Jean Philippe Rushton is Dead

No matter how much one may have disagreed with a colleague in life, no matter how much damage one might feel a particular person’s work may have done, when that colleague finally dies one says a few good words, pays respect, and puts aside past differences.

But not in this case. I met Jean Philippe Rushton a couple of times but never got to know him as a person. But I do know that he was convinced of the inferiority of Africans compared to, for instance, himself, and spent his entire life improperly manipulating data, sometimes just plain making the data up, to “prove” this. If you look at modern “psychometric” studies you will find, as you trace back the data to earlier sources “demonstrating” the link between genes and behavior and how races are real and how we can use racial distinctions to predict criminality, intelligence, levels of sexual aggression, and so on, you will find Jean Philippe Rushton’s “scholarly” effluence amassed at or near the base of the literature like a cancerous tumor deep in the body cavity of a rotted and stinking corpse splayed on the autopsy table.

And now he’s dead. Ding dong.


  1. #1 Michael Haubrich
    Central Coast
    October 6, 2012

    Ahhh..that’s too bad. The world will (hardly) miss him.

  2. #2 gwen
    October 6, 2012

    No, I know some people who still reference him to support their own (racist) views.. His views have not rotted nearly enough.

  3. #3 Tom Levenson
    October 6, 2012

    Best news I’ve heard all night.

    Truly a blot on the culture. I’m not a nil nisi bonum kind of guy, and the world is better and smarter for his passing.

  4. #4 Scott McGreal
    October 7, 2012

    Ah the great racial theoretician, known for such “scholarly” practices as citing data from Penthouse Forum to provide “evidence” for his theorising – and I’m not making this up either!

  5. #5 Rose Lee
    October 7, 2012

    I am sorry to hear that!
    Hope she will be peaceful!

  6. #6 sailor
    October 7, 2012

    I wonder what it was in his life that made him so insecure that he would compromise his profession in order to convince himself he was somehow superior

  7. #7 eah
    October 8, 2012

    Simple question: Have you personally written, and had published in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals, articles refuting any aspect of Rushton’s work? If so, please provide a reference. TIA.

  8. #8 Greg Laden
    October 8, 2012

    NO, I’ve not. Nor have I written anything refuting Lemark or Lysenko, yet Rushton, Lemark and Lysenko have all been roundly criticized by me in my teaching (I’ve taught courses on race that addressed Rushton).

    I’m not sure why you would expect that.

  9. #9 Rusty Mayhew
    October 9, 2012

    Thanks for saying what needed to be said.
    Rushton was just a racist, not a scientist.
    I’m sure he will find a special place has been made just for him.

  10. #10 David Grant
    Calgary, AB, Canada
    October 12, 2012

    The death of Phillipe Rushon is great news. While you shouldn’t generally take pleasure in the passing of a human being, you have to make an exception here. Can anyone truly say that the world is made a better place because of his research apart from the racists, nitwits, nazis, and bigots? This kind of rubbish is real poison and it is used to justify the worst behaviour from those who would chose to treat other people unjustly because of their race, religion, or country of origin. Hopefully with his death will go the death of this type of science–if you can all it that!!!!

  11. #11 Emilia
    October 13, 2012

    I am not sure I would call Rushton a racist in the classical sense: that is, he did not seem to adhere to the belief that Whites were superior to all other races. He seemed to believe that Asians were more intelligent than Whites and that Blacks had greater sexual prowess. So Whites came across as fairly mediocre in Rushton’s scheme of things. Yes, I saw Rushton’s theories as preposterous and easily refutable, but I would not necessarily label him as a White Supremacist by the general definition of that term.

  12. #12 John
    October 19, 2012

    Before finding this blog, I happened on a blog extolling the virtues of Philippe Rushton and his scientific merit. Well, I’m aware of Rushton’s sloppy work and outright frauds and the only regret I have about his passing is that it didn’t occur sooner.

  13. #13 John
    October 19, 2012

    And before I forget, I can’t wait to read about the demise of the other two miscreants of race “science” – Arthur Jensen and Richard Lynn.

  14. #14 Founder
    October 25, 2012

    Intelligence is genetically based. There is only a few percent gene difference between a human and a chimpanzee, but the potential of intelligence is very different.
    Gene flow between populations has made it so you can’t speculate on genes based purely on racial characteristics.
    There always has been gene flow, even between neanderthal and homo sapiens.
    Unfortunately, racists make it impossible to talk about differences between gene groups without bringing up race.

  15. #15 David Grant
    Calgary, AB
    October 25, 2012

    I cannot for sure call Mr. Rushton a racist, I cannot look into his heart. His research, though, was celebrated by people who clearly had racist and discriminatory motives. It is difficult to know to what extent his research was used by those with these motives, but it wasn’t helpful at all to a world where are enough of these problems.

  16. #16 Doug1943
    United Kingdom
    October 31, 2012

    All races and both sexes are absolutely equal with respect to any desirable biologically-based cognitive ability.

    Any appearance of inequality is due to the social environment, is a result of deliberate design by those who wish to support the oppressive racist sexist classist status quo, and can be remedied via a government program.

    Anyone who doubts this and says so in public deserves the worst that can happen to them.

  17. #17 Tomas Strobert
    January 14, 2013

    “Ningún hombre es una isla entera por sí mismo.
    Cada hombre es una pieza del continente, una parte del todo.
    Si el mar se lleva una porción de tierra, toda Europa queda disminuida, como si fuera un promontorio, o la casa de uno de tus amigos, o la tuya propia.

    Ninguna persona es una isla; la muerte de cualquiera me afecta, porque me encuentro unido a toda la humanidad;
    por eso, nunca preguntes por quién doblan las campanas; doblan por ti”. ( si tambien por ti Gred Laden…)

    JOHN DONNE, Londres (1572-1631)

    Tambien puedes leer a Heminway …

  18. #18 tomas Strobert
    January 14, 2013

    No man is an island entire of itself.
    Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the whole.
    If the sea takes a piece of land, Europe is the less, as if a promontory, or the house of one of your friends, or your own.

    No person is an island, the death of either affects me, because I’m attached to all mankind; therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for you. (Mr Greg…)

    John Donne, London (1572-1631)

  19. #19 EA
    January 18, 2013

    Philippe Rushton is to my knoweldge one of few scientists who have received an entire journal article dedicated to their work: a recent issue of Personality & Individual Differences, a leading journal in psychology.

  20. #20 EA
    January 19, 2013

    Here’s E. O. Wilson on Rushton:

    I think Phil is an honest and capable researcher. The basic reasoning by Rushton is solid evolutionary reasoning; that is, it is logically sound. If he had seen some apparent geographic variation for a non-human species — a species of sparrow or sparrow hawk, for example — no one would have batted an eye.

  21. #21 Rusty Mayhew
    January 22, 2013

    “Personality & Individual Differences, a leading journal in psychology.”

    Uh..No. It’s one of two journals (the other being “Intelligence”) primarily used by scientific racists to promote psuedoscience. For example, that IQ test scores are a measure of human intelligence when they are obviously only a measure of how an individual scores on a specific test.

    Jensen, Rushton and Lynn’s belief in biological “races” shows their understanding of basic biology and high school genetics is lacking (i.e., non-existent).

  22. #22 Gerhard
    January 25, 2013

    The reason why Rushton’s theory of race differences (he did a lot of work in other fields, too) is still cited widely in the scientific literature is that it’s still the only game in town. The PC guys are too stupid to come up with theories of their own to explain (away) race differences in a way that does not offend the intellect.

  23. #23 Jacob
    January 30, 2013

    Bitter liberal full of hate that can’t deal with the truth, I will wish for your speedy death and celebrate it when it comes.

  24. #24 kate
    January 30, 2013

    Can’t deal with the truth? That’s Rushton, dear Jacob. He couldn’t deal with the truth of not being super special by accident of birth. And you, too, apparently. Scientists deal with the truth, seek it out, in fact. Rushton’s cheating and lying to advance a falsehood that is damaging to the progress of humanity is fair game for hate.

  25. #25 John
    March 19, 2013

    Emilia, how has Rushton been “easily” refuted? I don’t value his work, but most of you here have not provided any refutation of anything Rushton has proposed in science. You are not scientific, only emotional.

  26. #26 Greg Laden
    March 19, 2013

    Well, he cooked the hell out if data that wasn’t very good to begin with, John.

  27. #27 Emilia
    May 12, 2013

    John, I won’t take up any extra space on Mr. Laden’s site, but if you want to see my arguments, I’ll refer you to an essay I wrote on the subject, at

  28. #28 Greg Laden
    May 13, 2013

    Well, he was a scholar who was very well aware of the fact that faking and manipulating data to prop up a racist pseudoscientific doctrine was wrong. That makes him a racist.

    It is quite possible to be a soft spoken very nice guy and still be a racist.

  29. #29 Emilia
    May 13, 2013

    Thank you for reading my essay. I suppose I should clarify that Rushton was not a racist in the classical sense of the term, i.e. that he believed that Whites were the pinnacle of humanity. Perhaps a better definition might be that he was not a White supremacist but that he was a racist.

    As I wrote in my essay, I think there is a bit of an ambivalent attitude towards Asians among White racists. For example, even Jean LePen (French opposition leader) seemed a little reluctant to bad-mouth Asians as he did Blacks, Muslims, etcetera. I think LePen felt he had to oppose the entry of Asians in France in order to be ‘consistent.’ So perhaps Rushton lauding Asians was not that radical.

    I’m actually sceptical of both the right and left wing’s view of race and racism, so perhaps that feeds into my view of Rushton.

  30. #30 Victor
    July 5, 2013

    I don’t see any faking or manipulating data. The IQ difference is true. I found it on many research articles. I feel sorry for Mr. Rushton. He just try to tell the truths. It is just like people’s first reaction of Einstein theory of relativity.

  31. #31 Scott
    July 7, 2013

    As poor Professor Rushton learned, scientific method is no match for political correctness. Critics can’t refute his findings, but that doesn’t stop their knee-jerk character assassination even after his death.

  32. #32 Daniel O
    August 14, 2013

    Sad to witness your gross disrespect to a dead person just because he proposed theories that you consider false. Please let me know which of Rushton’s proposed facts were ill-grounded and in what way. Or are you simply a dogmatic who can’t hear another view without screaming heretic at the messenger?

  33. #33 Jing
    November 1, 2013

    Good riddance! Why should someone like Rushton, who was a outspoken promoter of eugenics, the same ideologies spread by Adolf Hitler be missed?! Rushton should be buried in history and be forgotten!!!

Current ye@r *