There is much talk about John Derbyshire‘s notoriously-racist column published in Taki last week. Not just because it was so nastily anti-black, but also because Derbyshire was fired from National Review as a result.
Derbyshire’s “latest provocation, in a webzine, lurches from the politically incorrect to the nasty and indefensible,” National Review Editor Rich Lowry declared in a post on Saturday. “So there has to be a parting of the ways.”
Though originally from the UK, Derbyshire lives on Long Island. His earliest column for National Review Online is from the year 2000. He hasn’t responded to a request for comment. He was with the publication since 1998.
Derbyshire’s column drew widespread criticism. In Washington, journos and political types weighed in over the weekend.
“I should be offended by this Derbyshire piece but it’s so incoherent that I can’t tell why. Probably my Negroid IQ”– The Atlantic‘s Ta0Nehisi Coates.
“Good news for Derbyshire: [Breitbart.com] is always looking for race-baiting writers.”– MMfA’s Eric Boehlert.
“I know I don’t,”– National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru responding to a tweet from ObsoleteDogma who asked if anyone at the publication wants “to be associated with someone who publishes racist trash like this.”
“At what age should parents have ‘the talk’ with their kids about John Derbyshire?– Former White House speechwriter Jon Lovett.
Some reaction from the comments section of the column:
- “[D]ownright disgusting way of messing up the kids,” one said.
- “Well, he’s done a public service, having the racists out themselves by allowing them to pretend to be ‘hard-headed clear thinkers,’ who extrapolate a mugging into a theory of eugenics,” said another.
- And, “Is there something statistically incorrect about this article?”