Porteus Hall controversy
Price of Paradise · Hawaii Public Radio · aired 1998-02-01
Guests: Ronald C. Johnson (Professor Emeritus of Psychology, University of Hawaii); Peter Manicas (Professor of Sociology; Director, Liberal Studies Program, University of Hawaii); Jim Mak (Professor of Economics, University of Hawaii)
Duration: 1:05:36

[00:00:00] Randall Roth: Aloha, this is Randy Roth, host of The Price of Paradise show. We're broadcast live Sunday mornings on KHPR and KKUA and then rebroadcast Sunday evenings beginning at 8 o'clock on KIFO. Everyone who works to bring this program to you is a volunteer who believes in the importance of lively and informed public dialogue. We believe the brightness of any community's future is directly related to the level of activity in its marketplace of ideas. Our topic this morning has to do with a building at the University of Hawaii Manoa campus. It's called Porteus Hall. At least on the surface our conversation this morning will have to do with that building. It's quite possible that there are some other issues maybe even some bigger issues lurking below the surface but the first question is going to be should we rename Porteus Hall?

[00:01:38] Randall Roth: With me in the studio, I have Peter Manicas and Ron Johnson and with me by by phone, Jim Mack. Peter Manicas teaches sociology at the University of Hawaii at Manoa and directs Liberal Studies. He has published extensively on problems in the history, philosophy, and sociology of social science. Jim Mack has been in the economics department at the University of Hawaii at Manoa since 1970. Over that period of time he's been engaged in a variety of activities through the department including heading it up. He is perhaps most recently well-known in addition to having two articles in this morning's focus section of the advertiser as the editor of a book called Japan, Why Things Work, Why Things Don't.

[00:02:48] Randall Roth: UH Press just put it out, oh, within a matter of a few weeks ago and it it attempts and I think does a very good job of explaining the puzzles of the economics of everyday life in Japan. I would recommend that to anyone who's interested in how things work and don't work in Japan. And then Ron Johnson is a professor emeritus in the psychology department at the University of Hawaii. He was active on the faculty in the psychology department from 1962 to 65 and then from 1970 until 1993. He also is continues to be active. Currently he's involved in a native Hawaiian adolescent mental health study with the University of Hawaii Department of psychiatry. Peter, Ron and and Jim by phone. Good morning.

[00:04:13] Peter Manicas: Good morning.

[00:04:27] Ronald C. Johnson: Good morning.

[00:04:41] Randall Roth: My first question and I guess I'll direct it to you Ron Johnson. Who was Stanley Porteus, this fellow that the building is named after and the fellow whose life is that is at the center of a real firestorm at least on the campus. Who was Stanley Porteus?

[00:05:09] Ronald C. Johnson: Stanley Porteus was an Australian. Born 1883, died 1972. He was a rural school teacher who then became superintendent of an institution for the mentally retarded, found that the Binet test was out. That's an IQ test. IQ test, found that the Binet test was not at all predictive of how well his charges did in the real world and developed the maze test as an alternative to conventional intelligence tests.

[00:05:37] Randall Roth: So this thing called the Porteus maze test, he developed because he wasn't happy with how IQ tests were working with respect to these mentally ill people that are or retarded people that he was in charge of and tell us a little bit about this test.

[00:05:51] Ronald C. Johnson: Well, it consists of mazes. We've all seen them when we were kids, they're in the newspapers, funny papers all over. But using them he thought the Maze test measured for thought and planfulness. Using it of course, was the sort of ingenious thing, using it as a measure which required of course standardized develop a set of tests varying in difficulty and standardized them. So he knew exactly sort of each the level at each that each level that each of the tests reached.

[00:06:34] Randall Roth: And and scholars over the years and and others in using this maze test have found it to be very helpful and according to your article in the paper, they continue to use it.

[00:06:48] Ronald C. Johnson: Yeah, it's still, if anyone wants to check psych abstracts, they'll find that the maze tests are still used fairly widely.

[00:07:02] Randall Roth: So far as people in in your area are concerned, was Stanley Porteus a great man, a successful academic? How would you describe him in the eyes or through the eyes of of your peers?

[00:07:16] Ronald C. Johnson: Certainly, his maze tests were highly regarded. He received a distinguished scientific contribution award from the American Psychological Association.

[00:07:30] Randall Roth: And that's a big deal.

[00:07:44] Ronald C. Johnson: Yeah.

[00:07:58] Randall Roth: Okay. All right. Well let's let's scoot over to Peter Manicas. Um, Peter, and and I know you've been critical of having that building called Porteus Hall. Explain to us real briefly why it is that so many students and professors are demanding that the name be changed.

[00:08:26] Peter Manicas: Well, it it it exploded I think with a publication, the Kailua uh, which is a student association paper, publishing a whole bunch of extra extracts and the extracts are quite plainly racist. I mean, there's just no doubt whatever of that. They're all from his 1926 temperament and race book and that is what started the whole business and of course it started now because it had come up before in 74. Uh, when the building was first named, Bob Cahill wrote a extensive scholarly treatment making precisely the same argument, presented the board of Regents, I know Ron Johnson presented testimony at that time as well. The board, in its infinite wisdom, decided to heck with the evidence and they went ahead and named the building Porteus. So it isn't as if this is something new. This has been going on since day one.

[00:09:22] Randall Roth: Why do you suppose they decided back in 1974, notwithstanding these quotes from the 1926 book, why do you suppose they went ahead and named it after Stanley Porteus anyway?

[00:09:37] Peter Manicas: I'm going to speculate on that. Maybe maybe we can all speculate on that. Uh, it could be they just didn't care. It could be that they didn't know. It could be that that they were being politically correct, which is one of the great ironies of this.

[00:10:05] Randall Roth: And in your article in this in the the advertiser this morning suggested and and and maybe I'm reading more than what you intended to be there but it it seemed to me you were saying that whether it was them specifically or or all of us generally that we don't take seriously enough the naming of of monuments whether it be a building a street or what have you. Is that right?

[00:10:19] Peter Manicas: Oh, absolutely. I mean, the the the the the thing again is that one of the ironies of all this it seems to me is that when a community becomes self-conscious of itself, it's precisely when these kinds of questions arise. Now, most people are just not that interested in the names of buildings. And and plainly, they are important because they do represent us and where as if you go to any city, you go to any place in the world, you'll find monuments that represent that community. I mean, it isn't an accident that that St. Petersburg became Petrograd, became Leningrad, became St. Petersburg again. That's not an accident.

[00:11:01] Randall Roth: So you would suggest that probably there are a lot of of buildings and other monuments that were named carelessly that maybe we ought to go back and reconsider.

[00:11:15] Peter Manicas: Quite plausibly. It see it seems to me again it's not the sort of thing that one has to go back and systematically look look at every building, I mean, or every place. I mean, one has to it if someone finds a problem, then that problem can be raised and if there is a problem then we got to look at it.

[00:11:29] Randall Roth: Jim, what do you say to the people who who react uh with horror to that and say you're talking about selling to to the highest bidder something that reflects what we and in our values are all about.

[00:11:43] Jim Mak: Well, first of all, uh let me note that this idea is not new. Uh universities have been naming uh buildings after donors for a long, long time. In fact, uh the well-known Carnegie Mellon University is named after donor. I I went to a public institution studied economics, Purdue University and the program and the building uh that the program is located in is called Chronette building named after the founder of the Inland Container Corporation. Now, aside from that, I mean there are substantial benefits. It's a win-win situation for lots of different people for students, faculty, uh the community and donors alike. And in your article this morning you um actually indicated that uh a lot of universities while they don't publish it, they actually have a so-called price list where it's real clear what the minimum contribution has to be in order to name a building or a program or something else after an individual.

[00:12:25] Jim Mak: That's absolutely correct.

[00:12:40] Randall Roth: That's correct. I think uh um the article, however, this morning uh the title of the article was somewhat deceptive. It suggests that we rename all UH buildings. Well, you're we're not going to be able to find uh donors uh who want fix the names to all the buildings on campus but to the extent that these opportunities arise, they increase uh the total amount of resource that we have in the university and the students can only benefit. Is this another supply and demand thing, Jim?

[00:13:08] Jim Mak: Okay. Jim, I I know you've got some other things going on today if you can stay on the line for a bit, please do so and jump in anytime you feel like it. Otherwise, thanks a lot for uh for sharing your thoughts this morning.

[00:13:22] Randall Roth: In case you tuned in late, you're listening to the Price of Paradise Radio Show. My name is Randy Roth. With me in the studio I have Peter Manicas who uh teaches in Liberal Studies at the University of Hawaii and Ron Johnson who for many years was in the psychology department at the University of Hawaii and he uh was uh a friend and colleague of Stanley Porteus, the fellow for whom this building that's in controversy right now is named. Ron Johnson, a little bit ago, Peter Manicas said that it's beyond doubt and Peter I'm probably misstating this but something to the effect it's beyond doubt Stanley Porteus was a racist and in your article this morning, you feel strongly that he wasn't a racist.

[00:14:04] Randall Roth: Is the problem here that we're defining racist differently or or or or just how would you respond to someone like Peter who says Stanley Porteus was a racist?

[00:14:18] Ronald C. Johnson: Right. It does seem to me there are some differences of definition. Sometimes the word racist means a person that believes that there exist race differences exist. Sometimes, I think in a more vicious sense, racism means a belief in the superiority of one group over another group. Certainly Stanley Porteus believed race differences existed. He did not, however, believe that one group was superior to another in an overall sort of way. For example, the Aborigines do do very well at the Maze test as compared with things like the Benay or anything like that. And Porteus argued it was because the Outback is a very, very vast and trackless kind of place. They had to have developed a lot of spatial ability.

[00:15:28] Randall Roth: And I hope you'll forgive my ignorance but but are we basically talking about Darwinism? Evolution of the evolution of the species? Ultimately, yeah, ultimately, yeah.

[00:15:42] Ronald C. Johnson: He felt that uh persons from different medios went through different kinds of selective pressures.

[00:15:57] Randall Roth: Peter Manicas, is that what made him a racist or or was it something else that you had in mind when when you used the term?

[00:16:11] Peter Manicas: Well, he he he offers two possible distinctions uh two possible definitions. First, there are race differences. Uh I mean we could start with that one, the whole question of race which is a highly dubious construct to start with. Uh one might argue here that of course that was not the case at the time he was writing and therefore we shouldn't criticize him for that. Uh on the other hand, uh a good deal of uh of the argument that that why this remains a contested issue is the failure of very many good social scientists to see the use uselessness of a biological concept of race. Uh it's just a useless concept and and anyone who believes that somehow or another you can measure such differences I'm perfectly willing to call a racist because I think it's a dubious premise to begin with.

[00:16:53] Peter Manicas: But but going further, I mean, I I think Ron is being very generous when he says that uh he recognized that there there were differences but there were not invidious differences between uh peoples. I mean, there's just too many texts where that's just not the case. I mean, over and over and over again, we we have texts like Puerto Ricans and Filipinos vibe with one another for the invidious distinction of being last on the list of almost all trades.

[00:17:21] Randall Roth: Okay now, let me see. I don't know how how one responds to that, except to say to misread it.

[00:17:35] Ronald C. Johnson: Let me say first of all that certainly there are quotes from temperament and race that make me shiver, too. And that's this 1926 book from the beginning of Stanley Porteus's career. Go ahead. And I certainly commend Coleo because their five-piece review of temperament and race is by is really a very accurate, thorough review.

[00:18:03] Randall Roth: Okay, that's that's Coleo is our student newspaper at the University of Hawaii Manoa. And this last week every day they had a long article describing and quoting from this book that's at the center of the controversy.

[00:18:17] Ronald C. Johnson: Seems to me they did a very even-handed job while the quotes that have been circulating have not been at all even-handed and the best way of deciding whether I'm right in what I say is to look at Coleo versus the quotes. Okay, both available.

[00:18:31] Peter Manicas: Well, quite quickly, I disagree again on the Coleo uh version because it's mostly paraphrase and it seems to me the author, well-intended as he may have been, missed the main point. Uh, without having a a a a conception of of the project in front of him. It was very easy to do paraphrases that came out looking rather neutral. If in response to Ron, if you want to test it, go ahead and read temperament and race very carefully because that's the way to test it.

[00:19:00] Speaker 1: what changes mind on anything in 24 years.

[00:19:16] Speaker 2: In his defense, Stanley Porteus hasn't changed his position in 24 years.

[00:19:32] Speaker 1: If you couldn't even rewrite a sentence, the sentences are word for word from that testimony.

[00:19:48] Speaker 3: I'm sorry to interrupt you, go ahead and finish and I'm going to let Ron respond.

[00:20:05] Speaker 1: Yes, but my point is this, he keeps saying that Professor Porteus changed his mind over time. as if somehow that puts the 1926 writings out of the way when Porteus was in fact fully an adult and a professional. But the most important thing is that in the late as late as 1970, that is only two years before his death, four years before the building was named after him, Porteus published an essay entitled Possible Effects of Rate of Global Spin in which he claimed that dark-skinned people native to lands that lie close to the equator, including Hawaii, suffer from what he called ethnic group retardation. He was consistent throughout his entire life with this kind of thing. In 1969,

[00:21:26] Speaker 3: Okay, I'll come back to you because it's hard for me to keep so many thoughts in my mind at once. I'm going to give Ron a chance to respond to what you just said about the 1970 position on people around the equator, and then I'll come back to you.

[00:21:59] Speaker 2: The global spin paper? Right. A disastrous, no doubt about it.

[00:22:15] Speaker 1: So from 1926 to 1970, disastrous.

[00:22:31] Speaker 2: On the other hand, uh, let me make sure I understand when you say disastrous, disastrous in the sense that he was just playing wrong, or disastrous in the sense that that it supports the argument that he was a racist? It was just playing wrong, and certainly the implications have to do with racism. There's no doubt about it.

[00:23:04] Speaker 3: Are there some people who who think he's right? And if so, no nobody. Okay. So David, you made an excellent point, go for your second one.

[00:23:36] Speaker 2: Let me mention one more thing, though, before David goes on. That is, he did change in other ways. Uh, that paper was a, a, a dreadful paper. On the other hand, if you look at Austroid environment, external and internal, perceptual and perceptual and motor skills 1966. He certainly is highly supportive of Aborigines in that paper and argues that they have been very greatly underestimated in terms of their competence.

[00:24:25] Speaker 3: Okay, David.

[00:24:42] Speaker 1: Yeah, well, this is one of those things we can nitpick because I can reply to that. But let me, but let me make the point the point I'm trying to make is not one article. It's that throughout, is that he was consistent throughout his life. And in the last decade and more of his life, uh, and this is and I think this is very important. Um, he in he he was an associate and an activist on behalf of a series of openly, proudly racist and anti-semitic organizations, including, uh, he was a member of the advisory group to a the foundation set up to support William Shockley's plan to forcibly sterilize African-American women. Now, Professor Johnson, presumably thinks that all this sort of thing is guilt by association because he was a friends with and close to and an organizer on behalf of all of these right-wing anti-Semitic organizations.

[00:25:47] Speaker 1: But to say that to me, as far as I'm concerned, that that is like saying that critics of David Duke are engaging in guilt by association when they point out that he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party.

[00:26:03] Speaker 3: David, I'm going to give you the last word on this because I want I want Ron to have an opportunity to respond.

[00:26:19] Speaker 2: One quick question if I can of you.

[00:26:36] Speaker 3: Okay. Okay, go ahead Ron.

[00:26:52] Speaker 2: Uh, well, I know nothing about the Shockley business. It's all news to me. So.

[00:27:08] Speaker 3: Okay, David, you got the last word.

[00:27:24] Speaker 1: Yeah, okay. There's a lot of, if you're looking for footnotes to this I can give you some I can give you a website uh to look at. Um, but that's but I have another point. There's been a letter circulating on campus, uh, that I checked out and actually it is correct, and I just wondered about this. Um, Professor Johnson, it turns out, was Sylvia Ewan's, um, academic advisor, one of her academic advisors, uh, and on her dissertation committee in 1974-75, when all this controversy was going on. And Sylvia Ewan has now been made head of the committee to investigate the naming of Porteus Hall. Uh, which is wondering, uh, if as an attorney, you think and somebody who's obviously a specialist in conflict of interest given your, uh, work for the bishop estate and so, if you think that was an appropriate naming of a committee member, committee head?

[00:28:46] Speaker 3: Uh, am I under oath? Let's just say that when we're we're naming members of a committee and especially the chair, we want people that whatever they decide, uh, the entire community is going to believe that it wasn't a stack deck. Is that a good answer?

[00:29:35] Speaker 1: It's an excellent answer. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Bye-bye.

[00:29:51] Speaker 3: Oh, boy, this I didn't think anybody was going to ask me a question. Um, let's let's move on but before we do, Ron, as I listen to David, he makes some very good arguments and yet in your article this morning, you described uh, what's going on now, this attack on the life work and the life of Stanley Porteus as as being a form of McCarthyism. Um, explain that.

[00:30:24] Speaker 2: All right. Uh, they the now as I say, I never heard anything about the Shockley business before. It's news to me. But some of the attacks were taking things out of context. And as I say, uh, Callio, I think, did a very accurate job, but certainly the quotes and the SAUH, were, uh, all essentially one-sided. As you'll see, for example, in the Callio article, he was, uh, highly supportive of the Japanese capabilities, although he certainly was not happy with the thought that the Japanese were going to become the leaders of of Hawaii.

[00:31:12] Speaker 3: I wouldn't say supportive, I I would say he was extremely impressed, he was probably afraid that uh, he saw them as eventually uh, taking over.

[00:31:29] Speaker 2: He certainly did. Okay, well, let's uh, let's go to oh, Peter Manganeca. Well, I I join that, I mean, again, there's a sense in which one wants to say, even if the science was not pseudoscience and even if you in some at some level of abstraction wasn't a racists, his politics were just pathetically bad. I mean, anyone who could say and and mean that, uh, the Nordic races, uh, uh uh, peacefully conquered and therefore rightfully own, uh, Canada, the United States, and Australia and the Hawaiian Islands and therefore what brown skin people ought to be excluded. I mean, that's very bad politics and I, you know, I'm it it makes my skin crawl a little bit to know that we have a building on campus named after someone who said that. Putting aside the science.

[00:32:34] Speaker 3: You know, I'm I'm curious. I'm going to go to callers in just a moment but but when you raise politics, if there was a building called Ronald Reagan Hall, would would you be in favor of changing the name?

[00:32:50] Speaker 2: Would would I personally?

[00:33:06] Speaker 3: And and I guess my reason for asking the question is that right now we have the the John A Burns School of Medicine and the William S Richardson School of Law. We have a a number of names of of people who have been very much at the heart of the Democratic. Well, let me just finish. Are we running the risk once we start changing names, that as soon as we have a a political shift, if we have the Republicans back in control as they were before, the Democrats were in control, is there the possibility that anybody who didn't like the politics of a John Burns, for example, is going to say his politics was terrible and use that as the basis for changing the name of the medical school?

[00:33:39] Speaker 2: Well, sure, I mean, it seems to me that that it's an open question. It depends upon the politics. I mean here quite plainly, and also the process. I mean one of the things that I'm very much in favor of here would be some kind of open process with respect to this the whole the whole business. I mean, I think a committee is a good start, but I mean if now we we've got a committee that is stacked, we're in we're in trouble. I mean, no question there's going to be contested issues of this sort, and they're not going to be settled such that everyone is happy. I mean, personally, if you ask me, no, I have no problem with a Ronald Reagan building. I mean Ronald Reagan is president of the United States and know, who will probably leave a great legacy here. We could argue about a lot of the stuff, nonetheless, nonetheless.

[00:34:28] Speaker 3: So, just in extreme cases. Okay. Let's go to Steve from Manoa. Good morning, Steve.

[00:34:44] Speaker 2: Good morning. Uh, two two quick points. One, um, it has to do with a question of race. Uh, the Dr. Johnson raises a a couple of points where he says, um, but Mr. Porteus thought highly of the aboriginal race, or but Mr. Porteus thought highly of the skills of the Japanese and so forth. And I think that's really not quite the issue. The issue is the actual existence of race. Um, it's such a discredited uh categorization. Uh, pro or con. Um, the real intellectual I think, uh, problem and I'd like to hear people address it is that frankly, race doesn't exist and and it's been fairly clearly demonstrated. Although a lot of people believe it it does. Uh, popular beliefs not notwithstanding, it's not a defensible category in any social science. And it's almost unmeasurable. And because it's you can't measure something that that really isn't there.

[00:35:33] Speaker 2: And so that arguments based on the fact that Porteus might have said something good about some other race, really um fall on stony ground, I believe.

[00:35:49] Speaker 3: Secondly, wait wait wait. Okay. I'll wait. I'll see if Ron has a response, and he may not. But Ron, any any comments before we go to Steve's second point?

[00:36:22] Speaker 2: Race, the classificatory biologists, consists of a part separate breeding population that's been separated for sufficiently long sufficiently length of time. That individuals in that group differ in significant ways from other groups of the same genus of the same species. We have races of corn, we have races of uh of uh dogs within the zoological classification system. Um, and as I say, a race to a classificatory biologist, a zoologist, there's not a, it's not a uh, an emotional issue, but it certainly is about a system of categorization that's used with some frequency.

[00:37:11] Speaker 3: Okay. Steve, you had a second point.

[00:37:27] Speaker 2: I I I would only say I'd like to hear Dr. Manikas also on that issue. But yeah, my second point has to do with politics and and actually, uh, somewhat to do with Mr. Mock's um, uh, uh, presentation which no one has spoken to, which is this. Um, in 1974, the issue of the naming of Porteus Hall was highly political. Uh, lest one forget Hebdon Porteus and the family, and the and the question was at the time that the family would be modelly offended if we if if the name were objected to on the basis of the fact that the man was a blatant racist, which which fact was brought up at the time.

[00:38:00] Randall Roth: to have the hall named after him. Ron Johnson, any uh, comments on on what Steve from Manoa or Peter just said?

[00:38:21] Ronald C. Johnson: No.

[00:38:43] Randall Roth: Okay. Let's go to Sean in Waikiki. Oh, and by the way, if you tuned in late, this is the Price of Paradise radio show. My name is Randy Roth. We're talking about the possible renaming of Porteus Hall at the University of Hawaii, Manoa campus. If you'd like to ask a question or make a comment, our number is 955-8821. On a neighbor island, it's 1-800-955-8821. Uh on the surface, we're just talking about one building on one campus on one island, but personally, I think that there are a number of other possible issues that we could be talking about. I I personally see this as a bit of a Rorschach test, and uh how one looks at it kind of depends upon where that person's coming from as opposed to just the issue itself. Again, if you'd like to ask a question or make a comment, the number is 955-8821. We have Professor Emeritus from the Psychology department, Ron Johnson in the studio along with Peter Manacas, who is a professor in liberal studies, both at the University of Hawaii, Manoa.

[00:39:04] Caller: from Waikiki. Good morning, Sean.

[00:39:26] Randall Roth: Uh, good morning, you all. This is a great show and a great discussion. Um, I want to comment um, to Mr. Peter Manacas's um, article this morning that he um, print in had print in the paper. He was talking about the New Orleans parish school board, you know, and renaming the George Washington High School to another name, uh, because, you know, George Washington was a quote unquote slave owner and, you know, didn't believe in affirmative action. I mean, those weren't Peter's words. Those were the words of the the parish school board back in New Orleans. And to me, I think that is so narrow because you know, you're discounting so much of Washington's great accomplishments and stuff. And then what I really find hypocritical is that the same people that want to rename Washington are the same people that are I think these people should turn in their $1 bills with Washington's picture on it as far as I'm concerned.

[00:39:47] Randall Roth: Let's get a reaction from Peter Manacas, then I'll come back to you, Sean.

[00:40:09] Peter Manicas: Thank you. Yeah, here, here, I think there are two there are two kind of broad issues. Big issues, different and and not easy ones. And one is the the the the the the the shifting character of the community that that presumably is being represented by by names of of its streets and its buildings and its monuments. I mean, characters of the community the community shifts over time. Uh, the community's itself, in other words, the very quality of that community shifts over time. Um, and that of course raises then the problem a new every time you get to a certain point at which the new community or the community that is now, you know, dealing with these issues has a different perception than than the community that shifted behind it. Um, the other of course

[00:40:52] Randall Roth: Let me ask, does that suggest that it there there's there's a healthy aspect to the changing these? Absolutely. Absolutely, without question. I mean, I I I'm so glad you you put those words in my mouth because that's exactly the the the the the thing I like to make. In other words, the the the in addition now to the character, the community, you you have a shifting quality of understanding of that community, its own history and past, which comes to light with new knowledge. I mean, there is no question whatever that there's stuff that we didn't know 100 years ago that we now know. And it and now the point being, in the light of that, what are we now how are we to to deal with this? In other words, isn't it the case that we are better in many ways that we have a better understanding in many ways? Isn't it the case that that in fact is something that we should be proud of and and and be celebrate dealing with upfront in a democratic way? That would be sort of my next line of argument.

[00:41:13] Randall Roth: Okay, and let's ask Steve from Waikiki. What do you think of that?

[00:41:35] Caller: Oh, I'm Sean by the way.

[00:41:56] Randall Roth: Oh, I'm sorry, Sean from Waikiki.

[00:42:18] Caller: Oh, that that's not a problem. Um, well, I guess some of Peter's points as well taken, but, you know, the point I'm trying to make is, you know, especially with Washington, you know, who's you know, done a lot for the for this country, um, I'm just saying that, you know, when it comes to Porteus Hall or or, you know, New Orleans Parish, I guess people name names what they will. But all I'm saying is let's just not throw the baby out with the bath water. That's all I'm saying.

[00:42:39] Randall Roth: Okay. Sounds good. Thank you very much. moderation in all things including moderation or something like that. Let's go to William on a cell phone. Good morning, William.

[00:43:01] Caller: Good morning. Uh, I don't agree with the general principle of changing this. This is just the other political correctness that accepts the idea that everything that's occurred in America in the past is bad, and everything that's occurred since 1970 is good. And therefore, anything that was ever done by the founding fathers, or anyone up until the political correct folks have taken over, is a bad idea.

[00:43:22] Randall Roth: Let's get a reaction to that, uh, Peter Manacas, I got a feeling he was directing that at you.

[00:43:44] Peter Manicas: Well, I suspect so, but what do I what do I say to that? That's using political correct the way atheist is used, and communist is used. It's a sort of dirty word you throw at people. And you don't want to deal concretely and specifically with the with the cases, so you just call it a a PC move and let it go at that on the assumption that somewhere or another that covers the ground.

[00:44:05] Randall Roth: Ron Johnson, do you have any thoughts on this? You used the term political correctness, I think you did in your article this morning.

[00:44:27] Ronald C. Johnson: Maybe you didn't. I don't think I did. You have any thoughts on uh on the accusation that this is quote just politically correct, this argument that Porteus was a racist and the building should be renamed? No, I don't. I think that uh, the issues are there and they have to be dealt with and uh Okay. That uh I think it that the issues have been that essentially that the material presented that got this going again was was to a degree inflammatory. But the issue exists.

[00:45:10] Randall Roth: So you would you would say don't use the term politically correct, but on the other hand, don't use the term racist either.

[00:45:31] Ronald C. Johnson: Yeah.

[00:45:53] Randall Roth: Okay. Let's go to Pete in Kaaniohe. Good morning, Pete.

[00:46:14] Peter Manicas: See, Peter, are you still there? I'm still here. Can you hear me?

[00:46:57] Randall Roth: We can hear you and I apologize for the technical glitch for two seconds there. You're on the air.

[00:47:19] Peter Manicas: Thanks. Um, couple of things that I'd like to say because I'm kind of coming to you from the Graduate Student Organization at the university. I'm the vice president of that organization. And, uh, we too, along with the ASUH endorsed this renaming idea because of who Stanley Porteus was, what he was about, and what potential implications are for the future as well. Um, Stanley Porteus, we have good evidence to present, was a racist, but he was other things along with that. One of the things is that one has to consider where Stanley Porteus got his major funding. And it's looking more and more like where his major funding was coming from was from the Big Five sugar companies, whose interest it was to keep this sort of racism out there at the time. This isn't a Republic rat political issue, and um, we kind of don't like that sort of back and forth on which political party is correct, because there are those of us like me who think both of them are wrong. Um, but in the current climate, there's two things going on, and one is that we're trying to bring people together, and Stanley Porteus's name represents people being kept apart purposefully. The second thing is in the contemporary context of privatization of the university, that sort of direct linkage between business and academics, we think is very, very dangerous. And that's another reason for, um, putting this symbolic fight against Porteus up.

[00:47:40] Randall Roth: Okay. And Pete, your your first point, if if I got it correctly, you're saying that the mere fact that there is a controversy is reason enough to rename it because we don't want something that's divisive.

[00:48:02] Peter Manicas: No, that's not it at all because the um the fact of who Porteus was and what he represents is the issue. Okay. Yep. Um, the idea of separating races, uh, quote unquote, I think Peter's comments about what race is, um, is very, or he is not, or isn't yeah. Ridiculous. Yeah. Okay. So, um, just to to kind of clarify the era where we were coming from. It's a concern on a very variety of of sort of issues that come up all in this cluster.

[00:48:45] Randall Roth: Okay. Thank you, Pete.

[00:49:06] Peter Manicas: Thanks. Bye bye.

[00:49:28] Randall Roth: I'm here in the studio with Peter Manacas, who teaches sociology at the University of Hawaii, Manoa and directs the liberal studies program. He's published extensively on problems in the history, philosophy, and sociology of social science. And also with Ron Johnson, who is a profess- professor emeritus in psychology at the University of Hawaii. And and Ron, I know you mention in your article this morning that there's some irony in your quote defending uh Stanley Porteus because you did disagree with him on on a number of of important um points. Uh I would also mention that I I got and and not from you, by the way, uh from let's see, a John McArdle, who is the president of the Federation of Behavioral Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, uh heard you were going to be my guest on this program and sent me a very nice letter explaining that uh you yourself have won a very prestigious award, and basically, as I read this letter, it's because of of your work establishing that so many of Stanley Porteus's ideas were wrong. Did I did I misread this letter?

[00:49:49] Ronald C. Johnson: No, you read it right.

[00:50:11] Randall Roth: So, so you basically are on the side that says we shouldn't be uh talking about differences by race that really it's it's something other than that that pulls us together.

[00:50:32] Ronald C. Johnson: Now I think that uh the whole question of race is going to die out quickly, thank god. That uh a US census data shows that fourfold increase in black-white marriages across successive censuses is Um, So it's making the notion of race kind of go away if for no other reason than intermarriage. Yeah, and if there were huge difference if there were real differences across races, you can bet your boots that people who married would have that in mind. Uh, but they they they don't, they uh, uh they marry across groups as we see here in Hawaii, and it's actually now that it's possible. Now that you're getting people to to to marry someone you have to get to know that person first. Uh, and now that's possible for groups members of different groups to get to know one another, they're awesome getting married. Yeah.

[00:51:15] Randall Roth: Well, let me ask, and and I I think I know your answer because I've read your article and I've been listening to you, but there may be some people out there that are saying, you know, I've got a feeling that Ron Johnson is defending Stanley Porteus simply because he knew Stanley Porteus the man, and probably my hunch is he was a friend of yours as well as a a colleague of yours. Is is that part of what's motivating you right now, Ron?

[00:51:37] Ronald C. Johnson: Well, he certainly was a very gentle man. Um, I don't know where he got his funding, but on the other hand, I was just checking it out on my you know. How old was he when I got to know him? I met, he was 79 when I when I first met him. Uh, and he used me chiefly as a chauffeur for a while at least. He could drive from Manoa down to the university, but he was afraid to go down to Moiliili and the Willows. So he would call me up and told me to get myself ready. Um, which I did. I liked him a lot, but I also do think that he quite rightly got the award from the American Psychological Association. That the the Maze test is and still was and is a very thoughtful, a very well constructed kind of a measuring device. And uh Dave Stannard his email says that the Maze, unlike the Wexler, etc., was to show race differences. Actually, of course, differences are found no matter what test you use. The question is not are the differences there, but what are the basis of these differences. Okay. And also how important are these differences. Mhm. We don't know about the basis, but I think I can tell you one thing, that the differences across groups are trivial. It's compared with the differences within groups. And that the differences even within groups in terms of life success, are not very closely associated with life outcome. Mhm. Okay.

[00:51:58] Randall Roth: Um, we've got uh about 13 minutes to go and we've got a few open lines if you'd like to uh jump in and give us a call. It's 955-8821 or from a neighbor island 1-800-955-8821. We're talking about uh Porteus Hall, whether the name should be changed. Uh, should we be changing the names of streets or or anything else? Somebody was telling me one of the streets here in Hawaii is named after a Hawaiian chief who uh loved human sacrifice or something like that and that maybe we shouldn't as a society be encouraging that by allowing that street to be named that particular way. Uh I think they were kidding, but I'm not sure. While we're waiting for another caller or two to jump in, Peter Manacas, I'll bet you've got a few thoughts to share.

[00:52:20] Peter Manicas: Well, I I I'm I'm just delighted that that that Ron concludes the way he did just a second ago. I think if there's one real lesson that people should should get out of this whole argument, it's that. I mean, that the the the differences are just trivial and uninteresting. And uh I mean the differences among people's I would prefer, right? That that expression, um I within groups are certainly of greater significance. Um, one would pray that racism would go away once we we became convinced that that race is a junk concept. It may or may not. I mean, the the capacity of people to perpetuate this sort of thing is is seems to be almost endless and it despairs me. Let me let me make one other point though that hasn't come up and that you know, I keep talking about the community. It seems to me here you've got the university community as one of the issues here that's that sort of this centers on. And one of the of course the great changes that's occurred there, I mean I think quite quite happily right is precisely that you see. In the last uh uh 20 years, we've got lots of Hawaiians and Filipinos on the campus. And that's a a a great victory, you see, for this place. And it isn't overall I hope. I'm I hope to continues in this direction. And of course it's not surprising that given that kind of change, you're going to have people now who begin to look at the buildings and say, who is that person? And what does he stand for? The other of course community is the larger community of of Hawaii. I mean, if there's anything Hawaii is that makes it wonderful, it's it's it's diversity. I mean, we we we have a lot of problems with it. We have a lot of difficulties with it, but if if anything is wonderful about this place, it's the fact that as Ron Johnson points out here just a second ago, we've had widespread outmarriage. We have a hugely comp- complicated mix of of peoples here and we ought to represent ourselves that way.

[00:52:41] Randall Roth: Okay. Well, let's go to Jeff and Ron is is agreeing with all of that, I guess. I agree. Jeff from Hawaii Kai. Good morning, Jeff.

[00:53:03] Caller: Yes, sir. Good morning, uh Dr. Roth. Um, thanks for your program. Mhm. Keep it up. Um, I think two things I'd like to say. The first thing, um, once one of my professors once told me that change equals stress. And so I think, um, I just want to put that on the table. And the second point that I have to say is that, um, in scrutinizing um Stanley Porteus's work, you know, whether you're pro or in con, I think you also have to uh look at um the border regents and how political favors and politics, um revolve around and in the border regents. Um, back then and how they um continue possibly in today's uh time. And those are just two things um, in comments that I just want to make. But, uh, keep up the good work uh, Professor Roth.

[00:53:24] Randall Roth: Okay, thank you, Jeff. Um, something that came up earlier. Uh, uh one of our callers um, suggested that that Sylvia Euan, who is the chair of this committee that's looking into the renaming issue, that she had something to do with with Ron Johnson, and I think the implication, Ron, was that she might have a tendency to be on the side of of keeping the name Porteus Hall. Uh, I notice I've got a list of committee members in front of me, and one of them is is a student who has been probably the most vocal person, at least I think one of if not the most vocal persons on the side of of changing the name. Um, so you've got people on this committee who are uh at least perceived, again, I have no idea where where Sylvia Euan is, but the student I know from reading what she has written that she's for renaming it. Let's assume for a minute that we've got somebody else who's on on the other side. Is is that a a bad thing, Peter Manacas? Uh should we have people who who at least uh purport to have not made up their mind, or should we have a mix of people who who arguably, and again, we don't know where anyone person stands unless they've stated publicly where they stand. Um, your thoughts on this.

[00:53:46] Peter Manicas: Well, I mean, I think the first thing we we should make a distinction between the chair and the committee. The the chair's role is absolutely critical one. There's no doubt whatever that. I mean the chair can can define the agenda, can shape the agenda, can shape the outcome to that extent. So I would be very clear about that as well.

[00:54:07] Randall Roth: And and is is the implication because I know you were nodding when the caller earlier was questioning the selection of of of hers chair, is the implication that the folks who want it renamed uh feel that in order for the process to have integrity, there really should be a different chair? Is that the implication?

[00:54:29] Peter Manicas: I guess so. Now, this is all quite news to me. I must say, I mean, I I don't know who the committee is and and I don't know uh Sylvia in her and her and her her past. Um, I take it however, that this is an issue that if it if it isn't done properly, it's not it's going to exacerbate matters. Not make it not make them better.

[00:54:50] Randall Roth: Okay. Uh, Ron Johnson.

[00:55:12] Ronald C. Johnson: I served on her doctoral committee in 1976. That was not chairman of the committee. Pardon me, 1975. That's 20 long time ago. Uh, and the past year, I think I've had past year, I've had lunch with Sylvia once, and I haven't contacted her at all of course since this, since she was named as being on that committee.

[00:55:33] Randall Roth: So you don't think that it should cause her to be looked at differently simply because you were involved in in her dissertation committee?

[00:55:55] Ronald C. Johnson: Well, it seems to me that's pretty much of a stretch at least. Committee members are not that significant in the lives of of uh students. You've got to have five people on the committee is the size of it.

[00:56:16] Randall Roth: Okay. Does seem like a stretch to me, Peter.

[00:56:38] Peter Manicas: Well, part of the part of the problem of course with all of this business is that it it is that it's difficult to be democratic. I mean, the truth of the matter is the democracy is a very painful thing and you and in and it it takes a lot of work and effort, and we simplify matters immensely, of course, by appointing a committee and then saying now the committee will speak for us.

[00:57:00] Speaker 1: It's almost never the case that they do but in the in a short of a better process, I don't know what to suggest.

[00:57:21] Speaker 2: I've got uh somebody who called in and and didn't want to stay on the line uh didn't want to go on the air but they said, all right, if you're going to rename it, what are you going to name it? If you get rid of Porus, what's the new name going to be? Peter,

[00:57:43] Speaker 1: Well super, I mean again, going back to to to what Ron and I profoundly agree on here, uh the the the community, University of Hawaii, Manoa, uh is sadly lacking in any representation of of the folks who really are this community. I mean, there isn't a building named after a Hawaiian, there is no uh uh Marika Vena Hall, Why shouldn't there be? Why shouldn't there be a a series of places that represent that wonderful past. Are there any Filipinos? No. Uh, are there any Puerto Ricans? No. Are there I mean, we could go on and on and on. Actually, there's a whole bunch of folks you see that some are another, you know, just get gets got excluded uh for very good political reasons in the history of this university. Uh, and I think it's perfectly appropriate that one might say at this point, here's an opportunity for us to to to to make a representation that would be truly truly celebratory.

[00:58:04] Speaker 2: Ron Johnson, any reaction to that?

[00:58:26] Ronald C. Johnson: If we really want to get rid of any contention about the naming of buildings, we should name them buildings one, buildings two, buildings three.

[00:58:47] Speaker 1: New York public school system.

[00:59:09] Speaker 2: So you're you're saying it's there's going to be a certain degree of of controversy unless we take a generic 123 approach.

[00:59:30] Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. We could take an ABC.

[00:59:52] Speaker 2: Okay. What about this notion that we really Thanks. What about, so we do have a choice. We could go one 2 3 or ABC. Thank you. I thought maybe we're stuck with just one boring approach. Um, what about this notion that we're not just talking about buildings. That there's nothing inherent about a building that we would name it and we wouldn't name other things. If we're going to name a building, why don't we name other things beyond just streets, etc., and in naming streets or whatever it might be, again, Peter, is this something that again, through the democratic process, the community needs to to think in terms of what names and it needs to reflect our values, etc.

[01:00:13] Speaker 1: Yeah, I think so. Yeah, I think so. You know, and this is not it's going to be messy, contested, of course.

[01:00:35] Speaker 2: Of course. Okay. Well, we're down to just a couple of minutes, and so you each get to sum up what you think this conversation has has accomplished, uh where you think this process so far as uh the renaming of Portius Hall is concerned or anything else that strikes you as important enough to uh to highlight. Ron Johnson.

[01:00:56] Ronald C. Johnson: Well, one thing that hasn't come up that I think should be noted is that the temperament and race had to do with ethnic stereotypes.

[01:01:18] Speaker 2: And for people who tuned in late, that's the 1926 book, and that's primarily what people look to as proof when they say that Portius was a a racist.

[01:01:39] Ronald C. Johnson: Uh Ed Vanack did a study in 48 here published in Journal of Social Psych, Trudi Naki replicated it in 88. uh Both studies uh broad broad sample of individuals found that people still hold stereotypes, and that they haven't changed much across time. And that people have the same stereotypes with regard to themselves as others have with regard to them. Uh, stereotypes are are a bad thing because we're judging an individual in part as a result of their membership in a group rather than as an individual.

[01:02:01] Speaker 2: So when we say, generally, that that that Hawaiians tend to be good musicians, you would say, even if it's true, that it's counterproductive to think and talk in those terms?

[01:02:22] Ronald C. Johnson: I don't think stereotypes are a good thing. That we should judge individuals on the basis of them as individuals, and stereotypes dispose us in the other direction.

[01:02:44] Speaker 2: Okay. Peter Manacus?

[01:03:05] Speaker 1: Well, there's no question that stereotypes are are are are dangerous, no question whatever. Uh, it's not at all clear, however, whether or not there aren't certain kinds of things that one wants to say, usefully, um, that are not stereotypical. Uh, in other words, I would not want to argue that, for example, um, well, we can shift case, because we don't have any women named on this campus, either. I don't believe so.

[01:03:48] Speaker 2: Oh, and Portius was also accused of being sexist, not just racist.

[01:04:10] Speaker 1: Exactly. And was, I think, undoubtedly so. Uh, but that's another issue which we can come back to. But I mean the the question here of say differences between say genders, there there are useful things that one can say. But for the most part, however, they're not going to be differences that will will be one-sided. I mean, there's no question whatever, I mean, I I I, for example, profoundly believe that with the feminist argument, there's a lot of things about men that are not good.

[01:04:31] Speaker 2: Aren't you aren't you generalizing and categorizing? Well course what I say I don't want to throw out the baby with the bath that somebody accused me of doing earlier. Okay. So, men are from Mars and women are from. Well maybe they are. I mean, and that, I think, can be explained too. I mean, frankly, and you'd explain it socio-culturally, you'd explain it through the history of patriarchy and you know and and you'd explain it as a function of socialization processes. You'd explain it in lots of ways, right? Uh, and then the question becomes, you know, how do you deal with it? And again, I would like to say we're dealing with it better than we did 20 years ago. Thank heaven for feminist arguments.

[01:05:14] Speaker 2: Well, I would like to say, I personally found this a particularly interesting conversation with Peter Manacus, who heads up Liberal Studies at the University of Hawaii, and Ron Johnson, who's professor emeritus in psychology. And earlier in the show, we heard from Jim Mack, who is in the economics department at the University of Hawaii. The producer of the Price of Paradise Radio show is Susie Roth. The director of operations for Hawaii Public Radio is Jeff Alardi. You've been listening to the Price of Paradise Radio show. I'm Randy Roth. Aloha.