From the New York Times news section, about Andrew Sullivan of the centre-left:
He’s one of the most influential journalists of the last three decades, but he’s shadowed by a 1994 magazine cover story that claimed to show a link between race and I.Q. …
He was a star in his 20s, when he ran The New Republic, so celebrated that he posed for Annie Leibovitz in a Gap ad in a white T-shirt and a memorably coy expression. He was a master of provocations there that included one that defined him, arguing long before it was part of mainstream political debate that same-sex couples should have the right to marry. But he also published a cover story, an excerpt from “The Bell Curve,” that claimed to show a link between race and I.Q., a decision that has increasingly consumed his legacy. …
Mr. Sullivan’s original sin … his decision to put on the cover of the Oct. 31, 1994, New Republic a package titled “Race and I.Q.” The package led with an excerpt from the book “The Bell Curve” by the political scientists Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein. …
Kryptonite to the left
So what does Mr. Sullivan believe about race? On his back porch looking over the bay, Mr. Sullivan said he was frustrated by the most extreme claims that biology has no connection to our lives. He believes, for instance, that Freudian theories that early childhood may push people toward homosexuality could have some merit, combined with genetics.
“Everything is environmental for the left except gays, where it’s totally genetic; and everything is genetic for the right, except for gays,” he said sarcastically.
I tried out my most charitable interpretation of his view on race and I.Q. (though I question the underpinnings of the whole intellectual project): that he is most frustrated by the notion that you can’t talk about the influence of biology and genetics on humanity. But that he’s not actually saying he thinks Black people as a group are less intelligent.
But, on average, black people are less intelligent. That’s perhaps the single most documented finding in the history of the social sciences. …
Seriously, it should be obvious by 8/31/2020 that excluding The Bell Curve from the Overton Window of ideas that you are allowed to discuss out loud without getting cancelled has turned out to be a massive disaster for the country. Today, you aren’t supposed to mention fundamental facts about the realities of life in the United States, such as that blacks average lower in intelligence and higher in crime, and that probably explains racial “inequity” better than vaporing about Systemic Racism.
Because nobody is permitted to be anybody if they point out the possibility that blacks might not be solely victims of whites, but might also have their own tendencies that have evolved over the last 70,000 years of relative continental isolation, the far left keeps winning public arguments.
Say we had public discourse in which on the question of why do blacks get hassled by the cops, the permissible views were:
The Left: White people are evil.
The Center: Culture matters.
The Right: Culture and evolution matter.
The Center view would be better at resisting the racist hate rhetoric of the Left. But without the Right view that evolution matters, the Center is now the Far Right, and therefore is losing badly to the Left.
And that’s why our cities are burning.
Ideas have consequences.
Cancelling ideas has worse consequences.
Some truths can never by forgiven by the left. The all-groups-are-NOT-statistically-identical is one, and I suspect another might be that the carbon dioxide theory of global warming is just due to a modeling error made in the 1960s.