Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe

302 Pages·1991·5.9 MB·English

by  Roger Pearson

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 anddeanofacademicaffairsat a third,he is the authorofseveral
textbooks, including An Introduction to Anthropology (Holt, Rinehart and
Winston)and anAnthropologicalGlossary(KriegerPublishing 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
frequentlycitedpsychologist.Heis theauthorofnumerousauthoritativebooks
andarticles,andholdstwodoctorates(Ph.D.andD.Sc.)fromthe Universityof
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 HANSJ. 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
ARTHURJENSEN 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, onJune
20, 1986 (published in Behavior Genetics, 17;3, 1987), Professor
SandraScarr, thenofthe UniversityofVirginia, Charlottesville,hit
a jubilant note. She spoke of the widespread opposition to the
developmentofbehaviorgenetics during the 1960s and 1970s, and
welcomedthe fact that scientific research had since provided clear
evidencethatinheritanceplays a majorrole in determining human
behavior. Behaviorgenetics, she said, had at last become recog-
nized as arelevantfield ofresearchwhich has vastimplications for
the future ofhumanity.
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 thepastfifteenyears, 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 ofideas 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 anintellectual debate between
behaviorism and behaviorgenetics 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 verballyandphysically. 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 ofyou could tell.
First, RichardWeinberg and I were reported inthe 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 ofChild Developmentat
the UniversityofMinnesota... Onegraduatestudentineducation
said he was goingto kill us if we continued to do research on
blackchildren.Another paced up and downinfrontofus calling,
"honkie, honkie, honkie." It was not a pretty scene, but Richard
and I kept ourcool ... I dulyreported them to the administration,
but ofcourse, nothing was done - it was not fashionablein 1974
to ask questions about genetic variabilityin behavior. Nor wasit
fashionable to ensure freedom of speech, even on university
campuses.
In 1976, ArthurJensenwas invited by the graduate students
ofthe Institute ofChild Developmentat the Univ. ofMinnesota
to speakon bias in mentaltesting ... 1 walkedwithArt 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
wereinorder, because the Progressive LaborParty 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 thatshowed them tobeignorantoftheissues. Notto be
denied, however, they stormed the stage, and I got the chance to
commit the one act ofphysical violence in myprofessionallife—
I threw a young man, who wasattackingArt’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 ArthurJensen’s crimes? Simply,
in Sandra Scarr’s own words:
The majorthemethatintegratesallofthe [behavioralgenetic]
researchis the question: Why dopeopledifferfromone another?
The question involves both individual and group differences.
From atheoreticalpointofview,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 ofsupport 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 ofa 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 ofcommitted 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 beliefthat
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 aJean Paul
SartretypeofMarxistexistentialismwhichpervadeslargesegments
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 ofheredity is still being prevented from receiving the
attention it so desperately deserves. In this work weshall therefore
attempt to trace somethingofthe history ofscientific research into
the connection between heredity and human behavior, which
began soon after Darwin brought mankind out ofthe dark ages of
ignorance. More particularly, we will seek to reveal the persistent
and too-often successful efforts ofMarxistthinkers to hold back the
floodgates of scientific knowledge. What would be their purpose
for doing this? Quite simply, they realize that contemporary
research into the genetics of human behavior will eventually
demolish the extremes of egalitarian behaviorism as propounded
by Watson and Dewey, and the Lysenkovian pseudo-genetics on
which Marxist science is built.
The propaganda on whichLeftist ambitions are built depends
wholly on the idea that human beings are biologically as well as
morally equal, and that inequalities in the distribution of wealth
are due solely to the exploitation ofthe "have-nots" by the "haves,"
rather than to the fact that some members of society are more
capable than others. Furthermore, they realize that recent
advances in behavioral genetics may be interpreted as defending
"racism." In the traditional, non-abusive sense defined by Robert
Gordon,professor ofsociology atJohns Hopkins University, in his
book Taboos in Criminology: "a racist is someone whoentertains the
possibility ofthere being a non-trivial difference, perhaps genetic
in origin, between racial groups on some dimension of impor-