Alex Ferguson’s latest display of petulance threatens to tarnish a formidable legacy

The FA’s failure to punish the biggest child in the playground makes a mockery of "Respect" campaigns.

As Sir Alex Ferguson strolled towards the tunnel at Old Trafford on Boxing Day, his arm draped around the shoulder of his match winner, Mexican striker Javier Hernandez, the most decorated coach in the history of English football could reflect on another job well done.

Rewind 45 minutes, however, and the 70-year-old Manchester United manager had been anything but calm and serene.

Fresh from watching his team concede two goals in a league match for the ninth time this season and incensed at what he felt was an offside strike against his side, the combustible Scotsman marched onto the Old Trafford turf to confront referee Mike Dean and assistant Jake Collin as the sides returned after half-time.

Dean, himself hardly a shrinking violet, was taken aback as Ferguson, more regularly a man to save his vitriol for post-match interviews, made a bee-line for the official and let loose - much to the delight of the watching 75,000.

Somewhat inevitably, once the tirade had passed and the match had been restarted, United shook off their festive lethargy and regained a stranglehold at the top of the Premier League.

Understandably, however, it was Ferguson’s conduct that attracted most column inches in the post-match press conference despite not registering a flicker of interest from the Football Association’s disciplinary committee.

While Harry Redknapp and Roberto Mancini found themselves in hot water over comments made about officials during the festive period, Ferguson also mysteriously evaded censure for his attack on Michael Oliver over the referee’s performance in the Manchester club’s draw at Swansea ten days ago.

To be fair, neither incident was much worse than any number of managerial indiscretions at league grounds all over the country every week and without a report from Dean, there is little under their own rules that the FA can do to punish Ferguson’s Boxing Day rant.

However, the sound of FA silence in the immediate aftermath of both fixtures was just another straw on the back of the most beleaguered of sporting bodies and an indication that there is one figure in English football operating above the law.  

I wrote in September how confused thinking over the Luis Suarez and John Terry racism sagas had drilled major holes in the credibility of the FA but this latest failure is arguably more damaging.

By neglecting to constrain the nation’s most prominent manager time and time again, the FA are not only setting a corrosive example to young players emerging in the professional game with an engrained sense of entitlement- but they are also adding to the entrenched sense of tribalism that continues to affect supporters, players and managers in England’s top division.

In fairness, respect for officials is only an easy notion to follow until your team cops a dodgy decision four minutes into injury time and Ferguson is not alone in failing to see the bigger picture.

For the man himself, such a series of rants are inconsequential and completely logical. If, by hammering an official or lambasting a journalist he can get a rise out of his players or, in last week’s instance, the crowd, he will have deemed the move justifiable.

And why not? The Scotsman is so rarely admonished for his displays of insanity that the risk of an occasional reprimand is more than worth the potential benefit.

But for a man so keen on securing his footballing legacy, surely Ferguson should be looking to leave a better impression as a human being as the clock winds down on his career.

As previous seasons have culminated in title winning moments for his club, Ferguson has been known to spend time away from the spotlight of the Premier League.

When his side captured a first league title in four years as Chelsea failed to win at Arsenal in May 2007, Ferguson himself was watching his grandson play a crucial school league game, rather than events at The Emirates.

In the wake of Ferguson’s conduct over the last fortnight, one has to ask what the 70-year-old’s grandson will have made of seeing his esteemed elder throw tantrum after tantrum on the hallowed Old Trafford turf.

Chelsea’s melodramatic former talisman Didier Drogba was eventually shamed into changing some of his ludicrous on pitch diving antics after a conversation with his young son, however it is difficult to see Ferguson having a similar conversation with his extended family.

This is where stronger FA action may actually help the godfather of the Premier League.

Ferguson could and should have been punished each and every time he missed mandatory press briefings at the end of matches covered by the BBC as a result of a 2004 documentary. Instead, the Scotsman was granted seven years of grace before the BBC themselves went to Old Trafford, bottle of wine in one hand and brokered peace.

The FA, fearing the influence of Ferguson, stood by and did nothing.

The reality is however, that Manchester United’s most successful manager would rather secure a third Champions League title of his tenure than temper any of his antagonistic instincts in order to be remembered as a great man as well as a fantastic manager.

Ferguson’s legacy, as he and millions of Manchester United fans may argue, will be defined by trophies captured and not by displays of occasional decorum.

Yet, if the FA are prepared to be harder on him and force some humility from Ferguson at times like these, the United boss might just be left with a debt of gratitude to the rulers of the English game when the final whistle is blown on his career. 

Alex Ferguson shouts at assistant referee Jake Collin during the Boxing Day match against Newcastle United. Photograph: Getty Images

You can follow Cameron on Twitter here.

Spudgun67 via Creative Commons/https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
Show Hide image

It might be a pseudo science, but students take the threat of eugenics seriously

Today’s white nationalists and neo-Nazis make extensive use of racist pseudo-science to bolster their political arguments.

In January, the London Student published my investigation, which showed that the controversial columnist Toby Young attended the London Conference on Intelligence, secretly held at University College London. Shortly afterwards, I mentioned to someone in a pub smoking area that I go to UCL. “Did you hear about the eugenics conference?” he asked me.

He was an international student from Africa. “I applied to UCL partly because I thought it was safer than other universities, but now I’m not so sure. I worry about how many other professors hold the same opinions.”

A protest outside the UCL Provost’s office after the article was published attracted scores of students. “I have a right to come to university and not fear for my safety,” one told the crowd, exasperated. “Nothing has been done, and that’s what really scares me.”

While hecklers derided the protest as an overreaction, students have good reason for taking eugenics seriously. UCL has a long history of support for scientific racism, beginning with Francis Galton, the Victorian polymath who, among other achievements, founded the science of eugenics. UCL’s Galton Chair in National Eugenics, which survived under that name until 1996, was first held by Karl Pearson, another ardent racial eugenicist. Pearson talked about creating a nation from “the better stocks” while conducting war with the “inferior races”, and in 1925 co-authored an article published in the Annals of Eugenics warning of the dangers of allowing Russian and Polish Jewish children into Britain. The London Conference on Intelligence was held in a building named in Pearson’s honour.

Eugenics is most closely associated in the popular imagination with fascism, and the twisted ideology of the Nazi party. Yet racial eugenics was closely linked to wider European imperialism, as illustrated by one object in the Galton collection, contributed by Pearson. Dr. Eugene Fischer’s hair colour scale is a selection of 30 different synthetic hair varieties in a tin box, a continuous scale from European to African. Fischer’s work was used in the early 20th century by Germany to ascertain the whiteness of Namibia’s mixed-race population, even before it was used by the Nazis to design the Nuremburg Laws. In apartheid South Africa, Afrikaans researchers used his tools as late as the 1960s.

Its importance to the imperial project meant that eugenics enjoyed widespread support in British scientific and political establishments. Galton’s Eugenics Society, set up to spread eugenicist ideas and push for eugenic policies, had branches in Birmingham, Liverpool, Cambridge, Manchester, Southampton and Glasgow, drawing hundreds of academics to their meetings. It was a movement of the educated middle class, including leading progressives such as John Maynard Keynes, Marie Stopes and the Fabians. Society presidents hailed from the universities of Edinburgh, Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, and UCL.

With this history in mind, it is easier to understand why students take the UCL eugenics scandal so seriously. Science journalist Angela Saini, who has been researching the history of race science for her upcoming book, argues that the problem lies in the co-opting of pseudoscience for political purposes. “These people are on the fringes, they’re not respected in mainstream academia,” she says. “The problem is when people like Toby Young come in from outside and use these studies to promote their own political agenda.” (Young said he attended the conference purely for research).

The rise of the far-right in Europe and America also means that the tolerance afforded to racist pseudoscience is not a purely academic question. Today’s white nationalists and neo-Nazis make extensive use of racist pseudoscience to bolster their political arguments.

Our investigation into the London Conference on Intelligence uncovered the involvement of at least 40 academics from at least 29 different universities in 15 different countries. Among these was the Oxford academic Noah Carl, a postdoctoral researcher in the social sciences at Nuffield College, who has spoken twice at the London Conference on Intelligence. Carl has also written several papers for Emil Kirkegaard’s OpenPsych, which include two looking at whether larger Muslim populations make Islamist terrorism more likely, and one suggesting that British stereotypes towards immigrants are “largely accurate”.

One external reviewer responded to the last paper by stating that: “It is never OK to publish research this bad, even in an inconsequential online journal.” Nevertheless, the paper was featured by conservative US website The Daily Caller, under a picture of Nigel Farage’s “Breaking Point” poster. The far right European Free West Media cited the paper to claim that “criminal elements are represented by certain ethnic groups”, and on the blog of a far-right French presidential candidate under the headline “Study validates prejudices”. It even ended up on InfoWars, one of the most popular news websites in the USA, and can be found circulating on far-right corners of Reddit. The fact that Carl is linked to Oxford University was mentioned frequently in the coverage, providing legitimacy to the political opinions presented.

Another contributor to the London Conference on Intelligence was Adam Perkins of King’s College London, whose book The Welfare Trait proposed that “aggressive, rule-breaking and anti-social personality characteristics” can be “bred out” of society by reducing child support for those on the lowest incomes. Perkins actively engaged with far-right media outlets in promoting his book, appearing in hour-long interviews with Stefan Molyneux and Tara McCarthy. Molyneux doesn’t “view humanity as a single species because we are not all the same”, and argues that “ordinary Africans were better off under colonialism”. McCarthy was banned from YouTube for alleging a conspiracy to commit “white genocide”, and supports deporting naturalised citizens and “killing them if they resist”. Perkins himself attracted criticism last year for tweeting, alongside data from Kirkegaard, that Trump’s Muslim ban “makes sense in human capital terms”.

Perkins is not the first KCL academic to use his platform to promote contested science in the far-right press. In the 1980s, the Pioneer Fund supported the work of Hans Eysenck, whose work has been credited by his biographer with helping to “revive the confidence” of “right-wing racialist groups” such as the National Front by providing an “unexpected vindication from a respectable scientific quarter”. The original mandate of the Pioneer Fund was the pursuit of “race betterment”; it is considered a hate group by the US civil rights group the Southern Poverty Law Center. KCL did not respond to a request for comment.

An association with a high profile university can help bigots to legitimise their beliefs, but the infiltration of mainstream academia by eugenicists is even more complex than this.

After we exposed his involvement with eugenicists, Toby Young pointed out that the conference at which he actually spoke, that of the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR), was “super-respectable” and attended by “numerous world-renowned academics”.

He is entirely correct. The ISIR is home to many great scientists, and its journal Intelligence is one of the most respected in its field. Yet Richard Lynn, who has called for the “phasing out” of the “populations of incompetent cultures”, serves on the editorial board of Intelligence, along with fellow director of the Pioneer Fund Gerhard Meisenberg, who edits Lynn’s journal Mankind Quarterly. Two other board members are Heiner Rindermann and Jan te Nijenhuis, frequent contributors to Mankind Quarterly and the London Conference on Intelligence. Rindermann, James Thompson, Michael Woodley of Menie and Aurelio Figueredo, all heavily implicated in the London Conference on Intelligencehelped to organise recent ISIR conferences. Linda Gottfredson, a Pioneer Fund grantee and former president of the ISIR, famously authored a letter in the Wall Street Journal defending Charles Murray’s assertion that black people are genetically disposed to an average IQ of “around 85”, compared to 100 for whites.

The tolerance afforded to eugenicists threatens the reputation of respectable scientists. Stephen Pinker, the world-renowned cognitive psychologist, spoke at last year’s ISIR conference. Another speaker at the conference, however, was the aforementioned Emil Kirkegaard, a “self-taught” eugenicist who has written a “thought experiment” which discusses whether raping a drugged child could be defended, and whose research into OKCupid made international headlines for its “grossly unprofessional, unethical and reprehensible” use of personal data.

Saini spoke to Richard Haier, editor-in-chief of Intelligence, about the involvement of Lynn and Meisenberg. “He defended their involvement on the basis of academic freedom,” she recalled. “He said he’d prefer to let the papers and data speak for themselves.”

Publishing well-researched papers that happen to be written by eugenicists is one thing, but putting them in positions of editorial control is quite another. “Having researched Lynn and Meisenberg, I fail to understand how Intelligence can justify having these two on the editorial board,” Saini said. “I find that very difficult to understand. Academic freedom does not require that these people are given any more space than their research demands – which for a discredited idea like racial eugenics is frankly minuscule.” I contacted the ISIR but at time of publishing had received no response.

UCL has published several statements about the London Conference on Intelligence since my investigation. In the latest, released on 18 January 2018, the university said it hoped to finish an investigation within weeks. It said it did not and had not endorsed the conference, and had formally complained to YouTube about the use of a doctored UCL logo on videos posted online. UCL’s President described eugenics as “complete nonsense” and added: “I am appalled by the concept of white supremacy and will not tolerate anything on campus that incites racial hatred or violence.” UCL management has also agreed to engage with students concerned about buildings being named after eugenicists.

UCL’s statement also stressed its obligation “to protect free speech on campus, within the law, even if the views expressed are inconsistent with the values and views of UCL”.

Yet there is a direct link between the tolerance of eugenicists in academia and the political rise of the far-right. Journals and universities that allow their reputations to be used to launder or legitimate racist pseudo-science bear responsibility when that pseudo-science is used for political ends. As one UCL student put it: “This is not about freedom of speech – all violence begins with ideas. We feel threatened, and we want answers.”

Ben van der Merwe is a student journalist.