Recently, a story surfaced in the blogosphere that has captivated liberals and conservatives alike. It is the narrative of a young Harvard Law School student who, during a casual dinner party, made some pithy and, no doubt, timely comments about black genetic inferiority. This, of course, is not unprecedented. Haven't we all said some things during drinks that we care not to be repeated?
But what has made the story all the more interesting is that, in order to more systematically defend the wisdom of her racial worldview, our young heroine decided to unwittingly document and reiterate some of her points by circulating a mass e-mail to all her dinner companions. The e-mail has now made the rounds.
As a result, young Stephanie Grace -- pretty, smart and blonde -- has become something of a celebrity and a cultural touchstone: among conservatives, she represents a voice that speaks a truth nobody dare utter; among liberals, she is a specimen of a certain type of highly educated fellow-traveler who might very well be standing next to one, doing the down-dog position, in yoga class, polluting one's chakra with her hate-speech.
As a professor of Ethnic Literature in the English Department at a rather prestigious liberal arts college, I am ambivalent about this turn of events. On the one hand, I do not entirely agree with the racial worldview of young Stephanie Grace. On the other hand, I have been shaped by what is essentially a teaching institution, whose mandates compel me to empower all young people to find their voice in civic discourse. Therefore, I have been conditioned to encourage all young people to make a name for themselves, especially if they are women or minorities.
In whatever pursuits and whatever fields my young charges choose to pursue, at the drop of a hat, I am ready to champion them and write a letter of recommendation. So despite what are basically ideological differences. I will put aside my reservations in order to applaud Miss Stephanie Grace and encourage her in her fledgling racialism. I believe that she should capitalize upon her current celebrity and I would encourage young Miss Stephanie Grace to quit law school (where statistics show she will never succeed as a true intellectual) and pursue television where her youth and spunk will distinguish her.
Let's face it, we just don't have enough female high profile racists in this world. Frankly, I don't want to look at a fat, bald, chubby-cheeked Glenn Beck or a prescription-pill-popping Rush Limbaugh. Anne Coulter, the Republican party's sad attempt to put a pretty face on their politics is, let's face it, objectively ugly. She has a weird jaw that is mannish and horsey. All the make-up that she slathers upon the old, dried-up race track of her face is not enough to erase what is ultimately an essential uncomeliness. Anne Coulter is old and an old woman is as attractive as a poodle, for then we come to realize that there is not much to distinguish a woman and her canine counterpart in the brains department.
What is quite delightful about Miss Stephanie Grace is that she is young and pretty. I have it on good authority that she also is a natural blonde. Miss Stephanie Grace provides something we all need, especially nowadays, when there is darkness all around. She adds a feminine touch to the preponderance of slack-jawed, double-chinned shock jocks of the world, leavening their testosterone with her estrogen.
Of course, her detractors will argue that the limitation of her racialism is that she says nothing new about our racial stereotypes. What she has been saying, we have heard being said since the Social Darwinists of the late 19th Century and, later, since the eugenecists called for the sterilization of blacks and the extermination of Jews. But what can we expect?
I would enjoin my liberal cohort to be less hard on Stephanie. For one, she is after all a woman, and we should applaud her in the name of all woman-kind who have been historically and quite systematically oppressed since time immemorial. This, no doubt, has made an impact on all woman-kind's lack of original insight, which like all things are genetic as well as cultural.
No matter what course Miss Stephanie Grace chooses to pursue, I will add one caveat. Though she may be correct to observe that black people are clearly small-brained and genetically programmed for inferiority, white people also have tendencies that distinguish them as a race: They tend to put their foot in their mouth. Most often they do so in print.
But need I point out that not all credible correspondents to that exchange agree with the view that the issue is settled? Look, I don't want, or need, to go into the detailed science of this. Like Grace (and you, too, I would wager) I am a non-scientist interested in lots of social and scientific issues, including this one. I see Nature and other such discussions and I conclude, reasonably, that the debate appears not to be definitively settled. I say so, and maybe I put that thought in an email. For this I am tarred and feathered? Please.
2) Yes, in 2010, fortunately---at long last---if you utter racist views, or declare Confederate History Month to honor the sacrifices of traitors, you get criticized.
"Tarred and feathered" is a bit of a stretch.
I look forward to your criticism of the way the Right Wing targets liberals and blacks who step out of line.
"E-mails and phone calls included threats to burn crosses in his yard and to kill him and his family, he said....'We got hundreds, if not thousands, of e-mails already,' he said."
Although unwittingly, once all the smoke and outrage clears, Stephanie Grace's faux pas has spawned a wide spread *conversation* about the role genetics and race may or may not play in factors such as intelligence and other inherent talents or lack thereof. Whether we agree or disagree, at least we're talking to each other about race.
The first stated goal of the Malan race:
I. To create a dialogue about race. Being ruled by fear to the extent that humans of different racial backgrounds feel they cannot discuss, interracially, the very things that perplex, awe, vex, and inspire us, serves no good purpose.
I appreciate Stephanie Grace for her contribution, purposeful or not, to helping us achieve Malan goals.
Frida Potente, I am Malan
Be your true identity.
www.IamMalan.org
Does the name Peter Singer ring a bell? Princeton bio-ethicist Singer has pointed out in 'A Darwinian Left' that group disparities may be an implication of evolution.
What about Harvard Psychology Professor Steven Pinker? In his 2006 Edge Essay on dangerous ideas. Pinker's essay is entitled "Groups of people may differ genetically in their average talents and temperaments”.
University of Chicago Geneticist Bruce Lahn & Lanny Ebenstein last year wrote in Nature that recent genetic findings show that the assumption of biological sameness across groups is becoming untenable. People need a better moral framework to deal with inconvenient data.
'Let's celebrate human genetic diversity'
Nature 461, 726-728 (8 October 2009)
Well, how many cites would you like? The point is that it is a little more complicated than the author is suggesting. Recent studies (if you take the time to read Lahn & Ebenstein) show that genetic changes have accelerated over the past 10,000 years or so with the arrival of agriculture and population expansion. Some of the changes relate to neurological function so it isn't some 19th century idea that group differences may arise.
Pinker also adds that "proponents of ethnic and racial differences in the past have been targets of censorship, violence..." I'd like to see some evidence of the "violence."
Heard of Francis Crick? You could always look up the signatories to this editorial. Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24(1), 13-23.
Or you could consider the Snyderman Rothman survey of 661 members the American Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association, the Behavioral Genetics Association, and the Cognitive Science Society. 53% considered that genetic variation contributes to group differences. Only 15%% considered it was purely environmental.
I'm also a bit confused as to why the right wing reserves the right to destroy people's careers based on comments, but goes ballistic when a racist is merely criticized mildly.
Here is how the right wing does it:
" 'The comments of Rene Gonzalez in the April 28 Daily Collegian are a disgusting, arrogant and intellectually immature attack on a human being who died in service to his country,' UMass President Jack Wilson said in a statement today."
"Wouldn't it be nice if someone whacked Rene Gonzalez, then we could say that he got what he deserved. "---random comment from a website