DOCUMENT RESUME ED 379 382 UD 030 310 AUTHOR Haynes, Norris M. TITLE How Skewed Is "The Bell Curve"? PUB DATE Jan 95 NOTE 24p.; Reviews "The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life" by R.J. Herrnstein and C. Murray, 1994. PUB TYPE Book/Product Reviews (072) Reports Evaluative /Feasibility (142) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Cognitive Ability; Environmental Influences; *Genetics; Heredity; *Intelligence; Intelligence Differences; *Nature Nurture Controversy; Political Influences; Public Policy; *Racial Differences; Scientific Methodology; Social Class IDENTIFIERS *Bell Curve (Herrnstein and Murray) ABSTRACT Fe,; books have generated as much controversy as the recently published "The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life." The tremendous polarization on the issue of the relationship between intelligence quotient (IQ) to race and social class, reinforced by the book, and the potential this book has for undermining social programs designed to help the poor and disenfranchised make it worthy of attention. It is a pseudo-scientific treatise that must be considered in the sociopolitical and philosophical contexts within which it is written. Evidence suggests that "The Bell Curve" is a philosophically skewed attempt at revising and reviving the idea that nature is more significant and important in determining intelligence and survivability than is nurture. The author analyzes the book's hypotheses, which are often convincingly presented, and considers its social policy implications for the disadvantaged and children's programs. Herrnstein's and Murray's thesis of genetic inferiority and inherited cognitive deficiency is without scientific merit, and is contrary to tie spirit of the American constitution. (Contains 27 references.) (SLD) *********************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** How Skewed Is The Bell Curve? Norris M. Haynes, Ph D Associate Professor Yale Child Study Center Director of Research School Development Program PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY OF 'ZOUCATION IlalY112.0 U S DEPARTMENT Peses prve^.e,' a.r.Ai.p^A om.u.lico, RE SO0C.CESthe ED,ICIV-)NA.,CEATEP Qt: (Lid Ct4. teer 'ep,o0.AeC as OD.: ,,,ert has " tr:Ir Cs; vtl-t .q",- pf.SC.. January 1995 :rece.veC TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES tee- -.a `.en eahbvt. INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) rporoducbon openly sla,r: ,:s P.v.s nP:eSS.11".' I wish to acknowledge the contribution of Michael Ben-Avie in assisting with the identification of relevant material in my preparation of this manuscript. BEST COPY AVAILABLE [Not to be duplicated without author's permission] r 1 How Skewed Is The Hell Curve? A storm of controversy developed following Arthur Jensen's 1969 article in which he attributed 80% of the variance in IQ to heredity, suggesting genetic inferiority of Blacks compared to Whiteson IQ. There have been other turbulances since then which have swirled around the nature versus nurture influences on IQ, but none compares with the hurricane unleashed by the recentbook The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life ( Herrnstein andMurray, 1994). My analogy to a hurricane is not a mere indulgence in hyperbole or rhetoric,but is based on the tremendous polarization on the issue of the relationship of IQ to race and social class, reinforced by the book, and also on the unprecedented potential the book has for undermining important social programs designed to help the poor and disenfranchised, among whom are many innocent children. It is an 845page (including index) pseudo- scientific treatise, that on the surface, appears impressively steeped in abundant data. The book must be considered within the socio- political and philosophical context within which it has been written, as well as in view of the policy biases of its authorsregarding social programs for the disadvantaged poor in this society. It mustalso be considered on the merits of its theoretical framework, the research evidence in which it is grounded and the social policy implications and suggestions it offers. The Socio-political and Philosophical content Before the Bell Curve. Herrnstein was most remembered for his article on IQ which was published in the Atlantic Monthly in 1971, and for his book titled: IQ In The Meritocracy, published in 1973. Charles Murray is well known for his 1984 book, Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980 in which he criticized the welfare system, a- many of us do, but with venom and angstagainst those poor among us who are the beneficiariesof welfare, and for whom society provides very little else in the way of opportunity or hope. He is also a fellow at one of the most conservative social policy think tanks in the country, the American Enterprise Institute. Additionally, the Bell Curve has been endorsed by some persons whose scholarship and racial fairness have been called into question, such as Professor J. Phillipe Rushton, a psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario who argues in his 1990 book titled: Race, Evolution 2 and Behavior, that Blacks have smaller heads and larger genitalia than whites accounting in part for their lower levels of intelligence, higher levels of sex drive and higher birth rates.Other supporters and colleagues in the intelligence and race business include: ProfessorMichael Levine of the City University of New York's City College who argues that because Blacks are less intelligent than Whites and Asians they are more inclined to be criminals and implies that Blacks should therefore be feared, and Professor Linda Gottfredson, a sociologist at the University of Delaware, who also subscribes to the Black inferiority hypothesis and who spearheaded the campaign to have 52 like-minded intelligence researchers sign on, on the Herrnstein-Murray bandwagon.The 52 signers of course included Arthur Jensen and J. Phillipe Rushton. Murray himself has been known to speak disparagingly of the poor and of African- Americans. For exai.`e in an interview he gave while sitting in the first class cabin of an airline on his way to Aspen Colorado, sipping champagne, and glowing from the economic success of his book, he made the following comments to a reporter:" in the past, people were poor because of bad luck or social barriers, now, what's holding them back is that they are not smart enough to be physicians." He later intoned: "intelligence seems to blossom in the barest ground---. Now I know that's an odd thing to say about the inner-city, but at least they (Blacks) are going to school and they have the television on all day. You couldn't say that about Blacks 50 years ago."Later he referred to poor whites as "white trash" and made something of a confession by referring to his own work as "social science pornography." (source: New York Times Magazine, October 9, 1994, article titled: "Research or Social Science Pornography." (Quotes from pages 49-51). It is important to note that much of the "research" and writings on IQ, genetics and race have been underwritten by the Pioneer Fund including much of the research cited in the Bell Curve.Joyce Mercer, writing in Chronicle of Higher Education, the Business and Philanthropy section (December 7, 1994),had this to say about the Pioneer Fund: The fund was established in 1937 by eugenicists, people who believe the human race can be improved throughselective breeding. The founders thought that the overall intelligence of American 4 r 3 society was diminishing because of high birthrates among citizens with low IQs.Originally the fund's purpose was to conduct or aid research on the "problem of heredity and eugenics" and to encourage the reproduction of "white persons who settled in the original thirteen colonies". In 1985 the fund deleted the word "white" from its charter. But its detractors say the deletion did not change its focus (p. A27). What is clear is that Herrnstein and Murray are "descendants" of a long line of geneticists, dating back to Darwin (whose theory of evolution promoted the notion of survival of the fittest) and Galton (who believed that specific forms of genius as well as criminality were inherited and that environment played anegligible role), in the 19th century,to Burt ( a discredited geneticist from England who was found to have falsified IQ data ), Shockley andJensen in the 20th century. All of these individuals relentlessly argued for the superiority of one race over the other, with people of African (Negroid) descent at the bottom of the evolutionary ladder, and least intelligent. In fact, the authors acknowledge their philosophical and intellectual lineage in the book and assert quite clearly, in the following quote from the preface:"this book is about differences in intellectual capacity among people and groups and what those differences mean for America's future" (P. xxi). The evidence suggests that the Bell Curve isanother philosophically skewed attemr:n a long line of efforts at revisiting and reviving the notion that nature is more significant and important in determining intelligence and survivability than nurture. However, we must guard against a purely emotional response to this book.It is extremely well written and grounded in an avalanche of correlational data, which though often spurious and misinterpreted by the authors, nonetheless appear very convincing to many. The approach thatI take in the rest of this paper is to consider the hypotheses (premises) which guide the analyses, examine the research data and review the conclusions drawn. I also examine the social policy implications made with regard to programs that benefit the least socially privileged members of society,especially the many children who, armed with as much potential as their more privileged peers,struggle daily to survive and succeed in a society where they are viewed by some as 4 "cognitively deficient" and undeserving because they are not of the "cognitive elite" class.