Martin Sewell > Political Correctness

Witch Hunt Against Martin Sewell by Cambridge University Students’ Union (CUSU)

Contents:
Introduction
The Cambridge Student, 21 June 2012
The Independent on Sunday, 24 June 2012
The Huffington Post UK, 25 June 2012
Spiked, 2 July 2012
The Cambridge Student, 7 July 2012
The Guardian, 22 March 2013
The Cambridge Student, 25 April 2013
The Guardian, 13 March 2014
Press Complaints Commission, 23 July 2014
Cambridge University Students’ Union (CUSU)
University of Cambridge
Conclusion


Introduction

On 21 June 2012 The Cambridge Student, the newspaper owned and published by Cambridge University Students’ Union (CUSU), published an article about me entitled ‘Cambridge Economics supervisor criticised for racist and sexist views’. The article was nothing but an unprovoked witch hunt manufactured within the offices of CUSU and is clearly defamatory.

The underlying motivations for the attack, of course, lie in identity politics and political correctness. After the collapse of socialism, the political left adopted identity politics, which divides society into faux subgroups. One group, white male heterosexuals, supposedly has power over the other groups, ethnic minorities, females and gays. Identity politics manifests itself via its mode of enforcement, political correctness, explicitly via speech codes and hate speech laws, and commonly through gratuitous accusations of racism, sexism and homophobia. For further details, see ‘The origin of ‘identity politics’ & ‘political correctness’’ by Steve Moxon. For three decades academia (along with the government and the media) have been dominated by the political left and their identity politics and political correctness. Science is about telling the truth, and good policy depends on honest science. An academic should not need to defend doing/publishing science!

CUSU is part of, and funded by, the University of Cambridge. In common with most student unions, CUSU are extremely politically correct, very left wing, naive (they’re young) and unaccountable (they are not answerable to the university), so are both motivated and well positioned to cause trouble. The sole purpose of the article was to discriminate against an academic for doing/publishing some science that compromises their political agenda, with the explicit goal of compromising his career.

When is a story worthy of news? News, by definition, is unpredictable (otherwise, it would have been reported yesterday). If we cannot predict something, it will be a surprise. So news is surprising. There was no news event, my website (which covers various subjects, but mostly finance and computer science) has been in existence since 1999. Outside the government-media-education uber-class who aspire to belong to an elite in-group that forms a metaspace to the rest of society, most ordinary people have a pretty good understanding of our evolved social psychology (for example, they are aware of in-group/out-group biases, and are well aware that men and women are different), so my website is rarely misunderstood. That I have reviewed some scientific literature is not in itself newsworthy, and running an article is misleading. I’m merely an unimportant messenger. For example, I believe in gravity, but that doesn’t make me Sir Isaac Newton, or justify an article in the national press linking gravity with my name, as though I were in some sense responsible for the science. That would be equally misleading.

Contrary to the article, there were no genuine (external to the source of publication) complaints. Certainly, to this day, no one has ever complained to me. On 26 September 2012 The Cambridge Student Editorial Board admitted that ‘a member of the editorial team of The Cambridge Student was invited into part of a meeting at the CUSU offices where our member could identify at least four individuals present who could be identified as current undergraduates or who graduated in the last year’ (scanned letter). Given that The Cambridge Student is owned and published by CUSU, the story was clearly manufactured. In other words, it was essentially a made up story. I’d had no previous contact with either The Cambridge Student or CUSU, the attack was completely unprovoked. It was a witch hunt, nothing else.

Note that CUSU are not in any fundamental disagreement with any of the science (about which they know nothing), they are in fundamental disagreement with my right to publish. They are sending out the message that if your science is not aligned with their politically correct world view, they will start a witch hunt and seek to destroy your career. The position taken by CUSU is aggressively anti-free speech, seeking explicitly to compromise the career of an academic simply for publishing in an area in which they prefer to censor. This is fascism. Yet The Cambridge Student, via projection and Reductio ad Hitlerum, accuse me of endorsing National Socialism!

The article was subsequently picked up by The Independent on Sunday, The Huffington Post UK and The Guardian.

I initially complained to CUSU, but they took no action and completely ignored most of my complaints, putting them in breach of their own complaints procedure. CUSU are also in breach of the Statutes and Ordinances of the University of Cambridge regarding freedom of speech, which states that ‘[n]o member of the University shall intentionally or recklessly impede freedom of speech or lawful assembly within the Precincts of the University.’

Naturally I also complained to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), and my complaint was Adjudicated Upheld (the worst possible outcome for a newspaper). This is an extremely damming indictment: in July 2014 of the 519 complaints made to the PCC, mine was the only one that was Adjudicated Upheld (see the PCC Complaints Summary for July 2014).

So what is the legal situation? The Education Act 1986 states that ‘[e]very individual and body of persons concerned in the government of any establishment to which this section applies shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers.’ The defamatory article clearly compromised my freedom of speech. Whilst the Education Act 1994 states that ‘[t]he governing body of every establishment to which this Part applies shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that any students’ union for students at the establishment operates in a fair and democratic manner and is accountable for its finances.’ As the defamatory article is nothing but a manufactured story and an unprovoked witch hunt, it is clearly anything but ‘fair’. In relation to the students’ union, the Education Act 1994 requires ‘an independent person appointed by the governing body [of the University] to investigate and report on complaints’, and the Junior Proctor is designated by the University of Cambridge to be this independent person. See Statutes and Ordinances of the University of Cambridge. Naturally, I complained to the University, detailing the above; but they failed to take any action. As things stand, in addition to hosting a manufactured and defamatory article, the University are in breach of their Statutes and Ordinances, the Education Act 1986 and the Education Act 1994.

I have previously emailed each of the authors of the defamatory newspaper articles (except spiked because I couldn’t find any contact details) essentially the responses that I relay below, so each was given the opportunity to redeem themselves before I wrote this web page. None was willing to do so.


Cambridge Economics supervisor criticised for racist and sexist views’ by Nicholas Tufnell and Laurence Tidy, The Cambridge Student, 21 June 2012

Nicholas Tufnell and Laurence Tidy wrote:

Cambridge Economics supervisor criticised for racist and sexist views

I was not a Cambridge Economics supervisor at the time of the article (or at any time since), I was not criticised by anyone, and I hold neither racist nor sexist views. The lack of scare quotes around ‘racist’ or ‘sexist’ implies that The Cambridge Student themselves are stating that I am both ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’. Both accusations are false and defamatory.

Besides, it makes little sense to accuse someone describing models of reality (i.e. doing/publishing science) of being ‘racist’ or ‘sexist’. Such terms are more usefully applied to the unfair treatment of individuals according to their race or sex, respectively. Indeed, the greatest sexism of all is to ignore sex differences and to try to force the sexes to behave the same.

Furthermore, I barely even expressed any ‘views’, I simply reviewed the existing literature. If anyone actually suggested that synthesizing peer-reviewed literature was incompatible with being an academic, that, of course, would be utterly insane, and thus not worthy of reporting anyway.

Nicholas Tufnell and Laurence Tidy wrote:

Exclusive: Students have raised concerns about articles written by Martin Sewell, supervisor in Economics and research associate in Land Economy.

When you manufacture a story, it tends to be exclusive. No students raised concerns, the article was manufactured by CUSU. At the time the article was published, I was neither a ‘supervisor in Economics’ or a ‘research associate in Land Economy’. I was no longer a supervisor in Economics, and I was never a ‘research associate’ in Land Economy. I was once a Senior Research Associate in the Department of Land Economy, but that contract finished long before the article was published. A Research Associate is a lower-ranked position. In short, the statement is both false on two counts and misleading.

Nicholas Tufnell and Laurence Tidy wrote:

Though Sewell clearly and frequently references the work of other academics, some of his statements have been considered as contentious, offensive or explicitly racist.

Nothing I have written is ‘contentious, offensive or explicitly racist’, nor were they considered to be, because as we have already established, the story was manufactured in the offices of CUSU, and no genuine complaints were made.

Nicholas Tufnell and Laurence Tidy wrote:

For example, when writing on the significance of race in conjunction with crime, Sewell states, without reference to academic sources:

This is thoroughly deceitful. The authors of the article cherry picked literally the only sentence in the entire paragraph on crime that did not explicitly include a reference. The sentence is a summary of other fully-referenced paragraphs on the same page, on both intelligence and impulsivity and includes no less than seven statements making explicit referencing unweildy (see below), and the web page is well referenced in general (see the Bibliography), which they even admitted in the article: ‘[t]hough Sewell clearly and frequently references the work of other academics’. Besides, we are discussing a personal web page, not a scholarly publication, so there is no need for any references whatsoever. For a mere web pages, my Race web page is incredibly well referenced (see the Bibliography). Furthermore, note that Mr Tufnell and Mr Tidy are not experienced researchers, and don’t seem to understand that good science is not the same thing as lots of references. The key to doing good social science is to recognise the underlying ideology (in this case, politically correct egalitarianism) and to keep it out of analysis. The reality, of course, is that The Cambridge Student’s decision to start a witch hunt is an artefact of political correctness, and has precisely nothing to do with referencing.

Nicholas Tufnell and Laurence Tidy wrote:

"The most likely reason for the high incidence of black crime is blacks' lower intelligence and greater impulsivity, which themselves are probably biological in origin".

The above sentence can be broken up into seven statements, the first five of which were adequately referenced on the same web page as the quotation itself:

1. The incidence of black crime is high. References: http://race.martinsewell.com/#crime
2. Blacks have lower intelligence. References: http://race.martinsewell.com/#intelligence
3. Blacks have greater impulsivity. References: http://race.martinsewell.com/#impulsivity
4. Intelligence is probably biological in origin. References: http://race.martinsewell.com/#intelligence
5. Impulsivity is probably biological in origin. References: http://race.martinsewell.com/#impulsivity
The following two statements are unsurprising and the following references are listed on the web page:
6. Low intelligence leads to crime. References: http://race.martinsewell.com/#Jensen98
7. High impulsivity leads to crime. References: http://race.martinsewell.com/#Levin05

It is not difficult to find articles on intelligence and crime, see for example Wikipedia. Furthermore, the sentence taken as a whole is consistent with the views of those most qualified in the area. Michael Levin, a philosophy professor at City University of New York, in his book Why Race Matters wrote ‘The black advantage in criminality seems best attributed to lower kantianism [sic], facilitated by lower intelligence and greater impulsivity themselves probably biological in origin.’ (p. 317) Whilst Richard Lynn, a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Ulster, in an article entitled ‘Race and Psychopathic Personality’ published in American Renaissance in July 2007 explained that even when IQ is held constant, blacks still commit more crime than whites because blacks show greater psychopathic tendencies thank whites (even when IQ is held constant). A psychopathic personality includes an impulsiveness component.

None of the above points are contentious among those au fait with the literature, I am merely the messenger reporting science.

Nicholas Tufnell and Laurence Tidy wrote:

On eugenics, again without clear sources to his statement, Sewell affirms: ‘Hitler gave eugenics a bad name', although he does back up this argument by explaining that ‘The modern objectives are actually highly desirable: eugenics can help eliminate genetic diseases, reduce personality disorders and increase intelligence via human biotechnology. Time to reconsider.'

Do Mr Tufnell and Mr Tidy not accept that Hitler gave eugenics a bad name without an explicit reference?! The sentence that followed the above was ‘Lynn (2001) suggests the following new eugenics of human biotechnology...’, so the source is explicit.

Nicholas Tufnell and Laurence Tidy wrote:

The content can be freely read by anyone, inside or outside the university, on his website. Sewell has written on varying topics, including gender, race, intelligence, climate change and politics.

Yes, that’s how the World Wide Web works. My website has nothing to do with the university, and mostly concerns computer science and finance.

Nicholas Tufnell and Laurence Tidy wrote:

Following complaints, the Cambridge University Students' Union (CUSU) spoke to The Cambridge Student: "Obviously, an individual who expresses such deeply racist views, such deeply sexist views and who explicitly endorses national socialism [sic] cannot remain as a supervisor for Cambridge students: Cambridge is a diverse, multicultural community which stands against - and, indeed, refutes -everything he stands for.

There were no genuine complaints. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that I held sexist or racist views. The idea that doing science can be considered racist or sexist is absurd. Whilst the Press Complaints Commission, which had a reputation for being toothless, upheld my complaint about the article on the basis of the nonsense about National Socialism; unsurprisingly, it was deemed to mislead readers. The quotation is in the ‘so bad it’s good‘ category. It is false, defamatory, nonsensical and illiterate. No wonder that it is anonymous. So which cowardly, uninformed, illiterate politically correct fascist was responsible? CUSU informed me that the above quote was from Morgan Wild (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter), the then CUSU Education Officer. He is certainly unqualified, he read Philosophy at Cambridge. He is certainly a coward, and rather than take responsibility for his own actions, chose to hide behind CUSU. I gave him several opportuinities to either retract or justify his comments, but he failed to do either. In fact, not once did he even reply, but being a coward, simply left CUSU to deal with the mess. However, subsequently, CUSU persuaded Morgan Wild to sign what looks like a ‘confession’.

Nicholas Tufnell and Laurence Tidy wrote:

CUSU added: "However, this raises further worrying issues regarding how the University could employ such an individual - the University must give its community concrete assurances that its recruitment procedures will become sufficiently robust to prevent such an unacceptable individual from being employed in future."

The bottom line is that CUSU were calling for me to be sacked. This gives a very strong impression that I have done something wrong. However, I have not done anything wrong. This is clearly misleading to readers of the article. My employment was never in any doubt. The bit about recruitment procedures is complete nonsense, there are no such procedures for supervisors.

Nicholas Tufnell and Laurence Tidy wrote:

The University's Press Office was unable to comment when contacted.

Why on earth should they? Nothing happened.

Nicholas Tufnell and Laurence Tidy wrote:

TCS phoned Sewell, who claimed that "It all boils down to political correctness". Asked via email whether his website content might contradict his educative role at the University, Sewell responded: "Publishing novel material that is largely the result of synthesizing peer-reviewed scientific research is inherently educative. That communicating certain realities about the world in which we live may be construed as ‘offensive and controversial' is a result of the politically correct climate of the West that we currently live in."

The above quote is accurate. However, the newspaper are being deceitful: giving me the opportunity to respond gives the impression that the article (a blatant witch hunt) is in some sense balanced. Furthermore, at the time of publication I didn’t have an educative role at the university. My personal website had precisely nothing to do with my earlier supervising of maths and econometrics.

Nicholas Tufnell and Laurence Tidy wrote:

He concluded: "Political correctness is anti-scientific (and unjust), so opposing it by failing to conform provides a good example of keeping ideology out of science."

Indeed.

Nicholas Tufnell and Laurence Tidy wrote:

Martin Sewell graduated from Bristol University with a BSc with Honours in Mathematics, and received his Masters [sic] in Computing Science from Birkbeck College, University of London. After spending 8 years at UCL studying for a PHD [sic] regarding financial time series analysis and intelligent systems, Sewell came to Cambridge in March 2009 as a Senior Research Associate at the Department of Land Economy.

It’s dissapointing that Cambridge students can’t spell master’s or PhD.

Nicholas Tufnell and Laurence Tidy wrote:

From January this year Sewell has provided undergraduate supervisions to 27 students for the Economics Tripos, at Homerton, Newnham, Queens' and St Edmund's Colleges.

Correct, from my CV.

Nicholas Tufnell and Laurence Tidy wrote:

Nicholas Tufnell & Laurence Tidy - Deputy News Editors

The Cambridge Student wrote:

IMPORTANT NOTICE (CLARIFICATION) - 1ST AUGUST 2013

The Cambridge Student wrote:

‘Our article, "Cambridge Economics supervisor criticised for racist and sexist views' (21 June), reported students' concerns about the views of Economics supervisor Martin Sewell. We quoted the Cambridge University Students' Union (CUSU) as having commented, in reference to Mr Sewell, that ‘ who explicitly endorses national socialism cannot remain as a supervisor for Cambridge students'. Mr Sewell has asked us to make clear that he does not explicitly endorse National Socialism. CUSU has told TCS that it stands by its original comments, and that it formed its view based on the content of Mr Sewell's website. CUSU has pointed out that as Mr Sewell's website is publicly available, anyone is free to examine its content and make up their own mind'

That my website is publically available makes the entire article moot.

The Cambridge Student wrote:

FURTHER NOTICE OF IMPORTANCE - 29TH JULY 2014

The Cambridge Student wrote:

Further to our article, “Cambridge Economics supervisor criticised for “racist" and “ sexist" views’ (21 June) Mr Sewell made a complaint through the Press Complaints Commission. Part of the complaint was upheld and the judgement on the case can be found here: http://www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=OTAwMw==

Even the above is misleading. The complaint against this article was upheld, not ‘part of’ it. My complaint was Adjudicated Upheld, which is the worst possible outcome for a newspaper. This is an extremely damming indictment: in July 2014 of the 519 complaints made to the PCC, mine was the only one that was Adjudicated Upheld (see the PCC Complaints Summary for July 2014). On this basis, it was officially the worst article published that was ajudicated in the UK that month.


Students protest at 'racist' supervisor’ by Sanchez Manning, The Independent on Sunday, 24 June 2012

Sanchez Manning wrote:

Students protest at 'racist' supervisor

Even the five-word heading contains no less than three falsehoods. There were no genuine student protests, the original article in The Cambridge Student was a manufactured witch hunt. I am not a racist. I was not a supervisor at the time the article was published.

Sanchez Manning wrote:

Cambridge don calls black people 'impulsive'

I was not a Cambridge don at the time the article was published. It is not me directly that calls black people impulsive, but the literature that I cited, and I provided no less than seven references. It is misleading to imply that I am saying something novel or controversial.

Sanchez Manning wrote:

Sanchez Manning

Sanchez Manning now works for the Mail on Sunday. After ‘News’, her speciality seems to be ‘TV&Showbiz’. Not science, then.

Sanchez Manning wrote:

Martin Sewell, an economics supervisor at Cambridge. Far right, the 'Political Correctness' section of his website Getty Images

The Independent on Sunday have used a photograph of myself from my website without asking permission. It has precisely nothing to do with Getty Images.

Sanchez Manning wrote:

A Cambridge University academic faced criticism last night after students protested that he operates a website that features Nazi imagery, describes female immigrants as "exotic fruit" and claims that black people are "impulsive", with lower IQs than other races.

Sanchez Manning originally wrote: ‘A Cambridge University academic came under pressure to resign last night after students protested that he operates a website that features Nazi imagery, describes female immigrants as "exotic fruit" and claims that black people are "impulsive", with lower IQs than other races.’ I have never come under pressure to resign from anyone, ever, I did nothing wrong, plus the fixed-term job had already finished, so the concept of being asked to resign is both false and impossible. There were no students protesting, the original story was manufactured by CUSU. The Nazi imagery on the Political Correctness web pages is given clear context by ‘Political correctness (PC) is the third great evil arising from Western civilization in the last century.’ In other words, it is clearly implied that I consider Nazis to be evil. The Independent on Sunday have a duty not to mislead their readers, but the reader is left with the impression that I used Nazi imagery because I am in some sense a supporter. Readers are led to believe that I am a Nazi sympathiser. No reader is going to assume that I was ‘urged to resign’ (sic) because I said negative things about the Hitler! I did not describe female immigrants as ‘exotic fruit’, but, on my page on Immigration, wrote ‘Male reaction to female immigration: Men may appreciate the exotic fruit’, which is scientifically valid (and surely the opposite to being racist), in all human societies it is women who tend to leave the natal group, they are exogamous. It is not me directly that calls black people impulsive, but the literature that I cited, and I provided no less than seven references. The claims about impulsivity and IQ are fully referenced, and are both consistent with decades of peer-reviewed science, and common sense. I am simply a scientist with integrity and an honest messenger, it is not reasonable to publish a witch hunt on that basis. What I actually wrote: ‘Political correctness (PC) is the third great evil arising from Western civilization in the last century. PC and fascism are both derivatives of Marxism and both have their roots in the 1920s.’ In other words, I have explicitly described fascism as ‘evil’. I also placed National Socialism sixth out of eight ideologies on my page on politics. Furthermore, on my page on eugenics I wrote that ‘Hitler gave eugenics a bad name’, which clearly implies, at least in some sense, that I consider Hitler to be ‘bad’.

Sanchez Manning wrote:

Martin Sewell's site features a picture of Hitler on a section entitled "Political Correctness", where he praises David Irving, a convicted Holocaust denier, as a "brilliant historian".

My Political Correctness web page does indeed include a picture of Hitler. As explained above, I used the picture of Hitler to indicate that I consider political correctness to be a bad thing, that was the whole point of the article! To provide context, what I wrote was ‘I have read Hitler’s War (Irving 1977), which is an excellent book, and the result of painstaking research. He does not deny the holocaust, he simply questions whether this was the original plan and whether the orders were given directly by Hitler.’. I am explicitly talking about his book Hitler‘s War. The two most relevant quotes in the book are ‘I concluded, the burden of guilt for the bloody and mindless massacres of the Jews rests on a large number of Germans (and non Germans), many of them alive today, and not just on one ‘mad dictator,’ whose order had to be obeyed without question’ (page xxix) and ‘Nevertheless one wonders how much suffering might have been spared if both sides had pursued the negotiations — might all that happened after 1940, the saturation bombing, the population movements, the epidemics, even the Holocaust itself, have been avoided?‘ (page xxx). Irving does not deny the Holocaust in this book. Again, readers of the The Independent on Sunday article are being misled. I praised David Irving for only using primary sources and for his painstaking research, yet readers are led to believe that I believe that David Irving is a brilliant historian because he is a Holocaust denier, implying that I am also a Holocaust denier.

Sanchez Manning wrote:

The 43-year-old had been teaching at Cambridge as a supervisor in economics for the past seven months. But concerns have been raised about his appointment from students who complain that articles on his personal webpage are "deeply racist" and "sexist".

As above, no genuine concerns were raised. None of the articles are either racist or sexist, saying so is both false and defamatory.

Sanchez Manning wrote:

According to Cambridge University Students' Union (CUSU), there have been a number of complaints about Mr Sewell in relation to the website.

There were no genuine complaints, the story was manufactured by CUSU.

Sanchez Manning wrote:

In a statement to The Cambridge Student newspaper, the CUSU said: "Obviously, an individual who expresses such deeply racist views, such deeply sexist views and who explicitly endorses National Socialism cannot remain as a supervisor for Cambridge students: Cambridge is a diverse, multicultural community which stands against everything he stands for." [See footnote.]

The above statement (originally published in The Cambridge Student) is false, nonsensical, illiterate and defamatory, and The Press Complaints Commission upheld my complaint about its use in the article in The Cambridge Student (see the Press Complaints Commission adjudication). The Independent on Sunday also have a duty not to mislead their readers.

Sanchez Manning wrote:

In one posting on his website, Mr Sewell presents a defence of eugenics – a school of pseudoscientific thought associated with the Nazis through their experiments to eliminate "undesirable" population groups.

Eugenics is not ‘a school of pseudoscientific thought’ it is ‘a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a group of individuals’ (Wikipedia: Eugenics). Why would a broadsheet newspaper make up a definition rather than simply look it up? Again, mentioning the Nazis is purely vindictive. Readers are led to believe that I subscribe to pseudoscience and that I am, in at least some sense, a defender of Nazis. What I actually wrote: ‘eugenics can help eliminate genetic diseases, reduce personality disorders and increase intelligence via human biotechnology.’ Sanchez Manning even quoted this sentence too, so knew full well that my motivation wasn’t controversial, and had no need to mention the Nazis. In fact, the entire article reads like one big Reductio ad Hitlerum, yet the Independent on Sunday is a serious newspaper (and in my naive youth was my favourite), not a tabloid. I complained to The Independent that the article gives the impression that I support Hitler, eugenics and holocaust denial. They denied this. But even if it were not the case, the article becomes even harder to justify: ‘academic doesn’t support Hitler, eugenics or holocaust denial, he must resign!’

Sanchez Manning wrote:

He argues that while Hitler may have given eugenics "a bad name", its modern objectives are "highly desirable". He adds: "eugenics can help eliminate genetic diseases, reduce personality disorders and increase intelligence via human biotechnology. Time to reconsider."

Correct! Note that I am not pro-eugenics, I am merely suggesting that we should keep an open mind if there are clear benefits to society. Being open to ideas about how best to improve society is again no basis on which to publish a witch hunt.

Sanchez Manning wrote:

In another entry, Mr Sewell defines racism as "a perfectly natural in-group bias which has been stigmatised by the politically correct". He also claims that black people are three times more likely to commit a crime than white citizens in both the US and the UK.

In-group/out-group biases are well know and accepted in sociology, and race is clearly an in-group marker. This is not controversial. I do not personally make the claim about crime statistics, I cite the U.S. Department of Justice and the Home Office! See the section on race and crime. Again, it is extremely misleading to readers, I am simply citing official government statistics.

Sanchez Manning wrote:

And he cites the reason for this as "blacks' lower intelligence and greater impulsivity, which themselves are probably biological in origin".

Correct, this is what the peer-reviewed science tells us. It is not fair to shoot the messenger on the basis of his honesty.

Sanchez Manning wrote:

On the issue of immigration, Mr Sewell distinguishes between the reactions of men and women to immigrants of the opposite sex: "Men may appreciate the exotic fruit," he says. But women, on the other hand, "are deeply suspicious of most men, foreign men in particular".

Correct, and perfectly true. Statistics from dating sites show that women, in particular, prefer their own race. Of course it makes sense that women are the more discriminating sex, they need to choose their partners carefully, as they have a greater investment in any offspring.

Sanchez Manning wrote:

A further causes [sic] of concern to the students' union is a piece in the "Political Correctness" section. In a written response to a female academic's lament about the glass ceiling in her chosen scientific discipline, anatomy, he wrote: "[My] article seeks to explain why men are better equipped than women to do science and engineering, and why there are more men than women in higher offices."

This refers to a peer-reviewed journal article that I wrote, by request, see Gender (sic) equality (sic) in Opticon1826. It is not in, and has never been in, the ‘"Political Correctness" section’, and it is not even mentioned in the original article in The Cambridge Student.

Sanchez Manning wrote:

Mr Sewell began working at Cambridge in 2009 after completing his PhD in computer science at University College London. He started out as a senior research associate in the Land Economy Department but between January had been acting as an academic supervisor for undergraduates reading economics.

The job as a supervisor was for two terms, and had finished before any of the articles were published.

Sanchez Manning wrote:

Yesterday, Mr Sewell denied being racist or sexist and said he did not endorse National Socialism. He also claimed his comments about women, were based on "scientific research" that show differences in men and women's brains and motivations".

Correct. It is not merely my claim, my science has passed peer review and been published.

The Independent wrote:

* In July 2014, the Press Complaints Commission published a ruling on a complaint by Mr Sewell against a report that had been published in The Cambridge Student newspaper. While most aspects of the complaint were rejected, on one point the PCC concluded that The Cambridge Student’s report was misleading. Like the item above, The Cambridge Student, had included a comment from a representative of the University’s Student Union to the effect that Mr Sewell had “explicitly endorsed National Socialism”. In its ruling, the PCC said it “did not accept that the claim was substantiated by material on the complainant's website; the reference to sources who had been criticised for their alleged sympathy with National Socialist ideas did not amount to an ‘explicit endorsement’ of the ideology.” We are happy to make this clear.

‘While most aspects of the complaint were rejected’ is misleading. Whilst ‘reference to sources who had been criticised for their alleged sympathy with National Socialist ideas’ is nonsense.

The Independent wrote:

In addition, the article has been amended to remove a reference to Mr Sewell having come under pressure to resign. His short-term contract had, in fact, already concluded by the time the Cambridge Student story first appeared.

That, and noone urged me to resign, indeed, noone contacted me at all. That tends to happen after nothing happens.

The article is nothing more than a witch hunt directed at myself, is defamatory, contains many false statements and is extremely misleading to readers.


Martin Sewell, Cambridge Don, Criticised Over ‘Racist And Sexist’ Views’ by Lucy Sherriff, The Huffington Post UK, 25 June 2012

The Huffington Post UK have used a photograph of myself from my website without asking permission. I was not a Cambridge don at the time that the article was published. There were no genuine independent criticisms, except the original article published in The Cambridge Student which was itself nothing more than a manufactured witch hunt.

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

Lucy Sherriff http://twitter.com/sherrifflucy Multimedia editor, The Huffington Post UK

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

CORRECTION: We previously ran the article under the headline: "Cambridge Don Urged To Resign Over Controversial Views". Martin Sewell refutes the allegations he was urged to resign and that complaints were made by students. He told HuffPost UK he had been subjected to a "witch hunt".

I appreciated the prompt correction. However, it is not merely my claim that I was never urged to resign, it is a fact. Besides, the job had finished before any of the articles were published, so it would have been impossible. There were no genuine complaints by students, the story was manufactured in the offices of The Cambridge Student/CUSU.

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

A Cambridge academic responsible for mentoring students has come under pressure to resign over his controversial views which have been dubbed by some as racist, sexist and pro-Hitler.

As above, I was never under any pressure to resign, from anyone, ever. My views are not controversial among those who are au fait with the relevant science. My views are not racist, I have dated a black girl, had an Indian girlfriend and a Chinese wife. I am not sexist either, the greatest sexism of all is denying the differences between the sexes. On my web page on Political Correctness I wrote ‘Political correctness (PC) is the third great evil arising from Western civilization in the last century. PC and fascism are both derivatives of Marxism and both have their roots in the 1920s’, in other words, I clearly consider fascism to be ‘evil’. There is nothing on my website that a reasonable reader could interpret that I am ‘pro-Hitler’, but various comments that suggest the polar opposite. The Press Complaints Commission upheld my complaint about the article in The Cambridge Student on the basis of similar defamatory comments (see the Press Complaints Commission adjudication ). Similarly, The Huffington Post UK have a duty not to mislead its readers.

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

On his website, Martin Sewell, a supervisor in the university's Faculty of Economics, describes black people as having "lower intelligence" than whites and dismisses racism as "natural". But he has defended his views, telling the Huffington Post he is "neither racist nor sexist" and saying the right to freedom of speech should be respected.

I was not a supervisor at the time the article was published. Those races that evolved in climates with the coldest winters evolved higher IQs. Using the most up-to-date figures from the world’s premier authority on race and IQ gives us mean IQs of 71 for Africa and 100 for Eurasia. Source: Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis, Second Edition, by Richard Lynn. Given that the standard deviation for IQ is 15, this is an enormous difference. The difference is not controversial. Certainly the right to freedom of speech should be respected, but the important point is that I have simply re-stated what decades of peer-reviewed science tells us. I am simply a scientist with integrity and an honest messenger. This does not justify a witch hunt.

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

Sewell has come under fire for his controversial views

I didn’t, the article in The Cambridge Student was manufactured, and my views are not controversial to anyone who is au fait with the relevant science.

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

The 43-year-old, who also works for a think-tank in Cambridge to develop policy solutions, believes feminism "harms women" and says perhaps it is time to "reconsider" eugenics, the study and belief synonymous with Hitler's Nazi state.

Certainly feminism harms women. I have met many women who bought the feminist notion that women and essentially like men and all they need to do to get on in life is focus on their careers. They are now in their mid-thirties with no boyfriend, no husband and no children, and very unhappy, even angry. The aspects of eugenics that I suggested were worth reconsidering were those that help eliminate genetic diseases, reduce personality disorders and increase intelligence via human biotechnology. See my web page on eugenics. The reference to ‘Hitler's Nazi state’ is utterly irrelevant and purely vindictive, and evidences that the article is nothing but a witch hunt.

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

Cambridge's student union has now called for Sewell to resign, calling the academic an "unacceptable individual".

CUSU never even contacted me, let alone called for me to resign. I am in no sense ‘unacceptable’, this is false and defamatory. I have a large social network, and organised social events for the postdoc community at the University of Cambridge. The cowardly individual responsible for the defamatory quote in the article in The Cambridge Student is Morgan Wild. He worked for CUSU, who own and publish The Cambridge Student, he doesn’t know me, and we have no real friends in common. It was hardly a sincere independent quote.

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

"Cambridge is a diverse, multicultural community which stands against - and, indeed, refutes -everything he stands for," a spokesperson told The Cambridge Student.

Mr Wild’s quote is false, illiterate and nonsensical. He apparently doesn’t understand the difference between the treatment of individuals and doing science. Or, apparently, understand what the word ‘refute’ means. The Huffington Post UK should not mislead their readers by uncritically quoting defamatory nonsense.

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

"Obviously, an individual who expresses such deeply racist views, such deeply sexist views and who explicitly endorses national socialism [sic] cannot remain as a supervisor for Cambridge students.

The Press Complaints Commission upheld my complaint about the article in The Cambridge Student (see: http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=OTAwMw ) on the basis of the above defamatory quote from Mr Wild. It is false and defamatory, and was deemed to mislead readers. The Huffington Post UK should similarly avoid misleading readers.

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

"This raises further worrying issues regarding how the university could employ such an individual - the university must give its community concrete assurances that its recruitment procedures will become sufficiently robust to prevent such an unacceptable individual from being employed in future."

Again, the above is extremely misleading, my employment was never in any doubt. The bit about recruitment procedures is complete nonsense anyway, there are no such procedures for supervisors.

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

Reading-born Sewell currently mentors 27 undergraduates at Homerton, Newnham, Queens' and St Edmund's colleges.

The above is false, my job had finished before the article was published. Plus I was a supervisor, not a mentor. Besides, teaching maths and econometrics has precisely nothing to do with my personal web pages.

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

His website lists links to articles published on various subjects, including one on racism. In a piece published in 2010, Sewell states:

The above-mentioned page is on race, not racism. It isn’t really ‘published’, either.

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

"So-called racism [sic] [sic] is a perfectly natural in-group bias which has been stigmatized by the politically correct West. The most likely reason for the high incidence of black crime is blacks’ lower intelligence and greater impulsivity, which themselves are probably biological in origin."

The use of ‘[sic]’ above is incorrect, I have no idea why it has been added. I am merely the messenger reporting science, the above is not controversial to anyone who is au fait with the relevant science.

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

Sewell also turns his attention to gender equality, with one lengthy article hosted on the University College London's domain.

This is misleading, and aimed to discredit me, the above describes a peer-reviewed journal article written by myself. It is just over eight pages long, this is not lengthy for an article.

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

In the text, Sewell states: "Feminism not only harms men, but harms women. Indeed, women are less happy today than they were in the 1970s.

I have been misquoted, I wrote Feminism not only harms men, but harms women like Dr Banerjee, too (Quest, 1994; Sommers, 1995). Indeed, women are less happy today than they were in the 1970s and ‘the changes brought about through the women’s movement may have decreased women’s happiness’ (Stevenson and Wolfers, 2007). See Gender (sic) equality (sic) in Opticon1826. The important point is that I referenced what I said, so The Huffington Post UK quote is misleading its readers. Remember also that this is a quote from a peer-reviewed journal article.

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

"To assume equality is false, whilst attempting to enforce it is totalitarian.

Indeed. Again, this is a quote from my peer-reviewed journal article.

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

"Men must work hard, compete and take risks throughout their lives if they want any life at all, whilst women need only to look youthful and behave selfishly."

Exactly. Again, this is a quote from my peer-reviewed journal article.

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

In another section, titled "Eugenics", Sewell states:

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

"Hitler gave eugenics a bad name. The modern objectives are actually highly desirable: eugenics can help eliminate genetic diseases, reduce personality disorders and increase intelligence via human biotechnology. Time to reconsider."

Note that I am not pro-eugenics, I am merely suggesting that we should keep an open mind if there are clear benefits to society. Being open to ideas about how best to improve society is no basis on which to publish a witch hunt! Note also that it should be obvious from the first sentence that I consider Hitler to be ‘bad’.

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

"The first two points are evident to any of my friends, colleagues or students, and the last point was made explicit in a seminar that I gave on Thursday.

I am refering to a CRASSH Postdoctoral Research Seminar that I gave in Cambridge on 21 June 2012 entitled Ideology-Free Politics: A Bottom-Up Approach. The PowerPoint is available.

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

But Sewell told HuffPost in an email: "I am neither sexist nor racist, nor am I pro-Hitler.

The above two sentences are in the wrong order and appear nonsensical, my right to reply was compromised. I have already refuted the accusations of ‘sexist’, ‘racist’ and ‘pro-Hitler’ above.

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

"The real fascism lies with attempting to compromise an academic's career on the basis of his synthesis of peer-reviewed scientific research. The university has a long tradition of ground-breaking science and freedom of speech, which Cambridge University Students' Union (CUSU) would do well to respect."

Exactly. But who reads to the bottom of the article? My name will, unfairly, forever be linked with the words ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’.

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

A former student at Bristol University and Birkbeck College in London, Sewell has degrees in computing science and mathematics.

True. And a PhD in Computer Science from UCL.

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

Sewell lists senior research associate at Cambridge'sdepartment of Land Economy on his Curriculum Vitae, which can be viewed on his website, as well as giving tutorials and taking students on day trips.

Indeed, all of which has precisely nothing to do with my personal web site.

Lucy Sherriff wrote:

Cambridge University has been contacted but have yet to comment.

They never contacted me either, as there was no reason to do so.


Free speech for dodgy dons, too’ by Tom Bailey, spiked, 2 July 2012

Tom Bailey wrote:

Free speech for dodgy dons, too

To describe an academic as ‘dodgy’ for reviewing peer-reviewed science is absurd.

Tom Bailey wrote:

Cambridge students calling for a supervisor to resign over his political views need a lecture on academic freedom.

Indeed, except that nobody requested that I resign.

Tom Bailey wrote:

‘Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties’, proclaimed the seventeenth-century poet John Milton. To some of my fellow students in the UK, however, it seems this fundamental liberty shouldn’t extend to academics who hold views they dislike.

Indeed.

Tom Bailey wrote:

Last week, Cambridge University students protested against economics supervisor Martin Sewell, who has penned a number of articles on his personal website concerning race, equality between men and women, and eugenics. The dodgy nature of the don’s views on these subjects is fairly clear. For example, in one post Sewell claims: ‘The most likely reason for the high incidence of black crime is blacks’ lower intelligence and greater impulsivity, which themselves are probably biological in origin.’ This is hardly an original claim, and one which has been debunked many times. As well as descriptions of female immigrants appearing to men as ‘exotic fruit’, students have also taken exception to his claims about eugenics, which he says are ‘actually highly desirable: eugenics can help eliminate genetic diseases, reduce personality disorders and increase intelligence via human biotechnology. Time to reconsider.’

The statement ‘one which has been debunked many times’ is nonsense (and naturally unreferenced). The sentence that I wrote above is intuitively unsurprising and entirely consistent with the views of those most qualified in the area. Michael Levin, a philosophy professor at City University of New York, in his book Why Race Matters wrote ‘The black advantage in criminality seems best attributed to lower kantianism [sic], facilitated by lower intelligence and greater impulsivity themselves probably biological in origin.’ (p. 317) Whilst Richard Lynn, a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Ulster, in an article entitled ‘Race and Psychopathic Personality’ published in American Renaissance in July 2007 explained that even when IQ is held constant, blacks still commit more crime than whites because blacks show greater psychopathic tendencies thank whites (even when IQ is held constant). A psychopathic personality includes an impulsiveness component.

Tom Bailey wrote:

Far more problematic than his views, some of which are certainly highly questionable, is the response from the Cambridge University Students’ Union (CUSU). A CUSU representative argued that Sewell is an individual who ‘cannot remain as a supervisor for Cambridge students’. Sewell himself teaches and researches economics, specialising in land economy. How exactly his views on race, eugenics and sexual equality should impact upon this field of research is not made clear. However, even if they did relate to his specific field of research and teaching, his views should be of no significance. Such veiled calls for the man’s dismissal flies in the face of academic freedom.

‘Sewell himself teaches and researches economics, specialising in land economy.’ Err...I’ve never studied economics in my entire life. My academic qualifications are in maths (BSc (Hons)) and computer science (MSc and PhD). My CV was, and is, available online. The connection between the pages selected for a witch hunt (race, etc.) and my supervisions of maths and econometrics wasn’t made clear because it didn’t exist.

Tom Bailey wrote:

Universities should be a place where no idea is sacred, where even the most widely-accepted ideas are subjected to intense scrutiny. Academic institutions such as Cambridge should be a place where all controversial viewpoints can be uttered and debated. Without the unrestrained ability to think the unthinkable, and argue the unarguable, academic freedom simply doesn’t exist. This freedom, after all, is how the boundaries of knowledge are pushed forward. Without the ability to slaughter intellectual sacred cows, no advance in ideas or thinking would have ever been possible.

Tom Bailey wrote:

Suggesting that a man with reprehensible views is not fit to teach also betrays CUSU’s patronising view towards the Cambridge student body. The union’s statement shows that it seems to view students as fragile and vulnerable, unable to be exposed to such nasty people as Sewell lest these manipulable weaklings turn into racist, sexist, proto-fascist drones. Surely CUSU should instead see the students it represents as capable, bright and resilient young people ready, able and willing to challenge such views and ideas.

Describing me as ‘nasty’, ‘racist’, ‘sexist’ and ‘proto-fascist’ is, on all counts, both false and defamatory.

Tom Bailey wrote:

Students who encounter Sewell, or other academics who have disagreeable views, during their studies are perfectly capable of making up their own minds about his work and articles. As repugnant as these views may be, students are adults and do not need student-union bureaucrats, or anyone else, protecting them from the ideas of what they deem to be ‘unacceptable’ individuals.

I do not have any ‘disagreeable’ or ‘repugnant’ views, no students encounter my views ‘during their studies’ and none has ever deemed me to be ‘unacceptable’.

Tom Bailey wrote:

The CUSU claims that, ‘Cambridge is a diverse, multicultural community which stands against – and, indeed, refutes – everything [Sewell] stands for’. If the union really did have the confidence that it could refute the ideas and views of Sewell, it would not claim he is unable to maintain his position at Cambridge.

Tom Bailey wrote:

Rather than trying to banish Sewell, these censorious students should have sufficient faith in their own views on race and sexual equality that they can win the argument with fellow students and dodgy dons alike.

Of course the politically correct can’t win an argument. They don’t have science on their side.

Tom Bailey wrote:

Tom Bailey is a history undergraduate at University College London.

Tom Bailey (LinkedIn, blog, Twitter) is a history undergraduate?! Before writing about race and the sexes I invested a considerable amount of unpaid time (read every relevant paper that I could find) and money (purchased every relevant book that I could find) researching the subjects. Yet a history undergraduate thinks he knows more about a scientific discipline than an academic with over a decade’s experience researching the matter. Why on earth did spiked publish it?


Cambridge councillor quits after accusations of racism’ by Louise Ashwell, The Cambridge Student, 7 July 2012

Louise Ashwell wrote:

After The Cambridge Student reported in June student accusations of racism against supervisor Martin Sewell, a new episode of racism has emerged in Cambridge, leading a councillor to resign from his post on an influential committee after an investigation confirmed he made racist comments against the travellers' community.

Firstly, the statement is false on three counts, they didn’t report the story (they made it up), there were no genuine ‘student accusations of racism’, and I was not a supervisor at the time. Secondly, it is a malicious and deliberate attempt to link build the original defamatory article, note also the deliberate (and unnecessary, I’m not famous) use of my name. The pdf version of the article includes a screenshot of the home page of my website, which includes six of my private photos, all used without my permission. Ironically for a news story that accuses me of being racist, The Cambridge Student have included a photo of myself among a multicultural group of friends at a private party, in which I am standing next to my wife, who is Chinese.


Why won't universities tackle racism head on?’ by Conrad Landin, The Guardian, 22 March 2013

Conrad Landin wrote:

Why won't universities tackle racism head on?

Conrad Landin

Conrad Landin is now the industrial reporter for the Morning Star, a Communist newspaper.

[…]

Conrad Landin wrote:

Racism in universities is not confined to the casual prejudice of everyday life. Only last year, Martin Sewell, an economics supervisor at Cambridge, came under fire from national media after students discovered Nazi imagery on his website. He also described female immigrants as "exotic fruit", and argued that black people were "impulsive", with lower IQs than other races.

Mr Landin originally wrote ‘Only last year, Martin Sewell, an economics lecturer at Cambridge...’ I am not, and never have been, an economics lecturer at Cambridge, or anywhere else. I worked as a Supervisor for the Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge, for two terms, from January 2012 until June 2012, filling in for a colleague who was taking a sabbatical. I was no longer a Supervisor when the original The Cambridge Student article was published. Mentioning my connection with the University of Cambridge was a deliberate attempt to mislead readers, as my personal web site has precisely nothing to do with my positions at the University.

The article published by The Independent on Sunday is nothing more than a witch hunt, not some sort of balanced news story worth linking to!

Mr Landin is accusing me of being racist, this is both false and defamatory. I have dated a black girl, had an Indian girlfriend and a Chinese wife. Obviously, I am not racist, nor has there ever been any reason to believe otherwise.

It was not the case that students discovered Nazi imagery, the story was contrived by The Cambridge Student/CUSU, and manufactured in the offices of CUSU, by their own admission. Even if students had discovered Nazi imagery, they would have noticed that the point was to give negative connotations to political correctness, University of Cambridge students are not stupid. The article in The Cambridge Student made no mention of Nazi imagery. The only Nazi imagery that exists on my web site is on the page dedicated to Political Correctness and is given clear context as I write ‘Political correctness (PC) is the third great evil arising from Western civilization in the last century.’ In other words, it is clearly implied that I consider Nazis to be evil. The Guardian have a duty not to mislead their readers, but the reader is left with the impression that I used Nazi imagery because I am in some sense a supporter. I am not. Mr Landin is implying that I am in some sense a Nazi sympathiser, which as the Commission point out is an extremely serious allegation, and as explained above, entirely false and without foundation. As the Commission point out, a newspaper has an obligation to ensure that it is not misleading readers. Furthermore, The Cambridge Student were reprimanded merely for quoting someone, whilst Mr Landin has made the allegation directly. In other words, The Guardian are in clear breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The Guardian have a duty not to mislead your readers, but the reader is left with the impression that there were genuine complaints from students and/or the university. There were neither.

I did not describe female immigrants as ‘exotic fruit’, but wrote ‘Male reaction to female immigration: Men may appreciate the exotic fruit’, which is scientifically valid (and surely the opposite to being racist), in all human societies it is women who tend to leave the natal group, they are exogamous.

I didn’t simply argue personally that black people are more impulsive than other races, I provided no less than seven citations. That blacks have a lower IQ than Europeans is well known among those au fait with the literature on intelligence, or with common sense (consider Sub-Saharan Africa), is not even controversial, and has been known for decades. I am simply a scientist with integrity and an honest messenger, and do not deserve this unprovoked witch hunt. I referenced published peer-reviewed articles so it is misleading for Mr Landin to give the impression that these were controversial statements or in some way novel. As explained in the Introduction, news, by definition, should be surprising.

Conrad Landin wrote:

When I spoke to the unrepentant Sewell, he said that while the incident had affected his career, the university had not taken any "direct" action against him.

The university never contacted me at all. Why would they? I’d not done anything wrong. I’d not merely not done anything wrong, I’d not done anything at all. My website was over a decade old. On what grounds does Mr Landin believe that the university would take action against an academic for doing/publishing science?! The only thing that has compromised my career is defamatory articles such as Mr Landin’s. The Guardian have a duty not to mislead their readers.

Conrad Landin wrote:

"Freedom of speech" is routinely invoked in defence of allowing such unpalatable views to be aired – and that tells us a lot about why racism persists in our universities.

Although I support freedom of speech, that is not the issue here, science is about telling the truth, and good policy depends on honest science. An academic should not need to defend doing/publishing science!

Conrad Landin wrote:

[…]

Conrad Landin wrote:

It is assumed that so long as one declares liberal ideals, they will automatically exist. That works fine for those who enjoy a position of privilege: white, straight men are unlikely to encounter casual prejudice of the kind I witnessed at the gatehouse. And if racist views remain in universities, presented as just another perspective, what's the harm?

I never taught in a lecture hall, I taught maths and econometrics to small groups, and this has precisely nothing to do with my personal web pages. I am a white straight man, and am the victim of extremely public prejudice from Mr Landin simply for communicating facts about the world that do not coincide with his own political prejudices.

Conrad Landin wrote:

Yet when discrimination continues to be an everyday reality, allowing racism to retain its footholds under the guise of "academic freedom" is a serious matter.

Mr Landin, an English literature student, doesn't seem to understand the difference between the treatment of individuals and doing science.

Conrad Landin wrote:

Sewell bemoans the fact that Cambridge institutions "refused to have anything to do with me" after the coverage of his views. But instead of simply ignoring the views of people such as Sewell, universities really need to be confronting racism on campus head on.

I have been misquoted, I never said that Cambridge institutions ‘refused to have anything to do with me’, it would have made no sense. The above was written on 22 March 2013, and I was a Postdoctoral Member of Clare Hall, University of Cambridge, between September 2012 and September 2013. Plus since then I have been a member of the Postdocs of Cambridge (PdOC) Communications and Events Subcommittees, a founding member and the Treasurer of Entrepreneurial Postdocs of Cambridge (EPOC) and a supervisor for the Computer Laboratory. In fact, the quote is not merely false, but impossible. The university is a bottom-up organisation, the power lies with the heads of departments, so the university doesn’t make decisions about employment from the top. Furthermore, again, Mr Landin is implying that my ‘views’ are either novel or controversial. They are not (to those au fait with either science or reality).

Conrad Landin wrote:

[…]

The Guardian wrote:

This article was amended on 29 October 2014 to clarify that Martin Sewell worked at Cambridge as a supervisor rather than a lecturer.

After detailing every error in the article, the only thing they changed was my job title!


LIARS - International newspaper falsely accuses TCS of being the mouthpiece for a 'racist' Cambridge University’ by Tristram Fane-Saunders and Zoah Hedges-Stocks, The Cambridge Student, 25 April 2013

In the print edition Tristram Fane-Saunders and Zoah Hedges-Stocks wrote:

When Land Economy supervisor Martin Sewell was promoting racist and sexist views on his website, TCS exposed this. The University apparently took note; the Land Economy faculty and Judge Business School declined to renew his contracts.

Interestingly the paragraph is missing from the online version. Presumably The Cambridge Student recognised that it was defamatory.

However, the paragraph is really rather wonderful and is worth dissecting. The Cambridge Student have managed to make no less than eight false statements in just two sentences.
1) I have never been a supervisor in the Department of Land Economy.
2) I have never promoted racist views on my website.
3) I have never promoted sexist views on my website.
4) I have largely synthesised and reviewed existing scientific literature, there is very little that could be described as my ‘views’.
5) TCS didn’t expose anything, they concocted a story in the offices of CUSU.
6) The university didn’t take note, they didn’t do anything.
7) The statement ‘the Land Economy faculty declined to renew his contract’ is not even possible. My contract with the Department of Land Economy finished on 30 September 2011, whilst The Cambridge Student published their original article about me on 21 June 2012.
8) I had a temporary (effectively rolling) contract with Judge Business School, via the Temporary Employment Service, to help work on a particular project, and I completed all of the tasks that I was given, so the concept of having my contract ‘renewed’ in this instance doesn’t even make sense.

Note also that in this instance there is no suggestion, either implicitly or explicitly, that ‘Martin Sewell was promoting racist and sexist views on his website’ is the view of anyone other than The Cambridge Student. The paper themselves are directly and incorrectly calling me ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’, they are not quoting anyone, so the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice is clearly being breached. Yet, absurdly, the PCC dealt with it by quite literally redefining the English language (details below).

Zoah Hedges-Stocks was co-editor of The Cambridge Student from December 2010 to December 2011, and continued to write articles for The Cambridge Student such as the above. From 15 August 2012 to 18 August 2012 she worked as a student on work experience for the Mail On Sunday and during this period she phoned me and asked me questions via email with a view to writing a sympathetic article that supported my position, and I replied to all questions asked. Although the article was never published, I wish to credit Zoah Hedges-Stocks for being supportive.


Diary: MPs play softball down in the 'hood’ by Hugh Muir, The Guardian, 13 March 2014

Diary: MPs play softball down in the 'hood

Hugh Muir

Hugh Muir wrote:

Let freedom ring, and one guesses it will at Bournemouth's Freedom Festival. Soldiers of the right and champions of libertarian thought gather "for an amazing weekend". But that freedom can't apply to everyone. And thus, organisers in the Freedom Association find themselves having to ban the perennially troublesome rightwinger Claire Khaw – expelled from the BNP and then the Conservative party. "I was prepared for you to attend," writes chief executive Simon Richards. But other groups are involved. "Your presence has indeed proved a problem for some of those organisations." And it's not just Khaw. Martin Sewell, the unlovely former Cambridge supervisor who argued that black people were "impulsive", with lower IQs, is also getting his ticket money refunded. Who objected to us, demands Khaw. We are not at liberty to tell you, said the chief exec. Without irony, apparently.

Hugh Muir originally wrote: ‘Martin Sewell, the unlovely Cambridge lecturer who argued that black people were "impulsive", with lower IQs, is also getting his ticket money refunded.’ I have never been a Cambridge lecturer, and mentioning my connection with the University of Cambridge is a deliberate attempt to mislead readers, as my personal web site has precisely nothing to do with my positions at the University. Nobody who knows me would describe me as ‘unlovely’, this is both false and defamatory. I didn't simply argue personally that black people are more impulsive than other races, I provided no less than seven citations. I am simply a scientist with integrity and an honest messenger, and do not deserve to be defamed. That blacks have a lower average IQ than Europeans is well known among those au fait with the literature on intelligence, or with common sense (consider Sub-Saharan Africa), is not even controversial, and has been known for decades. I referenced published peer-reviewed articles so it is misleading for Mr Muir to give the impression that these were controversial statements or in some way novel (as explained in the Introduction, news, by definition, should be surprising). The Guardian links to an article published by The Independent on Sunday which is nothing more than a witch hunt, not some sort of balanced news story worth linking to!


Press Complaints Commission >> Adjudicated Complaints >> Mr Martin Sewell, Press Complaints Commission, 23 July 2014

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

Complainant Name:
Mr Martin Sewell

Clauses Noted: 1

Publication: The Cambridge Student

Complaint:

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

Mr Martin Sewell complained to the Press Complaints Commission that an article headlined "Cambridge Economics supervisor criticised for racist and sexist views", published on the website of The Cambridge Student on 21 June 2012, was inaccurate and misleading in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors' Code of Practice.

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

The Commission upheld the complaint, in part, but did not censure the newspaper.

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

The article reported that students at Cambridge University had raised concerns that material on the complainant's website was "explicitly racist", "sexist", "contentious" and "offensive". The article reported that the complainant, when writing on the significance of race in conjunction with crime, had stated - "without reference to academic sources" - that "the most likely reason for the high incidence of black crime is blacks' lower intelligence and greater impulsivity, which themselves are probably biological in origin". The article also reported that the complainant had said that "Hitler gave eugenics a bad name", noting that the complainant had supported this statement by explaining that "eugenics can help eliminate genetic diseases, reduce personality disorders and increase intelligence". The article also quoted an unidentified spokesman from the Cambridge University Students Union (CUSU) as having said that "obviously an individual....who [had] explicitly endorsed National Socialism" could not remain at the University as a supervisor. The article included the response of the complainant, who attributed the criticism to "political correctness" and defended the material on the basis that "publishing novel material that is largely the result of synthesizing peer-reviewed scientific research is inherently educative".

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

The complainant did not accept that students had raised concerns about the material on his website, and he considered that the reported controversy represented a collaborative effort between the newspaper and CUSU to smear him and to damage his career. He emphasised that he had maintained a website since 1999, without any prior complaint, but since the article's publication he had struggled to find paid work.

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

The complainant strenuously denied that he had expressed any racist or sexist views, or that he had endorsed National Socialism. He explained that his opinions were based on science, not personal prejudice and expressed the view that "describing models of reality (i.e. doing/publishing science) should not be described as ‘racist' or ‘sexist'" because such terms were "more usefully applied to the unfair treatment of individuals". The complainant said that there was no credible basis for the claim that he explicitly supported National Socialism, given that the only reference to "National Socialism" on his website appeared in the form of a table ranking various ideologies "in order of preference", in which National Socialism appeared 6th out of 8 ideologies listed, ahead of Communism and Radical Christianity. With regard to the allegation of racism, the complainant considered that, contrary to the claim in the article, his comments on the biological origins of crime were extensively referenced on his website, notwithstanding the absence of a reference in relation to the statement quoted in the article.

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

The complainant also said that he had departed the Faculty of Economics six days before the article's publication and that he should therefore not have been described as an "Economics supervisor".

Most students these days are preoccupied with their exams and careers, especially in June, not starting witch hunts against someone they don’t even know.

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

The newspaper denied the complainant's allegations that it had colluded with CUSU against the complainant; it was both constitutionally and functionally independent of CUSU. It explained that the genesis of the story was a meeting attended by a member of its editorial team, in which four past and present undergraduates had expressed concern about the material on the complainant's website. It also provided a written statement from the CUSU official who had been quoted as asserting that the complainant "explicitly" endorsed National Socialism, who confirmed that he stood by his comments.

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

The newspaper argued that it had not endorsed or adopted the claims in the article, but rather that it had published the views of others. Nonetheless, it stated that it had extensively reviewed the material on the complainant's website and regarded the comments published in the article as defensible. With regard to the allegations of racism and sexism, it explained that the complainant had said that men and women were born unequal, and that black people were biologically predisposed to crime. It defended the claim that the complainant had explicitly endorsed National Socialism on the ground that he had referenced the work of several writers who had been accused of National Socialist leanings and, in its view, the complainant had broadly supported the tenets of the ideology. For these reasons, the newspaper did not believe that the article breached the Code. Nonetheless, it offered to publish the following clarification: "Our article, ‘Cambridge Economics supervisor criticised for racist and sexist views' (21 June), reported students' concerns about the views of Economics supervisor Martin Sewell. We quoted the Cambridge University Students' Union (CUSU) as having commented, in reference to Mr Sewell, that [sic] ‘who explicitly endorses national socialism cannot remain as a supervisor for Cambridge students'. Mr Sewell has asked us to make clear that he does not explicitly endorse National Socialism. CUSU has told TCS that it stands by its original comments, and that it formed its view based on the content of Mr Sewell's website. CUSU has pointed out that as Mr Sewell's website is publicly available, anyone is free to examine its content and make up their own mind".

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

The Commission had previously found that the article had breached Clause (i) of the Editors' Code in relation to the claim that the complainant had explicitly endorsed National Socialism, which the Commission had found to be inaccurate, but that the wording proposed by the newspaper, if published, would provide a sufficient remedy to the initial breach, under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The clarification had subsequently been published by the newspaper, but following further correspondence from the complainant, the Commission decided to re-open the matter and to invite further comments from the parties.

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

The complainant considered that the clarification was inadequate because it carried no acknowledgement that he had not, as a matter of fact, endorsed National Socialism. The complainant believed that, furthermore, the clarification was defamatory because it suggested that material on his website contradicted his stated position; it did not retract the claim that he had "racist and sexist views"; and it inaccurately suggested that he was an "economics supervisor".

The newspaper did not accept that there had been a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) and maintained that the National Socialism claim was a matter of interpretation, not a claim of fact. It considered that its clarification was an appropriate response to the complaint.

Decision:
Upheld

Adjudication:

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

Clause 1 (Accuracy) (i) of the Editors' Code of Practice sets out that newspapers must take care not to publish inaccurate or misleading information; under Clause 1 (ii), a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence.

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

The Commission first re-considered the claim that the complainant "explicitly endorsed National Socialism". This was an extremely serious allegation. Whilst it had been attributed to the CUSU official, the newspaper had an obligation to ensure that it was not misleading readers by publishing the claim. The Commission did not accept that the claim was substantiated by material on the complainant's website; the reference to sources who had been criticised for their alleged sympathy with National Socialist ideas did not amount to an "explicit endorsement" of the ideology. In contrast to the examples contained in the article of the complainant's alleged "racist" and "sexist" comments, no such examples had been provided regarding the National Socialism allegation. The Commission found that the publication of the bald claim raised a breach of Clause 1 (i), and the newspaper was therefore obliged to offer a remedy that would be sufficient to comply with Clause 1 (ii).

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

Before assessing the remedial action taken by the newspaper in this regard, the Commission re-considered the remaining issues of significance raised by the complainant under Clause 1.

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

While the Commission noted that the complainant remained of the view that the newspaper had failed to substantiate its position that complaints had been made by students about his writing, the newspaper had provided a signed statement from the individual who had been quoted anonymously in the article as a CUSU official, who confirmed that students had "expressed concerns about [the] material". Further, the Commission noted that the complainant accepted that his views were controversial and that "political correctness" was part of the "climate of the West that we currently live in". The Commission could identify no substantive reason to doubt that students had raised concerns of the kind outlined in the article and concluded that no breach of Clause 1 was established on this point.

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

The Commission noted that the newspaper had not, in the article, adopted the claims of "explicit racism" "racism" and "sexism". The allegations were clearly attributed to CUSU and unnamed students, with the newspaper noting that "some of his statements have been considered as contentious, offensive or explicitly racist". The Commission acknowledged the complainant's strong objection to the claims and his position that he was "synthesising peer-reviewed scientific research". The Commission also, however, noted that he accepted that it was "novel material" - in other words, it represented his interpretation of and commentary on the matters covered by the research that he had referenced. The question as to whether the complainant's discussion of the significance of racial and sexual differences - ranging from mate selection to aptitude for tennis - was justified as a scientific inquiry , alternatively, that it amounted to "racism" or "sexism" was, to a great extent, a matter of interpretation, on which individuals were likely to disagree. The Commission noted that the complainant accepted that the statement on his website about the allegedly biological origins of "black crime" had not been referenced. Whilst acknowledging the complainant's position on this issue, the Commission also took into account that the newspaper had, in the article, quoted accurately from the complainant's website on topics relating to race and sex; that it had provided further examples in correspondence of material that it considered supported the interpretation of the complainant's views which had appeared in the article; and that the article had included the complainant's response to the claims. In light of these considerations, the Commission did not consider that readers would have been misled regarding the nature and the basis of the claims made in the article and did not establish a breach of Clause 1 on these points.

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

The Commission also remained of the view that it was not significantly misleading to refer to the complainant as an "Economics supervisor" in circumstances where he had held this position shortly before the article's publication, and the newspaper had not failed to take care over the accuracy of the article on this point.

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

The issue that had prompted the Commission's reconsideration of the complaint was the concern raised by the complainant about the sufficiency of the published clarification as a remedy to the breach of Clause 1(i). The newspaper had been made aware of the complainant's concern, in this regard, but maintained that its published clarification was an appropriate response to the complaint.

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

The Commission, therefore, re-considered the wording which had been published by the newspaper by way of a remedy. For the reasons explained above, the Commission remained of the view that it was not necessary for the wording to have addressed the issues raised by the complainant concerning the racism and sexism points. The National Socialism point, however, was more difficult: the Commission considered that this claim would be understood by readers to be an assertion of fact. The published clarification merely set out the complainant's response to the claim, stated that CUSU "[stood] by its original comments", and directed readers to the complainant's website. The clarification did not include an acknowledgment of the inaccuracy, which the Commission accepted was necessary if an adequate remedy was to be provided to the complainant. The Commission, therefore, found that the wording which had been published by the newspaper was insufficient to meet the requirements of Clause 1 (ii).

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

The Commission accepted, however, that the newspaper had published the clarification in good faith, following the Commission's initial view that its publication would be a sufficient remedy. Accordingly, the Commission considered that it would not be appropriate to censure the newspaper at this stage. Instead, the Commission was satisfied that the complainant's position with regard to the National Socialism claim would be adequately vindicated by this public ruling and by the publication of a link to this adjudication on the newspaper's website alongside the original article and clarification. The newspaper should publish such a link as soon as possible on receipt of this ruling.

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

**************************************************************************************************************************************

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

The complainant also raised concern that a further article published by The Cambridge Student on 25 April 2013, headlined "Liars: International newspaper falsely accuses TCS of being the mouthpiece for a ‘racist' university", was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors' Code of Practice.

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

The complaint was not upheld.

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

This article, published during the course of the investigation of the above complaint, set out the newspaper's rebuttal of claims by a Pakistani newspaper that it was racist. As one example of its anti-racism, the newspaper said that "when Land Economy supervisor Martin Sewell was promoting racist and sexist views on his website, TCS exposed this. The University apparently took note; the Land Economy faculty and Judge Business School declined to renew his contracts". The article contained no further reference to the complainant.

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

The complainant vigorously denied that he had promoted "racist and sexist views" and that his contracts had not been renewed because of the newspaper's coverage. He had left the Land Economy faculty nine months before the 2012 article, and his security of tenure at the Judge Business School had always been precarious because he was on a rolling contract. Further, he was a "research associate" in the Department of Land Economy, not a supervisor.

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

The newspaper maintained that it was justified, on the basis of the material cited on the complainant's website, to refer to his views as "racist" and "sexist". It stated that in an interview with another newspaper following the June article, the complainant had said that he believed the 2012 article was the reason the University had declined to renew his employment. The newspaper explained that the inaccuracy regarding the complainant's role had been a sub-editing error. While it did not believe this was a significant inaccuracy, it was willing to correct it.

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

Adjudication

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

In contrast with the 2012 article, the newspaper had clearly adopted the claims of racism and sexism here, and it had not included the complainant's response in its brief reference to the case. As the Commission had noted above, claims of "racism" and "sexism" are inherently interpretative terms. The newspaper had made clear that these claims were founded upon material which had been published on the complainant's website and it was, therefore, not necessary for the newspaper to include more detailed information about this material to avoid misleading readers.

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

While the complainant argued that the terms "racism" and "sexism" should be reserved for actions of discrimination directed at individuals, the Commission considered that it was not misleading for the newspaper to use these terms in a broader sense to refer to ideas that - in the view of the speaker - sought to ascribe observed variation among individuals wrongly to racial or sexual differences.

The Cambridge Student have not used the terms racism and sexism in a ‘broader sense’, they have used them incorrectly, and doing so is clearly misleading. Nicholas Wade, formerly a staff writer for the Science Times section of The New York Times, in his book A Troublesome Inheritance, writes ‘[t]he central premise of racism…is the notion of an ordered hierarchy of races in which some are superior to others’ (this is consistent with any credible definition of racism). On my Race web page I wrote: ‘Although evolution doesn’t do equality, when it comes to species and sub-species, it doesn’t do hierarchy either. So talk of a ‘superior race’ is meaningless (as can be seen below, each race excels in different areas).’ So, I’ve not merely not been racist (by any known correct definition), I’ve explicitly stated that the world as described by a racist (the existence of a racial hierarchy) is false! The ‘in the view of the speaker’ clause, of course, is insane. The PCC have effectively redefined the English language so that the terms can now mean whatever the politically correct want them to mean. It is shocking that the PCC were forced to redefine the English language in order to accommodate the newspaper’s defamation.

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

The complainant's website contained a very large number of examples - some of which were referenced to peer-reviewed academic journals and some of which were not - of evaluative statements regarding the differences between men and women and among members of various "races". The Commission noted the following examples. A discussion of creativity: "Whites are the most creative race. For cultural, social and institutional reasons, East Asians, despite having higher intelligence than Europeans, have a ‘creativity problem'." A section on how sporting prowess can be explained by racial differences: "Bowling. Requires concentration and control, blacks are underrepresented... Golf. Requires concentration and control, blacks are underrepresented...Tennis. Requires concentration and control, blacks are underrepresented": In a "Men and women FAQ": "How do men and women get on at work? Male manager with male staff: the most normal situation; Male manager with female staff: the most harmonious combination of all, this situation approximates the normal world, with females in their social network and males in their hierarchy; Female manager with male staff: satisfactory, men simply find female bosses at worst incongruous; Female manager with female staff: the least successful arrangement, the female underlings tend to hate their bosses." Further, "Of the minority of women who do have an interest in climbing organisations [citation], their motivation to do so is not to compete for the status that organisational positions provide men, but merely to be close to and in the path of high status men. Indeed, universities have for a long time functioned as very effective ‘finishing schools' or ‘marriage markets' for women".

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

Just as the newspaper was entitled to report that students had formed these views of the material on the complainant's website, it was entitled to express its own view as to how the material could be interpreted. There was no breach of the Code.

The Press Complaints Commission wrote:

In relation to the final points in issue, the Commission noted that the claim regarding the decision not to renew the complainant's contract as a result of the 25 June article was clearly distinguished as conjecture and, further, that the complainant did not appear to dispute that he had himself speculated that the 2012 article had affected his employment at the University. The inaccuracy regarding the complainant's position in the Department of Land Economy was not considered by the Commission to be significant in the context of an article which raised more serious concerns, and which only mentioned the complainant briefly. The Commission welcomed the newspaper's willingness to publish a correction on this point, but found no breach of Clause 1 on either of these issues.


Cambridge University Students’ Union (CUSU)

I made formal complaints to Cambridge University Students’ Union (CUSU) themselves, which naturally turned out to be a waste of time. CUSU entered lengthy dialogue with the PCC, which the PCC passed on to me for review, and wasted plenty of time and money attempting to defend the defamatory article. None of the ‘defendants’ were qualified in the area under discussion. Those who engaged with the PCC were Mark Curtis, Editorial Director of The Cambridge Student and a photographer; Mark McCormack, the overpaid General Manager of CUSU, whose qualifications are in Music and Voluntary Sector Management; and Wiggin LLP, a law firm focusing exclusively on media, technology and brands. Unable to defend politically correct drivel, they had little choice to resort to further politically correct drivel, argumentum ad hominem, guilt by association and Reductio ad Hitlerum.


University of Cambridge

Naturally I made a formal complaint about CUSU to the university, but their response was that CUSU is not a constituent part of the university, but an independent legal entity, and the university is not responsible for their acts or omissions. In other words, CUSU are unaccountable. However, the university do have legal obligations (they just ignored them). As explained in the introduction, in addition to hosting a manufactured and defamatory article, the University of Cambridge are in breach of their Statutes and Ordinances, the Education Act 1986 and the Education Act 1994. Also recall that, in relation to the students’ union, the Education Act 1994 requires ‘an independent person appointed by the governing body [of the University] to investigate and report on complaints’, and the Junior Proctor is designated by the University of Cambridge to be this independent person. See Statutes and Ordinances of the University of Cambridge. Naturally I emailed the Junior Proctor at the time, Hugh Shilson-Thomas, who considered my assertion that CUSU was intentionally or recklessly impeding freedom of speech. When he became aware of the Press Complaints Commission’s adjudication, he responded ‘I must conclude that I have been able to find no evidence that members are intentionally or recklessly impeding freedom of speech’. The logic seems to be that because CUSU were judged by an independent body, and found guilty, from that point onwards they have won the right to 1) breach their own rules, 2) ignore subsequent complaints, and 3) impede the freedom of speech of others. This, of course, is insane. Besides, the PCC were addressing accuracy, it is not part of their remit to consider my freedom of speech. I politely spelt all of this out to the university, but Julia Durham, a solicitor in the University’s Legal Services Office, incredibly, attempted to warn me off. CUSU have demonstrated that if an academic publishes in areas that do not coincide with their political agenda, they will adopt a witch hunt. The articles published by The Cambridge Student are clearly an affront to my freedom of speech, and could compromise both the science and freedom of speech of other academics.

Next, BLM, a law firm that specialises in insurance and risk law (so yet again, not working within their area of expertise), representing the University of Cambridge, got involved. No doubt charging the university by the hour, on 27 July 2016 BLM responded to my letter before claim sent in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Defamation with a letter that included the following nonsense:
• ‘In the circumstances we do not consider that a reasonable person reading the material would draw any adverse inference in relation to you.’
• ‘It is clear that the article has not caused serious harm to your reputation particularly in the light of the findings of the Press Complaints Commission outlined above and the clarification provided by the newspaper.’
• ‘There would also be an argument that any claim would constitute an abuse of process given the fact that it is difficult to see what substantive harm has been caused to your reputation.’
• ‘On the face of it, we cannot see any possible basis on which you can argue that your freedom of speech has been impaired.’
The above quotes are not merely nonsense to the point of being amusing, but are actually offensive. In a subsequent letter they wrote ‘You have not provided any evidence of serious harm to your reputation or likelihood of serious harm.’ So I promptly supplied numerous pieces of evidence, which they failed to even acknowledge. What a surprise. They also somewhat childishly pretended that I’d not sent them a letter before claim (which I had), and naively repeatedly addressed me as ‘Mr Sewell’, rather than ‘Dr Sewell’ (better still, ‘Martin’).

The more recent Junior Proctor, Cristiano Ristuccia (LinkedIn), Faculty of Economics, failed to even acknowledge any of my correspondence. I gave him perhaps a dozen opportunities to respond, but it was apparently not worth his time. I don’t know whether he is lazy, incompetent or corrupt, but he failed to perform the duties that, as the Junior Proctor, he is legally obliged to perform, and is thus negligent. Even the Vice-Chancellor Leszek Borysiewicz, or even his office, didn’t have the courtesy to respond to my email. Which is appalling.

The academic who offered me most of the supervision work, Helen Bao, although otherwise supportive, re-employing me privately and aware that none of her students had complained, felt the need to (verbally) retract her earlier verbal offer of future work for her college, and refused to give me a reference.

I was also employed as a Temporary Worker at the Centre for Risk Studies at Judge Business School and my work was nearing completion shortly after the articles appeared when they ended my temporary contract quite legitimately, but with what appeared to be indecent haste. Again, I was hoping for a career. But it’s worse than that. I was only on a temporary contract in the first place because I previously interviewed for a full-time position with them and narrowly missed out because they didn’t like my website, but they evidently still needed me. In other words, given that my website largely just distils peer-reviewed science, they based their recruitment decision on prejudice, rather than ability to do the job.

The University of Cambridge have showed utter contempt for the wellbeing of their staff, free speech, science and even the law. With the exception of Hugh Shilson-Thomas, they didn’t even pretend to care, and have actually been hostile, invoking lawyers.


Conclusion

I received nothing but support from my students. For example, ‘I have Martin as a supervisor and would just like to make clear I’ve never felt him to be a racist person...not even remotely!’ The comment was below the article before all comments were deleted as a new commenting system was implemented, screenshot here. I received plenty of support via email from people who didn’t previously know me, I even received a couple of books and invitations, and made new acquaintances with like-minded people. I also received public support from those that are qualified in the area, from Jared Taylor, hbd chick and Chris Brand, plus many other emails.

I am interested in science, and am motivated to write about areas in which I have reviewed the literature. That communicating certain realities about the world in which we live led to a witch hunt is a result of the politically correct climate of the West that we currently live in. Political correctness is both anti-scientific and unjust, so opposing it by failing to conform provides a good example of keeping ideology out of science and also benefits society as a whole. Science is about telling the truth, and good policy depends on honest science. In common with much of academia in the West, many in the social sciences at Cambridge are effectively competing to see who can be the most politically correct egalitarian, as a result of ‘competitive altruism’ and ‘virtue signalling’, whereas I’m interested in science, i.e. explaining reality. I spent around seven years hanging around the University of Cambridge and various departments seeking out science in the social sciences, but found none and eventually gave up.