Threats of mass deportations loom on the post-2024 election horizon. Some supporters claim these will protect the country from immigrants who bring “bad genes” into America. But this is a misguided use of the language of science to give a sheen of legitimacy to unscientific claims.
Politicians invoke genetics to confirm false stereotypes that immigrants are more violent than native-born citizens as a result of biological differences. This is despite the fact that immigrants living in the country with or without legal authorization have significantly lower crime and violent crime rates than U.S. citizens. Moreover, there is no strong genetic evidence to support a biological predisposition for committing violent acts.
As a geneticist and a child of immigrants, I study the intersection of biology and bias. I am also author of the book “Where Biology Ends and Bias Begins: Lessons on Belonging from Our DNA.” What is clear from my professional work is that this line of thinking – attempting to use science to explain human difference in ways that reinforce social hierarchies – isn’t new. It takes the playbooks of genetic essentialism and scientific racism and applies them to public policy.
The fallacy of genetic essentialism
Genetic essentialism is the concept that genes alone are the reason why someone develops a specific trait or behaves a certain way. For instance, a genetic essentialist would say that a person’s athleticism, intelligence, personality and a range of other traits are encoded entirely in their DNA. They ignore the influence that sports training, material resources and learned behaviors have on these traits.
When used to explain differences between populations, genetic essentialism discounts the role that structural biases – inequities deeply ingrained in how systems operate – play in individual differences. Structural biases create a playing field that advantages one group over another from the start.
For instance, studies seeking to identify a gene for violent behavior may use measurements that are themselves biased. If arrest or incarceration rates were used as evidence of violence, study findings would be affected by discriminatory practices in the policing and criminal justice systems that more harshly penalize people of color.
Studies trying to disentangle the relative effects of genetic and structural factors on specific traits also face similar biases. For example, mental health outcomes are influenced by the identity-related stress that racial or sex and gender minorities experience. Similarly, socioeconomic outcomes are affected by the effects of redlining and segregation on generational wealth.
Advertisement
Genetics of educational attainment
As another example of behavioral genetics, consider a 2018 study on the genetics of educational attainment – in other words, whether certain genes were associated with years of schooling completed. The researchers were careful to communicate their results as pertaining specifically to educational attainment. They highlighted that genetic scores explained only about 11% to 13% of the variance – meaning, 87% to 89% of differences in educational attainment were due to influences other than genetics.
However, some popular press coverage oversimplified their findings as identifying genes for intelligence, even though the scientists did not directly measure intelligence – nor is it possible to.
The effects of racial segregation in schools continues to be reflected in educational attainment gaps. Wilfredo Lee/AP Photo
Educational attainment can reflect everything from generational wealth to racial biases in education. A student with access to tutors their parents paid for has fewer educational obstacles than a student who has to work after school to make ends meet. Likewise, school punishment practices that are biased against students from certain backgrounds can set them on a harmful trajectory known as the school-to-prison pipeline.
Genetic studies are not conducted in a vacuum, and social influences can confound analyses seeking to focus on biological effects. In fact, some scientists think of genes as potential controls to allow more careful study of the nongenetic factors accounting for the remaining 87% to 89% of differences in educational attainment.
Intentional misinterpretation of these observations on educational attainment have led some to conclude that Black students are simply not as intelligent as their white counterparts. They argue that these differences are genetically encoded and immutable. However, when the effects of wealth gaps and school segregation are accounted for, test score gaps substantially narrow. Importantly, educational attainment gaps actually invert, predicting that Black students complete more years of school than white students.
Slipping to scientific racism
This brings us to scientific racism: the way in which science is contorted to support preexisting views about the superiority of the white race over all others.
American physician Samuel Morton was one of the original forebears of scientific racism. He was interested in providing “evidence” to support his belief that Caucasians were the most intelligent of all races. To do this, he collected skulls and categorized them into five racial groupings he believed were derived from separate creation events. He measured skull volume as an indicator of intelligence.
Samuel Morton and his colleagues used average skull volume to support their theory of white supremacy. Morton et al/U.S. National Library of Medicine via Internet Archive
When comparing the averages from each group, his results supported his original theory. However, if he had instead focused on the array of skull volumes in his collection, he would have seen substantial overlap in each of the groupings. That is, each group had a range of small to large skulls. Morton’s singular focus on proving his beliefs from the outset likely influenced his favored analytical approach. Nor is there a meaningful correlation between brain volume and intelligence.
Similar beliefs are at play when white supremacists manipulate data to create a scientific basis for their claims that white people are more intelligent than Black people. These tampered results appear in dark corners of the internet where they are shared in fringe journals, far-right social media memes and racist manifestos.
Advertisement
To be clear, there is no evidence that genetic differences related to intelligence or cognitive performance exist between racial groups. Instead, this is another argument growing out of replacement theory, the conspiracy theory that Jews and Western elites are deliberately replacing white populations with populations of color. Adherents believe that people of color are genetically inferior but are reproducing and immigrating at greater rates, and so threatening white power.
Human genetic variation
Scientists have systematically studied human genetic variation for decades, looking at differences in the DNA of people around the world. These studies definitively demonstrate that we are far more alike than different. The vast majority of common genetic variation is found across populations, and very few rare variants are specific to an individual group.
This may seem unexpected. Looking at the world around you, you’ll observe some differences between racially defined groups, such as skin tone and hair texture. However, there is no place in the world where you’ll be able to draw a line that cleanly separates people with dark skin tone from those with light skin tone. Skin color varies continuously across the globe, and a range of skin tones are present within any individual group.
Importantly, variation in one genetic trait is not predictive of other genetic traits. That is, you can’t extrapolate conclusions about traits such as disease predisposition from the genes that influence skin color. Even if the fallacy of genetic essentialism were true and cognitive ability was primarily a biological trait – which it is not – it would not be possible to connect an observed skin tone to predicted intelligence. https://www.youtube.com/embed/wK94PWbCmsk?wmode=transparent&start=0 President-elect Donald Trump pledged to use the military to carry out mass deportations.
Misappropriating genetics
While science does not support genetic essentialism or other underpinnings of replacement theory, this exact rationale has made its way into national immigration policy.
These policies grew directly out of the American eugenics movement, which sought to build a supposedly better human race through social engineering based on “race science.” Zoologist Charles Davenport created the Cold Spring Harbor Eugenics Record Office in 1910 to pursue his interests in evolution, breeding and human heredity. There, he and his colleagues collected records of American families, documenting their traits and ascribing genetic bases to them.
Harry Laughlin, a high school teacher Davenport recruited to serve as superintendent of the office, was later appointed as the expert eugenics agent for the U.S. congressional Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. He commissioned studies to document race-based trends in so-called biological traits such as intelligence, inventiveness and feeble-mindedness, erroneously concluding that observed patterns were due to genetic differences between populations. His findings were used to inform U.S. immigration quotas, which were set higher for populations deemed to have good genes and lower for those with undesirable traits.
Advertisement
These policies were codified in the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924. In signing the act, President Calvin Coolidge declared, “America must remain American,” paraphrasing a popular Ku Klux Klan slogan. This law severely restricted immigration from Asia and implemented strict quotas for immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe. It also established elements of immigration that remain in 2025, including the visa system and the Border Patrol. With the passage of the Immigration Restriction Act, anti-Semitism and xenophobia became law of the land.
Coming full circle, genetic essentialism and racism continue to drive present-day rhetoric using “bad genes” to justify mass deportations of people deemed harmful to American society. Politicians and tech moguls are employing a combination of racism, willful misunderstanding of genetic science and political power to promote their own social agendas.
Ten people were killed in the 2022 Buffalo shooting. Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
A better understanding of science and history can empower scientists, policymakers and others to reject unscientific claims and protect vulnerable members of society targeted by racism.
Graduates of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government celebrate during commencement exercises in Cambridge, Mass.
AP Photo/Steven Senne, FileCorey Mitchell, The Conversation
A federal judge in Boston on May 23, 2025, temporarily blocked a Trump administration order that would have revoked Harvard University’s authorization to enroll international students.
The directive from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and resulting lawsuit from Harvard have escalated the ongoing conflict between the Trump administration and the Ivy League institution.
It’s also the latest step in a White House campaign to ramp up vetting and screening of foreign nationals, including students.
Homeland Security officials accused Harvard of creating a hostile campus climate by accommodating “anti-American” and “pro-terrorist agitators.” The accusation stems from the university’s alleged support for certain political groups and their activities on campus.
In early April, the Trump administration terminated the immigration statuses of thousands of international students listed in a government database, the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System. The database includes country of citizenship, which U.S. school they attend and what they study.
Barring Harvard from enrolling international students could have significant implications for the campus’s climate and the local economy. International students account for 27% of the university’s enrollment.
Here are four stories from The Conversation’s archive about the Trump administration’s battle with Harvard and the economic impact of international students.
1. A target on Harvard
This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has targeted the university.
The White House has threatened to end the university’s tax-exempt status, and some media outlets have reported that the Internal Revenue Service is taking steps in that direction.
But it is illegal to revoke an entity’s tax-emempt status “on a whim,” according to Philip Hackney, a University of Pittsburgh law professor, and Brian Mittendorf, an accounting professor at Ohio State University.
“Before the IRS can do that, tax law requires that it first audit that charity,” they wrote. “And it’s illegal for U.S. presidents or other officials to force the IRS to conduct an audit or stop one that’s already begun.”
Several U.S. senators, all Democrats, have urged the IRS inspector general to see whether the IRS has begun auditing Harvard or any nonprofits in response to the administration’s requests or whether Trump has violated any laws with his pressure campaign.
Hackney and Mittendorf wrote that the Trump administration’s moves are part of a larger push to exert control over Harvard, including its efforts to increase its diversity and its response to claims of discrimination on campus.
University of Michigan students on campus on April 3, 2025, in Ann Arbor, Mich.Bill Pugliano/Getty Images
2. International students help keep ‘America First’
The U.S. has long been the global leader in attracting international students. But competition for these students is increasing as other countries vie to attract the scholars.
In a recent story for The Conversation, David L. Di Maria, vice provost for global engagement at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, wrote that stepped-up screening and vetting of students could make the U.S. a less attractive study destination.
Di Maria wrote that such efforts could hamper the Trump administration’s ability to achieve its “America First” priorities related to the economy, science and technology, and national security.
Trump administration officials have emphasized the importance of recruiting top global talent. And Trump has said that international students who graduate from U.S. colleges should be awarded a green card with their degree.
Research shows that international students launch successful startups at a rate that is eight to nine times higher than their U.S.-born peers. Roughly 25% of billion-dollar companies in the U.S. were founded by former international students, Di Maria noted.
3. A boost to local economies
Indeed, international students have a tremendous economic impact on local communities.
If these global scholars stay home or go elsewhere, that’s bad economic news for cities and towns across the United States, wrote Barnet Sherman, a professor of multinational finance and trade at Boston University.
With the money they spend on tuition, food, housing and other other items, international students pump money into the local economy, but there are additional benefits.
On average, a new job is created for every three international students enrolled in a U.S. college or university. In the 2023-24 academic year, about 378,175 jobs were created, Sherman wrote.
In Greater Boston, where Harvard is located, there are about 63,000 international students who contribute to the economy. The gains are huge – about US$3 billion.
4. Rising number of international students
The rising number of foreign students studying in the U.S. has long led to concerns about U.S. students being displaced by international peers.
The unease is often fueled by the assumption that financial interests are driving the trend, Cynthia Miller-Idriss of American University and Bernhard Streitwieser of George Washington University wrote in a 2015 story for The Conversation.
A common claim, they wrote, is the flawed assumption that “cash-strapped public universities” aggressively recruit more affluent students from abroad who can afford to pay rising tuition costs. The pair wrote that, historically, shifting demographics on college campuses result from social and economic changes.
In today’s context, Miller-Idriss and Streitwieser maintain that the argument that colleges prioritize international students fails to account for the global role of U.S. universities, which help support national security, foster international development projects and accelerate the pace of globalization.
This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives.Corey Mitchell, Education Editor, The Conversation
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
A French propaganda engraving from 1825 depicts King Charles X bestowing freedom on a Black man kneeling before him in chains.
‘S.M. Charles X, le bien-aimé, reconnaissant l’indépendance de St. Domingue,’ 1825, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Cabinet des Estampes, CC BY-SAMarlene L. Daut, Yale University
In 2002, Haiti’s former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide argued that France should pay his country US$21 billion.
The reason? In 1825, France extracted a huge indemnity from the young nation, in exchange for recognition of its independence.
April 17, 2025, marks the 200th anniversary of that indemnity agreement. On Jan. 1 of this year, the now-former president of Haiti’s Transitional Presidential Council, Leslie Voltaire, reminded France of this call when he requested that France “repay the debt of independence and reparations for slavery.” In March, tennis star Naomi Osaka, who is of Haitian descent, added her voice to the chorus in a tweet wondering when France would pay Haiti back.
As a scholar of 19th-century Haitian history and culture, I’ve dedicated a significant portion of my research to exploring Haiti’s particularly strong legal case for restitution from France.
The story begins with the Haitian Revolution.
France instituted slavery in the colony of Saint-Domingue on the western third of the island of Hispaniola – today’s Haiti – in the 17th century. In the late 18th century, the enslaved population rebelled and eventually declared independence. In the 19th century, the French demanded compensation for the former enslavers of the Haitian people, rather than the other way around.
Just as the legacy of slavery in the United States has created a gross economic disparity between Black and white Americans, the tax on its freedom that France forced Haiti to pay – referred to as an “indemnity” at the time – severely damaged the newly independent country’s ability to prosper.
The cost of independence
Haiti officially declared its independence from France on Jan. 1, 1804. In October 1806, following the assassination of Haiti’s first head of state, the country was split into two, with Alexandre Pétion ruling in the south and Henry Christophe ruling in the north.
Despite the fact that both Haiti rulers were veterans of the Haitian Revolution, the French had never quite given up on reconquering their former colony.
In 1814, King Louis XVIII, restored as king after the overthrow of Napoléon earlier that year, sent three commissioners to Haiti to assess the willingness of the country’s rulers to surrender. Christophe, crowned king in 1811, remained obstinate in the face of France’s exposed plan to bring back slavery. Threatening war, the most prominent member of Christophe’s cabinet, Baron de Vastey, insisted,“ Our independence will be guaranteed by the tips of our bayonets!”
In contrast, Pétion, the ruler of the south, was willing to negotiate, hoping that the country might be able to pay France for recognition of its independence.
In 1803, Napoléon had sold Louisiana to the United States for US$15 million. Using this number as his compass, Pétion proposed paying the same amount. Unwilling to compromise with those he viewed as “runaway slaves,” Louis XVIII rejected the offer.
Pétion died suddenly in 1818, but Jean-Pierre Boyer, his successor, kept up the negotiations. Talks, however, continued to stall due to Christophe’s stubborn opposition.
“Any indemnification of the ex-colonists,” Christophe’s government stated, was “inadmissible.”
Once Christophe died in October 1820, Boyer was able to reunify the two sides of the country. However, even with the obstacle of Christophe gone, Boyer repeatedly failed to successfully negotiate France’s recognition of independence. Determined to gain at least suzerainty over the island – which would have made Haiti a protectorate of France – Louis XVIII rebuked the two commissioners Boyer sent to Paris in 1824 to try to negotiate an indemnity in exchange for recognition.
On April 17, 1825, Charles X, brother to Louis XVIII and the new French king, performed a sudden about-face. Charles X issued a decree stating that France would recognize Haitian independence but only at the price of 150 million francs – or nearly twice the 80 million francs the U.S. had paid for the Louisiana territory.
Baron de Mackau, whom Charles X sent to deliver the ordinance, arrived in Haiti in July, accompanied by a squadron of 14 brigs of war carrying more than 500 cannons.
His instructions stated that his “mission” was “not a negotiation.” It was not diplomacy either. It was extortion.
Amid the threat of violent war and a looming economic blockade, on July 11, 1825, Boyer signed the fatal document, which stated, “The present inhabitants of the French part of St. Domingue shall pay … in five equal installments … the sum of 150,000,000 francs, destined to indemnify the former colonists.”
French prosperity built on Haitian poverty
Newspaper articles from the period reveal that the French king knew the Haitian government was hardly capable of making these payments, as the amount was nearly six times Haiti’s total annual revenue. The rest of the world seemed to agree that the agreement was absurd. One British journalist noted that the “enormous price” constituted a “sum which few states in Europe could bear to sacrifice.”
Forced to borrow 30 million francs from French banks to make the first two payments, it was hardly a surprise to anyone when Haiti defaulted soon thereafter. Still, a subsequent French king sent another expedition in 1838 with 12 warships to force the Haitian president’s hand. The 1838 revision, inaccurately labeled “Traité d’Amitié” – or “Treaty of Friendship” – reduced the outstanding amount owed to 60 million francs, but the Haitian government was once again ordered to take out crushing loans to pay the balance.
It was the Haitian people who suffered the brunt of the consequences of France’s theft. Boyer levied draconian taxes in order to pay back the loans. And while Christophe had been busy developing a national school system during his reign, under Boyer, and all subsequent presidents, such projects had to be put on hold. Moreover, researchers have found that the independence debt and the resulting drain on the Haitian treasury were directly responsible not only for the underfunding of education in 20th-century Haiti, but also for the lack of health care and the country’s inability to develop public infrastructure.
A 2022 analysis by The New York Times, furthermore, revealed that Haitians ended up paying more than 112 million francs over seven decades, or $560 million – estimated between $22 billion and $44 billion in today’s dollars. Recognizing the gravity of this scandal, French economist Thomas Piketty has argued that France should repay at least $28 billion to Haiti in restitution.
A debt that’s both moral and material
Former French presidents, from Jacques Chirac to Nicolas Sarkozy to François Hollande, have a history of punishing, skirting or downplaying Haitian demands for recompense.
In May 2015, when Hollande became only France’s second head of state to visit Haiti, he admitted that his country needed to “settle the debt.” Later, realizing he had unwittingly provided fuel for the legal claims already prepared by attorney Ira Kurzban on behalf of the Haitian people, Hollande clarified that he meant France’s debt was merely “moral.”
To deny that the consequences of slavery were also material is to deny French history itself. France belatedly abolished slavery in 1848 in its remaining colonies of Martinique, Guadeloupe, Réunion and French Guyana, which are still territories of France today. Afterward, the French government demonstrated once again its understanding of slavery’s relationship to economics when it financially compensated the former “owners” of enslaved people.
The resulting racial wealth gap is no metaphor. In metropolitan France, 14.1% of the population lives below the poverty line. In Martinique and Guadeloupe, in contrast, where more than 80% of the population is of African descent, the poverty rates are 38% and 46%, respectively. The poverty rate in Haiti is even more dire at 59%. And whereas the gross domestic product per capita – the best measure of a country’s standard of living – is $44,690 in France, it’s a mere $1,693 in Haiti.
These discrepancies can be viewed as the concrete consequences of stolen labor from generations of Africans and their descendants.
In recent years, French academics have begun to increasingly contribute to the conversation about the longitudinal harms the indemnity brought to Haiti. Yet what effectively amounts to a statement of “no comment” has historically been the only response from France’s current government under President Emmanuel Macron.
On April 17, 2025, the bicentennial of the indemnity ordinance, Macron finally broke his silence. In an official communiqué, Macron acknowledged the “heavy financial indemnity” his country imposed upon Haiti and announced “a joint Franco-Haitian commission responsible for examining our common past and shedding light on all its dimensions.” But he did not address the question of reparations.
Many Haitians were rightfully not satisfied: the only initiative from France that would really matter, they said, would be one detailing how it plans to provide economic recompense to the Haitian people.
This is an updated version of an article originally published on June 30, 2020.Marlene L. Daut, Professor of French and African American Studies, Yale University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
People who most frequently encounter everyday discrimination – those subtle snubs and slights of everyday life – are more likely to suffer from anxiety and depression.
What’s more, that finding remains true no matter the person’s race, gender, age, education, income, weight, language, immigration status or where they live.
Everyday discrimination refers to the routine ways people are treated unfairly because of characteristics such as skin color, perceived background or general appearance.
Generally, it means disrespectful treatment: waiting longer than others for help at a store, having your ideas dismissed without consideration at work, or hearing rude comments about your identity.
Although marginalized groups endure everyday discrimination most often, our study indicates that this is a widespread issue affecting people of all races and backgrounds.
Everyday discrimination can affect both physical and mental health. FG Trade Latin/E+ via Getty Images
The results were striking: Nearly 56% of participants experienced at least occasional everyday discrimination, with 3.6% having “high levels,” meaning they faced discrimination most frequently – at least monthly and often weekly.
High levels were most prevalent among Black adults, at 8.6%. Multiracial respondents were next with 6.4%. Hispanics and white participants were at about 3%, Asians just over 2%.
Women and immigrants, people with disabilities and those who are overweight, obese or struggling with food insecurity also reported higher levels.
When compared with those reporting no discrimination, participants with high levels had five times the odds of screening positive for either depression or anxiety, and nearly nine times the odds of screening positive for both.
As discrimination increased, the increase in screening positive for depression, anxiety or both varied by race, with a more noticeable rise among groups that are often overlooked in these discussions – white, Asian and multiracial adults.
This doesn’t mean discrimination is less harmful for Black, Hispanic/Latino or other racial and ethnic groups. One possible reason for our study’s findings may be that groups that have long endured structural discrimination may have developed more ways over time to cope with it.
Why it matters
At some point, all of us experience unfair treatment due to our personal traits. But this type of discrimination isn’t just unpleasant. Our study shows it has real consequences for health.
White adults, though less frequently exposed to racial discrimination, still face mistreatment, particularly if they have lower incomes, limited education or working-class backgrounds. In recent years, white people have perceived rising levels of discrimination against their own group.
Discrimination isn’t just a Black versus white issue. It’s a public health crisis affecting all Americans. Acknowledging its harmful health effects is a first step.
The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here:
Cookie Policy
