The Guardian reporter Jonathon David Farley recently wrote an article called "DNA of the KKK" stating that the Science Museum of London cancelled its lecture by Nobel Laureate James Watson due to his racist beliefs.
Admittedly, Watson's idea African-Americans are racially inferior due to their genetic makeup is both offensive and foolish, but why does that justify canceling his lecture? Was he going to lecture on that specific subject? I doubt it. In fact, the whole situation sounds like discrimination based on a man's non-rational beliefs.
This seems to be a sign of academic intolerance. Farley, in his article, later goes on to claim "many Americans still defend the man." I feel we should. It is an ominous sign when no one listens to a man based on one idea, as if he had no others. Watson's importance has little to do with racial inferiority or eugenics at all.
If you delve into a bit of history, you'll discover Watson shared his Nobel Prize with Francis Crick for discovering the structure of DNA. The fact is most scientific breakthroughs involving the human genome in the past 50 years are based on his initial research. That is why he is important — not some half-baked white-supremacist theory.
You can't preach tolerance but still pick what to hear and what to censor — I hope the Federal Communications Commission catches this article. The free exchange of ideas relies on the basis that all ideas, no matter how absurd, can be traded openly. The intellectual market is no place for cloak and dagger games, but that is what seems to be going on. It’s a popularity contest that we're all going to lose.
Everyone means everyone. I hate to say it, but if Watson is a racist and a bigot, anyone who denies his right to speak is no better. As Mario Savio said in his speech at the University of California, Berkeley, “There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop.”
I guess what I'm getting at is this: To deny one man is his beliefs is to deny academic and intellectual evolution, so for once maybe America should stand up for one of their own.
Let us all stand up for the First Amendment and throw our bodies on the machinations of ignorance and intolerance with the hope ideas will be treated as just that. Heresy is not a crime, only refusing to listen is. So when comes down to it: Mr. Watson and the Science Museum of London, I wish a plague upon both your houses.
Don't just shut him up- show why he's wrong
What frustrated me most about the Watson coverage was the fact that no one critically engaged him and his remarks, resorting instead to shutting him up with complaints of bigotry and narrow-mindedness. The mass media and the scientific community all jumped away from him pointing fingers, as if the words he uttered were so reproachable that there was no need to show the error in his ways. The fact of the matter is Watson is not the only person in the world who thinks this way about blacks’ intelligence. By taking this affronted “how dare you make such a racist remark” stance, we’re refusing to get to the root of the problems (the racism itself), which in some small way gives legitimacy to this stance.
It would have been much more effective and principled if people had stood up and said, "Watson, you are wrong about your claim because of A, B, C, D, etc." It’s shocking that a person with such a pedigree in science would make such remarks, so it’s even more shocking why we wouldn’t want to know why he believes this- does he have any evidence at all?- so that we can refute any misinformation and rectify the situation. Taking the supposed moral high ground by refusing to tackle inflammatory ideas ends up hurting us in the long run.
I'm not saying Watson was right, by any means. I'm just expressing disappointment with the way the people involved handled the situation. Yes, Watson has a right to hold beliefs and express them, however twisted they may be. And yes, the museum has a right to prevent him from presenting these beliefs on their premises. However, it's frustrating that the world has become so sensitive to race issues that there's no critical analysis and refutation of claims that hurt our attempts to create a post-race society. I got the impression that many were hesitant to debate Watson because they thought doing so would concede the fact that his remarks were a legitimate concern and not just some old man’s crazy ramblings. We’d all like to believe that Watson’s worldview isn’t widespread, so it’s easier to sweep it under the rug and hope it just disappears. But that’s just not going to happen, and I can only hope that we deal with the next Watson-gate more reasonably.
A Distinction Needs to Be Made
I think a lot of people think of the first amendment and free speech as an open-ended right to a forum to voice one's opinions. However, it isn't a right to a forum. James Watson doesn't have a right to lecture at that museum or any other. Further, no one is denying him his beliefs - he's entitled to them, just not entitled to an unrestricted venue he doesn't own. Further, you state that "Heresy is not a crime, only refusing to listen is." What about my right to make up my own mind what to listen to? Refusing to listen to someone you intensely disagree with is entirely up to you.
In short, forums are and should be free to decide who they want to promote, and information consumers should be free not to have to listen to views they don't agree with.