by James A. Bacon

I never imagined it possible to exceed the vitriol heaped upon University of Virginia board member Bert Ellis over the past few months. I thought for sure that the nastiness would die down. I was naive. Yesterday the Democratic Party of Virginia labeled him a “eugenicist” — an advocate of the philosophy of sterilizing the genetically unfit. The philosophy was adopted by racists to purge the gene pool of Jews, Blacks, Roma and other groups deemed undesirable. In so doing, the attack groups Ellis with the worst racists of history.

The charge appears in a press release lambasting Governor Glenn Youngkin’s education policy, primarily in K-12 education. While most of the criticisms were tendentious and wrong-headed, at least they were directed toward Youngkin’s policies and actions. But in Ellis’ case, the Democratic Party of Virginia engaged in a vicious personal attack with zero factual foundation. Indeed, the DPV elevated previous libels of Ellis as a “White supremacist” to new heights of malice.

Here is what the press release says.

Appointment of a Eugenicist to the University of Virginia Board of Visitors

On July 1 of last year, Youngkin nominated Bert Ellis to the UVa Board of Visitors, which was immediately met with resistance after learning that during his time at UVa, Mr. Ellis helped organize an event called “The Correlation Between Race and Intelligence,” featuring William Shockley, an unabashed racist and eugenicist apologist. Nearly 50 years later, Ellis has failed to acknowledge the irreparable damage caused by that event, and Youngkin failed to withdraw his nomination.

Here is what Virginians should consider when they evaluate the DPV statement:

  1. Ellis never endorsed Shockley’s eugenicist theories. Privately, he found them deplorable.
  2. He, with two other co-chairmen of the University Union, invited Shockley to a debate with African-American biologist Richard Goldsby.
  3. Far from causing “irreparable damage,” the event hastened the discrediting of Shockley’s racist theories by showing the weaknesses of his arguments. Ellis believed then, as he believes now, that free speech and debate are the best antidotes to racism.
  4. No one can produce a shred of evidence to corroborate the libel that Ellis is racist. And they never will. Because he’s not.
  5. The Cavalier Daily (UVa’s student newspaper), the UVa faculty senate, the UVa student government, and the Democratic Party of Virginia have persistently and knowingly perpetuated their libels even though the full context of the Shockley incident has been reported on blogs and aired on talk radio.

The DPV must apologize, and heads within the DPV organization must roll. News media must correct the record. Columnists must issue denunciations. Politicians must demand a retraction.

If the political/pundit class cannot enforce the most basic standards of decency, civil discourse in Virginia is dead.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

67 responses to “Lords of the Lie”

  1. Lefty665 Avatar

    Being required to defend the indefensible, this kind of idiocy, is what ran my wife and me out of the Party over a decade ago. It’s too bad, there are some good and well meaning Dems, and they get tarred with this nonsense. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the Party to see the light.

  2. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    The DPV is lying. What’s new?

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      I dunno! In 2018, the VA GOP accused Dem candidate Leslie Cockburn of anti-Semitism over a book she had written; in 2022, the party rescinded material citing George Soros as Jewish in connection with a campaign donation to a Dem.
      Both parties are mired in original sin in this regard.

  3. Sherlock, I’m sure you’d take offense to a debate about whites being genetically predisposed to evil, so calling it “just a debate” about the intelligence of black people seems to be lacking in empathy. Nobody wants their intelligence or status as human beings “up for debate”. A lot of bad faith actors demand public debate to create the illusion of open-ended discussion. Holocaust deniers are rather infamous for this, as win or lose the debates give the impression the matter isn’t settled.

    I know an article was written on the Shockley debate, and Ellis ignored a lot of black students to move forward with the debate. What was his justification? Why on Earth were his opinions on Shockley private? To appear “neutral” on a debate about Black intelligence? You must see how that doesn’t paint a flattering picture to others.

    1. Rosie, the debate occurred 50 years ago. It was a very different time and a very different intellectual climate. No one would hold the debate today. America did not change from a racist nation to what it is today (increasingly a reverse-racist nation) without a lot of debate and discussion. How do you think change occurs? Oh, at the point of a gun. But besides that.

      The rightness or wrongness of the Shockley debate is distraction. Ellis is not now and never has been a eugenicist. That is a lie. And you’re trying to defend, excuse or otherwise minimize the lie.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Even 50 years ago, not everyone was like that though. Many were repelled by the concept even back then.

        I’m not sure it was “popular” at all in fact. I know it was considered repugnant by many even then.

      2. VaPragamtist Avatar
        VaPragamtist

        Shockley was a highly controversial figure even in the late 60’s and early 70’s. Even 50 years ago this “debate” didn’t happen on most campuses because most campuses didn’t want to give any semblance of legitimacy to Shockley’s outdated, fringe beliefs.

    2. VaPragamtist Avatar
      VaPragamtist

      You raise an excellent point.

      Even in 1975, Shockley was a highly controversial figure. From the late 60’s into the 70’s colleges invited him to lectures/debates and then rescinded their invitations after massive pushback and protests. This wasn’t just some guy no one knew. It would be the equivalent of inviting Steve Bannon to speak today, if Bannon was also a eugenicist.

      Shockley’s views certainly weren’t mainstream in academia in 1975 either. Even 50 years ago he was the crazy old guy no one gave legitimacy to.

      So knowing all this, why did Ellis invite Shockley to speak? Why give him a platform (thus giving his views legitimacy), even in a debate-style?

      And why schedule the event to coincide with Black Culture Week?

      It’s not a huge leap to conclude that Ellis was pushing back against the progressive wave at the time, inviting a controversial speaker to disrupt the celebratory nature of Black Culture Week (akin to complaints today: “why do we need to have a Black History Month?”). He knew what he was doing, even if he tried to couch it in a “debate”.

  4. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    He should sue. Discovery is a wonderful thing. Civil discourse in Virginia died years ago. Stop with bringing the pen knives and feather dusters to a street gun battle.

    For more than a century the Democratic Party of Virginia used rabid racism to maintain power. In the last 60 years they’ve done a lovely pirouette and now they are … using racism to maintain power. It’s what they do.

    1. M. Purdy Avatar

      I agree that it would be interesting to see him sue. Discovery is indeed a wonderful thing, but it goes both ways. I do think the “eugenicist” line of attack is going to far, but the opinion that Mr. Ellis is a racist is within bounds legally speaking.

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        All we have on the record is he didn’t like the sign on that door and took ill advised steps to challenge it. That makes him a racist? It just makes him a hothead. He is clearly a hothead. 🙂 That debate decades ago strikes me as a highly admirable thing, exactly what should be happening on college campuses. That also provides no basis for tagging him “racist.” Now, discovery is also a two-edged sword…

        To be called a Nazi when not was and is an actionable slander. To be called a Communist when not is actionable. To be accused of racism without evidence is also slander.

      2. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        All we have on the record is he didn’t like the sign on that door and took ill advised steps to challenge it. That makes him a racist? It just makes him a hothead. He is clearly a hothead. 🙂 That debate decades ago strikes me as a highly admirable thing, exactly what should be happening on college campuses. That also provides no basis for tagging him “racist.” Now, discovery is also a two-edged sword…

        To be called a Nazi when not was and is an actionable slander. To be called a Communist when not is actionable. To be accused of racism without evidence is also slander.

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Legally, I think you’re on quicksand. Watch Paul Newman in “Absence of Malice” for a lay explanation of libel.

        2. M. Purdy Avatar

          Wait, we also have his opposition to DEI, opposition to UVa’s focus on slavery, and downplaying Jefferson’s affair with Sally Hemmings on the record. Do these make him a racist? No. Could a reasonable person believe he is a racist. Yes. Further, just a reminder about NYT v. Sullivan. Ellis a public figure. You’re allowed to have opinions on public figures, even unfounded ones. Liability arises when you state facts that are untrue or one should have known to be untrue about that figure, and it does damage to ones reputation. I’d be curious to hear what the theory of the case is w/r/t Ellis.

          1. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            Few things you say can do more damage to a reputation or are harder to disprove. That’s why your team uses it to attack somebody every hour of every day.

          2. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            Few things you say can do more damage to a reputation or are harder to disprove. That’s why your team uses it to attack somebody every hour of every day.

          3. James Kiser Avatar
            James Kiser

            Since it was never proven that TJ and Hemmings had an affair is at best a weak conjecture. Pushed by the Babylon newspaper The Washington Post. Scientifically it is impossible to connect TJ to Hemmings and science circles generally seem to believe it was his brother. Believing lies about people without actionable proof is just wrong morally.

          4. M. Purdy Avatar

            Nope, you’re totally mistaken. It is very likely that TJ was Hemmings’ lover and the father of her children: https://www.monticello.org/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-a-brief-account/

          5. Lefty665 Avatar

            You are being charitable, but it does appear that they had a long relationship that was more than master and slave that included several children.

          6. M. Purdy Avatar

            Yes, it does appear that way:-).

          7. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            Few things you say can do more damage to a reputation or are harder to disprove. That’s why your team uses it to attack somebody every hour of every day. And remember the key word in Sullivan, which I read with the ink still wet: malice.

          8. M. Purdy Avatar

            Yeah, racism is definitely used too much. But remember, your team attracts most of the racists. If you would expel them or denounce them, it would do much to combat the accusation.

          9. But remember, your team attracts most of the racists.

            Hey, check it out! You do have a sense of humor.

          10. Lefty665 Avatar

            Dunno, with the Dem embrace of identity politics, woke racism, and CRT/DIE Dems have invested heavily in racism. Plus they’ve got the legacy of Southern Dems so their racism stretches back around 200 years. It could be the pot calling the kettle black.

            Glad I’m an Indy not affiliated with either party.

          11. M. Purdy Avatar

            I’m not denying that there are some reverse racists in the D party, but Rs are in the business of actively courting racists with various dog whistles. White nationalists don’t vote D:-). Southern Dems pretty much all became Republicans with the Southern Strategy, so the demographic switched party affiliations, and in response, African Americans largely switched theirs.

          12. Lefty665 Avatar

            And then the Dems adopted racist identity politics. With that, woke racism, CRT and DIE the Dems aren’t using dog whistles, they’re shouting racism from the roof tops. They are no better than the Klan in sheets. Kendi is flatly contrary to the Civil Rights Act with: “The remedy for past discrimination is present discrimination. The remedy for present discrimination is future discrimination”.

            With the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act LBJ figured Dems had lost the South for a generation. The Dems current racist identity politics and CRT/DIE may extend that.

            My hopes are that we will get back to dealing with each other based on the contents of our characters rather than the color of our skins. Someone once dreamed of that for our united American future. Fat chance with the Dems openly pushing racism.

          13. M. Purdy Avatar

            Do me a favor. Go ask a non-white friend of yours if they’d feel safer at a liberal Democratic rally or a conservative Republican rally.

          14. Lefty665 Avatar

            Racist. The content of your character is clear. You can change if you decide to.

          15. But remember, your team attracts most of the racists.

            Hey, check it out! You do have a sense of humor.

          16. M. Purdy Avatar

            I mean, say what you will, but it’s 100% true.

          17. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            Is your standard that Mr. Ellis must prove a negative, or that his accusers must prove he is a eugenicist and racist?

          18. M. Purdy Avatar

            Neither. The legal standard is that the speaker or the publisher must knowingly state an untrue fact (or should have known to be untrue) that does damage to the subject’s reputation. I’m not saying he has to prove a negative; I’m saying that merely having an opinion isn’t a cause of action. If he thinks he can prove an untrue fact and “actual malice,” he should sue.

          19. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            You too should watch “Absence of Malice.”

          20. I’d be curious to hear what the theory of the case is w/r/t Ellis.

            The democrat party of Virginia did state, as fact, in their press release that Mr. Ellis is a eugenicist. They almost certainly know that he is not. After all, the overwhelming majority of those who pushed eugenics were “progressives”.

            And it would definitively do damage to his reputation to be portrayed as a “progressive”…

          21. M. Purdy Avatar

            Yeah, I think that’s more of an opinion statement. Like, “So and so is a racist.” It’s an opinion. But sure, if he thinks he can prove actual malice, he should sue.

          22. James Kiser Avatar
            James Kiser

            Remember our esteemed so called Gov and doctor Northam and the democrats that believe that the unwanted that survive an abortion are for murdering the infant.

          23. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Curious. Reputational damage in 1976 or presently?

          24. M. Purdy Avatar

            This is the correct question. Even if he could prove actual malice, can he prove his reputation was damaged by being called a eugenicist?

          25. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            here’s an actual real-world example from Becker’s Healthcare :

            “Randall Tobler, MD, the former CEO of Memphis, Mo.-based Scotland County Hospital, sued the hospital over slander and defamation allegations, according to a March 9 report from KTVO News.

            Dr. Tobler alleges hospital board members and employees falsely stated he embezzled $16 million from Scotland County Hospital’s daycare and pharmacy. Dr. Tobler said he was wrongly terminated last August from his role and has been unable to find new employment because of the embezzlement allegations.”

            https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/former-ceo-sues-missouri-hospital-for-slander.html?origin=BHRE&utm_source=BHRE&utm_medium=email&utm_content=newsletter&oly_enc_id=3702A7342967D9W

          26. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            here’s an actual real-world example from Becker’s Healthcare :

            “Randall Tobler, MD, the former CEO of Memphis, Mo.-based Scotland County Hospital, sued the hospital over slander and defamation allegations, according to a March 9 report from KTVO News.

            Dr. Tobler alleges hospital board members and employees falsely stated he embezzled $16 million from Scotland County Hospital’s daycare and pharmacy. Dr. Tobler said he was wrongly terminated last August from his role and has been unable to find new employment because of the embezzlement allegations.”

            https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/former-ceo-sues-missouri-hospital-for-slander.html?origin=BHRE&utm_source=BHRE&utm_medium=email&utm_content=newsletter&oly_enc_id=3702A7342967D9W

  5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “The DPV must apologize, and heads within the DPV organization must role…”

    The biggest question, though, is which role…?

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Your usual incisive commentary.

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Stop with the silly snark attacks on individuals.

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

        Sorry, but I just can’t account for some reader’s lack of a sense of humor…

  6. Minor correction – Heads usually roll, not role…

  7. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    I agree that this latest attack is deplorable. I always thought the attacks on him were unjustified. The Democrats should just let go of this one.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Yah!! Enough already.

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      The voice of reason.

  8. Virginia Gentleman Avatar
    Virginia Gentleman

    I agree that title calling him an Eugenicist is in appropriate and should be corrected. However, even though I am not an expert on Bert Ellis, I have not read anything that suggests that the event that he planned was to have a civil discussion on racism. And based on many of his other opinions, one could easily conclude that his motives were not pure. I don’t know him and wouldn’t call him a racist, but I certainly believe that a reasonable person could form that opinion.

    1. I have not read anything that suggests that the event that he planned was to have a civil discussion on racism

      Here is an independent reference to the “much-publicized debate” between Goldsby and Shockley held at UVA in 1975. It is in a brief article about a visit to Vassar College by Dr. Goldsby in 1982.

      Based on Dr. Goldsby’s quoted comments, if the debate at UVA was not intended to be a civil discussion then that fact was lost on him.

      https://www.vassar.edu/chronology/records/1982/1982-01-27-goldsby.html

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        Oh dear, facts ….

      2. Virginia Gentleman Avatar
        Virginia Gentleman

        So, you think Ellis planned the event so that students would understand the horrors of racism? A civil discussion on racism is one when the racist becomes less racist. Was that what Ellis was trying to do?

        1. Excellent. I provided an example of what you said you had not read, and you changed the definition of civil discussion.

          1. Virginia Gentleman Avatar
            Virginia Gentleman

            So – do you think a civil discussion is one where the racist convinces people that he is accurate? Or do you believe that Ellis really didn’t have a horse in the race and was just trying to provide entertainment to the other students? I believe his motivation for promoting the debate is the key question. BTW – I have no idea what his motivation was.

          2. A civil discussion does not require anyone to be convinced of anything.

            Perhaps you should look up the definitions of the words ‘civil’ and ‘discussion’ if you’re having trouble with this.

          3. Virginia Gentleman Avatar
            Virginia Gentleman

            Ok … I agree with you on that. And thanks for sharing the articles. However, the overarching point of all of this was what was Ellis’s intention of planning the debate. This goes to whether or not he was simply an event planner for a civil discussion or if he was hoping that the racist would persuade students in his favor. Because if that was Ellis’s intention, then one could argue that at that point in time, Ellis shared those racist viewpoints.

          4. That’s quite an analysis of his motives.

            You sure are giving this guy a lot of rent-free space in your head

            EDITED: 03/10/2023 – 1600

          5. BTW – I have no idea what his motivation was.

            So, as an open-minded Virginia gentleman, why not give him the benefit of the doubt?

          6. Virginia Gentleman Avatar
            Virginia Gentleman

            I have already stated that I would not call him a racist.

          7. So you did. My apologies, sir.

            I hope you have a great weekend.

    2. And, just in case you are thinking the debate at UVA was some evil one-off plan by Bert Ellis, here is a link to University of Southern Mississippi’s forum history page which lists the Goldsby-Shockley debate at that school as having occurred on February 12, 1976.

      https://www.usm.edu/honors/_images/forum-history.php

      Scroll down to “Winter 1975-76” and you’ll see the event listed.

      The two men visited some college campuses to debate each other during the 1975/76 time-frame, and apparently there was some controversy over Shockley at more than one school. But that does not make the people who arranged for the men to visit their campuses racists or eugenicists.

      1. Lefty665 Avatar

        Nice research, ain’t the web wunnerful? All the world’s information available at the click of a mouse.

        1. Thank you. It is nice having so much information so close at hand.

      2. Virginia Gentleman Avatar
        Virginia Gentleman

        I agree. If the goal of the people planning the visit to campuses was to make sure that Shockley’s racists viewpoints were shamed, then there would be no reason to assume they were racists or eugenicists. But if those same people questioned and opposed DEI, opposed UVa’s focus on slavery, and downplayed Jefferson’s affair with Sally Hemmings, then it is not far-fetched to believe that the planners of the USM visit possibly agreed with Shockley’s viewpoints.

        1. Have a nice day.

  9. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    What year did this take place? Before or after CRA64?

    I see my definition of trolling was slashed.

  10. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    What year did this take place? Before or after CRA64?

    I see my definition of trolling was slashed.

Leave a Reply