Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cold Spring Harbor Suspends Chancellor James Watson
Cold Spring Harbor ^ | October 18, 2007 | Cold Spring Harbor Board of Trustees

Posted on 10/19/2007 1:20:11 AM PDT by KayEyeDoubleDee

Statement by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Board of Trustees and President Bruce Stillman, Ph.D. Regarding Dr. Watson’s Comments in The Sunday Times on October 14, 2007

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 Board’s public statement yesterday disagreeing with the comments attributed to Dr. Watson in the October 14, 2007 edition of The Sunday Times U.K.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; US: New York
KEYWORDS: coldspringharbor; coldsprings; dna; genetics; intelligence; iq; race; racerelations; races; racial; racism; racist; racists; watson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

1 posted on 10/19/2007 1:20:12 AM PDT by KayEyeDoubleDee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: KayEyeDoubleDee

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.


2 posted on 10/19/2007 1:45:47 AM PDT by denydenydeny (Expel the priest and you don't inaugurate the age of reason, you get the witch doctor--Paul Johnson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny

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.


3 posted on 10/19/2007 2:07:08 AM PDT by Shimmer (Life isn't fair, but it's still good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Shimmer

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.


4 posted on 10/19/2007 3:42:55 AM PDT by ABN 505
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ABN 505

I know. I know. (nodding head)
But....you watched. (heeheehee)


5 posted on 10/19/2007 3:46:45 AM PDT by Shimmer (Life isn't fair, but it's still good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ABN 505
Remember, nurture as much as nature has much to do with the capabilities and personalities of others. In a barren intellectual environment, where there is no perceived relationship between hard work and learning and success and wealth, the thug and the NEET grow to be dominant. It’s not just hip-hop; it’s Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan and all those kids in England who want to be rich and famous but won’t do GSCE maths.
6 posted on 10/19/2007 3:58:43 AM PDT by GAB-1955 (Kicking and Screaming into the Kingdom of Heaven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: KayEyeDoubleDee
As with the Dixie Chicks, you have a constitutional freedom of speech to give your opinion, but others have the freedom to ostracize you for doing so.

Good move for the laboratory. They should fire him next.

7 posted on 10/19/2007 4:30:46 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu

So much for freedom of speech and freedom of scientific inquiry.


8 posted on 10/19/2007 4:39:33 AM PDT by Free Dominoes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All

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.


9 posted on 10/19/2007 4:39:51 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: KayEyeDoubleDee

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?


10 posted on 10/19/2007 4:43:40 AM PDT by domenad (In all things, in all ways, at all times, let honor guide me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu

You wish to see the guy fired for stating his opinions. Sounds like something I would read at DU.


11 posted on 10/19/2007 4:44:31 AM PDT by Free Dominoes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: domenad

They should both be allowed to speak.


12 posted on 10/19/2007 4:46:20 AM PDT by Free Dominoes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Shimmer

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.


13 posted on 10/19/2007 4:47:51 AM PDT by Robert DeLong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny
Nobel laureate and thief Jim Watson: "We only stole a woman's (sneer) data. So what. Women are not as intelligent as men."


14 posted on 10/19/2007 5:07:52 AM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Free Dominoes

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.


15 posted on 10/19/2007 5:11:09 AM PDT by kenth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

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.)


16 posted on 10/19/2007 5:23:24 AM PDT by Hacklehead (I'm not here to make friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: KayEyeDoubleDee

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/index2.html?tag=697


17 posted on 10/19/2007 5:25:16 AM PDT by Sax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kenth

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.


18 posted on 10/19/2007 5:26:25 AM PDT by Free Dominoes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Free Dominoes
Maybe.

Then again, look at the number of freepers who want to deport all Muslims in this country.

19 posted on 10/19/2007 5:30:09 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Free Dominoes

Um, read the comment again.


20 posted on 10/19/2007 5:32:02 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu

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?


21 posted on 10/19/2007 5:33:05 AM PDT by Free Dominoes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu

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?


22 posted on 10/19/2007 5:36:46 AM PDT by Free Dominoes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: KayEyeDoubleDee

This was the obvious and expected next course.


23 posted on 10/19/2007 5:37:29 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free Dominoes

Freedom of speech is NOT freedom from consequences.


24 posted on 10/19/2007 5:41:32 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Fred Dalton Thompson for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

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?


25 posted on 10/19/2007 5:45:24 AM PDT by Free Dominoes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Free Dominoes
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?

In favor of what? Deporting all Muslims or firing Watson for saying that? Yes to the first and no to the second. lol

26 posted on 10/19/2007 5:50:37 AM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier

Getting fired for his comments whether you agree with the comments or not.


27 posted on 10/19/2007 5:53:52 AM PDT by Free Dominoes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: KayEyeDoubleDee
From Timesonline.co.uk:

Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said today: “It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments.

Within a weeks timespan, Algore won the Nobel Peace Prize for propogandizing millions about something totally unscientific.... and Watson is fired for saying something non-PC but only mildly offensive. How many years did it take for Ward Churchill to get fired?

He's been in the left's sights for years over his opposition to abortion.
28 posted on 10/19/2007 5:57:31 AM PDT by GovernmentIsTheProblem (The GOP is "Whig"ing out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KayEyeDoubleDee

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?


29 posted on 10/19/2007 5:59:50 AM PDT by 2harddrive (...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

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.


30 posted on 10/19/2007 6:00:26 AM PDT by puroresu (Enjoy ASIAN CINEMA? See my Freeper page for recommendations (updated!).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Free Dominoes
Nobody in this country should be fired for political comments made on the job. No matter what the political persuasion might be. UNLESS those comments promote treason: Like advocating overthrowing the US Government and installing Sharia law.That should be a firing offense and a criminal offense.
31 posted on 10/19/2007 6:03:39 AM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: KayEyeDoubleDee
I guess the Dummies were right--it really is not a great idea "to speak truth to power".

:-)

Watson probably did this just to yank their chains and expose them for the anti-scientific bigoted goons that they are. There are arguments to be made against his proposition--but in this age of the modern Inquisition noone cares enough to bother to make them when intimidation is more effective.
32 posted on 10/19/2007 6:04:39 AM PDT by cgbg ("I give you health care and I say 'no smoking'". "Yass'm Miss Hillary.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: puroresu

Thank you.


33 posted on 10/19/2007 6:05:13 AM PDT by Free Dominoes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier

See post 30.


34 posted on 10/19/2007 6:07:47 AM PDT by Free Dominoes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Free Dominoes; All
Watson has the constitutional right to state that Africans are less intelligent than Europeans.
But he shouldn't be surprised if there is a push for him to be fired from his job for doing so.
He should expect it.

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.

35 posted on 10/19/2007 6:10:26 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu

Well what if some lefty decided to fire you because of your support for George Bush? Would you be in favor of that too?


36 posted on 10/19/2007 6:14:34 AM PDT by Free Dominoes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cgbg
Throughout history when there have been two main points of view on a subject and one point of view has been banned or made illegal....

What have we learned about which point of view is correct--the dominant one at the time or the "offensive" one that so terrified everyone that they need to ban it.

We have learned _nothing_ from history.

:-(


37 posted on 10/19/2007 6:16:08 AM PDT by cgbg ("I give you health care and I say 'no smoking'". "Yass'm Miss Hillary.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: KayEyeDoubleDee
I have been noticing landscape crews lately. They have these little machines. The machines have little bulldozer track and a little fork lift up front. You stand on it and operate and move things around on dirt or grass.

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.

38 posted on 10/19/2007 6:21:20 AM PDT by Leisler (Liberal (adj.) [lib-er-uh / lib-ruhl] 1. a narcissistic sufferer of grand delusions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
"....significantly less workers, higher production and higher costs

Should of been, " less workers, higher production and higher quality at lower costs",

39 posted on 10/19/2007 6:23:13 AM PDT by Leisler (Liberal (adj.) [lib-er-uh / lib-ruhl] 1. a narcissistic sufferer of grand delusions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: KayEyeDoubleDee

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.


40 posted on 10/19/2007 6:25:16 AM PDT by giobruno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cgbg

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.


41 posted on 10/19/2007 6:25:31 AM PDT by Free Dominoes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu
He should expect it

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.

42 posted on 10/19/2007 6:28:43 AM PDT by puroresu (Enjoy ASIAN CINEMA? See my Freeper page for recommendations (updated!).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Free Dominoes; puroresu
Please don't get so dramatic, Free ... see, HOW you rendered your written speech has given me and other readers an impression about you. That is a consequence and both of us are influencing others' opinions about us.

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.

43 posted on 10/19/2007 6:34:44 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Fred Dalton Thompson for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Free Dominoes

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.


44 posted on 10/19/2007 6:43:08 AM PDT by puroresu (Enjoy ASIAN CINEMA? See my Freeper page for recommendations (updated!).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Robert DeLong

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.


45 posted on 10/19/2007 6:44:33 AM PDT by Shimmer (Life isn't fair, but it's still good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded
Watson could have stated his theory in many other ways that would have been less inflammatory yet made the same point.

Why don't you rephrase what he was trying to say and see if you can do it without being called a racist?

46 posted on 10/19/2007 6:46:10 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

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.


47 posted on 10/19/2007 7:03:01 AM PDT by puroresu (Enjoy ASIAN CINEMA? See my Freeper page for recommendations (updated!).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

You know.....at some point...stereotype segways right into reality...


48 posted on 10/19/2007 7:04:34 AM PDT by Crim (Dont frak with the Zeitgeist....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: giobruno
Good post. Regarding Dr. Jensen, some URL's of interest
(sorry that I cannot provide clickable links):

Interview with Arthur Jensen, part I:
http://amren.com/ar/1992/08/index.html
Interview with Arthur Jensen, part II:
http://amren.com/ar/1992/09/index.html

- John

49 posted on 10/19/2007 7:05:07 AM PDT by Fishrrman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Crim
You know.....at some point...stereotype segways right into reality...

As a general rule white people have lighter skin than black people.

I don't know why that is.

50 posted on 10/19/2007 7:11:59 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson