Frank Ellis's dishonesty

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.

Comments

[Backword Dave]

I've been looking for a transcript of what he actually said for a few days, thanks Chris.

I'm not entirely sure that I agree with you about the "not speaking as a private citizen, but as a public employee" part. I see what you're saying, but do you think it would be OK if he were billed as "Dr" rather than "Prof" (given that statistics don't seem to figure in Slavonic studies)?

I don't really know what I think myself here. It does make a difference if a speaker is known to be academically accomplished. Einstein had quite a few opinions on pacifism; should he have been quoted as some bloke from Switzerland called Albert Einstein? (Harder in his case, because he was rarely referred as "Dr" or "Professor".) I think Frank Ellis is wrong in what he says though. (And I agree with Professor Einstein that war is a very bad thing.)

[Marcin Tustin]

He's not a public employee, though, is he? He's an employee of a university, which has the capacity to act quite separately from the state. Moreover, his job is having opinions, and the job of others is to knock them down, and if he persists, possibly ignore him.

[dearieme]

"extreme toleration": might you, on reflection, prefer that you hadn't coined that phrase?

[CB]

His job is surely to have opinions on Slavonic studies and their related fields. Moreover, who'd have thought that an expert in such an auspicious field would also be able to double as an evolutionary biologist?

[Robert Jubb]

Surely the thing to remember here is that he violated the conditions of his employment. He was required to abide by a code of conduct, which open support for racial discrimination broke, and was consequently, after some investigation, fired. Of course, it is possible - although I don't - to think that it was an unconscionable condition of employment to abide by a code of conduct, but I rather suspect that those who have been supporting, most of whom have been on the right, will have some difficulty in coherently articulating that position, given their general dislike of worker's rights.

[The Pedant-General]

Robert makes a sensible argument about a simple breach of the conditions of his employment contract in this case.

I suspect that this is much simpler. The university and its students ought to be able to expect that the academics employed should be, well, academic.

If this is the best that Ellis can do in terms of a coherent argument, one doubts his capability to reason effectively. That is a much more damning verdict and gives a much stronger case for removing him from his post - he is simply not up to the job.

PG

[gp]

Poor old Frank,upsetting the thought police.
He should have known better.

[Sam Spade]

"Multiculturalism (multiracialism) is doomed to failure."(...)"Diversity is not our strength. On the contrary it shall be our destruction."- Frank Ellis
***

In a region of the world where poverty and undemocratic government seem to be the rule, Mauritius is an exception.

Mauritius is an island nation in the Indian Ocean east of Madagascar and the African continent, and ethnic groups, known as "communal groups," are tightly knit. Mauritius has a multicultural society in which the cultures blend and mix harmoniously.
The population is made up of people of Indian, African, Chinese, and French origin. Most people speak English, French, and Creole. English is the official language of the government and of education. An individual's name easily identifies his or her ethnic and religious background. There is a strong correlation between religious affiliation and ethnicity. Citizens of Indian ethnicity usually are Hindus or Muslims. Citizens of Chinese ancestry usually practice both Buddhism and Catholicism. Creoles and citizens of European descent usually are Catholic. Intermarriage is relatively rare. Nearly a third of Mauritius's population (the so-called Creoles) are descendants of slaves brought from the African mainland. Most Creoles have remained at or near the bottom of the country's socioeconomic ladder, BUT those who have attained a measure of prosperity are almost invariably of mixed descent and lighter skin color.

A brief history
Arab traders were the first to come upon the island in the 10th century, followed by the Portuguese in the 1500s, but neither group remained to make permanent settlements. The Dutch landed in the late 1500s and stayed, naming the island after Prince Maurice of Nassau. They remained for little over a century but also decided to leave. It was the French, arriving in 1715, who stayed and gave the island its essentially French character and charm. However, as a result of the conflict between the British and French in Europe and the rivalry in their respective trade with India, the British attacked the French garrison stationed on the island and defeated them. From that time until independence in 1968, the island was administered by the British. The islands present inhabitants are descendants of settlers from Europe, slaves from Africa and Madagascar, and indentured laborers and artisans from Asia, with each racial group bringing its own culture and traditions. These different attributes have, over time, became uniquely blended to create a national harmony which recognizes diversity within a common identity and national character. Today, the island has a population of 1.1 million people.

[Right On]

Ellis is not dishonest simply because he doesn't accept the lefty propaganda trotted out above. This is idiotic:

"There may be racial differences - but none to support the implicit claim that whites' educational attainments are superior."

There is incontrovertible evidence that whites' education achievements are superior -- it's one of the main things anti-racists complain about and attribute to white racism. Some blacks outperform some whites in some situations, but overall whites outperform blacks, just as Chinese outperform whites. Ellis and other "racists" would say that all this is explained by average IQ: whites have a higher average IQ than blacks, and Chinese have a higher average IQ than whites. Why white supremacists like Ellis et al are saying Chinese are genetically superior to whites is puzzling, but who can fathom the warped psychology of the far right? On the other hand, perhaps it's because he's guided by the facts rather than by wishful thinking.

I can't be bothered refuting the other alleged elements of his "dishonesty". In every case there's misinterpretation and misunderstanding. As you will see more and more in coming years, science is on Ellis's side and the lies and obfuscations of the "race doesn't exist" crowd will be less and less effective.

[Generic Viagra]

Fabulous article! is from my Bookmarked!!
beautiful blog.. i like read this page. thanks and God bless..

[M Schwartz]

***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.***

Heritability rises with age. Look up the Scarr & Weinberg transracial adoption study. Genetic influences increase as people mature.