[ QUOTE ]
"Maybe his comment is based upon the very real phenomenon that a lot of minorities wouldn't be where they are at without affirmative action."
This is a real phenomenon? Do you think Watson knows the science, i.e, the statistics, behind how real it is or is not? He was talking about employees, not people attending graduate school at the University of Michigan.
[/ QUOTE ]
Some also claim that, in college or professional admissions, it hurts those it intends to help, since it causes a "mismatching" effect by admitting minority students who are less qualified than their peers into more rigorous programs wherein they cannot keep up. UCLA School of Law professor Richard Sander wrote several papers on this occurring in both the law schools themselves and in law firms.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/
I have a few friends who are senior partners in midwest law firms that have experienced similar problems. I even know a few people that lost New York clients because they didn't have any gays/blacks as senior partners. I have no problem admitting I know several black people that are more talented than I am. But to me it seems pretty obvious that affirmative action is not limited to schools. If it was then I wouldn't have to click the Caucasian tab every time I apply for a job.
[ QUOTE ]
"But that was not the point of his statement. His statement was that people could abort either homosexual or heterosexual fetuses. Only half of his statement typically gets reported."
Why does he even mention homosexuals? Here is what was quoted in the press: "If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn't want a homosexual child, well, let her."
[/ QUOTE ]
Why does he mention homosexuals? Probably to piss people like you off. That would be my best guess. From a purely Darwinian or even an "abortion-is-not-murder" point of view there's nothing wrong with his comment. But from the politically left point of view view his comment is heresy. It is a bit hypocritical for most pro-choice lefties to take offense to his comment. And I suppose pointing out that hypocrisy would bring many people pleasure.
I used to use similar tactics to gain attention to certain political issues. Many people are bored with science, but if you throw something politically incorrect into the situation all of the sudden people are hotly debating it. Getting called crazy is not as insulting as being totally ignored when something important is at stake. In fact, many scientists don't care about their image at all. I can relate to this as I used to find it particularly delightful when pushing this PC envelope for a wide variety of reasons. Political correctness often gets in the way (rightfully or wrongfully) of the pursuit of knowledge. Everything from polio vaccines in Africa & among the chiropractic industry in America (52% of chiropractors don't believe in vaccines) to stem cell research has been under intense fire because of peoples ideology.
In every public lecture of Watson's that I've been to he's done something incredibly out of place (like alternating slides between scientific material and a woman he's shagged). Some of his stuff has no point (slides of shagged females). But both Crick and Watson have a penchant for using dramatics to reinforce political issues. Cricks request for a whorehouse at Churchill college is one such instance. Behavior like that isn't to solve an immediate problem but to bring media/public attention to something they find offensive. It is an extreme way of pointing out their hypocrisy in a supposed secular stance. That tactic works as it's been 50 years and that stunt still gets discussed. I wonder if there is anything else that Crick could have done to make such a long lasting impression on society with such little effort. It's a cheap but somewhat effective tactic for the famous. If accurate science turned heads then NASA's James Hansen (and not Al Gore) would have a Nobel prize.
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree that his age is playing into his desire for attention. He's made callous, insensitive, racist, sexist remarks all his life.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well I may be wrong about his age playing a role. I first met him in 2004 and I was a bit surprised he wasn't using a cane. I remember being shocked when he remained standing and talking to people for at least four hours. So if I'm wrong about age playing a role please forgive me.