About That Dissertation

Jason Richwine, National Review, May 20, 2013

On Tuesday, May 7, I had one of my most productive days as an employee of the Heritage Foundation. Our big report on the fiscal cost of amnesty had just been released, and I packed in 18 radio interviews to promote it.

I expected more of the same on Wednesday. Instead, I found myself unplugging my office phone to avoid pesky reporters, trying in vain to do any real work, and watching helplessly as a public-relations crisis sprang up around me. Two days later I would resign.

I’m telling this story not because I want or expect pity for my personal situation. Rather, it’s important for people to understand how hostile the political class can be toward scientific facts that make them uncomfortable. That discomfort is what caused a mainstream policy analyst to be rebranded overnight as a bigoted extremist.

Although my Ph.D. dissertation was about immigration, I was hired by the Heritage Foundation in 2010 to be a jack-of-all-trades quantitative analyst. I worked a little bit on immigration during my time at Heritage, but I developed a specialty in public finance — fair-value accounting for student loans, public-pension reform, teacher compensation, etc.


Given all my wonkery, it felt especially strange to be suddenly characterized as an extremist. That happened on Wednesday morning, when the media first reported on my 2009 Harvard dissertation. Entitled “IQ and Immigration Policy,” the dissertation obviously deals with some sensitive topics. Media reports grabbed short quotes from the text and presented them as shocking. Some bad words started getting tossed around: eugenicsracismpseudoscience, and, of course, extremism.

So what is actually in the dissertation? The dissertation shows that recent immigrants score lower than U.S.-born whites on many different types of IQ tests. Using statistical analysis, it suggests that the test-score differential is due primarily to a real cognitive gap rather than to culture or language bias. It analyzes how this cognitive gap could affect socioeconomic assimilation, and it concludes by exploring how IQ selection might be incorporated, as one factor among many, into immigration policy.


I was not so naïve as to think my topic wouldn’t generate controversy. But individual quotes from my dissertation are much more understandable when placed in their full context. For example, this sentence on page 66 has been widely circulated: “No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against.”

I don’t think someone reading my full dissertation would find this statement objectionable, for two reasons. First, as Chapter 1 makes clear, the simple existence of ethnic differences in IQ is scientifically uncontroversial. (Skeptical readers should consult the American Psychological Association for confirmation.) Such differences are revealed by tabulations of test scores and calculations of arithmetic means. Their existence is no more debatable than the widely publicized ethnic differences in SAT scores. What the differences mean and what causes them are the interesting issues, which I discuss at length.

Second, the prediction that IQ differences will persist over generations does not rely on assumptions of genetic transmission, but rather on observational data from past immigrant waves. The IQ differences have been persistent—for whatever reason—and nothing is happening to the education or socialization of the current generation of Hispanics that gives reason to expect a break with past experience. Therefore, it is literally “difficult to argue against” continued differences in the next generation—unless hope trumps experience, but I doubt my dissertation committee would have found that argument compelling.

Why did I discuss differences between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites at all? Because the largest portion of the post-1965 immigration wave has come from Latin America. Studies of Hispanic IQ are naturally useful in estimating overall immigrant IQ and its intergenerational transmission.

That last point bears elaborating: There is absolutely no racial or ethnic agenda in my dissertation. Nothing in it suggests that any groups are “inferior” to any others, nor is there any call to base immigration policy on ethnicity. In fact, I argue for individual IQ selection as a way to identify bright people who do not have access to a university education in their home countries.


If the dissertation were taken seriously, its real contribution would be to open a forthright debate about the assimilation challenge posed by the post-1965 immigration wave. Because regardless of what one believes IQ scores really measure, or what determines them, they are undeniably predictive of a wide variety of socioeconomic outcomes that people care about.

We’re still waiting for that assimilation debate to start. I am not aware of a single major news outlet that acted as if my results merited real discussion. The reporters scanned the text for damning pull-quotes, giddily pasted them into stories about “extremism” on the right, and presented my statements as self-evidently wrong. Liberal bloggers piled on with ignorant condemnations. Even some conservative supporters of the Schumer-Rubio amnesty eagerly joined the hatefest. At no time did the critics seem to wonder whether what I was saying might be true.

The reason for that is simple. The media were never interested in me or in the substance of my dissertation. They wanted only to use my work to embarrass the Heritage Foundation and, by extension, all opponents of amnesty. {snip}

To see how the furor over my dissertation is so inextricably linked to today’s heated debate over immigration, consider that no less a mainstream-media institution than the New York Times reported on some of my dissertation’s ideas in 2009. The newspaper’s Idea of the Day blog discussed my proposal for IQ selection in neutral terms. No moral panic ensued. What’s different now is that immigration reform is at stake, and the whole conversation is hopelessly politicized.

I don’t apologize for any of my writing, but I deeply regret that it was used to hurt my friends and colleagues at Heritage. Seeing them struggle on account of me was the most painful aspect of the whole ordeal. I remember a particularly difficult moment when a Heritage spokesman went on Univision to defend the Heritage report. He explained, accurately, that I was just the number cruncher for the study. Here’s the question he was given by the host:

So you’re telling me that you used the numbers from a man who has written that Hispanics have a low IQ and will have a low IQ for generations. So what makes you think, unless you agree with that premise, what makes you think that his numbers are sufficiently good in order for, for them to be included in your study?

How can anyone respond to a question as absurd as that one?


A student petition is currently circulating that calls on the Harvard administration to reject all scholarship based on “doctrines” that the signers don’t like. The petition, which at last count had nearly 1,000 signatures, isn’t just shameful, it’s worrisome. Many of these students will come to positions of national leadership, yet they openly oppose intellectual freedom. Going forward, I wonder what other thoughts they will seek to ban.

The furor will soon pass. Mercifully, the media are starting to forget about me. But a certain amount of long-term damage to political discourse has been done. Every researcher who writes on public policy over the next few years will have a fresh and vivid memory of how easy it is to get in trouble with the media’s thought police, and how easy it is to become an instant pariah. Researchers will feel even more compelled to suppress unpopular evidence and arguments that should be part of an open discussion. This is certainly not the way science should be conducted, and it’s not the way our politics should be either.

Topics: , , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Stentorian_Commentator

    I’m surprised National Review had the guts to print that. Maybe they realize that the left does not get satisfied by the blood of, say, a John Derbyshire or a Joe Sobran. They are insatiable.

    • Martel

      I don’t think they want to keep “IQ differences” on the front page for too long, might get people to think.

      • Bingo. Because then the black IQ must be confronted as well.

        • Fr. John+

          WHAT Black IQ? One would think, with animal riots happening every time some “sports tennis shoe” goes on sale, that Negroid IQ is invariably linked to Basketball star shoe size- 15? 17? Granted, such a corrollary would place most inhabitants of Selma or Detroit above the racial norm, but still far below Whites average of 100-110. Hmmm…….

      • my cо-wоrĸеr’ѕ հаlf-ѕіѕtеr mаĸеѕ $70 аո հоur оո tհе іոtеrոеt. ѕհе հаѕ bееո  lаіd оff fоr 8 mоոtհѕ but lаѕt mоոtհ հеr cհеcĸ wаѕ $18101 juѕt wоrĸіոg оո tհе іոtеrոеt fоr а fеw հоurѕ. Rеаd mоrе оո  ..Fox83.com

    • Morris LeChat

      The days of whites backtracking and groveling when they say the truth just ended. this is significant. They fired him and he stands his ground. It just takes one and then more and more will do the same. We are witnessing the end of political correctness and the rise of race realism.

      • drdeeselixir

        “We are witnessing the end of political correctness and the rise of race realism”.

        My God, I do earnestly hope and pray that you are correct.

        • ms_anthro

          It starts with each one of us, not just those in academia and politics. I am openly realist and have been for some time now. It has made me some enemies, but those people were already my enemies. I just didn’t know it yet.

          More importantly, being open about my views has encouraged others I know to admit un-PC reality to themselves and others. We all have the power to tell the truth if we can muster the courage to face the consequences for doing so.

          • Unperson

            “It has made me some enemies, but those people were already my enemies. I just didn’t know it yet.”

            A very good point, and one we would all do well to remember: those other whites who would hate us for being white were already our enemies, we just didn’t know it yet. So if a friendship with one of them ends, it’s not a tragedy as they were never really your friend to begin with. They were merely someone who seemed friendly but hadn’t yet revealed their hostility toward your very existence.

  • ms_anthro

    Thank you, Mr. Richwine, for not apologizing or recanting. You were treated abominably by your “friends” at Heritage and we will not forget it. Your generosity of spirit is as admirable as your intellectual courage and honesty.

    Please don’t let your inferiors keep you from the important work you do. They aren’t fit to shine your shoes, and they know it.

    • Djangotamer

      I’m of the opinion the most of Mr. Richwine’s detractors should ONLY be shining shoes as an occupation. Unfortunately, we have AA to push for more and more diversity; that’s a real shame, my shoes are getting pretty dirty.

    • Puggg

      His thesis advisers haven’t exactly been out there to defend him or his paper, either.

      • ms_anthro

        True, and it’s disgraceful. They have no right to call themselves scholars. True scholars embrace the truth in all its shining reality, no matter how uncomfortable it makes them or how many sacred cows it might gore.

  • JohnEngelman

    I am glad National Review let Jason Richwine tell his side of the story. Now when will NR give John Derbyshire his job back?

    • dd121

      (I’m sure Mr. Richwine’s rebuttal will be picked up by the msm and his dissertation will be put in the proper context.)not

    • M.W.

      When they again start publishing Pat Buchanan (the finest writer on the traditional right) as well as the vital work of Dr. Kevin MacDonald. I.e., never. They lack the courage — as pointed out so memorably by Jared Taylor, very recently.

      • Steven Bannister

        You know, they SHOULD bring back Derbyshire and start publishing Buchanan, Jared Taylor, MacDonald, etc. If they did that, National Review would actually be EXCITING again and people would actually BUY IT!

        I know I would!

  • sbuffalonative

    Heritage spokesman went on Univision to defend the Heritage report.

    While I admire the courage, dealing with minorities is pointless. There is no exchange of ideas, no debate, no accepting of facts. It’s either ‘If you don’t love me or I’ll hate you’.

    • IstvanIN

      They will hate you no matter what.

      • Bill

        Exactly. It’s LOVE me WHILE I HATE you.

        • The Culturalist

          Yep, you nailed it Bill, that’s the whole game summarized in 6 words.

    • brengunn

      But it’s not really the minorities who cause this type of furore. For the most part it’s the media who are pretty much all white. We’ve come to a place where we tie ourselves in knots over the most meaningless while the important goes unnoticed. It is not a healthy place to be.

      • Bill

        The media is pre-emptive. They are trying to avoid the inevitable screech from the blacks casting them in with media like National Review. Moreover the media is a cabal of cultural marxists. They cannot abide anybody who will not parrot their nonsense and absolutely HATE anybody who proves them wrong with facts on pretty much anything. But let it be about blacks or hispanics and they can’t wait to stack the wood and burn the witch.

  • Ilovemyrace

    For Cultural Marxists, facts, data, evidence, and logic are not allowed if they go against Politically Correct thinking. To them the Earth is always flat, the sun revolves around the Earth, and all races (and sexes, languages, cultures, and behaviors, etc.) are exactly equal in all aspects.
    Truth is not a defense.

  • The__Bobster

    First, as Chapter 1 makes clear, the simple existence of ethnic differences in IQ is scientifically uncontroversial.


    Which is why the left sputtered and pointed? To them, we are all the same…even when we’re not.


    The furor will soon pass. Mercifully, the media are starting to forget about me.

    Ya think so? Do you really think your name won’t be brought up the next a time a libtard wants to demonize a conservative? By then, it won’t matter that you told the truth. You’ll be the devil incarnate. That’s the way they roll.

    • Nathanwartooth

      Yeah he’ll be part of the list of names they trot out when they want to make conservatives look bad.

  • ncpride

    Well, thank goodness Mr. Richwine is not groveling and apologizing, although I do regret the predictable manner in which he was treated. Stand your ground (and together) White people, because I believe one day our views (aka, the TRUTH) will not only cease to be ‘shocking’ but absoulutely accepted.

    • The Bogeyman

      Unfortunately I believe it is more likely that one day expression of our views will result in mandatory time in a re-education camp.

      • ncpride

        If we allow that to happen, then we deserve it.

  • So, Jason Richwine joins the ranks of underemployed extremist accountants.

    Welcome to the club. I saved a seat for you.

    • Puggg

      Let me guess: That seat is in column RRR row 2893.

  • josh

    Richwine refers tot he 1965 White exclusion Act,which sought to keep white people oUT of america and inundate the nation with an ocean of 3rd worlsd sludge. It certainly did change the national IQ!

    • Martel

      What part of that act sought to exclude whites?

      • The Final Solution

        Whites went from over 90% of immigrants prior to 1965 to 12% in 2010 – seems like exclusion by default to me.

        • Martel

          It does, but it seems to be a sideeffect, not its intention. Unlike affirmative action which directly discriminates whites.

          • David Ashton

            These “unintended” consequences often seem to have gone irreversibly in much the same direction. There was no NEED to change the ethnic quotas on immigration.

  • M_Young

    Kudos to National Review for letting Dr. Richwine say his piece.

    • Nathanwartooth

      It was about Latino low IQ not Black low IQ, so National Review decides that one is OK and the other is not.

  • “Therefore, it is literally “difficult to argue against” continued differences in the next generation—unless hope trumps experience

    It really goes deeper and much more sinister than that. Just saying hope trumps experience makes it sound like their goal is a utopian existence where the best of the best is what they are striving for—even though they are hitching it to an egalitarian ideology. That’s not what is going through their heads. The Cult of Political Correctness has instituted a new paradigm where everything proved to be false is only False because you wanted it to be false; everything scientifically proven and verified is only true because you wanted it to be true. Race doesn’t exist… Black people are White people with dark skin… Women can do everything Men can do… IQ can’t possibly be tied to genetics and heredity… Maybe sub-Saharans were the first space explorers and invented all modern technologies, and we were just too racist to notice it or even admit it.

    These people are crazy! Guano kind of crazy. You don’t try and reason or rationalize with crazy. You put on your boots, find the nearest curb and stomp crazy into the ground. Race-ism is the new Age of Enlightenment. The anti-racist, egalitarian fundamentalists are the theological tyrants of the past, and I’m a proud heretic.

    • David Ashton

      Well said. A secular religion that claims the rational, factual and moral high ground, but is opposed to reason and evidence.

    • brengunn

      Maybe sub-Saharans were the first space explorers and invented all
      modern technologies, and we were just too racist to notice it or even
      admit it.

      I actually had a black person argue with me the other day that the their ancestors created space travel, atomic weapons and genetic engineering thousands of years ago. That they thought whites how to read and we ruined everything with our greed and carnal natures. She blabbed on about being part of the ‘original people’ and how they were descended from a perfect being. I mean, I can see why they’d have an intellectual inferiority complex but making claims like that just proves their strong points are not logic.

      • I have had a few black women tell me that White women learned how to raise their kids from having black women teach them. I thought it was a joke at first, but it has happened on three different occasions. Probably one of only a handful of moments in my life where I just had to shut my mouth because I realized ‘you can’t fix stupid.’

        • toldev

          Perhaps black women taught Susan Smith how to raise her children.

      • gemjunior

        They believe it. So frightening. They believe a lot of other shite too.

      • David Ashton

        You must have missed the following announcement from His Supreme Excellency, Afristotle Boogy Bumba, President-for-Life of the Democratic Republic of Oongaguggagoogoo:

        “Dear Subjects, I tellin you bout de plans to send de first Efronauts into de black realms of outa space. Professor Ju Ju as bin tellin us how to get de power of de hydrogen bomb to put our intrepid explorahs on de planets. Water is two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, so you get some gunpowdah an mix some water in it, makin a hydrogen bomb. You then get two big cartons from de Oxfam, put de mixture undah dem, add a metch and boom, into de sky you go.
        “Why two cartons? I hear you sayin. De first one is for de spacemen, and de second is for de ladies they’s bringin beck from de planet VeNUS. We see de Abbott n Costello movie that dere are lotsa leggy white ladies living dere, jus waitin for a bit of de niggery-jiggery that only de Efrican men can give it to THEM, know wot I sayin? How dey gettin beck, I tellin you. When de planet gets overhead dey jump off n come down fru de sky to de earth. Dey will have de paraCHUTES so de ladies break de fall n not de lovely legs. You see, we doan need all de wires n switches n buttons dat the white man spend millions on. Just de native geniUS of de bleck men dat gave de world de Pyramids and de Zimbabwe and de Rappin, I tellin you.”

  • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

    The incomparable Steve Sailer has written two richly informative articles on the Jason Richwine-low-Hispanic-achievement controversy:

    1) SCANDAL: Frequently Asked Questions about the Jason Richwine Brouhaha
    by Steve Sailer
    May 15, 2013


    How Do Hispanics Score On Grad School Admissions Tests?
    By Steve Sailer on May 13, 2013

  • Jaego

    So low IQ groups aren’t inferior to us? Sorry, but in a very deep sense they are. Of course you are entitled to a bit of wiggle room if you are fighting for your life. Not everyone is in the position of Dr Shockley, who knew he was going to be crucified and was financially secure and at the end of his illustrious career.

    • a multiracial individual

      When you draw distinctions of “inferior vs. superior” based on IQ, you are opening a continuum, a continuum you might not find very flattering.

      • Nathanwartooth

        Yeah honestly, I don’t care who has a higher or lower IQ than Whites.

        I just want a majority White country to be preserved 🙁

      • indoctrination_FAIL

        Really, AMRI? Try me. Let the “unflatteringing”begin!

        I think I’ll be just fine, like any reasonable White. I might have to stifle a yawn.

        • a multiracial individual

          When your equation is [Higher IQ is “superior” to Lower IQ] you have to accept the following:
          1. The average Jew (112-115) and the average East Asian (105) are slightly “superior” to the average White.
          2. A Black with and IQ of 100 is “superior” to a White with an IQ of 85.
          I could go on, but you get the idea. You can’t just pick and choose when higher IQ means “superior” and when it does not.

    • Sherman_McCoy

      As Ted Knight said (in the role of Judge Smales in “Caddyshack”), “Well, the world needs ditchdiggers, too.”

  • storibund

    But a certain amount of long-term damage to political discourse has been done.

    Ya think? How’s this for previously-unbelievable: Should Research on Race and IQ Be Banned?

    From all places, Scientific *cough* American.

    Darkening times, indeed.

  • Epiminondas

    The media class are running the political debate in this country. Unless conservatives and race realists are able to level that playing field, there is simply no possibility of maintaining a competitive debate on race sensitive subjects among the public at large. We have allowed an alien force to take control of our culture, and the results are going to be catastrophic.

    • Bill

      As far as I am concerned, the debate is OVER. There has been far enough empirical evidence over the last 50 years to prove that segregation is necessary, deportation is desired, and the only beneficial relationship with blacks in history has been one of master and slave. I don’t want to debate with them over these things. I just want to be shed of them, and have no more of OUR money siphoned off by a treasonous government trying to placate them and buy their votes.

    • David Ashton

      We have to put our heads together to find ways to break into and to break this near-monopoly. And it’s no good sniping at Buchanan, Coulter and Williams in the process.

  • whiteuncleruckus

    I was on the “being liberal” facebook page today. All they can talk about is how racist Richwine is, which is all they can say really. Then I started wondering, why doesn’t anyone come out with a study that says blacks and hispanics have higher IQs than Whites and asians? I think the answer is obvious.

    • Sherman_McCoy

      Good idea. I’m SURE that there must be some black or brown scientific Nobel laureate out there who could take on the job. Oops! Did I say job???

  • Charles Lufkin

    Richwine is a hero.He was speaking truth to power and confronting the pc thought police.One very interesting aspect of all this is the reaction of National Review.They have printed two defenses of Richwine(one from Charles Murray of Bell Curve fame).Now they print Richwine’s article.NR has also taken a strong position opposing amnesty and Rubio-Schumer.Maybe they are coming to realize that Rubio-Schumer will destroy conservatism.

  • bigone4u

    The unanswered question is where a high profile victim of a smear job can find a job. Richwine is not a white nationalist or even a race realist. Academia will not want him because of the perception he is a white supremecist. Where does he go?

    • Freya

      I have been trying to convince others that there needs to be a mainstream pro-white movement, which advocates for our rights through conventional channels. If nothing else it helps broaden the movement and a moving target is the least penetrable. Such a ‘legitimate’ vein of activism would argue for Richwine’s right to exist in the mainstream.

      BTW, did you catch the youtube video of the dog who refused to abandon the lost kitten for days? Her barking incessantly over a weekend finally convinced a local resident to direct animal rescuers to the scene. I’m a cat person but have to give this dog credit. http://dogjournal.tumblr.com/post/50494627104/dog-saves-kitten-from-ravine-and-nurses-her

      • bigone4u

        I will check out the dog video cuz I just loves my doggies. As to your idea of mainstreaming white interests, I have trouble seeing how that would work, but in future posts spell it out more.

  • potato78

    Stupid Committees.
    Stupid more than enough
    He should come back to suit these idiotic people.

  • potato78

    He deserve his job back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    He needs to raise his family!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    we have had enough inhuman people on this earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • mrcan

    The Left are in denial…and that aint a river in Egypt. And the Right will use immigrant poor academic performance as an excuse to blame the teachers….and privatise education…etc.. George Carlin would say it is all conspiratorial. It is actually unfair to expect low IQ people to compete with those who are academically more gifted. Have the Left never been to school. We all recall individuals who excelled in math, in sports, in drama…and so on. Its obvious that people are different and so are races. It’s not a debate. It’s simply true!

    • Sherman_McCoy

      Education NEEDS to be privatized.

    • David Ashton

      In Britain just as there is an effective pro-immigration alliance between “capitalists” and “communists” so there is an effective anti-education alliance between conservative cost-cutters and leftist egalitarians. Neither our Gove-rnment and our NUT(s) will admit that students vary in IQ, behavior and aspiration, often widely in adjacent school catchment areas. Hardworking teachers are blamed for poor results instead of stupid students and their voting parents, but it is also true that too many promoted and influential teachers are themselves leftist egalitarians, many good teachers have died, left in disgust or taken early retirement. We need an ANTI-PC curriculum and pedagogy PLUS smaller classes, but we have had the opposite for decades past in benighted Blighty.

  • Steven Bannister

    Bravo Mr Richwine, bravo.

  • I have reviewed a number of books on intelligence for Amazon. It amazes me how careful even a relatively bold scholar such as Stephen Pinker has to be treading around these issues (See my review of The Blank Slate). Jensen, Rushton, Lynn and Gottfredsen are beyond the pale. Ignored as much as possible, otherwise execrated, never refuted.

    In my review of a typically silly book which went nowhere last year “Race Decoded – The Genomic Fight for Social Justice” I predicted that American would lose its preeminent position in intelligence, and indeed genetic research to some country in which science could be practiced without the oversight of minders from the political correctness community.

    It turns out that it has already happened. With billions of dollars from both the Chinese government and western philanthropists, the Beijing Institute of Genomics has been launched. One of their major efforts is the Cognitive Genomics project – studying the genetics of high (>150) intelligence. I assume they won’t be reluctant to tell the world that the Chinese are better represented among their subjects than others.

    • David Ashton

      “And western philanthropists” notice.
      We must oppose subsidized western dysgenic decline, not just accept it like John Engelman.
      American RENAISSANCE.

  • KenelmDigby

    All Jason Richwine did was to produce a fine piece of academic research – done with absolutely scrupulous use of data, citation, cross-reference etc, and done in a cool, impassionate and detached way – exactly as any piece of quantative reserach in the social science should be done. All the information and data points Richwine used are uncontroversial and accepted as unchallengeable fact – if any of Richwine’s critics who glory in disparaging him the loudest can produce evidence to discredit his data points can they either please publish it or shut up?
    Richwines’ work was signed off by the world’s most eminent scholars in the field, it’s rather strange that vocal critics (who I wager have never even read the work), and possess no credentials or qualifications in this area whatsoever somehow think that their shouted insults carry any weight or relevance.
    Of course, the wider factor is one of academic freedom and the pursuit of free enquiry, a basic principle that has undergirded academic research since the enlightenment. Basically this means exactly what it says, ie scholars should have absolute freedom in pursuing any line of investigation they so choose, there is no higher authority or censor to impede the enquiry no matter what the ‘justification’ is.
    Another point is that Richwine’s research is invaluable as it is extremely pertinent to the future direction of the USA. If nothing else every net US taxpayer should have an interest in its findings.

  • itdoesnotmatter

    Insane and lamentable, the vulnerability of any academic researcher who dares advance an inconvenient truth that does not denigrate Euro-whiteness. The vulgarization of such research with PC polemics makes fools of us all. Though Mr. Richwine backs his data with mathematical precision, panicked PC bullies in smear mode do all they can to discredit the messenger and destroy a career. I am insulted.
    I am reminded of the similar experience of North American anthropologists, who armed with irrefutable forensic evidence, dare suggest that Europeans reached these shores thousands of years before the Asian/Mongoloid [vociferously self-described] “indigenous” tribes.
    There is no intelligent discourse to be had with anti-Euro white liberals and “protected” groups with a sharpened axe to grind.
    Thank you, Mr. Richwine, for not backing down. You are my hero.

  • wattylersrevolt

    Where does Jason Richwine stand on the H-1…L-1 B visa asian scab program..this employer the Heritage Foundation is a big time enthusiast for the H-1 .L.-1 visa programs.

    The IQ..IQ test score issue is 100 percent irrelevant to the race-replacment issue. Many of you here ae obviously eager to sidetrack the discussion away from the race-replacement issue..right Bobster?

    Jared Taylor

    Your chomping at the bit top go on TV to debate the finer points of IQ psychometrics with a Liberal. And you will mention nothing about the fact that the asians in our America are destroying thousands of years of acquired Native Born White American Technological and Medical expertise. Yes, this is exactly what you and Brimelow are doing.

    Obviously, this…nasty asian legal immigrants… is not a very high priority for you Jared.

    Alan Wall

    Do a little bit of googling…its not all that hard to find the alternative point of view on IQ psychometrics from very reputable psychologists and economists…I’ve done it. Message to the economic reactionary Alan Wall:Race is the more fundamental issue…way more fundamental than IQ..when it comes to immigration policy..keep them out because they are not White.

    Jared Taylor=my study versus your study…forever..but Native Born White Americans have only a little bit over a decade.

  • limbutt

    IF YOU WANT TO HEAR AN IDIOT KISS OBAMAS BUTT AND CALL HIM GOD FOR THREE HOURS LISTEN TO THE LIMBAUGH SHOW. sickening just sickening race traitor. hannity is not much better. savage wont even discuss race. sad.

    • Sue

      Limbaugh is a Jewish entertainer, nothing more.

  • Licurg Enescu

    Richwine should apologize for nothing – He just made a scientific study that proved what is self-evident. He might as well apologize for saying the sky is blue.

  • Fr. John+

    Why even bother trying to be rational (a White Ethnic trait, along with altruism) among a bunch a savages- whether racial, or ideological- or both!?

    Susan Sontag, as a Jew, clearly delineated this Caucophobia now regnant from the Obamanation on down to ‘The View’- ‘The White race is the cancer of society.’

    She meant it when she was alive, and they mean to enact her genocidal statements, by vilifying every White Man, Woman, and child, until we are legislated out of existence!

    Truly, ‘Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.” For all who hold to the former, mean the latter. Ask Edgar J. Steele, now rotting in a Federal Prison, who once wrote an article, entitled, ‘IT’s ALL about race, Stupid!’

    He is righter than you could ever know.

  • WhiteGuyInJapan

    If any of you get into debates about race and IQ, here’s some advice.
    1. Hispanics in American (60% Mexicans) have roughly the same IQ as the nation of Mexico (89 and 87, respectively). Where’s the cultural bias/language barrier effect? Hmmmm.
    2. If they persist in arguing that environment plays a larger role in the development of intelligence, agree with them and point out that the difference between the mean IQ scores of Africans and African-Americans is 15 points-a whole deviation. Explain that Blacks in the US have benefitted from living in a prosperous civilization.
    PS-This whole argument is hurting my head. These people argue against numbers and smear other people who use methodology to draw conclusions. Hey, show me studies with different conclusion. Can’t? Ok, just call me names.