Talk:The Bell Curve

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

From the Pioneers Finds site:

  • Some of those who strongly oppose behavior genetic and psychometric research have sometimes made bizarre and false charges against scientists who conduct these studies, subjecting them to harassment, including dismissal and threats of dismissal, stalled promotions, mob demonstrations, and threats of physical violence, even death. Some physical attacks have actually occurred. These politically motivated attacks on the Pioneer Fund and its grantees are documented in The New Know-Nothings by Morton Hunt, and Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe by Roger Pearson (see Bibliography). [1]

From the SPLC's website:

  • the Pioneer Fund has funded most American and British race scientists, including a large number cited in The Bell Curve. [2]

I think some of this material warrants a further review. RobS 14:13, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

  • It was not the Pioneer Fund, which supported The Bell Curve or either of its two authors. They were supported by the Bradley Foundation. It is not surprising, however, that those who would like to remove The Bell Curve’s conclusions from public discussion attack the Pioneer Fund because much of the research it cited was conducted by Pioneer grantees. The driving force behind many attacks on Pioneer and The Bell Curve is the attempt to suppress any and all of the recent research on race and IQ.

A volatile subject indeed. --Ed Poor Talk 14:19, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes indeed, the Bradley Foundation was cited by the same "valuable Wikipedia editor" [3] as a "hate group". [4] RobS 14:22, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

The SCLC may be biased. Its criticism of Dinesh D'Souza and The Bell Curve seem wildly distorted to me:

  • Founded in 1943, the Washington, D.C.-based American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is one of the most influential conservative think tanks in America. While its roots are in pro-business values, AEI in recent years has sponsored scholars whose views are seen by many as bigoted or even racist.
  • For example, Dinesh D'Souza, the author of The End of Racism, holds an Olin Foundation research fellowship at AEI. D'Souza has suggested that civil rights activists actually help perpetuate racial tensions and division in the United States, and has even called for the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. After his book was published, black conservatives Robert Woodson and Glenn Loury denounced it — Woodson released a statement saying it "fans the flames of racial animosity" — and broke their own ties with AEI.
  • Another AEI-sponsored scholar, Charles Murray, is more controversial. Murray, who has a Bradley Foundation research fellowship at AEI, is the co-author of The Bell Curve, a book that argues that blacks and Latinos are genetically inferior to whites and that most social welfare and affirmative action programs are doomed to failure as a result. The book, described as a reheated "stale stew of racial eugenics" by historian Godfrey Hodgson, cites the work of some 16 researchers financed by the racist Pioneer Fund*.

Murray's book says precisely the opposite of this: it denies that blacks and Latinos are genetically inferior to whites. I can't imagine why anyone would want to put words in his mouth like that. (I can speculate that it's to cover up the failure of modern education to achieve the goals of affirmative action - see Educational reform.) --Ed Poor Talk 14:28, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

All the material you've posted above [5] was written by Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, and published in the SPLC's website. Berlet was referred to by Wikipedia ArbCom chairman Fred Bauder as "a valuable Wikipedia editor", and WP policy that states "experts do not occupy a position of privilege" was actually removed from the policy when Berlet's material from this particular SPLC article was questioned in Arbitration. Further, WP ArbCom exempted the source from several WP written, published policies when this source was the subject of an Arbitration hearing.
There appears to be new developments in the past three days, this same source was likewise the source of defamations against Daniel Brandt in WP's Public Information Research entry [6] which after 20 months was removed only three days ago.
The problem with this "scholarly" and "reputable" Wikipedia source, and WP's acceptance of it as authoritive which has shaped hundreds of smears against living persons and organizations in WP is here Political profiling#.22Hate groups.22RobS 14:48, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

A joke?

The third paragraph is meant to be a joke, right? Dadsnagem2 16:04, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Personal tools