Harvard Law Dean Condemns Racist Email, Alleged Emailer Wrote Thesis On Diversity

Harvard Law Dean Martha Minow has spoken out against a racially charged email written by a third-year student at the school. The widely circulated letter stated it was possible that African-Americans are "genetically predisposed to be less intelligent," among other assertions.

Above the Law reports:

Not surprisingly for a law professor, Dean Minow avails herself of the teaching moment that the Harvard Black Law Students Association apparently passed on. She writes:

"This sad and unfortunate incident prompts both reflection and reassertion of important community principles and ideals. We seek to encourage freedom of expression, but freedom of speech should be accompanied by responsibility. This is a community dedicated to intellectual pursuit and social justice. The circulation of one student's comment does not reflect the views of the school or the overwhelming majority of the members of this community."

The emailer's identity is being protected by Above the Law, which first reported the message. But many sources are naming Harvard Law Review member Stephanie Grace as its culprit.

Race has apparently long been a subject of Grace's interest. The 2007 Princeton graduate majored in sociology and penned an 81-page thesis titled "Dorm Room Diversity: Examining the Effects of Racially Heterogeneous College Roommate Pairings." She studied under Thomas Espenshade, the author of "No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life."

According to Gawker, Grace has been "scrubbing" herself from the internet. The site attempted to get in touch with her but was unable to get comment:

She [Grace] ignored our requests for comment, giggling, "That's not me," when she hung up on us on the phone. (It was her. The outgoing voice message said so.)

Grace is scheduled to clerk with Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski this summer, best known for his dealings with cow porn.

The full text of Minow's email can be seen here.

UPDATE: Above the law has an excerpt of the apology Grace sent to the Black Law Student Association:

I am deeply sorry for the pain caused by my email. I never intended to cause any harm, and I am heartbroken and devastated by the harm that has ensued. I would give anything to take it back.

I emphatically do not believe that African Americans are genetically inferior in any way. I understand why my words expressing even a doubt in that regard were and are offensive.

I would be grateful to have an opportunity to share my thoughts and to apologize to you in person.

Even beforehand, I want to extend an apology to you and to anyone else who has been hurt by my actions.

Comments

[Chuck IsCool]

05:23 PM on 05/04/2010

Part 6

For those of you that think the letter was 'racist' --

Can you point out what makes it ‘racist,’ except in the neutral sense of ‘racism’ -- or concerning races? (Notice the Huffpost, to its credit, did not argue it was)

More generally, IS pointing out racial differences is ipso facto ‘racist’? Or is pointing out the bicultural basis of the differences ipso facto ‘racist’? Or is it only ‘racist’ if the differences concerns cognition? Or do you suppose that the Hereditarian Hypothesis could only be the modus operandi of ‘racists’ – if so, what justifies this potentially libelous claim?

Help me out here?

Maybe the problem lies with your implicit frame of thinking - If this frame of thinking, by your view, leads to racism on the off chance that average group bicultural differences are thought of, why do you maintain it? Are you so convinced that there could be no such differences among any populations? Wasn’t it really this frame of thinking that was the problem in the first place? Shouldn’t those of you that think that the Hereditarian Hypothesis is ipso facto ‘racist’ re-evaluate that frame. If the Hereditarian hypothesis is partially true – and we will know for certain within a couple of years – given the rate of the research -- you will have to revisit that frame anyways. And if it isn’t, isn't it rather odd that you maintain it, nonetheless, given what it implies about anyone who happens to differ cognitively.

[bkrider9]

01:04 PM on 05/05/2010

The racist aspect of the Harvard email has been explained in detail on this thread and in the related one (first reporting of the story).

But since I'm here, may I ask you 2 questions: 1) What is "race"? 2) Why are women superior to men in university grades in virtually all fields, including law and medicine, when their average IQ score is 5 points lower than men's average? (The superiority of women in university was a recent article in the Times of London, and in an article from Ohio State University; see my earlier posts.)

[Chuck IsCool]

04:35 AM on 05/09/2010

"What is race?"

When we are strictly talking historic population in this sense: http://hagsc.org/myerslab/papers/LiAbsher-Science-HGDP.pdf Race is a social category which corresponds to different perceived ancestry, which may or many not represent different population genetics. It can, but people also have Ur-myths. That said, technically race implies groups who are: 1) distinguished, on average, from other human beings by visible physical features of the relevant kind 2) Whose members are linked by common ancestry and 3) Who originate a distinctive geographical location. But again sometimes races are social construction. With regards to (whites) European and (Africans) it actually on average meets 1-3. For example, this is the genetic structure of African Americans compare to Europeans: http://genomebiology.com/2009/10/12/R141/figure/F1

[Chuck IsCool]

04:46 AM on 05/09/2010

"Why are women superior to men" IQ score is 5 points lower"

I didn't know they were. I thought it was that there was a larger range for men, while females did not deviate from the mean as much, So you can have an average "superiority" for females and super "superior" and super "inferior" males.

That said, I'm a conservtative traditionalist who know he's, by that standard, "inferior," so I just call it being more honest and more clever, and call being traditional "culturally superior" --- and being liberal "culturally inferior." I might not be bright, but I'm not dumb enough to let myself be measured, especially by the standards of some superfical materialist progressive)

[deridaa]

11:57 AM on 06/24/2010

A female graduate from Princeton would write something like that? In such a politically correct engineered school like Princeton where the behavior is NOT politically correct but the mantra is- Well???? Do as I say not as I do- time to do what they did after Jiang Li http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2006/11/15/anti-asian-bias-alleged/
they just upped the admissions percentage of asian acceptances- for these administrators its a numbers game no wonder their sensitivity policies flop one by one. Thanks to the Internet they can no longer sweep them under the rug happy to hold on to those big fat politically correct benefit packages.

[Chuck IsCool]

12:10 PM on 05/04/2010

Seems my comments aren't making it. Let's try again:

The issue being discussed is called the Hereditarian Hypothesis.(1) The Hypothesis is that the well established statistically average ethnoracial IQ gaps (2) have a partial genetic etiology, and this explains some of the average performance differences that we find in our society and which show up in other societies (3).

It presupposes that there are descendant populations, which there are. (Eurasian populations broke off from SubSaharan populations 100,000 years ago, and West Eurasian from East Eurasian 40,000 yeas ago; and humans, from the most recent primate

[Chuck IsCool]

10:16 PM on 05/03/2010

Part 5

(14) Meisenberg, 2003. IQ Population Genetics: It’s not as Simple as You Think.
(15) Beckman, 2006. The Race for Ancestral Genetics in Clinical Trials.
(16) Race, Ethnicity, and Genetics Working Group, 2005. The Use of Racial, Ethnic, and Ancestral Categories in Human Genetics Research.
(17) Templer and Arikawa, 2006. Temperature, skin color, per capita income, and IQ: An international perspective
(18) Rindermann, 2007. The Big G-Factor of National Cognitive Ability.
(19) Shermer, 2009. A Noble Conception.

[Chuck IsCool]

10:16 PM on 05/03/2010

Part 4

(These are all open access articles for your convenience)
(1) Gottfredson, 2005. What if the Hereditarian Hypothesis is True?
(2) Gottfredson, 2004. Social Consequences of Group Differences in Cognitive Ability
(3) Schmitt & Quinn, 2010. Reduction in Measured Subgroup Mean Differences: What is possible?
(4) Campbell and Tishkoff, 2009. The Evolution of Human Genetic Review and Phenotypic Variation in Africa.
(5) Laland, Odling-Smee, and Myles, 2010. How culture shaped the human genome: bringing genetics and the human sciences together.
(6) Barreiro, Laval, Quach, et al., 2008. Natural selection has driven population differentiation in modern humans
(7) Pritchard, Pickrell, and Coop, 2009.The Genetics of Human Adaptation Hard Sweeps, Soft Sweeps, and Polygenic Adaptation
(8) Hardimon, 2009. Wallis Simpson was Wrong
(9) Soo-Jin Lee, et al., 2008. The ethics of characterizing difference: guiding principles on using racial categories in human genetics.
(10) Mountain, Risch, 2004. Assessing Genomic contributions to phenotypic differences among “racial” and “ethnic” groups.
(11) McGrew, 2009. CHC Theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research
(12) Deary, Penke, and Johnson, 2010. The neuroscience of human intelligence differences.
(13) Gottfredson, 2010. The General Intelligence Factor

[Chuck IsCool]

10:15 PM on 05/03/2010

Part 3

As for the genetics, there are clearly average cognitive differences. For example refer here:

"Signals of recent positive selection in a worldwide sample of human populations." Joseph K. Pickrell, Graham Coop, John Novembre, et al. (2009)

"NRG–ERBB4 pathway Further inspection of genes in the NRG–ERBB4 pathway (Kanehisa et al. 2008) revealed a striking alignment of selection signals (Fig. 5A). ERBB4 shows extreme extreme iHS signals in all non-African populations (Fig. 5B,C), NRG3 shows extreme iHS signals in West Eurasian populations, and two other binding partners of ERBB4—NRG1 and NRG2—fall well into the 1% tail of iHS scores in East Asia (Fig. 5A). Further, ADAM17, the gene encoding the enzyme that converts NRG1 to its active form (Mei and Xiong 2008), falls in a region that contains some of the most extreme XP-EHH scores in East Asia (maximum value of XP-EHHinthe region of 4.2 at rs2709591, empirical P = 2 3 10 5). The NRG–ERBB4 signaling pathway is well-studied and known to be involved in the development of a number of tissues, including heart, neural, and mammary tissue (Gassmann et al. 1995; Tidcombe et al. 2003). Variants in genes in this pathway have been associated with risk of schizophrenia [comment:refer here] and various psychiatric phenotypes (Stefansson et al. 2002; Hall et al. 2006; Mei and Xiong 2008). We suggest that an unidentified phenotype affected by this pathway has experienced strong recent selection in non-African populations"

[US UK Child]

12:12 AM on 05/04/2010

I'm not making a moral statement. I'm not a liberal and I'm not angry, as you seem to be. Just rambling on and on regurgitating hypotheses and studies is elementary. Any person can search lexus nexus and come up with evidence to support their preconceived conclusion. What you're doing is just pulling data together to prove your point instead of looking at the data and coming to a conclusion. Look, we don't totally disagree especially when it comes down to the dispersement of humans from Africa. Where we do disagree is where you argue that the human mind genetically, since we all came from the same pool, actually devolved. This just doesn't make sense! Someone moves north and they get smarter? We're talking about a person's innate ability to learn, not a person's performance (per se). For me, it's a average size of the water well, not how much water can be measure at the moment, because any well can be filled. Potential is where I'm getting at, :).

GRE, LSAT, SAT, ACT examples are dumb, plan and simple. I went to private school all my life and they taught me "tricks" to taking the test, took classes, etc. Everyone doesn't have that privilege and to be honest not everyone can have an standard education that could even teach for it.
.

[Chuck IsCool]

12:27 PM on 05/04/2010

"I'm not making a moral statement. I'm not a liberal and I'm not angry, as you seem to be. Just rambling on and on regurgitating hypotheses and studies is elementary. ..What you're doing is just pulling data together to prove your point instead of looking at the data and coming to a conclusion"
I am establishing that this is an empirical question and that there are grounds for asking it. It's a reasonable question to ask -- or at least would be, were it not for historical considerations. Further, I am also suggesting that the empirical aspect needs to be divorced from the value-laden aspect I would suggest, whether intentionality of not, many of you are reinforcing the unjustified connection between the empirical and the value laden.

[Chuck IsCool]

12:42 PM on 05/04/2010

"Where we do disagree is where you argue that the human mind genetically, since we all came from the same pool, actually devolved"

I am making no such claim. First, ‘evolution’ means adaptation and differentiation. The question then is, could certain types of cognition be selected for in different populations, given different environmental/cultural conditions?

[US UK Child]

12:13 AM on 05/04/2010

Your Part three is interesting and I would like to say that in your study it says "East Asia, and Eurasia." These are places not races. Just saying, "race is stupid!" haha. Even so, to be honest, I don't know what the heck NRG-ERBB4 or iHS is. or EHHinthe region of 4.2 at rs2709591 is haha. I'm assuming it's locations on DNA and I will say this study, if it is, is bogus. Scientist can measure the activity of the brain when ask questions, but find it hard to relate one or two genomes to attributes like physical prowess or IQ. I'm keeping my language casual because I'm trying not to be too uppity or "liberal" sounding. This entire discussion actually has reduced me to giving this some thought. It's silly to think that "mograloid" science still exists. Wow!

Nothing actually devolves, same ancestral pool (originally), moved to different places, means different adaptations to climate, not different brain functions. It's just incredible people are talking like we're actually a different specie or genus. Not saying it's not possible BUT I will say that it is actually harder to prove your point and that's because there is more evidence in contradiction

[Chuck IsCool]

12:57 PM on 05/04/2010

"Your Part three is interesting and I would like to say that in your study it says "East Asia, and Eurasia." These are places not races. Just saying, "race is stupid!" haha."

The categories ‘East Asian’ and ‘Eurasians’ refer to historic human population splits. Humans fanned out from Africa and existed in relatively isolated populations until recently. ‘Races’ are social categories that refer to members with different ancestry. As for your later comments,I am sorry you are not equated with population genetics. This was a major paper in the field. Read it yourself: http://genome.cshlp.org/content/19/5/826.full.pdf+html

[Chuck IsCool]

10:14 PM on 05/03/2010

Part 2

Finally, it hypothesis that some the average found differences (3) between the social categories called races (8,9, 10) have a partial genetic etiology, related historic population differentiation (4,5,6,7)

So let's review. We have an average gap between African-Americans and European-Americans. This shows up on the GRE, LSAT, MCAT, SAT, and ACT and IQ tests. We know that African-Americans and European-Americans represent different genetic populations. We know that there was time for them to evolve socially significant differences and that they did; and we know that there was time to diverge cognitively. In addition to culture factors, we know there were also other factors which might account for this possible divergence (17), in addition to various other average ones, depending on the specific population under discussion.

It's plausible – and either true or false, so drop the petty moralism and Liberal creationism (19) --that some of the average differences (it's hard to say how much) have a genetic etiology. That said, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. We are not talking about some groups being smarter across the board – most of you demonstrate that quite well; we are talking about more genetically predisposed smart individuals in one group as opposed to another. And can someone explain how suggesting that equates with positing inferiority in essence? I means outside of many of your perverse, antiscientific, illiberal frame of genetic essentialism, intellectual elitism, and platonic realism –

[Chuck IsCool]

10:13 PM on 05/03/2010

Let me outline the Hereditarian Hypothesis for you morons.

The issue being discussed is call the Hereditarian Hypothesis.(1) The Hypothesis is that the well established statistically average Black-White IQ gap (2) has a partial genetic etiology, and this explains some of the average performance differences that we find in our society and which show up in other societies (3).

It presupposes that there are descendant populations, which there are. (Eurasian populations broke off from SubSaharan populations 100,000 years ago; and humans, from the most recent primate 300,000 years ago). (4) It presupposed that 100,000 years was sufficient time for evolving differences, and that socially significant differentiation occurred, which there was, and it did (5, 6, 7, 15, 16). It presupposes an understanding of ‘race’ which refers to difference average population ancestry, which we have one. (8) It presupposes that 'races,' in fact, refers, in part, to descendant populations, which it does (9,10). It presupposes that some of the various forms of cognitive processing (11) are highly heritable, and that differences between individuals within a race can be attributed, in part, to genes; which they can (12,13). It presupposed that population could theoretically differ in cognitive abilities, which there is every reason to believe they do (7,14). It presupposes that there are experimental means of measuring individual differences in cognitive capacity, which there are (11, 12, 13, 18).

[YanShen]

10:05 PM on 05/03/2010

She should also be a rallying point for people who value freedom of speech.

[hellboy666]

05:35 PM on 05/03/2010

Stephanie Grace, author of the racist e-mail, is quickly turning into a hero of the white supremacist and white nationalist community, see:

http://www.chimpout.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114561

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/04/harvard_law_sch.php

She will clerk for Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a few months. Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at UCLA School of Law and a former clerk of Judge Kozinski, already wrote 9 articles supporting Stephanie Grace in his blog, The Volokh Conspiracy. I take this as a clear message: Kozinski and former clerks will defend this girl at all costs.

What can good people opposed to racism in America do? At least we should write letters to Judge Kozinski explaining to him that hiring racists and hiring racists to work for him is not the way to go. Does anyone have any other ideas?

[hellboy666]

05:36 PM on 05/03/2010

Is anyone up for picketing?

[US UK Child]

02:17 PM on 05/03/2010

To Boot, intra-racial differences are more numerous than inter-racial differences.

[US UK Child]

02:16 PM on 05/03/2010

This entire conversation has ended up around the wrong aspect of this subject. Race is social, what's blakc/white in US is different in India or even some countries in Africa where social superiority is based on ethnicity instead of race. All of "racial" differences is based on geographical differences period. Africans differ, from Europeans, and Asians because of adaptation, mostly to the necessity to create vitamin D. In fact, African decedents are more apt to have sickle cell anemia but it's recessive! and it has be shown to protect people with African ancestory from water born diseases.

Last point. There are studies that show US born "White" citizens with genetic similarities with African tribes and "Black" US born citizens with genetic similarities with Europeans. In fact the part of DNA that accounts for race is .01% and this is just what controls colour, hair, etc. We share something like 80% with Bananas haha!

Come on people. race is crap. I'll concede geographical variances... SOrry for the ramble but stop thinking about things under the confines of "US" defined categories. World is much bigger than US me friends. (India, not to be confused with US Indians... Africans? or maybe, Asians? Egyptians... African? Black? Russians... Asians? Hawaiians Indians or Asians?)

[bkrider9]

03:35 PM on 05/03/2010

Work it Child.

[uhavenoface]

06:11 PM on 05/03/2010

you're right in principle, but not in nuance. you need to be more specific than 'african' or 'european' for the idea of race to have any scientific value

using the sickle cell example, only africans from some sub-saharan areas display a higher occurence of sickle cell. northern africans or modern-day nigerians, for example, do not have a significantly higher occurence of sickle cell

basically you've got the right idea, but you're still basing it on geographical boundaries that are socially constructed. indeed, it isn't really geography at all. the relevant factor in sickle cell occurence isn't the continent (because after all, africa's a big friggin' continent with lots of variation in climate and environment). rather, what's relevant is the long-term presence or absence of malaria as an evolutionary pressure. where malaria is a big danger, sickle cell can be selected for naturally; where malaria is not a big danger, sickle cell will not be selected for

[US UK Child]

06:24 PM on 05/03/2010

We agree then. "nuance" is the key word. I didn't have time to write a thesis ha.

[sajc05]

12:53 PM on 05/03/2010

so this girls private email was leaked by a rival student to intentionally do what you are all doing. trying to shut her down.

What's wrong with the old way of debating things? when you have a difference of opinion or think some one is wrong, challenge the idea with facts NOT smears.

the left's thought police at it again.

[bkrider9]

01:07 AM on 05/03/2010

Women and peoples of color are rising in status throughout the world. The IQ myth is a dull rusty weapon racists wield to fight a losing battle. No doubt they will redouble their efforts to preserve an outmoded system of thought and society, but they are failing and will, I believe, fall away completely like an empty cocoon. This is a new day. Barack Obama's brilliance does not put to rest questions of "race" - it seems to be fanning the flames; but his election serves notice that the days of racial concepts are numbered, no matter how difficult the times may be in the near future. Westerners once focused their fears and hatred on the peoples of Asia, the "yellow hordes"; now they have no choice but to accept Asian superiority in many intellectual and political arenas. We are all human beings - unequal as individuals, certainly, but equally infinite in potential. We once judged skin color as a mark of religious discrimination. Now we judge color, culture, genes and IQ as marks of scientific discrimination. Unfounded science that promotes such discrimination mimics religion that blinds the masses. N@zi scientists walked down this path. What good did they find? It is time for the unity of the human race, a global society based not on political advantage or cultural imbalance, but rather on unity in diversity.

[socialiq]

02:28 AM on 05/03/2010

Why do people insist on trotting out the same old hackneyed statistics to back their ridiculous claims?

BTW, I don't know if you read it, but I had your back with "Bud", that pretentious snark. lol

[bkrider9]

10:58 AM on 05/03/2010

Much appreciated. Well, through this conversation I've learned a lot. I agree with you: in the end, IQ schm-IQ; it doesn't matter, as long as people everywhere are free to pursue their own creative potential.

[YanShen]

08:29 AM on 05/02/2010

I'm confused as to what all of the outrage is about. It's a well established fact that different racial groups tend to perform differently on certain IQ tests. Given this difference, the question naturally becomes to what extent innate or environmental factors play a role in explaining the disparity in average test scores. How can someone be deemed a racist simply because they haven't ruled out innate factors as a relevant explanatory factor contributing to the disparity in scores? How is anyone supposed to know ahead of time the answer to that question?

Well, I'm actually not confused as to why there's been such an uproar over her comments. I suppose this is a particularly sensitive issue emotionally.

[bkrider9]

06:36 PM on 05/02/2010

But it's not a well established fact that IQ tests measure intelligence, and it's not a well established fact that "races" even exist. This was addressed in Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man". What is well established is that psychometrics have been heavily promoted by psychologists because it is a highly profitable field, in the same way that big pharma promotes drugs that we neither need nor benefit from. As pointed out in an earlier post, women score consistently lower than men in IQ tests, yet they are consistently and increasingly superior to men in all academic fields. Conclusion: IQ tests are at least suspect. You may disagree of course, but I'm still waiting for anyone to define what particular races, either genetically or otherwise.

[YanShen]

07:13 PM on 05/02/2010

Well I suppose there aren't abstract Platonic forms corresponding to the essence of being black or being white, but I think it's pretty clear that different groups of individuals have unique distributions for at the very least superficial skin and facial features. If you feel like this is a meaningful enough criteria biologically to classify people based off of , then you're certainly welcome to do so. In fact, this is probably how most people classify different races. Furthermore, the very same groups of people that we classify based off of certain superficial criteria also seem to exhibit unique gene distributions for certain kinds of diseases. For instance, Africans generally to be more vulnerable to sickle-cell anemia, Jews to Tay Sachs. You can deny any method of categorization if you so choose, but just realize that to many people, these differences are biologically meaningful. The primary reason classifying people based off of race is so controversial is that it inevitably leads to questions of whether or not other more sensitive differences exist between different racial groups.

Actually, I wasn't aware that women were becoming increasingly superior to men across academic fields. They're more represented than men in certain fields, usually the humanities and other softer areas of study. In certain other fields they're equally represented compared to men. And in certain other fields still, particularly the quantitative math, science, and engineering fields, women are vastly under-represented.

[Ben017]

11:22 PM on 05/02/2010

***But it's not a well established fact that IQ tests measure intelligence,***

Call it what you want, but they predict outcomes better than any other psychological variable. Also, the neurobiological basis of intelligence is being uncovered by neuroscience. Factors like grey matter volume, myelination thickness and cortical thickness. These are significantly heritable.

www.yale.edu/scan/GT_2004_NRN.pdf -

[socialiq]

02:41 AM on 05/03/2010

They are not "deemed a racist" because they haven't ruled out "innate factors as a relevant explanatory factor(s)"...the problem is that is the ONLY factor they will rule "in" as a relevant explanatory factor.

Night and Day. If someone is willing to concede that a ethnicity specific component may or MAY NOT be a factor, I don't call them a racist. That person is just waiting to see what scientific investigation can determine before committing to an opinion. That's pretty logical.

I know many people whose I.Q.'s, whether exceptional or not, have no bearing on the amount of success they achieve in life.

Knowing how to interact with people and their individual quirks and personality traits, in order to attain a mutually satisfactory goal, is an attribute that I.Q, tests, as they stand, cannot measure; some people label it as "emotional intelligence", and it is a crucial aspect to many interpersonal interactions.

And it also does not appear to have any racial connotation to it.

[Ben017]

08:30 PM on 05/01/2010

***She used weasel words, like "100%" and "on average," but it is clear it is not an open question for her. ***

That's because population differences are averages. They are not true of all people and there is overlap in the abilities and motivations of individuals. Nevertheless, they are sufficiently pronounced to explain the disparities in high-level achievement.

If two groups differed by, say, 10 points in average IQ (2/3 of a standard deviation), the respective distributions would overlap quite a bit (more in-group than between-group variation), but the fraction of people with IQ above some threshold (e.g., >140) would be radically different.

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/01/no-scientific-basis-for-race.html