Editing J. Philippe Rushton (section)

===Academic opinion===
====Favorable====
In a 1991 work, the [[Harvard]] [[biologist]] [[E. O. Wilson]] (one of the two co-founders of the ''r''/''K'' selection theory which Rushton uses) was quoted as having said about him:<ref>from Knudtson P. (1991), ''A Mirror to Nature: Reflections on Science, Scientists, and Society; Rushton on Race'', Stoddart Publishing ({{ISBN|0773724672}})pg 190
</ref>
{{blockquote|I think Phil is an honest and capable researcher. The basic reasoning by Rushton is solid evolutionary reasoning; that is, it is logically sound. If he had seen some apparent geographic variation for a non-human species&nbsp;– a species of sparrow or sparrow hawk, for example&nbsp;– no one would have batted an eye.&nbsp; ... [W]hen it comes to [human] racial differences, especially in the inflamed situation in this country, special safeguards and conventions need to be developed.<ref>from Knudtson P. (1991), ''A Mirror to Nature: Reflections on Science, Scientists, and Society; Rushton on Race,'' Stoddart Publishing ({{ISBN|0773724672}}) pg 190</ref>}}
Three years after the publication of Wilson's 1975 book ''[[Sociobiology: The New Synthesis]]'', Rushton had already begun a long correspondence with Wilson. The letters became particularly extensive between 1987 and 1995 (Wilson's letters have now been archived by the [[Library of Congress]]). After Wilson's death at the end of 2021, historians of science Mark Borrello and [[David Sepkoski]] have reassessed how Wilson's thinking on issues of race and evolution was influenced by Rushton.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Borrello|first1=Mark|last2=Sepkoski|first2=David|author2-link=David Sepkoski|title=Ideology as Biology|work=[[The New York Review of Books]]|date=5 February 2022|url=https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2022/02/05/ideology-as-biology/|access-date=8 February 2022}} (registration required)</ref><ref>{{cite web|title="The Last Refuge of Scoundrels": New Evidence of E. O. Wilson's Intimacy with Scientific Racism|work=[[Science for the People#Magazine|Science for the People]]|date=1 February 2022|first1=Stacy| last1=Farina| first2=Matthew| last2=Gibbons|access-date=8 February 2022|url=https://magazine.scienceforthepeople.org/online/the-last-refuge-of-scoundrels/}}</ref>

In a 1995 review of Rushton's ''Race, Evolution, and Behavior'', anthropologist and population geneticist [[Henry Harpending]] expressed doubt as to whether all of Rushton's data fit the ''r''/''K'' model he proposed, but nonetheless praised the book for its proposing of a theoretical model that makes testable predictions about differences between human groups. He concludes that "Perhaps there will ultimately be some serious contribution from the traditional smoke-and-mirrors social science treatment of IQ, but for now Rushton's framework is essentially the only game in town."<ref>Harpending, Henry. [http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/iq.pdf Evolutionary Anthropology] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110817172506/http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/iq.pdf |date=2011-08-17 }}, 1995.</ref> In their 2009 book ''[[The 10,000 Year Explosion]]'', Harpending and [[Gregory Cochran]] later described Rushton as one of the researchers to whom they are indebted.<ref>Cochran, Gregory and Herny Harpending (2009). ''The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilizations Accelerated Human Evolution''. New York: Basic Books, page xii.</ref>

The psychologists [[Arthur Jensen]], [[Hans Eysenck]], [[Richard Lynn]], [[Linda Gottfredson]]<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Gottfredson | first1 = L. S. | year = 1996 | title = Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective | journal = Politics and the Life Sciences | volume = 15 | pages = 141–143 | doi=10.1017/s0730938400019985| s2cid = 151876759 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Gottfredson | first1 = L. S. | year = 2013 | title = Resolute Ignorance on Race and Rushton | url = http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2013Rushton.pdf | journal = Personality and Individual Differences | volume = 55 | issue = 3| pages = 218–223 | doi=10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.021}}</ref> and [[Thomas J. Bouchard Jr.|Thomas Bouchard]] had a high opinion of Rushton's ''Race, Evolution and Behavior'', describing Rushton's work as rigorous and impressive. However, many of these researchers are themselves controversial and they all received money from the [[Pioneer Fund]], which had funded much of Rushton's work when these reviews were written.<ref>Buist, Steve. [http://www.ferris.edu/isar/Institut/pioneer/rushton.htm The Race-Research Funder] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303170912/http://www.ferris.edu/isar/Institut/pioneer/rushton.htm |date=2016-03-03 }}. The Hamilton (Ontario) Spectator, April 17, 2000.</ref>

Some criminologists who study the relationship between race and crime regard Rushton's ''r''/''K'' theory as one of several possible explanations for racial disparities in crime rates.<ref>Goodison, Sean (2009), "''r''/''K'' Theory", in Gabbidon, Shaun L.; Greene, Helen T. (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Race and Crime''. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, pp. 713–716. {{ISBN|978-1-4129-5085-5}}.</ref> Others, such as the criminologist [[Shaun L. Gabbidon]], think that Rushton has developed one of the more controversial biosocial theories related to race and crime; he says that it has been criticized for failing to explain all of the data and for its potential to support racist ideologies.<ref>Gabbidon, Shaun L. (2010). ''Criminological Perspectives on Race and Crime, 2nd ed.''. New York: Routledge, pp. 41-44. {{ISBN|978-0-415-87424-3}}.</ref> The criminologist [[Anthony Walsh (criminologist)|Anthony Walsh]] has defended Rushton, claiming that none of Rushton's critics has supplied data indicating anything other than the racial gradient he identifies, and that it is unscientific to dismiss Rushton's ideas on the basis of their political implications.<ref>Walsh, Anthony (2004). ''Race and Crime: A Biosocial Analysis''. Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science Publishers, pp. 15-17. {{ISBN|978-1-59033-970-1}}.</ref>

====Unfavorable====
On 22 June 2020, the Department of Psychology at the University of Western Ontario issued a statement regarding their former faculty member, which read in part:<ref name=":0" />
{{blockquote|Despite its deeply flawed assumptions and methodologies, Rushton's work and other so-called "race science" (currently under the pseudonym of "race realism") continues to be misused by white supremacists and promoted by eugenic organizations. Thus, Rushton's legacy shows that the impact of flawed science lingers on, even after qualified scholars have condemned its scientific integrity.  Academic freedom and freedom of expression are critical to free scientific inquiry. However, the notion of academic freedom is disrespected and abused when it is used to promote the dissemination of racist and discriminatory concepts. Scientists have an obligation to society to speak loudly and actively in opposition of such abuse.}}

Also in 2020, [[Andrew Winston]] summarized Rushton's scholarly reception as follows: "Rushton's work was heavily criticized by psychologists, evolutionary biologists, anthropologists, and geneticists for severe scientific inadequacies, fundamental errors, inappropriate conceptualization of race, inappropriate statistical comparisons, misuse of sources, and serious logical errors and flaws."<ref name=":12">{{Cite web |last=Winston |first=Andrew S. |date=29 May 2020 |title=Scientific Racism and North American Psychology |url=https://oxfordre.com/psychology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.001.0001/acrefore-9780190236557-e-516; |website=Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Psychology|doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.516 |isbn=978-0-19-023655-7 }}</ref>

In 1989, geneticist and media personality [[David Suzuki]] criticized Rushton's racial theories in a live televised debate at the [[University of Western Ontario]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/arts-entertainment/media/david-suzuki-scientist-activist-broadcaster-1/the-rushton-suzuki-debate.html |title=The Rushton-Suzuki debate |author=CBC News |date=1989-02-08 |work=[[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation]] |publisher=Queen in Right of Canada |access-date=2009-11-02|author-link=CBC News }}</ref> He said: "There will always be Rushtons in science, and we must always be prepared to root them out". At the same occasion, Rushton rejected believing in racial superiority, saying "we've got to realize that each of these populations is perfectly, beautifully adapted to their own ancestral environments".<ref>Peter Knudtson, ''A Mirror to Nature'',  pg 187</ref>

Also in 1989, [[Michael Lynn]] published a paper in the ''[[Journal of Research in Personality]]'' criticizing a study by Rushton & Bogaert that had been published in the same journal two years earlier. Lynn cited four reasons he considered Rushton & Bogaert's study to be flawed: {{blockquote|First, they did not explain why natural selection would have favored different reproductive strategies for different races. Second, their data on race differences are of questionable validity because their literature review was selective and their original analyses were based on self-reports. Third, they provided no evidence that these race differences had significant effects on reproduction or that sexual restraint is a ''K'' characteristic. Finally, they did not adequately rule out environmental explanations for their data.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Lynn|first=Michael|author-link=Michael Lynn|title=Race differences in sexual behavior: A critique of Rushton and Bogaert's evolutionary hypothesis|journal=[[Journal of Research in Personality]]|date=March 1989|volume=23|issue=1|pages=1–6|doi=10.1016/0092-6566(89)90029-9|url=https://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1326&context=articles|hdl=1813/72077|hdl-access=free}}</ref>}}

[[Marvin Zuckerman]], psychology professor of the [[University of Delaware]], criticized Rushton's research on methodological grounds, observing that more variation exists in personality traits within racial groups than between them<ref>{{cite journal|last=Zuckerman|first=Marvin|author-link=Marvin Zuckerman|title=Some dubious premises in research and theory on racial differences: Scientific, social, and ethical issues.|journal=American Psychologist|date=1990|volume=45|issue=12|pages=1297–1303|doi=10.1037/0003-066X.45.12.1297|pmid=2285179 }}</ref> and arguing that Rushton selectively cited data from the [[Eysenck Personality Questionnaire]].<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Zuckerman|first1=Marvin|author-link1=Marvin Zuckerman|last2=Brody|first2=Nathan|title=Oysters, rabbits and people: A critique of "race differences in behaviour" by J.P. Rushton|journal=Personality and Individual Differences|date=January 1988|volume=9|issue=6|pages=1025–1033|doi=10.1016/0191-8869(88)90136-5}}</ref>

[[critical psychology|Critical psychologist]] [[Thomas Teo]] argued that Rushton's "substantial success and influence in the discipline" and use of "accepted usage of empirical mainstream methods" pointed to broader problems in academic psychology.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Teo |first1=Thomas |author-link1=Thomas Teo |title=Empirical Race Psychology and the Hermeneutics of Epistemological Violence |journal=Human Studies |date=Fall 2011 |volume=34 |issue=3 |pages=237–255 |jstor=41478664 |doi=10.1007/s10746-011-9179-8 |s2cid=53580412 }}</ref>

Biologist [[Garland E. Allen]] argued in 1990 that Rushton "selectively cites and misrepresents his sources to support his conclusions. Far from being an 'honest attempt' to follow the Truth wherever it leads, Rushton seems to be putting a ring through Truth's nose and leading it toward his own barn...He has used, abused, distorted, and in some cases virtually falsified his sources."<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/11124/title/Genetic-Indexing-Of-Race-Groups-Is-Irresponsible-And-Unscientific/ |title=Genetic Indexing Of Race Groups Is Irresponsible And Unscientific |last=Allen |first=Garland E. |date=1990-05-14 |website=[[The Scientist (magazine)|The Scientist]] |access-date=2018-04-17}}</ref>

According to Charles Lane, in 1988, Rushton conducted a survey at the Eaton Centre mall in [[Toronto]], where he paid 50 whites, 50 blacks, and 50 Asians to answer questions about their sexual habits. Because he did not clear his survey and proposed to pay for answers with the university committee at UWO, the administration reprimanded Rushton, calling his transgression "a serious breach of scholarly procedure", said University President, George Pederson.<ref name="NYB-3-23-95"/>

A 1993 study reanalyzed data from a study Rushton had published on the relationship between race and crime and found no strong relationship between the two.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Cernovsky|first=Zach|author-link=Zack Cernovsky|title=Re-Analyses of J.P. Rushton's Crime Data|journal=Canadian Journal of Criminology|volume=35|issue=1|pages=31–36|url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/cjccj35&div=7&id=&page=|year=1993|doi=10.3138/cjcrim.35.1.31}}</ref>

Rushton's work was criticized in the scholarly literature; he generally responded, sometimes in the same journal. In 1995, in the ''[[Journal of Black Studies]]'', [[Zack Cernovsky]] wrote: "some of Rushton's references to scientific literature with respects to racial differences in sexual characteristics turned out to be references to a nonscientific semi-pornographic book and to an article by [[Philip Nobile]] in the ''[[Penthouse (magazine)|Penthouse]]'' magazine's Forum."<ref>{{cite journal | last = Cernovsky | first = Zack | author-link = Zack Cernovsky | year = 1995 | title = On the similarities of American blacks and whites": A reply to J.P. Rushton | url = http://philipperushton.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/iq-race-brain-size-racism-rushton-cernovsky-j-of-black-studies-7-1995.pdf | journal = Journal of Black Studies | volume = 25 | issue = 6| pages = 672–679 | doi=10.1177/002193479502500602| s2cid = 59065836 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Nobile | first1 = August Philip | year = 1982 | title = Penis Size, The Difference Between Blacks and Whites | journal = Penthouse Forum | volume = 11 | pages = 21–28 }}</ref>

In 1995, two researchers published a review and [[meta-analysis]] concluding that racial differences in behavior were accounted for entirely by environmental factors, which contradicts Rushton's evolutionary theory for the origin of such differences.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Gorey |first1=Kevin M. |last2=Cryns |first2=Arthur G. |title=Lack of racial differences in behavior: A quantitative replication of Rushton's (1988) review and an independent meta-analysis |journal=Personality and Individual Differences |volume=19 |issue=3 |pages=345–353 |doi=10.1016/0191-8869(95)00050-g |year=1995|url=https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/socialworkpub/14 }}</ref>

[[Anti-racism]] activist [[Tim Wise]] criticized Rushton's application of ''r''/''K'' selection theory to crime rates and IQ, charging that Rushton ignored things such as systematic/institutional discrimination, racial profiling, economic disparities and unequal access to judicial defense in his attempt to apply ''r''/''K'' Theory and IQ theories to explain racial disparities in American crime rates. He also criticized Rushton and others like him of ignoring things like [[white-collar crime]] rates, {{blockquote|Corporate criminals, after all, are usually highly educated, and probably would score highly on just about any standardized test you chose to give them. And what of it? Virtually all the stock manipulators, unethical derivatives traders and shady money managers on Wall Street, whose actions have brought the economy to its knees of late — and who it might be worth noting are pretty much all white men — would likely do well on the Stanford-Binet or Wonderlich Industrial Aptitude Test. They probably were above-average students. But what are we to make of these facts? Clearly they say little about the value of such persons to the nation or the world. The Unabomber was a certified genius and Ted Bundy was of well-above-average intelligence... But I'm having a hard time discerning what we should conclude about these truths, in terms of how much emphasis we place on intelligence, as opposed to other human traits.<ref>{{cite web|url = http://www.timwise.org/2011/08/race-intelligence-and-the-limits-of-science-reflections-on-the-moral-absurdity-of-racial-realism/|title = Race, Intelligence and the Limits of Science: Reflections on the Moral Absurdity of "Racial Realism"|first = Tim|last = Wise|author-link = Tim Wise|date = August 27, 2011|access-date = December 2, 2012|archive-date = December 18, 2012|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20121218005705/http://www.timwise.org/2011/08/race-intelligence-and-the-limits-of-science-reflections-on-the-moral-absurdity-of-racial-realism/|url-status = dead}}</ref>}}

The [[Biological Anthropology|biological anthropologist]] [[C. Loring Brace]] criticized Rushton in his 1996 review of the book, ''Race, Evolution, and Behavior'' (1996):
{{blockquote|Virtually every kind of anthropologist may be put in the position of being asked to comment on what is contained in this book, so, whatever our individual specialty, we should all be prepared to discuss what it represents. ''Race, Evolution, and Behavior'' is an amalgamation of bad biology and inexcusable anthropology. It is not science but advocacy, and advocacy for the promotion of "racialism." Tzvetan Todorov explains "racialism," in contrast to "racism," as belief in the existence of typological essences called "races" whose characteristics can be rated in hierarchical fashion (''On Human Diversity: Nationalism, Racism, and Exoticism in French Thought,'' Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993, p. 31). "Racism," then, is the use of racialist assumptions to promote social or political ends, a course that Todorov regards as leading to "particularly catastrophic results." Perpetuating catastrophe is not the stated aim of Rushton's book, but current promoters of racist agendas will almost certainly regard it as a welcome weapon to apply for their noxious purposes.<ref>{{cite journal | last=Brace| first=C Loring | author-link=C. Loring Brace | year=1996 | title=Racialism and Racist Agendas: Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective. J. Philippe Rushton| journal=American Anthropologist | volume=98 | pages=1 176–177  | doi=10.1525/aa.1996.98.1.02a00250 | issue=1}}</ref>}}

[[Robert Sussman]], an [[evolutionary]] [[anthropologist]] and the editor-in-chief of ''[[American Anthropologist]]'', explained why the journal did not accept ads for Rushton's 1998 book:{{blockquote|This is an insidious attempt to legitimize Rushton's racist propaganda and is tantamount to publishing ads for [[white supremacy]] and the [[neo-Nazi]] party. If you have any question about the validity of the "science" of Rushton's trash you should read any one of his articles and the many rebuttals by ashamed scientists.<ref>{{citation|first=Alexander|last=Alland|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|year=2002|isbn=978-0-312-23838-4|title=Race in Mind: Race, IQ, and Other Racisms|pages=[https://archive.org/details/raceinmindraceiq00alla/page/168 168]|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/raceinmindraceiq00alla/page/168}}</ref>}}

In 2000, after Rushton mailed a booklet on his work to psychology, sociology, and anthropology professors across North America, Hermann Helmuth, a professor of anthropology at [[Trent University]], said: "It is in a way personal and political propaganda. There is no basis to his scientific research." Rushton responded, "It's not racist; it's a matter of science and recognizing variation in all groups of people."<ref name="UWO">[http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/2000/February/1/News3.htm "Psych prof accused of racism"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110515022349/http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/2000/February/1/News3.htm |date=2011-05-15 }}, ''UWO Gazette'', Volume 93, Issue 68, February 1, 2000</ref>

From 2002, Rushton was the president of the [[Pioneer Fund]]. Tax records show that in 2002 his Charles Darwin Research Institute was awarded $473,835, or 73% of the fund's total grants that year.<ref>[http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=83 "Academic Racism: Key race scientist takes reins at Pioneer Fund] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100202143751/http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=83 |date=2010-02-02 }}, [[Southern Poverty Law Center]]</ref> The [[Southern Poverty Law Center]], an American [[civil rights]] organization, characterizes the Pioneer Fund as a [[hate group]].<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=106#14 |title=SPLCenter.org: "Into the Mainstream"<!-- Bot generated title --> |access-date=2007-03-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061231023801/http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=106#14 |archive-date=2006-12-31 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>[http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=625 "Race and 'Reason'"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070302134249/http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=625 |date=2007-03-02 }}, Southern Poverty Law Center. Quote: "In publication after publication, hate groups are using this 'science' to legitimize [[racial hatred]]."</ref> Rushton had spoken on [[eugenics]] several times at conferences of the ''[[American Renaissance (magazine)|American Renaissance]]'' magazine, a monthly white supremacist magazine, in which he had also published a number of general articles.<ref>[http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=214#27 " 'Science' at the Mall"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061231023817/http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=214#27 |date=2006-12-31 }}, Southern Poverty Law Center</ref>

Rushton published articles on the website [[VDARE]], which advocates for reduced [[immigration]] into the United States. Stefan Kühl wrote in his book, ''The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism'' (2002), that Rushton was part of the revival in the 1980s of public interest in [[scientific racism]].<ref>Stefan Kühl, ''The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism'', Oxford University Press, 2002,</ref>

[[William H. Tucker (psychologist)|William H. Tucker]], a professor of psychology and expert on the history of scientific racism, observed in 2002:
{{blockquote|Rushton has not only contributed to ''American Renaissance'' publications and graced their conferences with his presence but also offered praise and support for the "scholarly" work on racial differences of [[Henry Garrett (psychologist)|Henry Garrett]], who spent the last two decades of his life opposing the extension of the [[Constitution]] to blacks on the basis that the "normal" black resembled a European after [[frontal lobotomy]]. Informed of Garrett's assertion that blacks were not entitled to equality because their "ancestors were ... savages in an African jungle," Rushton dismissed the observation as quoted "selectively from Garrett's writing", finding nothing opprobrious in such sentiments because the leader of the scientific opposition to [[civil rights]] had made other statements about black inferiority that were, according to Rushton, "quite objective in tone and backed by standard social science evidence." Quite apart from the questionable logic in defending a blatant call to deprive citizens of their rights by citing Garrett's less offensive writing—as if it were evidence of [[Ted Bundy]]'s innocence that there were some women he had met and not killed—there was no sense on Rushton's part that all of Garrett's assertions, whether or not "objective," were utterly irrelevant to constitutional guarantees, which are not predicated on scientific demonstrations of intellectual equality.<ref>[[William H. Tucker (psychologist)|Tucker, W. H.]] (2002). ''The Funding of Scientific Racism'', Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.</ref>}}

A 2003 study in ''[[Evolution and Human Behavior]]'' found no evidence to support Rushton's hypothesized relationship between race and behavior.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Peregrine|first1=P|title=Cross-cultural evaluation of predicted associations between race and behavior|journal=Evolution and Human Behavior|date=September 2003|volume=24|issue=5|pages=357–364|doi=10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00040-0|bibcode=2003EHumB..24..357P}}</ref>

In 2005, Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson of [[New York University]] wrote an article for ''[[Psychology, Public Policy, and Law]]'' noting that Rushton ignored evidence that failed to support his position that IQ test score gaps represent a [[Genetics|genetic]] racial hierarchy. He did not change his position on this matter for 30 years.<ref>{{cite journal|last2=Aronson |first2=Joshua |year=2005 |title=The Cultural Malleability of Intelligence and Its Impact on the Racial/Ethnic Hierarchy |url=http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Suzuki-Aronson.pdf |journal=Psychology, Public Policy, and Law |volume=11 |issue=2 |pages=320–327 |doi=10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.320 |last1=Suzuki |first1=Lisa |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150226124654/http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Suzuki-Aronson.pdf |archive-date=2015-02-26 |citeseerx=10.1.1.1022.3693 }}</ref> Rushton replied in the same issue of the journal.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Rushton | first1 = J. Philippe | last2 = Jensen | first2 = Arthur R. | year = 2005 | title = Wanted: More Race Realism, Less Moralistic Fallacy | url = http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen-reply-to-commentaries-on-30years.pdf | journal = Psychology, Public Policy, and Law | volume = 11 | issue = 2| pages = 328–336 | doi=10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.328| citeseerx = 10.1.1.521.5570 }}</ref>

In a paper for the ''International Journal of Selection and Assessment'' in 2006, Steven Cronshaw and colleagues wrote that psychologists need to critically examine the science used by Rushton in his "race-realist" research. Their re-analysis of the validity criteria for test bias, using data reported in the ''Rushton et al.'' paper, led them to conclude that the testing methods were biased against Black Africans. They disagree with other aspects of Rushton's methodology, such as his use of non-equivalent groups in test samples.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Cronshaw | first1 = Steven F. | last2 = Hamilton | first2 = Leah K. | last3 = Onyura | first3 = Betty R. | last4 = Winston | first4 = Andrew S. | year = 2006 | title = Case for Non-Biased Intelligence Testing Against Black Africans Has Not Been Made: A Comment | journal = International Journal of Selection and Assessment | volume = 14 | issue = 3| pages = 278–287 | doi = 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00346.x | s2cid = 91179275 }}</ref> Rushton responded in the next issue of the journal. He said why he believed his results were valid, and why he thought the criticisms incorrect.<ref>{{cite journal | year = 2006| title = In Defense of a Disputed Study of Construct Validity from South Africa| journal = International Journal of Selection and Assessment | volume = 14 | issue = 4| pages = 381–384 | doi=10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00359.x | last1 = Rushton | first1 = J. Philippe| s2cid = 141815748}}</ref>

Scott McGreal (2012) in ''[[Psychology Today]]'' criticized the science of Rushton's "Race Differences in Sexual Behavior: Testing an Evolutionary Hypothesis". He cited Weizmann, Wiener, Wiesenthal, & Ziegle, which argued that Rushton's theory relied on flawed science. McGreal faulted Rushton and his use of Nobile's penis size study.<ref>Scott A. McGreal (2012), "The Pseudoscience of Race Differences in Penis Size", "Psychology Today" [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201210/the-pseudoscience-race-differences-in-penis-size]</ref>

On 17 June 2020, academic publisher [[Elsevier]] announced it was retracting an article that Rushton and [[Donald Templer]] had published in 2012 in the Elsevier journal ''[[Personality and Individual Differences]]''.<ref>{{cite web|title=Personality and Individual Differences Retracts Rushton and Templer Article|url=https://www.journals.elsevier.com/personality-and-individual-differences/announcements/rushton-and-templer-article|access-date=19 June 2020}}</ref> The article falsely claimed that there was scientific evidence that skin color was related to aggression and sexuality in humans.<ref>{{cite web|title=Elsevier journal to retract 2012 paper widely derided as racist|date=17 June 2020|url=https://retractionwatch.com/2020/06/17/elsevier-journal-to-retract-2012-paper-widely-derided-as-racist/|access-date=19 June 2020}}</ref>

On 24 December 2020, the academic journal ''[[Psychological Reports]]'' retracted two Rushton articles about intelligence and race. Review of the articles, which were originally published in the 1990s, "found that the research was unethical, scientifically flawed, and based on racist ideas and agenda".<ref name="Retraction Notice">{{cite journal|title=Retraction notice|journal=Psychological Reports|date=24 December 2020|volume=127 |issue=3 |pages=NP3–NP4 |doi=10.1177/0033294120982774|pmid=33356897|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=29 December 2020|title=Psychology journal retracts two articles for being "unethical, scientifically flawed, and based on racist ideas and agenda"|url=https://retractionwatch.com/2020/12/29/psychology-journal-retracts-two-articles-for-being-unethical-scientifically-flawed-and-based-on-racist-ideas-and-agenda/ |website=Retraction Watch}}</ref> On 23 August 2021, it retracted three more.<ref name=":2" />