What do they think “racist” means?

Jason Rich­wine got a Ph.D. in pub­lic pol­icy from Har­vard in 2009 He wrote his dis­ser­ta­tion on com­par­a­tive IQ and its role in immi­gra­tion pol­icy. Richwine’s dis­ser­ta­tion argued that His­pan­ics had con­sis­tently lower IQs than other Amer­i­cans and that this dif­fer­ence per­sisted over time. He fur­ther argued that we must con­sider this when for­mu­lat­ing immi­gra­tion pol­icy. He got a job after grad school work­ing for the Her­itage Foun­da­tion, where he argued that we should restrict his­panic immi­gra­tion to the US on the grounds that his­pan­ics have lower IQs. To give an exam­ple of the fla­vor of his work, at a 2008 panel orga­nized by the Amer­i­can Enter­prise Insti­tute he said:

Decades of psy­cho­me­t­ric test­ing,” said Rich­wine, “has indi­cated that at least in Amer­ica you have Jews with the high­est aver­age IQ, usu­ally fol­lowed by East Asians, and then you have non-Jewish whites, His­pan­ics, and then blacks. These are real dif­fer­ences. They’re not going to go away tomorrow.”

richwineRich­wine was pres­sured into resign­ing from Her­itage when these com­ments were writ­ten about by David Weigel at Slate. On the right, he has become a mar­tyr to polit­i­cal cor­rect­ness: Michelle Malkin and Rush Lim­baugh and Charles Mur­ray have rushed to his defense.

Rich­wine him­self recently denied he is a racist. He says his pub­lic remarks “lacked nuance” and added that:

It still amazes me that it would be me who is por­trayed this way.. I have a pretty good edu­ca­tional back­ground, I have a good back­ground in doing very good quan­ti­ta­tive work. The idea that I am some sort of foaming-at-the-mouth extrem­ist never even crossed my mind.

To this I just have to ask–what does he think “racist” means? Rich­wine believes there is such as thing as a “his­panic” race, even though that term was made up in the 60s and has no clear mean­ing or bound­ary, and includes peo­ple from vastly dif­fer­ent back­grounds. He believes there is such a thing as an Asian race, and he believes that jews are an objec­tively dis­tinct race. That is, he believes these are objec­tively real bio­log­i­cal cat­e­gories. He fur­ther believes there are real and ver­i­fi­able dif­fer­ences between these races, and these dif­fer­ences can be mea­sured by an IQ test. And he con­cludes fur­ther that some “races” are infe­rior to oth­ers. And finally, he con­cludes that we should use this infor­ma­tion to restrict immi­gra­tion on the basis of racial intelligence.

racist

racist

 

not a racist

not a racist

If this isn’t racist, then what in the world does the term mean? To take the obvi­ous exam­ple, if Hitler was using this kind of argu­ment to enact the expul­sion of jews, as in fact he did, we would all agree it was racist, would we not? It seems as if, to Rich­wine and his defend­ers, a “racist” is some­one who foams at the mouth and is “extreme,” while some­one with charts and an edu­ca­tion is de facto not a racist, even though their work is entirely about racial dif­fer­ences and their cen­tral­ity to pol­icy, and he wants to pre­vent the immi­gra­tion of the racially inferior.

Jason Rich­wine is a racist. He may be a very nice guy, he may have his­panic friends, he may enjoy tacos y bur­ri­tos. He may take every per­son on their own indi­vid­ual mer­its. But he is a racist who wants to use the argu­ment that “his­panic” peo­ple are genet­i­cally infe­rior to restrict their immi­gra­tion to the US. There is no other way to frame this.

He’s per­fectly enti­tled to pur­sue this line of think­ing. It’s a free coun­try. The com­plaint seems to be that he can’t do this work with­out being accused of racism. Well, that’s because this work is thor­oughly racist in its assump­tions. Racism–and racism but­tressed by sci­en­tific research–has an old and repul­sive his­tory. It’s entirely rea­son­able to point out racist think­ing; being edu­cated, using sta­tis­tics and charts, being a nice guy, lov­ing pup­pies: none of these things negate the fact of these racist assumptions.

And just to be clear: I’m not a racist, because I don’t believe in race as a real, bio­log­i­cal cat­e­gory. There are phys­i­cal dif­fer­ences between peo­ple, and we have made up the idea of “races” to orga­nize those dif­fer­ences in broad ways. There is no clear bound­ary line between these alleged races: the pres­i­dent of the United States is him­self nei­ther white nor black, though we iden­tify him and he iden­ti­fies him­self as black. That doesn’t mean I’m free of big­otry, or stereo­typ­ing, or prej­u­di­cial behav­ior: I very much doubt that I am, though I make my best effort. A racist is a per­son who makes the assump­tion that “races” are real, and that we should make pol­icy based on these real differences

 

 

 

 

 


More on gay economics

Yes­ter­day I posted on Niall Ferguson’s claim that Keynes was a bad econ­o­mist because he was gay and a Blooms­bury aes­thete. I argued that Ferguson’s claim was con­sis­tent with his desire to “nat­u­ral­ize” eco­nom­ics, to make it bear a rela­tion to bio­log­i­cal law, and quoted the Ascent of Money to make the argu­ment. And now


Gay economists

Recently eco­nomic his­to­rian Niall Fer­gu­son claimed that J. M. Keynes was a bad econ­o­mist because he was gay. Lack­ing chil­dren, Fer­gu­son claimed, Keynes didn’t care about the long term. Fur­ther, Keynes was “effete,” mar­ried to a bal­le­rina, fond of poetry and thus, for unclear rea­sons, a bad econ­o­mist. You can find a good account here.


The Bitcoin Bubble

Bit­coins are a kind of money, but with no phys­i­cal sub­stance. They were invented by an unknown group of com­puter pro­gram­mers early in the last decade. The design­ers imag­ined them as an alter­na­tive money, free from con­trol by gov­ern­ment. They’re “made” by soft­ware which is highly pro­tected, so you can’t sim­ply just make more your­self.


The worst memorial in the country

It’s the WWII memo­r­ial, which occu­pies a trag­i­cally cen­tral place on the national mall. It’s awful. Good art is hard, and rare. Thank­fully, pub­lic art this bad is rare as well. I’m not alone in think­ing it’s a really ter­ri­ble piece of work, but maybe I can explain why. For a his­to­rian, the first prob­lem with


Dancing Queen

Last week Jimmy Fal­lon released a mod­estly funny, very inter­est­ing seg­ment from his show. The bit, titled “the his­tory of mom danc­ing,” fea­tures Fal­lon, dressed as a mom, and First Lady Michelle Obama, sort of dressed as a mom, danc­ing to a generic light club beat. if for some rea­son the video won’t embed–try this link Their moves


The Make White People Behave Act

Yesterday’s blog post con­cerned Antonin Scalia’s grotesque recon­struc­tion of the Vot­ing Rights Act, which insures that every­one gets to vote, as an exam­ple of “racial enti­tle­ment.” But when Jus­tice Roberts took his turn ques­tion­ing the Vot­ing Rights Act yes­ter­day, he asked: Is it the government’s sub­mis­sion that the cit­i­zens in the South are more racist than


Perpetual racial entitlements

At the moment the Supreme Court is hear­ing arg­ments for and against the Vot­ing Rights Act. The Act, passed in 1964, gives the fed­eral gov­ern­ment super­vi­sory author­ity over elec­tions in places where there has been a long pat­tern of dis­fran­chise­ment, e.g. “the South.” Scalia made this com­ment about the Vot­ing Rights Act:  I think it is


Slavery and the profits of abolition

His­to­ri­ans can’t quite make up their mind about abo­li­tion. Nobody wants slav­ery to return, and his­to­ri­ans ini­tially tended to praise abo­li­tion­ists as moral vision­ar­ies. In Eng­land William Wilber­force is a hero for help­ing con­vince Eng­land to end slav­ery in 1833. In the US, Wilber­force was more recently  the inspi­ra­tion for political-thug-turned-moral-crusader Chuck Colson’s cru­sade agains


3/5ths of a Biz Ad Professor

His­to­ri­ans are aston­ished at the essay writ­ten by James Wag­ner, Pres­i­dent of Emory Uni­ver­sity. Writ­ing in the Emory’s monthly mag­a­zine, Wag­ner extolled the virtue of com­pro­mise, and held up, as his shin­ing exam­ple, the THREE FIFTHS COMPROMISE(!!!!) of the US Con­sti­tu­tion. This is wrong on so many lev­els that it’s hard to know where to