Two decades after hiring Paul Krugman, the New York Times has doubled down by hiring the venomous Sarah Jeong, whose old tweets include the following rhetorical question:
Are white people genetically disposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?
According to Jeong’s supporters, the tweet needs to be read in context — it was, you see, intended as a parody of Andrew Sullivan’s audacious piece in New York magazine, advocating research — or at least opposing the suppression of research — into racial differences in IQ.
I’m all for parody. I’m all for taking other people’s logic (and my own!), pushing it to its limits, seeing where it leads, and thereby calling attention to its weaknesses. And I am outraged when authors engaged in this enterprise are taken out of context. If I say “X”, and if “Y” is both analogous to X and clearly outrageous, then Sarah Jeong or anyone else ought to be able to tweet “Y” by way of making fun of me, without having to face down a gang of yahoos accusing her of believing “Y”.
But that’s not what this is about. Because — and here is the crux of the matter — the analogue to
is
which is not at all the same thing as
The problem here is not that Sarah Jeong believes white people are fit only to live underground like groveling goblins. (I feel pretty confident, in fact, that she believes no such thing.) The problem here is that she is attempting to refute Andrew Sullivan’s logic by writing down an analogy (so far so good) and then, having done so, tacking on the phrase “being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins”, which in no way reflects anything Andrew Sullivan said, and which Sarah Jeong pulled out of her ass.
If Sarah Jeong believes you can refute another person’s logic by analogizing that logic and then arbitrarily appending an offensive phrase, she is of course not fit to be a journalist for the New York Times or any other outlet.
Let’s try it. Another recent Jeong tweet says:
looking forward to the fight over 3D print files
A good Jeongian paraphrase might be:
looking forward to more fights, which I sincerely hope will lead to the end of modern civilization and a restoration of the cult of Baal
If I were to suggest that this was a fair paraphrase of Jeong (as Jeong seems to have suggested that her own tweet was a fair paraphrase of Sullivan), it would be wrong, unfair and cowardly to accuse me of welcoming the end of civilization. But it would be right, fair and true to accuse me of being an unprincipled moron apparently driven by vitriol to utterly distort the position I was claiming to paraphrase.
So I do not read Jeong’s original tweet as racist. But I do read it as a sign of mental incapacity, which, in a more perfect world, would be a disqualification for a position at the New York Times.
Intelligence is a loaded topic because in our modern view, intelligence is what defines us as humans, what separates us from animals. To say that an ethnic group is genetically disposed to be less intelligent is functionally the same as saying that those people are genetically less human.
It was different when people believed to have a soul. Then each person had one, independently from their descent, and they were all the same under God.
I know very little about Jeong, so I cannot say whether she is a moron or a racist or whatever. However I have some comments to your criticisms.
The context is important. There has been centuries of black people being denigrated and considered incapable of discourse at the same level as white people because they have certain innate incapacities compared to white people. This has, thankfully, to a large extent been reduced but has by no means been eliminated. Thus any suggestion of limitations of black people carries some of this baggage with it and will almost certainly be used *by some people* to justify their dislike or poor treatment of black people. This is the sub-text.
For white people there is no such sub-text. In order to communicate this idea the text must be made explicit – hence the groveling goblins remark.
However you look at it, you must surely agree that if black people have lower IQ’s than white people, then some will use this to justify poorer treatment if black people as it panders to an existing prejudice. However, if white people burn faster in the sun almost nobody will use this as justification for poorer treatment of white people.
Maybe this just makes it a poor analogy, but it is difficult to think of analogy that would create a prejudice rather than pander to an already existing one.
I read the Sullivan article, which I thought was pretty good. In the article Sullivan mentions that genetic differences should inform public policy: “At the same time, if we assume genetics play no role, and base our policy prescriptions on something untrue, we are likely to overshoot and over-promise in social policy, and see our rhetoric on race become ever more extreme and divisive. We may even embrace racial discrimination, as in affirmative action, that fuels deeper divides.”
So, what we really need is an analogue to: Are some races genetically disposed to be less intelligent than others, thus being less able to derive benefits from certain forms of aid and opportunities?
I can easily see someone who believes that past injustices affect current outcomes interpreting this as: Are some races genetically disposed to be less intelligent than others, thus being less worthy of a level playing field?
I grant you that there are different ways of reading SUllivan, but you need a number of steps before concluding that she needs to be fired because she interpreted the passage in a different way. It would be like me concluding that you are unfit to teach at a university because of you failed to interpret an analogy (according to my interpretation) in some random blog post about some random tweet.
Harold,
Sullivan’s article, as mentioned, opposed the suppression of research into racial IQ differences — it did not advocate that any discrepancy ought to be used to disparage said race with the lower IQ. Tagging every taboo research subject with ‘historical subtext’ sets up precedent for oppressing knowledge, and is, ironically, a form of the “genetic fallacy”.
Suppose it was affirmed by current research that the Irish are genetically predisposed towards alcoholism, and Jeong made the same tweet with this context in mind. Would you make the same argument that because, historically speaking, the Irish were deemed animals/lesser beings because of their innate disposition toward alcohol, Jeong’s tweet was okay, even if said research is positive (as opposed to normative) and/or carries potential for learning how to treat and manage the condition better?
Some argue that looking for differences in IQ is fraught, as IQ tests often have an element of the culture they are created in baked into them. Thus, IQ tests assay general intelligence and something else (that could arguably be stacked [even unwittingly] in favor of one race over another). Also, it is unclear what conclusions to draw if some population of folk has a slightly lower IQ than another. How would one use this to inform policy that wouldn’t be grossly overreaching?
Others argue that race is a meaningless distinction anyway, and that lines between races are often drawn arbitrarily (yes, I realize this isn’t entirely compatible with my last parenthetical statement).
Lastly, as Harold points out, the possible negative ramifications are many.
So perhaps, Jeong’s tweet could be read [graciously] to say that ‘looking for differences in difficult to interpret measurements, between arbitrarily drawn lines, which may lead to faulty (and potentially racist) conclusions for policy recommendations is dumb.’
If that was the intention of the parody, I don’t think I’d begrudge her that.
“Now you would think that with a personality like that, Fenwick would be just about the most popular man on our block. That is not so. Fenwick is just about the most unpopular man on our block. People can’t stand him. I have seen Sunday-school teachers with unblemished complexions, and account executives with split-level ranch houses, throw conniption fits at the mere mention of Fenwick’s name. Why? Why? I puzzled over this for years, using the finest puzzling equipment money can buy, before I discovered the answer: Fenwick is a man who goes around being logical. He even uses reason at cocktail parties.
Now, most people believe in reason the way they believe in cold showers: It’s O.K. if you don’t overdo it. Very few people are so insensitive as to go around applying logic to other people’s beliefs.”
From Leo Rosten’s “An infuriating man.”
Sarah Jeong, the New York Times and their followers are not trying to be logical, but to feel the warmth of, or to profit from, sharing something together.
“But that’s not what this is about. Because — and here is the crux of the matter — the analogue to
Are some races genetically disposed to be less intelligent than others?
is
Are white people genetically disposed to burn faster in the sun?”
My comment is pointing out that this is not quite the case, since one is much more “loaded” than the other.
This does raise interesting questions because on one, literal level these are analogues.
Dan: “I can easily see someone who believes that past injustices affect current outcomes” It is not so much that past injustices affect current outcomes, but current injustices affect current outcomes and past injustices affect current injustices. The historical reference is incontrovertible evidence that these injustices certainly existed until the very recent past and it would be a hopeless optimist who believed they had vanished suddenly.
Sullivan is however a moron or dishonest. “Our large brains and the societies we have constructed with them, many argue, swamp almost all genetic influences. Humans, in this view, are the only species on Earth largely unaffected by recent (or ancient) evolution, the only species where, for example, the natural division of labor between male and female has no salience at all, the only species, in fact, where natural variations are almost entirely social constructions, subject to reinvention. ”
He is making several mistakes. Either he is lying about the “many argue” part, or he is conflating race and gender. It is quite possible to believe that genetic differences between races are swamped but not between genders. He is also conflating all genetic variation with inter-racial genetic variation. Almost nobody is suggesting that genetic variations are entirely social constructs. There is nothing to suggest that those who believe that racial genetic differences are swamped by cultural ones think humans are immune from evolution.
In other words, he is using a straw man fallacy – setting up an argument to knock down that almost nobody supports.
Z – ” Tagging every taboo research subject with ‘historical subtext’” I did not tag research subjects with historical subtext. I tagged the equivalency claim that Landsburg made with historical subtext. That is an important difference.
Jeong’s accomplishments suggest that she does not have mental incapacity. I don’t know if she is truly a racist, in her heart of hearts, but if she doesn’t want people to think so, she should shut the hell up with the obnoxious tweets.
Harold,
Thus any suggestion of limitations of black people carries some of this baggage with it and will almost certainly be used *by some people* to justify their dislike or poor treatment of black people. This is the sub-text.
“any suggestion” in this case is research into IQ differences between whites and blacks. So yes, you did tag a research subject with historical subtext.
The least honest statement going around these days is that we want an honest conversation about race
I think I kind of agree with Steve. Jeong’s logic is weird/flawed and her argument poorly stated. It seems to be a bald display of attitude with layer of racial hatred that conceals a poor argument.
Her argument seems to be:
1. Don’t research IQ because bad people will use it to say mean things about blacks.
2. Analogously, genetic research on genetic research on sunburn could be used to say untrue mean things about whites.
The weirdness/flaw of the analogy is that she doesn’t make clear if the things the bad people will say about blacks are true or untrue.
If they are untrue, then the analogy is a good one. But, bad people can already say untrue mean things about blacks. Good people will respond as they always do, saying “no you bad people, what you are saying is untrue and racist.”
But, if the bad people will be saying true things, the analogy is a bad analogy and it is presumably an attempt to suppress an inconvenient truth. Why? Presumably because she doesn’t like the consequences of the truth. It would suggest that she is a lying bad person and the people she hates are actually good, truthful people.
Was Jeong referencing H.G. Well’s Morlocks, the subterranean race that eats Eloi people?
“Two decades after hiring Paul Krugman, the New York Times has doubled down by hiring the venomous Sarah Jeong…”
What does Krugman have to do with any of this? It seems this is an unnecessary cheap shot, but perhaps I’ve missed something.
“then arbitrarily appending an offensive phrase, she is of course not fit to be a journalist for the New York Times or any other outlet”
False. That makes her fit in quite nicely as a writer at the NYT.
“I do read it as a sign of mental incapacity”
It’s no less a sign of mental incapacity than writing Hillary Clinton was the conservative choice in the 2016 presidential election.
Her linquistist shorcoming is more akin to a dangling participle which in and of itself doesn’t render her unfit to be a journalist. It’s that she always sees what isn’t always there, she sees hate and responds with hate. She has become exactly what she rallies against.
If she is communicating as a journalist she is no longer objective so yes, she is unfit to be a journalist.
If she is communicating as an opinion editor then I question her approach. It’s more like she’s burning a bridge rather than building one. She might be more effective if she emulated Dr. King rather than Louis Farrakhan.
SL: ” … it was, you see, intended as a parody of Andrew Sullivan’s audacious piece in New York magazine, advocating research — or at least opposing the suppression of research — into racial differences in IQ.”
Ask your friend Lawrence Summers regarding the fate of anyone
who dares asks questions deemed heresy by the Party –