Heidi Does Long Beach: The SPLC vs. Academic Freedom

As you read this,
Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center is
interviewing some 40 students, faculty, and
administrators at

California State University–Long Beach
, where I am a
tenured Professor of Psychology, for an upcoming hit job
on me and my research.

Readers of

VDARE.COM
need

little introduction
to the

SPLC
or Ms.

Beirich
. Since 1971, the SPLC has built up an

unsavory reputation
, attracting criticism even from
the Left for dubious

fund-raising
tactics, reckless allegations (anyone
who opposes open borders is a racist) massive
exaggerations (the Ku Klux Klan is on the verge of
taking over the entire U.S.) and, by those who actually
read its materials, for wholesale misrepresentation.
Essentially a gang of political terrorists, well

described
by

Peter Brimelow
as a “shakedown scam that preys on
the elderly, Holocaust-haunted rich”
, the SPLC is
nevertheless accorded almost religious reverence by many
in the media, academia, and government. Case in point:
the (otherwise quite fair) student newspaper article on
my case was headlined

Civil rights group investigates professor
  [by
MaryJane O`Brien,
Daily 49er, November 13
2006]. [For the
Capitol Research Center`s new expose of the SPLC,
click
here
]

The SPLC is paying
me attention because it wants to suppress my academic
work. I am interested in

sociobiology
, evolutionary psychology and group
behavior. Some years ago I began to study the Jews. This
resulted in three scholarly books and a monograph
considering Judaism from a modern evolutionary
perspective:

A People that Shall Dwell Alone:Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (1994)

Separation and Its Discontents:Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (1998)

The Culture of Critique:
An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in
Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements
(1998)

Understanding Jewish Influence: Study in Ethnic Activism (2004)

I
have also published a number of

related articles
(scroll down). 

In this body of work I have developed the argument that
Jewish activity collectively, throughout history, is
best understood as an elaborate and highly successful
group competitive strategy directed against neighboring
peoples and host societies. The objective has been
control of economic resources and political power.  One
example:

overwhelming Jewish support for non-traditional
immigration
, which has the effect of weakening
America`s historic white majority. Such behavior would
be viewed as perfectly normal from a sociobiological
standpoint.

Of course, I could be wrong. Demonstrating this would
require logical argument and reinterpretation of the
extensive factual evidence I have assembled. I have yet
to see any critic of my work able to show that I was
wrong about the theory or in my handling of the
evidence. But in principle it might be possible.

However, my critics, exemplified by the SPLC, have
generally been unwilling to attempt this. Instead, their
line has been that the subject is taboo and discussing
it should be forbidden. Needless to say, this is not the
intellectual tradition out of which the Enlightenment
and the Scientific Revolution came.

My experience provides a case study of these tactics.
Beirich, along with another SPLC operative Mark Potok,
recently wrote an

article
  listing me as one of the “13 worst
people in America”
 and “The scariest academic”.
In a country with around 300,000,000 people and

45,000 academics
, the SPLC places me in some pretty
rarified company.

The Beirich & Potok article is a

compendium of ethical lapses
. It refers to me as
having a Master`s degree, although I have held a Ph.D
since 1981 and have been a fully tenured faculty member
at Cal State Long Beach for 15 years. The implication: I
am not a fully qualified and recognized scholar. An
academic who acknowledges not having read my work
is quoted, while positive comments by academics who
have
reviewed my research in scholarly publications
are ignored. It presents gross oversimplifications of my
work—summarizing an entire book in one sentence and
leaving out important qualifications (e.g., although the
organized Jewish community was the major force in
pushing through the 1965 immigration law and in the
establishment of multicultural America, I stipulate
that many Jews were not involved in these efforts).

Further, Beirich & Potok lift quotations out of
context. Most outrageously, they claim that I "suggest[s] that colleges restrict Jewish admission and
Jews be heavily taxed `to counter the Jewish advantage
in the possession of wealth.`"
In fact, the passage
in question discusses the possible consequences of a
hypothetical
ethnic spoils system in which
individuals are assigned access to resources based on
their percentage in the population. Obviously, if such a
system were in place, it would discriminate against
Jews. Merely explaining the real-world consequences of
such a system is not the equivalent of advocating it.

Personally, I am appalled that there are major
organizations and movements in this country that
advocate ethnicity-based access to resources such as
university admissions. Behavioral science research
clearly documents that different ethnic groups have
different average talents, abilities, wealth, etc. 
These differences can only lead to increasing levels of

ethnic tension and competition
in multicultural
America. An ethnicity-based spoils system would be the
end of the country as originally founded. It would lead
to a hyper-Orwellian future in which each ethnic group
jealously monitors the others to make sure it is getting
its “fair” share.

I`m
reminded of an earlier hatchet job by Beirich. She made
a phone call to Human Events Editor-in-Chief Tom
Winter complaining that

Kevin Lamb
, Human Events managing editor, was
also the editor of The Occidental Quarterly—a
publication that

the SPLC calls “racist” and “white supremacist.”
 
(The fact that I have published articles in The
Occidental Quarterly
is a major part of the SPLC`s

problem with me
.) Lamb was gone within the hour.

More recently, Beirich

succeeded
with another phone call in frightening the
supposedly-conservative Leadership Institute into a
last-minute refusal of its premises to the Robert A.
Taft Club, which planned to hold a debate—a debate—between
American Renaissance`s

Jared Taylor
, National Review`s

John Derbyshire
and black conservative Kevin Martin.
 

The

Taft Club
is basically just a group of
Washington-area kids. But no band of heretics is too
small for the SPLC Inquisition.

Ms. Beirich asked to interview me during her stay in
Long Beach. Given her record, I was confident she would
be acting in bad faith. But I offered to be interviewed
by her—if she would answer

my concerns
regarding her previous writing about me
and make them public to the CSULB community. She has not
responded to this offer.

Kevin Lamb was an “at will” employee and really
had no defense against the assault of Beirich and the
SPLC. But the fact is that even academics with tenure
are terrified of being called racists, anti-Semites or
any other pejorative concocted by the left.

This is ironic. Unlike politicians, who must curry favor
with the public in order to be reelected, and unlike
media figures, who have no job protection, tenured
academics should be free from any such fears. Part of
the job—and a large part of the

rationale for tenure
in the first place—is that they
are supposed to be willing to take unpopular positions.

That image of academia, however, simply and sadly has no
basis in reality. Consider, for example, an article
appearing almost two months after the publication of
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt`s famous essay on

the Israel Lobby
and appropriately titled
A
hot paper muzzles Harvard
.”
  [by Eve Fairbanks,
The Los Angeles Times,
May 14 2006]:


“Instead of a roiling
debate, most professors not only agreed to disagree but
agreed to pretend publicly that there was no
disagreement at all. At Harvard and other schools, the
Mearsheimer-Walt paper proved simply too hot to handle —
and it revealed an academia deeply split yet lamentably
afraid to engage itself on one of the hottest political
issues of our time. Call it the academic Cold War:
distrustful factions rendered timid by the prospect of
mutually assured career destruction.”

It`s not that
professors don`t want to sound off on public policy
issues. When there is an opportunity to spout righteous
leftism, professors leap to the front of the line. A
good example: the

Duke University rape allegation case
. Despite
considerable evidence that the charges

are spurious
, three academic departments, 13
programs, and 88 professors at Duke paid for an ad in
the campus newspaper in which they assumed the guilt of
the men, and

stated that
"what happened to this young woman"
resulted from "racism and sexism".

In that case, of
course, the professors who went public with their
indignation knew they were part of a like-minded
community and that there would be much to gain by being
on the

politically-correct
side.

Seen in this context,
the reaction to Mearsheimer and Walt makes a lot of
sense. As one professor

explained:
"People might debate it if you gave
everyone a get-out-of-jail-free card and promised that
afterward everyone would be friends."

This latest experience
with the SPLC has improved my understanding of the
dynamics of group control of individuals.

There have been times
when I have had to endure vicious charges of
anti-Semitism, for instance by Jacob Laksin (Cal
State`s Professor of Anti-Semitism
. Frontpagemag.com
May 5 2006
). But when
discussion was confined
to the impersonal world of the internet, it did not
bother me. I would write a detailed reply and circulate
it among the people who read me. I knew that people who
support my writing would rally to my defense and say
nice things about me and

my reply to Laksin
.

Naturally, I also knew
that I would a get hate mail and maybe a couple of death
threats. But that`s to be expected. And it`s all rather
abstract, since I basically sit in solitude at my
computer and read it all. It pretty much ends there. A
part of me even sees some benefit in it because visits
to my

website
are up and more people are buying my book.

But then came the SPLC
and Heidi Beirich. Someone not connected to CSULB sent
an email to the entire

Psychology Department
—except me—asking why they
allowed an “anti-Semite” to teach there. The
result was an uproar, with heated exchanges on the
faculty email list, a departmental meeting on what to do
about me and my work, and intense meetings of the
departmental governing committee.  

Cold shoulders,
forced smiles and hostile stares became a reality. Going
into my office to teach my classes and attend committee
meetings became an ordeal.

I keep saying to
myself: why is this so hard?  At the conscious level I
was perfectly confident that I could sit down with any
of my colleagues and defend my ideas. I know rationally
that a lot of the people giving me negative vibes are
themselves members of ethnic minority groups—who like
the present ethnic spoils system, such as affirmative
action and ethnically-influenced foreign policy, just
fine.

My theory: Ostracism
and hostility from others in one`s face-to-face world
trigger guilt feelings. These are automatic responses
resulting ultimately from the importance of fitting into
a group over evolutionary time. We Westerners are

relatively prone to individualism
. But we certainly
don`t lack a sense of wanting to belong and to be
accepted. Violating certain taboos carries huge
emotional consequences.

This little bit of
personal experience is doubtless typical of the forces
of self-censorship that maintain the political order of
the post-World-War-II West. It`s the concern about the
face-to-face consequences of being a non-conformist in
the deeply sensitive areas related to race or to Jewish
influence.

My research
on Jewish issues is well within the academic mainstream in terms of use
of sources and evidence, and it has been

well reviewed

in a variety of mainstream sources. It would raise no
controversy except that it deals with very sensitive
issues: Anti-Semitism and Jewish influence on culture
and politics.

I am willing to defend
the idea that my ethnic identity and ethnic interests
are as legitimate as those of the numerous

ethnic activists
that make a living in academia.
Would Mexicans or Chinese be considered moral reprobates
if they didn`t like the idea of their people losing
political, demographic, and cultural control within
their homeland? Should academics like

Cornel West
or

Alan Dershowitz
be fired or ostracized because of
their obvious and deeply expressed ethnic commitments?
What of the many Latino professors who marched in the
recent spate of pro-immigration rallies supporting more
immigration to the U.S. for the people with whom they
identify?

All of these are
accepted and indeed approved. However, my relatively
low-key expression of ethnic identity as a white
European-American concerned about the prospects of his
people and culture so easily becomes whipped up into
mass hysteria on campus. 

This

guilt trauma
is the result of our evolved psychology
and a long history of socialization in post-World-War-II
America. It`s a big part of the problem, and people like
me have simply got to become better at dealing with it.

So in the end, I`ve
come to greet Heidi`s arrival in Long Beach as
therapeutic—a painful but necessary challenge that must
be overcome first at the psychological level if any
progress is to be made on unabashed and unfettered
discussion of critical issues like the 
Third World Invasion

of America and the
impending death of the West. 

Hell, if Republican
candidates had been ready, willing, and able

to campaign
on these issues, they might not have
been so thoroughly “thumped” in the recent elections.

Kevin MacDonald [email
him] is Professor of Psychology at California State
University-Long Beach. For his website, click

here.