Steven Pinker occupies a role that is rare in American life: the celebrity intellectual. The Harvard professor pops up on outlets from PBS to the Joe Rogan podcast, translating dense subjects into accessible ideas with enthusiasm. Bill Gates called his most recent book “my new favorite book of all time.”
So when more than 550 academics recently signed a letter seeking to remove him from the list of “distinguished fellows” of the Linguistic Society of America, it drew attention to their provocative charge: that Pinker minimizes racial injustices and drowns out the voices of those who suffer sexist and racist indignities.
But the letter was striking for another reason: It took aim not at Pinker’s scholarly work but at six of his tweets dating back to 2014 and at a two-word phrase he used in a 2011 book about a centurieslong decline in violence.
“Dr. Pinker has a history of speaking over genuine grievances and downplaying injustices, frequently by misrepresenting facts, and at the exact moments when Black and brown people are mobilizing against systemic racism and for crucial changes,” their letter stated.
The linguists demanded that the society revoke Pinker’s status as a “distinguished fellow” and strike his name from its list of media experts. The society’s executive committee declined to do so last week, stating, “It is not the mission of the society to control the opinions of its members, nor their expression.”
But a charge of racial insensitivity carries power in the current climate, and the letter sounded another shot in the fraught cultural battles now erupting in academia and publishing.
Also this month, 153 intellectuals and writers — many of them political liberals — signed a letter in Harper’s Magazine that criticized the current intellectual climate as “constricted” and “intolerant.” That led to a fiery response from opposing liberal and leftist writers, who accused the Harper’s letter writers of elitism and hypocrisy.
In an era of polarizing ideologies, Pinker, a linguist and social psychologist, is tough to pin down. He is a big supporter of Democrats and donated heavily to former President Barack Obama, but he has denounced what he sees as the closemindedness of heavily liberal U.S. universities. He likes to publicly entertain ideas outside the academic mainstream, including the question of innate differences between the sexes and among different ethnic and racial groups. And he has suggested that the political left’s insistence that certain subjects are off-limits contributed to the rise of the alt-right.
Reached at his home on Cape Cod, Pinker, 65, noted that as a tenured faculty member and established author, he could weather the campaign against him. But he said it could chill junior faculty who hold views counter to prevailing intellectual currents.
“I have a mindset that the world is a complex place we are trying to understand,” he said. “There is an inherent value to free speech because no one knows the solution to problems a priori.”
He described his critics as “speech police” who “have trolled through my writings to find offensive lines and adjectives.”
The letter against him focuses mainly on his activity on Twitter, where he has some 600,000 followers. It points to his 2015 tweet of an article from The Upshot, the data and analysis-focused team at The New York Times, which suggested that the high number of police shootings of Black people may not have been caused by racial bias of individual police officers but rather by the larger structural and economic realities that result in police having disproportionately high numbers of encounters with Black residents.
“Data: Police don’t shoot blacks disproportionately,” Pinker tweeted with a link to the article. “Problem: Not race, but too many police shootings.”
— Steven Pinker (@sapinker) October 17, 2015
The linguists’ letter noted that the article made plain that police killings are a racial problem, and accused Pinker of making “dishonest claims in order to obfuscate the role of systemic racism in police violence.”
But the article also suggested that, because every encounter with police carries danger of escalation, any racial group interacting with police frequently risked becoming victims of police violence, due to poorly trained officers, armed suspects or overreaction. That appeared to be the point of Pinker’s tweet.
Another expert on urban Crime, Ron Brunson, points out: Protests focus on over-policing. But under-policing is also deadly. https://t.co/BvuoYDBPaH
— Steven Pinker (@sapinker) June 14, 2020
Don’t abolish the police. Patrick Sharkey, researcher on urban violence & its decline, writes: “Cops prevent violence. But they aren’t the only ones who can do it.” https://t.co/L8e4EIIyfb
— Steven Pinker (@sapinker) June 14, 2020
But in those tweets, Pinker had linked to the work of scholars who are widely described as experts on urban crime and urban violence and its decline.
“‘Urban’ appears to be a usual terminological choice in work in sociology, political science, law and criminology,” wrote Jason Merchant, vice provost and a linguistics professor at the University of Chicago, who defended Pinker.
Another issue, Pinker’s critics say, is contained in his 2011 book, “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.” In a wide-ranging description of crime and urban decay and its effect on the culture of the 1970s and 1980s, he wrote that “Bernard Goetz, a mild-mannered engineer, became a folk hero for shooting four young muggers in a New York subway car.”
The linguists’ letter took strong issue with the words “mild-mannered,” noting that a neighbor later said that Goetz had spoken in racist terms of Latinos and Black people. He was not “mild-mannered” but rather intent on confrontation, they said.
The origin of the letter remains a mystery. Of 10 signers contacted by the Times, only one hinted that she knew the identity of the authors. Many of the linguists proved shy about talking, and since the letter first surfaced on Twitter on July 3, several prominent linguists have said their names had been included without their knowledge.
Several department chairs in linguistics and philosophy signed the letter, including professor Barry Smith of the University at Buffalo and professor Lisa Davidson of New York University. Smith did not return calls and an email, and Davidson declined to comment when The Times reached out.
The linguists’ letter touched only lightly on questions that have proved storm-tossed for Pinker in the past. In the debate over whether nature or nurture shapes human behavior, he has leaned toward nature, arguing that characteristics like psychological traits and intelligence are to some degree heritable.
He has also suggested that underrepresentation in the sciences could be rooted in part in biological differences between men and women. (He defended Lawrence Summers, the former Harvard president who in 2005 speculated that innate differences between the sexes might in part explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers. Summers’ remark infuriated some female scientists and was among several controversies that led to his resignation the following year.)
And Pinker has made high-profile blunders, such as when he provided his expertise on language for the 2007 defense of financier Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges. He has said he did so free of charge and at the request of a friend, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, and regrets it.
The clash may also reflect the fact that Pinker’s rosy outlook — he argues that the world is becoming a better place, by almost any measure, from poverty to literacy — sounds discordant during this painful moment of national reckoning with the still-ugly scars of racism and inequality.
The linguists’ society, like many academic and nonprofit organizations, recently released a wide-ranging statement calling for greater diversity in the field. It also urged linguists to confront how their research “might reproduce or work against racism.”
John McWhorter, a Columbia University professor of English and linguistics, cast the Pinker controversy within a moment when, he said, progressives look suspiciously at anyone who does not embrace the politics of racial and cultural identity.
“Steve is too big for this kerfuffle to affect him,” McWhorter said. “But it’s depressing that an erudite and reasonable scholar is seen by a lot of intelligent people as an undercover monster.”
Because this is a fight involving linguists, it features some expected elements: intense arguments about imprecise wording and sly intellectual put-downs. Pinker may have inflamed matters when he suggested in response to the letter that its signers lacked stature. “I recognize only one name among the signatories,” he tweeted. That, said Byron Ahn, a linguistics professor at Princeton, in a tweet of his own, amounted to “a kind of indirect ad hominem attack.”
The linguists insisted they were not attempting to censor Pinker. Rather, they were intent on showing that he had been deceitful and used racial dog whistles, and thus was a disreputable representative for linguistics.
“Any resulting action from this letter may make it clear to Black scholars that the LSA is sensitive to the impact that tweets of this sort have on maintaining structures that we should be attempting to dismantle,” wrote professor David Adger of Queen Mary University of London on his website.
That line of argument left McWhorter, a signer of the letter in Harper’s, exasperated.
“We’re in this moment that’s like a collective mic drop, and civility and common sense go out the window,” he said. “It’s enough to cry racism or sexism, and that’s that.”