I'm personally not sure why, but from time to time people still post seeminlgy passionate defenses of The Bell Curve and its scholarship. This example left me wondering, though, why its advocates still press the issue so hard. The blog post suggests that a British university lecturer was disciplined for defending The Bell Curve in class - but if you read the linked article, he was a bit more extreme in his beliefs:
Dr Ellis gave an interview to the university’s student newspaper in which he described himself as “an unrepentant Powellite” who favoured repatriation if it were carried out “humanely”. He said that the British National Party was “a bit too socialist” for his liking.Even Enoch Powell, who inadvertently gave his infamous "Rivers of Blood" speech on Hitler's birthday, was arguably a "repentant Powellite" at least insofar as that poor choice of date.
He voiced support for the theory set out in The Bell Curve, a book published in 1994 by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, that white people had higher average IQs than blacks. He said the study had “demonstrated to me beyond any reasonable doubt there is a persistent gap in average black and white average intelligence”.
Dr Ellis also told Leeds students that women did not have the same intellectual capacity as men and that feminism, along with multiculturalism, was “corroding” Britain.
Let's assume for a moment that the criticisms of The Bell Curve are all 100% wrong - that it's the finest scholarship to ever grace the written page. What use does it have to those of us who are't "unrepentant Powellites", to the political right of the British National Party (which seeks to protect "the native British people" from immigrant populations), or in favor of booting dark-skinned minorities (save possibly Asians?) out of our nations?