Having read Brian Parker's article in the February 14, 1995 issue of Newspeak, I feel compelled to present another side of the story on The Bell Curve. The Bell Curve is perhaps the most controversial book of the year, and it has understandably made a number of people very angry. If I were in someone else's shoes, I am sure I would be outraged as well.
Unfortunately, in this age of political correctness, people are so prepared to believe a certain doctrine that other views are closed out without ever being presented. Furthermore, there is a strong tendency to identify as a bigot or racist anyone who disagrees with "PC" issues. A great deal of criticism on The Bell Curve is coming from people who have not only never read the book, but have most likely no idea what it is about. Many may not have done so much as read the book's inner flap.
I would like to state for the record that I myself have not read The Bell Curve, though I do own a copy and have read some parts. I have also read reviews (coming from both sides) from a few sources.
Over a period of eight years, Harvard social scientists Dr. Richard Herrnstein and Dr. Charles Murray have collected numerous data on crime and other social problems, economic disparities, education, and various intelligence scores. The book is 845 pages long, and despite the best efforts of the authors to explain the data, it is very difficult to read. Though I may write of Dr. Herrnstein and Dr. Murray in the present tense, it should be noted that Dr. Herrnstein died of lung cancer in September.
The Bell Curve is not a book about racial intellectual inferiority. It is a book about the importance of intelligence in society. Here are two basic premises of The Bell Curve:
First, America is inundated with a myriad of social problems ranging from crime, poverty, illiteracy, teenage pregnancy, homelessness, unemployment, and the breakdown of the family. There have been numerous debates on what causes such problems. Some say popular culture (MTV, violent movies) plays an important role. Others say that government and public indifference cause these problems. Drs. Murray and Herrnstein conclude, however, that these problems can be very strongly correlated with low intelligence, and that no level of social engineering will change that.
Second, the world is facing an unprecedented technological advance, and higher education is no longer a luxury. It is now a necessity. The need for unskilled labor is diminishing, while the number of jobs requiring advanced degrees is growing. As such, high intelligence is becoming more and more necessary to function in today's world.
The book presents a worrisome view of society and what the future may hold. Essentially, say the authors, we are becoming stratified by intellectual differences. Those who are part of what the book calls the "cognitive elite" (those with an IQ over 125) will become prosperous, politically and socially powerful, and will set the agenda for the future of the world. Those who are at the low end of the intelligence scale most likely will have dismal futures. They will not take major part in the new high speed, high technology economy, and will find themselves increasingly left in the dust. The probability of them ever transcending their status is bleak.
This is the main idea behind the book.
The controversy lies in the assertion that intelligence is determined significantly by genetics (between 40% and 80%, say the authors), and that IQ tests can measure intelligence accurately. Given that the average IQ test scores of various ethnic groups differ, the authors conclude that intelligence differs among ethnic groups. This may be a false belief, but it is not a new belief. Many scholars have believed that intelligence differs among certain groups. The authors did not set out to prove that one race is inferior to another. They drew conclusions from the data they have collected. Intelligence tests have been criticized for years. Therefore, Dr. Murray and Dr. Herrnstein are perhaps guilty of bad science, but they are not racists simply because people do not like the conclusions they reached.
The Bell Curve must not be accepted without criticism, but at the same time it cannot be dismissed out of hand without a solid analytical discussion. That would be just as dangerous.
Another issue I take with Mr. Parker's article is that any opposition to affirmative action or welfare is indicative of racism.
First of all, no intelligent person believes that black success means white failure. Criticism of affirmative action is based on the idea that it has ultimately done more harm than good...for all races. (Dr. Thomas Sowell, a high respected economist and social critic, and himself a black, has written on how so-called affirmative action programs, particularly at universities, have caused a great deal of problems, in his book Inside American Education.)
Second, criticism of welfare is not based on a hatred of blacks. There are more whites than blacks on welfare, so the term "welfare queen" should not be construed as anti-black. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (a Democrat) was talking about an emerging underclass of illegitimacy, not of urban blacks. Rush Limbaugh, while occasionally arrogant, obnoxious, and egotistical, is not even close to being a racist. If you don't believe me, read Chapter 19 of his book See, I Told You So. Criticism of welfare, like criticism of affirmative action, is based on the idea that it has caused more problems than it has solved. Did you know that 72 cents out of every dollar spent on welfare is spent on government administration and only 28 cents actually gets to the recipients?
Conservatives do not lack compassion and are not racists. They simply criticize present policies as ineffective.
by Adam Perrotta - Class of '95