UCL to investigate eugenics conference secretly held on campus
26 replies, posted
[URL="https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/10/ucl-to-investigate-secret-eugenics-conference-held-on-campus"]Source[/URL]
[QUOTE]University College London has launched an urgent investigation into how a senior academic was able to secretly host conferences on eugenics and intelligence with notorious speakers including white supremacists.
The London Conference on Intelligence was said to have been run secretly for at least three years by James Thompson, an honorary senior lecturer at the university, including contributions from a researcher who has previously advocated child rape.
One prominent attendee at the conference in May last year was Toby Young, the head of the government-backed New Schools Network, who ran into controversy over efforts to appoint him as a university regulator.
Young’s involvement in the conference was revealed by the London Student newspaper, which said it contacted Young for comment on Monday. Young announced early on Tuesday that he was stepping down as a director of the Office for Students.
Young has also resigned from his post on the Fulbright Commission, which oversees student scholarship programmes between British and US universities.
Sir Nigel Sheinwald, chair of the US-UK Fulbright Commission, said: “I accepted his resignation, which I believe to be in the best interests of the Fulbright programme.”
UCL said it had no knowledge of the conference, an invitation-only circle of 24 attendees, which could have led to a breach of the government’s Prevent regulations on campus extremism.
“UCL is investigating a potential breach of its room bookings process for events,” a spokesperson said.
“Our records indicate the university was not informed in advance about the speakers and content of the conference series, as it should have been for the event to be allowed to go ahead.”
UCL said it had contacted Thompson for an explanation. It has suspended approval for his hosting further conferences and speakers.
Young, in a speech to a similar conference in Canada last year, described the extreme measures that Thompson employed to keep the conference a secret.
“Attendees were only told the venue at the last minute, an anonymous ante-chamber at the end of a long corridor, called ‘lecture room 22’, and asked not to share this information with anyone else.
“One of the attendees, on discovering I was a journalist, pleaded with me not to write about the fact that he was there – he didn’t want his colleagues to find out,” Young said.
“But these precautions were not unreasonable, considering the reaction that any references to between-group differences in IQ generally provoke.”
Previous attendees included Richard Lynn, whom the US-based research group Southern Poverty Law Center labelled an “unapologetic eugenicist”, and the blogger Emil Kirkegaard, who has written supportively about pedophiles being allowed to have “sex with a sleeping child”.
The science writer and broadcaster Adam Rutherford said the background of the speakers suggested that “some pseudoscientific nonsense was being discussed”.
“There are some people at these meetings with some deeply obnoxious views that are also scientifically invalid – notably Richard Lynn,” Rutherford said.
Many of the ideas discussed at the conferences, which have been running since 2014, ran counter to the contemporary scientific consensus, according to Rutherford.[/QUOTE]
Honestly though, shunning even talking about eugenics into the taboo zone just leads to the topic festering in the dark like this
[QUOTE=AK'z;53042860]you can talk about eugenics as long as its intent is not purely racist?[/QUOTE]
Eugenics discussion can range from modifying genes to prevent birth defects/diseases (down syndrome, autism, cleft lips) to killing all people with [insert trait here] in order to improve the gene pool. At the very least the discussion should be allowed in a university setting (say in a bio-medical ethics class) where you have the possibility of having intelligent conversation on it.
Any other location where I've heard the word [I]eugenics[/I] mentioned its either some loudmouth supremacist ranting online or trolling another person. As far as I know the UK doesn't have great free speech protection which is probably what forced the secret meetings... which I guess attracted people who can't reasonably defend their viewpoint in public to the meetings.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;53042875]Eugenics discussion can range from modifying genes to prevent birth defects/diseases (down syndrome, autism, cleft lips) to killing all people with [insert trait here] in order to improve the gene pool. At the very least the discussion should be allowed in a university setting (say in a bio-medical ethics class) where you have the possibility of having intelligent conversation on it.
Any other location where I've heard the word [I]eugenics[/I] mentioned its either some loudmouth supremacist ranting online or trolling another person. As far as I know the UK doesn't have great free speech protection which is probably what forced the secret meetings... which I guess attracted people who can't reasonably defend their viewpoint in public to the meetings.[/QUOTE]
well when eugenics is talked about alongside another discriminatory lecture then i dont agree it should be in university
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlpYtpo9kyw[/media]
urghh
[QUOTE]
The London Conference on Intelligence was said to have been run secretly for at least three years by James Thompson, an honorary senior lecturer at the university, including contributions from a researcher who [B]has previously advocated child rape[/B].
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
Previous attendees included Richard Lynn, whom the US-based research group Southern Poverty Law Center labelled an “unapologetic eugenicist”, and the blogger Emil Kirkegaard, who has written supportively about pedophiles being allowed to have “sex with a sleeping child”.
[/QUOTE]
Jesus. When it rains, it pours, huh?
[QUOTE=IKTM;53042968]Jesus. When it rains, it pours, huh?[/QUOTE]
Oh now that just downright makes my skin crawl. Who the hell are these people?
it was an invitation only event too.. the organiser should be suspended tbh
[QUOTE=AK'z;53043018]it was an invitation only event too.. the organiser should be suspended tbh[/QUOTE]
Aka safe space
Poor eugenicists and Nazis being oppressed by Liberal society
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53043085]Aka safe space
Poor eugenicists and Nazis being oppressed by Liberal society[/QUOTE]
Please don't claim to be liberal.
[QUOTE=Conscript;53043443]Please don't claim to be liberal.[/QUOTE]
Liberal with capital 'L' is different from liberal without (though it's quite likely mdeceiver79 meant that as quote of sorts anyway).
[QUOTE=Conscript;53043443]Please don't claim to be liberal.[/QUOTE]
I don't, I'm pro censorship of stuff like naziism/(serious) racism/(serious) sexism, I'm pro govt regulation of markets, I'm semi against free trade (cept in cases like the EU where the downsides are countered with bloc wide standards and regulations), I think freedom of speech doesn't hold if the intention is to spread hate and violence. I got mixed views on the death penalty, if a criminal (must 100% confirmed, not just by confession) has no chance of rehabilitation and they would rather die than (ie consent) life in prison then they should be given the option of death penalty.
I'm not [b]L[/b]iberal but I'm probably more liberal than some
[QUOTE=Conscript;53043443]Please don't claim to be liberal.[/QUOTE]
Is liberalism a dirty word now
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53043001]Let it fester in the dark then. Any losers who buy into it should remain pariahs. We shouldn't, for the sake of political correctness, pretend these ideas have merit enough to enter rational discourse, we shouldn't validate them.[/QUOTE]
So, what, better burn all the copies of Gattaca and Brave New World? We can't have people talking about verboten ideas lest we [i]validate[/i] them by thoroughly exploring and discrediting them?
Is your takeaway from the last two years, with alt-righters and neo-Nazis threatening Western democracy as we know it, really that letting dangerous ideologies fester in the dark is a smart way to handle them?
The problem with letting these ideas stay in the dark is that some rich assholes decided to back them and thus keep these awful ideas alive.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;53042875]Eugenics discussion can range from modifying genes to prevent birth defects/diseases (down syndrome, autism, cleft lips) to killing all people with [insert trait here] in order to "improve" the gene pool. At the very least the discussion should be allowed in a university setting (say in a bio-medical ethics class) where you have the possibility of having intelligent conversation on it.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you can hit the nail on the head harder than with what you just said.
[QUOTE=catbarf;53044388]So, what, better burn all the copies of Gattaca and Brave New World? We can't have people talking about verboten ideas lest we [i]validate[/i] them by thoroughly exploring and discrediting them? [/quote]
Those works of fiction were criticising eugenics, thats different from somebody, in real life, having some closed (read not really open to criticism to be discredited) meeting where they advocate for it. See the difference?
[quote]
Is your takeaway from the last two years, with alt-righters and neo-Nazis threatening Western democracy as we know it, really that letting dangerous ideologies fester in the dark is a smart way to handle them?[/QUOTE]
While they festered in the dark they didn't do shit. Someone had the wonderful idea of empowering them to express their opinions and now they've killed peeps in both our countries. It might be distasteful to you but its pragmatic.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53044871]Those works of fiction were criticising eugenics[/QUOTE]
You said we shouldn't 'pretend these ideas have merit enough to enter rational discourse'. How is presenting and discrediting a concept through fiction not 'rational discourse'?
Both Gattaca and BNW have spawned mainstream discussions on the ethics of eugenics, by opening it up to criticism. You seem to be saying that those works ought to be censored because raising the discussion at all is validating eugenics.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53044871]While they festered in the dark they didn't do shit.[/QUOTE]
The alt-right exists entirely because it was allowed to fester in dark corners of the Internet, radicalizing vulnerable people, just like every other exploitative ideology. Nobody empowered them from the outside, they empowered themselves through growing influence and popularity. Letting dangerous ideas continue to grow in the margins, uncontested, is a demonstrably irresponsible way to handle them. It's not pragmatic in the slightest.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53043001]Let it fester in the dark then. Any losers who buy into it should remain pariahs. We shouldn't, for the sake of political correctness, pretend these ideas have merit enough to enter rational discourse, we shouldn't validate them.[/QUOTE]
What's wrong about wanting to find ways to prevent birth defects?
[editline]12th January 2018[/editline]
Like unless it's done by sterilizing or killing off populations what's wrong with using science to prevent people from developing disabilities and other genetic illnesses?
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53043001]Let it fester in the dark then. Any losers who buy into it should remain pariahs. We shouldn't, for the sake of political correctness, pretend these ideas have merit enough to enter rational discourse, we shouldn't validate them.[/QUOTE]
With the advent of techniques like CRISPR, and the technologies that will be developed in its wake, eugenics will only become more relevant to modern daily life. Its moral implications are going to be much less black and white than that of previous eugenics movements when we have parents who have the option to selectively edit the genes of their children. Outright banning the discussion of eugenics and limiting information is only going to do more harm that good.
[QUOTE=_Axel;53045143]What's wrong about wanting to find ways to prevent birth defects?
[editline]12th January 2018[/editline]
Like unless it's done by sterilizing or killing off populations what's wrong with using science to prevent people from developing disabilities and other genetic illnesses?[/QUOTE]
Notice how nobody has to have secret meetings to talk about preventing birth defects? That's because the sort of eugenics you have secret meetings for is the sort you need to dig a lot of very wide holes for.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53043602]
I'm not [b]L[/b]iberal[/QUOTE]
So basically at one point you had good ideas drawn from good political traditions which are then mitigated by irrational feels that make you think it's a legitimate state and institutional responsibility to police the behavior and scope of discussion to some contextual degree
Your ideas are transparently political abuse of the concept of social responsibility, and more importantly have a bad interaction with the concentration of media over the last few decades, the reliance on colleges/universities to enter the job market, and complications of a multicultural society that altogether hurt pluralism.
This:
[quote]Any losers who buy into it should remain pariahs.[/quote]
Does not make you a good person, it makes you an irrational one incompatible with a free open society come any sort of difficult decision and the play-out of your ideas demonstrates the contradiction between social and political liberalism in strenuous times. This is not personal virtue, it's personal failure.
It also just doesn't work and leads to surprising victories for the backlash, such as Trump and Brexit. Maybe if we were allowed to discuss things properly we wouldn't be in such a time for liberal-democracy.
I would argue that these protective controls delay recovery and exaggerate crisis in the [b][i]same exact manner[/i][/b] this happens with the economy.
[QUOTE=catbarf;53044954]You said we shouldn't 'pretend these ideas have merit enough to enter rational discourse'. How is presenting and discrediting a concept through fiction not 'rational discourse'?
Both Gattaca and BNW have spawned mainstream discussions on the ethics of eugenics, by opening it up to criticism. You seem to be saying that those works ought to be censored because raising the discussion at all is validating eugenics.[/quote]
You infer banning those books as a consequence of what I'm saying, thats not the intention of my post.
Lets go back to what I said
[quote]We shouldn't, for the sake of political correctness, pretend these ideas have merit enough to enter rational discourse, we shouldn't validate them.[/quote]
My intended meaning for this was regarding when nazis and racists were invited onto TV shows, by letting them share that platform with others you're lending them credence. If one day you have a politician sat in that chair, another day a medical expert, another day a history professor, another day an expert on foreign policy, another day a literal nazi then it gives them more merit than they deserve. And the "political correctness" part was a jab the far right types whinging about political correctness while demanding people discuss their ideas.
As for those books you mentioned, since you're so desperate for me to discuss your attempt as subverting this discussion with a bait and switch/strawman. Both of those books are:
1) set in a different setting, sufficiently abstracting discussion
2) are high critical toward the setting with totalitarianism and eugenics playing a strictly adversarial role and they're also portrayed as contrary to nature of the protagonist, placing the ideology strictly in a negative light.
If someone wrote a book advocating for eugenics, set in a setting sufficiently relevant to us, say 2020 and everyone is blonde hair blue eyed and somehow eugenics made the world better (in the hypothetical book). Then I would say that piece of hypothetical fiction is of no value and perhaps it shouldn't be published. I feel this responsibility lies with the people/private sectr as much as the state though (to a degree). And before you mention stuff like mein kampf I feel there is sufficient historic context to make that a noteworthy book, people will read that because they want insight into ww2, a newly written (or currently written albeit obscure) book advocating for this stuff doesn't have that same "value".
Re my point about it being the responsibility of individuals before a responsibility of the state. I don't want to get bogged down into an unwinnable discussion on ethics and morality but I think everybody should try to be "good" to others and respect their dignity (ie not necessarily Respect them but respect their intrinsic humanity.) People spreading hate for their own gain (literally for money or figuratively for identity or their position in a group) should (for some actives) be shunned and ostracised, try to help them out of their toxic pit or be a friend (a friend doesn't necessarily respect ones views) but please do not help them spread their views, give them platform or profit from (or for) them (because by profiting from them you are creating a demand for their "sickness"). This paragraph is probably the most controversial and will probably be heaviest scrutinised, I ask that you prioritise the other paragraphs since I haven't worded this very and while I am open to criticism for this I feel it's not quite a fully accurate representation of my views, I'll leave it here since I did spend time writing it and perhaps it may add context to my outlook.
[quote]
The alt-right exists entirely because it was allowed to fester in dark corners of the Internet, radicalizing vulnerable people, just like every other exploitative ideology. Nobody empowered them from the outside, they empowered themselves through growing influence and popularity. Letting dangerous ideas continue to grow in the margins, uncontested, is a demonstrably irresponsible way to handle them. It's not pragmatic in the slightest.[/QUOTE]
I think they have been empowered. On youtube spreading radical views can be very profitable, giving them a platform and whats more they can target their ideology at young people (who generally more impressionable, less likely to be actual to construct counter arguments, have less experience) (a point on experience, I say this because it matters, I grew up in a small village and nearly everyone I knew was racist and homophobic including myself, when I went to college and later university I met a whole load of different people, destroying all of my incorrect preconceptions and forcing me to fix my views - many won't have the same opportunities as me, their interactions with others will be mainly influenced by articles/videos/posts they see online rather than real life experiences.)
To be a bit more "mainstream" first off Trump dogwhistling racist shit, that empowers these nuts and since the whole Trump thing, people like David Duke and Richard Spencer have had a larger and larger presence on American Media - validating their supporters and growing their base, giving the racists confidence having the pernicious effect of them holding larger and more flagrant rallies.
In the UK we have a slightly different dynamic with race and I will go into that if you want me to, but with the internet and "americanisation" of our media I think what happens in the US heavily influences us in the UK. That far right loony who killed Jo Cox had been in contact with american neo nazi groups and had american neo nazi literature, groups like stormfront are definitely a kind of "international" nazi alliance, which is ironic imo goes to show these people crave identity and inclusion into a group.
To tie this back to my initial point about
[quote]We shouldn't, for the sake of political correctness, pretend these ideas have merit enough to enter rational discourse, we shouldn't validate them.[/quote]
If neo nazi/far right speakers are invited onto news shows and given "celebrity" status it empowers their supporters and makes them feel more relevant which emboldens their efforts. Having their leaders with celebrity status helps them unite their base, holding rallys and demonstrations, building networks. Better to push them underground, shun them, keep them ashamed of their views. Reason for this: If they profit less (again literally thru money or figuratively through validation, attention, status) from their ideology they're less likely to stick with it. Appealing to their morality or logic provenly (at least proven, albeit anecdotally, for me) doesn't work.
[editline]12th January 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;53045231]With the advent of techniques like CRISPR, and the technologies that will be developed in its wake, eugenics will only become more relevant to modern daily life. Its moral implications are going to be much less black and white than that of previous eugenics movements when we have parents who have the option to selectively edit the genes of their children. Outright banning the discussion of eugenics and limiting information is only going to do more harm that good.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps, but if you invite national socialists to a talk about Eugenics what are the odds that their discussion of eugenics strays away from evolutions in genetic medicine? Bearing in mind their ideology is pretty much based on racial eugenics.
I mean we can be nice, and say "ye the guy who advocates for ethnic cleansing totally isn't thinking about ethnic cleansing" or we can be realistic.
[editline]12th January 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Conscript;53045957]So basically at one point you had good ideas drawn from good political traditions which are then mitigated by irrational feels that make you think it's a legitimate state and institutional responsibility to police the behavior and scope of discussion to some contextual degree
Your ideas are transparently political abuse of the concept of social responsibility[/quote]
Not really, originally (about 11 years ago) I was much more authoritarian than I am now. I have grown more liberal over time rather than starting as a Liberal and become more whatever.
A bit of an... unusual view I have, but I think you might appreciate it, I see Liberalism as a continuation, albeit evolved somewhat, of capitalist imperialism. People are positioned against each other and alienated with their agency taken from them, we are placated with democracy and social liberties and "social mobility" but really our views don't matter and [URL="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B"]our votes have no effect [/URL]. The state is self serving but gives a facade of serving people, a lip service; imperialism didn't serve the people but then people got all revolutionary which was p scary for the peeps with power. What we have beats other systems though and its stable. All that said what we have is better than other systems, I think the best thing we can hope for currently is keep up the pressure forcing our states to maintain/increase what they give us through stuff like unionisation and voting for peeps like sanders and corbyn (or even stuff like the lib dems in the uk) - it might not be a big change but evolution of a current system is better than revolution for a better system (and consequently revolving back to what you had before or worse, as many of these "political outsider" peeps like trump, farage and le pen claim to be selling, they're subverting the anger and making a "revolution" for their own gain) anyway enough of that!
[quote], and more importantly have a bad interaction with the concentration of media over the last few decades, the reliance on colleges/universities to enter the job market, and complications of a multicultural society that altogether hurt pluralism.[/quote]
1) You're right about me reacting to observations from media. But far right peeps have stepped up their killing lately so maybe there is something to react to?
2) I failed uni so you're sorta wrong there.
3) I don't blame multiculturalism for the problems we're facing today. You can go to a homogenous village in the UK and observe issues. I blame social media and a declining jobs market. Social media for eroding people's need to participate in community. Declining jobs market (mainly from automation) for taking away jobs and driving down wages. ( a note on automation, I think it can be good or bad, Keynes put fourth a way for it to be good, high wages, good living standards, short days. Sadly we've enacted a way for it to be bad, lower wages, less agency, unemployment. SAD! )
[quote]
Does not make you a good person, it makes you an irrational one incompatible with a free open society come any sort of difficult decision and the play-out of your ideas demonstrates the contradiction between social and political liberalism in strenuous times. This is not personal virtue, it's personal failure. [/quote]
Naw. I think ostracising peeps like nazis gives them a choice, come back to caring about peeps or remain an outsider. Sadly they may remain outsiders but that beats nazi ideology spreading and going mainstream.
[quote]It also just doesn't work and leads to surprising victories for the backlash, such as Trump and Brexit. Maybe if we were allowed to discuss things properly we wouldn't be in such a time for liberal-democracy.
I would argue that these protective controls delay recovery and exaggerate crisis in the [b][i]same exact manner[/i][/b] this happens with the economy.[/QUOTE]
So is this the self righting, free market of ideas spiel? The invisible hand of the market will fix it?
[quote=free market guy]Oh no! stuff is going wrong! This is because we didn't sacrifice enough goats! If we kill more goats the invisible god will fix everything![/quote]
[quote=religious guy]Oh no! stuff is going wrong! This is because we didn't free up the market enough! If we make it freer the invisible hand will fix everything![/quote]
[QUOTE=Mingebox;53045271]Notice how nobody has to have secret meetings to talk about preventing birth defects? That's because the sort of eugenics you have secret meetings for is the sort you need to dig a lot of very wide holes for.[/QUOTE]
The point is that by calling it "eugenics" rather than something along the lines of "genocide advocacy" you're tarring it all with the same brush.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1yUl8jQY7D7gT3ULh_Kslg/videos[/url]
hahahahaha they deleted all their lectures.
GOOD GOING THERE MATE, the lectures were shit anyway.
[editline]13th January 2018[/editline]
Absolute racist scumbags of the highest order, they can literally shove their fake-private racist lectures up their arse.
[editline]13th January 2018[/editline]
fucking analysing how russians are more intelligent than Mongolians. honestly, they have no purpose other than to jerk off that they're better than everyone else.
[QUOTE=_Axel;53046392]The point is that by calling it "eugenics" rather than something along the lines of "genocide advocacy" you're tarring it all with the same brush.[/QUOTE]
Buddy, that ship already sailed, found a new continent, and slaughtered all the natives a hundred years ago. I mean, the word "molest" can also just mean to impede or annoy, but I don't see any hall monitors calling themselves "child molesters" and getting annoyed at everyone using it the other way.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
