Sir, - I found Jon Ihle's reply (August 16th) a distressing example of what I had in mind in my original letter. The intemperate language with which he rejected my thesis was uncalled for: "despicable and morally abhorrent"; and, of course, "fundamentally racist".
The unprejudiced observer must allow that an explanation of race in terms of a "biological protective mechanism" is as scientifically tenable as any other hypothesis. This is not to say that such a mechanism is an exclusively human phenomenon.
In this respect early human communities may have shared a distinctive behaviour pattern with other members of the animal kingdom.
It may be of interest to note the words of Jack Pridham (professor emeritus, School of Biological Sciences, University of London). Recently he said: "Evolution led us to take note of everything in our surroundings that differed from the tribal norm, be it a body feature or a behaviour pattern. It taught us to link particular genetic characteristics with danger and to stereotype".
He goes on to suggest that such a mechanism may be only partly genetic. Nurture may also be of major significance, particularly with respect to the continuation and spread of this outlook and attitude within the community over time.
Mr Ihle's knee-jerk reaction highlights more than ever the need for a more public debate on the nature and origins of racism. Without such a debate our attempts to control it will prove futile.
However, free speech is a most precious commodity today. Even in university departments the prospects of such an open-ended research project getting off the ground must be remote. The reason is that such departments, which ought to be shrines of free speech and free inquiry, are in fact blinkered by a politically correct ideology.
Race, it seems, is still a taboo subject. - Yours, etc.,
Thomas P. Walsh, Faussagh Road, Cabra, Dublin 7.