DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Students for a Democratic Society, Herrnstein lecture, February-June, 1972 | 1972-03-17 Daily Iowan Letter to the Editor: 'Professor explicates on Herrnstein article' Page 1

Transcribe
Translate

Students for a Democratic Society, Herrnstein lecture, February-June, 1972

1972-03-17 Daily Iowan Letter to the Editor: 'Professor explicates on Herrnstein article' Page 1

Professor explicates on Herrnstein article 

To the editor:
  Something dangerous has been accomplished by SDS, besides their effective threat to politicize our academic atmosphere. Protests led by SDS have advertized that Herrnstein in Atlantic presented evidence showing members of the white race to have superior intelligence. And the best that can be done about it is for demonstrators, nationally organized, to shut him up! But the result has been the local Left hoped to accomplish. They have publiciized a derogatory image of black people, which at best would mean, ''Black is beautiful, but dumb.''
  Such evidence could be scientifically countered by presentation of data on the other side of the case. And such opposing conclusions should be presented to the thinking public in periodicals like the Atlantic and the college press. But the most astonishing thing about this whole affair is - the best kept secret of recent date: Herrnstein himself offered no evidence at the support white racists, and this arguments would never begin to the ''job'' on his readers ascribed to him by the SDS handout, ''to soften us up to accept Attica massacres, welfare cuts, racist police brutality.'' The theories of Arthur Jensen might be another matter, and they are referred to in the Atlantic article. But it was not Jensen we were invited to ''confront'' for his ''racist lies.'' 
  Now, consider. And I do hope those who have read previous letters, editorials, and handouts will read even more carefully what follows here: 
 1. Jensen's two papers leave little doubt about the heritability of I.Q. among North American and Western European whites, whom most data on the subject describe. 
 2. A given test is only for people drawn from the same general population that the test was standardized on. 
 3. Now back to the racial issue. Jensen estimates that I.Q. has a heritability between .80 and .85, but this is based almost entirely on data from whites. What could we say about the racial difference in I.Q.? The answer is that we could say nothing positive about it. The only proper conclusion is that we do not know. 
 4. If intelligence were entirely genetic, then racial diferences would be genetic. Conversely, if the genes were irrelevant, then the racial diferences would be genetic. Conversely, if the genes were irrelevant, then the racial diference would be genetic. Conversely, if the genes were irrelevant, then the racial diference would be due to the environment. As at is, I.Q. reflects both a person's genes and his environment. The overwhelming case is for believing that American blacks have been at an environmental  disadvantage. 
 5. Even the white middle and upper classes constitute only about 10 per cent of our population, as defined by Herrnstein. Their I.Q. does tend to be above 100. However: 
 6. Many members of the lower class must have superior I.Q.'s. There must be at least 15 percent of our population in the bottom classes with supranormal (above 100) I.Q.'s. The privileged classes of the past were probably not much superior biologically to the downtrodden. By removing arbitrary barriers between classes, society has encouraged the creation of biological (that is, I.Q.) barriers. When people can freely take their natural level in society, the upper classes will have greater capacity than the lower. What is most troubling about this prospect is that the growth of the virtually hereditary meritocracy will arise out of the successful realization of contemporary political and social goals. 
 7. The social barriers of the past - race, religion, title, inherited wealth - are under continuous assault. There are many bright but poor people even in affluent America. The heritability of intelligence will grow as the conditions of life are made more uniformly wholesome; intelligence will play an increasingly important role in occupational success. 
 8. As artificial barriers such

Saving...

Professor explicates on Herrnstein article To the editor: Something dangerous has been accomplished by SDS, besides their effective threat to politicize our academic atmosphere. Protests led by SDS have advertized that Herrnstein in Atlantic presented evidence showing members of the white race to have superior intelligence. And the best that can be done about it is for demonstrators, nationally organized, to shut him up! But the result has been the local Left hoped to accomplish. They have publiciized a derogatory image of black people, which at best would mean, ''Black is beautiful, but dumb.'' Such evidence could be scientifically countered by presentation of data on the other side of the case. And such opposing conclusions should be presented to the thinking public in periodicals like the Atlantic and the college press. But the most astonishing thing about this whole affair is - the best kept secret of recent date: Herrnstein himself offered no evidence at the support white racists, and this arguments would never begin to the ''job'' on his readers ascribed to him by the SDS handout, ''to soften us up to accept Attica massacres, welfare cuts, racist police brutality.'' The theories of Arthur Jensen might be another matter, and they are referred to in the Atlantic article. But it was not Jensen we were invited to ''confront'' for his ''racist lies.'' Now, consider. And I do hope those who have read previous letters, editorials, and handouts will read even more carefully what follows here: 1. Jensen's two papers leave little doubt about the heritability of I.Q. among North American and Western European whites, whom most data on the subject describe. 2. A given test is only for people drawn from the same general population that the test was standardized on. 3. Now back to the racial issue. Jensen estimates that I.Q. has a heritability between .80 and .85, but this is based almost entirely on data from whites. What could we say about the racial difference in I.Q.? The answer is that we could say nothing positive about it. The only proper conclusion is that we do not know. 4. If intelligence were entirely genetic, then racial diferences would be genetic. Conversely, if the genes were irrelevant, then the racial diferences would be genetic. Conversely, if the genes were irrelevant, then the racial diference would be genetic. Conversely, if the genes were irrelevant, then the racial diference would be due to the environment. As at is, I.Q. reflects both a person's genes and his environment. The overwhelming case is for believing that American blacks have been at an environmental disadvantage. 5. Even the white middle and upper classes constitute only about 10 per cent of our population, as defined by Herrnstein. Their I.Q. does tend to be above 100. However: 6. Many members of the lower class must have superior I.Q.'s. There must be at least 15 percent of our population in the bottom classes with supranormal (above 100) I.Q.'s. The privileged classes of the past were probably not much superior biologically to the downtrodden. By removing arbitrary barriers between classes, society has encouraged the creation of biological (that is, I.Q.) barriers. When people can freely take their natural level in society, the upper classes will have greater capacity than the lower. What is most troubling about this prospect is that the growth of the virtually hereditary meritocracy will arise out of the successful realization of contemporary political and social goals. 7. The social barriers of the past - race, religion, title, inherited wealth - are under continuous assault. There are many bright but poor people even in affluent America. The heritability of intelligence will grow as the conditions of life are made more uniformly wholesome; intelligence will play an increasingly important role in occupational success. 8. As artificial barriers such