I was minded to support Frank Ellis. Everyone has a right to free speech, even if it's offensive.
However, having read the piece he wrote for Leeds Student (thanks DK), I've changed my mind.
The problem is that his views aren't merely offensive, but downright dishonest, in (at least) four ways:
1. If he's going to talk about racial differences in educational attainment, why not refer to these UK figures published just five days before the date on his article? They show that black Caribbean boys do indeed do worse at GCSEs than white British boys; 33.3% of them get 5 or more GCSEs at A*-C, against 50.2% of white British boys.
However, black African girls out-perform white British boys (53.3% get 5 or more GCSEs), as do Indians, Chinese, Pakistani girls and mixed-race girls.
There may be racial differences - but none to support the implicit claim that whites' educational attainments are superior.
2. There's no reference to this paper (pdf), which shows no difference in intelligence between black and white babies. This suggests that differences in educational attainment later in life are not innate, but mighe indeed be the "social and political construct" he complains about.
3. There's no mention of the positive economic benefits of immigration. Of course, it might be reasonable (though I doubt it) to argue that these benefits are offset by losses of cultural cohesion. But it's just dishonest to ignore this and claim that "the BNP is the only party in this country that articulates the thoroughly justified hopes and fears of the white indigenous population regarding the legal/illegal immigrant invasion."
4. There's no mention of an alternative explanation for the link between Africans' low IQ and poor economic performance. Maybe the latter causes the former, because malnutrition and low birth weights are important influences upon intelligence.
There are many other ways one can challenge Ellis's piece. For me, though, these points show that he's not merely voicing unpopular opinions, but being simply dishonest.
Of course, private citizens have a right to wilfully ignore evidence, even to put their stupidity and mendacity into the public arena. But Ellis is not speaking as a private citizen, but as a public employee; as Brownie says, he's not billed as some bloke from Yorkshire.
This, of course, doesn't mean he should be sacked. There is a case for the university retaining him: to demonstrate its commitment to extreme toleration; to show students that lecturers have fallible opinions whioch should be challenged; and because Millian arguments for the value of even obnoxious and untrue opinions are valid.
But these are utilitarian considerations. Ellis has no right to expect the tax-payers to pay his wages.