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 Curveneo-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.

  1. Brand had refused to grovel to Edinburgh University's Principal. In April, 1996, Sir Stewart Sutherland had told the press that he found Brand's apparent views on IQ "false and personally obnoxious." The Principal's comments were given wide publicity (e.g. in the London broadsheet press) and constituted an amazing attack by an academic employer. After the Principal refused to withdraw his unprecedented condemnation, and refused to read Brand's book or have it read for him by E.U. experts, Brand began criticizing the University on the Internet in The 'g' Factor NewsLetter. (This newsletter was issued almost daily. It gave news of, and support to people attacked for political incorrectness -- for mentioning enduring human individual and group differences. The newsletter castigated social-environmentalist ideas that people are easily conditioned, shaped or driven into psychopathology by others.) Brand's rights to speak and publish as an academic 'scientific racist' were defended in the New Statesman, 6 September, 1996.
  2. On 16 October, 1996, Brand e-mailed colleagues and supporters one page of comment which ridiculed the prosecution in the USA of a 73-year-old Nobel Laureate. The still-active researcher, Carleton Gajdusek, faced a possible 30-year jail term for non-violent paedophilic molestations in Maryland dating back to 1985. (Gajdusek's work on 'laughing brain rot' [kuru] in Papua New Guinea had helped crack bovine spongiform encephalopathy [BSE, or Mad Cow Disease]. Gajdusek had adopted some forty children from Papua New Guinea -- where growing boys commonly have paedophilic relationships with 'uncles' -- and educated them in the United States at his own expense. Brand said it was time for 'paedohysterics', like 'ignoracists', to do their homework and learn that paedophilia was not invariably harmful. Instead, however, 'paedohysteria' would continue to mount -- e.g. resulting in Hollywood refusing to distribute a new film of Lolita.)
  3. After the publication of a letter from the Edinburgh University Principal in The Scotsman (4 November 1996) denying that he condemned The g Factor, which he still said he had not read, Brand's enemies went ballistic -- for the Principal was plainly becoming too pally with Brand and the Anti-Nazi League had already been criticized in the New Statesman (as above). An E.U.-employed recipient of Brand's e-mail, probably the Chaplain to the University, showed the comment on Gajdusek and paedophilia to the Scottish press. (Edinburgh's 'AntiNazi League' and its well-wishers -- among whom the Chaplain had numbered himself by participating in demonstrations -- disliked the too-cosy relationship which they saw developing between Brand and Principal Sutherland; so they arranged a textbook 'trial by media.')
  4. Scandalised front-page comment immediately appeared in tabloid newspapers (8 November, 1996). One front-page banner headline was: FIRE BRAND (Daily Record, 9 November). Suspension from teaching and nine months of investigation by an E.U. Tribunal culminated, on 8 August 1997, in Brand being dismissed, after 27 years of service in the university, for his "gross misconduct."

      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