A Paper from Medical School Resurfaces
Abdul El-Sayed, a Michigan Democratic Senate candidate, is facing renewed attention over a research project he completed at Columbia University medical school in 2011. J.D. Haltigan, PhD, described the project as a study of “interethnic mating,” with particular attention to Arab-American mothers. The paper discussed whether the father’s ethnicity was connected to birth outcomes, comparing mothers with Arab fathers to mothers with non-Arab fathers. It also addressed genetics and the Black race. That is a serious topic, and the public is entitled to ask what the study actually argued. But a viral headline is not a substitute for reading the research itself. The controversy began when Haltigan posted about the project and called the subject matter odd, sending an old academic paper into a brand-new political fight.
What the Circulating Summary Says
A social media post summarizing the paper gave more detail. It said that among Arab-American mothers in Michigan from 2000 to 2005, having a non-Arab father was associated with higher odds of preterm birth, with reported odds ratios of 1.18 for preterm birth and 1.24 for late preterm birth, compared with an Arab father. The post also said no such association was found among non-Arab white mothers used as controls, and that the authors called for more work on possible causal mechanisms. Those details matter. An association is not proof that ethnicity caused an outcome, and the material provided here does not establish that the paper claimed ethnicity caused those outcomes. Critics, however, say the choice of research question and its framing deserve scrutiny.
Critics Turn the Paper into a Political Liability
The reaction was swift, and social media users delivered the expected roast. Drew Pavlou called the work “race science” and described it as strange. Another post compared it to 1920s Jim Crow research. Other critics accused El-Sayed of opposing interracial relationships, while additional posts made broader claims about racial pairings and birth defects. Those reactions are commentary from critics, not established conclusions in the research summary. The material provided here discusses associations with preterm birth, not a finding that the paper proved birth defects. That distinction is important, even when the internet is busy sharpening its pitchforks. The central political question remains straightforward: why did a medical student choose this subject, and how would the candidate explain it today?
The Question Now Hanging Over El-Sayed
NRSC Communications Director Joanna Rodriguez later weighed in, telling The Post Millennial that El-Sayed’s work raised a question about whether he stands by what she called “racist fearmongering.” Her statement added a campaign-level attack to the academic controversy. The source material does not include a response from El-Sayed, nor does it provide the full paper for independent review. That leaves voters with two separate issues to sort out: what the research actually found, and whether the candidate still defends the way the question was framed. Candidates can explain old work, defend it, or reject it. Until that explanation is provided, critics will continue pressing the issue.
Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed’s scientific research is…odd.
Arab mothers who engage in “interethnic mating” have worse birth outcomes than those who mate with Arab men?
Also: Genetics, black race, and interracial mating?
Why research this? WTF? pic.twitter.com/9ZXCftqeuW
— J.D. Haltigan, PhD 🏒👨💻 (@JDHaltigan) October 15, 2026
Leave a Comment