Our big paper on the importance of placing merit over ideology in science, and an op-ed in the WSJ

April 28, 2023 • 8:14 am

Here is the story of (and links to) our Big Paper on Merit, Ideology and Science. (One colleague and I have a paper in press on the intrusion of ideology into our own specific research areas; that will be out in late June.)  As for this behemoth of a paper, which, we think, says things that need to be aired, we managed (after a long haul) to get it published in a respectable, peer-reviewed journal: The Journal of Controversial Ideas, founded by Peter Singer and two other moral philosophers. If you click the screenshot of the title below, you’ll go to the Journal’s website where you can download the pdf. (If you can’t get a pdf, they’re free, so ask me.)

The point of “In Defense of Merit in Science” is simple: merit is now being downgraded by ideologues in favor of conformity of science to predetermined—usually “progressive”—political goals.  This is a disaster for science and the public understanding of science. (One example is the ideologically-based denial that there are only two sexes in animals.) The paper is in effect a defense of merit as the best and only way to judge science and scientists, and a warning that if prioritizing merit in science erodes (as is happening), we’re in for a bumpy ride, as Russia was in the time of Lysenko. (Russian biology still hasn’t recovered from the ideologically based and totally bogus science of the charlatan agronomist Trofim Lysenko. Stalin had Lysenko’s faulty ideas of agronomy made into official agricultural policy, and the result was that millions of people starved to death in the U.S.S.R. and China. Opponents of Lysenkoism were fired or sent to the gulag.) We’re not—and hopefully will never be—at that disastrous point in this century, but the inimical effects of downgrading merit in science and using ideological criteria instead are already pervasive and evident. I’ve written about them at length. (One is the valorization of “indigenous ways of knowing”, which is poised to destroy science in New Zealand.)

But I digress: here’s the paper’s abstract.

Abstract:

Merit is a central pillar of liberal epistemology, humanism, and democracy. The scientific enterprise, built on merit, has proven effective in generating scientific and technological advances, reducing suffering, narrowing social gaps, and improving the quality of life globally. This perspective documents the ongoing attempts to undermine the core principles of liberal epistemology and to replace merit with non-scientific, politically motivated criteria. We explain the philosophical origins of this conflict, document the intrusion of ideology into our scientific institutions, discuss the perils of abandoning merit, and offer an alternative, human-centered approach to address existing social inequalities.

There are 29 authors, men and women of diverse nationalities and ethnicities, ranging from junior researchers to Nobel Laureates (two of the latter). You will recognize some of the authors, like Loury and McWhorter, whose work I write about a lot.  All the authors are in alphabetical order, but I have to note that by far the largest share of the work on this paper was done by Anna Krylov, as well as her partner Jay Tanzman. Anna was generous enough to not take the first authorship, to which she was fully entitled. But the alphabetization does bespeak a certain unanimity among authors in the way we feel about this issue.

Click the screenshot to read the paper (or rather, to get to a place where you can download the pdf).

There’s also a lot of Supplemental Information, juicy stuff, crazy quotations from scientists, ancillary data, and, of course, the authors’ biographies, at this site

The paper is a long one—26 pages—but I’d urge you to have a look. We’re hoping that this represents the beginning of pushback by scientists against the ideological degradation of our field, and that by speaking out, we’ll inspire others to join us.

Now, a bit about our troubles in publishing it.  We sent the paper to several scientific journals, which will remain unnamed, and they all found reasons why they couldn’t publish it. One likely reason was  that merit in science (and everywhere else) is being displaced in favor of, well, “political correctness”, and defending merit is seen as an “antiprogressive” view.  In other words, any journal publishing this would be inundated with protest. (But I’m sure Peter Singer doesn’t care: he’s been the victim of opprobrium all his life, and I’m a huge fan.) We were at a loss of where to put this laborious piece of analysis, but then I remembered the new Journal of Controversial Ideas, and suggested sending it there.

They finally accepted it, but I tell you that it was a VERY stringent review process, requiring two complete revisions of the paper. That’s good, because the paper was vetted by several critical reviewers and I think it’s a lot better for having been criticized and rewritten. And nobody can argue that it wasn’t reviewed!

But it’s always struck me as VERY ODD that a paper defending merit should be so controversial that we had to place it in a journal devoted to heterodox thought. So I decided to write an op-ed about this irony, joined by Anna.  The op-ed, too, was rejected by a certain famous newspaper, but the Wall Street Journal snapped it up immediately. Yes, the WSJ’s commentary section (this piece is classified as a commentary) is largely conservative, but, as I always say, who else would publish a piece that’s offensive to The Elect?

You can read our Commentary by clicking on the screenshot below, but it’s paywalled and by agreement we can reproduce only a short part of the piece. Perhaps you know someone who subscribes and can fill you in on the rest. By the way, it was the editors, not us, who wrote the title and subtitle. I love the title, but the subtitle may strike some as a bit hyperbolic.

Here are the first three paragraphs of our Commentary (what they asked us to limit social-media publication to), but I hope the paper won’t mind if I add the last short paragraph, just because I like it.

Until a few months ago, we’d never heard of the Journal of Controversial Ideas, a peer-reviewed publication whose aim is to promote “free inquiry on controversial topics.” Our research typically didn’t fit that description. We finally learned of the journal’s existence, however, when we tried to publish a commentary about how modern science is being compromised by a de-emphasis on merit. Apparently, what was once anodyne and unobjectionable is now contentious and outré, even in the hard sciences.=

. . . . Yet as we shopped our work to various scientific publications, we found no takers—except one. Evidently our ideas were politically unpalatable. It turns out the only place you can publish once-standard conclusions these days is in a journal committed to heterodoxy. . .

. . . But [our paper] was too much, even “downright hurtful,” as one editor wrote to us. Another informed us that “the concept of merit . . . has been widely and legitimately attacked as hollow.” Legitimately?

In the end, we’re grateful that our paper will be published. But how sad it is that the simple and fundamental principle undergirding all of science—that the best ideas and technologies should be the ones we adopt—is seen these days as “controversial.”

Well known German and French newspapers have also agreed to publish pieces on the JCI paper; these will be coming out in a week or so and I’ll link to them as they appear. I notice that Bari Weiss has also mentioned the paper in the TGIF column in The Free Press today. (Nellie Bowles, the regular TGIF author, is on a reporting trip to Texas.)

Finally, there’s a press release that you can see by clicking on the link below. It describes what the paper is about, what our goals were, why it was published in The Journal of Controversial Ideas, and a few quotes about the paper from authors. If you can’t read such a long paper (shame on you if you don’t!), at least read this:

A juicy comment by an author:

Commenting on publishing in the Journal of Controversial Ideas, co-author and professor of mathematics, Svetlana Jitomirskaya, says: “To me it feels quite absurd that we even had to write this paper, not to mention that it had to be published in the Journal of Controversial Ideas. Isn’t it self-evident that science should be based on merit? I thought that no scientist took arguments to the contrary seriously. I was shocked by the reasons PNAS rejected our paper. The reviewers, all presumably distinguished scientists, were clearly in favor of the opposing arguments.”

Friday: Hili dialogue

April 28, 2023 • 6:45 am

Good morning on Friday, April 28, 2023; we’ll soon be into May! The lusty month of May! It’s also National Blueberry Pie Day, and once again I’ll put in a word for you to try the world’s best version of this most excellent dessert, that served at Helen’s Restaurant in Machias, Maine. It uses the delicious wild “lowbush” blueberries (much more flavorful than the big bland blue balls that we get as “blueberries” in muffins) and uses a mixture of cooked and uncooked berries heaped in a crust and covered with whipped cream. To die for! Have a look:

Source

Further, it’s Biological Clock Day (mine is nearly at midnight), Great Poetry Reading Day, National Arbor Day, National Hairball Awareness Day, National Kiss Your Mate Day, National Superhero Day, and Workers’ Memorial Day and World Day for Safety and Health at Work (international holiday).  Here’s my personal superhero, a Jewish one:

Gal Gadot in Wonder Woman 1984 (2020). PHOTO: WARNER BROS/MOVIESTORE/SHUTTERSTOCK

. . . and today’s short poem for Great Poetry Reading Day:

An Irish Airman foresees his Death

I know that I shall meet my fate
Somewhere among the clouds above;
Those that I fight I do not hate,
Those that I guard I do not love;
My country is Kiltartan Cross,
My countrymen Kiltartan’s poor,
No likely end could bring them loss
Or leave them happier than before.
Nor law, nor duty bade me fight,
Nor public men, nor cheering crowds,
A lonely impulse of delight
Drove to this tumult in the clouds;
I balanced all, brought all to mind,
The years to come seemed waste of breath,
A waste of breath the years behind
In balance with this life, this death.
from The Wild Swans at Coole. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1919. Public Domain.

Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this by consulting the April 28 Wikipedia page.

Readers’ wildlife photos will start back up this weekend, but now I have to write a post about a big paper a lot of us wrote about merit in science, and an op-ed that I and a coauthor wrote in the WSJ. Stay tuned.

Da Nooz:

*The civil suit against Donald Trump for raping and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll continued, with Trump’s lawyers trying to find implausibilities in Carroll’s testimony:

In her second day of testimony, accuser E. Jean Carroll fended off questions from Donald Trump’s lawyer about why she did not scream when Trump allegedly assaulted her in an upscale department store in the mid-1990s. “You can’t beat up on me for not screaming,” she said during cross-examination. “He raped me whether I screamed or not!” Trump has denied any wrongdoing and called Carroll a liar.

. . .The latest jousting is over whether it is “odd” that Carroll, 79, did not call police immediately after she said Donald Trump assaulted her in the mid-1990s.

Carroll said “it’s not an odd fact” that she didn’t report her rape to law enforcement, asserting that many women don’t report their assaults.

. . .Trump attorney Joe Tacopina’s next line of questioning is aiming to cast doubt on E. Jean Carroll’s account by underscoring there is no evidence like a police report or hospital record. Carroll testified to not calling police, seeing a doctor or going to the hospital and said her head and genitals still hurt by the time she returned home after the alleged assault.

“My vagina still hurt from his fingers,” she said.

Tacopina asked if she took the next day off from work, to which Carroll said she tried to resume life as normal.

“Right straight to work just to prove to myself that … life goes on, and that’s how I do it,” she said.

. . .Trump attorney Joe Tacopina is still trying to frame the details E. Jean Carroll describes of the alleged assault as implausible, repeatedly returning to Carroll’s testimony that she was able to eventually raise her knee to Trump’s thigh with her tights pushed down, that she didn’t scream and that she also gripped her purse throughout, while being pinned to the wall.

Tacopina sounded incredulous when he repeated back Carroll’s earlier testimony she had been wearing four-inch heels that day.

Carroll scoffed at Tacopina’s question: “I can dance forwards and backwards in four-inch heels.”

As the Germans say, und so weiter. Remember, if the jury finds the likelihood that Trump assaulted Carroll higher than 50%, it must convict. A civil suit is not a “beyond reasonable doubt” situation.

*Carolyn Bryant, whose words cost the life of Emmet Till 68 years ago, finally died. She was 88, and died in Louisiana, not in the Mississippi town where she accused Emmet Till (a 14 year old black boy visiting from Chicago) of accosting her. Bryant was white. The story is well known.

Only two people knew exactly what happened during the minute they were alone together in the general store in Money, Miss., on Aug. 24, 1955. One, Emmett Till, a Black teenager visiting from Chicago, died four days later, at 14, in a brutal murder that stands out even in America’s long history of racial injustice.

The other was Carolyn Bryant. She was the 21-year-old white proprietress of the store where, according to her testimony in the September 1955 trial of her husband and his half brother for the murder, Till made a sexually suggestive remark to her, grabbed her roughly by the waist and let loose a wolf whistle.

Now Mrs. Bryant, more recently known as Carolyn Bryant Donham, has died at 88. On Thursday, Megan LeBoeuf, the chief investigator for the Calcasieu Parish coroner’s office in Louisiana, sent a statement confirming the death, on Tuesday, in Westlake, a small city in southern Louisiana. Ms. LeBoeuf did not provide further information.

With Mrs. Bryant’s death, the truth of what happened that August day may now never be clear. More than half a century after the murder, she admitted that she had perjured herself on the witness stand to make Till’s conduct sound more threatening than it actually was — serving, in the words of the historian to whom she made the admission, as “the mouthpiece of a monstrous lie.”

“She said with respect to the physical assault on her, or anything menacing or sexual, that that part isn’t true,” the historian, Timothy B. Tyson, told “CBS This Morning” in 2017.

Till was murdered brutally, so battered that his head was barely recognizable, and, in a famous gesture, his mother, Mamie Till, ordered an open-casket funeral in Chicago so people could see what the racists had done to her son.

The strangest part is that Bryant recanted her recantation:

But in an unpublished memoir that surfaced last year, Mrs. Bryant stood by her earlier description of events, though she said she had tried to discourage her husband from harming Till.

“He came in our store and put his hands on me with no provocation,” she wrote. “Do I think he should have been killed for doing that? Absolutely, unequivocally, no!”

Yes, but she knew what telling anybody would result in, and, given that, she should have kept her mouth shut completely. She may not have told her husband, but somebody did. Do I think Till puts his hands on her? No, he was a shy boy visiting relatives. You can say that he didn’t know the ways of the South, but his mother had warned him.

Whatever happened, Bryant lied to somebody and therefore was an accessory to murder, and knew it would happen. Her husband and his half brother were tried for the murder, and others implicated, but of course nobody was ever convicted: it was the murder of a black kid by white men. The next year, both of them admitted that they murdered Till; but nothing could be done because it would be double jeopardy.

Here’s a photo of the Bryants from the NYT:

(from NYT): Carolyn Bryant with her husband, Roy Bryant, and their children during his trial in 1955. Credit…Ed Clark/The LIFE Picture Collection, via Shutterstock

Don’t watch this if you don’t want to see the battered Till, though it was iconic for the civil rights movement. And do see the powerful 2022 movie “Till“.

*According to multiple sources, including the BBC and the National from Scotland, as well as reader Daniel Sharp, a controversial film about transgender issues has been canceled at the University of Edinburgh by protesting students. I’ll let Daniel, who is on the spot, tell the tale:

. . . . my alma mater has disappointed me yet again. Yesterday evening, the Edinburgh chapter of Academics for Academic Freedom organised a screening on campus of a film called ‘Adult Human Female’ which is all about the gender stuff. I haven’t seen the film (it’s available online apparently) but of course it was deemed offensive, transphobic, harmful, etc. They tried to show it back in December but were shut down by activists. I wasn’t there but I did try to go to the rescheduled screening yesterday – only to find the doors barred by masked activists and a sizable protest outside.

I don’t know all the details, but the protestors had every right to sing and speechify all they liked – in fact, the organisers knew a while back that a protest was planned and were fine with it. It’s the people who barred all ways into the venue who were the problem (I suspect the protestors, though disavowing any link to the door blockers, likely knew of the door-barring plan – they were certainly happy about it).

Because the door-blockers would have had to be physically removed and university security wasn’t allowed to do that for fear of escalation, there was no way to enter the building. Thus – the screening was cancelled.

The BBC adds this:

A University of Edinburgh spokesperson said: “We are disappointed that again this event has not been able to go ahead.

“In line with our commitment to fostering an inclusive, supportive and safe environment for our whole community, we worked with the organisers and put measures in place to mitigate risks associated with the event.

“However, with protesters restricting access to the venue, safety concerns were raised should the event proceed. It was therefore decided that the screening should not continue.”

There are no activists as intolerant as the sex-and-gender activists. You can watch the whole movie free online at Vimeo here, but I can’t embed it.

*First Amendment Violation of the Month. Reader Gregory sent a link to, of all places, Baptist News Global, which reports, not with approval, of a bill in both chambers of the Texas (of course) legislature that will allow unqualified chaplains to act as school counselors.

A Texas proposal to allow unlicensed “chaplains” to take the place of public school counselors undermines religious liberty, according to Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and others.

The Texas Legislature is considering House Bill 3614 and Senate Bill 763, which would allow Texas schools to hire chaplains to perform the work of school counselors but without any required certification, training or experience.

. . . The exact language of the bill states: “A school district may employ a chaplain instead of a school counselor to perform the duties required of a school counselor under this title. A chaplain employed under this subsection is not required to be certified by the State Board for Educator Certification.”

Currently, Texas law requires school counselors to pass a school counselor certification exam, to hold at least a 48-hour master’s degree in counseling from an accredited institution of higher education, and to have two creditable years of teaching experience as a classroom teacher.

“Professional chaplains help individuals explore their own religious beliefs, especially in contexts such as military service, hospitals and prisons where one’s individual ability to engage in religious exercise may be limited,” [Baptist Joint Committee lawyer Jennifer] Hawks explained. “School counselors perform critical work helping students achieve academically, manage their emotions, learn interpersonal skills and plan for post-graduation options. We should not blur the differences in these important professions. Misusing the title of ‘chaplain’ to shortcut standards for public school counselors undermines religious freedom in public schools.”

There’s only one motivation for this: Christian Nationalism trying to start proselytizing in public schools. This is a violation of the First Amendment, and if it becomes Texas law, somebody better challenge it (although crikey, look at the Supreme Court!)  As Gregory quipped, “Every time Florida does something crazy, Texas says, ‘Here, hold my beer and watch this’.”

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili and Andrzej are kvetching away:

Hili: Today’s youth is horrible.
A: They were always horrible, from time immemorial
In Polish:
Hili: Dzisiejsza młodzież jest okropna.
Ja: Zawsze była okropna, od niepamiętnych czasów.

********************

A meme from Stash Krod—a B. Kliban cartoon:

Another ducky meme from Nicole (Facilities has placed a realistic wolf statue by Botany Pond to try to scare off the ducks, but they ignore it completely):

Another bad misspelling sent in by reader David:

Two tweets from Masih, showing that the women of Iran are getting more and more fed up with hijabs and the morality police. I think that’s due in large part to Masih’s broadcasting this stuff around the world:

This woman is mad as hell and isn’t going to take it any more. Sound up!

From Barry, a guy who’s gone a little too far in his wine descriptions! Clichés? Really?  And does it have to be “particularly Hungarian”?

From Malcolm, the checkout cat:

Barry finds it fascinating that all this gator seems to want is a cuddle:

From the Auschwitz Memorial, an eleven-year-old girl gassed upon arrival:

Tweets from Dr. Cobb. First, some cool fireworks:

I think that both Taylor Swift and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would object:

Do they learn this or does each corvid figure it out on its own. Regardless, it’s amazing:

BBC discussion on the discovery of the double helix of DNA, featuring Matthew Cobb, Nathaniel Comfort and Angela Creager

April 27, 2023 • 1:18 pm

If you have half an hour to spare, you may want to listen to the BBC Radio 4’s version of the new article by Matthew Cobb and Nathaniel Comfort on DNA structure (with special emphasis on Rosalind Franklin’s work). If you click on the screenshot below, you can have a free listen to the show. Cobb and Comfort are joined by Angela Creager, a biomedical historian working at Princeton. First, the Beeb’s summary:

James Watson and Francis Crick, who detailed the double-helix structure of DNA in 1953, are perhaps two of the most iconic scientists of the 20th Century. Yet the story of how they made their incredible discovery is perhaps equally famous, with a notorious narrative suggesting that they only identified the structure after taking the work of Rosalind Franklin and using it without her permission.

Now, 70 years after the discovery of DNA’s structure, it is perhaps time to rewrite the tale.

New evidence has now been unearthed, in the form of an overlooked news article and an unpublished letter, that shows that Franklin was truly an equal contributor to the discovery, and Watson and Crick were not as malicious as previously assumed.

New evidence has now been unearthed, in the form of an overlooked news article and an unpublished letter, that shows that Franklin was truly an equal contributor to the discovery, and Watson and Crick were not as malicious as previously assumed. Together with Matthew Cobb of the University of Manchester, Nathaniel Comfort from Johns Hopkins University, and Angela Creager of Princeton University, Gaia Vince discusses this tantalising tale and finds out more about how this discovery could bring a whole new twist to the story of DNA.

 Presenter: Gaia Vince Producer: Harrison Lewis Assistant Producer: Jonathan Blackwell

Click below to listen:

The new inclusive language of Essex Junction, Vermont

April 27, 2023 • 11:30 am

I cannot vouch that this letter is genuine, but I’m betting it is. If you can prove it’s a fake, I’ll give you $10.  It was purportedly sent to an email list by one of the parents in the school district.

Click to enlarge if you’re myopic:

The only good thing about this is that it implicitly recognizes the sex binary. But what does it have to do with “equity policy”?

An atheist Jew distinguishes between religious and racial anti-Semitism

April 27, 2023 • 10:15 am

The Times Literary Supplement has an excerpt from David Baddiel’s new book The God Desirewhich was just published. I’d previously criticized one of his ideas raised in that book: a criticism of the New Atheists who, he says, can’t really comprehend the comforts of religion because they’re all goys. (Well, he admits Sam Harris is half Jewish, as was Christopher Hitchens, and I’m 100% full-blooded Ashkenazi. And of course there’s David Silverman.)  Baddiel is an atheist, and, like many of us secular Jews, is proud to belong to the tribe. (He’s a lot prouder of it than I am.) He argues that being a cultural Jew absolutely depends on the religion, which itself is a kind of cushion that, though we reject it, confers on us membership in the tribe.  Goyische atheists like Dawkins, he asserts, don’t have that comfort. (I would disagree, for Dawkins has written eloquently about the awe he feels before stuff like evensongs and cathedrals.)

And I’ve also praised Baddiel’s movie on “progressive” anti-Semitism, “Jews Don’t Count,” which I saw.

But now, after reading this lovely extract from the TLS, I have to back off on criticizing the book, which of course I haven’t yet read. For the long extract contains a percipient analysis of the difference between anti-Semites who hate Jews because of their religion, and anti-Semites who hate Jews because of their “race” (i.e., just because they’re Jews).

Unless you have a subscription, or make a judicious inquiry, you won’t be able to read it, as the TLS is paywalled. If you want to try, click below:

Apparently Tom Stoppard, who himself is Jewish but doesn’t make a big megillah out of it, just wrote a play, “Leopoldstadt” about being Jewish, a play that brought Baddiel, the atheist, to tears. It also got him thinking about the nature of anti-Semitism. I’m going to give a long quote from his piece, but if you can, do read the whole excerpt—or better yet, the book. Baddiel’s decided that racial anti-Semitism has always been inextricably connected with religious anti-Semitism, though the latter form was more dominant in earlier days, the days when Jews were despised as Christ-killers.  I love the bit below about his stroll to Clifford’s Tower:

Because, in a way that I’m not sure is entirely graspable to the majority, being in a minority will always be part of your identity. In a TV interview that I did recently with Miriam Margolyes, she talked about her need publicly to condemn the actions of the State of Israel, and about how that urge arises partly from her sense of connection to that country, because she is Jewish. A sense, that is, that she needs to say, “Not in my name”. I pointed out that when a white Christian man in America goes on a gun rampage, I never see white Christians – even if they may express horror about the atrocity itself – feeling any need to express that horror as white Christians. It would not occur to them, because the shooter’s actions, or, say, Putin’s, do not, it seems, reflect on them. The majority is felt as a vast sea, whereas minorities are a series of islands on which all members of each minority are felt to live, and each individual’s behaviour threatens the possibility of judgement, a judgement that will be cast on the entire island.

In my writings about antisemitism, I have always made it clear that I believe antisemitism is racism, rather than simply religious intolerance. This is a cornerstone of my argument about what modern antisemitism is.

But I have inserted an adjective there that I don’t – and didn’t in Jews Don’t Count– normally apply to the word antisemitism: modern. It is arguable that the idea of racial antisemitism only really began in the late nineteenth century, when the word antisemitism was coined by the German journalist Wilhelm Marr, and various fashionable ideas of racial stratification coincided with the theory of eugenics, creating a host of really very bad philosophies and movements. Obviously, it – racial antisemitism, as opposed to religious – became dominant in the twentieth century, culminating in the Holocaust, and similarly I have no doubt that antisemitism is now predominantly racial.

However, sometimes, when I’m talking about the way in which antisemitism is overlooked or demoted in the present high-trigger awareness of discrimination in general, I do say, “Despite, y’know, two thousand years of persecution.” So if I was to force myself under my own linguistic microscope, I’d point out that there is a flaw in my argument here, or at least a bifurcation. Because Jews, you might say, have not been subjected to two thousand years of racial persecution. Most of that time, it would have been religious. Most of it was entirely about them praying to the wrong God.

Or was it, in truth? I played York Opera House in 2021 with my comedy show about trolls (a fair bit of which is about antisemitism). Before the show, I walked, as I have done before, to Clifford’s Tower, where, in 1190, 150 Jews – fathers, mothers and children – committed suicide rather than convert to Christianity, as a baying mob outside were demanding. The tower was set on fire. (The one I was looking at – described, interestingly, as a “beloved” monument – was built on the same site soon afterwards.)

That’s religious antisemitism, right? Well. Not exactly. Because a few Jews did decide, rather than die, to go outside and accept conversion. (I would’ve been one of those Jews.) They were immediately murdered by the mob. Which expresses the same point I’ve made before, many times: that I’m an atheist, but the Gestapo would shoot me tomorrow. The issue for the mob was not really that these Jews inside the tower didn’t believe in Jesus. The issue was that they were Jews – a race portrayed as devils on every church wall, resented as moneylenders and suspected of the blood libel. I would contend that Jews have always been positioned as alien and monstrous and vampiric by the various majority cultures they have tried to live within.

Even before the nineteenth century, religious antisemitism had always contained elements of racial antisemitism. Which might partly explain why I responded as I did to watching Leopoldstadt. I don’t believe in God. That perhaps is clear by now. But it is simplistic to imagine that because I don’t believe in God, my Jewish identity can be easily excised from Judaism.

Jews are not, of course a “race” in any sense, for what unites them is not genetic similarity (which is the basis of ethnicity) but an association with religious belief, even if you don’t share that belief. “Race” is just a shorthand for “being Jewish”.

As I’ve said before, it’s not just that you’re in a minority that makes being Jewish—regardless of whether you’re religious—like being a member of a club. It’s also the history of that minority, which for Jews has been persecution everywhere they’ve ever lived. It’s the constancy of that persecution, and the feeling that the next pogrom is right around the corner, that gives you your Jewish card.  Muslims may be persecuted in some places now, but they weren’t everywhere and in every time.

That’s also the case for Catholics, Hindus, Muslims, or just about any other religion. Their history is not an unrelenting history of persecution.

And, as I think about it, yes, it’s the religious trappings that also make you feel like you’re in the club: the feeling that you have a deeper understanding of Yiddish and especially of the guilt and pessimism, combined with dark humor, that is part of the “Jewish character”. (Why else do you think the majority of great comedians were Jews?) So I suppose that, while I completely reject Jewish religious belief, I still feel a twinge in my DNA when I see an old bearded guy with a tallis and a fur hat.

There are not cultural Catholics, Muslims, or Hindus in the way there are cultural Jews. Yes, there may be some ex-Catholics who eat fish on Fridays because it makes them feel like a member of the Vatican Club, but these people are much, much rarer than cultural, secular Jews. (Which, by the way, include most of the residents of Israel: 65% of whom are nonbelievers. It’s one of the most secular countries in the world.)

Given this, if you are an “anti-Zionist”, you must be criticizing people not because they’re religious, but because they are “racially” Jewish. It’s been clear to me for some time, though it took a while to realize it, that Baddiel is right: at bottom, most people who are opposed to Israel feel that way not because of its government policies, or because of Netanyahu (after all, there were far more liberal Prime Ministers than he , like David Ben-Gurion or Golda Meir, but Israel has remained constant as the special object of opprobrium. Now, it seems, almost all anti-Semitism is racial anti-Semitism, as the “Christ killer” trope has simply lost its force.

So why is there so much racial anti-Semitism?  There are the stereotypes of money-grubbing, power-hungry Jews, of course, but I don’t think that explains it.  Perhaps it’s because it’s simply taught from one generation to the next, as the song in South Pacific attests. But why did it get started this way?

I’m not expert on this, but I will read Baddiel’s book, and perhaps Bari Weiss’s book How to Fight Anti-Semitism has more analysis.  It’s when I see people go after Israel without knowing anything about its history or even the issue they’re discussing, and when I see academics flock to embrace the BDS movement, which is explicitly anti-Semitic, or hear people shout, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” (which of course means “no more Jews in Israel”; it’s an encouragement for genocide”), that I realize that many, many people simply don’t like jews because they’re Jews. They can’t say that openly, of course, so they gussy up their bigotry with a lot of ignorant political arguments and slogans, idiotic statements about “apartheid”, and adherence to a movement whose roots they know nothing about. It is clear that, among countries of the world, Israel is held to standards much different from any other land. UN resolution after UN resolution condemns Israel, but is largely silent on North Korea or Iran. Why do you suppose that is?

In the end, I guess I don’t really understand anti-Semitism. The rationale for it changes over time: originally religious, then racial, and now morphing into issues of human rights. But the end, Jews will always be the scapegoats—even more so now that they have their own country.

Readers’ wildlife photos

April 27, 2023 • 8:30 am

I’m putting my toes back into the water, restarting the wildlife photos with a short selection contributed by reader Christopher Moss. Christopher’s comments are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.

The title of his email was “Ondatra zibethicus“, and it continued

. . . . . What a wonderful name, and just for the lowly muskrat. This one isn’t lowly at all, he’s rather large, though the fur coat might be misleading me. The fur is wet here, but when dry it is very soft – I have an RCMP-style winter hat with muskrat flaps. Don’t shoot me, my mother bought it for me.At the shallow end of the lake, where the reeds have not yet grown back after winter, he is diving and browsing.

And just to prove this is no castoreus, his tail:

He must have poor eyesight, as he didn’t seem to mind me going out onto the deck and waving a gigantic camera at him (Nikon D850 and 200-500mm zoom), but as soon as he heard the shutter he sat up and took off after these few clicks.

A question for readers about posting

April 27, 2023 • 8:00 am

My crack website tech person has attacked the issue of all the comments having to be moderated, and I think that one is solved. The resolution was technical, and I don’t need to go into details, for what I want to ask the readers is this:

      Are you having any problems at all posting or subscribing to comments? 

Please describe any technical issues in the comments below, and if there’s something afflicting several people, I’ll try to get it solved.

“We aim to please”