That’s what Robert Lindsay says in his index of academic racism. Gordon’s page at John Hopkins is here. He’s a sociologist, usually a hotbed of leftism and PC, and the ex-husband of Linda Gottfredson.
Lindsay’s criterion for determining whether someone is a racist is opposition to anti-discrimination law.
August 20, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Wow. So to be an anarchist is to be a de facto racist.
August 20, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I tried to find other sources for the La Griffe/Gordon connection. The only person who seems to cite a source says:
“As far as who publishes…lets say that I know folks who know folks, who know him, and he is not good at keeping secrets.”
His name is ‘Anonymous’: http://www.blackprof.com/?p=685
Someone named ‘morgan’ on Half Sigma adds:
“If you are interested in Robert Gordon, you can also find that he has career interests posted on a web page. You will note that those interests are identical to those of La Griffe. Find a copy of
Everyday Life as an Intelligence Test:
Effects of Intelligence and Intelligence Context
ROBERT A. GORDON
INTELLIGENCE 4(1)203-320
You will note that the term “Critical IQ” was used to discuss the only phenomenon that is of interest to Gordon. As La Griffe, he simply renamed it as “smart fraction.” He did this in a lame attempt to hide his identity. The above article (very long) happens to have been published in an issue of Intelligence that was guest edited by his wife (at the time). Gordon is no expert on intelligence. His mistakes are readily found by anyone who actually knows the field well. In a world where the latter group is infinitesimally small, his relative knowledge of the subject may seem impressive.”
I think if I taught at Johns Hopkins, I might know I could get away with stealing ideas from some pseudonymous right-wing fringe type. So I don’t see any real evidence.
August 21, 2008 at 3:26 am
Yeah, I’ve long assumed that Gordon’s the Griffe, because it just makes perfect sense. I think this post a couple of years ago was the first place where I saw the connection made (without any direct evidence).
August 21, 2008 at 5:03 am
“If you’re against civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, you’re a racist! It’s really that simple.”
I think Lindsay neglected to add the word “minded” at the end of the second sentence.
August 21, 2008 at 11:01 am
When the word ‘racist’ can be applied to anyone from a bedsheeted Kluxer to an academic critic of affirmative action, it has lost objective meaning and has become no more than an epithet for those with whom its utterer disagrees. Linday uses it in a way that is meant to foreclose reputable discussion of questions, such as whether intelligence or character are in any significant respect heritable, which – if answered positively – would suggest that at least some inequalities of a racial or ethnic nature are beyond the ability of social engineering to eliminate.
August 21, 2008 at 11:47 am
Affirmative action wasn’t what I was thinking of as a civil rights or anti-discrimination law, and most sane people don’t include it under that rubric. Lots of sane and non-racist people oppose affirmative action. Lots of racists do too. I’m talking about the specific civil rights and anti-discrimination laws enacted by Congress, beginning in 1964 and amended since then. You know what I’m talking about. And no, it isn’t an attempt to shut down hereditarian views. But is sure is eerie how many of these hereditarian folks want to overturn the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Like almost 100% of them. Gee, why is that now? Could these two views possibly be connected? Hmm.
The whole “we will prove that races are different and then the world will change” thing is a dream. I’ve talked to a lot of people about this stuff. About race and IQ and B-W gap, most Whites and Hispanics just shrug their shoulders and say so what. I say what if it’s true, and they say, “It probably is, so?” I also think that most people think that there are differences between the races but they don’t give a damn about that either. And the truth is that your average person is so dumb that they hardly even are capable of understanding the nature-nurture debate anyway. This is just a dream by a bunch of rightwing eggheads that the average idiocrat American is going to “get it” on genes and race and turn into some libertarian or White nationalist nut. You’ve got to be kidding. Most people just don’t care, that’s the truth.
Anarchists and libertarians are all pushing a de facto racist policy when they oppose all civil rights and anti-discrimination statutes (and no, I’m not including AA). They are promoting racism. That’s racist to do that. So whether or not they are consciously racist (I think many are not) they are pushing an overtly racist project.
August 21, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Robert,
I suppose anarchists are also pushing de facto anti-racist policy when they oppose the drug war and imperialism. So does this cancel out their de facto racist policy?
Black opponents of affirmative action (and there are a few, like Shay at Booker Rising) believe that AA undermines black achievement, making it’s proponents, then, the racists. The issue of just what is racist isn’t settled.
August 21, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Robert,
I’m not sure I understand you. You’re claiming that since racists have a particular view, people who have that particular view are racists? That probably serves your purposes for conflating racism and opposition to unconstitutional civil rights legislation, but it probably doesn’t work so well if you conflate anti-smoking or pro gun-control arguments with Nazism.
August 21, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Byrne,
that paper by Robert Gordon is from 1997. It was not copied from la Griffe.
August 21, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Byrne, when you oppose civil rights and anti-discrimination laws for whatever reason, you are promoting racism. Whether you are consciously racist or not, you are engaging in racist behavior and promoting a racist project and agenda. It’s as simple as that.
How many Blacks oppose civil rights laws and anti-discrimination laws? Almost zero. How many Whites do? Wow! All sorts of Whites do, but they’re not rally racists, they’re just “libertarians”. Holy Moses! Almost no Blacks take this Black-hostile stand, but tons of Whites do, but they’re not racists. Hmmm.
August 21, 2008 at 8:51 pm
So when I oppose subsidies to nuclear power, I am objectively anti-nuclear?
Robert, you aren’t thinking straight.
And my black girlfriend might take umbrage with your assertion that I am racist, unconscious or otherwise.
August 21, 2008 at 10:18 pm
No. The negation of a thing is not necessarily its opposite; in most cases, it is not, and the conditions for the principle to apply here do not hold.
If you must make a fool of yourself in public, could you at least do so somewhat more intelligently?
August 22, 2008 at 3:44 am
melen–I’m not sure Robert is making a fool out of himself. If you remove civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, then there’s nothing really to stop people from making racist decisions like not allowing blacks and hispanics into their restaurants or hotels. Libertarians value freedom of association more than they do the possibility of all groups getting treated justly. I think it’s fair to label that nonchalance as racism.
August 22, 2008 at 4:10 am
You have a Black girlfriend who is going out with a guy who wants to get rid of all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws? Breathtaking. I wanna what’s in that girl’s head. Have you told her of your position on these laws? If so, what did she say?
I’m not saying that “you are a racist”, but you are engaging in racist behavior. I’m not sure if it makes a difference, but just talking to you all, I don’t think you harbor a lot of animosity towards non-Whites. I’m saying there’s a disconnect between your non-racist minds and your racist behaviors.
August 22, 2008 at 6:24 am
Robert Lindsay, you’re the epitome of the white person who knows what’s best for black people.
Funny how it used to be considered racist when white people insisted that they should decide what non-white people should do and say. Someone might even see this as a not at all surprising disconnect: racist minds and anti-racist actions.
August 22, 2008 at 6:51 am
Until the meaning of civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation is defined more clearly and explicitly, down to the level of specific pieces of legislation, it seems to me that people will be arguing around one another.
Is there, for example, a movement to overturn the Voting Rights Act? If so, then what are the arguments of those opposing this legislation? If their arguments are specious, why so? If they aren’t contesting the Voting Rights Act, then what are they contesting, what are their arguments, and why are they wrong? A quick googling of “civil rights anti-discrimination law” will unearth a fair amount of legislation, much of which has nothing to do with race. Are we to assume that all of this legislation is beyond challenge, and if so, why?
Simply labelling as racist those who oppose civil rights and anti-discrimination law is akin to arguing that people who oppose anti-terrorist legislation are terrorists or sympathetic to terrorism, that people who oppose anti-abortion legislation are abortionists or sympathetic to abortion; people who oppose anti-drug legislation are dealers, users, or at the very least, enablers . . . und so weiter. Needless to say, politicians have a nasty habit of labelling certain dubious legislative intiatives in such a way as to make reasonable opposition more difficult.
August 22, 2008 at 7:18 am
“Byrne, when you oppose civil rights and anti-discrimination laws for whatever reason, you are promoting racism.”
Using Mr. Lindsay’s logic to good effect, we might also techically say that those individuals in favor of civil rights and and anti-discrimination laws also support child-molestation.
When one carries that arguement to its logical conclusion, of course…
August 22, 2008 at 7:26 am
Yes, the White nationalists wish to get rid of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all subsequent acts afterwards, including the Voting Rights Act. So does, curiously, almost everyone pushing a hardline hereditarian argument about race and IQ. Their reasons? Racist reasons for WN’s. For the hereditarians? Racist too, I guess. Blacks and Browns are objectively stupid, so we should be able to flat out discriminate against them on that basis right there.
Ron Paul is also clearly a libertarian racist.
Libertarians mostly say that they oppose all government laws about much of anything, but there’s tremendous overlap between libertarians and White racists these days. This is because most White racists have magically become “libertarians” as a way to achieve their racial objectives.
I guess there are a lot of libertarians out there who oppose these laws on sheer principle, but they are pushing an objectively racist policy and acting in a racist manner by doing so.
August 22, 2008 at 8:55 am
So?
Finding such behavior abhorrent doesn’t require wanting to make it illegal.
Treated justly by whom?
It’s inaccurate to refer to that as ‘nonchalance’, and even more so to call it ‘racism’. You may redefine words as you wish, but you may not demand that we honor your private and idiosyncratic meanings.
August 22, 2008 at 10:22 am
You have a Black girlfriend who is going out with a guy who wants to get rid of all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws? Breathtaking. I wanna what’s in that girl’s head. Have you told her of your position on these laws? If so, what did she say?
Even worse for your impending implosion due to cognitive dissonance, she’s a member of a Lawyers of African Descent organization at her school. She understands my position and doesn’t agree, which is not surprisinig, but doesn’t believe it stems from racism. She might – and probably does – believe that my position inadvertently supports racism, but then so do neo-cons who believe my stances on foreign policy inadvertently support terrorism. And evangelicals, sodomy. And humanitarians, ethnic cleansing. I could go on…
If you remove civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, then there’s nothing really to stop people from making racist decisions like not allowing blacks and hispanics into their restaurants or hotel.
Well of course economists will tell you that their own (greedy!) profit motive will stop them, and even though bounded rationality limits this phenomenon to some degree, the greater the extent of the market (and less government intervention) the more likely it is to occur. And as a matter of history, the private sector was for damned sure more integrated before the lumbering public sector
finally got around to allowing minorities official, de jure access. I’m thinking of, for example, the public vs. the private sector in the 1920s, as described by Sowell, and urban catholic schools before Brown vs. Board, as described here:
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=169
August 22, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I think we need to distinguish between supporting something, and merely permitting it.
I will tolerate the expression of odious and grossly stupid views – such as those of Robert Lindsay – but my tolerance of their airing does not mean that I support or condone them. Making discrimation on racial grounds illegal strikes me as a terrible way to attempt to combat racism, but I recognize that those who promote it are indeed trying to combat it. My rejection of that method does not imply an opposition to the ultimate goal.
Robert Lindsay is not trying to make a rational argument. He’s not even trying to make an irrational argument. He’s not attempting an argument at all, because he doesn’t really care what people believe. He cares what people say, and what they repeat.
What he IS doing is trying to socially strong-arm people, not only pressuring them to silence their views against the methods he favors but to actively praise those methods. It’s power politics on an interpersonal scale, nothing more.
I suspect that he knows that people tend to come to believe the things they repeat often enough, and even if they don’t, as long as their behavior conforms to the norm he wants to set, he will be satisfied.
August 22, 2008 at 12:29 pm
And how do you explain the opposition of Ron Paul’s idealogical progenitors in 19th Century Europe to the concepts of civil rights and universal suffrage?
Were they, too, being racialist towards the lower orders of European whites?
August 27, 2008 at 9:12 pm
I don’t believe La Griffe is at Johns Hopkins, so I don’t believe he is Robert Gordon.
August 27, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Hmm, what is so non-Hopkins about La Griffe? Or is this based on personal information revealed to you and not accessible to us?
August 28, 2008 at 12:19 am
I’ll add robert Lindsay to the list of bloggers that a number of people seem to think are relevant but no one ever mentions unless they write something really quite stupid.
August 28, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Moreover, what would be the point of a public figure like Robert Gordon investing a lot of time in creating a second identity called La Griffe through which he says … roughly the same type of things as he says as a public figure? It would be like me being Audacious Epigone in my spare time.
Griffe has said that he doesn’t reveal his identity because he doesn’t need the hassle.
I don’t know who Griffe is, and I haven’t tried to find out, but I think it’s pretty clear that he’s not a professional psychometrician or the like. Instead, he appears to be a man with an elegant reductionist turn of mind who, in his spare time, has developed a very effective hammer (i.e., an insightful understanding of the implications of the normal probability distribution), which he uses to pound down various nails.
August 29, 2008 at 12:48 am
Some people who know Gordon well have apparently said that Gordon has admitted to them that his the Lion’s Claw.
melendwyr, Careless, Savrola, dain, Black Sea, micheal, jakkeli: Glad you liked my post! I never knew I had so many libertarian and anarchist fans. I need to write on libertarianism and anarchism some more, huh?
Hey guys, as they say in Hollywood, let’s do lunch!
August 29, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Careless, who are those “number” of people other than me?
August 31, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Lindsay, if racism is defined as prejudice (which can be positive, remember) towards another on the basis of race (one of the better definitions of racism), why is it only white racial prejudice which worries you, which has you scurrying madly around the net throwing up all manner of inanity in a futile attempt to appear (appearance is all you’re left with) to have refuted “the racists”? Black outright and unrepentant hatred of whites is as obvious as are its consequences yet compared to the energy you expend on attempting to silence “racists” you essentially have nothing to say about blacks — except hint that you’re psychologically incapable of countenancing the truth about them.
August 31, 2008 at 9:24 pm
My guess is that there are much fewer blacks than whites and they’re relatively powerless.
September 1, 2008 at 5:24 am
I don’t see that many examples of it. The one I can think of is the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party and the whole Black Power Movement, but that’s pretty much dead. All the mainstream Black organizations seem to be non-racist. Why is that any pro-White organization is automatically viciously racist? I don’t get it. The organizations of the Blacks, Hispanics and even Jews are not necessarily viciously racist. In most cases, they are not at all. But any White organization immediately becomes overrun by racist assholes.
If we ever get to Zimbabwe or South Africa here in the US (never happen) maybe we can start talking about Black racism.
April 12, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Whoever La Griffe du Lion is, she or probably he has made an immensely huge service to the humanity.
Concerning the questions of group differences and their consequences, he has found and explained more than millions of feminist pseudoscientific “scholar” parasites in the world combined.
April 13, 2009 at 7:13 pm
I think you may be the only academic who has said such a thing using their real name. Kudos!
September 3, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Robert Lindsay is a huge fag
October 8, 2009 at 12:25 am
Mr. Lindsay, as a man who was viciously beaten outside a bar while 16 black males were shouting racial epithets towards me I find the idea of a disbelief in black racism, or at least hatred, as amusing.
I work with several black people and can hardly articulate the projections of hatred and myopic thinking which encompasses their world view.
It’s almost like an anti-thought, thought. Also, as a one-time staunch libertarian, I cannot ever once recall any of my libertarian associates, friends, and co-workers making racist statements/actions/feeling whether implicit or explicit.
October 8, 2009 at 12:32 am
I would ask Mr. Lindsay to listen to relatively free/open ended black radio stations and just listen to the normality in which they view their hatred towards whites. It is deeply ingrained in their church services, radio stations, families, and friends.
I essentially grew up a white kid in a black community and culture, was homeless for some time, and work in a field in which I deal with black people on a daily basis and I cannot imagine where the level of disdain and vitriol that emanates from them arrives from.
As a practicing Catholic I would never listen to any radio station, friend, associate, family member who feels openly justified in making hateful and vile statements like what I hear daily.