The 'Bell Curve' controversy suggests that Lett's systematic criteria for analysis is not completely sufficient for evaluating The Bell Curve. Because specific social policies are advocated by the authors, we must also consider their philosophical intent. This point was recently emphasized by Stephen Hawking in Black Holes And Baby Universes and Other Essays (1993):

While Hawking used this passage to defend his theory of relative time, this question has great relevance to the discussions raised within The Bell Curve. This review will consider the philosophical theories implicitly maintained by Herrnstein and Murray.

There is one other issue that needs to be addressed in these introductory remarks. The proper use of the scientific method of research requires the use of an empirical test of disproof. It is not enough to merely advance a theory and collect selective data to support your view. Chicken Little did that and convinced himself that the sky was falling. A good investigator must conduct a considered evaluation of all of the available adverse data. The active attempt to disprove an hypothesis is required of conscientious researchers, as Herman Bondi brilliantly describes in The logic Of Scientific Discovery (1960):

Now we are ready to begin our evaluation. First, we shall examine the evidence cited in this book in terms of their suitability of fit with James Lett's "FiLCHeRS."

Our first facet of critical analysis focuses upon the question of falsifiability. Is it possible to conceive of evidence that would prove these claims false? Yes, it is. However, that would be very difficult to do. Much of the statistical analysis used for producing the evidence is this book relies upon a process "known as meta-analysis, it combines the results from many separate studies and extracts broad and stable conclusions" (Herrnstein and Murray, 71). The problem with lumping so many separate studies together is that those specific research paradigms which produce widely divergent results (assuming that they aren't ignored completely) are overwhelmed by a general pattern of results. The real danger here is that one of these overwhelmed anomalies may provide the exception that disproves the rule consequentially emphasized by Herrnstein and Murray.

Is there any reason to suspect that this overwhelming phenomena has occurred? Yes there is. In examining IQ differences for populations comparisons, Herrnstein and Murray rely almost exclusively on large population group studies. These studies are notoriously stable and consistently show a similar pattern of group differences (which reflect a stable pattern of characteristic differences within and between groups). However, part of the rationale for this large group reliance is based upon the assertion by Herrnstein and Murray that individual IQ results are similarly stable and resistant to change. Is there contradictory evidence to this claim? There is, and Herrnstein and Murray have not dealt adequately with it.

There are actually three major issues of critical analysis involved with this question. The first question is raised regarding the appropriateness of meta-analysis results in terms of the potential falsifiability of their conclusions. The second question involves the Logic of relying upon group data to generate the attribution of individual characteristics, and then proposing social policies based upon these generalizations. Indeed, Herrnstein and Murray never discuss the imperative need to make such a leap of logic: group traits do not constitute individual characteristics. Under such circumstances, we must investigate the comprehensiveness of the individual data cited by Herrnstein and Murray. Have they carefully examined all of the data which would suggest that IQ is a highly variable descriptor of individual traits and abilities? No, they have not. In fact, they have ignored the most important studies in this field of literature.

The single most significant research investigation of individual IQ variations yet produced is the Rosenthal and Jacobson study "Self-Fulfilling Prophecies in the Classroom: Teachers' Expectations as Unintended Determinants of Pupils' Intellectual Competence" (1975). There is no mentioned or reference to this study anywhere in The Bell Curve. Such an omission is glaring in its significance, especially because, when discussing first and second grade participants in this study, Rosenthal and Jacobson specifically report:

Despite these large and substantiated findings, in contrast, Herrnstein and Murray make the following claim:

Elsewhere in the book, Herrnstein and Murray absolutely absolve education of producing positive IQ benefits through some bizarre contortions of logic. They make the bold assertion that "no lasting improvements in intelligence have ever been statistically validated with any Head Start program" (404). Yet when they are forced to discuss exactly such a successful program (described as THE MILWAUKEE PROJECT), they discount its notable success by reporting, "the program's substantial and enduring gain in IQ has been produced by coaching the children so well on taking intelligence tests that their scores no longer measure intelligence..."(409).

Other instances of reported increases in IQ have been similarly dismissed by Herrnstein and Murray. The trashing of Marva Collins' students is one such case in point. First they note that she "gained national attention with claims that her shoestring-budget inner-city school, launched in 1975, was turning out students who blew the top off standardized tests and were heading for the best universities," but finally conclude, "despite years of publicity about Marva Collins, we can find no hard evidence." End of paragraph (399).

Excuse me, whose fault is it if YOU can't find the evidence? If her graduates are enrolling in universities in large numbers, what more do you need? However, on an even more pernicious note the next paragraph in the text discusses several cases of reported tampering with IQ test results. The implication of these statements is such immediate proximity to this dismissal of Marva Collins' successful students falsely implies dishonesty on her part. Such an insult aside, is there other research data that challenges the Herrnstein and Murray assertion that IQ is fixed and essentially unalterable? There is.

A similarly short shift was given to Stephen Jay Gould's book The Mismeasure Of Man (1981). On page 12, Herrnstein and Murray quote Gould's conclusion that Intelligence is a "bankrupt concept" but then they completely ignore his many serious criticism of the American IQ testing industry and its procedures. At least there were no aspersions cast at Gould through an implicit allegation of fraud, however. This Herrnstein and Murray review of this topic is decidedly out of balance.

Is there other research that has been ignored by Herrnstein and Murray which has significant bearing on this subject? Yes. In a 1964 study, Martin Deutsch and Bert Brown reported on the IQ differences between White and Black first and fifth graders. They found that performance level differences were better for both Black and White students at the fifth grade level, although White students had a greater overall gain in scores than Black students. Success in school was shown to produce higher IQ scores for both groups.

Several others studies have produced similar results, including a two year study that I conducted in 1968 and 69. During these two years I administered an IQ test to students in a freshman level introductory social sciences course that I taught. A total of 405 students participated in this study. The average score for all students during both Fall quarters was 110.8; during both Winter quarters it was 111.9; during both Spring quarters it was 112.8 and during both Summer quarters it was 112.9. This data suggests that at least one consequence of a college education can be reflected by such a progressive increase (although not statistically significant) in IQ test scores throughout the progression of the academic year. Moreover, this research report also specifically noted:

On a much more personal note, I would like to reveal a quaint discovery I experienced when working as a Graduate Assistant to Herbert Sorenson and developing my Master's Thesis. After having been given an IQ test about a month earlier, Sorenson called me into his office one morning and said that he had something to show me. He pointed to a folder of material on his desk and said that he had gotten a copy of my public school records, and that I had been given an IQ test when I was in the third grade and gotten a score of 116. He added that as a ninth grader I had been given another IQ test and scored 122. As a college sophomore being admitted as a major to the College of Education I scored 131, and finally, as his graduate student I had scored 145 on the test he had given a month earlier. He asked me how I accounted for this change in scores.

Never at a loss for words, I truthfully replied, "as a freshman, History Professor (Robert Aaron) Goldstein scared the hell out of me. He gave me a D- on a paper only because I had the audacity to make such an outrageous claim: that it was possible for a faction of right-wing political demagogues to take control of this country's government by using brain washing techniques throughout the mass media. I figured that this was my second chance and that I probably would not get many more. I didn't want all the money my parent had borrowed for my education to go to waste. So, I resolved to knuckle down and learn what was important, and start using what I had learned." When I said this, Sorenson slapped me on the back and chuckled, "and not a moment too soon."

The point to this revelation is that I do not believe for one moment that my experience is unique. Lots of people have increased their intelligence, and IQ, while in school. There is a simple truth here: if you apply yourself in school you will get smarter.

Finally, we must also address the subject of cultural bias in the IQ tests (this is the third issue). While this topic is addressed by herrnstein and Murray, the questions raised about cultural bias are largely dismissed through the reductionist conclusion that, "there is no longer an important technical debate over the conclusion that the cultural content of test items is not the cause of group differences in scores" (282).

On the contrary, numerous researchers have pointed out the breadth and scope of bias that exists in the most commonly used IQ tests. Peter Watson found that the ethnic identity of IQ test administrators itself significantly influenced the scores of black children. He concluded that when a white person gives an IQ test to black children their scores drop but when you change the identity of the test administrator their IQ scores sour (1972).

In addition, at least four separate and independent studies (that were not considered by Herrnstein and Murray) have analyzed the cultural bias of test items and concluded that the degree of cultural bias was more than sufficient to account for the reported differences in group test results: (1) The most sweeping of these studies was reported in Thomas Ford Hoult's book Sociology For A New Day (1978). This analysis reviewed a wide range of persuasive cultural criticisms. (2) Turning the cultural bias argument around, Robert Williams created the "Test of Black Intelligence," to demonstrate specifically how an intelligence test could favor an Afro-American population and be biased against White middle class students. (3) On the other hand, John Garcia in "I.Q.: The Conspiracy," found that when the researchers controlled the test for Anglo characteristics, Anglo, Chicano and Black children scored the same. (4) The most specific of these four studies of cultural bias was an IQ Test content analysis that I conducted. In "The B.S. Test," I cited examples of specific IQ test questions taken from several standardized IQ tests which: displayed implicit prejudice toward minorities, required the identification of uncommon symbols, made use of very limited terms and concepts, required an ability to interpret poorly written statements, had a critical word misspelt, required a precise ability to distinguish between homonyms, presented information which is grossly out of date and unrealistic, and asked questions for which there is no clear answer.

Given the forgoing discussion and evidence, grave questions remain about the Falsifiability, Logic and Comprehensiveness of the work of Herrnstein and Murray. The reliance upon meta- analysis may be a devious ploy that attempts to avoid the necessity for a test of empirical disproof. The logic of using data from large group studies to produce individual character descriptions is not acceptable, and the discussion just cited clearly shows Herrnstein and Murray's lack of comprehensive analysis. What can we now say about their Honesty, Replicability and Sufficiency?

Prudence would suggest that we be generous and suppose that Herrnstein and Murray have all along been attempting to deal with these issues honestly. That could well be the case. From the vantage point of these investigators, the objections that I and others have raised may appear to be only a minor anomaly that can be easily discounted when faced with their broad generalizations. Moveover, this particular problem has been unduly complicated by the recent death of Herrnstein, the principal research investigator. Now is not the time to subject Murray to a barrage of questions about Herrnstein's intentions and motivations. Let us hold this issue in abeyance until we conclude the rest of this discussion.

The question of Replicability is thorny. It is true that other researchers who choose to rely upon the broad generalizations produced by a meta-analysis could easily reach similar results. The question then becomes, why would any researcher want to avoid the specific detailed examination of issues that could reveal these transparent conclusions? Does this King have no clothes? Remember, the protocols of good investigation require that we attempt to produce Bondi's empirical disproof. Herrnstein and Murray have not done that.

Our final question is primarily concerned with the issue of sufficiency? Is the evidence cited in support of these claims adequate to establish its validity? It is not. The forgoing discussion has raised three major questions upon which this research has failed the test of sufficiency. First, under the best of circumstances, the reliance on group data as the basis for generating individual generalizations is illogical and highly suspect. Second, contrary to the denials of Herrnstein and Murray, there is a substantial body of data which demonstrates that individual IQ scores can be positively improved over time. Finally, there has been compelling evidence presented which documents the cultural bias and lack of validity of these IQ tests. For these reasons we must conclude that the evidence cited is this research investigation is not sufficient to support its conclusions.

The additional issue that we must address when reviewing the work of Herrnstein and Murray is the question of philosophical theory that Stephen Hawking raised. What is the philosophical basis for the theoretical views advocated by Herrnstein and Murray? This is an matter of grave importance because the world of academia has already begun to progressively dismiss the usefulness and validity of IQ Test. Why have Herrnstein and Murray raised this issue now?

This issue ultimately comes down to the question of how they perceive the nature of intelligence. It is clear from the discussions in The Bell Curve that they view intelligence as the product of human cognition, and the IQ test is a measurement of that product. Specifically stated, Herrnstein and Murray claim:

Please note that this passage appears on pages 22 and 23. These positions constitute the premise upon which the subsequent data, meta-analysis and conclusions are based. This view is not unique, but it is NOT the commonly accepted view of intelligence in academia today, which sees intelligence as a continuous dynamic process of organization, achievement and learning. This is no small matter of difference. Moreover, this review has already presented compelling evidence that disprove points four and five, and points two and six are in serious dispute.

The key issue here rests upon Herrnstein and Murray's insistence that there is a fixed "general factor" of intelligence upon which individuals differ. This view is supported by the use of IQ tests that are typically administered to groups of school children at specific grade level intervals. Administered on an annual basis, the group results appear to be very stable and fixed. In large part because every year you are testing a different set of students who are collectively at the same educational level each time the test is given.

On the other hand, the few studies which have followed individuals over a period of years have found considerable variation, and usually an improvement in scores. How can both sets of seemingly contradictory results appear simultaneously? It is because we are comparing apples and grapefruit. Stable group results do not preclude a substantial change on the part of individual scores.

An IQ test score is a standard deviation placement indicator. Most IQ tests use 100 as a mean (average) with a standard deviation of 15. When an individual takes the test, their correct responses (raw score) are compared to the standard population's performance and a numerical value is assigned (from a conversion table) which reflects the statistical probability of that level of performance. If you were to score 130 on such a test, this would represent a performance that is two standard deviations above the standard population. This level of performance occurs about 2 percent of the time, so you would have every right to feel proud of your accomplishment. Herrnstein and Murray would have us believe that that's all there is to it. One score and bingo, you're set for life.

It isn't that simple. In the first place, how did the creators of this test come up with their standard population? It is not magic. They use a large group of scores and a highly sophisticated statistical combination of split-half and pre- test/post-test comparisons. The result of this analysis is a reliability coefficient which is a prediction of how likely you will get a similar score the next time you take the test. That is the key. Your IQ is not just a single score but it is a prediction of your future performance(s).

If you recently scored 130 on an IQ test, you would therefore expect that if you took the test again any time soon you would score within one standard deviation of this mark (that is actually a range of from 115 to 145) "X" percent of the time. In this case, "X" is the reliability coefficient of the test. These coefficients typically run from .75 to .95 (or 75 to 95 percent) in their reliability. If the IQ test you took is one of those on the low end of this range, you should know that the probability of your getting a score of between 115 and 145 on your second administration of this test is only 75 percent. Which is to say that one out of every four times you repeat this process you can reasonably be expected to make a score of less than 115 or greater than 145. When scores do exceed this range on repeat administrations of a test, nearly nine times out of ten they do so on the high side. What Herrnstein and Murray didn't tell us when they discussed the "Flynn Effect" (309) on IQ scores is that individual IQ scores really do tend to get progressively better (higher) over time.

The currently accepted academic view of intelligence is one of far greater dynamic range and flexibility than the narrow strictures allowed by Herrnstein and Murray's "general factor". The contemporary view of medical neurology suggests a far more flexible and far-reaching concept of intellect. There is nothing in our brain structures, synapses and grey matter that suggest such a limited notion of intelligence.

Moreover, in 1975, the Yale Psychologist Robert Sternberg created the "Triarchic Model of Intelligence" which has gained nearly universal acceptance among psychologist and sociologist today. There are three primary levels of his model: the contextual, experiential and componential. The componential level also consists of three processes, each of which are very highly involved in intelligence: metacomponents, performance components and knowledge-acquisition components (Rathus, 284). Unfortunately, Herrnstein and Murray only barely mention Sternberg's model in passing and never seriously consider its meaning and implications.

More recently, Marvin Minsky has gone even further in presenting a perspective of intelligence that is dynamic and progressively based upon our experience of processing and organizing our improving skills and expanding fields of information. The essence of Minsky's view may be glimpsed in this passage:

What does this discussion suggest about the purpose behind The Bell Curve? The views of intelligence described by Herrnstein and Murray are so out of touch with the consensus of opinion among contemporary psychologist that this tome must be recognized as the "last hurrah" of the old order that is desperately grasping for its self-justification. Perhaps it is best seen as Herrnstein's life time of work "monument" to what might have been. In that tragic sense, there have been a few past moments in the sun, but this is a stifling and limiting view of humanity that never was, and never could have been.

This problem with the Herrnstein and Murray conception of intelligence is no small matter of consequence. We cannot accept the reductionist view that intelligence is whatever the IQ test measures. When I was his graduate student, Herbert Sorenson would lovingly recounted how a 1903 letter from Harry Stack Sullivan helped Alfred Binet create an operational definition of intelligence. Sullivan said, "intelligence is culturally defined as the facility and efficiency with which an individual utilizes what his culture values." These words inspired Binet to begin to measure the speed and skill with which young people performed important cultural tasks. It is essential that we not lose sight of this essential enabling rationale. Using our contemporary view of intelligence, a good IQ test must both measure important cultural tasks and add to the individual's experience of expanding their field of information gathering and better organizing their learning.

To this end, it is possible to imagine creating an intelligence test that draws upon cultural skills that are very specific to unique preindustrial societies from around the world. For instance, clogging is considered a necessary social skill in some parts of the Netherlands; smelling water underground is a necessary skill among the !Kung! people of the Kalahari desert; the ability to gig snakes underwater is highly prized in Guatemala; hunting with a blow gun is essential in the Amazon River basin; and wrestling alligators is a valued talent in Australia. Would Herrnstein and Murray volunteer to take such a test, and have their scores published widely and their professional careers hanging in the balance, if each of these specific tasks were only standardized only to the cultural population which excels at their performance? Not likely, but that is exactly what they demand of minority populations in this country.

The reason for invoking Stephen Hawking's quotation on the importance of theory and philosophy is because so much of The Bell Curve is given over to strongly advocating social policies directly aimed at Afro-American. These policy recommendations are predicated upon the meta-analysis demonstration of numerous significant correlations between IQ scores and various social phenomena: school drop out rates, poverty, illegitimate childbirth, mothering skills, socioeconomic background, going on welfare, etc. A lot of these are correlations which everyone recognizes and regrets. The problem, however, is that Herrnstein and Murray allege that an inherited low IQ among Black Americans is the "cause" of these problems. What's more, because Herrnstein and Murray maintain that intelligence can't be changed these problems can't be solved. Therefore, as a matter of national policy, they propose that we create a reservation for Afro-Americans and segregate them from good (white) folks. This is really what Herrnstein and Murray seriously recommend.

There are several severe problems with these views. However disturbing and troubling the numerous correlations that Herrnstein and Murray cite to document the troubles of many Black Americans, they are ONLY correlations; not CAUSES. In fact, the attempt to label these correlations as "causes" constitutes a spurious correlation. Let me explain.

There are many types of correlation. When two events regularly appear together, their association with each other can be easily documented as being co-related. For instance, in the state of Florida, rates of alcohol consumption and church attendance form a perfect parallel curve. They are correlated, but it would be very wrong (and a spurious correlation) to suggest the either of these variables causes the other. In fact they are both driven by fluctuating economic conditions and population dynamics.

There are similar variable conditions which invalidate all of the correlations duly claimed by Herrnstein and Murray to be causes. In fact, they have not employed good empirical testing procedures. Had they posited these correlations as research hypotheses, they would have been obligated to try to find replicable and verifiable research data and attempted to disprove these assertions. Unfortunately, they never looked at the sociological research related to these issues. Instead, Herrnstein and Murray have arrogantly proclaimed: "don't confuse us with facts, we've made up our minds."

Has sociology produced replicable and verifiable research data that can refute the "causes" Herrnstein and Murray attribute to these correlations? Indeed, there are numerous research studies which identify more immediate, specific and direct sources of responsibility for these conditions than Herrnstein and Murray's vague notion of "low IQ". Here is a short list of some of these studies:

Thomas, Melvin E. "Race, Class, and Personal Income: An Empirical Test of the Declining Significance of Race Thesis, 1968-1988." Social Problems, August 1993. 40: 328-342.

Swinton, David H. "The Economic Status of African Americans: 'Permanent' Poverty and Inequality." The State Of Black America, 1991. Washington, DC: National Urban League, 1991. pps. 25-76.

Carlson, Susan M. "Trends in Race/Sex Occupational Inequality: Conceptual and Measurement Issues." Social Problems, August 1992. 39: 268-290.

Liebow, Elliot. Tally's Corner. Boston: Little, Brown. 1967.

Falk, William W. and Bruce H. Rankin. "The Cost of Being Black in the Black Belt." Social Problems, August 1992. 39: 299- 313.

Ryan, William. "How to Keep the Poor Always with Us." in John Stimson, Ardyth Stimson and Vincent Parrillo, eds., Social Problems: Contemporary Readings, 2nd ed., Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock Publishers, 1991. pps. 141-148.

Sosin, Michael R. "Homeless and Vulnerable Meal Program Users: A Comparison Study." Social Problems, May, 1992. 39: 170- 188.

Kurz, Demie. "Skimming And Dumping At Penrose High: Career Mobility And The Perpetuation of Inequality." In Candace Clark and Howard Robboy, eds., Social Interaction: Readings In Sociology, 4th ed. New York: St Martin's Press, 1992. pps. 439-450.

Neckerman, Kathryn M. and Joleen Kirschenmen. "Hiring Strategies, Racial Bias, and Inner-City Workers." Social Problems, Nov. 1991, 38: 433-447.

Pearce, Dianna M. "Gatekeepers and Homeseekers: Institutional Patterns in Racial Steering." In John W. Heeren and Marylee Mason, eds., Sociology: Windows On Society, Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Co., 1992. pps. 99-103.

Rosenbaum, James E., Susan J. Popkin, Julie E. Kaufman and Jennifer Rusin. "Social Integration of Low-Income Black Adults in Middle-Class White Suburbs." Social Problems. Nov. 1992, 38: 448-461.

Feagin, Joe R. "The Continuing Significance of Race: Antiblack Discrimination in Public Places." American Sociological Review, Feb. 1991, 56: 101-116.

Edin, Kathryn. "Surviving the Welfare System: How AFDC Recipients Make Ends Meet in Chicago." Social Problems, Nov. 1992, 38: 462-474.

National Committee on Pay Equity. "The Wage Gap: Myths and Facts." In Paula S. Rothenberg, ed., Race, Class, And Gender in the United States: An Integrated Study. 3rd ed. New York: St Martin's Press, 1995. pps. 144-151.

Osterman, Paul. "Welfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy." Social Problems, Nov. 1992, 38: 475-491.

Olsen, Marvin E. "The Affluent Prosper while Everyone Else Struggles." in Gregg Lee Carter, ed., Empirical Approaches to Sociology, New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1994. pps. 361-374.

Santiago, Anne M. and Margaret G. Wilder. "Residential Segregation and Links to Minority Poverty: The Case of Latinos in the United States." Social Problems, Nov. 1992, 38: 492-515.

Rossi, Peter H. and James D. Wright. "The Urban Homeless: A Portrait of Urban Dislocation." In Gregg Lee Carter, ed., Empirical Approaches to Sociology, New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1994. pps. 375-384.

Aponte, Robert. "Urban Hispanic Poverty: Disaggregations and Explanations." Social Problems, Nov. 1992, 38: 516-528.

Kibbe, David C. and Kenneth Bain. "Chicano Votes Don't Count: Patron Politics in McAllen, Texas." in D. Stanley Eitzen, ed., Society's Problems, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1989. pps. 141-146.

Lichter, Daniel T. and David J. Eggebeen. "Rich Kids, Poor Kids: Changing Family Structure and Income Inequality." In Leonard Cargan and Jeanne H. Ballantine, eds., Sociological Footprints, 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1994. 178-188.

Wilson, William Julius. "Race-specific Policies and the Truly Disadvantaged." In John Stimson, Ardyth Stimson and Vincent Parrillo, eds., Social Problems: Contemporary Readings, 2nd ed. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock Publishers, 1991. pps.158-170.

Zinn, Maxine Baca. "Family, Race, and Poverty in the 1980s." In Leonard Cargan and Jeanne H. Ballantine, eds., Sociological Footprints, 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1994. pps. 188-199.

Whitaker, Mark. "White & Black Lies." Newsweek, Nov. 15, 1993, pps. 52-54.

Close, Ellis. "Rage of the Privileged," Newsweek, Nov. 15, 1993, pps. 56-63.

This is not a definitive listing of social research on these topics. In fact, these are just the research studies I have immediately available in my tiny office. I have not conducted a library search or sought out specific investigations of these topics. However, all of these studies have produced verifiable data in a research format that is replicable. Moreover, the substantial volume of evidence associated with this data offers overwhelming disproof of the Herrnstein and Murray supposition that "low IQ" is the cause of all Afro-American social problems.

How is it that Herrnstein and Murray have placed themselves on this slippery slope of paternalist conjecture when recommending a national reservation policy for the segregation of Afro-Americans from "good" folks? It would appear that they have learned nothing from the social history of our nation. The plantations were abolished after the Civil War. As disturbing as this "Ante Bellum" view of American history is, their obvious distrust of democracy and its attendant institutions of self determination, equal opportunity and personal responsibility is far more troubling.

This Herrnstein and Murray call for a larger, more powerful government that will benignly protect people from themselves comes exactly at a time when this country seems firmly committed to reducing the scope of government and getting out of the individual lives of people. Therefore, we should have no great fear that these recommendations will be taken too seriously. The question of why Herrnstein and Murray have chosen to advocate such a totalitarian policy may well be deeply rooted in an inherent distrust of humanity. Such reactionary belief systems are usually predicated upon the irrational fear of freedom. This is reason enough to dismiss these racist policy machinations of Herrnstein and Murray.

One final question remains. Have Herrnstein and Murray been honest in their approach to this scientific inquiry? This definitive answer may never be known because of the death of Herrnstein, however, there is much evidence to suggest that they have not been truthful. The restrictive limits that they have imposed upon this research through the use of meta-analysis, ignoring research on individual changes in intelligence, the vast sociological research literature on racism, and the imputation of hereditary causes for social problems based upon superficial correlations all suggest motives of a contemptuous distrust of humanity.

One thing is abundantly clear: good scientists do NOT take such profound liberties with the empirical protocols of research. A test of empirical disproof was never invoked in this inquiry. Instead, Herrnstein and Murray have behaved like Chicken Little, when an acorn hit him on the head. Their minds became so fixed with the notion that "Black IQs have fallen," that they deliberately sought only the molehills of data that confirm this preconceived view, while ignoring the mountains of evidence capable of producing its overwhelming and conclusive disproof. Herrnstein and Murray have given us both bad science and worse social policy.

There is a silver lining to this research travesty, however. Herrnstein and Murray, quite ironically, have actually pointed out the solution to those fearful social correlations for which they condemned Black American. The answer to the problems of dropping out of school, illegitimate pregnancies, joblessness, and all of the other woes they so well documents is education. Obviously, the educational opportunities that currently exist for the most disadvantaged Americans (of all groups) are not sufficient. Therefore, major educational reforms are desperately needed that are meaningful and achievable.

Education must be meaningful if children, especially in the ghetto, are going to be inspired to be successful. Face it; why bother if your parent(s) don't really encourage educational achievement and you know there is no money for college? The rewards for doing well in school must be real, so let's pay students to attend school and earn good grades. And we need make sure that there is an abundant supply of college scholarships available to all of the best and brightest from every school in the nation. Most of all, we must stress the truth that every child who applies himself or herself educationally has the ability and opportunity to achieve a professional career. It will not easy. It will require a lot of hard work and you must learn how to become progressively more intelligent.

Growing up on the streets in and around Washington DC, I learned very early in life that there were a lot of obstacles that had to be faced everyday. It didn't take long to discover that there were three successful daily coping strategies: you could out-fight them, out-run them, or out-think them. Yet only one of these strategies was viable in the long run. If you out- fought or out-ran a problem one day you'd eventually be confronted with the same problem again, and again. On the other hand, if you were about to out-think a problem you could often solve it completely, and forever. This then gives you the opportunity to go on to newer and bigger problems to be solved. That's what education is really all about: solving problems. And there is no shortage of problems in this world that we need to solve. There is really only one answer: we must educate ourselves sufficiently to produce the necessary solutions.

What conclusion can we now reach in regards to Herrnstein and Murray? Just this: an acorn is an acorn, and an IQ is an IQ. It isn't really so important what it is, it's what you do with it that counts. You can run around in pathetic little circles convincing yourself that the sky is falling and that some people have lower IQs than others and that we must therefore be protected from them. Or, you can learn how to become progressively more intelligent and solve problems rather than create them. It is time we showed our intelligence and reject the bankrupt nightmare of racist defeatism foisted upon us by Herrnstein and Murray. After all of this, we can ask what they were really trying to do by throwing us this curve: shatter the Liberty Bell? Even though the diminution of any man's freedom is the limitation of every man's autonomy? And democracy.

Beginning Of "The Racist Curve?"

Go To "IQ and You"