How to become an award-winning Woke all-star author instantly, and why the success of this pranking-seeming project is a terrible thing for civil rights in America. Special Honor to physicist Alan Sokal for pioneering this approach to pouring sunshine on nonsense. James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian and Helen Pluckrose did the hard work to make this happen.
What would you think if a Fortune 500 Corporation Human Resources Director walked up to a podium and announced the following to a big crowd: "Whiteness and white racialized identity refer to the way that white people, their customs, culture, and beliefs operate as the standard by which all other groups of are compared.”
Say what?
Assume further that this HR Director then announced that the following are the “common characteristics of most U.S. White people most of the time”:
Upon hearing this list, you would strongly suspect that you were listening to a white supremacist or that you had unwittingly stepped into a time warp that threw you back 200 years. Upon reminding yourself that this is actually the year 2020, you would conclude that this big corporation should be sued out of existence based on civil rights violations for creating a hostile work environment for its Black employees.
Unfortunately the source of these words and ideas is a webpage of the National Museum of African American History & Culture, a Smithsonian museum supported by U.S. taxpayers. Here is separate image of the “Whiteness” infographic.
How does one even begin to articulate the many problems with these ideas? How should concerned people respond when false information is being used to divide us. What is the solution when a public museum dedicated to African American history mocks the words of Martin Luther King?
I write this article fully acknowledges that racist conduct can still be found in many places in 2020 and that this bigotry should be dealt with aggressively through civil rights laws and social condemnation. We must condemn all real instances of racism, but we must simultaneously question the foundational concept of "race" from which the possibility or racism sprouts. In short, anyone who wants to eviscerate racism needs to fight a two-front war. NMAAHC's "Whiteness" page doubly fails to fight this two-front war on racism.
Advocating that we should treat people differently based on skin color (as NMAAHC is enthusiastically doing) is throwing gasoline on our racial fires. The "Whiteness" page is stunningly divisive and it is factually unhinged. I would no more expect NMAAHC to be teaching us to be racist than I would expect the American Museum of Natural History to be teaching us that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and that modern humans co-habited our planet with the dinosaurs.
It is demonstrably false that people are born color-coded such that others can determine their personalities, habits and skills by noticing their skin color. That's because immutable traits of individuals, such as skin color, do not determine personality, resilience, aesthetics, capacity for empathy, intelligence, aspirations, parenting skills or any of the other human traits discussed on the NMAAHC "Whiteness" webpage. Skin color doesn't dictate content of character any more than the many other things over which we have no control, things such as eye color, hair color, whether we have six toes, our birth date or the types of bumps we have on our heads. Constricting the way we evaluate people by using an Overton Window of black versus white uses the exact same flawed approach used by astrology and phrenology, which also proclaim content of character by reference to equally irrelevant observations.
Many of the human traits listed on the museum’s website ("work before play" and "rational thinking") are demonstrably not true of many “white” people. Many of these same traits are compellingly true of (and embraced as valuable by) many successful Blacks.
NMAAHC's suggestion that we bifurcate people into "white" and "black" is based on an enormous falsehood. There is no meaningful way to distinguish who is white and who is black, because we are all varying degrees of brown, we are all from Africa (and see here) and we are all interrelated.Trying to determine who is more closely related to whom by physical appearance is often counter-intuitive:
By analyzing the genes of present-day Africans, researchers have concluded that the Khoe-San, who now live in southern Africa, represent one of the oldest branches of the human family tree. The Pygmies of central Africa also have a very long history as a distinct group. What this means is that the deepest splits in the human family aren’t between what are usually thought of as different races—whites, say, or blacks or Asians or Native Americans. They’re between African populations such as the Khoe-San and the Pygmies, who spent tens of thousands of years separated from one another even before humans left Africa.
Nor is there any meaningful basis for declaring that there is any unified "white culture" or a unified "Black culture." No people of any color all think the same. Not even close. No person has been authorized by all whites or all Blacks to speak on their behalf. Not even close. "Race" is a stunningly unscientific concept.
There is more genetic diversity within a “race” than between "races.". Further, "there is no homogeneous African race" and "there is more diversity in Africa than on all the other continents combined" (see graphic under this title here) . As reported by National Geographic in an article titled, "There’s No Scientific Basis for Race—It's a Made-Up Label,"
[W]hen scientists set out to assemble the first complete human genome, which was a composite of several individuals, they deliberately gathered samples from people who self-identified as members of different races. In June 2000, when the results were announced at a White House ceremony, Craig Venter, a pioneer of DNA sequencing, observed, “The concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis.”
Math proficiency is a superpower that allows us see into the future and to understand the past. Only 41% of our 4th graders and 34% of 8th graders are math proficient.
Being BAD at math gives people the freedom and confidence to say things that are blatantly untrue with a straight face. Being BAD at math gives us the super-power to laugh at those who have carefully proven their cases with math. Being bad at math gives us the super-freedom to "prove" complex claims with mere anecdotes.
Every day it becomes clearer to me that our innumeracy explains much of our country's rampant dysfunction.
Events of the day are reminding me of the day I received a "D" on a college paper. The subject was "Communism." I was attending the University of Missouri- St. Louis at the time, back in 1977. I was taking a class on "Communism," because I decided that it important to be knowledgeable about a political theory that I often heard about, but didn't understand. The class was taught by three teachers. One of them indicated that she was, in no uncertain terms, "a communist." I was a straight A student at UMSL; I mention this only because it provides context to this story. I should also mention that I enjoyed the class. It stimulated me to think. Reading the actual words of Karl Marx helped me to appreciate that he had genuine passionate concerns for the mistreatment of workers. He worked hard to construct what he believed to be a better political system to protect workers.
The "Communist" teacher assigned a reading and required us to write a paper, which I did. I expressed my concerns that a communist system, though well-intentioned, would not work because it didn't provide some necessary incentives. It was a short paper, about 6 or 7 pages. I received a "D," with the comment that I didn't show that I understood Marx, but I could re-write and re-submit. I decided to re-write. I'm not proud of what I then did, but I fully understand why. For my re-write I handed in a glowing uncritical tribute to communism. I still have the rewrite and one of my ending sentences was this: "The way of communism, for Marx, presents the opportunity of a better life for the individual and for society as a whole." This same teacher gave me an "A-" on this rewrite, with this comment: Why has no communist society been able to achieve what Marx proposed?" I was tempted to respond: "For that answer see my FIRST paper!" I didn't respond, though. I moved on, tarnished by my intellectual dishonesty.
This turned out to be a formative experience for me. I sometimes think of this bad grade when I hear of students and teachers who are being chilled or reprimanded for asking sincere questions, positing hard-to-hear facts or formulating arguments against any form of orthodoxy or ideology. If we don't allow free speech in classrooms, including the free expression of views that some people consider unpopular or even offensive, we will turn our classrooms into churches. I am well-tuned to detect oppressive religious dogma that parades in intellectual clothing. I spent much of my childhood blunting my well-intentioned father's attempts to save my soul by urging me to say absurd things. I never gave in, and my upbringing helped to forge me into the analytical and skeptical person that I am. I embrace free speech and critical skepticism as an important way to understand things that confuse me, and I've often stayed the course as others get angry with me instead of discussing facts and opinions that they consider "dangerous." Hence, the name of my website, "Dangerous Intersection." As Carl Sagan wrote: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Indeed.
The willingness to grapple with threatening ideas is strong good medicine for developing the kinds of human beings who I trust. Uncritically adopting a slogan or a platitude is not the same thing as thinking and doing this should never be tolerated as "education." It is also important to make sure that everyone speaks up because the otherwise chilled speech might be the majority opinion of the group. Or it might be a small minority opinion which will someday become revered as great wisdom. Once we are well-informed, all of us need to speak up, especially when it seems scary. It's for these reasons that I wrote this post on the classic social science experiments of Soloman Asch: "Why you need to be the one to speak up." It's for this reason that I have been hammering on free speech issues of late.
The National Association of Scholars was founded and funded by conservatives back in 1987, long before Trump hijacked what was left of the traditional conservative movement. Despite its conservative origins and leanings, the Mission Statement of NAS is one that I can generally support. I don't consider myself to be a "conversative" or "liberal." I consider my positions on each political issue separately, a la carte. Party politics has no bearing on what I think about an issue. I am writing about NAS because I believe it is offering important information and narratives to the public. In this article, NAS expresses its grave concern that Cancel Culture is chilling speech at the academy, which clashes with what is arguably the prime directive of education.
NAS has taken a strong stance in opposition to Cancel Culture and in favor of open and vigorous discussion of issues at universities. NAS is also compiling a chart of numerous incidents involving teachers who have been disciplined or fired for expressing their opinions (and sometimes for expressing facts) both in the classroom and outside of the classroom. This list includes summaries of the incidents. I have reviewed independent detailed reports about some of these cases, so that I know that some of the NAS summaries seem fair, but I do not claim to be independently informed about the facts of most of the cases on the list.
All organizations that stand up for the importance of free speech recognize that protected speech is not always easy to protect. For instance consider the position of the ACLU, which famously represented nazis on a free speech in the Skokie case:
Protecting free speech means protecting a free press, the democratic process, diversity of thought, and so much more. The ACLU has worked since 1920 to ensure that freedom of speech is protected for everyone.
It is important to protect speech for the greater long-term good, even when some infringements involve speech that is unpopular, wrong-headed or seemingly deplorable. NAS makes this explicitly clear:
To be sure, some of the aforementioned statements are unsavory and may be worthy of institutional discipline. But the vast majority are not. And yet, woke higher education bureaucrats show an eager willingness to placate the angry students and professors insisting that “justice” be served. Meanwhile, “cancelees” have their professional reputations permanently sullied and, in many cases, ruined.
Here are the stated aims of NAS:
Our Mission The National Association of Scholars upholds the standards of a liberal arts education that fosters intellectual freedom, searches for the truth, and promotes virtuous citizenship.Our Ideals The standards of a liberal arts education that the NAS upholds include reasoned scholarship and civil debate in America’s colleges and universities; and individual merit in academic and scholarly endeavor. We expect that ideas be judged on their merits; that scholars engage in the disinterested pursuit of the truth; and that colleges and universities provide for fair and judicial examination of contending views.
We expect colleges to offer coherent curricula and programs of study. We uphold a view of institutional integrity that includes financial probity as well as transparency in the curriculum and classroom. We uphold the principles of academic freedom that include faculty members’ and students’ freedom to pursue academic research; their freedom to question and to think for themselves; and their freedom from ideological imposition.
We expect colleges and universities to prioritize education as academia’s main purpose. And we understand education in our time and place to entail providing students with a breadth of understanding of core subjects including Western civilization and American history. We recognize that the vitality of American education arises in large part out of the freedom of colleges and universities to experiment and to offer diverse curricula. That robust diversity, however, must be anchored in respect for the abiding ideals of the pursuit of the truth and the cultivation of virtuous citizenship.
I invite you to Google the facts of some of these cases on the NAS list to see whether you are also concerned that speech is being chilled in classroom such that the overall mission of colleges and universities is being threatened.