Jason Richwine and the Reality of Racial Differences

L'Affaire Richwine is only now receding from public awareness after furious leftist indignation against obvious racial realities. Rachel Maddow and other talking heads bloviated on their respective airwaves while a young man quietly resigned his position, collected his coat and prepared to tell his wife and children that he'd been sacked for speaking the truth. Once possessed of his bloodied scalp, the assembled multiculturalist radicals waved it aloft and cried "Never Again"! Adding insult to injury, Hispanic students at Harvard presented a petition to the Kennedy School demanding to know just why three nationally recognized scholars had approved Mr. Richwine's dissertation. What proved so repulsive about the Richwine incident was the animated, incandescent fury from the Left and assorted Hispanic groups against a mild-mannered Harvard PhD. Unlike Charles Murray in 1994, Jason Richwine lost both his position and his livelihood. Declared a "non-person" by such worthies as Univision and Telemundo show hosts, he now must comfort his children and seek a position far removed from national prominence.

Richwine’s public humiliation augurs ill for mainstream science and civilized discourse. The Heritage Foundation fired him because his data ran strongly against popular opinion on race; plain and simple. There were no serious attacks on his research methods or findings because the Left doesn't understand them and certainly wouldn't bother to try. If his attackers actually read his IQ and Immigration Policy, they'd see that he explicitly rejected older notions of Nordic intellectual superiority.   Richwine’s dissertation contained no references to ideologically volatile sources and instead relied heavily on data from both the mainstream Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) and the National Longitudinal Survey on Youth (NLSY). The reams of data produced by these tests demonstrate serious, measurable intellectual differences among American racial subgroups over decades.

Richwine’s interpretative approach falls well within the appropriate parameters and stylistics of academic scholarship. This young Harvard PhD displayed a comprehensive grasp of multiple psychometric research models by thoughtfully considering Sternberg’s triarchic intelligence and Gardner’s multiple intelligence theories. He balanced a brief discussion of Richard Lynn’s IQ and the Wealth of Nations with a critique of John Flynn’s research findings. Additionally, Richwine used Dr. Linda Gottfredson’s findings which effectively correlated IQ to occupational advancement and status.  His dissertation demonstrated both sober reflection and professionally detached consideration of the available evidence on human intelligence.

Put simply, Richwine is no Nazi and there’s no evidence in his dissertation to suggest he ever associated with such people. A cursory discussion of Samuel Huntingdon’s Who Are We: The Challenges to American National Identity in the opening pages only displayed Richwine’s subdued sympathy for center-Right conservatism. Likewise,  two brief articles on AltRight do not demonstrate serious ideological biases. Richwine’s AltRight article "Model Minority" capably uses crime statistics in order to prove the actuality of Hispanic crime among native-born Hispanics. Likewise, Latino dropout rates, welfare dependency and assorted social pathologies statistically increase in the second generation after immigration! Such facts are inconvenient for La Raza but they are indeed verifiable according to FBI, DOJ and HHS statistics. Richwine simply used the available evidence to illustrate empirically verifiable realities in American life.

Increasingly, social scientists and pychometrists are force to ignore the voluminous evidence of racial IQ differences and its ramifications in order to preserve their careers. The Bell Curve unleashed a storm of controversy in 1994 but Chris DeMuth of AEI resolutely defended Charles Murray against his attackers. Heritage's cowardice of 2013 underscored the conservative movement's increasing dysfunction and the terrible results of self-censorship. Content only to shake down little old ladies in Dubuque by claiming that Obamacare, homosexuals or Van Jones are out to "get them," the Beltway Right is unwilling to defend any position the Left damns as racialist. In this brief, regrettable incident, they revealed themselves as the parasitic, eunuchs I've long known them to be.

Utterly given over to emotion, Richwine's opponents sought to burn him in public in order to remove his inegalitarian blasphemies. Traditionally, the Right understood and defended differences against leveling equality. This abandonment of inequality as an understood, accepted reality will surrender discourse to our enemies. The Left operates as a contemporary Procrustes and we will endure its mutilations unless we maintain our own vocabulary and ideological principles. Race differences are REAL and won’t go away despite egalitarian sophistry. Unless we speak forthrightly and defend inequality as 'natural social and political' as Sam Francis memorably expressed it, we will be complicit in America's slide into Latinate dysfunction.