Diversity or Science: You Can’t Have Both
Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, September 7, 2021
Not even doctors are immune to diversity rubbish.
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.
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.”
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.
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.