http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4785574.stm

So this academic at the University of Leeds has the view that black people have, on average, a lower IQ than white people. Many of his students think he's racist and want him sacked. However the University says he has not discriminated against any of his students. Who's in the right - Dr Ellis or the students who want him sacked?

I don't know too much about the science and statistics behind Dr Ellis's claim, but lets suppose that he's correct, and black people really do worse at iQ tests (on average - obviously there will be super-bright black people, just maybe fewer than the numbers of super-bright whites). Even if it's true, is it ok to stand up and say so? Isn't it a dangerous thing to do, given that some people will inevitably simplify his message to "blacks are thick"? Or are these students just behaving like PC Brownshirts, using strong-arm tactics to shut him up, rather than debating the issue properly?

Blimey, what a question! If he is correct, then surely he should be able to publish the results of his studies without fear of reprisal.

On the other hand, I know from my own work that statistics and data can be manipulated to say more or less anythign you want to, and two people, given the same data, can come up with very different conclusions.

You also have to consider contributory factors when looking at the achievement of any ethnic group, and unless he's studied every black person in the world and compared them with every white person, I'd not give his results too much creedance, and his sample data is cannot be truly representative.

I do know that in inner-city schools black african boys have been underperforming for many years, in comparison with other ethnic groups, but that's not an IQ issue, that's an educational one, as the targets by which their performance is measured is value added (i.e. it takes other factors into account rather than final performance).

I heard this guy being interviewd on the radio, and he sounded a bit fanatical to me.

It appears there's been trouble surrounding his view before. In 2000, the University stopped him going to the States to address some white supremist group.

" In his speech Dr Ellis's was intending to attack what he terms the anti-white "racial hysteria" which has gripped Britain since the murder of the black teenager and the publication of the Macpherson report on the botched police inquiry." (Guardian)

Apparently his views have also been published in a UK hard-right publication. You can see some of his comments here. (http://www.seanbryson.com/articles/rn_macpherson_report_stephen_lawrence_murder.html)

So while his research may not be racist, I would question his motivation for doing it, and as floopy says, wonder about how much the data has been manipulated.

The University may well be exposing themselves to accusations of racism if, say, black students were to claim they had been treated less favourably because of their colour or race.

I heard him on the radio this morning and he sounded a very sane, reasonable bloke. Not a nut at all. On the other hand, if he's off meeting racist groups then that puts a whole different complexion on what he's saying.

The thing is, if he's distorting the statistics then surely someone (or many people) will leap forwards to denounce him and show where he's wrong. But just possibly he's right - that black people do score worse at IQ tests. Now that's not the same as saying black people are thick - for starters there's different types of intelligence apart from just IQ. For another thing, people would have to know whether there was anything to do with upbringing and education that affected people's IQ scores (as opposed to it being a genetic thing).

But what if there is a genetic difference in intelligence between different racial groups, just as there's differences in average height, or hair colour, or whatever? Dare we address this, or will it get swept under the carpet?

Interesting point Fee about the University possibly being exposed to discrimination claims. Certainly it gives them a problem. But should they sack the man just because of the possibility of trouble? Is that just PC censorship again???

If a claim is made, then the burden of proof lies with the University.

Realistically, the only defence would be that they had done everything in their power to prevent an instance occurring.

The University, being a public body, will have a statutory general duty

"…in carrying out its functions…to have due regard to the need - (a) to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; and (b) to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups"

I dont think there's anything wrong with publishing research results using statistics and whilst it's hardly surprising that different ethnic groups have different characteristics and abilities, it seems clear to me that a blend works best.

Take the US where their big cities have been blending ethnic DNA for hundreds of years and appear quite successful, whereas their inbred backwaters have a somewhat 'Hicksville' reputation.

However, I read somewhere that Dr Ellis supports 'humane repatriation' for ethnic minorities, so I'd tend to be a little sceptical of his findings.

My main concern is the term "black" or "white" as an ethnic group.

There are many separate ethnic groups within the "white" group, white british, white latin american, white kosovan, just as there are many many ethnic groups within the "black" category - black caribbean, black nigerian, black somali etc.

Anyone who works in the fields of statistics would look at each group separately, and there would little or no reason to group all white or all black people together, as the constituent members are so diverse that culturally they have little or nothing in common - would a white british person consider themselves more allied to a white kosovan than to a black american simply because of skin colour?

So my problem with Dr Ellis is his all-encompassing use of the group 'black' which, in my opinion, would be the mindset of a racist rather than an analyst.

And just to address the third part of the title, I dont think this Government approves of free speech.

Dr Ellis would agree with you.


Maxim has just published a book on the origins of political correctness by Dr Frank Ellis a lecturer in Russian at Leeds University, England. Dr Ellis is speaking at the forum.
In the book he shows how PC had its origins in totalitarianism. The first use of the term can be traced to Russia in the early 1920s, when Lenin was trying to consolidate Communist Party control over the new Soviet state.
Today PC is heading back towards totalitarianism. It is a submission to the power of the State, and the State becomes supreme.
“Largely unchallenged, politically correct bureaucracies have appointed themselves as the moral and intellectual tribunals in our own secular societies,” says Dr Ellis.
The politically correct commissariat condemns us for being ‘judgemental’ by voicing criticism of their agenda, yet they reserve the right to pass judgement on us.
“Freedom of speech, which is a key foundation of Western liberal democracy is at stake,” says Dr Ellis.


Interesting idea I suppose, but I'm thinking more and more that Frank is a bit of an extremist.

That book is about political correctness and how totalitarian regimes attempt to control peoples thoughts and words.

Being a Russian expert I suppose he is qualified to comment on the state of commumism after 90 odd years.

Interesting food for thought when considered in conjunction with some of the current govenments policies.

Not sure what it's got to do with this thread though.:unsure:

Not sure what it's got to do with this thread though.

Really? You don't see the connection between this question:


Or are these students just behaving like PC Brownshirts, using strong-arm tactics to shut him up, rather than debating the issue properly?


and this statement?

“Freedom of speech, which is a key foundation of Western liberal democracy is at stake,” says Dr Ellis.

Ah, I see.

State sponsored thought control and jumped up students.

My mistake.......:wacko:

Oh look, whatever. Kill the thread on its **** if you must.

FFS, would it be better if I just ignored your posts?

However, I read somewhere that Dr Ellis supports 'humane repatriation' for ethnic minorities, so I'd tend to be a little sceptical of his findings.[/QUOTE]

Bloody hell.Bet he has a lovely collection of old 'Punch' cartoons and a white robe and mask in his wardrobe.
I don't see anything wrong in publishing his 'findings', even if it is just so they can be debunked.I certainly don't think he should be fired. (slapped..perhaps..:w00t:) Does anyone know if he has ever debated his ideas in public? With those who oppose him, or indeed support his views?

FFS, would it be better if I just ignored your posts?
Will you two just sleep together and get it over and done with :unsure:

My main concern is the term "black" or "white" as an ethnic group.

There are many separate ethnic groups within the "white" group, white british, white latin american, white kosovan, just as there are many many ethnic groups within the "black" category - black caribbean, black nigerian, black somali etc.

Anyone who works in the fields of statistics would look at each group separately, and there would little or no reason to group all white or all black people together, as the constituent members are so diverse that culturally they have little or nothing in common - would a white british person consider themselves more allied to a white kosovan than to a black american simply because of skin colour?

So my problem with Dr Ellis is his all-encompassing use of the group 'black' which, in my opinion, would be the mindset of a racist rather than an analyst.
That's a very good point Floopy. However presumably once upon a time the ancestors of caucasians, mongoloids and negroids must have developed in separated pools, so there are some characteristics that define those very wide groups (hair and skin type being obvious ones, but if them why not intelligence too?)

Perhaps another way of looking at it would be to suppose that certain sets of genes might be related to higher IQ. It might be that on average one ethnic group (eg "white" people) might have more of some kinds of genes than others (so even if, say, Albanians are rather thick other groups would outbalance them). To test the theory all that'd have to be done would be to decide how to apportion people into ethnic groups before doing the tests and statistics.

But I agree with you that there's no point in grouping people like this. It's of no practical benefit I can think of.

If a claim is made, then the burden of proof lies with the University.

Realistically, the only defence would be that they had done everything in their power to prevent an instance occurring.

The University, being a public body, will have a statutory general duty

"…in carrying out its functions…to have due regard to the need - (a) to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; and (b) to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups"

That's the legal niceties, but what if the Uni just decides to elbow him out because of the controversy around him. It must happen.

I dont think there's anything wrong with publishing research results using statistics and whilst it's hardly surprising that different ethnic groups have different characteristics and abilities, it seems clear to me that a blend works best.

Take the US where their big cities have been blending ethnic DNA for hundreds of years and appear quite successful, whereas their inbred backwaters have a somewhat 'Hicksville' reputation.
I'm not sure if that's true. Big cities have their share of low achievers. I wonder what you'd get if you compared inner-city London with some Cotswold village.

That's why I used the US Mik, as they obviously wiped out the indigenous population before they started cross breeding with each other.

As the US has the highest GDP per capita on the planet I think we can say they're quite successful.

That's the legal niceties, but what if the Uni just decides to elbow him out because of the controversy around him. It must happen.

Yep, if they don't, the argument could be that they had failed in their duty.

Ellis has been suspended pending disciplinary action..

University secretary Roger Gair said in a statement that details of the disciplinary process "must remain a private matter" between employer and employee. But he said three issues were being looked into.

In publicising his personal views on race and other matters, Dr Ellis had acted in breach of the university's equality and diversity policy, "and in a way that is wholly at odds with our values".
He had "recklessly jeopardised" the fulfilment of the university's obligations under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.
He had failed to comply with "reasonable requests" - for example, to apologise for the distress which his remarks on race and other matters have caused to many people, or to give an undertaking he would make no further public comments suggesting one racial group is inherently inferior (or superior) to another "unless there is no possibility whatsoever that anyone hearing or reading his comments might reasonably associate him with the University of Leeds". Mr Gair said the university was "clearly and publicly distancing itself" from his comments.

I wonder what the ratio is of:

people reading the research and drawing their conclusions

and

people reading the papers/listining to the radio and drawing their conclusions?

I don't understand what you mean.

I don't understand what you mean.

Take the emotive subject matter to one side firstly. How many of the reactions to this statement are based on the media story and how many are based on the research that the conclusion was drawn from?

ie most will be knee-jerk reactions based on the news story and not the research, however flawed it may or may not be.

I can only speak for me, but my opinions were based on Ellis's biased interpretation of the Bell-Curve theory, his apparent acceptance of correllations as cause, and his various pesentations and associations with extreme right-wing groups and publications.

The University's dilemma is also of interest. On the one hand, they have to "allow freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, put forward new ideas, controversial and unpopular opinions without placing staff in jeopardy of losing their jobs", while on the other, as a public body in the education sector, they have statutory obligations under the RRA 2000 to outlaw discrimination and actively promote good race relations.

Much depends on the use of 'within the law' in the first statement, and how this is interpreted.

Ellis's pending diciplinary enquiry seems to be based on his refusal to comply with his employer's request that he should not present his findings/interpretations/theories in any official capacity as a representative of the University.

Any sources quoted in this thread, by all contributors, are from the more respected end of the media spectrum, so while I now understand your point, I'm not sure of its relevance to the topic.