Sam Harris is racist

I woke up yesterday to distressing, though not completely unsurprising news: author, intellectual heavyweight, and [supposed] skeptic Sam Harris had interviewed Charles Murray.  Yes, that Charles Murray who, along with Richard J Herrnstein, co-authored The Bell Curve, a controversial-because-it-is-a-racist-pile-of-trash 1994 book. The Bell Curve reintroduced the concept of scientific (or intellectual) racism into modern USAmerican discourse and stayed on the New York Times’ bestseller’ list for 15 weeks, selling roughly 300,000 copies. It clearly struck a familiar and racist chord with people–especially its likely target audience:  white people (many of whom felt they finally had a scientific basis for their racist beliefs).  Of course, for all that it has a history reaching back to at least the 1800s, scientific racism is little more than repurposed white supremacist ideology with a touch of “science” (air quotes because it’s really that cheap knock-off of the real thing, pseudoscience). Murray’s book, which was an attempt to fuse alternative scientific facts with racist ideology, has been thoroughly debunked multiple times (such as here, here, and here), and criticized for its questionable science and its faulty logic, as well as its sources. Additionally, there’s one other liiiiiiiiiiiitle thing the book has been criticized for: its financial backers, the Pioneer Group. A far-right organization of so-called “race realists”, the Pioneer Group is a white supremacist organization with Neo-Nazi ties that backs studies on race, intelligence, and eugenics with the ultimate aim of racial betterment of white folks (which, unfortunately doesn’t mean ‘seeking to redeem white folks in the eyes of PoC after centuries of genocide, slavery, rape, forced assimilation, and imperialism’ and likely means something more like  ‘making the country great for white people again by getting rid of all them colored folks forcibly or through…well, there is no “or” ‘).

Despite being a book beloved by many a white supremacist piece of shit, Charles Murray’s book–what with its faux science, unsupported and hastily drawn conclusions, sources of a…questionable nature, and its backing by fans of the guy who penned POTUS45’s favorite “alone time” book, Mein Kamf–the only use for The Bell Curve is kindling.

So we’ve got a white supremacist organization with Nazi ties (wonder if they know Nazi punching bag Richard Spencer) that provided the financial backing for Murray and Herrnstein to write a piece of racist trashfire material that sought to provide a scientific foundation for the belief that white people are the best, smartest, coolest kids on the block and all the rest of us suck bc we have too much melanin. Although widely discredited by the scientific community (including the notion that the full spectrum of human cognitive abilities can be measured by one’s intelligence quotient), the idea of scientific racism still managed to seep into the public consciousness. Furor over the book died down in time, but the central theme of the book never disappeared and unfortunately, intellectual racism is once again seeing a resurgence. Nicole Hemmer of U.S. News & World Report writes:

Intellectual racism, in its cultural and pseudoscientific guises, is having a bit of a renaissance of late. At least, it’s receiving more attention than at any time since the debut of “The Bell Curve,” the 1994 book by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray about race and IQ. Murray himself is back in the news, triggering protests as he tours college campuses. Andrew Sullivan, who published excerpts of Murray’s work as editor of The New Republic, recently went out of his way to make a case against the persistence of racism and for black pathology at the end of a much-read piece about Hillary Clinton. Within the last year, white nationalist sites like VDARE, American Renaissance and Radix have become part of the political landscape.

I’ve written elsewhere about the trap of intellectualized racism, which cuts against the common assumption that racism is rooted in ignorance and provincialism, that it can only be crude and passe. Thus when Richard Spencer, the face of the alt-right, shows up in a natty suit, he is treated as an unusual curiosity. When Charles Murray shows up brandishing a Ph.D. and some regression tables, he is treated as a sober-minded scholar.

Yes to all of this. Bigots like Spencer and Murray–in an effort to be seen (and thus treated) as respectable–have rejected the pointy white sheets and the jackboots worn by their racist predecessors. Similarly, instead of spending their free time lynching PoC or using them as gator bait (all with the ultimate purpose of instilling  terror in communities of color), many of today’s white supremacists put forth an air of respectability by repackaging their beliefs (and themselves) in an attempt to make them more palatable for the masses (doesn’t “peaceful ethnic cleansing”, oxymoron though it may sound, seem so much kinder, than mass murder?).  I suspect this is one reason why the odious ideas presented by these ethically challenged, morally bankrupt, evil human beings are gaining traction in the mainstream. As before, with the release of The Bell Curve, the dead and beaten horse that is intellectual racism allows people to justify their racist beliefs as scientific (nevermind the lack of science behind them).  And in the current political climate–one which saw the rise to the presidency of a morally repellent, authoritarian leaning, hater of the US Constitution, Mein Kamf loving misogynistic bully–there seems to be a great deal of interest in listening to and coddling the views of people who would like to see those like me six feet under or cast out from the place of my birth simply bc they think this country belongs only to white people. I’m talking about people like Richard Spencer, Ann Coulter, Milo Yiannopolous, Raymond Wolters, and yes, Charles Murray.

So when I hear that a prominent, well-respected (why?) member of the atheist community has conducted an interview with a man who is, and has long been known to be, a white supremacist*, my spider-sense goes off. From what I know of Sam Harris, he is something of an intellectual. I know he has a few degrees (one in philosophy and another in neuroscience, I believe). I know he’s written a few books that had a positive effect on some and a lackluster “meh” effect on others. Basically, I know he has some degree of higher education and knows how do research on a subject or person. And it’s that knowledge that rules out the first theory I have about why he conducted this interview: that he did not know who he [Murray] was or was not familiar with his views. I have a hard time accepting the idea that Sam Harris knew very little about Charles Murray and The Bell Curve, and thought “I need to clear some things up, so I can better understand his position. I should interview him.” No. When you can easily search for Murray and find his Wikipedia page, his entry at AEI, his well deserved page on the Southern Poverty Law Center‘s site, and more, there is no need to talk to the man to find out his beliefs.

Perhaps then, he decided to interview the racist woo peddler in order to give said beliefs a proper thrashing and demonstrate to a new audience what Dr. Stephen Gould demonstrated back in the 90s? This is certainly a valid approach, but unfortunately, it’s not one that he took, as evidenced by the apology Harris offers to Murray at the start of the podcast. Apparently, in the world according to the great Sam Harris (he who peels back the layers and reveals the truths *they* don’t want you to hear), this poor, poor fellow was viciously maligned by politically correct critics (I gotta say–great job completely ignoring the work of all the people who have rebutted Murray’s work over they years, including Dr. Gould). It’s pretty much downhill from there as you can see from the blog AngryWhiteMen where the author criticizes pretty much everything about Harris’ podcast, from Harris’ refusal to critically examine Murray’s beliefs to his failure to acknowledge the effect of scientific racism on social policy:

And then there’s the effect The Bell Curve has had, and will continue to have, on social policy. As Claudia S. Fischer et al pointed out in their 1996 rebuttal Inequality By Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth, the upshot of Murray and Herrnstein’s book was that “intelligence largely determined how well people did in life.” “The rich were rich mostly because they were smart, the poor were poor mostly because they were dumb, and middle Americans were middling mostly because they were of middling intelligence.” And, as we have already seen, their view on race and IQ is that blacks and Latinos “were by nature not as intelligent as whites; that is why they did less well economically, and that is why little can or should be done about racial inequality.”

In other words, no amount of affirmative action can raise the standard of living for black and Latino Americans, since they are mainly being held back by genetics. In addition, with lower than average IQs come other social consequences: violent crime, petty theft, out-of-wedlock births, and so on.

Is Harris aware of the impact applied scientific racism could have on the lives of those who are not white males? Does he care? If he is aware and does care, it is not apparent because he fails to offer a substantial rebuttal to Murray’s views. Thus, listeners are left with the impression that there is nothing unreasonable about them. The piece concludes by listing Harris’ failings as a host, a skeptic, and in my eyes, a decent human being:

And all of these points — unwillingness to engage with critics, connections to white supremacists, consequences for poor and non-white Americans — would have been worth bringing up in Harris’ conversation with Murray. As an interviewer, he should have done more than toss softballs and whitewash Murray’s record. As a skeptic, he should have been more willing to examine Murray’s beliefs. His unwillingness to do so will only bolster racist pseudoscience and toss more red meat to Murray’s white nationalist fans.

I think it’s safe to say at this point that Sam Harris did not conduct this interview with noted White Supremacist Piece of Shit Charles Murray to debunk his pseudoscientific beliefs. No, as it turns out, the interview was conducted because…well, I don’t want to try my hand at mindreading. I’ll leave the attempts at alt-science to people like Murray. I can’t speak to what Harris’ intent was with this piece. But I can talk about the impact of the piece, and its implications. That impact? Those implications? They say nothing good, and everything bad about Sam Harris. Consider the following:

  •  Harris chose to conduct this interview–an interview which sees the resurrection of the beaten horse that is scientific racism–at a time when our country is simmering in a toxic social and political stew. A stew in which racism is bubbling right on the surface, ready to explode. In several cases, that racism has bubbled above the surface and boiled over, as in the various clashes between  alt-righters white supremacists like Richard Spencer and Milo Yiannopolous or the numerous incidents of law enforcement officers executing African-Americans leading to protest marches by Black Lives Matter activists. What message is sent when a leading figure in the secular/atheist movement plays host to a white supremacist without criticizing said views?  Among other things, it legitimizes Murray’s views.
  • He titled the episode ‘Forbidden Knowledge’. With a title like that, shouldn’t the listeners have knowledge imparted to them by the end of the episode? And not just knowledge, but useful, evidence based knowledge? I would think so. But the interview was with a man for whom evidence appears to be his personal Kryptonite.* His work has already been discredited several times over and the faux science behind it laid bare.  The impact here is ironic, given the title of the podcast. Rather than knowledge being imparted and peoples’ awareness raised, thanks to Harris’ softballing of Murray, misinformation, distortion, and outright lies are treated as legitimate and scientific in nature.
  • the financial backers of The Bell Curve, as well as some of the sources have strong Neo-Nazi ties. It should go without saying that if your backers or the source of your information are Nazi, you really ought to reexamine your work. From top down. Failure to do so allows Nazism one more foothold out of the sewer it belongs in. And we all know what happens when Nazism gains too much of a foothold.
  • Remember the connection between Murray and eugenics? Murray’s idea, that white people are genetically superior to People of Color paired with “race betterment” sounds uncomfortably close to a “Master Race”.
  • The impact of scientific racism on political issues such as immigration and government assistance programs would be huge. If our lot in life is determined (largely or in whole) by genetics, then nothing can be done to improve our quality of life. So why should government assistance programs exist? And why worry about racial inequality if our genes determine our place in the US caste system?

Consider too:

  • Sam Harris is advocate of racial profiling at airports  to root out terrorists (though he’s yet to give a non-appearance based reliable method for rooting out terrorists)
  • Sam Harris’ denigration of identity politics. Given that he considers himself an intellectual (he may even consider himself a Bright person), I can’t imagine he’d reject or denigrate an idea without first learning what the idea is (it’s not controversial to assume a leading figure is intellectually honest, is it?). So surely he is aware that identity politics is a form of political activism focused on uplifiting and liberating the various identity groups that are oppressed in society (groups like women, queer people, PoC, disabled people, etc). Further to that, surely he knows that identity politics is key to marginalized groups achieving liberation and equality. That can only be done by focusing on each group and finding out what they need to improve their quality of life.

When you take into account those considerations, as well as Harris’ whitewashing of  The Bell Curve, his refusal to critically examine Murray’s beliefs, and his lack of acknowledgment of the social costs of intellectually racist beliefs used in support  of legislation, a very unflattering image of Sam Harris begins to emerge.

I wish that image had been of a man who–recognizing the social power he has, the platform he possesses, and how far his influence reaches–had acted in a responsible manner to eviscerate racism. Publicly. Loudly. Without hesitation. I wish Harris understood that racism benefits all white people, bc in oppressing People of Color, it grants unfair advantages (privileges) to white people.  Those unfair advantages enable white people to make their way through life with fewer obstacles than if they had higher levels of melanin. Racism continues to exist because–collectively–white people have done next to nothing to tear down that system of oppression.

No, the image of Sam Harris is not a good one. What he did here was irresponsible. More to the point, it was also immoral, bc not only did he not work to tear down racism, he actively worked to shore up its foundations by lending credence to Murrays woo-filled beliefs, failing (or refusing) to critically examine Murray’s views, and raising the profile of a white supremacist and presenting his ideas to people who–already primed to trust and respect their host–might well be sympathetic to the views of a racist extremist whom the host treats cordially. By giving Murray a platform and challenging him in no substantial way, Harris may as well have told his listeners “treat what this man says as the truth”.

That’s a reinforcement of white supremacy.

And that is racism.

Which makes Sam Harris a racist.


*I’m not quibbling over the difference between white supremacist and white nationalist, bc both believe in the innate superiority of white people. White nationalists claim they just want a nation-state all to themselves and don’t have a problem with PoC, they just don’t want them in “their country”.  I don’t believe that claim. But more to the point, they believe they are genetically and intellectually superior to PoC, which is the same belief held by white supremacists. At the end of the day, maybe white nationalists don’t want to re-enslave African-Americans or continue the genocide of Indigenous people, but they are only a few steps removed from those who do. And they all play on team evil.


Oh, would you look at that, another prominent figure in the atheist movement wants to throw his lot in with Murray.

Sam Harris is racist

9 thoughts on “Sam Harris is racist

  1. 1

    Murray’s in AEI? The same AEI where Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s sadly conservative very dark-skinned self has been? Some people make my entire being hurt.

    Also, gotta agree, this move by Harris is pretty much a confession. He’s as anti-racist as Dawkins is feminist. Worse even. Shermer’s been up to similar shenanigans.

    It’s like they feel the progressive wing of atheism betrayed them, so anything progressives hate must automatically have some merit to it. Hence the chin-rubbing arched-eyebrow, maybe-he’s-got-something-there stance toward the works of pure human evil.

  2. 2

    Harris says this in the transcript:

    IQ is normed so that the average in the whole population is always 100 or as close to 100 as possible. Although we’ll get into this, IQs have been — those scores have been creeping up, decade by decade for reasons that are not totally understood..

    So, right here, anybody with the first clue about human biology knows immediately that there is no possible way that there’s a significant genetic component there. IQ tests have existed for barely over a century; that’s not even close to long enough for the population’s genetics to have changed that much. Also, over that same period, the percentage of the population who aren’t white has been steadily increasing…

  3. 3

    ^^In response to Dalillama’s comment:

    Consider the fact that an individual’s adult height is scientifically proven to be influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. I assume this is hardly controversial.

    There are plenty of other measurable qualities of an individual that are influenced by both genetic and environmental factors, including generalized intelligence — the measurement of which is an IQ score.

    Scientific studies have demonstrated that the average height of populations in certain regions has changed dramatically in direct relation to corresponding environmental factors. A generation growing up during a time of peace and agricultural surplus would be taller on average than a generation that grew up during a time of war and famine. The general trend has been a gradual increase in average adult height since the 1800s.

    Nobody with a solid understanding of biology would argue that there isn’t a significant genetic component for an individual’s height — height is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. Obviously there is an upper limit for how tall an individual might grow that is dictated by their genetic potential. A trend showing an increase in average height does not mean that there isn’t a significant genetic component.

    Similarly, general intelligence is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. There is an upper limit for an individual’s IQ score that is dictated by their genetic potential. A trend showing an increase in average IQ does not mean that there isn’t a significant genetic component.

  4. 4

    ^Spot where the logic fails on anon77. If for rhetorical reason alone we say every one of the assumptions you make is true, you still had a little bunny hop there.

    general intelligence is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors.

    Granted rhetorically, might even be true tho the idea IQ is a valid metric for mental powers at all is the veriest of bullshits…

    There is an upper limit for an individual’s IQ score that is dictated by their genetic potential.

    All you said is that there are environmental and genetic factors. You didn’t establish that environmental factors provide any upper limit at all. What if the genetic factor is some minuscule baseline and the environment is the true arbiter of upper limits, if there are any?

    The only reason scientific racists want to believe things like what you’re saying is because it allows them to imagine systemic inequity occurred magically from natural order, rather than systemic application of white villainy. I can understand the feeling, that looking at how bad people -especially one’s own people- can be is so disturbing you want to turn away from it, but it’s a mistake to do so.

    Don’t even front that you didn’t come in here to defend scientific racism, bro. You fool no one.

  5. 6

    One of the curious things I’m seeing in responses like Anon’s (as well as the multiple insult laden, substanceless responses I’ve deleted) is the lack of awareness of not only Murray’s racism or the backing of his book by a Neo-Nazi organization, but also of the *multiple* refutations of the bullshit contained therein over the last few decades.

    It is specifically those refutations that *should* have been all that Harris needed to recognize that Charles Murray is a racist trashfire. He didn’t need to interview him to find out his beliefs, the poor science behind them, or that he’s not changed his stance (the man has spoken in recent months at Columbia and Duke) and there’s no indication that his views have altered: he still believes there is a correlation between the non-biology based concept of race and the ill-defined concept of intelligence. And he thinks that IQ is a reliable measurement of the relationship between the two, where it’s nothing of the kind. At best, IQ may measure a particular form of intelligence, but given that multiple forms have been discovered, it has turned out that IQ has limited utility.

    No, Murray has not changed his views. He is still a far-right stoolhead with racist beliefs that he tries to mask behind his pseudoscientific nonsense.

    As evidenced by many of the people who support him, that mask continues to fool people.

    As for the Harris defenders, I know there’s nothing that can be said to persuade them that he is the racist asshole that he showed himself to be long before he decided he was unable to Google Charles Murray and learn what the man is about (a much quicker, and non-platform giving method of getting up to speed on the white supremacist shithead). The fact that Harris chose to interview a man whom Stephen Gould thoroughly refuted decades ago, rather than do a Google search for that refutation (or others) puts enough doubt in my mind that his stated reason for inviting him “to find out what his beliefs are and see if “”what he’d heard about Murray” was accurate” is truthful.

    In short, I believe Sam Harris was dishonest, and yes, racist. But then we knew he was racist years ago when he advocated for profiling of Muslims at airports.

  6. 7

    Oh, so Michael Shermer, who appears by preponderance of the evidence to be a rapist, who is a notorious sexist, and who is a economic glibertarian who ignores evidence, is throwing his hat in with the white supremacist?

    Why am I not even *slightly* surprised.

  7. JS

    The article mistakenly claims Murray puts whites at the top of IQ

    he does not

    Asians have higher IQ

    people debate genetics but nobody with ANY IQ debates that Asians have higher IQ than whites (on average… as with all differences )

  8. 9

    You’re right and wrong. Murray’s trashfire book actually says the following:

    We might start with a common question in America these days: Do Asians have higher I.Q.s than whites? The answer is probably yes, if Asian refers to the Japanese and Chinese (and perhaps also Koreans), whom we will refer to here as East Asians. How much higher is still unclear.

    So he didn’t say whites are at the top of IQ.
    He also didn’t say Asians have higher IQ than whites. He said some. And there are more Asians than those from China, Japan, or Vietnam.

    I also hope you don’t think IQ is a reliable measure of the various forms of intelligence, bc it’s not. *If* it’s a measure of anything (and that’s questionable), it’s only one form of intelligence.

Comments are closed.