by Matt Rosenfield | How we should respond to James Watson’s remarks.
In late October, the outstanding geneticist and Nobel laureate James Watson sparked a controversy by claiming in a newspaper interview that blacks were less intelligent than whites. “All our social policies are based on the fact that [Africa’s] intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really,” he said. In his newest book, he writes, “There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.”
People from all trades denounced the scientist who helped to discover the double helix structure of DNA. They were unarguably justified in doing so, given that there is very unsubstantial, if any, scientific evidence to defend Watson’s comments. Watson subsequently apologized for his statements, but his reputation will be permanently tarnished.However, no matter how very wrong and offensive Watson was, he does actively seek reasons to explain differences in races, and national efforts in this regard are not persistent enough.
Racism is a form of prejudice which remarks on differences of race. Comments on race using only facts are not racist. It signifies a sad state of affairs if one cannot speak of racial differences without being called racist, and must live by the socially acceptable falsities that everyone is entirely equal, and required to ignore important issues because they are taboo. Spreading and embellishing fictions offer nothing for the improvement of the world, whether through baseless opinions like Watson’s or through denying that differences exist altogether. To discover, explore, and explain differences in race is an obligation of the intellectual community. Society will only be able to solve racial problems if it adopts this open spirit. Hiding or distorting the issues does not contribute anthing to the debate.
Tremendous importance lies in the understanding that man must be able to generalize and categorize in order to communicate. It is not fair to Lassie that she is equated with every other dog, despite her ability to save lives. When Lassie is lumped together with ordinary dogs even though she has other qualities that separate her from most dogs, she could hypothetically take offense. If she does not, then she laudably realizes that it would be difficult for dog enthusiasts to recognize every exception to the general label of “dog”: some have long fur, some are vicious, and some have three legs. Likewise, it is unreasonable to expect that anyone list every exception to the generalization when placing the label of “black” on a black person.
Nothing here incriminates any single person or any group of people. Exceptions can always be found within any group of people, but still it is important to investigate similarities and general rules within the group. Exceptions should be looked at also, but qualifying a group by the uniqueness of every single one of its members can never be feasible.
At Tufts, students and admissions officers alike unanimously look at diversity as a beneficial attribute to the University. The judgment is made without much critical thought. The strong egalitarian views presuppose that a black and white man are inherently equal. This proposition is automatically assumed within a politically correct institution, which is certainly Tufts. Being white or black should not be a factor in who is accepted. Indeed, that would be racist. The implications of being white or black as far as generalities may go should be a factor.
Perhaps there are no behavioral differences whatsoever between races, and that may be, although it seems like a naïve proposition. If that is true, the whole argument is trivial and altogether unnecessary. But, assuredly, one could uncover a set of numbers in which there are significant statistical differences between races. What causes these differences to arise is not the immediate point, whether the reasons are a result of history, heredity, or socioeconomics. The heart of the matter is that the differences are present. If humanity wants true equality among all men, where everyone inherits an even playing field and nobody has unwarranted advantages over anybody else, the sources of variations must be sought out and corrected.
It is a sincere hope of anybody looking for the betterment of society that every person is thinking of the greater good, and not of himself or of the small group that expects his blind defense, as he condemns and ignores truths. For better or for worse, it is very likely that there are significant differences between different races. If that is so, then the problem requires the attention and cooperation of the whole community, because no man alone can root out the problems of billions.
Mr. Rosenfield is a freshman who has not yet declared a major.
Comments