A Jeanne Site
Violence as Genetic:
The Columbia Study
California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Latest update: March 9, 2000
Faculty on the Site.
Comments on the Columbia Study
Jeanne Curran and Susan R. Takata
Part of Teaching Series
Copyright: Curran and Takata, February 2000. "Fair Use" encouraged.
On Monday, March 6, Dory Thompson wrote:
Susan,
After reviewing the articles, I found them astoundng. It's amazing how such a biased experiment can be so widely accepted. It seems to me that whites are so afraid of not being racially superior to blacks, that they will stop at nothing to prove it. It's also appalling that such experiments are using tactics that seem inhumane, even by
medieval standards. Plus, when the results come in as the results the
researchers didn't want, they keep testing more. Wouldn't that be a sign
to stop?
Thanks,
dory thompson
On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, Susan R Takata wrote:
I'm glad you read and reacted to this piece on Dear Habermas. But I do
have a question about a point you made -- "...whites are so afraid of not
being racially superior to blacks..." -- what did you mean by
this? Wouldn't it be the other way around that the whites are using their
power and privilege to insure their racial superiority? Recall the passage on
how white sheets have been substituted for white lab coats? Why don't they
stop this kind of experimentation given the results? Looking forward to
hearing your response.
On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Dorry Thompson wrote:
I meant that whites are so afraid that they won't be the superior race,
that they will stop at nothing to try to prove that they are, meaning
doing these experiments. I agree that they are using their power to insure
their racial superiority, otherwise I beleive that maybe these horrible
experiments would stop. But because whites have that power and privilege,
these experiments are continuing. I believe they also meant that whites
are simply putting on lab coats instead of white sheets, and still
continuing their racial discrimination and "lynching of other minorities",
this time in a lab.
Dory
On Thur, 9 Mar 2000, Susan R. Takata wrote:
How does this relate to the Jerome Miller article that we read in class
about race and crime (supermax prisons)? Is this something you'd like to
research further?
susan
On Thursday, 9 March, jeanne added:
Great example of dialog. I'd like to remind everybody that students are still researching the positions actually published and stated by Doctors Wasserman and Pine. We encourage you all to explore this issue, to e-mail your questions to me, to Susan, so that I can make them accessible to everyone here. I also have Mitchell Cohen's e-mail address, so we can send questions on to him.
I would also like to remind everyone that this is a process text, in which we are sharing with each other as we think these issues through. Remember that thinking things through is messy, and that no one is to be held rigidly to their thoughts. To take any statement out of context as a definitive position is to do structural violence, for public discourse requires that we feel comfortable in discussing all aspects of every validity claim. To ascribe definitive status to any argument in a public discourse is to "chill speech." That is, to make others hesitant to express their validity claims, and to make it more difficult for us to change our position throughout the discourse. We have the First Amendment to prevent such chilling. And that is essential to public discourse and the good faith hearing of all validity claims.
With that in mind, I hope you will all join in this discourse.
jeanne