A new study reviews the findings and provides a framework
will link to this post in my next academic scandal roundup 👍
"There aren't any purported harms of race science that come close to the clear cases of lab leak (7M deaths) or easy access nuclear weapons (0 deaths so far!). The same is true with regards to the purported harms of research on transsexuals, homosexuals, the homeless and so on."
But in the minds of equalitarian leftists, inequality of outcome is a serious harm, hence their opposition to meritocratic admissions for universities instead of de facto race quotas via affirmative actions (AA) and their opposition to bind hiring too. If hereditarian explanations for educational and socioeconomic outcomes can be shown to be correct, the justifications for AA (systemic racism, etc.) will no longer hold, so results that support hereditarian explanations must be suppressed to maintain the status quo.
It's similar with the trans debate. How comfortable (and successful) would be left be in arguing for the rights of MtF transgenders to access female-only spaces if they acknowledged that many MtF transgenders have autogynephilia? The same goes if the left had to argue for "gender affirming care" for minors if more people knew about rapid onset gender dysphoria, which is anorexia for mentally ill teenage lesbians.
The best way for the left to win these arguments is to censor the other side. So that's what they do.
Recent publicly-proclaimed, ostensibly politically-motivated censorship came about more easily because of the existence since the mid-20th century of covert, personally-motivated censorship, particularly by anonymous reviewers desiring to keep their sub-sub-subdiscipline free from intrusion by an outsider with a new idea. Science as free inquiry has been an unattainable ideal since it transitioned from an amateur to a "professional" activity; human beings are simply too flawed to resist suppressing competitors. Researchers like Emil K. and Michael Woodley are the ultimate threat to the blank slate, egalitarian research program that has financially supported hundreds of academics in the social sciences. Censorship of non-consensus research is more economically, than ideologically, motivated. Whereas someone like me might have been censored through a single person's economic motivation, research like yours brings all the hornets out of the social science nest.
To combine the examples, academic race communists are terrified that research on racial differences will spread like a virus through the population and hit their affirmative action programs like a nuclear weapon.
And they're not wrong.
Not linked, but do you have any clues on the recurring low PISA scores of Iceland (inbreeding ? alcoholism ? low fertility of intelligent people - as shown per Kong's paper in 2017 ? Thanks.
They can't hide tge truth anymore, have you read Bronski review on Hanania's book?
"leftists are probably higher in academic talent" is an interesting notion. It's quite broad-brush so I will permit myself to be too.....Leftism correlates well with willful denial of observable reality. In my own - albeit layman's - definition of intelligence, this would be a sign of LACK of it. But perhaps however one COULD argue it this way: “A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.” (Saul Bellow)