mackintosh" <jmackint@...>;
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re SSSM
> I am fuming over the apparent state of free speech and free inquiry among
> the so-called democracies of the world.
Re this worldwide threat to free speech, we have now heard of four named
individuals who have been pilloried for their views. Two kinds of censorship
are involved - by publishers, and by university professors. Publishers are
usually motivated by philosophical considerations - they want to make money
and avoid trouble. They decided for example
to block publication of one of Michael Moore's books even though they had
a warehouseful of copies all ready to be dispatched. Pinker, like Moore, is
said to have suffered at the hands of a nervous publisher. My own last book
couldn't find a publisher, but in all modesty it's not that they fear it
will rouse its readers to insurrection - they fear it may
send them to sleep.Their computers inform them that books on this topic have
become a drug on the market.
I feel sure that Tony Walsh would not wish to stop publishers behaving in
this way. It would involve interference with
free market forces, which God forbid.
As to university authorities, we can assume they wish to employ professors
who in broad terms share their own outlook.
They would presumably not appoint or retain a professor who started
preaching Intelligent Design, however fervently he had come to believe in
it. I know a man who was told it would be futile to apply for a post in
Anthropology if he admitted to being soft on crackpot ideas like the aquatic
ape theory. (This was before it had become rechristened the riparian
What should they do if they feel one of their number is departing too far
from his remit? Andrew Fraser, one of the victimised
four, was asked in a radio interview how his superiors reacted to his
tireless advocacy of a return to the White Australia policy. He replied:
"Just make it clear that you're not speaking on behalf of the university,
that's all they said."
Asked "Do you talk about this in class often?" he said "Yes." Asked "Do you
think the Sudanese (students) wouild have been offended or hurt?" he said
"Well they claim to have been, but I personally don't believe it." The
ideal solution would have been to have an equal number of classes provided
by someone who took who different view of the facts he quoted and
let the students decide where the truth lay. But it would have come
expensive. You can understand in a way why they wished he would move on.
Anoither of these racial realists, Chris Brand, was indignant when the
Principal at Edinburgh publicly moved to "distance himself " from Brand's
views. How was that more reprehensible than Brand distancing himself from
the views of the Principal? Brand's lectures were received with the
shock-horror typical of young people who had been in his view brain-washed
by soppy liberals. He demanded that the university should bring in security
men to make sure they sat quietly and absorbed what he had to tell them.
He had much to tell them, and not only about white superiority. He assured
them that adult-pubescent paedophilia
could be a very good thing as long as both parties were of above average
intelligence. (Wouldn't do to have
yobbos indulging in it, of course.) On line, he expounds How Absurd And
Hysterical Are The Modern Forces Of
Political Correctness, And He Does It All in Capitals, Like This. A sort of
equivalent of Green Ink.
However you feel about paedophilia, you can imagine that some parents
hearing what their little darlings were being
taught might have become anxious. If you had been the Principal, what would
you have done?
So Andrew Fraser wrote a paper favoring a position that the great majority
of Australians favor (I lived there for 9 months) and gets pilloried by his
university and 143 so-called "academics." Then we hear about someone in
Finland being threatened with imprisonment for advancing a theory of racial
differences in IQ, and a British historian threatened with 10 years
imprisonment in Austria for not towing the P.C. line on the holocaust. Thank
God for the USA and the first amendment! Academics in those other countries
should be ashamed of both their own and their government's stance on freedom
of speech and of inquiry in "sensitive" matters. It's almost as though they
believe that ignoring a problem will make it go away.
>>>> "Jim Mackintosh" <jmackint@...> 11/26/05 4:44 PM >>>
> I don't know if the following story came up on this list, but Andrew
> Fraser, a Professor in Public Law at Macqurie University, is currently
> under investigation by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
> Commission. The commission received complaints, not because of
> Fraser's theories, but because he publicly reiterated data concerning
> racial differences in crime and IQ.
> After a great deal of controversy and public and denunciation,
> including a letter from 143(!) academics to The Australian newspaper
> from principally (about 90%) female academics in the humanities and
> social sciences including the Vice-Chancellor of Macquarie University,
> he was invited by the editor of an Australian law journal to write an
> article on The White Australia Policy. The article subsequently went
> up on the internet anyway
> (http://users.bigpond.net.au/jonjayray/fraser.html). The article was
> peer-reviewed and accepted. However, when the story of its publication
> broke, the Vice-Chancellor of Deakin University blocked publication
> under threat of leagal action from some activist lawyers.
> The early part of the story is covered in depth at:
> Jim Mackintosh
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> Anthony Walsh, Ph.D.
> Criminal Justice Department
> Boise State University
> Boise, Idaho 83725
> Phone: (208) 426-3242
> Yahoo! Groups Links
- << Previous post in topic