Wiley&ELUvsCRBhistory.htm
Wiley DePublisher &
Edinburgh Looneyversity
versus
Chris Brand
-- a brief, introductory history,
followed by published references about:
(a)
how tyrannous PC arrived in quaint UK
(b)
the scholarly evidence of the 1990's on ignoracism
(c)
the scholarly evidence of the 1990's on paedohysteria
For an UPDATE and third-party accounts
from students, academics and journalists, see http://www.crispian.demon.co.uk/index.htm.
The g Factor, a product
of Brand's thirty years in the psychology of intelligence and personality, was published
in the UK by Wiley (Chichester) in February 1996 and met with expert approval.
While commending the book, Britain's leading psychologist, Emeritus Professor
Hans Eysenck, particularly remarked (in Personality & Individual
Differences 26, 1996):
"Apart from being accurate, Brand is also courageous; he deals with 'sensitive' problems in a straightforward, accurate fashion, without treading unnecessarily on vulnerable toes."
However, the politically correct sponsors of
multiculturalism thought otherwise. They urged Wiley to withdraw the book from
publication -- the modern form of censorship. (The same treatment was applied
in 1997 to ex-Governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, when his then publisher,
HarperCollins, discovered that a book of his criticized China; and to
'Holocaust revisionist' historian David Irving when Macmillan [St Martin's in
USA] found itself warned off his new book by 'Holocaust insisters' such as
Prof. Deborah Lipstadt.)
Interviewed by the London press in April
1996, Brand agreed there would tend to be racial differences in children's
speeds of school progress. Brand readily accepted he would be what critics of
IQ standardly called a 'scientific racist' -- though Brand preferred the term
'race realist.' People of African descent have, on average, biological
advantages in athletics but biological disadvantages in intellect. Brand
thought it wrong to veto streaming in education when individual and
Negroid-Caucasoid differences in IQ would manifest themselves under any
educational system. Brand believed The g Factor would vindicate
his position and expose IQ's extremist critics as hysterical 'ignoracists'
whose ideology had rendered them incapable of examining evidence. But Brand was
due for a long wait.
For the increasing
late-C.20 use of the term 'scientific racist' see, for example:
(1) J. Comas, 1961, 'Scientific racism again?' Current Anthropology 2,
303-14. This article attacked the distinguished hereditarian, Henry Garrett
(formerly Head of Psychology at Columbia University and President of the
American Psychological Association). In 1960 (Mankind Quarterly 1),
Garrett had attacked Otto Klineberg and explained why groups northern Blacks in
the USA sometimes scored higher on IQ tests than southern Whites – because of
selective migration, better schools and greater White ancestry. Garrett
explicitly rejected what he called "Hitler's cruelties and the absurd
racial superiority theories of the Nazis" but maintained there had never
been any Black civilization south of the Sahara and that genetic factors would
have played some part in this. He said "equalitarian dogma" (denying
innate race differences in psychology) was "the scientific hoax of the
century" (1961, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 4).
(2) M. Billig, 1979, Psychology,
Racism and Fascism [Foreword by R. Moore] -- where the
"racism" of Sir Cyril Burt is said to have 'grown out of the eugenics
movement' and Hans Eysenck is said to have tried to create "a racist
culture" and said to have failed in his occasional attempts "to
distance the results of empirical psychology from racism."
(3) Nancy Stepan, 1982, The Idea of Race, London, Macmillan):
"[By 1900,] scientific racism no longer seemed an aberration of Western
intellectual traditions but their very essence."
(4) In 1985, the Sociology Section of the British Association for the
Advancement of Science condemned contributors to the Salisbury Review
for "scientific racism." (R. Scruton, 2002, Spectator, 21
ix, 'My life beyond the pale.')
(5) Elazar Barkan, 1992, The Retreat of Scientific Racism,
Cambridge University Press – which condemned the English medical geneticist
Reginald Ruggles Gates (1882-1962) as an “outcast” and notorious
"scientific racist." Abjuring ideas of racial superiority, Gates once
wrote merely: ‘To say that all men are equal has not got us very far. It is
more accurate to say that all men are different, and then to respect each
other’s differences.’
(6) William H.
Tucker, 1994, The Science and Politics of Racial Research,
Chicago: University of Illinois Press. A review by A. C.
Higgins says: "Tucker touches on some fascinating characters in the
history of scientific racism: Frank C. McGurk, Henry Garrett, Carleton Putnam,
Wesley C. George, Robert E. Kuttner, Ernst van den Haag, William B. Shockley,
Hans Eysenck, Raymond B. Cattell, Roger Pearson, and, of course, Arthur Jensen.
These are men whose names and works should be identified."
(7) Steven Fraser et al., 1995, The Bell Curve Wars, New York :
Basic.
(8) Vincent J. Cheng, 1995, Joyce, Race and Empire, Cambridge
University Press. By a professor at Univ. Utah, this book deplores the
scientific racism of Edinburgh University's great medic, Robert Knox, which apparently
helped give James Joyce his unflattering view of the Celtic Irish.
(9) Andrew Burstein, 1995, The
Inner Jefferson: Portrait of a Grieving Optimist, University Press of
Virginia. The biographer, a North Iowa professor, wrote,
defending Jefferson: I would describe Jefferson as a scientific racist.
What he wrote in the Notes on Virginia was a description of what he thought was
an objective scientist's appraisal. He did not feel that he was bringing his
personal emotion to his statement that African-Americans had offensive body
odors, or African-Americans could not aspire to the same degree of rationality
as whites. This is unfortunate but Jefferson did not do this with any ill will.
He did not write other than what he considered to be the search for objective
truth.
(10) Kenan
Malik, 1996, The Meaning of Race, Basingstoke : Macmillan.
(11) Vernon J. Williams, Jr., 1996, Rethinking Race, University
Press of Kentucky. This book mentions casually that an anthropologist of the
1930s, Robert E. Park, "challenged scientific racist data concerning the
socio-economic status of blacks" (p. 7); and, talking of the academic
opponents of anthropologist Franz Boas (the father of multiculturalism) admits
that Boas to some extent himself "worked within the same essentialist
framework as the racists."
(12) Ashley Montagu, 1997, Man's Most Dangerous Myth, Altamira
Press [Sixth Edition]. Montagu, who died in 1999 after years of crusading
social environmentalism, defines scientific racism as: the belief that the
variables of phenotype, intelligence, and ability to achieve civilizationally
and/or culturally are not only genetically determined, but also genetically
linked. According to Science
and Education Reviewers, 1998, Montagu's book (like Stephen Jay Gould's The
Mismeasure of Man) 'documents the history of scientific racism.'
(13) The 1999 book Race and IQ, edited by Ashley Montagu and
published by Oxford University Press, made sweeping charges of
"racism" tout court against empirical scientists who dared to
link race, IQ and genes
(14) Judith Scully, 2000, 'Cracking
open CRACK: Unethical sterilization movement gains momentum'. This article
by a West Virginia law professor referers to a Nobel Prize winner who believed
in innate racial differences as "William Shockley, the notorious
eugenicist and scientific racist."
(15) Antony Monteiro, 2000, 'We
charge genocide!', The Black World. This spirited article
said Black gains of the 1960's had been largely reversed and said the
"scientific racist scholarship" of The Bell Curve "has
emerged to justify police violence against Blacks."
(16) In 2000, Professor Matthew Frye Jacobson
(Associate Professor of American Studies and History at Yale University)
explained that 'scientific racism' had been around long before 1900. Indeed,
race could be said to be the creation of science.
(17) In 2002, Dr. Corey S. Sparks of Pennsylvania State University and Dr.
Richard L. Jantz of the University of Tennessee said that their work (showing
social anthropologist Franz Boas was mistaken in claiming no innate links
between race and head measurements) 'did not necessitate a return to scientific
racism.' (The idea that race is innately linked to head size was long denied by
social anthropologists relying on work by Franz Boas (who claimed to find
substantial brain size differences between earlier and later immigrants to the
USA, reflecting improved nutrition); but for New York Times 8
x 02, science correspondent Nicholas Wade reported that Boas' work had been
reanalyzed (showing no difference among migrants) and could no longer be taken
as a refutation of scientific racism. Apparently skull measurements can yield
accurate assignation of race in as many as 80% of cases.)
(18) By 2004, the term ‘scientific racist’ and ‘racist’, tout court,
were being applied by the left-wing outfit ‘One
People’s Project’ to Phil Rushton, Steve Sailer, Charles Murray, John
Derbyshire, the late Glayde Whitney and myself. Publishers’ Weekly
called Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve “neo-racialist.”
The term
'scientific racism' had become used by such eminent academic critics of IQ as
Stephen Jay Gould, Leon Kamin, Richard Lewontin and Steven Rose to describe the
views of psychologists like Hans Eysenck, Arthur Jensen, Richard Lynn and J.
Philippe Rushton who did race research and came to hereditarian conclusions.
Says Rose (e.g. http://www.carf.demon.co.uk/feat01.html): "Scientific
racism has been around for a very long time. The last big wave began in 1969
and was tied up with people like Eysenck in this country and Jensen in the
States." Discussing -- and deploring -- 'scientific racism', Obed Norman, of
Washington State University, says it fell out of favour, after the Hitler
years, because of 'social factors and not logical argumentation within a given
scientific paradigm'; and that 'an attempt to revive scientific racism is the
book The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray (1994).' Perhaps the
most distinguished post-1945 scholar to be accused of 'scientific racism' is C.
D. Darlington, who was a Fellow of the Royal Society and the Regius Professor
of Biology at the University of Oxford in the 1960's. According to Robert
M. Young (Professor of Psychoanalytic Studies at the University of Kent,
Managing Director of Free Association Books and editor of the journal Science
as Culture), Darlington's writings "celebrate 'racial differences' and
are overtly racist; examples are The Evolution of Man and Society
(1969, New York: Simon & Schuster) and The Little Universe of Man."
To 'antiracist' Kenan Malik, scientific racism characterized even much
left-liberal thought from Darwin until the rise of Hitler; and the discovery of
the Nazis' moves from eugenics through euthanasia to the death camps resulted
only in racial science being suppressed on moral grounds rather than
discredited as science. To the
hyperactive American 'antiracist' Barry Mehler, 1998, "a
wide array of academic racists and eugenic advocates. . . . acknowledge their
debt to [the psychometrician-psychologist, Raymond B. Cattell]" whose
'ideology' is said to be "neo-fascist"; and Mehler complained of top
American psychologists such as Sandra Scarr listening to Cattell and paying
tribute to him at a 1994 conference. In 2002, Jude Wanniski wrote
of Herrnstein and Murray in Human Events, 15 vii: "As Gregg
Easterbrook noted in his scathing review of their book in the December 1994 Washington
Monthly, the authors may not be "racist" per se, but they are
"wrong-headed." But Easterbrook was being kind, for racist they
are in the strictest sense. I've called them "benevolent
racists," in that they are not suggesting blacks are "subhuman,"
as the term was applied in the Third Reich by the Master Race."}
De-published
by Wiley (on orders from their New York head office after his book had been on
sale for six weeks in the UK), slated by his University Principal, and replying
in kind, Brand found himself under attack from all quarters. 'Feminists' took a
special interest as it emerged that Brand sympathized with Freud and believed
in biologically-based sex differences as well as race differences. Through
1996/7, Brand was witch-hunted, censored by his University, thrown to the
tabloid press for writing his censorship-lambasting NewsLetter in
defence of his book, sent before a three-month disciplinary Tribunal by his
University and fired. Precisely why he was fired still remains a
mystery.
The facts are as follows.
Just what
Edinburgh University found "disgraceful" in Brand's conduct remains
to be clarified. To judge by the University's prosecution case and parade of
witnesses to its own Tribunal, the main alleged problem was that Brand had
upset his Psychology colleagues by his realistic and humorous observations on a
range of psychological topics, and especially on 'left-feminist issues' like
whether low-IQ women should be specially encouraged to use contraception,
whether women find their greatest satisfaction in maternity, and whether women
successfully cheat on their husbands to a notable extent (thus practising
covert polyandry). Brand's colleagues in psychology also did not like him
achieving publicity for his views. Thus for him to have articulated the
long-standing (though little publicised) expert consensus that some forms of
paedophilia are empirically harmless (when involving intelligent and uncoerced
adolescents) was, his colleagues alleged, 'the last straw.' Yet what exactly
was "disgraceful" in Brand's pointing to the empirical evidence about
paedophilia -- or to the empirical evidence about race and single-parenting --
and indicating his conclusion that mercy should be shown to the accused
Nobelist? The University's final position, after nine months of work on the
subject, was that it objected not so much to what Brand had said as to 'the way
he had said it.' Yet the same complaint might be made retrospectively against any
statement by an academic that finally fell foul of the tabloid newspapers.
Essentially, Edinburgh University was requiring that no academic should make
any controversial views intelligible to the public that pays British academics'
salaries.
On 24 March 1998,
Brand's Appeal against his dismissal was rejected by a Scottish High Court
judge who had been selected by the University. Mr T. Gordon Coutts, QC, ruled
that, under the UK's 1988 Education Act, British academics -- whatever the
disciplinary codes of their own universities might actually say -- do
not need to be guilty of anything as serious as "gross misconduct"
for their universities to be entitled to sack them without warning. Since 1988,
academics can be dismissed for "good cause" -- a term deriving from
general UK employment protection legislation, but certainly permitting
dismissal for expressing views that are merely embarrassing to an employer.*
Brand's battle with Edinburgh University has thus revealed, so far, that
'academic freedom', as usually understood,** was ended in Britain in 1988. R.I.P.
Yet the Coutts verdict is far from being
the end of the matter. For example, it remains unclear how Brand's conduct was
"disgraceful" -- even without the pre-1988 requirement that the
degree of disgrace should amount to "gross misconduct." Brand's
defence of his book certainly lacked modern piety, political correctness and
any undue deference to Edinburgh University's Principal. Yet what action of Brand's
was "disgraceful" or "scandalous" or "immoral"?
(Such are the legal ways of sacking ordinary British workers -- operatives at
biscuit factories etc.*** -- without warning.)
In contrast, it is perfectly clear how to
punish today a British academic who says genes are substantially involved in
causing the empirical link between race and IQ: he is de-published, hounded by
self-styled 'anti-racists', condemned by his university, thrown to the tabloid
press so they can rake through his sex life, and fired for the slightest hint
of departure from media morality in any of his opinions. Brand had not even
called for a change in the law when denying that the typical intelligent
nonviolent paedophile did demonstrable harm. Brand had offended ideologues and
hysterics merely by pointing out that scientists know much that contradicts the
press and popular opinion -- whether about race or paedophilia. Above all,
Brand had challenged the politically correct formulation that all human
inequalities are the result of the downtrodden having suffered social
'disadvantages' which armies of utopians should be employed by the state to
rectify. Brand had disputed the environmentalistic view that society is full of
'victims' of capitalism, imperialism, racism or male chauvinism -- a view that
would express itself in Britain's 'Dianamania' of 1997 and in many women's
claims to have 'recovered memories' of childhood abuse.
Though modern research unfailingly shows
the environments imposed upon people to account for rather little -- and
people's own choices of environment to count for much -- Brand's
challenge could not be tolerated by those who enjoy their roles as the paid
champions of state welfarism. The West's new piety demands that universities
return to their pre-twentieth-century condition in which religious belief could
not be seriously challenged;**** and Edinburgh University has obliged. Those
who hope British academics will help them explain controversial truths to the
public have been kicked in the teeth by the University. Until the Edinburgh
verdict is overturned, every British academic will know he is not seriously
free -- even in person-to-person e-mail -- to mention unpopular facts. Britons
have liked to sing in the twentieth century that they "never, never, never
shall be slaves"; but their universities will now remain enslaved to
American campus speech codes until Brand and The g Factor are
vindicated. In October 1999, Brand was awarded £12,000 by Edinburgh
University -- the maximum that he could have obtained from a UK Employment
Tribunal for 'unfair dismissal'; but this
substantial moral victory, which infuriated Edinburgh's 'AntiNazi League',
needs to be followed by British academics waking up to the fact that, if they
speak out controversially, they have no more security of tenure and will have
no more redress against dismissal than does a UK toilet attendant.
--
* Requiring 'good cause' for dismissal is thus quite useless to ensure the freedom that any academic needs (and traditionally enjoyed in Britain). This weakness in the 1988 legislation was pointed out at the time by several speakers in House of Commons and House of Lords debates (e.g. Mr Andrew Smith, Commons Hansard 130 for 1987/8, p. 599; Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, Lords Hansard 495 for 1988, p. 1370ff.). However, the then Government insisted that to write any express definition of academic freedom into its legislation for British universities would inhibit 'managerial flexibility' and effectively reconstitute academic tenure -- which the Government was determined to abolish. [University numbers had expanded hugely in the previous twenty years; and the Conservative Government thought the universities themselves lacked serious resolve to protect 'freedom of speech on campus' -- as in notorious cases where Government ministers had been shouted down by left-wing students.] Ralf Dahrendorf (Director of the London School of Economics) said (quoted by Lord Wedderburn, Hansard, House of Lords 496, iii/iv): "[The Education Bill 1988] must be regarded as threatening by many academics because it removes safeguards of freedom which exist in all other countries of the free world."
** Academics would probably define 'academic freedom' as being able to voice and publish opinion for which evidence or argument can be given, however controversial that opinion, without fearing for one's university position or emoluments. A definition that was prepared for the UK Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals in 1988 -- and agreed by the then Secretary of State as something which universities should supply -- was as follows:
"the freedom within the law for academic staff to question and to test received wisdom and to put forward new and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing individuals in jeopardy of losing their jobs."
Yet this agreed formulation was not written into legislation (see * above). Having no written constitution, Britain thus offers its academics not even the kind of protection that is available to every US citizen under the First Amendment which protects all speech unless the speaker knowingly lies or should have known his or her speech was untruthful. [In a classic case, a US jury quickly threw out on these grounds a civil suit for $US14m from Texas farmers against the Black American TV hostess, Oprah Winfrey (Guardian, 20 i '98). 'Oprah', after hearing an expert who had spoken of BSE on her TV show, had said she would not eat another hamburger.] Moreover, since Parliament is the supreme authority in Britain, its statutes and ordinances for universities -- allowing dismissal of academics merely for normal 'good cause' since 1988, and containing no definition of academic freedom -- can be held to over-ride any contracts and agreements made man-to-man between universities and their academic staff. Many British university staff believe that their contracts protect them against unwarned dismissal for anything apart from "gross misconduct", but they are evidently wrong. Any staff who hold unpopular views can be dismissed instantly if they are deemed by their university to have aired them 'disgracefully', 'disruptively' or 'damagingly'; and 'damage' could be proved by the slightest decline in a university's applications or funding -- a result which had not occurred in the Brand case, though Edinburgh University proceeded to charge 'damage' anyhow.
*** During Brand's Appeal, the eminent counsel for the University was to be heard appealing to management practices at a firm called United Biscuits as a precedent for how Edinburgh University could be expected to treat its academic staff. Such an appeal may still surprise British academics who have their heads in the sand; but it was foreseen during parliamentary discussions of the Education Reform Bill in 1988. Lord Monkwell especially remarked (Hansard, House of Lords 496, iii/iv, p. 1435f.): "virtually every institute of education or academic learning will be turned into a business by this Bill….the Lord Chancellor described them as firms."
**** Renée Descartes, David Hume, Doctor Johnson and Charles Darwin are just three of the West's great thinkers of the past who had to do their work outside the universities of their day.
Summaries of how Chris Brand was censored
by Wiley,
sacked by Edinburgh University, and finally given £UK12,000 in return for
dropping a court action for unfair dismissal
Times Higher, 26 iv 1996, pp. 19 (Chris
Brand) and 48 (Olga Wojtas,
Scottish
Correspondent).
Guardian, 1 v 1996, Gary Younge. [Republished on the
World-wide Web.
Includes
pictures of Chris Brand and Charles Murray.]
Science, 3 v 1996, p. 644 [with photo],
Constance Holden.
Nature, 9 v 1996, in 'News
& Views' [hard copy has photo].
[Science, 16 viii 1996, p. 877, Constance
Holden. -- Wiley declines Jensen
book
too.]
Science, 14 vi 1996, p. 1593, Constance Holden.
Scotsman, 23 viii 1996, 'Police call off Brand
debate after protests from
anti-Nazis',
Robert McNeil.
Scotsman, 4 ix 1996, 'The science test' [with
photo], Judith Woods.
Daily Telegraph, 12 x 1996, ''Scientific racist'
to head team on ethics',
Auslan
Cramb [Scottish Correspondent].
Daily Telegraph, 16 x 1996, ''Racist' dropped
from ethics post',
Auslan
Cramb.
Big Issue (England), 28 x 1996, 'Academic
dubbed 'racist' speaks out --
Dr
Chris Brand claims he has been hounded by fellow academics
following
the withdrawal of his controversial book' [with photo],
David
Milne.
Scotsman, 4 xi 1996, 'University a place for
ideas to be debated',
correspondence
from Sir Stewart Sutherland.
Leeds Metropolitan University Internet Site
(http://www.lmu.ac.uk/lss/ls/infosvce/lib/max/cstu30a.htm),
c. xi
1996 ff., Martin Cloonan (Dept. Politics, Univ. York),
'ACADEMIC FREEDOM VERSUS ANTI-RACISM: BRANDED.'
Guardian (London), 14 xi 1996, p. 16, 'Brand
label', Udo Schuklenk.
Science, 22 xi 1996, p. 1307, Constance Holden.
National Review (USA), i 1997, 'IQ and
PC', Kevin Lamb.
Cherwell [Oxford University student newspaper],
i 1997, Editorial.
Galton Institute Newsletter, iii 1997, 'Try to
publish, and be damned',
John
Timpson
Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe (Washington
: Scott-Townsend
[Fax
(202) 371 1523] ISBN 1-878-465-23-6), 1997, Roger Pearson,
with an
Introduction by Hans Eysenck.
Independent (London), 18 viii 1997, 'Don't
mention the P word', Glen Newey.
Science, 22 viii 1997, 'Controversial academic
gets the axe',
Constance
Holden.
Living Marxism, ix 1997, 'Free speech branded',
Jenny Bristow.
Finanstidningen (Sweden), xii 1997, 'En
måttbeställd syndabock',
Bengt
Olsson.
[English translation in William McDougall
NewsLetter, 23 xii 1997.]
Index on Censorship, No. 399, 1997, 'A race
apart', Marek Kohn. (Also at
<http://www.indexoncensorship.org/399/kohn.html>.
See McDougall
NewsLetter 25 v '99.)
Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship
Newsletter (Canada, ISSN
1203-3197), ii 1998, pp. 1-2, 'NAS joins SAFS on the Brand case.'
Scotsman, 5 ii 1998, 'University
urged to uphold appeal',
correspondence
from Emeritus Professor Richard Lynn et al.
Scotsman, 25 iii 1998, 'Brand loses job fight
over views on child sex',
Alastair
Dalton.
Liberty (USA), 2, 4, 31-35, iii 1998,
'The new inquisitors -- enemies of evolutionary
science',
J. Philippe Rushton. (Also at: http://www.eugenics.net/papers/nolib.html.)
Times Higher Educational Supplement, 10 iv 1998, 'Key
factors in the fall of
a
'scientific racist.''
Times, 29 x 1999, p. 2, 'Sacked lecturer wins
£UK12,000', John O'Leary
(Education
Editor).
Evening News [Edinburgh],
12 xi 1999, 'The Brand plays on', David McIntosh.
For full coverage of press reporting in 1996, go to: Press concerning the affair of The g Factor
For a full expert consideration of whether Edinburgh University violated
basic principles of academic freedom in firing Brand, see the article by
Professor John Furedy (University of Toronto), 'Reflections on the Duehring*
and Brand Cases: Political Correctness and the Current Abandonment of Academic
Autonomy to the Culture of Comfort.' The article was first presented to a
symposium in the University of Maastricht in 1997, is due for publication in a
volume edited by J. Backhaus, and is published on the Internet at http://psych.utoronto.ca/~furedy/duhr5.
* Duehring was a nineteenth-century
German academic who believed in Aryan superiority and was effectively
sympathetic to genocide. His views thus differed from those of Brand. So did
his fate: he kept his job.
Chris Brand said that there are deep-seated racial differences in average levels of mental ability (IQ).
What are the latest scholarly verdicts?
"In 1995, the American Psychological Association set up a Task Force
under the chairmanship of Ulrich Neisser to report on the current state of
knowledge on intelligence. On the issue of a possible genetic basis to race
differences in intelligence, the Task Force concluded that "There is not
much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support
the genetic hypothesis" (Neisser et al., 1996). The authors of the report
do not say what they mean by "direct evidence", but it is difficult
to see what evidence could be more direct than the world-wide consistency of
race differences in intelligence, the negative results of [Weinberg et al.'s]
transracial adoption study and the well-documented existence of race
differences in brain size. None of these were mentioned in the Task Force
report. If the authors of the report had taken a closer look at the evidence
they could not have failed to reach the conclusion that the case for some genetic
basis for race differences in intelligence can no longer be disputed."
R.LYNN,
1997, 'Geographical variation in intelligence.' In H. Nyborg, The Scientific
Study of Human Nature: Tribute to Hans J. Eysenck at Eighty. Oxford :
Pergamon / Elsevier.
"After carefully reading the book, I charge Gould with several counts of
scholarly malfeasance. ....The second edition of The Mismeasure of Man
does not measure up to Gould's own standard of "honest assessment and best
judgment of evidence for empirical truth.""
J.
P. RUSHTON, 1997,'Race, intelligence and the brain: the errors and
omissions of the 'revised' edition of S. J. Gould's The Mismeasure of Man
(1996). Personality & Individual Differences 23, 1, 169-180.
"The topic of race and genes is like the topic of sex in Victorian
England. The intellectual elites are horrified if anyone talks about it, but
behind the scenes they are fascinated. I will say it more baldly than Dick
[Herrnstein] and I did in [The Bell Curve]: In their heart of hearts,
intellectual elites, especially liberal ones, have two nasty secrets regarding
IQ. First, they really believe that IQ is the be-all and end-all of human
excellence and that someone with a low IQ is inferior. Second, they are already
sure that the black-white IQ difference is predominantly genetic and that this
is a calamity -- such a calamity indeed that it must not be spoken about, even
to oneself. To raise these issues holds a mirror up to the elites' most
desperately denied inner thoughts. The result is the kind of reaction we saw to
Lino Graglia [a University of Texas professor who had said that
Mexican-American culture was "not academically competitive" -- Black
leader Jesse Jackson called for him to be made a "social pariah"].
But when people say one thing and believe another, as intellectual elites have
been doing about race, sooner or later the cognitive dissonance must be
resolves. It usually happens with a bang."
Charles
MURRAY, 1997, talking to Dan Seligman, National Review [USA],
8 xii.
Ten Arguments for Race Realism
http://lrainc.com/swtaboo/late/cb_camb.html
Chris BRAND, 1997, address to Cambridge University
students.at Gonville & Caius College, in debate with Darcus Howe.
"I recently gave a talk on "IQ and race since The Bell Curve
-- what's new?" One of the topics I addressed was Lane's articles and
what has been learned since TBC on sub-Saharan IQ. I said: "Since
the 1994 publication of TBC, we have six studies that were not
considered in the book. These include studies conducted by both white and black
psychologists and cover the following countries: South Africa, Zimbabwe,
Ethiopian immigrants to Israel, Ghana, Kenya, and Tanzania. The IQ scores were
as follows (compared to 100 for whites): 72, 70, 69, 60, 74, and 69."
Phil Rushton visited Africa last fall and
recently reported on two studies (yet unpublished*), one on high school
students and the other on university students, that generally seem to fit the
above standard. Can there be any studies that indicate sub-Saharan black mean
IQ is on a par with any white or Asian population anywhere in the world? Surely
if any such evidence existed it would have been presented in banner headlines."
Louis ANDREWS <http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo>,
1999, to Human Biodiversity E-Mail Group, 30 v.
* Phil Rushton told the McDougall NewsLetter (16 ii '99): "I gave Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices to 300 African and White first-year university students. The African students scored at the 14th percentile -- which is equivalent to an IQ of 84. Assuming these students are {like White college students today} one standard deviation above their own population mean, my study corroborates previous findings of IQ = 70 for the general African population (e.g. as reviewed in The Bell Curve, see especially the Afterword to the paperback edition).
Chris Brand said the evidence was that
noncoercive child-adult sex contacts involving children over Mental Age 12
typically did little demonstrable harm.
Note: The first defence of
paederasty was offered by the English philosopher, jurist, political theorist Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832, beginning his
studies at The Queen's College, Oxford) in about 1785 (in the very same room which Brand had
when he too lived in the college in 1965). Bentham wrote of its entire
normality in Greece: "Some few appear to have had no appetite for boys, as is the case for
instance with Ovid, who takes express notice of it and gives a reason for
it. ….[We might] admit the
propriety of applying punishment, and that to any amount, to any offence for
instance which the government should find a pleasure in comprising under
the name of heresy. I see not, I must confess, how a Protestant, or any person
who should be for looking upon this ground as a sufficient ground for burning
paederasts, could with consistency condemn the Spaniards for burning Moors or
the Portuguese for burning Jews: for no paederast can be more odious to a
person of unpolluted taste than a Moor is to a Spaniard or a Jew to an orthodox
Portuguese. " See http://www.columbia.edu/cu/libraries/events/sw25/bentham/index.html
or Journal of Homosexuality, v.3:4(1978), p.389-405; continued in
v.4:1(1978). The classical Grecian arrangement was nicely summarized as
follows: " the ancient Greeks, who tolerated bearded men who buggered
pubescent boys yet executed bearded men who did it with each other" (Ross
CLARK, 2002, 'Kangaroo courting', Spectator 30
xi).
Before the 1990's, the most
substantial study was:
Baurmann, M.C. Sexuality, Violence, and Psychological
After-Effects: A Longitudinal Study of Cases of Sexual Assault Which Were
Reported To The Police. Wiesbaden: Bundeskriminalamt, Germany, 1988.
This 791-page longitudinal study covered all reported victims of sexual
offenses against minors in the German State of Lower Saxony from 1969-1972 and
gave ephebophilia with boys a clean bill of health. There was a six- to
ten-year follow-up and the study was under the direction of the German Ministry
of Justice. The total sample was 8,058, including over 800 boys under age 14.
The study's ten-page English summary states: "In the present study, about
half of the victims of indecent assault (48.2%) showed no [physical or
psychological] injury at all, about 18% a lower index and about 34% a higher or
very high index of injury. The injured victims were all female."
Baurmann's study was summarized in E. Barrie, 1992, 'Speak of the wolf - and see his tail.' New Statesman
and Society, 21 viii, pp. 22-23.
From London's famous Maudsley Hospital, psychologists Glenn Wilson and David Cox came to the conclusion in 1983 that non-violent paedophilia was largely harmless – unless perhaps a lot of fuss was made to enforce children to condemn the molester.
What is the latest research and
academic comment?
1.
BRUCE RIND et al.
Journal
of Sex Research 34, 3, 237-255 (1997), 'A meta-analytical review of
findings from national samples on psychological correlates of child sexual
abuse', Bruce Rind (Department of Psychology, Temple University) &
Philip Tromovitch (Graduate School of Education, University of
Pennsylvania).
Archives of Sexual Behavior 26, 2,
105-141 (1997), 'Psychological correlates of male child and adolescent sexual
experiences with adults: a review of the non-clinical literature', Robert
Bauserman (Department of Psychology, University of Michigan) and Bruce
Rind.
Psychological
Bulletin (1998) "We
found that Child Sex Abuse was confounded with family environment, and that
family environment better accounted for differences in adjustment than CSA did
by a factor of almost 10. We also found that self-reported reactions to the CSA
and self-reports of harm from the CSA were highly variable, rather than always
being negative. For example, 37% of boys reacted positively, 29% neutrally, and
33% negatively."
http://www.just-well.dk/mediaclash.htm
"Unfortunately,
researchers almost never analyze outcome data as a function of consent. The
first and only study that we are aware of that has cleanly done this was
published earlier this year {1999} in the British Medical Journal.
Coxell and his colleagues, all abuse researchers, examined a nonclinical sample
of nearly 2,500 men in Great Britain, recruited from general medical practices.
They were interested in psychological correlates of non-consenting sexual
experiences, but also inquired about sexual things the men had done prior to
age 16 with someone at least 5 years older that they had wanted to do, so as
not to miss these "abusive" experiences. Throughout their paper they
distinguished repeatedly between consensual sex and non-consensual sex their
terms. They found that 5.3% of the men had had non-consenting sex prior to age
16 (with peers or persons significantly older), but that 7.7% had had
consensual sex prior to age 16 with persons significantly older. We examined
the findings reported for their key dependent measure, which was whether the
men had reported a psychological problem of at least two weeks duration
sometime in their life. We compared their results for three groups of men on
this measure: those with no CSA prior to age 16, those with consensual CSA, and
those with non-consenting CSA. The results were that the consenting group had
no more problems than the control group, with a very small effect size (r =
.02). However, the non-consenting group had significantly more problems than
either of these groups, with an effect size of r = .10 when compared to the
control group and a somewhat larger effect size when compared to the consenting
group (r = .15). These results, obtained by abuse researchers using a huge
nonclinical sample where consent served as an explicit key moderating variable,
provide very strong support for the utility of the simple consent
construct."
[For Internet
access to Bruce Rind's work, go to http://www.literatus.net/essay/Paedophilia.html.
-- This vituperatively critical website also exemplifies the kind of
intolerance and ignorance with which researchers of paedophilia have to cope.
Paedohysterics specially like to ensure a thorough confusion between
paedophilia and the monstrosities of paedosadism. The work and comments of Rind
and others can also be see at a US website sympathetic to 'man-boy love', http://www.ibld.net/.]
Notoriously, estimating cause
and effect is difficult in psychology -- especially as in the study of
child sexual abuse where 'victims' may have been unhappy children who sought
affection and encouraged adults to make sexual advances to them. Moreover, a
significant percentage of male adults report positive benefits from
'early, unwanted sexual contacts with adults.' (Girls' contacts more often
pre-date age 12 and involve advances that are incestuous -- by parents,
siblings, step-parents or step-siblings -- or coercive.) For Rind &
Tromovitch's summary of their review of seven representative non-clinical
samples, see William McDougall NewsLetter 21 iv '98.
Rind & Tromovitch find just one study directly
relevant to the question of making any generalization about causation, as follows.
"To address the issue of whether child sex abuse (CSA) was the result or cause of negative social factors, Ageton (1988, in A. W. Burgess, Rape and Sexual Assault II, pp. 221-243, New York : Garland) analyzed [her] longitudinal data prospectively. She investigated whether any social factors measured in earlier years of the study were predictive of CSA that occurred in later years of the study and found that a number of factors were predictive. We computed effect sizes for the significant predictors, averaged them over the two years reported for each predictor, and obtained the following: family normlessness r=.18, school normlessness r=.15, peer support for delinquent behavior r=.22, exposure to delinquent peers r=.25, and attitude towards deviance r=.22. These results, with effect sizes of small to medium magnitude, imply that negative social factors predispose children and adolescents to CSA, rather than the reverse. These results are consistent with the possibility that negative social factors lead to poorer adjustment and to CSA, and that the relation between CSA and adjustment in the general population {itself around r=.20 as estimated by R&T} is either spurious or of lower magnitude than we estimated."
It may be R&T's review which Joan Acocella had in mind when she wrote in
the New Yorker ('The politics of hysteria', 6 iv 1998, pp.
64-79): "Many studies have found that people
reporting child sex abuse show higher levels of personal disturbance, but when
subjects are matched with controls on family pathology, the two groups'
psychopathology rates turn out to be equal."
What about Brand's proposition that more intelligent children are more
able to cope with and enjoy sexual relationships in early adolescence?
Bauserman & Rind say this: "In a recent meta-analysis, Jumper (1995, Child
Abuse and Neglect 19) found that studies based on student samples
consistently reported smaller effect sizes of [self-reported] abuse on
psychological symptoms than did studies based on clinical sources." -- And
this relatively invulnerability of the students occurred despite most of the
studies in Jumper's meta-analysis involving subjects who were primarily or
exclusively female.
In 1999, Rind et al.
addressed the question of whether young adolescents were capable of giving
consent.
"It is….informative to review what the American
Psychological Association has had to say in the past about adolescents' ability
to provide informed consent in a different context [than that of paedophilia].
In an October, 1989 amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, the APA argued,
based on a review of the developmental literature, that pregnant girls do not
need parental consent to obtain abortions, because they are capable, in an informed
consent sense, to decide for themselves. They wrote:
Psychological theory and research about cognitive, social and moral
development strongly
supports the conclusion that most adolescents are competent to make
informed decisions
about important life situations. . . . In fact, by middle adolescence
(age 14-15) young people
develop abilities similar to adults in reasoning about moral dilemmas,
understanding social rules
and
laws, and reasoning about interpersonal relationships and interpersonal
problems. . . . By
middle adolescence most young people develop an adult-like identity and
understanding of self.
. . . Thus, by age 14 most adolescents have developed adult-like
intellectual and social
capacities including specific abilities outlined in the law as necessary
for understanding treatment
alternatives, considering risks and benefits, and giving legally
competent consent. . . . [Additionally,]
there are some 11-to-13-year-olds who possess adult-like capabilities in
these areas.
Bauserman & Rind also offer a summary of the toleration of sexual contacts between young adolescents and adults in other times and places.
"In ancient Greece, sexual relations between men and adolescent boys from about 12 to 17 were widely accepted and were seen as facilitating the boys' educational development (Cantarella, 1992). Up until the mid-19th century, sexual relations between men and boys were also accepted and widely practised in pre-modern Japan (Saikaku, 1990; Watanabe & Iwata, 1989). The samurai warriors engaged in sexual relations with boys in a way that paralleled the form practised by the ancient Greeks in terms of function and ages of the boys involved (Schalow, 1989). In less structured forms, sexual relations between men and boys were common and widely practised in numerous Islamic societies in Africa and the Middle East (Burton, 1935), and were an acceptable alternative to heterosexual relations during many periods of dynastic China (Hinsch, 1990)."
A sustained consideration of paedophilia in Ancient Greece is provided in: K. J. Dover, 1978, Greek Homosexuality, Harvard University Press (reprinted 1989). A website summarizing intergenerational man-boy love in Ancient Greece is http://www.androphile.org/Map/Greece/greece.htm where it is observed:
The youths who attracted men's attentions ranged in age from adolescence to early manhood, as can be seen from the images that have come down to us on Greek pottery or sculpture. Relationships with overly young boys were frowned upon then as they are now (though some Greek 'beloved youths' would have fallen below the age of consent in many modern countries), one mark of a beloved ripe for a man's attentions being the ability to "think for himself".
Relations were not supposed to be sodomitic. Instead, intercrural sex was practised – the lover positioning his penis between the thighs of the younger beloved.
In Ancient Greece, it was presumed that a boy would become a lad [Gk pais] (or youth) with puberty, at around 15 – and thus be a legitimate paedophilic companion for an older male until full manhood was attained at 27. (The Times (30 vii 2002, Times2, 'Not dead yet') gave an interesting quiz about Greek arrangments: "An Ancient Greek lived one fourth of his life as a boy, one fifth as a youth, one third as a man and spent the last 13 years of his life as an elderly gentleman. How old was he when he died." Times readers agreed the answer was 60.) In industrialized countries, conventional modern wisdom is that male puberty occurs around an average of 13.75 years, and female puberty at around 12.5 years; but recent evidence shows a further decline. In today's Texas the age of female puberty is now typically between 8 and 13 (with Black children maturing earlier in that range). In Japan, people can legally have sex at age 13, and in Spain they can legally have sex at age 12 (http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm).
The idea that paedophile (or at least 'ephebophile' -- i.e., 'with adolescents') sexual encounters are generally and demonstrably harmful is a myth of the latter-day 'child abuse' industry. Paedohysteria provides a bolt-hole for the last crazed social-environmentalists who have seen their theories of human nature falsified wherever they have been seriously tested.
2. J.
PAUL FEDOROFF
Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 6, 4, p. 263 (14), 'Myths and misconceptions about sex offenders. J. Paul Fedoroff & Beverley Moran. (This paper is based on Dr. Fedoroff's Academic Lecture to the Canadian Sex Research Forum meeting, Toronto, September, 1997.) Abstract: Victims of sex crimes are becoming increasingly vocal and society is responding with corrective legislative measures. The scientific community must not shirk its responsibility to give evidence especially when examining a potentially explosive, controversial issue such as sex crime. Many common myths and misconceptions about sex offenders are examined from roots in child abuse to abnormal testosterone levels. The paper critically evaluates and challenges nine prevalent, but questionable, public perceptions about the nature of sex offenders. These popular views suggest that sex offenders are all socially deprived men; sex offenders are the result of childhood abuse; sex offenders shouldn't masturbate; sex offenders have too much testosterone; sex offenders can't be cured; sex offenders always lie to stay out of treatment; sex offenders are sex maniacs; public notification of sex offender release protects the community; sex offenders are all the same. Studies which call these views into question are resented as are suggestions for appropriate treatment and future research.
3.
CAMILLE PAGLIA; GLEN NEWEY; MATTHEW PARRIS; CHRIS BRAND; and other UK opponents
of paedohysteria.
Paedophilia Corner
In 1996, Brand urged clemency for a 73-year-old
Nobel Prize Winner charged with 'paedophilia' in Maryland. The courts did
indeed show clemency; but Edinburgh University used Brand's e-mailed message --
given to the Scottish tabloids by another E. U. member -- as the pretext for
sacking him.
In her Vamps and Tramps, Camille Paglia wrote
(1994, New York: Random House [Vintage], p. 88): "Public hysteria has made
objective discussion of this subject very difficult. I was nearly lynched by a
furious audience on a television talk show in 1992, when the host asked me
about my defense of man-boy love in Sexual Personae. I have no erotic interest
in children, but I protest the thought-blocking and context-blind value
judgements inherent in automatically referring to every adult-juvenile physical
encounter as 'abuse,' 'molestation' or 'assault.' There are certainly atrocious
incidents of genuine rape, which we must condemn. But in some cases the contact
is actually initiated by the youth; in others the relationship may be a
positive one, but of course one never hears about it, since the affair doesn't
end up in court."
For philosopher Glen Newey's 1997 send-up in the Independent
[London] of Edinburgh University's sacking of Chris Brand for his one page of
e-mail on 'paedophilia', see:
http://www.paranoia.com/~theslurp/news/news0007.html.
For Times columnist Matthew Parris' warning (Sunday
Times, April 1998) against "hysteria" about paedophilia, see http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/98/04/10/timopnope01003.html?2333698.
Parris writes: "….on any reckoning of the myriad ways adults in modern
Britain hurt children and children hurt each other, paedophilia ranks right
down the scale -- way behind neglect, bullying, indifference, divorce, cruelty,
bad parenting and bad example. ….I believe that the wave of public anxiety
about paedophilia now sweeping over us is doing incalculably more harm than the
paedophilia itself. "
For Brand's own response (June, 1998) to commonly heard
sentiments about paedophilia, see his contribution intended for BBC's 'Talking Point' discussion. For Brand's
correspondence with the Scotsman newspaper in Edinburgh, see William
McDougall NewsLetters Winter 1998-9 and Summer 1999. For more UK opposition to paedohysteria,
see TgF
Newsletters (e.g. 'Badge of Honour' articles).
In 2000, the top lady
columnist of the Times [London], Libby Purves, wrote centrefold article,
'Child Abuse Makes a Mockery of Justice', expressing anxiety that too many
innocent men are being jailed for minor or nonexistent offences of paedophilia
(November 28). Purves poured scorn on the growing tendency to allow sheer
volume of untried allegations to count as evidence of a man's guilt, and for
criminal prosecutions to occur in which witnesses stand to win substantial
'compensation' if they help secure a conviction. She concluded her article by
calling for attention to her concerns lest Britain be "perpetrating the
worst witch-hunt in centuries."
4. Psychological Bulletin, June
1998
A review by Bruce Rind and others (cf. 1., above) of 59 studies found rather little evidence of harm from adult-child sex contacts. When it was eventually noticed, in 1999, the review was denounced by some US Congressmen known for their preferences for castrating or executing paedophiles, and by a well-known US talk show hostess, 'Doctor' Laura Schlessinger. The American Psychological Association then tried to distance itself from the study and announced that, in future, all research papers would be subject to moral and political as well as scientific reviewing. However, a sympathetic account of the review, together with gentle ridicule of US reaction, was given to the German public in Der Spiegel (2 viii '99, 'Schrille Fanfare -- Drei Psychologen behaupten, die psychischen Folgen sexuellen Missbrauchs würden weit überschätzt. Der US-Kongress verdammte ihre Forschungsarbeit.') For more, see William McDougall NewsLetters 20 iv '99, 22 vi '99, 27 vii '99, and 5 x '99[includes an English translation of Der Spiegel's article].
5. Sexuality & Culture, 4(2), 67-81 (2000) 'Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman: Politically Incorrect - Scientifically Correct' By Thomas D. Oellerich, School of Social Work, Ohio University, 148 Morton Hall, Athens, OH 45701 (oelleric@oak.cats.ohiou.edu)
This review of reviews shows there is impressive scientific evidence that paedophilia (as distinct from paedosadism) does little or no harm and that the 'recovered memory' antics of therapists are self-serving and do actually harm patients.
6. Nuance (No. 2, December 2000)
'Sexual abuse counselling: what is the rationale?'
By Tannis M Laidlaw, Felicity A Goodyear-Smith and Desmond Gorman (all in Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland).
AUTHORS' ABSTRACT: "The causes of adult psychological problems are multi-factorial, for instance current stress in combination with genetic vulnerability coupled with historical problems in the family of origin subsumed under the stress-vulnerability model of mental illness. In this paper, we argue three points based upon scientific evidence: (1) maltreatment as a child, including physical and emotional abuse and neglect, and to a lesser extent sexual abuse, appears to contribute to adult psychological problems; (2) concentrating on childhood sexual abuse in therapy is not supported by the scientific literature whereas concentrating on the treatment of presenting symptoms is well supported; and (3) evidence-based therapy is predicated upon short-term, reality-based, therapeutic interventions, based upon cognitive, behavioural, or interpersonal theories. Furthermore, there is little evidence to support the hypothesis that emphasising childhood trauma over current problems in therapy is beneficial; it does not fit into the stress-vulnerability model and conceivably such an approach may be detrimental."
7. PAOLUCCI et al.
(2001)
The 2001 Journal of Psychology (135, 1, 17-36) carries a 'Meta-analysis of published research on the effects of child sexual abuse (CSA)' which reviews 37 good-quality studies. These covered 9,230 people who claimed that in childhood they had experienced unwanted sexual contact from an adult in a position of relative power. The review has serious limitations: welcome contacts from ordinary adults were plainly excluded; advances from family members were very much included; clinical and legal samples were included, rather than using only representative population samples -- as in the work Bruce Rind and colleagues (e.g. 1997, J. Sex Research 34, above); the work of Rind et al. is not even mentioned; the review takes no account of stress caused to children by the post-CSA process of investigation and litigation; and published academic reports always over-represent studies finding 'significant' effects. Nevertheless, despite the Calgary authors Elizabeth Paolucci, Mark Genuis and Claudio Violato themselves being eager to claim substantial harm to come from CSA, only 14% of their victims showed more psychological distress (on objective tests) than is found in controls: 86% had no detectable long-term effects to show for their experience of CSA. More surprisingly (in view of previous research, e.g. Rind's), outcome was not affected by the victim's sex, class, age when abused, relationship to the perpetrator, the amount of contact experienced, or the type of contact (voyeuristic vs frottage vs penetration). The psychometric measures used were of 'post-traumatic stress disorder', depression, suicidal ideation, sexual promiscuity, victim-becoming-perpetrator, and academic failure. The authors show their size of effect to be about half the size of effect achieved on mortality rate of representative American physicians who experimentally took aspirin.
8. S. F. SMITH
(2000) / NSPCC / KENDALL-TACKET
(http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/ipceweb/Library/01apr21b_no_symptoms.htm)
'Spare the Children' by Søren Friis Smith (Information,
18.12.2000)
[...] As we know, this is a very difficult
task that requires a high degree of seriousness. The way that "Save the
Children" has chosen comments itself. On the main page there is a series
of references that are not documented. There is also a reference to a named
organization: "The National Society for the Protection of Children in
England (NSPCC)". To find out of "Save the Children" can get
support by NSPCC for its line of action (the presentation of a symptom list on
their website), I contacted NSPCC. Indeed, in the answer that I got from NSPCC
concerning the question of the presence of particular symptoms in sexually
abused children, the organization's attitude agrees with the conclusions of the
research that I mentioned in my first article (Kendall-Tacket, Williams,
Finkelhor: Impact of Sexual Abuse on Children: A Review and Synthesis of Recent
Empirical Studies, Psychological Bulletin 1993 (113); 1:164-180).
The conclusions, that
are quoted by NSPCC, tell that "no symptom characterized a majority of
sexually abused children" and "the results point to the fact that
there is no specific syndrome in children who have been sexually abused, and
there are no isolated traumatizing mechanisms either". Furthermore, NSPCC
states that the results of a more recent research carried out by the
organization did not center their attention on symptoms, but rather on young
people's personal experience with sexual abuse. "Save the Children"'s
reaction to the stated criticism emphasizes the fact that there is a big need
for a professional update of the work carried out by the organization on this
subject.
FOR SUMMARY
COVERAGE OF RECENT STUDIES OF THE HARMFULNESS
(OR MORE NORMALLY OTHERWISE)
OF PAEDOPHILIA
(AS DISTINCT FROM PAEDOSADISM),
GO TO http://www.crispian.demon.co.uk/INDEX.HTM.
FOR UPDATED CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS OF BABE-BAGGING AND MODEST
EPHEBOPHILIA, GO TO CHRIS
BRAND'S QUIZ PAGE.
EXTRAS
The UK's House of Lords ruled that no offence was committed when a 26-year-old man had sex with a 14-year-old girl who had given and maintained her consent (Daily Telegraph, 26 vii 2001, p. 1). The man claimed to have believed the girl was 16, and the girl agreed she had lied about her age. The five Law Lords adjudicating said that Parliament had failed to alter the law to adjust to changing social realities – presumably of earlier maturation. They pointed out that till 1929, English law allowed girls to marry at age 12.
For suggested distinctions between paedophilia, pederasty and paedosadism, see Times Higher 5 ii '99, 'Crimes against humanity', Professor David Canter (University of Liverpool); and McDougall NewsLetter 23 ii '99. According to Scottish Media Monitor: "Brand blamed the media for confusing paedophilia with serious violence against children, a point of view even backed by the homophobic Daily Mail columnist Lynda Lee Potter! She used her column to challenge the opinion that all paedophiles were the same, separating the 'park flasher' from the child rapist."
Britain's 'gay' community has been rather cowardly in the face of paedohysteria. (Doubtless it wanted to push through the lowering of the age of consent to 16 rather than become involved in any useless urging of compassion for paedophiles like Nobelist Gajdusek.) However, it did publish the volume edited by Joseph Geracia, Dares to Speak -- Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Boy-Love (Gay Men's Press, London, 1997).
For
other books on 'paedophilia -- the radical case', see http://202.231.192.151/ro/fresh/radcase/further.html
or write to Danish Pedophile Association, P.O.Box 843, 2400 Copenhagen.
For
paedophile support groups, contact:
1. NVSH, national association
JORis
(younger-older relationships),
Postbus 64, 2501 CD Den Haag.
2. Martijn (association for
acception of pedofilia),
Postbus 43548, 1009 NA Amsterdam
http://www.fpc.net/pages/martijn/
For a personal account and defence of paedophilia from Karachi by a learned gentleman who has come across the Brand Affair, see http://www.chowk.com/Gulberg/Hearth/spmahmed_aug3199.html.
For
consideration of the problems of recidivism by child molesters, apparently
requiring lifelong detention in chains and straitjackets unless humanity and
good sense prevail, see
http://www.sgc.ca/epub/corre199202/e199202.htm.
For a set of frank interchanges between paedophiles (of various types) and their critics, see http://books.dreambook.com/antiped/antiped.html.
For anti-paedohysterical articles (and some classic paedophile erotica) see http://www.fpc.net/boylinks/written.html.
Recent
efforts from academia:
E.Disch: Sex in the
consulting room... Amer.J.Orthopsychiatry, 2001, 71, 204-217
B. Hyman: Resilience among women survivors of child sex abuse. Affilia,
2001,16,198-219 (Write Arizona State U, college Human Serv., 4701 Thunderbird
Rd, pob 37100, Phoenix, Az 05069)
For a psychologist/psychoanalyst who blames all human
problems on 'abuse' and thinks all human children were massively sexually
abused, mainly by parents and siblings, until recently, see http://www.psychohistory.com/10_psychogenic.html.
Lloyd deMause's Childhood and History properly takes Freud's notion of repetition
compulsion seriously and claims that much aggressive and self-destructive
behaviour (which Freud subsumed under 'the death wish', thanatos)
results from attempts to relive and master infant traumatization. However: few
empirical tests seem possible since trauma are supposed to affect virtually
everyone; de Mause's theory does not account for the merciful historical
changes that he believes have taken place, nor does he note anything much to
show for them; his star named 'case', the Oklahoma bomber, Timothy McVeigh,
whose mother frequently indulged her own considerable sexual appetite with
other men, seems not so much to have 'abused' her son as to have deprived
him of much opportunity to excel in Oedipal jousting (possibly reflecting her
own dislike of her husband and unwillingness to invest in the boy); and none
would doubt that miserable events occur in the lives of children born to
parents who are themselves psychopathic, psychotic or -- as often in the worst
cases of abuse -- mentally subnormal, but such occurrences don't say anything
about the causation of later unhappiness in adult life. For more consideration
of the 'dissociative personalities' that concern Lloyd de Mause, see Quotes VI
in PERSONALITY,
BIOLOGY & SOCIETY. Lloyd de Mause's horror at infant abuse is
understandable and his theory is interesting; but he is severely short on
evidence, and his idea has no bearing on classical paedophilia -- which
involves near-pubescent children and which empirical research does not
find to be associated with demonstrable harm (whether 'multiple personality' or
other). Like many 'trauma' theories of adult psychopathology and extremism, de
Mause's is eventually not content to rely on even the suggested horrors of
infancy: "Whether you are a New Guinea cannibal, an ancient Greek mother,
a Balinese trancer or a Nazi antisemite, you first form an alter in your head
of a devouring, bloodthirsty demon, using traumatic memories going all the way
back to the poisonous placenta….The [adult] fears reach all the way back into
the womb, when growth could produce deprivation of oxygen and insufficient
blood from the placenta."
For a complete rejection
of the research case that paedophilia is often harmless, rejecting the research
of Kinsey and Rind as "junk science", see Judith Reisman at http://www.ocof.org/expose/implications_of_kinsey_research_.htm.
For campaigns against paedophilia, child pornography, paedophilic
websites etc., go to http://www.capuk.freeserve.co.uk/index.htm.
The Institute for
Psychological Therapies is a
private practice of clinical psychology. IPT's primary work is related to
allegations of child sexual abuse, but also deals with cases of sexual
harassment, claims of recovered memories of childhood abuse, accusations of
rape, allegations of improper sexual contact by professionals, forced and
coerced confessions, false confessions, personal injury claims, insanity and
diminished capacity, murder, mitigating factors in sentencing, custody, and
medical and psychological malpractice.
The website BoyLinks Scholarly
Resources
gives access to a wide range of articles and references that are sympathetic to
paedophilia.
The most heroic
'paedophile' of all time was surely Captain Laurence Oates, who committed
suicide at 32 by 'going outside for some time' during Britain's doomed
Antarctic expedition of 1912. It now turns out (in a new biography – reported Guardian
14 x 02) that, when Oates was around 20, he had an
affair with a Scottish girl of under twelve years old, resulting (unknown to
him) in the birth of a daughter (born secretly in Ireland). Oates' great-great
granddaughter today says she feels no animosity and that she and her brother are
proud of their connection to the great man.
"….IF THERE HAD BEEN A CHILDLINE IN ANCIENT GREECE,
THERE WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN SOCRATES AND PLATO."
-- James Ladyman, 2002, Times Literary Supplement.
Reviewing Anthony O'Hear, Philosophy in the New Century. London :
Continuum.
For updated coverage of 'Babe Baggers' (men having female
partners markedly younger than themselves), see http://www.crispian.demon.co.uk/index4.htm.
And what about 'feminism'? -- Edinburgh University's 'witnesses' against Chris Brand testified principally to how their feminazie sensitivities had been offended by his 'remarks' (even at parties given by him for students in his own home back in the 1980's). It cannot be overemphasized that Edinburgh University's persecution of Brand could never have happened without the support of 'feminists' -- not least among the staff of Edinburgh University Psychology Department.
For discussion of the rise of feminazism, see:
'Politically Correct -- Campus Follies'
This includes articles from the Wall Street Journal illustrating the
rise and rise of feminist authoritarianism in US universities -- including
successful suppression of Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia that went
unimpeded by knock-kneed academic managers.
Upstream Website
This surveys heterodox figures who have opposed feminism (and often suffered for
doing so) and gives up-to-the-minute discussion of all forms of Political
Correctness -- e.g. in its Internet magazine, PINC
[= POLITICALLY INCORRECT].
Antifeminism
This lively site gives ongoing updates on feminazism as practised today in the
West.
For more detail on the history, see any of the following:
Backround
of persecution of IQ researchers
http://www.eugenics.net/papers/Inq4.html
How
Brand hit trouble in Edinburgh
http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/Brand/
http://www.webcom.com/zurcher/thegfactor/index.html
http://www.webcom.com/zurcher/thegfactor/gpress.html
For third-party accounts from
students, academics and journalists,
see http://crispian.demon.co.uk/index.htm.
How Edinburgh University hit trouble after it sacked
Brand:
http://crispian.demon.co.uk/index.htm (go to 'Take a course at Edinburgh Looneyversity!')
Latest
news on the politics and psychology of race and IQ, and on Brand
http://www.crispian.demon.co.uk/McDNLmain.htm
For Chris Brand on personality psychology, see:
PERSONALITY, BIOLOGY
& SOCIETY --
a guide and resource manual covering the main topics and arguments in
differential psychology (the study of personality and individual differences).
Quotations from academic, literary and journalistic sources illustrate points
of view about:
mind & body, consciousness, hemispherology, nature & nurture, dimensions of personality, identity
and the self, intelligence, psychometrics, personality
testing, psychopathology, multiple personality, crime, creativity,
psychoanalysis, psycho-social
engineering, vocational guidance, group differences (age,
sex, class and race)
and political psychology. Special coverage is given to
sex and aggression; to the everyday psychological concepts of heart, mind,
soul, spirit, will and conscience; and to the merits of individualizing
therapy and education
For Chris Brand on social and political topics, see:
William McDougall NewsLetter (August 1997 – May 2000)
For 'Fourth Way' NeoLibeREALISM : realism, individualism, liberty, contract and community-choice. Yes: kids should choose their classes; adults should choose the type of marriage they want; democratic countries should have cantons that genuinely differ; and the one million Black men and one thousand 'paedophiles' who make up a half of America's prison Gulag should be offered generously assisted transportation to any countries that would like to have them. NOT COERCION, NOT 'COMPASSION', JUST CHOICE!
CLICK HERE FOR PROOFREADING AND TRANSLATION SERVICES
Keywords: Edinburgh University, Wiley & Sons, Chris Brand, political correctness, censorship, differential psychology, race, IQ, paedophilia.
First published on the Web: 1998
Last modified: 4 xii 2002