Posted on 05/11/2013 10:12:22 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
There are a ton of clips of Jason Richwine talking about race and immigration floating around the Internets. For example, Andrew Kaczynski of BuzzFeed posted a one-minute excerpt from an AEI event that Richwine attended and wrote:
Here’s Video Of Another Time The Heritage Analyst Said Blacks and Hispanics Have Lower IQs
Jason Richwine, a senior policy analyst at the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation and co-author of a controversial report on the economic costs of immigration reform, said at a 2008 event that the “most important way” race was different was in IQ. He made similar comments in a 2009 PhD dissertation, which have received attention this week.
Yes, he said that. But the entire video — which is not hidden away in some secret vault, but available on C-Span — paints a very different picture and Kaczynski omits everything else that Richwine talked about, focusing on the bit that will grab some clicks.
Here’s the link to the entire event, which lasted close to 90 minutes. It’s actually a discussion from 2008 with Mark Krikorian and his book, The New Case Against Immigration: Both Legal and Illegal. The talk was moderated by David Frum with Fred Siegel, Richwine, and Krikorian as the panelists. Questions were taken from the audience from both liberal and conservative attendees, including questions on Richwine’s thesis.
In other words, it wasn’t some secret KKK-like talk, but just a normal day at a think-tank.
I thought Krikorian did a fine job his work. As far as a real discussion on race and immigration, that doesn’t happen until about the one-hour mark, when the panel starts taking questions from the audience. If you’re really interested in the race aspect of all this, watch from then on and skip the one-minute clips from the link-baiters.
Mark was very specific in saying that he didn’t agree with Richwine’s alleged ethnic-based immigration policy, based on IQ or anything else. Siegel pointed out his issue with using IQ as an actual measure of intelligence or the ability to succeed. And Richwine ending up clearing up what he said earlier and ending up stating that he, too, was against a ethnic-based immigration policy.
What I think is lost in Richwine’s entire IQ thesis is that he’s focusing on assimilation issues and is theorizing that IQ scores play a part. For the record, I don’t buy Richwine’s argument, but the idea that we should be focusing on immigrant populations and whether or not that can successfully assimilate into U.S. society is an important point to discuss.
One thing all three seemed to agree on was that public schools were failing immigrants and that, until you can fix failing schools, the assimilation problems of newly arrived immigrants will not be solved.
Another important idea discussed at great length was Mark’s contention that each new wave of immigrants hurts the immigrant groups already established in America. This fits in well with the Reihan Salam-Matt Yglesias debate over on The Agenda on the effects of immigration on low-skilled workers.
A last thought on Richwine, who is being painted as a racist by many (including some on the right.)
To borrow a line from our president, let me be perfectly clear: Richwine’s views have been public knowledge for years and are only now becoming an issue because of his co-authorship of the Heritage study on the cost of immigration reform. If you don’t like the Heritage study, then fine. But end this bogus witch hunt by pretending that Richwine’s views are something new.
For example, back in 2009, the New York Times asked in their “Idea of the Day” column — citing Richwine’s research — “Today’s idea: Research finds that ethnic diversity reduces social trust and cohesion, at least in the short term. Is admitting smarter immigrants one answer?”
What’s more, the Times invited Richwine to contribute to their “Room for Debate” as recently as January. Richwine’s views were well known. If Richwine is a racist as alleged, why did the Times invite him to participate?
If Richwine is a racist, then so is the New York Times. Oddly, we don’t hear that charge, do we?
Let’s by all means have a debate on all of this, but the default reaction that Richwine is somehow a racist because of his statistical research is a dishonest attempt to spin the immigration reform issue, and it should stop.
Yes, the consequences of Darwinian natural selection applying to even humans. Gasp, what a non-PC thing to say!
It is racist to notice or communicate anything negative about any “protected minority”, either as individuals or as a group.
Of course, it is a convenient compulsion to exploit by those intent on destroying the very concept of a Nation, and the promotion of the bias that encourages that compulsion may be directly traced to those trying to subvert America into a New World Order. (See Norman Cousins & Surrender By Subterfuge.) It was a major factor in the push for the Teddy Kennedy immigration "reform" in 1965.
William Flax
Guess what, from a PR perspective, none of this exegesis matters in the least. It doesn’t matter what is true, and he didn’t mean it this way, etc. What matters is that just like in the Victorian era, when one didn’t say.the word ”pregnant” were not used, in our society we can’t talk openly about racial genetics and interiority. Period. So if you want to talk about it, you had better make that topic your career, because you wilk have impaired your credibility to discuss anything else. Period. The writer and the HF should have realized that his previous paper on racial intellectual inequality would be used as a weapon to destroy not only his new study on immigration, but to smear the HF and discredit the entire conservative movement. So I say to them: badly, stupidly, carelessly played to not have seen that coming.
Experience would tell you that there are some very smart black people, and some very dumb white people.
Yes, to be sure. But that has nothing to do with the subject, which has to do with an effort to suppress scientific inquiry into factual differences. The basic reality is that almost no one--unless sitting next to their identical twin or triplet--ever sat next to their equal in any classroom.
The more we can learn about the differences in human types, the better off we all are. The one exception is those who exploit the blame game--those who have to premise their policy on the fantasy of human equality, so that they can blame those who succeed for those who fail. That fantasy is at the heart of all Socialist movements; it is the basis for Obama's calls for redistribution; it is essential to the push for World Government--for the abolition of the Nation, as we have long known it.
It is certainly not necessary to disparage any of the recognizable types of Mankind to recognize that in fact we are all different, and classifying people by genetic background helps understanding & respecting those differences.
We need to stop letting Leftist activists & compulsion driven neurotics misinterpret our motives & smear us into silence on essential matters--such as immigration questions.
William Flax
When I first heard about this, I was not surprised that the guy would be under attack. Of course, on the other hand, how long do you think you can get away with a dissertation like this and call it “work”? Isn’t this one for a Captain Obvious award? Do folks think they are sneaking across the border to get books instead of landscaping jobs? If they were the smartest, most productive people, the Democrats would be clamoring for a fence 500’ feet high.
That’s interracial!
>>Experience would tell you that there are some very smart black people, and some very dumb white people.<<
John Derbyshire wrote a perfect reply in answer to your comment (http://www.johnderbyshire.com/April2012/page.html):
Reader comment: “Please tell this black woman who is a devoted mother, professional woman, cat lover, and gardener, and Ivy league graduate about her inherent nature and intelligence. Do tell!’
. . . . .
His response: “Ma’am: If you cannot distinguish between a statistical statement about a population (”On average, men are taller than women”) and a statement about some one particular member of that population (”Sally’s real tall”), then … how intelligent do you expect me to believe you are, actually?”
Not calling you unintelligent, just pointing out his reply addressing your point.
If we allow the Left by studied attacks on those, who raise legitimate points, to stifle all discussion on subjects where they are vulnerable, we simply surrender the future. No one can afford to play their game--and one of the major reasons that we have been losing, is that far too many have done so..
William Flax
No, I don’t think I have missed that point. I am saying that since we know they will go through your garbage to discredit you, if you have published something that is overtly heretical to leftist ideology and it falls into the category that can be termed ”rascist”, it is to be expected that your work in an adjacent sphere can and will be attacked and discredited using your previous work. And be used to discredit whomever is associated with you.
Statistical evidence is insufficient to support the hypothesis that Hispanics and Blacks have a lower average IQ than whites.
However ... statistical evidence is sufficient to support the hypothesis that a policy that has a “disparate impact” is evidence of deliberate discrimination against Hispanics and Blacks.
Ox? Gored?
Would you rather live in a high IQ or lo IQ nation?
Would you rather live in a neighborhood where people are intelligent or a neighborhood where people are idiots?
Would you want to send your child to a school where you think the student body is not very bright?
So much for that “national conversation about race” that Eric Holder claimed America is too cowardly to have. We all know this conversation will be a one way street and a lecture from psycho-babbling lefties
Yes.
Any fact about any protected race that is not completely flatering will be determined to be racist and the proponent of the fact in question will be determined to be racist. Even saying balcks are killing balck in Chicago is a racist comment if a white man makes the comment. Just ask Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. That is how they make their living.
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.