While there may be some problems saying “Genetic Trait P is associated with Race A,” because race may be too ill-conceived of a concept, you still could argue “Genetic Trait P is associated with Genetic Trait Q, and Genetic Trait Q is traditionally considered a defining characteristic of Race A.”

I don’t really have a problem with race being a nebulous concept that’s ill-defined. I think so long as we recognize that it’s ill-defined and don’t try to use it as a hard and fast category, it’s okay. If I said “It was the black doctor. Not the black Mormon doctor who was only one for one season, but the other black doctor,” you know I’m talking about Foreman.

The race question aside though, there is still the question of whether intelligence has any genetic component. Whether those genetic items correspond more strongly to a racial, ethnic, social, geo-political, or facially-similar group, and whether those groups even make sense, is a different issue.

But, going back to the Harvard 3L who sent this e-mail, I’m sticking by my position that the question is not racist. The girl who sent it may actually be racist, but not because of this. It’s a question about facts in the world, and maybe the question ultimately doesn’t make sense, the same way asking about a brontosaurus doesn’t (because ol’ bronto never existed), but facts aren’t racist.

And, there is definitely a trend in the far left to take a social policy and try to deduce scientific fact from it. If our policy is that the races are equal, then it must follow that there is no meaningful biological difference. …That’s silly, and counterproductive in instances where there is a meaningful difference which we can respond to in a way that makes our society more fair.

Also, look it! 2 wominz on teh same internets!

As for the substance of your comment, I do agree that race is pretty ill defined, but I don’t think you can seriously argue that race and genetics are completely separate. I think there’s a reason Asian people have Asian babies. The lines may be blurred and it’s hard to really define what any one race is, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a real thing. It’s hard to figure out where blue stops and red starts, and as we get more and more purple it becomes less relevant, but that doesn’t mean the colors aren’t actual things.

First, I have an extremely liberal comment policy and don’t actually moderate comments. I have akismet on to catch obvious spam, but that’s all.

Second, I don’t think using a male generic is at all sexist and does not indicate that I thought the author was of either gender. Anyone with a 5th grade education is aware of the male generic and knows it doesn’t imply anything.

Third, I actually knew that the author was female, but chose to use the male generic because I was treating her as anonymous.

Fourth, I’m not a conservative.

Fifth, female is not a race, but nice try at lumping race and gender together. Go back to high school biology.

Sixth, na-na-na boo-boo, stick your head in doo-doo.

FAIL.

The author was female. Your sexism AND your racism are showing, but I bet you won’t display this comment.

Good evening.

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28classification_of_human_beings%29#Race_and_intelligence

Hahah, I’m fast becoming your worst nightmare.