But only because we hadn’t yet read Charles Murray’s essay on inequalities, almost certainly innate, between men and women, blacks and whites. The first set of differences, those between the genders, I place almost in the realm of trivial truths. Murray simply brings in the supporting data. The second set, those between the races, I find most troubling, even though the evidence provided appears just as persuasive. Here’s the bottom line, according to Murray:
Elites throughout the West are living a lie, basing the futures of their societies on the assumption that all groups of people are equal in all respects. Lie is a strong word, but justified. It is a lie because so many elite politicians who profess to believe it in public do not believe it in private. It is a lie because so many elite scholars choose to ignore what is already known and choose not to inquire into what they suspect. We enable ourselves to continue to live the lie by establishing a taboo against discussion of group differences.
My question is, if we accept such differences, then what? If I read him right, Murray seems to imply that, on the one hand, great injustices and policy blunders will be avoided if we accept the data and the differences, but on the other hand, nothing will or should change in how we treat one another. That isn’t necessarily a logical contradiction, but it is, I think, an unlikely path for human nature to follow.