Intellectual Nathan Cofnas and his work should not be left to, interpreted by, or even discussed by stupid commentators like David Starkey.

 

The Cofnas–Starkey interview is a useful example of how intellectual disagreement can become dangerously distorted when serious academic arguments are left to the loudest or most inflammatory voices in the room.

Nathan Cofnas’s work is controversial, and people are entirely entitled to disagree with his arguments, challenge his evidence, or reject his conclusions. But that is precisely why more intellectually serious people should engage with his work directly.

What struck me about the interview is that Cofnas repeatedly appears to push back when David Starkey moves from empirical or academic claims toward broader racial conclusions. Whatever one thinks of Cofnas himself, that distinction matters. A discussion involving population genetics, social science, history, or DEI should not casually become a vehicle for sweeping claims about racial groups or civilisations.

That is why I think Cofnas should not be left to commentators like Starkey to interpret or represent his arguments.

If scholars believe Cofnas is wrong, they should demonstrate where he is wrong. If his methodology is flawed, explain the flaw. If his interpretation of the evidence is unsound, present the stronger evidence. If his conclusions go beyond what his data can establish, identify precisely where that happens.

That is what intellectual accountability looks like.

Controversial scholarship does not disappear because respectable academics refuse to engage with it. Sometimes the vacuum is simply filled by people who have their own ideological purposes and who may present a much more extreme interpretation of the underlying material.

The answer is therefore not intellectual isolation. It is more competent criticism.

And this principle should apply regardless of someone's race, sex, political affiliation, or academic position. People from every background should be willing to examine controversial ideas without either automatically endorsing them or automatically treating their proponents as beyond legitimate discussion.

The Cofnas–Starkey conversation therefore raises a broader question about academia: are we actually willing to engage controversial arguments at the level of evidence and reasoning, or are we increasingly allowing the most provocative public personalities to define what those arguments mean?

Those are separate issues from David Starkey's own history and controversies. Oxford's decision regarding Starkey should be assessed on its own facts and standards; it should not be used as a proxy for judging Cofnas's scholarship.

Likewise, criticism of DEI should not automatically become an argument against racial equality, just as opposition to racial prejudice should not require accepting every claim made in defence of DEI.

There is a middle ground, and academia desperately needs people willing to occupy it:

rigorous evidence, rigorous criticism, intellectual freedom, and an unwillingness to let racial narratives—whether coming from the political left or right—substitute for serious analysis.

That is the standard I would like to see applied to Cofnas, too.