Talk:Kristen Clarke

Fox News Controversy

For context, go watch some of Tony Martin's speeches on the topic of jews and blacks. They're still available on youtune (for the moment). And here's a quote by Clarke in the Harvard Crimson. "Professor Martin is an intelligent, well-versed Black intellectual who bases his information on indisputable fact," [Clarke] said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:5198:9100:B817:15F8:E66D:F9C (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! I removed the section called "Controversy" because it gave undue weight to material reported in Tucker Carlson Tonight, a source which should probably be avoided as our sole source for facts and quotes, especially in a BLP article. Fully reproducing a letter Clarke wrote 27 years ago gives undue prominence to Carlson's suggestion that Clarke still currently supports Afrocentric pseudoscientific theories, something even the Fox News opinion piece admits may not be true.

I've reduced the material in question to a single sentence in the "Career" section which attributes the claims to Carlson. If this story receives coverage in other reliable sources which establish this as an actually notable "Controversy", I'd support expanding this material. Best wishes, RoxySaunders (talk) 06:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll go along with inclusion once there's a source that isn't Tucker Carlson stirring the shit on FNC, per WP:RSP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey there why are you so biased? I cited what exactly she said. The readers should be able to see what she said. I repeat i cited exactly what she wrote to the Harvard Crimson and her inviting of the antisemitic author. Abedidos (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a quotation of some of the content from her Harvard Crimson letter. It is important for people to understand that she actually endorsed this pseudo-scientific nonsense. That is part of being objective about the sort of things she has said. She clearly did endorse it and there is no reason to attribute this to Carlson. This is a direct quotation from her article "Five: Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities--something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards." She did not fully disavow this, but sort of waffled per the research below. Perhaps best to include the short quotation and her subsequent waffling. PeterNSteinmetz (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:RSP. In particular, don't use a primary source here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity:, WP:BLPPRIMARY doesn't apply at all, as the quotes from the Harvard Crimson are not a scientific primary source but a newspaper reporting on the issue at hand. WP:RSP doesn't apply either, for one, there's no WP consensus that Fox News isn't, for much as it may be despised here, else, the veracity of the quotes isn't disputed as they are sourced to the Harvard Crimson, whose notability and reliability isn't disputed. What's noteworthy about the Fox piece is the precisely its political commentary, it's not needed as a source for the quotes. That this commentary may not please the overwhelming majority of established editors over here or that it is deemed irrelevant ...is irrelevant. See also my argument below--the way this is handled by WP is outright terrible. I started here 16 years ago when there was at least a modicum of proper process, this is turning into a nightmare. tickle me 19:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

A letter to the editor written by Clarke herself is primary when the subject is Clarke herself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

a) RoxySaunders collected several articles in the Harvard Crimson below that document the scandal at the time, the letter is only one of them.

b) Even on the assumption that the letter has this role here it's not only perfectly fine to use a primary source to source a quote, it's the best possible way of sourcing anything. tickle me 20:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Here are some more news sites talking about the issues at hand. If people take issue with Carlson being the main source, which I get, I think this will work. [1] [2] 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Singapore's International Business Times has an article here (https://www.ibtimes.sg/kristen-clarke-bidens-civil-rights-division-appointee-black-supremacist-54877) that may be relevant. It notes social media users have labelled Clark a Black supremacist and anti-Semite base on her '94 words and acts. It does not clarify whether she still holds to her college views. A bit of random searching however did find a reference to Clarke's involvement with a case of voter intimidation by Black Panthers (Black Supremacists) in Philadelphia 2009. She denied being responsible for getting the complaint dismissed but admitted having talked with DoJ lawyers and others. Given the new allegation against her that may or may not be relevant. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 人族 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey guys regarding this issue, I just came across the controversy after searching her name online and I think its definetly worth writing on, she is getting a lot of flack from right-wing media about it and especially since this is something that she is gaining lots of publicity for, we can mention that these are views she had in the past and she may or may not have the same views now, just my view on it. It seems to be a the biggest controversy involving her thus far which is why we should probably include it: https://www.jta.org/quick-reads/kristen-clarke-top-biden-civil-rights-nominee-says-she-erred-in-inviting-anti-semitic-author-to-speak-while-at-harvard.Anish631 (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Anish631

Controversy

On January 11th, 2021, Kristen Clarke came to prominence over remarks she made in 1994 when she invited widely considered anti-semetic conspiracy-theorist professor Tony Martin as a guest speaker to Harvard as the leader of the Black Student Association. In defense of Martin, Clarke told Harvard’s student newspaper, The Harvard Crimson, that “Professor Martin is an intelligent, well-versed black intellectual who bases his information of indisputable fact.” On January 14th, 2021; she apologized for her remarks from when she was 19 and said it was a choice she regretted. She said, "Giving someone like him a platform, it’s not something I would do again".

References

I added the criticisms of Kristen Clarke inviting Tony Martin to Harvard onto the Wikipedia page, for now I won't add the alleged quotes of "black supremacist conspiracy theories/race realism" until either there is further clarification on it, or if she comes out and publicly makes a statement about it.Anish631 (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Anish631

Collected articles from The Harvard Crimson incident, circa 1994

I didn't think I'd spend my Monday night becoming grossly invested in gossipy squabbles from a college newspaper, but if Fox News can do it to further their agenda, then I suppose I have no choice but to do the same. Below I present (to the best of my ability) an annotated list of archived articles in The Harvard Crimson, providing additional context to the subject's alleged claims endorsing black supremacist pseudoscience.

• "Defending The Bell Curve" (Oct 24, 1994) – An opinion piece by G. Brent McGuire defending the controversial book, The Bell Curve. McGuire suggests that higher SAT scores among white students prove a corelation between race and intelligence.
• "Blacks Seek An End to Abuse" (Oct 28, 1994) – Letter to the editors coauthored by Kristen Clarke and Victoria Kennedy, criticizing the piece. Clarke & Kennedy "the following theories and observations", as five counter-points based on the melanin theory.
• "Book Sparks Campus Debate" (Oct 28, 1994) – A synthesis piece, contrasting Clarke and McGuire's arguments. Notes that "Clarke [...] said those views are not offered as her own."
• "Clarke Should Retract Statements" (Nov 4, 1994) – The Crimson Staff accuse Clarke of bigotry and call for her to print a retraction or step down as BSA president. Clarke is quoted here distancing herself and Kennedy from the melanin claim: "The information [contained in the letter] is not necessarily something we believe, but some information that we think those pursuing a true understanding of The Bell Curve theory should either address, ignore or refute."
• "Call for Retraction Not Professional" (Nov 7, 1994) – Letter to the editors from a student defending Clarke: "I was confused and concerned about the content of Clarke's letter, which mentioned various theories claiming Blacks are genetically superior to whites. But I took the time to talk to Clarke and realized that she did not share those views. The point of Clarke's letter, as explained to me, seemed to be that racist opinions of white Harvard 'scholars' are publicly debated while racist opinions of Black 'scholars' are categorically rejected.
• "Fire with Fire" (November 9, 1994) - Added by DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• "Crimson Is No Friend of Black People" (December 5, 1994) - Former presidents of BSA defend Melanin Theory "that darker-skinned people may indeed benefit--other than cosmetically--from the presence of melanin" DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• "Crimson Too Hard on Clarke" (Feb 18, 1995) — Letter from Victoria Kennedy (coauthor of "Blacks Seek An End to Abuse"): "I realized that I have never before read so many editorials in one newspaper that were plagued by a lack of clarity, disregard for the truth, illogical deductions and overall stupidity such as those in The Harvard Crimson."

With this additional context (notably, Clarke's repeated disavowal of the melanin claim, and the fact that the quotes attributed to her were actually coauthored by another student), I believe it becomes rather clear that Clarke was not actually endorsing the ideas which Fox News suggests she was/is. The quotes in question were taken out of context, and probably shouldn't be given extensive coverage on the page as if they were core beliefs Clarke still espouses to this day.

I reiterate my previous statement that unless this "Controversy" receives notable coverage in external sources (preferably ones who aren't so greatly interested in digging up dirt on Biden's cabinet), it probably does not deserve more than a cursory mention, either as part of Education, or as a small facet of the media coverage surrounding Clarke's nomination. If I got something wrong here, or if you think I'm a POV-pushing leftist whitewashing ninny, let me know. Cheers, RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 09:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This simply isn't true: read through the articles and it's clear not just that it can't be 'satire', but that she believed what she signed her name to. The only source stating that she meant it as satire is herself.

Look at the article "Crimson is No Friend of Black People". Black Students Association defends Melanin theory in a very non-satirical way. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point of the "controversy". She invited a bigot known for hate speech. She admitted this was a mistake. This isn't just the "media" twisting her words. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Seeing your defense of Biden on multiple pages, I'm more concerned that you think defending a guy who voted for two wars, financial deregulation, and wrote a crime bill that disproportionately targeting minorities is "leftist". I think that alone indicates a lack of judgement.2600:8805:A980:9E0:411:B08D:D0D4:20AA (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It takes an Orwellian amount of willful appropriation of semantics and grammar to imply that this is not an endorsement of the theories presented:

In response to those who defend The Bell Curve ("Defending The Bell Curve," Opinion, Oct. 24, 1994), please use the following theories and observations to assist you in your search for truth regarding the genetic differences between Blacks and whites.

* One: Dr. Richard King reveals that at the core of the human brain is the "locus coeruleus" which is a structure that is Black because it contains large amounts of (neuro) melanin which is essential for its operation. (... Two, Three, Four, Five: Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities--something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards.)

... Kristen Clarke '97 Victoria Kennedy '97, Clarke is president of the Black Students Association. [3]

Somebody who regards these "theories and observations" as worthless humbug couldn't possibly offer them an academic body "to assist [in the] search for truth."

It likewise takes an Orwellian approach to deny that the author takes these "theories" as serious science worthy to be addressed or at least refuted by serious scholars.

"This information is not necessarily something we believe," she said, "but some information that we think those persuing [sic!] a true understanding of the Bell Curve theory should either address, ignore or refute." [4]

This has been a bitter debate at Harvard, indeed, this is well sourced, so it's wikipedic as such alone. Tucker Carlson is one of the most prominent US journalists, so if he makes this a major issue it's noteworthy as well. The fact that he is despised around here is irrelevant. That this quote is matter of contention, even of deletion, speaks of the sorry state WP has come to. tickle me 20:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Melanin theory?!? You have got to be fucking kidding me!. 24.1.186.237 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The notion that white people are uniquely evil and prone to degeneration (!) and therefore must be dealt with one way or the other has been a hallmark of so-called progressive academic thought since at least the sixties, see below--it informs elite discourse and practice, presently. So it's irrelevant if the theories put forward by Mrs. Clarke for scientific consideration are preposterous, it's relevant that she wrote as much. If she claims to have meant it otherwise that can and should be noted as well without qualification pro or contra.

• »The white race is the cancer of human history;« It »eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads« and upsets »the ecological balance of the planet«

Susan Sontag, 1967, Partisan Review, p. 57, 58, Susan_Sontag#White_civilization_as_a_cancer

• »...with us [Europeans] there is nothing more consistent than a racist humanism since the European has only been able to become a man through creating slaves and monsters. To kill an European is to kill two birds with one stone, to destroy an oppressor and the man he oppresses at the same time: there remain a dead man, and a free man;«

Jean-Paul Sartre, 1961, Preface to Frantz Fanon’s “Wretched of the Earth”, marxists.org

• bloomberg.com: »American Prosperity Depends on a Nonwhite Future«

• faz.net, FAZ: »[The German Minister of Finance] Schäuble on the refugee crisis : "Isolation would let Europe degenerate into inbreeding"« (»Schäuble zu Flüchtlingskrise: „Abschottung würde Europa in Inzucht degenerieren lassen“«)

• nytimes.com: »We Can Replace Them: ...an embittered white conservative minority [is] terrified at being swamped by a new multiracial polyglot majority. ... American voters can do to white nationalists what they fear most. Show them they’re being replaced.«

tickle me 20:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

First you decided it was not worthy of letting it be on the controversy section because it was poorly sourced(which you fucking know it is reliable) clearly sending political message to those who are trying to write it down which is fully sourced now. But then now you deem it to be out of context? Well let the readers decide how to interpret the facts. That is the main reason it is called "controversy" because it depends on how someone interprets the given fact. Are you suggesting that a pseudoscientific melanin thoery should have been give a place like the what the bell curve claims? Which is scientifically backed?. You have got to be fucking kidding me. If it was a conservative claiming some shit like this it would have been here no matter the context behind it. Abedidos (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Abedidos: When I invited editors to call me an embittered leftist hack, perhaps this was an inappropriate use of sarcasm. I am chiefly interested in ensuring that articles about living persons give neutral coverage of all notable viewpoints, in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. The criticisms of Clarke are notable, and should be included on the article. The lengthy quotations from the subject—quotes chiefly notability for being mined by Fox News as "shocking claims"—did not seem like neutral coverage, so I don't think they should be included on the article. Our fundamental biases mean that we all have differing ideas about neutrality, and that's okay. Let's discuss them without resorting to personal attacks, and reach a consensus which improves this article. Best wishes, RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 01:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

re: "did not seem like neutral coverage"

@RoxySaunders:, that's irrelevant, notability depends on the notability of the source, not on the POV assessment of WP editors whether the reporting is neutral. WP:NPOV only applies to WP editors, not sources. Any non-progressive politician having peddled racist pseudo-science would have been swamped by quotes and commentary in WP in minutes. tickle me 17:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with tickle me more. Too made editors are ideologically motivated and try to muddy the waters by using phrases like WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:Notability, where they do no apply. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson calls Wikipedia corrupt

On January 12, 2021, administrator MelanieN protected our BLP of Kristen Clarke for one week, requiring autoconfirmed or confirmed access, due to violations of the biographies of living persons policy. This came in the wake of the January 11, 2021, edition of Tucker Carlson Tonight at Fox News reporting statements Clarke made while a Harvard undergraduate, and specifically her 1994 letter to The Harvard Crimson expressing her views on race science. On the January 13, 2021, edition of Tucker Carlson Tonight, the host lashed out, saying that Wikipedia "locked Kristen Clarke's entry after our segment, after our fresh reporting, and that prevented anyone who might have added references to her lunacy to her entry on Wikipedia. That's corrupt." I recount this here not because I think it should be added to Clarke's entry, but simply to inform editors about public criticism over how we have handled the matter. NedFausa (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is this relevant to anything? Wikipedia doesn't care whether other people call Wikipedia corrupt. If we did, that would make Wikipedia less reliable, not more. Warren Dew (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that the public response, including by those in the media, to what we do as Wikipedia editors is irrelevant. For whom are we creating this encyclopedia? Surely not just for ourselves. NedFausa (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an unfunny joke. You have left-leaning admins and leftist higher-ups which tow the party line reinforced with left leaning 'news' which you then claim is 'reputatable sources'. Everyone who ever used this place other than for STEM topics (even then) will notice rabid leftism and post-modernist thoughts and views. Unless is it STEM (cautiously), nobody in acedemia takes this wikipedia thing seriously. Wikipedia is not reliable outright, Warren Dew, and don't fool yourself into thinking that it is. As long a human has an editing privlidge along with admin privlidge then bias will creep in. 110.174.199.105 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, a couple of points. First: I semi-protected the article because controversial material was being added that was either unsourced or sourced only to unreliable sources (such as Tucker Carlson, who does not meet our standards requiring "editorial control" and "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy"). The addition of such material violated our policy about posting negative information about living persons. Second: despite what Tucker Carlson claims, the protection does not lock out “anyone”, only brand new users; everyone else can still edit it. Third: these issues are under discussion here on the talk page right now, and consensus may very well be reached to add something on the controversy; if they agree upon a wording, any of the discussants will be able to add it to the article. Finally: when I protect an article about a person, it is not to protect the person; it is to protect Wikipedia - in particular WP’s guiding principles of verifiability and neutrality. It harms Wikipedia to have vandalism or false information in articles. So I have on my watchlist hundreds of controversial people, from all sides of the political spectrum, so that if their articles start to be vandalized I can jump in with protection. Similarly, when I watch the news and learn about a current situation that might result in vandalism - often some controversy involving a politician or a judge - I immediately check their article to see if it needs protection, and I apply it if it does. I often wind up protecting the pages of politicians I can’t stand in real life. Because I’m not protecting them; I’m protecting Wikipedia. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Interesting irony: the exact same protection against vandalism is currently in place for the article Tucker Carlson. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

"The addition of such material violated our policy about posting negative information about living persons. " - in this case why is it that in cases of conservative politicians and celebrities, the criticism section is often longer than the the rest of the article, and even in some cases if an obscure leftist blogger accuses that person with something, it's presented as relevant facts? Wikipedia declined sharply since I last was actively involved over 10 years ago, and it had a political bias even back then. --2A02:2F07:D704:1C00:3872:33B:7421:5EFA (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Melanin Theory

• What I think should be changed: After the words "due to their higher levels of melanin." add the sentence, "Melanin is a natural pigment in humans that determines the color of our hair and skin, however, it has never been shown to increase a person's intelligence or physical strength."
• Why it should be changed: Many people do not know what melanin is so it is valuable to briefly define it and explain that it has not been shown to increase intelligence or physical strength. I am a family physician and I use simple explanations of medical terminology with my patients that they seem to appreciate very much!
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://www.healthline.com/health/melanin-in-hair and </ref></ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin_theory

2600:8801:2900:2B83:C1B5:534A:2525:CBA5 (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

References

"Satirical" Claim

This fact-check in Newsweek [5] says that there was no evidence at the time that Clarke intended what she wrote to be satire as opposed to actually thinking it was true. The current wording gives to credence only to her claim now that it was, this should be added as a counterclaim. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

COI edits

A lot of content remains in the article from this large and obviously WP:COI edit made a year ago. I have addressed some of the more obvious issues, but a lot of boosterism remains in the content and sourcing, and I've tagged the article accordingly. Marquardtika (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)