Sex, Summers—And The Return Of Human Nature


The most
recent installment of Politically Correct mind control
comes from

Harvard University
itself, the world capital of

Political Correctness
and at least a major
metropolis of mind control.

It
concerns no less a victim than the president of Harvard
himself, Lawrence Summers, a veteran of the

Clinton administration,
who recently uttered some
remarks about women that made the mind controllers sick
at their stomachs.

A tip of
the hat to President Summers.

What
exactly he said is not clear since there seems to be no
transcript or record of it, but in general he unbosomed
the

heresy
that maybe human beings (in this case, women)
are not merely

blank slates
on which social engineers can scribble
whatever fictions they please.

As the
New York Times described what he is supposed to
have said (and does not deny saying):


"Dr. Summers cited research
showing that more high school boys than girls tend to
score at very high and very low levels on standardized
math tests, and that it was important to consider the
possibility that such differences may stem from
biological differences between the sexes."

[Harvard
Chief Defends His Talk on Women
,
By Sam
Dillon, January 18, 2005]

He was
discussing the general reason why there are so many more
male scientists than female ones, and one such reason
was possible

biologically based
sex differences.

On the
scale of Political Incorrectness, this is not much more
than a misdemeanor.

But it`s
Harvard, you see, and up there they`re just not used to
hearing opinions they don`t like.

To date,
Mr. Summers has had to apologize at least three times.

"I
felt I was going to be sick,"

trembled one female scientist in the audience, M.I.T.
biology professor

Nancy Hopkins
, who listened to part of the speech.
As the Washington Post noted, "she walked out
in what she described as a physical sense of disgust."
[Harvard
Chief`s Comments on Women Assailed
, by Michael
Dobbs, January 14, 2005]

"My
heart was pounding and my breath was shallow,"

she panted to the Post. "I was extremely
upset."

Dr.
Hopkins` breath is perhaps not the only thing about her
that`s shallow.

But she
wasn`t the only one, and for the last week or so, Mr.
Summers has enjoyed all the vitriol that modern
totalitarianism can pour upon him.

To be
sure, he has had his

defenders
, including several

women scientists,
who have suggested that there

really may be
the kind of

innate biological differences
between the sexes that
he postulated.

But, as
in tyranny`s more prosperous days under

Stalin
and

Mao Tse Tung
, truth is

no defense.
Even after his third apology, one
Thought Patroller, the

female head
of the Harvard chemistry department,
sniffed that it just didn`t go far enough. Of course it
never does.

"The
problem is that you can`t take it back,"

she

sighed
.

What is
remarkable about the hate fest directed at Mr. Summers
is not that he was necessarily right (though there`s

strong evidence
that innate differences between the
sexes account for differing mathematical aptitudes as
well as many other differences) nor even that a
distinguished academic official has to grovel in
multiple apologies for his innocuous comments.

What is
remarkable is why those who objected to what he said did
so at all.

They got
sick at their stomachs because they can`t stand the idea
that "innate"
or

"biologically"
grounded differences account for
anything.

What Mr.
Summers said contradicted the

blank slate
model of humanity that has been
enthroned in academic dogma for nearly a century.

And one
reason denying that human beings are blank slates is
such a dreadful sin and makes some people physically
sick is that it ultimately threatens their careers,
their whole world-view, and indeed their power.

The
blank slate ideology, increasingly

discarded by scientists,
asserts that there are no
constants in human nature, that in fact there is no such
thing as human nature at all, and it implies that
whoever or whatever controls the "environment"—the
social or cultural environment in which a child grows
up—controls the man (or woman) that eventually emerges.

It`s an
idea that underlies both communism and much of modern
liberalism. 

What Mr. Summers` remarks imply
is that you can`t reconstruct human beings, that there`s
something natural—meaning genes—in human nature that
survives even totalitarian manipulation and social
engineering.

So far
from making people sick at their stomachs, the
possibility that human beings possess a nature beyond
the capacity of political power to twist as it wants
ought to make us rejoice.

But if
that`s true, then the ideologies rooted in the blank
slate dogma are in serious trouble, and so are those
whose careers are based on such ideologies.

That
very thought is enough to make some people sick, and
it`s also enough, if you challenge the

dogma
, to cause a few problems for

your own career
—even when you`re the president of
Harvard.

COPYRIGHT

CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Sam Francis [email
him] is a nationally syndicated columnist. A selection
of his columns,

America Extinguished: Mass Immigration And The
Disintegration Of American Culture
, is now available
from

Americans For Immigration Control.

Click here
for Sam Francis` website. Click

here
to order his monograph
,
Ethnopolitics: Immigration, Race, and the American
Political Future.