Skip to comments.Cold Spring Harbor Suspends Chancellor James Watson
Posted on 10/19/2007 1:20:11 AM PDT by KayEyeDoubleDee
Earlier this evening, the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Board of Trustees decided to suspend the administrative responsibilities of Chancellor James D. Watson, Ph.D., pending further deliberation by the Board.
This action follows the Boards public statement yesterday disagreeing with the comments attributed to Dr. Watson in the October 14, 2007 edition of The Sunday Times U.K.
There is no force in the physical universe as simultaneously unstoppable and destructive as the implacable need people have to feel better about themselves at the expense of others.
Everything else aside, I would not be surprised in the least to find that Africans are less intelligent. Decades, centuries of privation, starvation, lack of development, all that, must have an impact.
I think it can’t be true of American blacks. But Africans? Sure. Most of them, many of them, live in the most abject poverty and deprivation compared to the civilized world.
I don’t know. After watching the B.E.T. Hip Hop awards I am starting to have doubts about alot of things I once held as true.
I know. I know. (nodding head)
But....you watched. (heeheehee)
Good move for the laboratory. They should fire him next.
So much for freedom of speech and freedom of scientific inquiry.
And yes, aware that the expression of the constitutional freedom of speech in comment 7 permits others the freedom to ostracize for that post and similar comments.
Why doesn’t something like this happen to Noam Chomsky? Isn’t he a college professor? Or is he just about anti-American books nowadays?
You wish to see the guy fired for stating his opinions. Sounds like something I would read at DU.
They should both be allowed to speak.
Let’s not ignore the fact that a lot of the world’s internet scams, directed mostly at Americans, seem to emanate from Africa. So one has to wonder who are really stupid.
His freedom of speech was removed by being suspended from the laboratory?
He’s free to say and hypothesize all he wants, from the comfort of his own home.
Nobel laureate and thief Jim Watson: “We only stole a woman’s (sneer) data. So what. Women are not as intelligent as men.”
Thief?? The data was given to them by Maurice Wilkins and Max Perutz who were on Franklin’s committee, they didn’t steal it. Franklin would have shared the Nobel prize if she hadn’t died before it was awarded (making her ineligible.)
Oh gee. You’re free to say what you want but you’ll be fired for doing so.
Didn’t Rush get canned from his NFL gig for saying something innocuous about black quarterbacks?
No wonder the left is handing your asses to you.
Then again, look at the number of freepers who want to deport all Muslims in this country.
Um, read the comment again.
I’m sure if Watson said that all Muslims should be deported he would be fired as well (especially in the UK). Would you be in favor of that too?
You don’t have freedom of speech if your speech is going to cost you your job and career. This is the soft totalitarianism that conservatives live under in the West and you support it?
This was the obvious and expected next course.
Freedom of speech is NOT freedom from consequences.
So you’re if favor of academics getting canned by leftists if they don’t toe the PC line?
Were you in favor of Rush getting canned from his NFL gig over his statements on black quarterbacks?
In favor of what? Deporting all Muslims or firing Watson for saying that? Yes to the first and no to the second. lol
Getting fired for his comments whether you agree with the comments or not.
I feel that this knee-jerk reaction chills free and open inquiry and debate on controversial issues of the day. AND: What if he IS right? What are the implications of denying such a reality?
Larry Summers was fired as president of Harvard because he gave a speech to some women scientists. During the speech he discussed why there are so few women in the fields of math and physics. He listed several possible reasons, including the usual “women are oppressed by sexism” argument. He also mentioned the possibility that men are on average genetically better at spatial reasoning than women.
After the speech, a radical feminist biologist threw a tantrum. She rambled on and on about how she nearly fainted upon hearing his shocking remarks, how she felt physically ill, etcetera.
In no time the leftist faculty and student body was screaming for his head. The media joined in, denouncing Summers for his “insensitive” remarks. Even though there is substantial scientific evidence that men do indeed have a genetic predisposition to perform at higher levels on average in fields requiring spatial reasoning, Summers was forced to grovel and apologize, and of course was ordered by his critics to approve another affirmative action program for women in science.
Then, they fired him.
A couple of weeks ago, he was scheduled to speak at a school in the University of California system. Even though he wasn’t going to address any “controversial” topic, his speech was cancelled after feminist professors threw a hissy fit.
If what Watson said is scientifically indefensible, then let’s see the evidence to the contrary and have a debate. Don’t hold your breath waiting for it, though. An open debate on IQ is the last thing the egalitarians want. All they need to do is beat their chests in self-righteous outrage, gang up on the offending individual and demand an apology, and then fire him.
See post 30.
The Dixie Chicks had the constitutional right to state to a crowd of foreigners that they were embarrassed that George W. Bush was a Texan.
But they shouldn't have been surprised that people would boycott their concerts and destroy CDs of their music.
They should have expected it.
Personally have the constitutional right to express a slew of anti-racist views.
And expect to get a lot of flak for it.
At least in California, you have the right of way to cross the street against traffic as vehicles are whizzing by so long as you use the crosswalk.
But you shouldn't be surprised if you get run over if you try it.
Actions have consequences, even when those actions are legal.
Well what if some lefty decided to fire you because of your support for George Bush? Would you be in favor of that too?
Another machine I like are the Bobcats. They are called ‘powered wheelbarrows’.
I have also noticed utility repair guys now using really small backhoes to dig up a pipe.
Anyways, what I am getting at is even at the local, small company level people are using machines, not their backs.
I worked in a golf ball factory. The trend, year after year, was significantly less workers, higher production and higher costs. Basically the less a person touched anything, the better.
So, we are moving into an age where back strength is decreasing. An age that is only now beginning, just, baby steps to understand what cheap computers will do. It is an brain powered age. You can see the wealth this produces in places like lower Manhattan, Boston, Silicon Valley.
So, blacks are in a bad space. A race/culture that isn’t very much into book learning. Further they go to either urban or rural schools that are bad. So, they either don’t learn, learn to hate learning, find out they were lied to and haven’t been learned.
Lastly, the way we learn is a frozen, industrial model that best fit the 1800’s. It hasn’t changed. So we are very stuck with this mental and union monster called public education. I am kind of thinking that some sort of new model will emerge from the home schooling movement, conservative Christians, the Internet and a few honest collages. I have read that MIT is putting its entire curriculum on line for anyone. I have also heard of a university that is going to YouTube all its lectures. It is a matter of time when, with out gooberment planning, by natural unseen hands, this will come together providing the best universities, with the best lectures at near nigh zero cost. Thus expensive, liberal, leftist thieving mind fu*king schooling will go the way of major newspapers.
Should of been, " less workers, higher production and higher quality at lower costs",
I have read a good deal of Arthur R. Jensen’s work, and it is fairly persuasive. I suspect, Dr. Watson has done the same. There is a very small, but very persistent group of scientists who are doing research in areas that are controversial to say the least, and their conclusions are challenging the foundations of modern, democratic egalitarianism.
Provided they are not run out on a rail (or worse), I suspect their research will eventually have to be discussed, and it may directly confront the opinions most people hold dear about race and intelligence. By the way, James Q. Wilson wrote an equally controversial essay on the same subject in Commentary a year ago. Fasten your seatbelts, folks, it’s going to get bumpy.
As poster 30 said, the last thing the left wants is an open debate on racial differences because that is one debate they are going to lose big time. In fact, you can be pretty sure Watson’s position is closer to the truth simply because his position is never publicly debated openly. Watson’s opposition relies on censorship and intimidation which are the tactics of people who don’t have the truth on their side.
Of course he should. He "insulted" a politically protected group, not a group of worthless people like Christians.
The Dixie Chicks spouted off an opinion. There's no scientific evidence one way or another on the issue in question. Is there scientific data on whether or not one should be ashamed to be from the same state as President Bush? A boycott was launched by people who disagreed with that opinion.
In the case of Watson, he espoused a view that has support in the scientific literature. If people have contrary evidence, they're free to present it. Just as Larry Summers' critics were free to present studies refuting the idea that there's a male genetic predisposition to perform on average at higher levels of spatial reasoning. Of course, no such studies were presented, and none will be presented in the case of Watson.
Instead, we'll get Steven Rose coming forward and assuring us that the majority of the scientific community will distance themselves from Watson's views, which of course they will after seeing what's happening to him. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Watson appears to be a somewhat acid-tongued individual, but then so was Imus. Anyone doubting the power of Political Correctness (soft totalitarianism) to bring even the most arrogant person to his knees need only look at the once-boastful Imus' pathetic grovel on the racist Al Sharpton's radio show. Watson's following the same course. He's apologized, of course. It'll do him about as much good as it did Imus and Larry Summers.
If you want to play the debate that way, then I guess you support the Dixie Chicks too and we must all listen to their music because to do otherwise would diminish their freedom of speech. Poppycock!
Anyone can say anything they want but must then be personally responsible for the consequences. NO ONE ELSE should be forced to listen or to bear the weight of any consequences. Violate a copyright on this board, and our founder shares in the liability. It is his forum and he is completely within his right to nuke any one of us if we violate his terms. Does that stop your free speech? No, you have the freedom to build your own FR. Of course, your ISP would still have something to say.
Consider Watson's statement but let's take some of the heat out of it. Let's pretend he said the sky is chartreuse, no - pink because I don't think I can spell chartreuse. Making the statement as a scholar and a chancellor gets people to thinking "who is running that joint? a pink sky guy? I don't want my research grants going there." An absurd example but it should illustrate Cold Harbor's stake in the issue. To support Watson's free speech rights, should Cold Harbor have to stand by and absorb the consequences? No, of course not. You cannot put that obligation on someone else. That is not what the Constitution says. I think it was Justice Thomas who made an eloquent statement about how a Right as in the Bill of Rights cannot by definition impose an obligation on another.
Now consider the Chicksie Dicks. Should a radio station be forced to play their records if listeners will turn off the station as a result? After all, it is almost like they lose their job if their music can't compete in the marketplace. Oh, but they have other paths to follow for success? Well, so doesn't Watson. Remember, too, that the radio stations that don't play the Chicks might lose the fans who support their inane commentary. Cold Harbor could lose grant money from institutions that agree with Watson, publicly or privately. Harvard lost stature IMHO by firing Larry. They demonstrated their true colors. That was the price (extremely minuscule) they paid from me. But perhaps it did stop an endowment from someone with a little more wealth.
The same deal for Rush's remarks. Shouls ESPN be forced to lose their Black audience because Rush chose to say what he did? How can you (or he) put that obligation on them. Their subsequent action DID have a consequence, though, because we all formed an opinion by their action (speech) and ESPN stood to lose their White conservative audience. They made the judgment call and it was theirs to make. I think they were wrong but I cannot force them (or save them) from the consequences. Actually, I have a theory as to Rush's statement, have posted it elsewhere, and think the whole thing was theater. nevertheless, why should ESPN have to carry the weight for Rush no matter what he said? What if he used the N word as part of his statement? whould they still be in the wrong under your rules? No? then what is different, the "quality" of the speech? Then you get into a real slippery slope argument. No, ESPN was well within their rights as are we to still be griping about it.
Watson could have stated his theory in many other ways that would have been less inflammatory yet made the same point. He chose how he wanted to say what he did and must personally bear the full brunt of the consequences. The only way Cold Harbor would be in the wrong is if they pre-approved his remarks but not back away from him in the aftermath.
Believe me, there won’t be any open debate on this subject, for obvious reasons.
Isn’t it interesting how commentators such as Hitchens and Dawkins are all over the place nowadays pushing militant atheism? No one is censoring them, nor should they. Instead, people are challenging them to debate, and there have been some debates between these outspoken atheists and Christians.
Dawkins seems to be one of the most in-demand speakers at campuses and media forums. Can you imagine him being made to grovel and apologize for saying that religion is responsible for most of the evil in the world, or for saying that Christians are largely dupes who are easily manipulated? For that matter, Watson’s been an outspoken atheist for a long time, and it never hurt his career.
I’m sorry, I don’t count scamming people as being smart. Also, this is so statistically small a sample, I dont’ even count it.
And I would never claim there are no stupid people on this continent or no smart ones on the continent of Africa. One of our best friends emigrated from Nigeria and he was brilliant.
Why don't you rephrase what he was trying to say and see if you can do it without being called a racist?
Why did it take so long for Colorado to fire Ward Churchill? And even then, they didn’t fire him for his outlandish comments, but for academic fraud and plagiarism.
Our colleges are filled with radical professors who spew out hateful venom every day and are never fired or suspended for it. That’s because they spew venom at the right people, from the Harvard prof (Ignatiev, I believe) who wants to exterminate the white race, to the clown at Rutgers who wants to see U.S. servicemen die in a million Mogadishus, to the 89 Duke faculty members who declared the LaCrosse players guilty for being white.
But let one of these guys do an interview or give a speech where they make an off-the-cuff remark about how Detroit sank into oblivion after the white population left, and their head will be on the chopping block. They’ll be hauled before the media, made to apologize, and then fired.
You know.....at some point...stereotype segways right into reality...
Interview with Arthur Jensen, part I:
Interview with Arthur Jensen, part II:
As a general rule white people have lighter skin than black people.
I don't know why that is.