Lazy insinuations of racism

Vincent J. Curtis

28 Oct 20

RE: And then there were two. 28 Oct 20.   A Spectator editorial-as-news piece saying that a Black Hamilton Fire Fighter was retiring, leaving only two on the force.  This was portrayed as a problem for lack of representativeness of the community, and possibly a sign of racism.

What could be worse than the Spectator affirming prejudice?  What could be worse than affirming prejudice in the face of overwhelming evidence that has been in the public domain for fifty years?  The “And then there were two” editorial-cum-news article affirmed prejudice that was refuted decades ago and the evidence is still readily available.

The great American economist Thomas Sowell put paid to all these insinuations of prejudice and racism in books, lectures, newspaper columns, and YouTube videos beginning decades ago.  Put simply, the reason different groups are different is because….they’re different!  Differences between groups is the norm.  There is no reason to assume that Blacks are equally attracted and qualified to serve as firefighters, than to assume that white people are equally qualified to play in the NBA as tall Black men.

Indeed, if the explanation for a non-quantitative representation of Blacks as firefighters is prejudice, that case still needs to be proven.  Mere observation of empirical facts does not establish the case.  No more than observing planetary motion proves Ptolemy’s theory of it.  Nor is there any reason to believe that the Fire Department is in some kind of trouble because racial composition doesn’t meet somebody’s assumption of what it ought to be.  The Department would be in trouble if it failed to fight fires successfully.

The case is that different groups are different, and this difference is reflected in choices.  The onus is on the accuser to prove prejudice.

-30-