Cambridge don sacked after he was accused of publishing ‘racist pseudoscience’ over his writings

A Cambridge don who was sacked after being accused of publishing ‘racist pseudoscience’ says he lost his fellowship for questioning ‘left-wing sacred values’.

Social scientist Noah Carl was let go from a fellowship at St Edmund’s College last week, on the grounds that he allegedly collaborated with people who hold ‘extremist views’.

His writings discussed genetics and IQ, as well as linking artistic tastes and opinions on Brexit to the decline of the humble British pub.

It was his writings linking IQ and genetics however, that prompted 586 academics to sign a letter to the prestigious institution, accusing him of ‘racist pseudoscience’.

At a talk yesterday in Oxford he defended his stance and classed himself as a ‘victim’ after stating that studies he had uncovered from the 1960s and 2015 had a number of adverse effects on campus.

Setting out evidence on over-representation of left-wing views in British academia he said: ‘Four studies found that in 1960 about a third of academics supported Conservatives and 45 per cent Labour. By 2015, 11 per cent supported the Conservatives and about 70 per cent Labour.

‘There is denial and mischaracterisation of research believed to threaten certain left-wing sacred values.

‘I would argue I’ve been a victim of that myself, and many other people in controversial fields such as IQ research and other fields where some content appears to threaten left-wing values.’

Prior to his talk on free speech in Oxford yesterday, he posted a blog defending his work, where he said that exploring a possible link between genes and intelligence was ‘a perfectly defensible scientific position’.

He said: ‘It may turn out that genes make zero contribution, or it may turn out that they make a contribution greater than zero. Deciding in advance that they make zero contribution is not science. It is proof by assertion.’

Mr Carl had been one of several speakers at the event who had been threatened with ‘no platforming’, lost jobs, or had invitations revoked due to views on issues ranging from free speech, race and gender, The Times reported.

In 2016 Among he wrote a paper in which he claimed that ‘the higher the percentage of Muslims in the population, the greater the share of citizens susceptible to Islamist radicalisation’. 

The event had been organised by 64-year-old Nigel Biggar, the regius professor or moral and pastoral theology at Oxford.

He highlighted he wanted to generate a ‘counter spiral’ to the dominance of ‘cultural left extremism’ which he said had been determining views across the campus.

It comes one month after Cambridge rescinded its offer of a visiting fellowship to the so-called ‘professor against political correctness’ Jordan Peterson, after he was pictured next to a man wearing a t-shirt which had ‘I’m a proud Islamophobe’, printed on it.

In February, a meeting had been held by the International Youth and Students for Social Equality, group at Cambridge to ‘oppose the promotion of eugenics and pseudo-science’ at the university. 

‘It cannot simply be taken for granted that, when in doubt, stifling debate around taboo topics is the ethical thing to do. (This study) makes three main claims: first, that equating particular scientific statements with racism effectively holds our morals hostage to the facts; second, that the ‘blank slate’ view of human nature also has pernicious moral implications; and third, that there are clear examples of where stifling debate has done material harm to both individuals and societal institutions.’

‘Examining the relationship between the presence of Muslims and the incidence of Islamist terrorism is now a lively area of scholarly research… Of course, it goes without saying that only a small minority of Muslims are terrorists, and not all terrorist are Muslims.’

‘Remain voters overestimate the importance that Leave voters attach to both regaining control over EU immigration and teaching British politicians a lesson. 52 per cent of Remain voters rank ‘Leavers wanted the UK to regain control over EU immigration’ first, whereas only 39 per cent of Leave voters rank ‘to regain control over EU immigration’ first. And 12 per cent of Remain voters rank ‘Leavers wanted to teach British politicians a lesson’ first, whereas only 3 per cent of Leave voters rank ‘to teach British politicians a lesson’ first.’

‘Britain’s vote to leave the EU is decidedly not without precedent. The country has left the mainland of Europe on precisely three prior occasions, each time carefully weighing up the costs and benefits before doing so. In the Brexit of spring 1940, Britain politely declined to participate in a German-led effort toward European political union. In King Henry’s Brexit of 1534, the country sought to regain competitiveness by unshackling itself from the yoke of papal regulation. And in the original Brexit of 10,000–6,500 BC, the country prudently chose to increase border security, while at the same time putting its long-suffering fishermen back to work.’

‘The magnitude of inward migratory flows increased during the 20th century, and did so dramatically from the 1990s onwards. Between 1900 and 1950, the foreign-born fraction of the population rose, but never exceeded 5%. By the early 1990s, it was well above 5%. In 2011, it was around 13%. And today, it is probably above 15%. Thus, contemporary levels of immigration into Britain are historically unprecedented. Britain had arguably assumed its nationhood by at least the late 19th century. At this point in time, the make up of the British population was largely as it had been more than 1000 years earlier. There is therefore little justification for saying that Britain is an ‘immigrant nation’.’

‘The present study shows that, in the UK, net opposition to immigrants of different nationalities correlates strongly with the log of immigrant arrests rates and with the log of their arrest rates for violent crime. This is particularly noteworthy given that Britons reportedly think that an immigrant’s criminal history should be one of the most important characteristics when considering whether he or she should be allowed into the country.’

Open Quantitative Sociology & Political Science,

‘It seems plausible that the higher the percentage of Muslims in the population, the greater the share of citizens susceptible to Islamist radicalisation, and therefore the larger the fraction of the population that the security services should need to monitor. For example, ISIS has been actively attempting to radicalise young Muslims living in Western countries by disseminating Jihadist propaganda through social media. Regarding the latter, it stands to reason that Islamist terrorist organisations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS might selectively target countries that have intervened militarily in Muslim countries particularly those in the Middle East, where the most sacred Islamic holy sites are located.’

‘The fact that the correlation between verbal intelligence and economically liberal beliefs persists after controlling for characteristics like race, education and income suggests it cannot simply be attributed to selfishness on the parts of people with higher verbal intelligence. In particular, it contradicts the hypothesis that such people only have economically liberal beliefs because they believe they have personally benefitted from economically liberal policies. On the other hand, if conditional on current income, verbal intelligence is correlated with a tendency to believe one’s future income will be higher under economically liberal policies, the correlation between verbal intelligence and economically liberal beliefs could be explained by selfishness, at least in part.’



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *