wilbald
JF-Expert Member
- Dec 17, 2007
- 1,810
- 1,377
A British-based academic was at the centre of an international race row after citing ‘research' that
claimed black women are uglier than other races.
The conclusions of Dr Satoshi Kanazawa have left one of the country's leading universities mired in controversy for the second time this year.
Dr Kanazawa, a lecturer at the London School of Economics, has published findings based on a survey of white, Asian, black and native American men and women who were asked to rate each other's attractiveness based on photographs.
Black women scored lowest, Asian highest.
The controversial Japanese academic, an evolutionary psychologist, concluded this is because African women have higher levels of testosterone than other races and therefore have more masculine features.
Last night the LSE responded to calls that Dr Kanazawa should consider his position by defending the academic freedom of its staff – although it admitted it had begun an internal investigation.
Not only does Dr Kanazawa fail to provide any evidence to support his conclusion, he fails to say how many people took part in the research and does not even mention the race of the women – for example whether they are Afro-Caribbean.
Nor does he explore the fact that the research on which he bases his conclusion was conducted in America where European ideals of beauty dominate.
He says: ‘The only thing I can think of that might potentially explain the lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women is testosterone.
'Africans on average have higher levels of testosterone than other races…women with higher levels of testosterone have more masculine features and are therefore less physically attractive.'
His article, published on the U.S.-based website Psychology Today, caused international outrage.
It is not the first time that Dr Kanazawa, 48, a lecturer within the department of management at the LSE, has been accused of peddling racist theories.
In 2006 he published a paper suggesting the poor health of some sub-Saharan Africans is the result of low IQ, not poverty.
Professor Paul Gilroy, a sociology lecturer at the LSE, said: ‘Kanazawa's persistent provocations raise the issue of whether he can do his job effectively in a multi-ethnic, diverse and international institution.
If he announces that he thinks sub-Saharan Africans are less intelligent than other people, what happens when they arrive in his classroom?'
He added: ‘The LSE risks disrepute if it fails to take a view of these problems.'
Tokyo-born Dr Kanazawa studied in Bulgaria and gained a PhD in Sociology at the University of Arizona. He has been at the LSE since 2003 and is now on sabbatical.
He portrays himself as the scourge of political correctness and his own website carries the slogan ‘prepare to be offended'.
He once declared: ‘The only responsibility scientists have is to the truth. Scientists are not responsible for the potential or actual consequences of the knowledge they create.'
In the latest blog, which Psychology Today swiftly removed after it was posted on Monday, Dr Kanazawa uses research on physical attractiveness by Add Health, a long-running U.S. study of adolescents.
The LSE said it had begun an investigation. A spokesman said: ‘The views expressed by this academic are his own and do not in any way represent those of LSE.
‘The important principle of academic freedom means that authors have the right to publish their views – but it also gives others the freedom to disagree.'
Earlier this year it was revealed the LSE had extensive links to Colonel Gaddafi.
It accepted a £1.5million donation from the Libyan dictator's son Saif a year after he was awarded a PhD and agreed to a £2.2million contract with Libya to train its civil service.
SOURCE: DAILY MAIL
Dem you researcher/author!
Poor Hypothesis!
Go back and start a fresh!
Before you start again ask me to hint you the scope of your findings coz there are few things you don't know.
1st High living standard make someone(woman) younger and less masculine.
2nd Most african women have low living standard and so the answer in 1st above.