Following up on an item from the weekend, National Review editor Rich Lowry announced that John Derbyshire will no longer write for the prominent conservative magazine.
His latest provocation, in a webzine, lurches from the politically incorrect to the nasty and indefensible. We never would have published it, but the main reason that people noticed it is that it is by a National Review writer. Derb is effectively using our name to get more oxygen for views with which we'd never associate ourselves otherwise.
So there has to be a parting of the ways. Derb has long danced around the line on these issues, but this column is so outlandish it constitutes a kind of letter of resignation. It's a free country, and Derb can write whatever he wants, wherever he wants. Just not in the pages of NR or NRO, or as someone associated with NR any longer.
If you're just joining the story, Derbyshire, in a piece for Taki's Magazine, explained the lessons he has shared with his children about race in America. The list of tips Derbyshire has given his kids include urging his kids to "avoid concentrations of blacks," steering clear of events and locations likely to be "swamped with blacks," and among other things, choosing not to live in communities "run by black politicians."
He added, "The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black."
The piece was published on Thursday; controversy erupted on Friday; and Derbyshire was told he's no longer welcome at National Review on Saturday.
Given Derbyshire's record of hateful rhetoric -- the wasn't the first time the writer has published offensive content on race -- it's worth considering why he was given such a platform in the first place. For that matter, given National Review's often-ugly history on race, the Derbyshire controversy represents a fairly significant setback for the conservative magazine.
But in the larger context, I often wonder where the tipping point lies for conservative media figures -- just how far do they have to go in order to face consequences for their outrageous rhetoric? For Limbaugh, it was calling Sandra Fluke a "slut" and requesting a sex tape. For Coulter, it was a public condemnation of 9/11 widows. And for Derbyshire, it was apparently an online racist screed.
Whether Derbyshire is eventually welcomed back into the mainstream conservative fold remains to be seen.
Leave a Comment:
There are still plenty of "Code Talkers" to replace him.
And you don't have to be Navaho to understand them!
Heck, they don't need to speak in code. It's easy enough just to lie... like the recent to-do over Santorum's insistence that in Holland they euthanize older people against their consent!
I have no doubt that Mr. Derbyshire will be feted as a hero and martyr by the rest of the conservative press and the entire conservative movement. It;s stunning that National Review would -- after days of ignoring it -- actually can the guy because of saying what most conservatives truly believe. This racist punk merely verbalized the core beliefs of the GOP and the conservative establishment when it comes to African Americans,. He'll get a gig at Fox News or some other top-level right-wing hack organization. It's disgusting. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Can anyone please explain to me why there are African Americans who are Republican?
@ Shumuwada - I often wonder about that myself. I also wonder why any person of color, not just black, women and gays can be a republican. It boggles the mind...
What about every 'editor' or 'proofreader' who read this screed prior to hitting the 'publish' button? Anyone possessing a set of eyes that scanned this piece of trash should also be fired.
See the C-Span screen grab? How come extremists like this get a mainstream microphone?
I'm glad we are finally being able to define the true meaning of "freedom of Speech" Freedom of Speech should not hurt anyone. If you are a rascist you need to keep that to yourself. When you start ranting and raving in public you are hurting other human beings especially childen.
That is not "the true meaning of free speech."
It should be.
That's a nice sentiment when people you favor are in power. Not so nice otherwise. There's very good reasons why "speech that you(general) don't personally like" and "speech that hurts people" is legal. Maybe contact the ACLU for in-depth explanation. It's their mission to protect free speech through legal advocacy. I'd think they know quite a bit about it.
I don't care whose in power noone has the right to call anyone names. Calling people names is calling people names it is not called freedom of speech it is called bad mouthing people and hate. Freedom of speech refers to people being able to express their opinion on matters of great importance or on certain beliefs they have.. It has nothing to do with causing emotional or mental abuse. You are referring to Bullying.
No, I am referring to how freedom of speech is legally defined in this country, which is not "you can't call people names." There is extensive legal precedent defining the limits of free speech.
Supreme Court cases involving freedom of speech.
It is freedom of speech for you to say that the definition of free speech is something other than what it is, as determined by law and jurisprudence. It is freedom of speech for me to say that (1) you are wrong, and (2) you or I or anyone else do in fact have the right to call people names. In fact, conflating all "speech that hurts someone" with bullying and emotional abuse is almost breathtakingly insensitive to actual abuse victims. As a survivor of abuse, am I allowed to call my father "a monster"? What if that hurts his feelings?
The difference you appear to be trying to define is one of power. Racism--all oppression, really, but the expression started with race activists as far I know--racism is prejudice plus POWER. Mean words are mean words. Hate speech is mean words with power--institutionalized power--behind them. And the way to stop hate speech is not to limit free speech; it is to dismantle the institutionalized power behind the hate.
You might be interested in this: The Privilege of Politeness.
Is it always about the children. :)
I am not a child but I find Derbyshire's comments offensive and hateful.
We need to teach our children so that people like you and I in the future can be spared the pain. Will we water the seed of hate or the seed of love and acceptance?
"...in the larger context, I often wonder where the tipping point lies for conservative media figures..."
I too wonder, is it when "national attention" shines a spotlight on the hateful rhetoric, or is it when citizens start to boycott the sponsors? There wasn't this much hateful rhetoric being spewed when Shrub & Darth Chaney were in office and they started two wars and left this nation hanging over the edge of the cliff! All of this hate, and why because of the intelligent African-American man that currently holds the office? So much for that whole "post racial" era we're supposed to be in.
The reality that we dared to elect an African American President was enough to have them come out of the woodwork. The fear behind prejudism is fighting back. It's all coming out ugly and sideways. This is an opportunity to learn about others and to understand that they are not wanting to hurt you. We can live in a society where we agree to disagree without killing each other. This is actually the only way the human race is going to survive. We want to live and the only way to do that is to put down the guns and say "Hello to your neighbor" . We have a government to help us to do this. We have a military that will defend this right. We have police to arrest people who do otherwise. Citizens do not need guns if we learn to live and let live. Guns are now in the hands of people who hate because you and I look different than they do or we have a different belief than you or I. They actually beleive that you or I are capable of controlling their beliefs. We cannot control anybodys thoughts or beliefs.. Fear destroys, Love conquers fear and God is all about Love. There are a lot of Spiritual Leaders in our World and their message is always about Love. We have just drifted so far from basic humanity. We need to fight against the true evils of this world and that is hate and killing.
Shumuwada: I agree 100% !
Fighting against hate and killing with the state-controlled violence of police and the military is a bit contradictory.
And people do in fact want to hurt me for things about myself that I didn't choose to be. I understand that very well. I'm sure people less privileged than me understand it even better.
In a perfect world there is no corruption.
And that applies to fighting oppression in the real world how?
Ahhhh. There was that one special person whose IQ loitered at the bottom in that study. Now we know who it was. And once outed, his peers will quickly self-identifiy as well.
um,
he was always a racist.
so, the headline should be : racist writer ouster after ridiculously racist tirade.
because all of his writings before proved he was a racist..he was just ridiculous with this piece, and his fellow NROers couldn't give him cover.
If there is anything exceptional about the American experiment it is the belief that a society founded on personal liberty can overcome its differences of race, religion, culture and gender. Now we have self-absorbed pinheads like John Derbyshire doing nothing more than questioning that belief.
It's absolutely over the top offensive that NR would allow this lune, John Derbyshire a platform to spew his hatred. They let him make up statistics based on pure hate and went ahead publishing it.
I'm more angry with the magazine and the folks running things! John isn't worth a second thought, he's obviously crazy.
Some of those quotes literally made me nauseous. How did that get through? I'm so disgusted I can't even think of the words to express how I feel about this.
Aw, poor NR, you realize your little fwiend isn't so vewwy good for your reputation?
Just like every other conservative media outlet, they defend and ignore their most blatantly ignorant and prejudicial speakers until they go "too far." What that really means is it's too offensive to be swept under the rug by a few well-chosen words.
I'm not surprised by this, and I'm not surprised if he ends up on Limbaugh's show to "fight back against to evil liberal race-baiters."
I think people ae starting to see through Limbaugh's little get rich scheme too.
For a country that hated Native Americans, allowed slavery, persecuted Irish Americans, abused Chinese workers ignored the plight of the Jews, interned Japanese Americans and continues to belittle non-whites it grows in fits and starts. While not perfect, it began to assimilate different people and people were beginning to thrive. To revert to openly marginalizing women and minorities, devaluing the workers who were the engine for the wealth of the few, attacking education as elitist and all the while citing morality is obscene. Hate speech from a protected pulpit or in a magazine is cowardice. It is legal to be stupid but evil to be hateful.
The National Review actually has a tipping point for outrageous rhetoric. What a revelation!
Steve, to really understand how depressing this whole episode is, google John Derbyshire's review of "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed", which was posted in the wake of the Dover trial, and was without doubt the most devastating critique of that horrible movie. I still quote parts of that magnificent article in my mails and comments.
Like David Frum, John Derbyshire demonstrated the potential to forge meaningful and useful links between conservatives and liberals. Now all we can do is stand back in dismay as one more conservative succumbs to the disease of racism.
Ironically Derbyshire illustrates and demonstrates, and perfectly at that, how unintelligent racists like him generally are. I'd feel sorry for his kids, but that seems like such a waste of effort since they're probably already thoroughly brainwashed by this hateful person, just like his parents did to him. It should be illegal.
I would like to think someone with the responsibilty for answering whether or not the Derbyshire children are being injured by these sorts of otherwise insane points of view , has begun an investigation on their behalf . Rarely do you see a more public , and consequently more dramatic a reason for an action to protect a child .
How a person so far out of control remains considered a suitable guardian speaks to the complaint that living in an "alternative" reality is just a political mindset . Holding onto hope for the safety and dignity of mature adults professionally enduring is one thing , but , aside from long term issues for a mind forged into pre hate crime postures , how do you contribute to the security of children by making them citizens of this "America" , and blind to the real world ?
Unfortunately nothing can be done unless Derbshire acts upon his beliefs. Thoughts are thoughts actions can kill. But, allowing schools to be built in communities upon where they can teach hate is another story. Allowing schools to be privatized and run by rascist or prejudice officials is one of the worst things we can do to this country. Allowing private prisons to open up where we can throw people in them who do not adhere to what we believe in is dangerous.Having a prison is going to be another big business tactic much like the wars. Could you be imprisoned for being Mexican....quite possibly. How about if you are a Muslim? What about if you are an abortion doctor? Could you go to prison for protesting against Greed or injustice? Which State do you think will be the first to imprison families who are just trying to make a living in the U.S.? How many Muslims are in prison now simply for being Muslim? They are going to need more prisons to for women who are taking birth control. Is this where we want our tax dollars to go. There are already thousands in prison for having contracted the disease of addiction. Why do they need all these private prisons?