Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe Roger Pearson ISBN 1-878465-02-3 Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe Roger Pearson Introduction by Hans J. Eysenck Scott-Townsend Publishers P.O. Box 34070 N.W., Washington, D.C. 20043 Author Roger Pearson obtained his Master’s degree in Economics and Sociology and his Doctoral degree in Anthropology from the University of London. Having served as departmental head of anthropology at two U.S. universities and dean of academic affairs at a third, he is the author of several textbooks, including An Introduction to Anthropology (Holt, Rinehart and Winston) and an Anthropological Glossary (Krieger Publishing Co.), and is the editor of the quarterly Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies published from 6861 Elm St. #4-H, McLean, VA 22101. Hans J. Eysenck, of the Institute of Psychiatry and Maudsley Hospital, University of London, who contributed the Introduction, is a prominent authority on personality, learning and intelligence, and is the world’s most frequently cited psychologist. He is the author of numerous authoritative books and articles, and holds two doctorates (Ph.D. and D.Sc.) from the University of London. Copyright © 1991 Roger Pearson ISBN 1-878465-02-3 Scott-Townsend Publishers P.O. Box 34070 N.W., Washington, D.C. 20043 CONTENTS AUTHOR’S PREFACE INTRODUCTION BY HANS J. EYSENCK: SCIENCE AND RACISM 16 CHAPTER 1 How IT ALL BEGAN 56 CHAPTER 2 THE LEGACY OF MARX, MANNHEIM AND LYSENKO 95 CHAPTER3 SCIENTIFIC LUDDITES AND NEO-LYSENKOISTS 112 CHAPTER 4 ARTHUR JENSEN 141 CHAPTER 5 WILLIAM SHOCKLEY 184 CHAPTER 6 J. PHILIPPE RUSHTON 216 CHAPTER 7 ACTIVIST LYSENKOISM: THE CASE OF BARRY MEHLER 243 CHAPTER 8 OTHER PROMINENT SCHOLAR-VICTIMS 264 CHAPTER 9 ACADEME, THE MEDIA AND PUBLIC POLICY 287 CHAPTER 10 CONCLUSION 297 AUTHOR’S PREFACE In her presidential address to the annual meeting of the Behavior Genetics Association held in Honolulu, Hawau, on June 20, 1986 (published in Behavior Genetics, 17;3, 1987), Professor SandraScarr, then of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, hit a jubilant note. She spoke of the widespread opposition to the developmentofbehavior genetics during the 1960s and 1970s, and welcomedthe fact that scientific research had since provided clear evidencethat inheritance plays a majorrole in determining human behavior. Behavior genetics, she said, had at last become recog- nized as a relevantfield of research which has vast implications for the future of humanity. Opening her address in this congratulatory mood, Professor Scarr observed that: Someyears ago, the late Michael Lerner, an invited speaker at an early meeting of this organization, gave a speech entitled ‘Two cheers for Behavior Genetics’. The putting together of behavior and genetics would require, he said, more than just juxtaposing the two words. In thepastfifteen years, we have put behavior genetics together as a field ... we have earned Lerner’s two cheers. She then went on to review "the history of ideas behind the current acceptance and the formerrejection of ideas about human genetic variability in behavioral development” from the point of view of her personal experiences from 1960 to 1986. "One might have wondered," she reminisced: "why any behav- ioral scientists would want to study genetic variability in behavior. Not a popular topic from either a scientific or a political point of view, such research inflamed public opinion from 1960 to the early 1980s." But the tide had turned, she claimed, and "the outcries stopped, with the exception of a few eccentrics, such as Leon Kamin, Richard Lewontin, Steven Jay Gould and Stephen Rose, who have audiences amongthe lingering social radicals left over from the 1970s." To illustrate the politically-oriented persecution from which 8 AUTHOR’S PREFACE many who were engaged in behavioral genetics had suffered, Sandra Scarr salted her speech with some reminiscences of her own experiences at the hands of Marxist student mobs, who rejected freedom of speech and scientific research in favor of selective censorship, as exemplified by the slogan "No Free Speech for Racists": The debate amongscientists about humangenetic variability has been acrimoniousandlopsided overthe past 50 years. Many of you, and I, have lived through vicious disputes and physical threats to maintain the idea that evolution applies to human behavior. What might have been an intellectual debate between behaviorism and behavior genetics turned ugly in the late 1960s. That was a scary era, in which Arthur Jensen, Jan Bruell, Tom Bouchard, and manyothers were threatened andattacked, both verbally and physically. It is a sad commentary on the 1970s that ideas, expressed freely in open debate, evoked terrible retribution. Just two personalincidents: mild stories in compari- son to those that others of you could tell. First, Richard Weinberg and I were reported in the university press to be studying black children adopted by white families. Suddenly, one day in 1974, a large group of black students descended on myoffice at the Institute of Child Developmentat the University of Minnesota ... One graduate studentin education said he was goingto kill us if we continued to do research on black children. Another paced up and downinfrontof us calling, "honkie, honkie, honkie." It was not a pretty scene, but Richard and I kept ourcool ... I duly reported them to the administration, but of course, nothing was done - it was not fashionable in 1974 to ask questions about genetic variability in behavior. Nor wasit fashionable to ensure freedom of speech, even on university campuses. In 1976, Arthur Jensenwas invited by the graduate students of the Institute of Child Developmentat the Univ. of Minnesota to speak on bias in mentaltesting ... 1 walked with Art over to the lecture hall, some distance from the Institute. As we approached the hall, a phalanx of radical and black students lined the path and spat upon us. I had never been spat upon in mylife... On entering the lecture hall, it was clear that negotiations werein order, because the Progressive Labor Party members and the black students were intent on disrupting the lecture. Sitting on the edge of the table on the stage, I negotiated a deal — 45 RACE, INTELLIGENCE AND BIAS IN ACADEME 9 minutes for Professor Jensen to speak and 45 minutes for questions .... Art gave a beautiful lecture. They asked asinine questions that showed them to be ignorantof the issues. Not to be denied, however, they stormed the stage, and I got the chance to commit the one act of physical violence in myprofessionallife — I threw a young man, who wasattacking Art’s black-board chart, bodily off the stage and into the front row. He regained his balance and cameat me; I cowered and Bill Charlesworth saved my honorbyflooring him. The lecture had been heard, but we were all traumatized. What were Sandra Scarr and Arthur Jensen’s crimes? Simply, in Sandra Scarr’s own words: The major themethatintegratesall of the [behavioral genetic] research is the question: Why do people differ from one another? The question involves both individual and group differences. From a theoretical pointof view, individualand group differences follow the same evolutionary laws of variation and selection. Group differences [e.g. racial differences] are only aggregated individual differences, albeit with a potentially different evolu- tionaryhistory. Rejoicing in the signs of a groundswell of scientific opinion which had moved in the direction of support rather than opposi- tion, Sandra Scarr’s remarks were well received, but as subsequent events have provedshe sadly underestimated the extent to which the entrenched forces of Leftist bias remained able — with the assistance of a sympathetic media — to hold back the dissemination of "unacceptable" scientific knowledge to the public and to those who shape public policy. Her address was given four years ago, but despite her opti- mism and the mounting achievements in behavioral genetics, the influence of committed egalitarians — mostly Marxists or extreme Leftist activists — remains strong. Forideological reasons, there is a remarkable persistence of the belief that environment is over- whelmingly more important than heredity. This is sometimes called "neo-Lysenkoism," because like Lysenkoism — the belief that acquired characteristics could be genetically transmitted — it denies or ignores the demonstrated facts of Mendelian genetics. These egalitarian idealists are supported by the entrenched political 10 AUTHOR’S PREFACE interests of minorities many of whom believe that their claim to "affirmative action" benefits would be weakened were social legislation to be revised in accordance with modern knowledge concerning humangenetics. Theyarealso fortified by a Jean Paul Sartre type of Marxist existentialism which pervadeslarge segments of the Western academic world, despite the denouement of Marxist-Leninist regimes in Eastern Europe. It is therefore increasingly important that the public should be aware of the extent to which political activism has retarded research into the relationship between genetics and human behavior during the course of this century, and how objective scientific research in this area has been held back by such activism. Even now, when the real progress that has been made should be taken into account by our legislators and judiciary so that social programs of dubious value might be replaced by more effective solutions to the nation’s problems, research which points to the importance