Controversial 'race researcher' who wrote a 2019 report about 'gaps' in IQ between white and blacks is hired by Cambridge University's philosophy faculty - and says the university knew about it before hiring him

I helped proof-read and comment on a draft of Nathan Cofnas's book Reptiles With a Conscience so I know exactly what Nathan says and why. After reading Nathan's rigorous and relentlessly factual book, I can only wonder at the empty abuse aimed at him below. Note that all the adverse comments about him are simply abuse and condemnation. There is no attempt to address his facts or arguments. His claims MUST NOT be true, apparently

But his claims are not in fact extreme or eccentric. An official report of the American Psychological Association concluded much the same thing. It concluded that there was a gap of one standard deviation (about 15 IQ points) between average black and white IQs in the USA. And the American Psychological Association is the official body of American psychologists. Nathan actually has some authority on his side as well as the facts.

And his conclusions have never been more relevant amid the current furore over Critical Race Theory. He points out -- as I have pointed out -- that this evil racist theory stems dfirectly from the denial of black/white inborn differences. If there is nothing in blacks to explain their great failures in education, income and much else, some other explanation has to be found.

It has been found in Critical Race Theory. The theory is that discrimination against blacks by whites has caused blacks to fail. Black woe is the fault of white racism. The fact that whites have enegetically been doing the opposite for many years under the rubric of "affirmative action" is blithely ignored. Whites have long discriminated IN FAVOUR of blacks, in fact. Critical Race theory is counterfactual nonsense but, if there is nothing in blacks to explain their failures, it is all that is left.

Turning a blind eye to black/white differences is well intentioned but ignoring reality is always disastrous and ignoring black/white differences has become a major example of such a disaster. In denying one sort of racial difference, it has invented another

The University of Cambridge has hired a controversial 'race researcher' to its Faculty of Philosophy who previously came under fire for publishing a 'racist' paper - despite knowing about its contents before hiring him.

Nathan Cofnas, an American who was appointed on a three year programme as an 'early career fellow' on September 1 of this year, has previously been the subject of fierce debate over his argument that there are intrinsic differences between races when it comes to intelligence.

Speaking to MailOnline, he confirms he still stands by what he wrote and said the University of Cambridge knew about the paper before he took up his position there.

Cofnas told MailOnline he would advise critics to 'read it'. He added: 'The paper represents my views then and now.'

In a 2019 paper published in Philosophical Psychology he criticised the idea that all 'human groups have, on average, the same potential', and argued that the 'hypothesis' of differences in IQ between men and women and different racial groups is 'ignored'.

Cofnas also referenced adopting black children into white families and argued that some 'race groups' are 'falsely blamed' for structural racism.

His paper was widely debunked by various scientists, and in June 2020 the editor of the journal resigned over the controversy.

There has been backlash amongst students who have called the decision 'crazy' and 'disappointing', according to Cambridge's student newspaper Varsity.

A response paper published by a leading group of researchers called Cofnas' work 'unintelligible and wrong-headed': 'Most researchers in the area of human genetics and human biological diversity no longer allocate significant resources and time to the race/IQ discussion... an equally fundamental reason why researchers do not engage with the thesis is that empirical evidence shows that the whole idea itself is unintelligible and wrong-headed.'

They added that Cofnas' work had 'racist ideological undertones' and 'pandered' to racist ideas.

In the 2019 paper he refers to the theory of hereditarianism throughout, which relies on the fact that genetics are more important that environmental factors in determining people's actions and decisions.

Students have begun to criticize his appointment, with one philosophy student telling Varsity: 'It's crazy that someone who's published such obviously questionable work has been given not only a platform but a Fellow position. 'It's obviously disappointing but not surprising.'

Cofnas refers to old studies that claim white populations have a higher intelligence than black populations.

In the article, Cofnas repeatedly references what he sees as 'race differences in intelligence', and claims that 'the adult black-white IQ gap has remained stubbornly constant... since around 1970.'

He referred to studies into 'early intervention' techniques to battle his so-called 'race difference', including adoption.

He wrote: 'Adoption by white families [of black children] - one of the most extreme interventions possible - has virtually no effect on the IQ of black adoptees.'

Cofnas appears to question the extent that racism exists within society and argue that white populations are unfairly 'blamed' for 'differences' between races.

He wrote: 'As long as people believe that race differences have a purely environmental cause, differences will, in practice, most likely be attributed to racism or institutional racism.

'Denying the possible genetic cause of race differences will not stop people from being focused on race.'

He added that 'if people believe that members of certain races are victimized or benefited by racism' this could cause harm to society.

He called for research to give a 'biological account' of how 'genes lead to race differences', adding: 'As of now, there is nothing that would indicate that it is particularly unlikely that race differences will turn out to have a substantial genetic component.

'If this possibility cannot be ruled out scientifically, we must face the ethical question of whether we ought to pursue the truth, whatever it may be.'

He claimed research such as his is censored and that 'if not all groups have identical distributions of potential, then it is unjust to assume that some people must be blamed for average differences in performance among groups.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11366515/Researcher-wrote-2019-report-gaps-IQ-whites-blacks-hired-Cambridge.html

*******************************************************

Judge Quashes Sweeping DOJ Subpoena Against Conservative Group

A federal judge quashed a Justice Department subpoena going after the communications of a private conservative group in Alabama.

The Justice Department sued the state of Alabama opposing the Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act, and in the course of discovery sought all information from Eagle Forum Alabama regarding its advocacy for the bill going back to 2017.

Eagle Forum is not a party in the lawsuit, prompting the court to rule that the DOJ was overreaching.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Liles Burke, of the Middle District of Alabama, issued an opinion stating, “Considering the relevance (or lack thereof) of the requested material, the burden of production, the nonparties’ resources, and the government’s own conduct, the Court finds that the subpoenas exceed the scope of discovery.”

The Justice Department issued the subpoena in August and last month, Eagle Forum Alabama filed the motion to quash.

Several Republican members of Congress, the Alabama Legislature, and conservative organizations filed a brief with the court arguing on the side of Eagle Forum Alabama.

The Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act, which bans the distribution of puberty-blocking medication and cross-sex hormones to minors, along with the performing of transgender surgeries on minors, became effective in May after large majorities in both houses of the Legislature approved the bill.

The Alabama chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, representing parents of kids who claim to identify as transgender, filed suit against the law in late April, and the Justice Department joined as an intervener party in the lawsuit.

“Eagle Forum’s triumph today is a victory for freedom of speech for all Americans who wish to be a part of the democratic process,” Kristen A. Ullman, president of Eagle Forum, said in a statement Tuesday. Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly founded the national Eagle Forum, which has multiple state chapters.

“We successfully defended the rights of private citizens and non-profits to engage in the legislative process when their viewpoint differs from that of the government,” Ullman continued. “DOJ ardently fought to harass a volunteer group of concerned citizens and should take their loss today as a reminder they have awakened a sleeping giant. The Court made clear that the government’s attempt to silence voices with which it disagrees by demanding irrelevant materials will not be allowed.”

https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/10/25/conservative-group-wins-court-bid-block-sweeping-doj-subpoena

*******************************************************

California’s Proposition 1 Is Perverse Virtue-Signaling

Abortion in California is already, indisputably legal during the first six months of pregnancy, and illegal after the fetus has become viable (week 24 to 26), unless necessary for the mother’s life or health.

So why is Proposition 1—which will amend the California State Constitution to enshrine a right, funded by taxpayers’ money, to abortion on demand for any reason for the full term of pregnancy—on the ballot, and why are more than $9 million being spent to support its passage?

Following the Supreme Court’s decision this year that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t have anything to say about abortion, and it is thus a matter for states to decide, many seized the opportunity to grandstand politically—and none so blatantly as California’s Governor Newsom. Apparently launching his 2024 presidential campaign on this issue, Newsom ran billboard ads in 18 states to promote California as an abortion sanctuary, and launched the website Abortion.ca.gov.

Thus, given the current legality of abortion, and the current support being provided to its access, the only explanation for Proposition 1 I can fathom is that it is essentially a doubling-down by abortion-celebrants, a nose-thumb in the face of those old fogies who hold on to antiquated notions as “abortions should be safe, legal, and rare.”

Unfortunately, the wording of the proposition (as usual) is such that voters will have almost no way of knowing that this is what they are voting for: their tax dollars will be used to pay for the abortions of anyone from anywhere, up to birth.

Other imponderables: Why are the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria investing $5 million, Quinn Delaney $500,000, and the California Federation of Teachers $250,000 in its passage?

They are among the major underwriters of the Yes on 1:

According to the history of the Graton Rancheria community on its website, revenues from the casino which presumably made possible this level of spending for an unnecessary proposition, are intended “to provide programs and services to Tribal Citizens to realize their dreams of self-sufficiency.” Is state-funded late-term abortion an underpinning of self-sufficiency?

Similarly, Quinn Delaney’s web profile leaves one wondering how her foundation’s mission, to “eliminate structural racism and create a racially just society,” is advanced by taxpayer-funded late-term abortion.

And the California Federation of Teachers’ website proclaims, “We believe in the power and promise of education.” Since sex education has been universal for decades now, shouldn’t it have resulted in abortions being little needed?

https://blog.independent.org/2022/10/19/californias-proposition-1-virtue-signaling/?omhide=true

***************************************************

Why an Australian woman does NOT want transgenders competing against biological females who are being 'sacrificed on the altar of woke'

Popular YouTube right-wing pundit Sydney Watson says allowing gender transitioned women who have gone through male puberty to compete in female sports is 'crazy'.

The Melbourne-raised commentator, who has nearly 800,000 subscribers to her YouTube channel, said female athletes are being sacrificed 'on the altar of woke' by having to compete with biological men.

Ms Watson, who is visiting family in Australia but has lived in the US since 2019, says that she will calls a trans person by their preferred pronoun but won't pretend they are something they are not.

'I think it's pretty simple, I think there are two sexes male and female,' she told Daily Mail Australia. 'Are trans women women? No,' she said.

'There's an inescapable biological reality that I am not going to deny simply because it makes them feel better. 'We have understood that men and women are fundamentally different for hundreds and hundreds of years. 'They are different, we are different.

'The fact we deny this in order to appease a very, very small portion of the population and an even smaller proportion of the population who can afford it (to transition) is crazy.

The 29-year-old said she 'feels' for trans women who can't compete in their sport because 'they don't neatly fit into either category anymore' but that did not make them women.

'You have these biological men, who go through a male puberty and people will not admit this and I do not know why,' she said. 'It is so crazy to me.

'I realise it is an evolving topic and it is not easy to deal with but I don't think that sacrificing women on the altar of woke is the way to go.'

She pointed to the examples of trans New Zealand weight lifter Laurel Hubbard, who was the first Kiwi to win international weight-lifting competitions, and US trans swimmer Lia Thomas, who won a national college title in March.

'For these and other people to absolutely smash their female competitors it is just so regressive,' Ms Watson said.

'They think that's somehow being positive for women and then to post their names and say they are woman of athlete of the year - you're not a woman.'

Ms Watson said she had no issue with people transitioning and would use the pronouns that people requested or best fit their appearance.

'If you are adult and you are making your own choices and it doesn't affect me and I don't have to pay for it and you want me to call you a male or female, he or she, man or woman I will do that for you,' she said.

'But I am not going to say "hey guy, you can participate in female sports if you have gone through male puberty and transitioned after the fact".

'I am not going to say "hey you male, who is completely intact but now identifies as a woman, come into my changerooms".'

Ms Watson argued that such trans behaviour was actually 'the erasure of women'.

She also thinks that, paradoxically, gender preconceptions are being reinforced by the trans activists.

'In this quest to dismantle stereotypes the regressive left and the trans rights activist movement have actually enforced their stereotypes,' she said.

'So, if a girl like Tonka trucks, the colour blue, wears baseball caps and plays sports there is a cohort of parents who say "my kid is trans" rather than "hey, my kid really likes that stuff and I am just going to let her do it because it is what she likes".'

Ms Watson described herself as a utilitarian that wants 'things to make sense'.

'Let's say you have a transgender sports person who is devastated because they love their sport and they can't really play anymore because they have transitioned and they are on hormones it has shifted the game for them,' she said.

'I think we can have compassion for people who don't feel comfortable in their skin, however there is a bigger mental issue at play.

'What these (trans) advocates are advocating for is affecting kids, it's affecting women. it's putting women in danger in some cases it's harming others and I just think why do their interests supersede the rest of the population.'

Ms Watson said that it was important to keep trans issues in perspective.

'I think the fact that the transexual conversation dominates every area of life and we are expected to walk on eggshells around these people to me is not appropriate,' she said.

'The vast majority of the population does not participate in this and you can sympathise and have empathy but letting them dictate the way we live our lives the language that we use I don't think that is OK.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11334877/Sydney-Watson-decries-trans-women-female-sports-saying-biological-men.html

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*****************************************