My eyes are shot, enough that I donʼt believe I can take my final exams, but I thought I would post some comments from an email I sent a while ago, on a statement written by the history faculty of the New Jersey Institute of Technology and Rutgers University against Jason Reza Jorjani:
The entire statement is to denounce Jorjani’s ‘views on race’. I cannot feign knowledge of the details of Jorjani’s views on race, enough to judge his ability to ‘educate and evaluate [NJIT’s] students’. Some of the details given in the statement, however, are not to the purpose.
First, the ‘exposé’ cited is classified even by the New York Times as an opinion piece. Jorjani is there quoted as saying, ‘We will have a Europe, in 2050, where the bank notes have Adolf Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexander the Great. And Hitler will be seen like that: like Napoleon, like Alexander, not like some weird monster who is unique in his own category – no, he is just going to be seen as a great European leader.’ While I disagree with classing Hitler together with Napoleon and Alexander the Great, I also think no good is done by maintaining a mythos in which he is the one great unique man of Europe, ‘without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life’, whether favourably or unfavourably. Is it objectionable to glorify Hitler? For his objectionable deeds, aye. But I do not think Hitler’s genocidal behaviour toward Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and others unique. It is those who most strongly play up The Holocaust™ as a culture-defining mythic event that have most often find it useful to attribute to Hitler a quotation about the Armenians as a genocide no one remembered:
Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formation in readiness – for the present only in the East – with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space [Lebensraum] which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?
Indeed, I cannot see who still remains as a proper subject of guilt for The Holocaust™. The desire to foist it upon all White Europæans, and even upon all who can plausibly be called White (except Jews), is itself at least as despicable as the desire to rehabilitate Hitler for which the op-ed blames Jorjani.
Second, believing in differences in IQ distribution among broad population groups keeps no one from recognizing academic ability and achievement in students of all genetic and ethnic backgrounds.
Third, given most people’s firm support for keeping the likes of Peter Singer at Princeton, I cannot see how this quoted opinion of Jorjani’s is particularly problematic: ‘With the emerging technologies of embryo selection and genetic engineering, it would be possible, with the right leadership and government planning, to restore the pre-Arab and pre-Mongol genetic character of the majority of the Iranian population within only one or two generations.’ The implicit approval of abortion and related evils is objectionable, but that is not at all what the authors of the statement consider objectionable. Nor does it give any more reason to find Jorjani more inappropriate an instructor than Singer. A fortiori, if approval of abortion be insufficient to consider Jorjani unable to educate and evaluate students, so is approval of genetic engineering aimed at restoring a certain genetic character to a countryʼs population.