Free Speech Discredited Racism Better Than Cancel Culture Ever Could

Photo credit: Cavalier Daily

by James A. Bacon

The attacks on Bert Ellis, newly appointed member of the University of Virginia Board of Visitors, continue without letup. The Cavalier Daily, the UVa student newspaper, has published an article resurrecting an event from the 1974-75 academic year in which Ellis, who led the University Union at the time, invited IQ theorist and eugenicist William Shockley to speak at the university.

The article follows a call by Student Council for Ellis’ resignation from the Board of Visitors for the offense in 2020 of thinking about using a razor blade to remove the infamous “F— UVA” sign from the door of a room on the Lawn.

The CD piece does not call Ellis a racist outright, but it invites readers to draw such a conclusion by recounting how he was instrumental in bringing a prominent racist to the university despite the vehement opposition of some African-American students.

What the CD article overlooks is that Shockley, who won the Nobel Prize for his contributions to the invention of the transistor, was giving numerous speeches and garnering widespread media attention at the time for his view that Blacks are genetically inferior to Whites. It also neglected to report that the Student Union also recruited Richard Goldsby, an African-American biologist who argued that race is a social construct, to debate Shockley.

“We wanted the issues thrashed out,” says Ellis. “It was a true debate that was a sold out event. Richard Goldsby took him to task.”

To hold such a debate today would be considered beyond the pale. But the debate made a positive contribution to the discrediting of racism at the time. Many Whites still believed in Black genetic inferiority in the mid-1970s, and Shockley gave their prejudices an intellectual gloss. Those views also were under increasing attack. Harvard, Princeton and Yale had canceled Shockley appearances in response to student outrage, but such intolerance only make him a martyr in the minds of many. Shutting down a speaker might silence him for the moment but it does nothing to refute his views. By contrast, the UVa Student Union event gave Goldsby an opportunity to demolish Shockley in a mano a mano debate.

UVa was a much more intellectually vibrant place in the mid-1970s than it is today, when people whose views conflict with the reigning orthodoxies are scolded and bullied into silence. During Ellis’ tenure at the Student Union, UVa hosted the first public speech by John Dean after he pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in the Watergate controversy and turned government witness against President Richard Nixon. The Student Union also hosted the first public viewings and analysis of the entire Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination.

“We had some real major events back then,” says Ellis. “Students paid real money to go to them, and the events were packed.”

That’s certainly more than can be said today when the only controversial speakers, such as former Vice President Mike Pence, are paid for by outside organizations like The Jefferson Council (of which Ellis is president) and the Young America’s Foundation. True to form, The Cavalier Daily denounced Pence’s appearance, too.

One might hope that the thought police at The Cavalier Daily and in Student Council might ponder how racist ideas were discredited in the first place. If their predecessors at UVa had adopted the same approach, they would have shut down those who challenged the old racist dogmas. One wishes that these passionate but misguided students will come to understand that they hold the views they do only because others had the freedom to speak about them, write about them, and defend them publicly.

Bert Ellis championed freedom and diversity of thought as a 4th-year student in 1975, and he does so today. As a member of the Board of Visitors, he will continue to fight for free expression and intellectual diversity.

The editors of The Cavalier Daily could earn a modicum of respect by challenging Ellis’ ideas directly. But delving more than 40 years into the past for a controversial event and omitting critical context to tar him through guilt by association with a now-discredited racist does nothing to advance any worthy cause. The CD article discredits only itself.

Full disclosure: The author is vice president-communications of The Jefferson Council.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

63 responses to “Free Speech Discredited Racism Better Than Cancel Culture Ever Could”

  1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    You are quite right. Encouraging debates in which controversial ideas are presented and challenged is fundamental to the purpose of a university and to the essence of a democracy. We need more of such events.

    1. Thanks you. Since I could not have said it any better myself, I’ll just say thank you.

    2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      This was the 70s not the 20s. Eugenics was no longer controversial but instead was known to be the racist doctrine it is. There are still plenty who believe and espouse it today. They may couch it in acceptable terms and statistics but it is still being preached. Do we need to give those believers a stage still or can we just tell them to go pound sand for once – clearly and unequivocally?

      1. As I noted in the post, debating eugenics today would be beyond the pale. No one would be interested in hearing such views debated today any more than they would be interested in hearing someone debate the views of neo-Nazis. But the debate served a useful purpose 45 years ago when such ideas were more mainstream.

        1. Whether it was actually ‘Mainstream’ or not is what I’m trying to understand in all of this. It’s a bit before my time, but I see the comments above regarding the legacy of Buck vs Bell certainly extending to the 70’s in VA. I didn’t know that was the case and it certainly adds a different light to the topic, which the CD certainly didn’t touch on or provide any context about. Was it really mainstream thought though or did it even have a minority following in the US/VA? I’m struggling to believe that’s the case but will let the facts get in the way if my belief is wrong.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            You’re asking good questions. Keep doing it.

            JAB has constructed a narrative but it’s fraught with his own beliefs which do not really represent “mainstream”.

          2. When I first read the CD piece I wondered if the Shockley invite was really just a poke in the eye but there’s more to the story….

        2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          You also noted that other illustrious universities had the backbone to just say no to giving such tripe a stage… of course they did not have an Ellis there pushing to keep the “controversy” alive.

      2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        I had forgotten about Shockley, but, after being reminded by Jim’s post, remember that his claims sparked a national controversy. Because he was a Nobel Prize winner, albeit in an entirely different area, his claims carried considerable credibility with a lot of people.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Were it not for that tiny quirk, he’d have a statue somewhere, maybe even Blacksburg.

          1. Yeah, those “tiny quirks” can definitely bite you in the a$$.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Quite a few folks who were well known and even celebrated were avowed racists.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ae05d90b939c5fa97d828841116a26eada1d8de9b94fccc6aa9119fb09cef8d1.jpg

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/faf51ab26001eb20cd10e73cbac001a0bd727b81560c077848b472d39ce1fff7.jpg

          I don’t know if this is what is meant when someone says such views use to be “mainstream”.

      3. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        Maybe I misunderstand your comment …

        Eugenics was known to be a racist doctrine in the 1970s? In Virginia? The state was still sterilizing people based on eugenics theory until 1979.

        https://acluva.org/en/news/shameful-history-eugenics-virginia

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          Heck VA was still prosecuting anti-miscegenation law until 1967, which is was also rooted in Buck v Bell.

        2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          “Although Virginia formally adopted a sterilization law in 1924, sterilization was not practiced widely until after the United State Supreme Court ruling against Carrie Buck in 1927. This ruling set a precedent on the legality of sterilization not only in Virginia but also throughout the nation. During the 1930’s, immediately after this Supreme Court ruling, sterilization in Virginia occurred at its highest rate with approximately 13 sterilizations per 100,000 state residents. A 1938 report stated that 632 of the first 1,000 patients sterilized had been paroled, and that 812 of the same group were from impoverished families (Trent 1994, 217). After the 1930’s – prior to, during, and following WWII – sterilization initially decreased and thereafter maintained a fairly constant rate. After this, sterilization rates dropped dramatically until the practice faded out and then was subsequently forced out of practice with the repeal of the 1924 act in 1974 and the additional removal of all mention of eugenic sterilization to prevent “hereditary forms of mental illness that are recurrent” from being passed on from Virginia code in 1979 (Dorr 2008, p. 221, Lombardo 2008b, p. 250). Compulsory sterilizations for non-eugenic purposes continue today, but under very strict regulations. A compulsory sterilization patient must be unable to give informed consent, in need of contraception, unable to use any other form of contraception, and permanently unable to raise a child (Lombardo 2008b, p. 267).”

          So pretty much a fringe thing by the mid-70s.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/04373b3908dc54e5c3bb04cb353ff5b9cef3ad9f9e8e6d17546a369b31cda73d.jpg

          1. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            The graph looks like about 100 sterilizations in the timeframe described as “1979”. The debate at UVa was 1974-1975. Seems pretty relevant to me.

        3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          “Although Virginia formally adopted a sterilization law in 1924, sterilization was not practiced widely until after the United State Supreme Court ruling against Carrie Buck in 1927. This ruling set a precedent on the legality of sterilization not only in Virginia but also throughout the nation. During the 1930’s, immediately after this Supreme Court ruling, sterilization in Virginia occurred at its highest rate with approximately 13 sterilizations per 100,000 state residents. A 1938 report stated that 632 of the first 1,000 patients sterilized had been paroled, and that 812 of the same group were from impoverished families (Trent 1994, 217). After the 1930’s – prior to, during, and following WWII – sterilization initially decreased and thereafter maintained a fairly constant rate. After this, sterilization rates dropped dramatically until the practice faded out and then was subsequently forced out of practice with the repeal of the 1924 act in 1974 and the additional removal of all mention of eugenic sterilization to prevent “hereditary forms of mental illness that are recurrent” from being passed on from Virginia code in 1979 (Dorr 2008, p. 221, Lombardo 2008b, p. 250). Compulsory sterilizations for non-eugenic purposes continue today, but under very strict regulations. A compulsory sterilization patient must be unable to give informed consent, in need of contraception, unable to use any other form of contraception, and permanently unable to raise a child (Lombardo 2008b, p. 267).”

          So pretty much a fringe thing by the mid-70s.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/04373b3908dc54e5c3bb04cb353ff5b9cef3ad9f9e8e6d17546a369b31cda73d.jpg

      4. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        They ARE STILL around but they dance a different dance and use proxies and equivalent to make the same points IMO.

        Words like “culture” and stats about discipline, the infamous “gap”, one parent families, etc… still with us…

        Say phrases like Black Lives Matter and see what you get.

        and totally don’t understand the motivation to “debate” Talk about a venue for a rumble! Like inviting the “unite the right” to “debate”.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          Don’t forget the old “welfare mothers”…

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            racism dies hard. Literally. Not that new ones won’t be “grown” but we make as much progress on it when the die-hards literally die than convincing or converting them.

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            QUEENS. Welfare Queens. Totally made up on the spot and changed the course of the debate. Trump is beloved by the Right for exactly the same reason as was Reagan.

          3. Welfare Queens?

            But, but… …what about the song?

      5. They may couch it in acceptable terms and statistics but it is still being preached.

        I’m unaware of any myself, so will you please list a few of the terms in which eugenics may be couched which you find “acceptable”?

          1. And these are terms which you, personally, think are acceptable ways in which to couch eugenics?

            I don’t think they are acceptable at all, but to each his own I suppose..

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            I think you miss the point. Eric was not advocating “acceptable” expressions but indicating that some contemporary expressions mirror eugenic views. Another might be the Tucker Carlson ravings about replacement theory; or the chant at Charlottesville of “Jews will not replace us.” Some common terms are bandied about with the notion that the listeners find them acceptable.

          3. I think I’m going to follow Nancy Naive’s example and simply refuse to explain my intentionally obtuse and/or subtly sarcastic comments to those who misinterpret them.

            Suffice it to say, I did not misunderstand Eric’s comment.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Under normal circumstances I’d agree with you, but you cannot debate someone who bull$#!^s in real time for a living. You only advance and lend credence to their agenda.

      If you could debate these people, 2016 would have been totally different.

    4. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Well then, let’s get it on…

      Idaho professor sparks outrage after saying women should be kept out of engineering, medical school and law so they can focus on ‘feminine goals’ such as ‘having children’

      Political science professor Scott Yenor is under fire after saying women should stick to ‘feminine goals’ such as ‘homemaking and having children’

      Yenor, who is tenure at Boise State University, openly called for women to be kept out of engineering, medical school and law so that they can have more kids

      After his comments went viral online this week, female students and lawmakers across the country have criticized Yenor and expressed their concerns

      His comments were made at a National Conservatism Conference on October 31

      At the event, Yenor suggested a nation could only be ‘great’ if men and women were kept apart in their ‘respective spheres’

      He later responded after outrage poured in over his remarks

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Sounds like JAB would want to give him a stage…

        1. It sounds like you have a hyper-active imagination and difficulty distinguishing between what reality and what you think might be real.

        2. I interpreted it as Mr. Bacon enjoying the idea of the srewball’s ‘theories’ being eviscerated during a public debate. The same as Mr. Ellis.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Is that how Jeb eviserated Trump? To 10% of Republicans he did.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Pepperidge Farm remembers when Counterspeech Doctrine ruled the day and we didn’t cancel things and drive them underground.

      2. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        OK. So say why what he said was crazy. Maybe he was commenting in a huge big picture way about a birth rate below replacement level. Maybe he was coming from a very theologically conservative position. State WHY he is crazy, rather than asserting it. Maybe there is even a point or two where you see some validity…
        Crazy concept that free speech thing…
        And remember, people on the Left believe a man can have a baby when you say anyone else is crazy…

      3. Maybe one of the female College of Engineering faculty would be willing to debate him at the Boise State student union – if he has the courage to face her, that is.

        Of course, if something like this happened at UVA, I’m pretty sure the student-run newspaper and student council would strongly oppose any such debate.

        I don’t know enough about Boise State to have an opinion on probable student reaction to such an event there, but after all they DO have a blue football field, so… 😉

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Screw a debate. My engineer daughter in law (Pitt) will just kick his ass..

          When Nancy goes full troll it is a sight to see.

          1. Screw a debate. My engineer daughter in law (Pitt) will just kick his ass..

            That’ll also work…

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Is she an egineering lawyer or non-biologically related engineer?

    5. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      The first part of the title article is an excellent point and the value to be admired. The second part about “better than cancel culture” is a non-starter since such did not exist at the time of the Shockley incident. It’s more a current figment of fervid conservative cultural mentality like wokeism. That the student newspaper is blind to the authority of free speech is another matter.

  2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    Off-topic – just a few bad cops giving those good guys a bad name…

    https://twitter.com/bnonews/status/1561494001571794944?s=21

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Again, you can always tell when the nameless trolls Eric and Nancy have lost the point. They go immediately to the red herring move…

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        What chew talkin’ ’bout, Willis?! I’m not even on this thread.

        1. You were on the thread, but you had not gone off-topic.

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        You did see I labeled as “off topic” didn’t you… 🤷‍♂️

    2. Sarcasm aside, if you think bad cops are not in the minority, you are free to refrain from calling for their assistance when/if you are the victim of a crime. You are also free to lobby for the defunding of police departments where you live.

      This is, after all, a free country.

      I do have a question, though: Does your disdain for law enforcement officers extend to the 10,000 to 15,000 IRS enforcement personnel Mr. Biden wants to hire?

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Don’t you worry… I won’t… and I will…

        I have yet to see an IRS agent beat up a man for not wearing shoes…

        1. Thank you for telling us where you stand on the issue of law enforcement.

          Does your pledge mean you will not call the police for any reason about anything, or just for crimes committed against you?

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        If you really understood it might be worth discussing… eh?

        “settled” does not mean the truth from on high. Never did.

        The one thing about science that never changes is that it changes… it evolves as it is body of knowledge that does evolve as we learn more.

        But you have to want to learn.

        1. walter smith Avatar
          walter smith

          And you don’t! You blindly say I accept the CDC. They were wrong about everything, and I tried desperately to get you to consider the possibility that your beloved corrupted government scientists were not being transparent.
          Do you know that the Webb telescope is causing consternation with not showing the red shift expected? SCIENCE! (Real science)

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Walter, the CDC was not wrong about everything by a long shot.

            Govt is not “beloved” , it is what it is and sometimes it is corrupt but nowhere on the scale that folks like you say it is.

            Your problem with science is that you think it’s supposed to be the truth that never changes and it’s not.

            It’s our changing view of the world around us as we learn more about it.

            It’s true with telescopes and disease and climate and the panoply of the world we do live in.

          2. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Excuse me, Larry. I pointed out that the Webb telescope was causing frisson in the physics world because they are not finding the expected red shift. My problem with you is that you refuse to acknowledge reality when your “team” is being questioned. Your “team” was wrong about the lockdowns and the treatment protocol and lied about “effective” and “safe.” People died because they blindly followed the CDC. The Great Barrington Declaration was correct. The censorship was wrong. Violating the Nuremberg Code was WRONG. Ironic that this article was over censoring a eugenics supporter and eugenics is how we got Buck v Bell and Jacobson v Mass (the 1905 vax case). And you and your authoritarian friends who have no problem killing babies shouting “my body, my choice” were silent on the vax mandate, revealing, yet again, your hypocrisy.
            Hey, did you hear that Dr. St. Fau(x)ci is resigning?

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Walter, I’m not concerned with the “red shift”. They’ll figure it out and I have confidence in them and how they proceed.

            No one was wrong about lockdowns.

            The whole thing was about how to understand and contain the virus and it was clearly a learning process and really still is.

            You want perfection. There is no such thing.

            Fauci IS resigning. I never understood you guys issues over him. He’s one guy. He ain’t perfect and yes he has an irritating stage presence. But the man is still exceptionally knowledgeable about disease and most of the rest of the profession in that world considers him top notch.

            The fact the right wing is opposed to him and attacks him PERSONALLY is really about the right wing and how they operate on all issues… They go after people personally. Not good.

          4. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Larry – while it was going on, sane people were raising their hands. We were censored. Doctors lost their licenses. You totalitarians refused to look at evidence, using the very SCIENCE! you profess to love. Ain’t buying the garbage you’re selling.

  3. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    I do not see how scheduling a debate with a notorious and obvious racist constitutes healthy and desirable campus debate. He proposed sterilizing anyone with an IQ of under 100 points with Blacks top on the list.. Who’s next? Hitler?

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      It doesn’t, but it allows some in these parts to claim the mantle of “free speech advocate” by equalizing any speech, i.e., fair and balanced. But, balanced is not fair.

      Besides, it’s UVa as villian. What could be better?

  4. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Anyone seen my skull calipers? They’re around here somewhere.

    1. Have you looked under that pile of old Phrenology Today magazines?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Excellent suggestion! It was inside July’s foldout.

  5. Virginian78 Avatar
    Virginian78

    I was a student at UVA at the time and remember attending a very civil and enlightening discussion. Shockley and Goldsby had a vigorous discussion and brought out thoughtful points in support of their arguments. Shockley was not a racist, he only cited factual data and drew determinations from them, none of his conclusions (which were statistical more than social) were as strongly stated (in a racial context) as this article portrays. Goldsby presented an effective counter argument and the crowd left that night with a sense of having heard an intellectual discussion of differing ideas from two fascinating scholars from different perspectives and different areas of science. At the end of the night I thought Goldsby had the more compelling argument and thought his logic superior, but was pleased to have been offered an enlightening discussion…one which unfortunately could never happen on grounds today.

Leave a Reply