The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 PodcastsJared Taylor Archive
Diversity or Science: You Can’t Have Both
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Not even doctors are immune to diversity rubbish.

Video Link

This video is available on Bitchute.

The other day I made a video called “Diversity or Standards: You Can’t Have Both.” I pointed out all the standards that have fallen in the name of diversity – in law enforcement, schools and colleges, employment, and even historical accuracy.

There was one I forgot. You will recall the housing bubble that burst in 2008 and started the Great Recession. One of the big reasons for the bubble was government pressure on banks to relax creditworthiness standards. Here is George W. Bush in 2002, scolding the country’s bankers because not enough minorities owned houses. As highlighted at the bottom, he told them, “We’ve got to work to knock down the barriers that have created a homeownership gap.”

The barriers were little things like requiring a down payment, or having an income that could cover the mortgage payments. The old rules had to go so that blacks and Hispanics could buy houses they couldn’t afford. Once the standards came down, whites with bad credit got mortgages, too, and when the inevitable wave of foreclosures hit, the economy went into the worst recession since the great depression. As I said in my video, “Diversity or standards. You can’t have both.”

Today, I’ll explain how science is sacrificed to diversity.

I hope you know the name J. Philippe Rushton, who died in 2012. He did pioneering research on the nature and significance of racial differences, and his book, Race, Evolution, and Behavior is a classic. The race deniers have made it very hard to find, and they are now ganging up on the scientific journals that published his papers.

J. Philippe Rushton
J. Philippe Rushton

Here is their latest triumph: a notice from the publication Psychological Reports, saying it has retracted three of his papers. And please note the reason at the bottom of the screen. “The research was unethical, scientifically flawed, and based on racist ideas and agenda.”

Wow. A modern-day Doctor Mengele. The only specifics this notice gives is that Rushton was wrong “on the subject of intelligence and race.”

Race differences in IQ are one of the most widely confirmed findings in the science of mental testing.

Here’s an article crowing about the retraction of “debunked anti-black race science.” Note the illustrations. They are a hodgepodge from a book published 164 years ago.

All of these retracted papers were peer reviewed. Is the publisher going to name the scientists who reviewed Rushton’s methods, data, and conclusions, and say they had “racist ideas and agenda?” Why not?

Here’s another lovely case. Last year, Dr. Norman Wang wrote a paper for the Journal of the American Heart Association on “Race and Ethnicity Considerations for the Cardiology Workforce.” He warned that race preferences for non-whites in medical school means that some poorly qualified people are trying to become doctors. He wrote: “Long-term academic solutions and excellence should not be sacrificed for short-term demographic optics.” He added that people who want to be doctors “must be assessed as individuals on the basis of their personal merits, not their racial and ethnic identities.”

Well, we can’t have that! Sharonne Hayes is a heart doctor who bills herself as an “advocate for equity.” She’s being modest. She’s the Mayo Clinic’s director of diversity and inclusion.

She tweeted, “Rise up, colleagues! The fact that this is published in ‘our’ journal should both enrage & activate all of us.”

And they rose up, alright. Dr. Norman Wang was teaching at the University of Pittsburgh’s med school. It promptly issued a statement saying the article was full of “misconceptions,” “misquotes,” “inaccuracies,” “misstatements,” and “misreadings.” Wow. How did the peer reviewers miss all that? The med school then ordered him to have no contact with med students. It’s hard to teach when you can’t talk to students.

And, of course, the journal’s editors ate dirt, begged for mercy, and retracted the paper – with no explanation to Dr. Wang of what was wrong with it. They made the article hard to find, and stamped “retracted article” on every page.

Here are some of the data that enraged and activated poor Sharonne Hayes. It’s a breakout by race of “attrition attributable to academic reasons,” which is a nice way of saying “flunked out.” Look at the blue highlight in the lower right. Blacks flunked out at 10.57 times the white rate, Hispanics at 5.12 times, Asians at 1.38 times, Eskimos and American Indians at 6.59 times.

Is this table a misconception or a misstatement?

Dr. Wang, bless him, has sued everyone in sight.

Here’s another example. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is one of the most prestigious science publications in the world. In 2019, it published “Officer Characteristics and Racial Disparities in Fatal Officer-involved Shootings,” which tried to figure out if the race of a police officer made him more or less likely to shoot a non-white. As you will note further down, this article was retracted.

Why? Because of this unfortunate conclusion: “We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers. Instead, race-specific crime strongly predicts civilian race. [That means the race of the person the cop killed.] This suggests that increasing diversity among officers by itself is unlikely to reduce racial disparity in police shootings.”

It’s what criminals do that gets them killed, not police racism, so you could get rid of all the white cops and non-whites will still be shot by the police.

Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute quoted this article in testimony before Congress, but Miss Mac Donald is a conservative, and science must never give comfort to conservatives.

Heather Mac Donald
Heather Mac Donald

After some entertaining hemming and hawing, the authors retracted their own paper. They said they stood by their data and methods, but had to fold because Miss Mac Donald “misused” their article. They didn’t say how. You can find the whole sorry story in this article in the Wall Street Journal.

And so, once again, you can have either diversity and the myth that racist police are killing innocent blacks and Hispanics – or you can have science. Not both.

Science is perverted in the name of race even in medicine. Here is the AMA – the American Medical Association – telling us that “Race-based medicine is wrong.” Also, note all the whooping about “equity” and “racial justice.” The article says, “race is merely a social and political construct,” so doctors should ignore it.

And here is Stanford University Medicine, explaining, “It’s time to eliminate race-based medicine.”

Stanford and the AMA are wrong.

This article explains why it is important to screen donated blood by race. For example, only blacks have U negative blood. As an expert explains, “It makes no sense to screen 100,000 whites for U negative when no U negative white person has ever been found.”

Gift of Life is a charity that encourages organ donation. It has a whole section on Race and Organ Donation.

Gift of Life is constantly begging blacks to donate because so few do, and donation within the same race is so much more likely to be compatible.

It’s the same for bone-marrow transplants. There are constant appeals for “more diverse donors” because race is often the crucial factor in a successful match.

And also because non-whites are less willing to donate.

And let us not forget BiDil, the first heart medication marketed specifically for black patients. It works on blacks but not on whites.

If doctors took the advice of the AMA and Stanford and ignored race, it would be malpractice.

But let me give the last word to Scientific American. Already in 2013, it was showing real Stasi zeal in an article called “Should Research on Race and IQ be Banned? You can imagine what the answer was.

John Horgan, who wrote the article, is a big fan of diversity. But he has a wicked sense of humor. He’s best known for a book called The End of Science.

(Republished from American Renaissance by permission of author or representative)
Hide 11 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Realist says:

    Excellent…as usual. Thanks

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks
  2. Andreas says:

    The upside is that we live in the most interesting of times.

    The downside is if this cultural-marxist nonsense is actually implemented.

    The ramifications for any formal discipline – math, engineering, medicine, etc. – will be instantly catastrophic. Imagine living in a world where the “correctness” of a solution is determined not by its veracity but by race, gender or sexual orientation.

    • Agree: FreedomAndTruth
    • Replies: @Charles
  3. A country that distorts science to make brown and black people and screeching white harridans happy is doomed so who cares what they do as in 10 years time the US will be a non-entity if this continues.

    • Agree: carroll price, Realist
  4. unwoke says:

    “Dr. Wang, bless him, has sued everyone in sight”

    Does it really take an Asian to do this? Are White academics so cowed that they won’t fight back any more, or even speak out in the first place? Will they have to lean on Asians now to do that? White liberals persist in putting Black interests ahead of all others so Asians will have to figure out where they fit in in the “minority” pecking order. Although it’s interesting that when UPMC bosses suspended Wang from teaching for his views, they told him that any classroom he was in was “inherently unsafe”. It’s not clear whether they meant to him or to the students.

    • Replies: @Charles
  5. Charles says:

    From the evidence, we are already there.

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks
  6. Charles says:

    I believe we are already in an era in which only an Asian, or other “minority”, can successfully sue for violations and abuses like he suffered. I am not claiming no White could ever win such a lawsuit; I am claiming that now, and especially in future times, it is and will be increasingly unlikely a White plaintiff could ever prevail, regardless of the facts.

  7. You are known by who you associate with.

    Science is a far greater benefit than any government. Time to choose.

    • Agree: Realist
  8. RogerL says:

    From my perspective as an interdisciplinary generalist, most “experts”, which are approved of by the elites, have always been either idiots, corrupt, or both. My approach to knowledge gives me more perspective, and it makes it easier to spot bullshit.

    Jared has it backwards. The elites have always used propaganda, framed as “science”, as a tool to maintain their power and wealth. This is just the first time its been used to persecute white males as a group.

    What about when the “science based experts” assured us that asbestos and cigarette smoke wouldn’t cause cancer?

    What about when the “official science” was to bleed people to heal them?

    What about when “official doctors of medicine” had village herb women burned as a witches, because they had more success in healing people than the doctors did?

    What about when Galileo received a lifetime sentence of house arrest for the heresy of saying the earth revolved around the sun?

    One way or another, large amounts of the “official science” has always been self-serving bullshit promoted by the elites.

    The underlying issue is that contradicting the dominant elites (and so undermining their agendas) has always been considered to be heresy, racism, treason, or some other heinous crime.

    Why are the billionaires encouraging the persecution of whites?

    Its because the only ethnic/racial group in the west, which has a chance of successfully opposing the billionaires, are the whites.

    Appeasement won’t work because the billionaires want the financial and social capital of non-elite whites destroyed, period. The only options are to give up and see your world destroyed, or fight back.

    Whites need to diligently:
    – Use propaganda techniques to promote understanding of the falseness of wokeness (propaganda is a communication technique that can be used with true facts).
    – Organize in a decentralized way, like the yellow vests did, so there isn’t an organizational center that can be co-opted, coerced, or destroyed.
    – Form home schooling co-operatives, using the unemployed adults, and make sure your kids have a well trained mind when they grow up. Pushing back against the billionaires will be a long-term effort. If the next generation can’t carry it forwards, then it will fail.
    – Massively push back, while you still have an opportunity to do this.

    Individuality, as a foundation of the US, is another myth promoted by the billionaires so their divide-and-conquer wedges are more effective. The US is built on community efforts, such as barn raisings, working together to build schools for their community, and helping each other out in hard times. The US middle class was created thru unionization, which was 100% a collective effort to support the group.

    Now, mutual support and collective action is needed again for whites to defend themselves from the white genocide promoted by the billionaires.

  9. John R 89 says:

    This has been going on for decades. Leftists marched through the institutions long ago, and enforced belief in the evolutionary miracle of racial equality. Even back in the 1970s great biologists like E.O.Wilson were physically attacked for politically incorrect science.

  10. Levtraro says:

    All of these retracted papers were peer reviewed. Is the publisher going to name the scientists who reviewed Rushton’s methods, data, and conclusions, and say they had “racist ideas and agenda?” Why not?

    Reviewers are safe. The minute journals start targetting reviewers of retracted papers because of ideological reasons, it’s the minute these journals will go down and science publishing will start to crack at the foundations. Reviewers donate their time anonymously and the whole enterprise of science publishing depends on them accepting to take these tasks. So reviewers are treated with extreme care and respect.

    Editors on the other hand, they are fair game. While reviewers focus on technical matters and flow of logic and do this job for free, editors are paid, they have the initial responsibility of considering a manuscript suitable or unsuitable for peer review, and have the final responsibility to accept a manuscript for publication, and whey they do the initial and final assessments they must take into account editorial policy by the journal and the technical judgements by reviewers if they sent the manuscript to peer review.

  11. You have a violence and inequality problem because of the evil your recent ancestors wrought.

    Your school shootings are white though. Enjoy!

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Jared Taylor Comments via RSS