To the Editor: I am disappointed that you deleted Bret Stephens’ reference (column, Dec. 27) to a 2005 academic study on the “Natural History of Ashkenazi [Jewish] Intelligence,” published in the Journal of Biosocial Science. In so doing, you betray the purpose of a great newspaper, which is to fearlessly search for truth regardless of the consequences.
You assert that the study’s authors “promoted racist views.” That may or may not be true. I’m skeptical that it is true, given how carelessly and promiscuously the charge of racism is hurled about; but either way, that is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the study itself. In The New Republic, Harvard Psychology Professor Stephen Pinker found the study legitimate and worthy of consideration, not racist.
You worry that, by citing the study “uncritically” [sic], Stephens leaves the impression that he thinks “Jews are genetically superior.” Balderdash! In fact, Stephens leaves no such impression. He expressly argues that Jewish achievement stems from “habits of mind,” and not intelligence per se.
More importantly, should great newspapers be worried about impressions or reality, feelings or facts, sentiment or truth? Should you aspire to be thought-provoking or just a “safe space” for readers presumably too soft and tender to handle the truth? The New York Times appears to have chosen the latter approach, and America and the world are worse off because of it.
Feature photo credit: The New York Times.
