What if some politically incorrect concepts were really true? Suppose we found excellent confirmation that men had IQ's that were, on average, 2 points higher than those of women? Suppose people of African descent were 3% faster runners than the rest of us? What if Semites were more likely to die of heart disease than non-Semites? What if there were good evidence that natural blondes tended to be more extroverted than redheads and brunettes?
I do not have hard scientific evidence that anything I wrote above is actually true. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it is not impossible to imagine that there are distinctions between the sexes, or people of different genetic heritage, that could mean they have a propensities that differ, too. If it is the case, and someone can demonstrate that it is, shouldn't we want to know about it?
It seems that in many circles, the answer is a resounding "no." Moreover, those who are vocal about any sort of politically incorrect ideas may find themselves incurring the 21st century version of a witch hunt.
J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University, has promoted a theory that his critics think is inaccurate, insulting and potentially damaging to transgender women. In the past few years, several prominent academics who are transgender have made a series of accusations against the psychologist, including that he committed ethics violations. A transgender woman he wrote about has accused him of a sexual impropriety, and Dr. Bailey has become a reviled figure for some in the gay and transgender communities.
To many of Dr. Bailey’s peers, his story is a morality play about the corrosive effects of political correctness on academic freedom. Some scientists say that it has become increasingly treacherous to discuss politically sensitive issues. They point to several recent cases, like that of Helmuth Nyborg, a Danish researcher who was fired in 2006 after he caused a furor in the press by reporting a slight difference in average I.Q. test scores between the sexes.
“What happened to Bailey is important, because the harassment was so extraordinarily bad and because it could happen to any researcher in the field,” said Alice Dreger, an ethics scholar and patients’ rights advocate at Northwestern who, after conducting a lengthy investigation of Dr. Bailey’s actions, has concluded that he is essentially blameless. “If we’re going to have research at all, then we’re going to have people saying unpopular things, and if this is what happens to them, then we’ve got problems not only for science but free expression itself.”
I think it is important to not confuse what may be the case, on average, about groups of people, with how we treat individuals. For example, even if men might turn out to be generally superior to women when it comes to mathematical abilities, we should not infer from that that any given woman can't be an incredibly talented mathematician. We shouldn't assume that because someone is female, that they should be excluded from careers that stress mathematical abilities. Yet, if we find more men attracted to such fields than women, we might conclude that it is not a function of prejudice and exclusion, but rather innate abilities.
Please understand; I am not making judgments on any of the above. I'm only asserting that we should keep open minds that some of the world may not be as we wish it to be. And we shouldn't shoot the messenger for telling us about it.
Comments