Tue 7 Feb 2006
Has there ever been less cause for a question mark in the title of a symposium at Williams?
Sociologist Troy Duster, anthropologist Deborah Bolnick, and science writer Steve Olson will lead a symposium on the subject of race and genetics titled “Is There a Genetic Basis for Racial Distinction?” on Tuesday, Feb. 7, at 7:30 p.m. in the Adams Memorial Theatre of the ‘62 Center for Theatre and Dance.
No. Or, rather, the answer to this question is so trivially “Yes” that only the mendacious or the misinformed would argue otherwise.
The set of panelists is interesting in that Dunster and Bolnick would, I think, clearly answer Yes to the question. To be precise, with a just a cheek swab, you can tell the “race” of 90%+ of the people in the world. Genetic testing is that good, and getting better all the time. The news release quotes Olson as claiming:
Genetics research is now about to end our long misadventure with the idea of race. We now know that groups overlap genetically to such a degree that humanity cannot be divided into clear categories.
See here for an article by Olson, and associated commentary. There is, perhaps, a sense in which Olson is correct. My daughters, certainly, do not fall within a traditional racial category. There are racial clines in various parts of the world. But, big picture, genetic testing matches our commonsense notions of “race.” See here for an introduction to the technical literature.
Is this a good thing? Excellent question. I’d prefer a world in which no one ever asked my daughters to check their “race” on a form. Alas, Williams College is committed to precisely such a world, at least for the time being. With any luck, the issue of my daughters Asian race will be as irrelevant at Williams in 50 years as the fact of their German ethnicity would be today.
If I were a student, I would try to see Dunster at the faculty/staff event at 4:00 instead of the big lecture. You’re unlikely to be kicked out and the conversation is bound to be very interesting. Dunster is a serious scholar (and Eph, via an honorary degree).
Previous discussion at EphBlog here and here.
14 Responses to “Yes, obviously.”
Leave a Reply
Dave, your daughters might be just a bit TOO old to not have to check the box, but at least 7 justices in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) gave Affirmative Action only 25 years left to live “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” Since Williams receives federal funding for various research programs and admits students with federal loans, it will likely be bound by this unless it decides to give up all its funding in 2028.
Also, I’m surprised that this post has been up for over 5 hours without Rory responding. Maybe he’s just too busy with BrownEph.
and to think, i had almost forgotten why i left ephblog months ago. thanks, lowell, for the reminder. i was planning to start lurking, but nah, forget it. it’s not worth it.
(you should know i have nothing to do with browneph. you also should realize that was horrible joke)
Rory,
I was composing a reply to the above in the shower this morning… which hasn’t gone any further than that, as I have a few other documents open.
Surely if you had replied, I could make my point somewhat more easily, as otherwise I will need to represent positions such as yours, and somewhat better, as hearing your voice adds to my knowledge.
Surely you’re welcome (and missed) here, sparring with Lowell aside, and as in any debate, your audience is not your oppenent.
And, yes, Lowell’s choice of phrase, as his choice of case law, is quite interesting.
In twenty-three more years, we’ll get to see, but I would put my money against the presuppositions of Grutter v. Bollinger.
I don’t really see what objectionable “choice of phrase” or “horrible joke” I made.
Rory, I’m sorry for assuming that you were involved at all with BrownEph. It just seemed like something you would be involved in from what I remember of your intellectual and extracurricular predilictions, and I thought I detected some sentence structure similarity between you and one of the posters. Again, my apologies for assuming that you were a poster.
Ken, what’s particularly interesting about citing one of the two most recent SCOTUS affirmative action cases, especially given that they’re currently the controlling caselaw?
Lowell,
Excuse me taking on something of what I (believe to be) Rory’s perspective in this. While I do accept your explanation, I believe what Rory was saying is something like that, in the context of a discussion that focuses on race and genetics, –note Troy Duster’s very particular project and its connection to the Black America discussed on BrownEph– you were accusing him of racially and genetically determined behavior.
In more abstract terms, that you were using a racial slur.
Reading the discussion in that way– and let me pause again to say I take no interpretation as final, and am at least somewhat “Against Interpretation“– citing the controlling caselaw, which depends on so many presumptions of “race”– and which briefly stated seem somewhat absurd from a comparitive international or comparative international law perspective– is at least interesting as a “pattern of discourse.”
Thank you for your explanation and apology. And I hope Rory might reconsider his interpretation of what is going on here, and what, I think, may have appeared quite hostile to him.
Our country is fractured along (mis-)understandings such as the above; so too our campus. Perhaps that is the fundamental challenge facing the Housing System.
And now for a post on Housing History…
would that i could write like that. i make far too many grammatical mistakes to blog:)
Lowell, (in an ironic twist) I assumed you knew I wasn’t involved and hence thought it was a bad joke. assumptions just make an ass out of u and me (yes, I just wrote that).
I guess my frustration is that I am very much typecast, and understandably so because i really did confine myself to posts about diversity, on ephblog. i also get stressed/irritated about the site too easily (my fault or the blogs isn’t the issue. the issue is that i have no reason to add a stressor to my life). i came back for winter study out of curiousity and because i’ve wanted to express my disappointment in the diversity initiatives for some time now (those people on the committee know I wrote a long letter to them about it).
After the diversity initiatives thing, i was on the fence about returning. the fact that a small misunderstanding from lowell could put me over the fence made it obvious to me that it is time to (not-so-gracefully) bow out.
Ken, Rory (at least as far as I’m aware) is from a Jewish background. His last name is one that is almost exclusively some combination of Jewish and/or German. Thus, while I certainly see where you’re coming from, I don’t think it makes sense in these circumstances, where I’m talking to/about an ‘03 classmate of mine from a fairly similar ethnic and educational background.
Rory, thank you very much. I really wish that you wouldn’t bow out, even though we disagree on just about everything, but you really should do what’s best for you and what you want to do and not what other people want. I know I do. As strange as it may sound coming from me, of all people, I really do appreciate your presence here, and not just because I have to refine and elevate my arguments to a higher level to keep up with you.
David uses the phrase: “our commonsense notions of “race”.”
Honestly, how often do ‘commonsense notions’ stay the same? I just finished Gregory Williams’ book about growing up white and one day discovering that he had a black grandfather. When his parents divorced, he and his brother went to live with this grandfather, and through high school, was treated by the public as ‘black.’ Or read the recent memoir by Rebecca Walker, “Black, White, and Jewish.”
We labor to link our ‘commonsense notions’ of race to the scientific proof that different groups of genetically similar people exist (which we choose to label ‘races,’ when 90+% can be put in an overlapping category as both genetically similar and socially observed to be of the same race). Perhaps instead, a discussion of race could demonstrate how unsatisfactory the labels remain.
what a short lived retirement that was for me:)
i wanted to thank Lowell for his kind words. i also know i have to step my logical tightness game up when Lowell is nearby. I’ll make the periodic stop by, but give posts more than 5 hours for me to reply. i’ve got some funding proposals that need writing too much!
By “commonsense notions of race” I meant how people at Williams use “race” today. Consider the news release in which the College reports that there are 53 Asian American students in the class of 2009. Not 52 or 54 but exactly 53. As you correctly point out, this formulation is a problematic one. But, at the same time, it is meaningful and, to a certain extent, commonsensical, or at least in common usage.
My claim is that, with that usage, the definition of race is largely genetic. A cheek-swab will do the trick, will tell you the same thing (more or less) as the College does in its news release. Those that deny that there is “a Genetic Basis for Racial Distinction” — at least as race is used at Williams — are misinformed.
I think that your points and references are well-chosen. The main reason that I write about race so often here is not, as some might think, to make trouble (although I like a bit of trouble as much as the next blogger) as it is to bring up a very interesting topic. You can find related thoughts here.
I am glad to see that Rory will not be taking a break from EphBlog, but then again, a break can be a healthy thing. There is no more valued member of the EphBlog community than he, except possibly for site administrator Eric Smith ‘99 and ace photographer Diana Davis ‘07.
Thanks, David.
And in the Roman Republic, each “tribe” and Valley was seen as a separate “race,” not even to think so far away as the residents of Germania. Uniting them in any structure was quite a challenge.
The comcept of race… well we have just talked about a “race for Tyler…” we could also employ “the race of Tyler,” and refer to the residents of Tyler as a “race,” a tradition, a collection of human characteristics.
I cannot recall one assigned reading at Williams or Berkeley on the concept of “race” that did not debunk the concept as non-scientific, non-irreducable to genetics or any other objective determination.
Speaking of interesting forms of discourse, this is one of the very few places where the cultural constructionists seek to defer to the judgements of their collegues in the natural sciences.
[...] true. Note that Duster gave a talk at Williams a few months ago. Too bad that no one on campus blogged about it. I’d bet that it was [...]