sign uplog in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Chris Trotter reflects on the life of Professor James R. Flynn, and the pursuit of truth and justice

Chris Trotter reflects on the life of Professor James R. Flynn, and the pursuit of truth and justice

By Chris Trotter*

“A legendary teacher”, was how University of Otago Vice-Chancellor, Harlene Hayne, described Professor James R. Flynn (1934-2020). The thousands of first-year politics students who attended his lectures down the years will certainly attest to the accuracy of Haynes’ description. The stories that grew up around the often slipper-shod professor were as colourful as the man who inspired them. Following his death last Friday, at the age of 86, “Jim” Flynn’s former students will be recalling those stories with that tearful mixture of sadness and pride that distinguishes the passing of all truly outstanding individuals.

Flynn was not just a teacher of university students, however, but of two whole generations of New Zealand leftists. Born in Washington DC, Flynn was that rarest and most admirable of things – an American socialist. There are very few democratic nations in the world where it is harder to ply the socialist trade than the United States, and those who make the attempt require the most extraordinary fortitude.

The man after whom Flynn’ son is named, Eugene Victor Debs, spent years in a federal prison for the “crime” of opposing military conscription during the First World War. Flynn himself, although a prodigiously talented scholar, was repeatedly fired from his university posts on account of his membership of Debs’ Socialist Party of America. It didn’t help his career prospects that Flynn was also an active participant in the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 60s. Not when the colleges that hired (and then fired) him were located south of the Mason-Dixon Line!

The American South’s loss proved to be New Zealand’s gain, however, when Flynn and his wife, Emily, sought refuge in what was still regarded, in the late-1960s, as one of the world’s most successful social-democratic nations.

The politics department which Flynn brought into being at the University of Otago, and which he would lead for the next 30 years, largely eschewed the sterile empiricism of “political science”, offering its students, instead, a strong grasp of the philosophical and historical origins of political ideas. To do well in Flynn’s “political studies” department, students not only had to be able to count, they also had to be able to read. (Nothing so alarmed Flynn in the latter part of his career than the dramatic fall-off in ‘voluntary’ reading among under-graduates).

Although the contemporary university is legally obligated to be the “critic and conscience” of society, it is an obligation more honoured in the breach than in the observance. That could never be said of Flynn, however, who threw himself into the political life of his adopted country with gusto. He had hardly unpacked his belongings before he was quietly advising the Leader of the Labour Opposition, Norman Kirk, on New Zealand’s foreign policy options. In Dunedin, he soon became one of the leading-lights in the Committee on Vietnam. Whether it be leading an anti-war march down George Street, or debating socialism with his students in the Captain Cook Tavern, the lanky figure of the bearded professor soon became a fixture of the academic left in Otago.

In New Zealand, as in the rest of the world, the “Red Seventies” were roughly shouldered aside by the Neoliberal Eighties and Nineties. For Flynn, one of the most egregious effects of the “free-market” counter-revolution was the re-emergence of “Scientific Racism” – especially the notion that the IQ of Blacks was inherently inferior to that of Whites.

To counter this old and pernicious heresy, Flynn immersed himself in, and mastered, the intricacies of psychology, statistical science and higher mathematics. The result: an empirical demonstration of the social malleability of intelligence “scores”, now known, universally, as the “Flynn Effect”, undercut decisively the arguments of the new “racial scientists” – most particularly, Arthur Jensen and Charles Murray.

It was a genuinely “classical” demonstration of the way in which propositions one believes to be without foundation should be countered. Not for Flynn the contemporary preference for naming and shaming one’s opponent’s on social media; “de-platforming” them from all university venues; and presenting them with the choice of either offering-up a humiliating recantation and apology, or, losing their jobs. Flynn simply went in search of the evidence. If it wasn’t there, then the propositions of one’s opponents could be exposed as academically unsustainable.

For Flynn it was never about “bad people” peddling “bad ideas”: it was only ever about inadequately supported propositions. And, the best way to demonstrate their inadequacy was to challenge them on their own terms, in public, with the evidence.

It is, without doubt, one of the most important intellectual lessons of this “legendary teacher”: that truth is the product of free and open debate; and that any university unwilling to stand up for free and open debate is, ultimately, unworthy of the name.

Arguably, Flynn’s most important political lesson is the principle he did so much to enshrine in both the NewLabour Party, and in its successor, the Alliance. Significantly, it is based on the same intellectual rigour that gave birth to the Flynn Effect.

Essentially, Flynn’s political argument was a simple one. It is ethically insupportable and, ultimately, electorally self-defeating, for a left-wing political party to make promises to the electorate which it cannot show to be fiscally sustainable. Left-wing political leaders, said Flynn, have a moral obligation to demonstrate, by drawing up a mathematically coherent Alternative Budget, how all the good things they are promising will be paid for.

Does this approach have a political cost? Of course it does! Voters don’t like to hear that their taxes will need to be raised and/or new taxes imposed. But, Flynn’s argument was that until the electorate can be persuaded that paying higher taxes is a necessary condition for living in a just society, then any electoral victories on the part of the Left will only ever be temporary. The mission of the true democratic socialist, argued Flynn, was not, primarily, to win votes in the short term, but to effect a long-term change of voters’ hearts and minds – by telling them the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Idealistic? Quixotic? Naïve? Flynn was called all of those things in his time. At no point, however, did I hear anyone, from either the far- or the centre-left, demonstrate the fault in Flynn’s operating principles for a genuinely democratic socialism. As he proved in relation to race and intelligence, if the numbers do not stack-up, then neither does the argument.

Though a life-long atheist, Flynn was not above offering his classes and comrades the odd biblical quotation. One of his favourites was from the Book of Ecclesiastes:

I returned and saw under the sun that – The race is not to the swift, Nor the battle to the strong, Nor bread to the wise, Nor riches to men of understanding, Nor favour to men of skill; But time and chance happen to them all.

I always thought of it as a curiously self-refuting quotation. For if time and chance determine all things, then the quest for truth and justice is vain and doomed to disappointment. But, perhaps, it is in that quote from Ecclesiastes that we find the true measure of James R. Flynn: philosopher, mathematician, socialist. That in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, the pursuit of truth and justice remains the only accurate test of our determination to become fully human.


*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

15 Comments

Thanks Chris.

A good article and a great man it seems, and in particular this statement "For Flynn it was never about “bad people” peddling “bad ideas”: it was only ever about inadequately supported propositions. And, the best way to demonstrate their inadequacy was to challenge them on their own terms, in public, with the evidence." is to my view the point and purpose of any forum of debate, including this one. So many are blinded by their ideology, and lose reason when debating.

But I do have an issue with labelling. Labels are generally about polarisation, and I question why, when one argues that democracy is about all the people not just a few, that they be labelled socialist? Especially in an age when this could be considered a derogatory term.

More than a few have tried to label me as a socialist, but i am centrist where I see the need for there to be wealthy people, but resist the notion that somehow wealthy are somehow better than the rest, as so many seem to like thinking of themselves. That final quote "But time and chance happen to them all" says it all. It is chance that has us born who and the way we are, and chance rules so much of our lives. To believe we are superior by way of an accident of birth is but the gravest of sins. So democracy's purpose is to serve all of us not just a few who deem themselves as "worthy".

Freedom of thought and freedom of expression. Two good men of opposing opinions will become greater friends than two bad men of the same mind. Hence our society must never ignore any unpopular or contrary viewpoint. Evokes the dictums as recounted in the Don Camillo and Peperone tales.

I like that Foxy, and agree that respect for disagreement will likely lead to stronger friendships. Good friends should be able to challenge perceptions and opinions without fear of rancour. Well thought individuals should not fear a challenge to their opinions, but rise to justify them.

Very readable and interesting summary of the life of a courageous man of integrity, thanks Chris. The refusal in the UK to publish his 2019 defence of free speech book due to hate speech laws and feared reaction from the cancel culture mob must have deeply troubled him.

"Essentially, Flynn’s political argument was a simple one. It is ethically insupportable and, ultimately, electorally self-defeating, for a left-wing political party to make promises to the electorate which it cannot show to be fiscally sustainable. Left-wing political leaders, said Flynn, have a moral obligation to demonstrate, by drawing up a mathematically coherent Alternative Budget, how all the good things they are promising will be paid for."
Applicable to Labour and the Greens and to some extent National, where before Covids a large increase in borrowing would "how all the good things they are promising will be paid for". Not self defeating in Labours case. Much depends on one view of the level of borrowing and it goes something like this. Act some, National some more, Labour a lot and the Greens the sky's the limit. On tax Act a little, National some, Labour a lot and the Greens tax you out of existence
Flynn also makes the mistake "Left-wing political leaders, said Flynn, have a moral obligation to demonstrate". First of all is the presumption that politicians are moral and by extension I would say some what honest. They are neither, irrespective of party persuasion.

I wonder if Flynn did a study to see if there was an ethical and moral obligation for left wing political leaders to take as little tax as possible. ?

In regards to the average wage,,,, We now work from 1 Jan till the end of April ....for the Govt, ( tax ) .. 4 mths a yr of our working yr is as a "slave" for govt.. ( figuratively speaking ).
https://taxfoundation.org/publications/tax-freedom-day/

This is a worthy tribute to a great man. Thank you Chris.

I was at Otago University and didn't have a chance to study under Jim Flynn, but his reputation preceded him across those who studies pols, philosophy, and economics. Coincidentally, Grant Robertson may also have studied under Flynn.

Hey JC-oh boy, you missed some real fun-yup, old Jim, despite his overloaded cortexes, was a hoot-I had him for two years in my psych degree (in my day, early eighties, old Jim popped up in the philosophy and pysch depts. as well as the pol. studies dept.). Like thousands of other freshies, we were TOTALLY intimidated in our first meeting with Jim-especially when he somehow assumes a sixteen year old should know all about one of his favorite themes, Ethical Skepticism, and absolutely NO ONE had enough courage to ask him what the heck he was on about. In my honors year, I used to invite Jim to our flat parties, in N.E Valley, and he ALWAYS came, usually in bare feet, in the middle of winter clutching one of those old large beer bottles. Anyway, as soon as I saw him, I would think, "Great, here's my opportunity to get to know everything about everything".. But old Jim would see me coming, and immediately head to the nearest of my female friends and dazzle them with his endless pearls of wisdom.
He was a great guy-he once told me after I had said to him I had never heard anyone speak in such perfectly constructed sentences, that he thought he had only about half the vocab of his father and grand dad-kinda odd considering his over riding conclusion to his research into intelligence is that we are all getting smarter.
But the lasting thought about Jim is this-despite his humungous smarts, he absolutely never patronized anyone via a timidly proffered question-he treated everyone as fellow travelers in the quest for knowledge- a strong contrast to the stuck-up, conceited Law lecturers of my day, who believed, completely without any supporting evidence that they were something special.

Classic. Notice if the Socialists ever explain how they will pay for their policies, their popularity plummets. Why would that be?

Breaking News.
The Autonomous Zone in Portland USA is being kept as a Museum to Socialism.

Because business type people don't like paying taxes but do like being bailed out when their businesses fail in tough economic times?

Amene.