The Hatewatch blog is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights organization.

Anti-Semitic Prof Facing Colleagues’ Sanction

By Heidi Beirich on February 7, 2008 - 11:18 am, Posted in Academic Racism, Anti-Semitic, Hate Groups

Psychology Professor Kevin MacDonald (below, right) is facing condemnation from his colleagues for his anti-Semitic research, according to the California State University, Long Beach (CSU-LB), student newspaper, The Daily 49er. This academic Kevin MacDonaldyear, MacDonald was removed from certain undergraduate courses that had long been taught by him. University sources told Hatewatch in July that large numbers of complaints about MacDonald’s anti-Semitism and racism, which followed the April 2007 publication of the Intelligence Report’s exposé, “Promoting Hate,” spurred the change.

In December, MacDonald held a closed forum to defend his work before the psychology department’s faculty. He was pressed there to explain his research methodology, his ethics and his controversial theories alleging that Jews are genetically compelled to undermine Western societies (for more on MacDonald’s anti-Semitic research, see here and here). He was also asked to explain his many connections to white supremacists. Since the turn of the millennium, MacDonald has held leadership positions in several white supremacist groups, and in 2004 he was honored with a $10,000 prize for his work on the Jews by The Occidental Quarterly, a white supremacist publication where he currently serves on the editorial advisory board.

According to The Daily 49er, CSU-LB’s psychology department’s advisory committee will meet next week to discuss issuing a statement that would formally disassociate the department from MacDonald’s work. The committee has reportedly determined that the three statements already posted on the department website are inadequate for that purpose. Two of the statements reiterate the department’s commitment to diversity and denounce any use of psychological research as propaganda for racist groups. The third includes the expectation that faculty members whose work is controversial will “state that their views may not represent those of the department.”

  • sari

    Every time I read a blog of this kind I see the same thing- a line in the sand, where some people are okay with what is totally evil and everyone else is painfully not. Anyone who considers the garbage that this main espouses is on the other side. To be more specific, I see a holocaust. It’s cute that most people know NOTHING about diaspora history, know little of the countless smaller scale holocausts that Jews have endured, act as if that one settled it all. The talk of this sicko professor, and any person that can identify with his beliefs, is the beginning of another. I hope we all use everything we have to make sure it really never happens again. Spooky, trashy shouldn’t-be professor makes me sick to my stomach, and I weep for the eternal loss of so many far more righteous than him.

  • Art

    If the Jews do not allow this debate to take place–what shall we conclude? Will we then read the Culture of Critique?

  • unlucky 13

    Put a debate on the radio and get someone who can intelligently question and present counter-points to McDonalds theories.Let everyone have an opportunity to hear and draw their own conclusions.Mcdonalds theories stand or they fall,although I do not see myself why they should stand particularly.If mcDonald has presented his notions in the public forum doesn’t he have the obligation to defend his views in an equally public forum(radio).I’m not a mover nor a shaker but I wish someone who was would answer the challenge.Otherwise,some will think mcDonalds theories are correct.I do not think that is the case.However he stands in need of being challenged honestly.

  • Art

    Censorship is not for stupid or unimportant ideas is it?

  • Emma

    I am tired of reverse hate myself. How is the SPLC’s anti-Gentilic hate any different than these alleged right-wingers’ anti-Semitic hate? Isn’t all hate hate?

    I think everyone should be able to pursue whatever study their heart desires without it destroying their career. People have to live and pay bills, okay? How is destroying this man’s career not hate? What if it was you and your career on the line? What if you were fired and blackballed for supporting Barack Obama. You know, some are calling him a post-modern fascist. What if that’s actually true?

  • Mark

    ” But this is not to the level of imprisoning someone with different ideas (free speech still holds), and it merely takes away from the McDonald his ability to claim support from the established academic circle.”

    Yes, you’re right that it is less harsh, but the concept is similar. Both amount to figurative lynchings because a person is going against what a group considers to be orthodxy as they define it. And such resolutions made by them is tainted by unfairness because they’re not giving the man a forum to debate them on those points they don’t agree.

    “People with new ideas will always face scrutiny and rejection from the promoters of old theories, and even in the perfect world this would be part of the process. Academics with the right idea can eventually win out when the accumulated evidence shows the old theory to be wrong.”

    Excellent point, and I agree, with just one qualification. Accumulated evidence will never have a chance to be presented if the subject in question is declared taboo or nonsensical on its face.

    “We should never mistake every now theory as the right theory and automatically raise it above scrutiny, nor allow particularly bad theories based off racist or xenophobic premises equal ground simply because of free speech.”

    McDonald’s theory is not a “now” theory regarded as above scrutiny. Just the opposite. It is a theory that is not allowed to express itself because the opposition obviously doesn’t want the subject discussed likely for fear of creating “accumulated evidence” you mentioned as being necessary for change.

    “nor allow particularly bad theories based off racist or xenophobic premises equal ground simply because of free speech.”

    Who is to determine what is racist and xenophobic? And will racism and xenophobia run rampant and threaten national security if we discuss them in an intelligent way?

    We’ve went full circle now back to whether or not this man should have his theories aired in a court of public opinion.

    Silencing theories works only for as long as bayonets are held to one’s throat or until those restrictions against taboo subjects are lifted, voluntarily or otherwise, which they always will be in a free society. In this age where the free flow of information occurs at the near speed of light unrestricted, discussion taboos will not survive. They did in years past before the internet, but no more. It’s a new age upon us.

    And when Tito of Yugoslavia died, and the Soviet Union disintegrated, those countries revealed to us that the power behind bayonets is not infinite either.

    An open debate on ANYTHING is in the interest of all people.

  • Sailor

    “McDonald’s research has failed, in the eyes of his peers, to reach the level of evidence as required by the discipline of psychology.”

    Then they should outline their rebuttal to the points they’re in contention with, not dismiss them generally with a resolution that is no more than a blanket condemnation expressed in general terms.

    Because they are his peers doesn’t automatically make them right. And if the resolution is based only on their opinions, right or wrong, they should have more responsibility than to issue a resolution on opinion alone without debate. Would you trust Galileo’s peers?

    “By your statement criticism of any kind is against freedom of speech, and must be halted, even as it’s own form of freedom of speech.”

    Nothing I stated or implied asserted that criticism of any kind is against freedom of speech nor did I
    state, imply or infer that others were not within their rights to voice their opinions, and I certainly didn’t even come close to claiming any speech should be halted.

    What I did write was that it was wrong to dismiss a subject simply because someone or some group decided they didn’t like what was said or written. My point was that anything and everything should be given a rigorous debate, a far cry from advocating shutting anybody down. Obviously, my position is exactly the opposite. It is the other side who wants to shut up McDonald and wants to stifle debate as being unworthy of discussion because of the subject matter.

    Whether the resolution is nonbinding or not doesn’t matter. Because it is a written judgement that could well be in error by this man’s peers, he and anybody else who is the subject of any resolution deserves to have the opposition to his theories addressed in a point/counterpoint forum. Merely dashing out an objection to a certain set of theories could well be political in nature and is usually regarded as such by many people.

    A true resolution should have as its basis a reference to a point/counterpoint discussion of the entire matter, indicating the inaccuracies of the targeted subject. If he believes there are inaccuracies, then he can address them in writing.

    Again I ask: “Are we to discuss only those things we approve of? Have we become a society that limits debate because we fear the truth?”

  • Bill

    Carter, what you say is absolute nonsense, comparing in some way MacDonald’s works to “Africans as Apes.” I don’t believe for a second you read any of his writings, saying they are flawed and poorly composed. You have got to be kidding. Everything he presents is painstakingly footnoted. I just don’t believe a word you are saying. Why don’t you give us some specifics to back your statements?

  • Bill

    I have read each of MacDonald’s books in his trilogy on the Jews and their culture. It is preposterous to suggest he is in any way anti-Semitic. Doesn’t anyone find it odd that any professor, think Finkelstein, who postulates ideas less than flattering about Jews, their culture and/or their history, is soon fired? This is nothing more than a McCarthy-like witch hunt and any professors who are unwilliing to defend MacDonald’s rights to free inquiry should not be teaching. When is someone going to yell “the emperor has no clothes?”

  • Alabama Conservative Citizen

    Why didn’t the SPLC go after that Black professor at NC State who said all White people needed to die? How about that Black power radical Cleveland Sellers at the U of South Carolina, who was convicted for starting a riot in Orangeburg in 1968? Or what about Alan Dershowitz at Harvard who wrote that book saying Jews shouldn’t intermarry with Gentiles? And what about Glenn Feldman at U of Alabama Birmingham, who makes his living writing books bashing Southern White Christians and blaming all of us for the acts of a very small number of us way back when. For that matter, what about all these professors who write textbooks bashing White civilization, degrading our accomplishments, enflaming hatred against Whites, and giving the African warlords a free pass for selling conquered tribes to slave traders?

  • Dave Kersting

    I have read a little of Kevin MacDonald and I have been looking forward to the seeing the case against his arguments. Now I find that a case has been made so thoroughly as to justify denouncing him as “anti-Semitic” and so forth. Please direct me to some of the sources that have specifically refuted MacDonald’s theses. I am somewhat wary of the “anti-Semitic” label, because it has been used against everyone I know who has expressed unhappiness about the use of our taxes to finance explicitly racist and violent policies of ethnic-cleansing in Palestine. Obviously, nothing could be more overtly racist and violent than the forced creation of an officially “Jewish” state in a multi-ethnic region; yet this passes virtually unacknowledged, even as it emerges as the pilot-light of the worst global dangers in history. Please also direct me to the SPLC’s statements of opposition to financing these policies – statements which I presume must be vigorous and eloquent, though I have not been able to find them yet. It seems plain to me that spending upwards of eight million US dollars every day to support the military existence required to maintain official “Jewish” supremacy in Palestine is terrible mistake, when that money is so desperately needed to help remedy the poverty and other damages of racism here. Please also direct me to the SPLC’s criticisms of US media figures who have routinely condemned “the Arabs,” “the Arab states,” and “the Arab world” throughout my life, and who have simultaneously broadcast the most horrendous lies about the Arab victims of pro-Jewish ethnic-cleansing. Thanks.

  • Carter

    Philip is actually getting to the point that I believe some others are missing. – That this man is being reviewed in closed doors is representative of the general atmosphere of the modern university. If some of the sloppy methodology were to become public in one area, what about other areas? This is a “cover thy ass” agenda from a university that now has to face up to what it let out the door.
    This man macdonald does not have a “less popular” series of ideas. I have read a bit of his work. They are flawed and poorly composed. This is a tenure issue and it is a research-quality issue. There have been a few fellows who have put forth the “Africans as Apes” agenda; this material has a similar flavor. However, I came away from it feeling that this gentleman is just not sharp enough to make his ideas fly. But as a tenured professor he can rule the bully-pulpit. This issue is much deeper than antisemitism, per se’.

  • http://undercoverblackman.blogspot.com David Mills

    I’m afraid that I must say, as sympathetic as I am to the SPLC’s intentions, the SPLC should not be in the business of policing the academy or hounding tenured professors with unpopular ideas out of a job.

  • Prof. emeritus Paul Peter Hatgil

    Chiseled in stone on many campus buildings is the following: “Seek the truth and it will set you free.” Evidently that’s not the case with one who professes unpopular beliefs. Institutions of higher learning should encourage inquire and research in order to dispel that which may be false or a lie that has been perpetrated because of interests. One of our basic rights in the United States is the issue of free speech – let the professor have his day in court. If it is permissible to believe or not the existence of God or Jesus without government or State interference then why not other less historical events? Galileo”s experience should still be an example of how unpopular beliefs can get one in a hell of lot of trouble. .

  • Philip

    “Passing any kind of resolution in response to someone’s belief’s, whatever they are, will show only that it is highly probable the procedure was resorted to for fear that the person being criticized could well have a legitimate point..”

    You’re mistaking academia as being free of judgement. There is judgment required, because academia seeks to find the facts based on evidence. McDonald’s research has failed, in the eyes of his peers, to reach the level of evidence as required by the discipline of psychology.

    By your statement criticism of any kind is against freedom of speech, and must be halted, even as it’s own form of freedom of speech. The resolution is nonbinding in nature. It simply states that this professors department, his closest colleagues, disagree with his work and thus pulls out any claim McDonald might put forth that his views are those of his peer at his university.

    As for the poster Mark, I have read McDonalds work on Vdare and see that it is not valid in it’s arguments. As for your point that in the past learned people have refused to give ground to round Earth and people who knew the Earth revolved around the Sun, that is true. But this is not to the level of imprisoning someone with different ideas (free speech still holds), and it merely takes away from the McDonald his ability to claim support from the established academic circle.

    People with new ideas will always face scrutiny and rejection from the promoters of old theories, and even in the perfect world this would be part of the process. Academics with the right idea can eventually win out when the accumulated evidence shows the old theory to be wrong.

    We should never mistake every now theory as the right theory and automatically raise it above scrutiny, nor allow particularly bad theories based off racist or xenophobic premises equal ground simply because of free speech.

  • sailor

    “Passing such a resolution will show that McDonald’s anti-Semitic beliefs have no place in academia and no basis in fact.”

    Passing any kind of resolution in response to someone’s belief’s, whatever they are, will show only that it is highly probable the procedure was resorted to for fear that the person being criticized could well have a legitimate point..

    Maintaining that there are some beliefs that have no place in academia is what tyranically controlled dictatorships believe and act on. And to say that some beliefs have no place in fact without holding them under a microscope to determine that, is what fosters hate and intolerance in the first place.

    Are we to discuss only those things we approve of? Have we become a society that limits debate because we fear the truth?

  • Angelica

    Either universities are bastions of free speech (with NO limitations imposed) and free intellectual rigor and inquiry, or there’s simply no point in having them.

    Does SPLC intend a total police state? What MacDonald maintains through his work is obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

    Are the Western countries freer and healthier owing to our immigration policies? No they find themselves now living in an Orwellian/nightmarish totalitarian existence.

    That you, the SPLC, have honed in on MacDonald speaks volumes about your intentions in selectively punishing/criminalizing free speech.

    Noel Ignatiev (jewish Harvard professor and editor of “Race Traitor” magazine) — “Keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as the white race is destroyed. Not deconstructed, but destroyed.”

    Is he on your hit-list SPLC? Oh, of course not. How about Nikki Giovanni? No, of course not. That’s because they advocate hating/killing Whites.

  • Mark

    “I disagree with unlucky 13 in that an open forum would solve the problem (this is the effect of moral relativism). The ideas presented don’t deserve that level of debate. ”

    But who are we to come to that conclusion without first reading or listening to his theories? The far right refuses to consider far left theories, denouncing them as absurd and dismissing the entire left as “left wing whackos!” If We allow the other side of any debate to dictate what constitutes legitimate argument, we are restricting information available on the subject.

    No one should be afraid to have his views scrutinized if he has based them in legitimate research and analysis and has arrived at an unbiased conclusion. In fact he should welcome debate, because it is debate that will offer him an opportunity to logically prove his point and highlight the absurdities and falsities of his opponent’s position. It is only those who seek to inform via propaganda who fear allowing the entire matter to be vigorously aired in a public forum. It is only those who decide what they want themselves and others to believe, and then look to adjust information to support their views, who fear open discussion.

    “Geologist wouldn’t give ground to a flat earth promoter nor would astronomers give ground to geocentrist who think Earth is the center of the universe.”

    Years ago the same types of people, learned in their fields, refused to admit that the world was round and they claimed it was the center of the universe. They denounced those who believed otherwise as fools and mal-contents and sought to have them imprisoned or killed.

    If vigorous debate had been allowed then, Western society might well have advanced at a quicker pace scientifically than it did, but more importantly open debate would have advanced society to a higher level than one in which conclusions were based on emotion and half-truths, and out-and-out lies.

    I’ve never heard of the man in this article, so I’m unfamiliar with his views, but surely if he is as far off the mark as the report implies, wouldn’t open debate show him as the fool he is?

    If reasons restricting discussion are based in fear that the knowledge imparted will prejudice one side or the other or cause some kind of harm, because of its mere explosiveness, surely we would want to get the information out specifically for those reasons, would we not?

    Knowledge is power..

  • Philip

    One bad effect of moral relativity is that it has been co-opted by far right wing people to defend their views.

    The act of separating the department from McDonald is not infringing on McDonald’s rights in any way. It simply using an age old process that many people have forgotten about: peer review.

    The advantage of peer review is that anyone who puts out an idea has it tested by the very people also studying in the same field.

    I disagree with unlucky 13 in that an open forum would solve the problem (this is the effect of moral relativism). The ideas presented don’t deserve that level of debate. Geologist wouldn’t give ground to a flat earth promoter nor would astronomers give ground to geocentrist who think Earth is the center of the universe.

    Passing such a resolution will show that McDonald’s anti-Semitic beliefs have no place in academia and no basis in fact.

  • unlucky 13

    Mcdonald should be allowed to continue his work unobsructed.That is his constitution right although the school itself also has certain rights and responsibities.Unpopular voices should not be silenced but openly debated and,if needs be,refuted and/or disproven.To elimate McDonald’s rights would be to disallow ourselves the oportunity ourselves to debate and refute his theories.To limit him in his freedom of opinion in any respects would be a disservice to all inquiring minds everywhere and violates the public’s trust and liberty.Surely his thesis that Jews are biologically undermining any one at all can be dealt with and laid to rest fairly easily by virtuaaly any highly educated person Jewish or otherwise.The man(McDonald)ought to be challenged in an open forum so that the issues involved can be dealt with and laid to rest.How,for instance,can Jews undermine other people’s interests if various other groups do too both to each other and perhaps to Jews as well.Why only Jews?If other groups undermine one another constantly or whatever what happens to people who are part Jewish,part another group and maybe part one or two more.How would this work,if McDonald’s ideas make any sense at all.What about persons who are members of one group or another who identify with a group other than their own to figure in the scheme of things.How can these questions be answered or are such notions nonsense to begin with and why.What are the implications of any of this on soceity at large?McDonald should be challenged to answer questions in an open and free debate and forced to defend his theoris for all to see.I wish they would televise it or put it on the radio so I could hear too

  • http://exliontamer.wordpress.com r@d@r

    anybody who ever cracked the spine of a single reputable book on european history would know that jews CREATED a goodly portion of western society. either that, or we have different definitions of what should be called “western society”.

    nice that CSU pulled him from undergraduate courses only…not that grad students are ever misled by bogus and offensive theory! perish the thought!

    is it such a leap for an institution of higher learning to grasp that if certain viewpoints are both morally repugnant AND representative of poor/bad faith scientific inquiry, that they are more (or less) than merely “controversial”? string theory, now THAT’S controversial. the word i’d use for macdonald’s type of “thinking” would be more like, oh, i don’t know – “discredited”? “medieval?” i could go on all day.