The Life Scientific

[Trojan]

I usually listen to this programme, there's always something interesting on it.  Yesterday it was Sir Geoff Palmer. professor of brewing.  He came to this country as boy from Jamaica.  He obtained a degree in botany from Leicester University, but when he applied to study for a masters at Nottingham, he was turned down and advised by one of the interviewing panel to "go back where you came from and grow bananas"  That person was the guru of Thatcherism, the person to whom we owe our current mess of a society. None other than Keith Joseph.  A bigot and apparently a racist.  And I'd say his ideas are still influencing Tory policy today.  Amazing what you can find out from the BBC.

[Griff9of13]

To be fair to Keith Joseph (words you won't often see from me ), such blatant racism was common in the sixties and seventies, and wasn't limited to those whose politics are to the right. Still a ridiculous thing to dismiss a possible excellent academic based on nothing more than the colour of their skin though. 

[damp squib]

I don't believe in allowing the "those were different times" excuse unless the person has shown some evidence that they understand why they were wrong and have sincerely repented. The only reason we heard this story is because Sir Geoff Palmer became a success but how many other lives and careers will we never hear about that were ruined by people like Keith Joseph.

[JohnM]

To be fair to Keith Joseph (words you won't often see from me ), such blatant racism was common in the sixties and seventies, and wasn't limited to those whose politics are to the right. Still a ridiculous thing to dismiss a possible excellent academic based on nothing more than the colour of their skin though. 

 

Maybe still common, too,  in academia, as  "In 2011, he became the first and only black professor in Scotland"

[EssexRL]

Interesting interview on many levels.. amazing despite everything, including his mother, that he got where he did and what a job!

[Martyn Sadler]

I usually listen to this programme, there's always something interesting on it.  Yesterday it was Sir Geoff Palmer. professor of brewing.  He came to this country as boy from Jamaica.  He obtained a degree in botany from Leicester University, but when he applied to study for a masters at Nottingham, he was turned down and advised by one of the interviewing panel to "go back where you came from and grow bananas"  That person was the guru of Thatcherism, the person to whom we owe our current mess of a society. None other than Keith Joseph.  A bigot and apparently a racist.  And I'd say his ideas are still influencing Tory policy today.  Amazing what you can find out from the BBC.

 

I'm quite surprised to read this.

 

I once went to a lecture by Keith Joseph at Sheffield University when I was a student in the 1970s, and he spoke quite strongly, among other things, about the evils of racism. I remember it specifically because it was quite unusual for a Tory in those days to speak in that way.

 

In 1964, which is when this interview apparently occurred, Joseph was the Minister for Housing and Local Government, so I'm a little surprised that he was on an interview panel for a Masters' degree in an unrelated field at the University of Nottingham.

 

In May 1965 he defied a Tory two-line whip, alongside Sir Edward Boyle, to vote for the Labour government's new Race Relations Bill. They were the only shadow cabinet members to vote that way.

 

So I wouldn't have expected to find him being accused of racism in this context.

[Trojan]

I'm quite surprised to read this.

 

I once went to a lecture by Keith Joseph at Sheffield University when I was a student in the 1970s, and he spoke quite strongly, among other things, about the evils of racism. I remember it specifically because it was quite unusual for a Tory in those days to speak in that way.

 

In 1964, which is when this interview apparently occurred, Joseph was the Minister for Housing and Local Government, so I'm a little surprised that he was on an interview panel for a Masters' degree in an unrelated field at the University of Nottingham.

 

In May 1965 he defied a Tory two-line whip, alongside Sir Edward Boyle, to vote for the Labour government's new Race Relations Bill. They were the only shadow cabinet members to vote that way.

 

So I wouldn't have expected to find him being accused of racism in this context.

You can hear it for yourself here Martyn

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0640j59

As ~Damp Squib says, how many other promising careers were ruined by casual racism of the type Keith Josseph showed here.

https://beastrabban.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/keith-joseph-and-the-tories-eugenicist-hatred-of-the-working-class/

"In a speech in October 1974, he expressed some of the attitudes towards ‘the lower orders’ that were once common among middle-class eugenicists. He argued that ‘a high and rising proportion of children are being born to mothers least fitted to bring children into the world and to bring them up. They are born to mothers who were first pregnant in adolescence in social classes 4 and 5 … Some are of low intelligence, most of low educational attainment.’ But the killer line was this: ‘The balance of our population, our human stock is threatened.’ Joseph’s message was clear. The poor were breeding too fast, and the danger was they were going to swamp everyone else. (pp. 45-6)."

[Saintslass]

You can hear it for yourself here Martyn

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0640j59

As ~Damp Squib says, how many other promising careers were ruined by casual racism of the type Keith Josseph showed here.

https://beastrabban.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/keith-joseph-and-the-tories-eugenicist-hatred-of-the-working-class/

"In a speech in October 1974, he expressed some of the attitudes towards ‘the lower orders’ that were once common among middle-class eugenicists. He argued that ‘a high and rising proportion of children are being born to mothers least fitted to bring children into the world and to bring them up. They are born to mothers who were first pregnant in adolescence in social classes 4 and 5 … Some are of low intelligence, most of low educational attainment.’ But the killer line was this: ‘The balance of our population, our human stock is threatened.’ Joseph’s message was clear. The poor were breeding too fast, and the danger was they were going to swamp everyone else. (pp. 45-6)."

How is that racist?  I haven't listened to your link but your quote isn't about race at all.  'Social classes 4 and 5' - does that reference the 7 social classes as suggested here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-now-has-7-social-classes--and-working-class-is-a-dwindling-breed-8557894.html

 

(I have to add that the article you quoted from comes across as extreme but certainly of its day)

[Trojan]

How is that racist?  I haven't listened to your link but your quote isn't about race at all.  'Social classes 4 and 5' - does that reference the 7 social classes as suggested here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-now-has-7-social-classes--and-working-class-is-a-dwindling-breed-8557894.html

 

(I have to add that the article you quoted from comes across as extreme but certainly of its day)

No it's not about race, it's about class, which is just as bad.  It's about stopping the lower classes breeding, it's called Eugenics,its' what the Nazis practiced.  Once again your post says a lot about you.

[Saintslass]

No it's not about race, it's about class, which is just as bad.  It's about stopping the lower classes breeding, it's called Eugenics,its' what the Nazis practiced.  Once again your post says a lot about you.

It's not just as bad. It's nowhere near as bad. Racism is far, far worse than any discussion about so-called class.  And there is nothing amiss with believing that teenage pregnancies don't provide the best outcomes.  And to be honest I think governments of all shades came to the conclusion that teenage pregnancies were Not a Good Thing overall, even Labour as they made a concerted effort to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies in the UK, a policy continued in a different form by the coalition government and which has reduced teenage pregnancies in the UK to 1940s levels.  Have the Labour and coalition governments also been guilty of eugenics (and yes, I know what it is!)?  An aspect of the concern regarding teenage pregnancies was the low aspiration of girls who got pregnant in their teens and the subsequent low educational attainment when compared to peers who did not get pregnant in their teens.

 

PS: The quote you posted referred to women who first got pregnant in their teens, which is why I have referred to teenage pregnancy above.  Encouraging girls against having babies in their teens provides much better chance of them achieving their individual potential not only academically or in terms of their working life but also socially and emotionally.  I don't consider this to be eugenics, just common sense policy to enable girls and young women to secure the best possible chance for themselves and their future.

[Trojan]

It's not just as bad. It's nowhere near as bad. Racism is far, far worse than believing that teenage pregnancies don't provide the best outcomes.  And to be honest I think governments of all shades came to the conclusion that teenage pregnancies were Not a Good Thing overall, even Labour as they made a concerted effort to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies in the UK, a policy continued in a different form by the coalition government and which has reduced teenage pregnancies in the UK to 1940s levels.  Have the Labour and coalition governments also been guilty of eugenics (and yes, I know what it is!).

It's not just about teenage pregnancies, read the whole thing. It's about the lower classes not being fit to have children.  Just because New Labour approved of it doesn't make it right.  After all Thatcher (Joseph's disciple) described New Labour as her greatest achievement!.

[damp squib]

There is a world of difference between trying to reduce teen pregnancies and speaking of poor people collectively as sub human. He's literally using the language of Nazis.

You seem to have focused on one line in the speech and ignored the rest.

[Saintslass]

It's not just about teenage pregnancies, read the whole thing. It's about the lower classes not being fit to have children.  Just because New Labour approved of it doesn't make it right.  After all Thatcher (Joseph's disciple) described New Labour as her greatest achievement!.

I did read the whole thing.  I know it's not just about teenage pregnancies, and I explained in my post why I referred to teenage pregnancies. Teenage pregnancy, though, is key to the point made in your quote and I was replying specifically to the part you quoted.  I assume you quoted what you did because you thought it had particular resonance.

[Trojan]

I did read the whole thing.  I know it's not just about teenage pregnancies, and I explained in my post why I referred to teenage pregnancies. Teenage pregnancy, though, is key to the point made in your quote and I was replying specifically to the part you quoted.  I assume you quoted what you did because you thought it had particular resonance.

Damp Squib's post above says it all.  Joseph was a racist and a bigot.  TBH he wasn't (and isn't) if truth be told atypical of most Tories.

[Saintslass]

There is a world of difference between trying to reduce teen pregnancies and speaking of poor people collectively as sub human. He's literally using the language of Nazis.

You seem to have focused on one line in the speech and ignored the rest.

I've read the whole article.  The line referring to adolescent pregnancy was simply the one I thought key to the quote posted, which as I said earlier was what I was responding to. 

[Martyn Sadler]

You can hear it for yourself here Martyn

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0640j59

As ~Damp Squib says, how many other promising careers were ruined by casual racism of the type Keith Josseph showed here.

https://beastrabban.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/keith-joseph-and-the-tories-eugenicist-hatred-of-the-working-class/

"In a speech in October 1974, he expressed some of the attitudes towards ‘the lower orders’ that were once common among middle-class eugenicists. He argued that ‘a high and rising proportion of children are being born to mothers least fitted to bring children into the world and to bring them up. They are born to mothers who were first pregnant in adolescence in social classes 4 and 5 … Some are of low intelligence, most of low educational attainment.’ But the killer line was this: ‘The balance of our population, our human stock is threatened.’ Joseph’s message was clear. The poor were breeding too fast, and the danger was they were going to swamp everyone else. (pp. 45-6)."

 

As I said earlier, Keith Joseph was, in 1964, the Minister for Housing and Local Government, or, depending on when this interview took place, had recently held that post.

 

Geoff Palmer says the interview took place at the University of Reading, and one of the interviewers was from the Ministry of Agriculture, which seems perfectly feasible, given the nature of the research he wanted to do. But it seems less feasible that Joseph was one of the interviewers.

 

Joseph was the MP for Leeds North East at the time, and he had no obvious connection that would put him on an interview panel in Reading for a research post in the field of Botany at the University of Nottingham.

 

On the other hand his record as an anti-racist, and in particular his support of the Race Relations Bill in defiance of his party whip in 1965, is a matter of public record.

 

I'm not sure I can remember a great deal about what I did and who I spoke to in 1964, and I doubt whether anyone's memory is totally reliable about who said what in that sort of interview situation so long ago.

 

I certainly don't think an interview like that justifies your assertion that it proves Joseph was a racist and a bigot.

[damp squib]

I've read the whole article.  The line referring to adolescent pregnancy was simply the one I thought key to the quote posted, which as I said earlier was what I was responding to. 

 

How could that be the key line? The extract even highlights the obvious key line:

 

But the killer line was this: ‘The balance of our population, our human stock is threatened.’ Joseph’s message was clear. The poor were breeding too fast, and the danger was they were going to swamp everyone else. (pp. 45-6)."

 

If you read the single mothers quote in isolation -

 

 a high and rising proportion of children are being born to mothers least fitted to bring children into the world and to bring them up

 

- although phrased insensitively, he could be raising the issue in a whole manner of contexts. He could be discussing the effect that huge inequality of education, wealth and oppertunity in our society has on poor teenage girls, or the effect of patriarchical societies on women's reproductive rights. If the quote were in isolation your points would make sense. But it's not, it's part of a larger quote in which he explicity states that poor women and their children are inherently inferior humans and that the human race is is being negatively affected by their existence.

[Trojan]

As I said earlier, Keith Joseph was, in 1964, the Minister for Housing and Local Government, or, depending on when this interview took place, had recently held that post.

 

Geoff Palmer says the interview took place at the University of Reading, and one of the interviewers was from the Ministry of Agriculture, which seems perfectly feasible, given the nature of the research he wanted to do. But it seems less feasible that Joseph was one of the interviewers.

 

Joseph was the MP for Leeds North East at the time, and he had no obvious connection that would put him on an interview panel in Reading for a research post in the field of Botany at the University of Nottingham.

 

On the other hand his record as an anti-racist, and in particular his support of the Race Relations Bill in defiance of his party whip in 1965, is a matter of public record.

 

I'm not sure I can remember a great deal about what I did and who I spoke to in 1964, and I doubt whether anyone's memory is totally reliable about who said what in that sort of interview situation so long ago.

 

I certainly don't think an interview like that justifies your assertion that it proves Joseph was a racist and a bigot.

The masters degree was funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, so perhaps that was why Joseph was on the interviewing panel.  Your post implies that a respected academic is lying Martyn.  Why should he?

[Martyn Sadler]

The masters degree was funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, so perhaps that was why Joseph was on the interviewing panel.  Your post implies that a respected academic is lying Martyn.  Why should he?

 

The Ministry of Agriculture would probably have had an official on such an interview panel, not a politician, and I speak from having spent 20 years in academia myself and also as a former external examiner at the University of Reading.

 

I'm not accusing Geoff Palmer of lying, but I am suggesting that the memory plays tricks when we try to remember the details of what happened more than 50 years ago. Can you remember the details of conversations you had in 1964?

 

This is the first time I have ever seen an accusation of racism levelled at Keith Joseph, and, whatever his other faults, his public record doesn't suggest that the accusation stands up. His Jewish background made him very conscious of the insidious nature of racism in a way that other politicians perhaps weren't.

[Saintslass]

How could that be the key line? The extract even highlights the obvious key line:

 

 

If you read the single mothers quote in isolation -

 

 

- although phrased insensitively, he could be raising the issue in a whole manner of contexts. He could be discussing the effect that huge inequality of education, wealth and oppertunity in our society has on poor teenage girls, or the effect of patriarchical societies on women's reproductive rights. If the quote were in isolation your points would make sense. But it's not, it's part of a larger quote in which he explicity states that poor women and their children are inherently inferior humans and that the human race is is being negatively affected by their existence.

That was the political point being made by the author of the text you linked to.  But low aspiration leads to girls getting pregnant in their teens and that in turn leads to low educational attainment so therefore the key 'line' in the text you quoted (which, as I said before, was what I was responding to) is that referring to the mothers getting pregnant in their teens.  This has been widely recognised subsequently and public policy from all shades of government has been directed at lowering the numbers of teenage pregnancy by raising aspirations of girls and young women and discouraging them from relying upon the state (both approaches have worked well).  In the 1970s it would no doubt have appeared that teenage pregnancies were becoming a problem, as they were beginning to do (and were to become even more of a problem in subsequent decades).  Teenage pregnancies lead to poverty and low aspiration and low educational attainment, with exceptions obviously.

[gingerjon]

The Ministry of Agriculture would probably have had an official on such an interview panel, not a politician, and I speak from having spent 20 years in academia myself and also as a former external examiner at the University of Reading.

 

I'm not accusing Geoff Palmer of lying, but I am suggesting that the memory plays tricks when we try to remember the details of what happened more than 50 years ago. Can you remember the details of conversations you had in 1964?

 

This is the first time I have ever seen an accusation of racism levelled at Keith Joseph, and, whatever his other faults, his public record doesn't suggest that the accusation stands up. His Jewish background made him very conscious of the insidious nature of racism in a way that other politicians perhaps weren't.

 

The accusation - which he must have been misremembering about, the doddery old fool - has been made several times over the past 10-20 years at least.

[Martyn Sadler]

The accusation - which he must have been misremembering about, the doddery old fool - has been made several times over the past 10-20 years at least.

 

Can you cite some examples?

[gingerjon]

Can you cite some examples?

 

Quick google.  You're the journalist.  

 

I do wonder why the University of Nottingham haven't come forward to say that Keith Joseph could never have sat on such a panel.

[Martyn Sadler]

Quick google.  You're the journalist.  

 

I do wonder why the University of Nottingham haven't come forward to say that Keith Joseph could never have sat on such a panel.

 

I'm happy to leave it in your capable hands.

[gingerjon]

I'm happy to leave it in your capable hands.

 

It's okay.  Your snide, fact-free, innuendo-laden response has done its work.