How I Became the Scapegoat in the Jason Arday Affair. By Nathan Confas in The WSJ.
I have been smeared as a racist and threatened with violence. My university suspended me. All I did was tell the truth. …
Speaker after speaker at the vigil held for Arday in Trafalgar Square on Monday denounced me by name, including a prominent politician. Many have claimed that I fabricated the evidence against Arday, although this is easily refuted. …
I’m an easy scapegoat because I hold views about race that are controversial and easily misunderstood. I argue that differences between ancestral populations aren’t entirely due to environmental forces, and that some group disparities stem from natural differences for which no one is to blame.
I made a widely quoted statement: “Under a colorblind system that judged applicants only by academic qualifications, blacks would make up 0.7% of Harvard students.” That sentence has been cited repeatedly as evidence that I’m a racist.
Few people are aware that my statement about Harvard admissions was summarizing a finding by Harvard itself. In the course of the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard lawsuit, Harvard disclosed an internal study conducted in 2013, which found that, if admissions were based only on grades and test scores, the undergraduate population would be 0.7% African-American — a significant reduction from current levels. Racial representation at many American institutions is maintained by Harvard-style affirmative action.
I didn’t quote Harvard’s statistic to celebrate it, or because I believe that black people don’t belong at universities. There are many brilliant black scholars. But it’s a difficult fact to face that in a truly colorblind system that didn’t take race into account, there would be a shocking lack of diversity in certain institutions. As I said in the controversial essay that mentions the Harvard statistic, “when it comes to policymaking in a multiracial society, we might need to make sure that everyone feels they have a voice in determining our collective fate.” To this end, I argued for taking measures to ensure meaningful representation of major demographic groups. But we shouldn’t do this under the banner of DEI, which automatically blames differences in outcome on white racism. …
The lesson can’t be that it’s unacceptable to point out wrongdoing that implicates powerful public figures. That’s what I did when I exposed fraud and institutional corruption at Cambridge.
Now, for self-interested reasons, there’s another case of corruption that I object to: the scapegoating of a whistleblower by powerful institutions that refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions.
Truth is the highest value of Western Civilization, you dinosaur. Get with it! Nowadays it’s all about identity politics — my tribe right or wrong — especially when it comes to divvying up the tax take. It’s a leftist institutional world now, with a third world and Islamist takeover in the wings.
Nathan Confas is Jewish — an oppressor! The new lefty-Islamic alliance so hates you and your racist truths, buddy.
Imagine if, in 2005, some bayou swamp white nationalist wrote a science fiction novel where, in 2026
– A black man who brags about being mentally retarded is made a full professor at Cambridge to universal acclaim
– The only one brave enough to expose him is a race scientist
– Who is then persecuted by his superior [Petra De Sutter, University of Ghent, who sacked Confas], a male gynaecologist turned transvestite who is, like the black guy, ALSO a fraudster
I would have thrown it at the wall I would have called it the most ridiculous thing I’d ever read. I guess in the book the hero would have been named Hans Herrenrasse and be 7′ tall and blonde and blue eyed, instead of being a soft-spoken Ashkenazi Jew.