Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor - Diversity or Science: You Can’t Have Both
Aired: 2021-11-29
Duration: 10:04


=== Diversity or Standards? (10:00) ===

[00:00:03]  Hello, I'm Jared Taylor with American Renaissance.
[00:00:07]  If you like this video, I hope you'll send the link to a lot of your friends.
[00:00:10]  There is no other way they're probably going to find out about it.
[00:00:13]  The other day, I made a video called Diversity or Standards.
[00:00:17]  You can't have both.
[00:00:19]  I pointed out all the standards that have fallen in the name of diversity in law enforcement, schools and colleges, employment, and even historical accuracy.
[00:00:30]  But there was one I forgot.
[00:00:32]  You will recall the housing bubble that burst in 2008 and started the Great Recession.
[00:00:37]  One of the big reasons for the bubble was government pressure on banks to relax creditworthiness standards.
[00:00:44]  Here is George W. Bush in 2002 scolding the country's bankers because not enough minorities owned houses.
[00:00:52]  As highlighted at the bottom, he told them, we've got to work to knock down the barriers that have created a home ownership gap.
[00:01:01]  The barriers were just little things like requiring a down payment or having an income that could cover the mortgage payments.
[00:01:09]  The old rules had to go so that blacks and Hispanics could buy houses they couldn't afford.
[00:01:15]  Once the standards came down, whites with bad credit got mortgages too.
[00:01:20]  And when the inevitable wave of foreclosures hit, the economy went into the worst recession since the Great Depression.
[00:01:27]  As I said in my video, diversity or standards?
[00:01:31]  You can't have both.
[00:01:33]  Today, I will explain how science is sacrificed to diversity.
[00:01:38]  I hope you know the name J. Philippe Rushton, who died in 2012.
[00:01:44]  He did pioneering research on the nature and significance of racial differences, and his book, Race, Evolution, and Behavior, is a classic.
[00:01:53]  The race deniers have made it very hard to find, and they are now ganging up on the scientific journals that published his papers.
[00:02:01]  Here is their latest triumph, a notice from the publication Psychological Reports, saying it has retracted three of his papers.
[00:02:12]  And please note the reason at the bottom of the screen.
[00:02:15]  The research was unethical, scientifically flawed, and based on racist ideas and agenda.
[00:02:23]  Wow, a modern-day Dr. Mengele.
[00:02:26]  The only specifics this notice gives is that Russian was wrong on the subject of intelligence and race.
[00:02:34]  Race differences in IQ are one of the most widely confirmed findings in the entire science of mental testing.
[00:02:42]  Here's an article crowing about the retraction of debunked anti-black race science.
[00:02:49]  Note the illustrations.
[00:02:50]  They are a hodgepodge from a book published 164 years ago.
[00:02:56]  All of these retracted papers were peer-reviewed.
[00:03:00]  Is the publisher going to name the scientists who reviewed Rushton's methods, data, and conclusions and say that they had racist ideas and agenda?
[00:03:10]  Well, why not?
[00:03:11]  Here's another lovely case.
[00:03:14]  Last year, Dr. Norman Wang wrote a paper for the Journal of the American Heart Association on race and ethnicity considerations for the cardiology workforce.
[00:03:24]  He warned that race preferences for non-whites in medical school means that some poorly qualified people are trying to become doctors.
[00:03:33]  He wrote, Long-term academic solutions and expedience should not be sacrificed for short-term demographic optics.
[00:03:44]  He added that people who want to be doctors must be assessed as individuals on the basis of their personal merits, not their racial or ethnic identities.
[00:03:55]  Well, we can't have that.
[00:03:58]  Sharon Hayes is a heart doctor who bills herself as an advocate for equity.
[00:04:04]  Well, she's being modest.
[00:04:05]  She is the Mayo Clinic's Director of Diversity and Inclusion.
[00:04:10]  She tweeted, Rise up, colleagues!
[00:04:13]  The fact that this is published in our journal should both enrage and activate all of us.
[00:04:19]  And they rose up all right.
[00:04:21]  Dr. Norman Wang was teaching at the University of Pittsburgh's med school.
[00:04:26]  It promptly issued a statement saying the article was full of misconceptions, misquotes, inaccuracies, misstatements, and misreadings.
[00:04:37]  Wow! How did the peer reviewers miss all that?
[00:04:41]  The med school then ordered Dr. Wang to have no contact with med students.
[00:04:46]  Well, it's hard to teach when you can't talk to the students.
[00:04:50]  And of course, the journal's editors ate dirt, begged for mercy, and retracted the paper with no explanation to Dr. Wang of what was wrong with it.
[00:05:00]  They made the article hard to find and stamped retracted article on every page.
[00:05:07]  Here are some of the data that enraged and activated poor Sharon Hayes.
[00:05:13]  It's a breakout by race of attrition attributable to academic reasons, which is a nice way of saying flunked out.
[00:05:22]  Look at the blue highlight in the lower right.
[00:05:24]  Blacks flunked out at 10.57 times the white rate, Hispanics at 5.12 times, Asians at 1.38 times, Eskimos and American Indians at 6.59 times the white rate,
[00:05:39]  Is this table a misconception or a misstatement?
[00:05:45]  Dr. Wang, bless him, has sued everyone in sight.
[00:05:49]  Here's another example.
[00:05:51]  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is one of the most prestigious science publications in the world.
[00:05:58]  In 2019, it published Officer Characteristics and Racial Disparities in Fatal Officer-Involved Shootings, which tried to figure out if the race of a police officer made him more or less likely to shoot a non-white.
[00:06:14]  As you will note further down, this article was retracted.
[00:06:20]  Unacceptable conclusion.
[00:06:22]  We find no evidence of anti-black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and white officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-white officers.
[00:06:34]  Instead, race-specific crime strongly predicts civilian race.
[00:06:40]  That means the race of the person the cop killed.
[00:06:43]  This suggests that increasing diversity among officers by itself is unlikely to reduce racial disparity in police shootings.
[00:06:51]  It's what criminals do that gets them killed, not police racism.
[00:06:56]  So you could get rid of all the white cops and non-whites would still be shot by the police.
[00:07:03]  Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute quoted this article in testimony before Congress.
[00:07:09]  But Ms. MacDonald is a conservative.
[00:07:12]  And science must never give comfort to conservatives.
[00:07:16]  After some entertaining hemming and hawing, the authors themselves retracted their own paper.
[00:07:23]  They said they stood by their data and methods, but had to fold because Ms. McDonald misused their article.
[00:07:30]  They didn't say how.
[00:07:32]  You can find the whole sorry story in this article in the Wall Street Journal.
[00:07:37]  And so, once again, you can have either diversity, And the myth that racist police are killing innocent blacks and Hispanics, or you can have science.
[00:07:47]  Not both.
[00:07:49]  Science is perverted in the name of race, even in medicine.
[00:07:53]  Here is the AMA, the American Medical Association, telling us that race-based medicine is wrong.
[00:08:01]  Also, note all the whooping about equity and racial justice.
[00:08:05]  The article says race is merely a social and political construct.
[00:08:10]  So doctors should ignore it.
[00:08:12]  And here is Stanford University Medicine explaining it's time to eliminate race-based medicine.
[00:08:19]  Well, Stanford and AMA are wrong.
[00:08:23]  This article explains why it's important to screen donated blood by race.
[00:08:28]  For example, only blacks have U-negative blood.
[00:08:32]  As an expert explains, It makes no sense to screen 100,000 whites for U- when no U- white person has ever been found.
[00:08:44]  Gift of Life is a charity that encourages organ donation.
[00:08:48]  It has a whole section on race and organ donation.
[00:08:52]  Gift of Life is constantly begging blacks to donate because so few of them do.
[00:08:58]  And donations within the same race are so much more likely to be compatible.
[00:09:04]  It's the same for bone marrow transplants.
[00:09:07]  There are constant appeals for more diverse donors because race is often the crucial factor in a successful match.
[00:09:16]  And also because non-whites are less willing to donate.
[00:09:20]  And let us not forget Bidil, the first heart medication marketed specifically for black patients.
[00:09:28]  It works on blacks, but not on whites.
[00:09:32]  took the advice of the AMA and Stanford and ignored race, it would be malpractice.
[00:09:38]  But let me give the last word to Scientific American.
[00:09:42]  Already in 2013, it was showing real Stasi-type zeal in an article called Should Research on Race and IQ Be Banned?
[00:09:53]  Well, you can imagine what the answer was.
[00:09:56]  John Horgan, who wrote the article, is a big fan of diversity.
[00:10:01]  But he has a wicked sense of humor.