If ever you want to test the freedom of the United States or Canada, publish true things about racial or ethnic differences, and see what happens. The latest cave-in to the forces of cultural marxism is the case of Jason Richwine, recently of the Heritage Foundation, whose PhD dissertation from Harvard, approved by leaders in the field, argued that Hispanic immigrants had lower IQs that native-born white Americans and that their children would be similarly endowed. Hence importing lots of them through immigration would lower the average level of American intelligence. Heresy!
Discovery of this PhD thesis in the context of Heritage Foundation’s opposition to the immigration reform bill has led to his resignation from the Heritage Foundation.
The commentary on the Richwine case from Peter Brimelow’s Vdare concluded as follows:
Earlier this week, I was talking to a Harvard academic who is familiar with Richwine’s work. He commented that there were simply some subjects the study of which is incompatible with an academic career.
“That’s a remarkable thing in a free country,” I said.
“This isn’t a free country,” he replied.
Writing in American Renaissance, Jared Taylor said:
In yet another act of cowardice, a “conservative” institution has fired someone from saying something that is not only true, but that everyone knows to be true. This time the Heritage Foundation joined the ranks of the lickspittles by forcing out a senior researcher, Jason Richwine. Mr. Richwine, who co-authored the Heritage’s recently released report on the costs of amnesty, had written his Harvard PhD thesis on the implications of racial differences in IQ for immigration policy—and racial differences in IQ have such obvious policy implications that a “think tank” dare not think about them.
There is no need to repeat the things that have been said by Mr. Richwine’s attackers. They are just as gloatingly idiotic as you would imagine. It is far more important to point out that Mr. Richwine had important defenders—but Heritage still folded. And what makes its behavior particularly revolting is that the people who run it knew about Mr. Richwine’s dissertation ever since they hired him two years ago. It is hard to imagine more craven behavior.
Elspeth Reeve in the Atlantic attempts to explain why Richwine is wrong, and not merely racist.
The idea that Latinos won’t assimilate because they’re doomed to low IQs for generations is offensive. But so what? More important, it’s wrong. At least half of the variation in IQ is inherited, The Wall Street Journal explained in January, but scientists haven’t figured out which genes affect IQ. And even more important for today’s political debate, Latinos are assimilating. The New York Times‘s David Leonhardt explained in April that Latinos are assimilating at about the same rate as earlier immigrant groups — they’re “the New Italians,” he said. As with Italians, a huge wave of Latinos immigrated here poor, poorly educated, and culturally different. But they become richer and better educated with each generation. RAND Corporation economist James P. Smith found that the average Latino immigrant has a junior high education, but the average Latino immigrant’s kid goes to college for almost a year, and the average Latino immigrant’s grandkid stays in college longer.
Reeve misses the point in three important ways. First, the argument of Richwine is not that Latinos will not assimilate, it is that they are less intelligent, and therefore will be less productive in the long run than, say, immigrants of higher average intelligence. As a matter of fact, Richwine was proposing intelligence test for immigrants be part of the criteria for acceptance into the United States, so that no one would be discriminated against because of racial or ethnic averages. Second, the notion that scientists have not figured out which genes affect intelligence, if true, is wholly beside any point being made by Richwine or any one else. Third, the fact that half of intelligence is hereditary, aside from underestimating the proportion attributable to genetics (it is about 70-80%), means that, over time, increasing the proportion of Latinos in the American mix will lower the average intelligence as opposed to what would happen if immigration policy favoured people of higher intelligence, such as north Asians, or people of average intelligence, such as whites.
No American I know who has experienced Latino working habits has a bad word to say about Latinos. They show up, they work hard, and they keep their families together. Again, that is not the point anyone is making. We are talking about immigration policy, which determines who your neighbours will be in thirty, forty, or fifty years.
Once more it has been made dangerous to your life and livelihood to say true things based on indisputable statistical facts.
It is not a free country.