Herrnstein, Richard and Murray, Charles (1994). THE BELL CURVE: INTELLIGENCE AND CLASS STR

     Herrnstein, Richard and Murray, Charles (1994).  THE BELL CURVE:
     INTELLIGENCE AND CLASS STRUCTURE IN AMERICAN LIFE. New York: 
     The Free Press.
     
     A REVIEW OF THE BELL CURVE: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
     Reviewer:                                  Ramon M. Gonzalez   
     
          THE BELL CURVE: INTELLIGENCE AND CLASS STRUCTURE 
     IN AMERICAN LIFE is a very interesting and controversial
     book.  After three weeks of trying to retrieve the book from
     every public and private library (including out of state) I
     finally found a copy ironically in a local public library in
     my neighborhood.  So with much anticipation, I began to read
     this best seller that was on the minds of most Americans.  I
     already knew some of the work of both authors.  I had
     previously read Murray's _Losing Ground_ and Herrnsteins'
     articles, "I.Q.", "I.Q. in the Meritocracy" and "I.Q.
     Testing in the Media", so I was a bit prepared for their
     analysis.  I was not prepared for their often contradictory
     views, their constant denials of being racists, and their
     confusing analysis between race and intelligence.  
     
          The book is set up in a very interesting way.  Each
     chapter has a summary at the beginning of the chapter, I
     guess, so that you can ignore and assume the methodology of
     their scientific data and concentrate on what they are
     really trying to say, which I am still confused about.  They
     also set up the structure of their work by using their
     theories of I.Q. intelligence first on Whites, then
     increasing their data to finally include "East Asians" with
     Blacks and the sometimes statistically supportive Latinos.
     
          First of all, I was confused by these ethnic/racial
     generalizations.  They compare "East Asians" to Blacks,
     Latinos and Whites.  OK, I'll state the obvious.  Why the
     specific ethnic grouping (they state that "East Asians" are
     Chinese, Japanese and sometimes Korean), but if they are so
     specific then why are the authors so willing to generalize
     Blacks as compared to Blacks from the Northeast (since they
     are making a geographic reference to their Asian
     counterparts), Caribbean Blacks, Puerto Ricans, and
     Caribbean Latinos.  The point I'm trying to make is that
     Murray and Herrnstein are committing a scholastic fraud by
     using statistics from groupings that support their thesis. 
     If we look at statistics from Vietnamese and Cambodians (who
     were not upper and middle class immigrants and often did not
     come to the U.S. with a stable family) we can see that they
     suffer in the educational arena as much if not more than
     other minorities.  Therefore, I was curious why these groups
     were left out.  Also, Caribbean Blacks who immigrate to the
     U.S. have done academically well.  Actually, there is ethnic
     tension in NYC because many African-Americans have felt that
     Caribbean's have"milked" the resources fought by African-
     Americans without any type of contribution to the struggle
     for equal opportunity.  Often Caribbean Blacks are compared
     to foreign immigrants from Asia, who are extremely
     supportive of societal assimilation while maintaining strong
     cultural maintenance at home.
     
          In terms of confusing, there are three basic assertions
     that Murray and Herrnstein are making: that I.Q. is in the
     genes (I am to assume that this means intelligence is
     inherent_, that as a society we are becoming more stratified
     socially and economically based on cognitive ability, that
     low I.Q. is associated with social problems and finally that
     cognitive ability can not be changed.  Yet many of their
     solutions are often contrary to these assertions.
     
          They say that I.Q. is genetic.  That Japanese and
     Chinese are the "smartest", followed by Whites and then
     Blacks.  Yet, they previously prove that there are Whites
     with low cognitive skills.  Then what is the need of making
     a racial assertion.  They acknowledge that there are Blacks
     who have high cognitive skills.  So am I to assume that what
     they are actually asserting is that there are lesser high
     intelligent Blacks as there are to low cognitive Blacks as
     compared to high cognitive level Whites and low cognitive
     Whites, or are they trying to say that a high cognitive
     ability White is actually higher than a high cognitive
     ability Black or that maybe these exceptions are due to
     racial interbreeding since their theory asserts that I.Q. is
     genetic. Successful Blacks must come from somewhere!
     
          A second assertion is that as a society we are becoming
     more stratified socially and economically based on cognitive
     ability.  Therefore, I assume by this idea that all rich
     people are living in "genius town" while ghetto dwellers are
     living in "retarded ville."  What I mean to say is this: we
     would be ignoring historic and current exclusion of
     minorities from housing areas due to their ethnicity and
     race.  We would be ignoring recent studies by national
     agencies and currently a New York study that found that
     banks continue to deny loans to Blacks and Latinos at rates
     of three to one despite having the same class background. 
     This assertion would also be excluding nepotism and
     inheritance.  
     
          The third assertion is that cognitive ability is
     immutable.  Therefore, Murray and Herrnstein call for the
     end of Affirmative Action, Headstart, college preferences to
     minorities, and other programs such as welfare.  He goes on
     to assert that there is a place for everyone, a valued place
     in society, and that meritocracy needs its due to assume
     this valued place.  I was confused because they failed to
     mention eliminating welfare for the rich: business tax
     relief, cheap public land prices sold to industries.  They
     also fail to mention White affirmative action: legacy.  They
     use Asians as an example of casualties of Affirmative
     Action, yet they failed to mention it was a push by White
     students that forced schools such as the "Ivies" to set
     quotas on Asians.  There are also numerous institutional and
     systemic factors that are ignored.  What is also ignored are
     the numerous Blacks and Latinos who have become successful
     through boarding schools, scholarships, and affirmative
     action programs.  It would seem obvious that often I.Q.
     isn't a measure of cognitive ability, but of environmental
     factors.  It is a measurement of how well systemic factors
     can suppress or limit cognitive ability to another group.  
     
          The solutions are even more interesting.  After making
     group generalizations, Murray and Herrnstein call for more
     stress on individuality.  "Forget policy," Murray and
     Herrnstein state, "Americans can run their lives fine." 
     These authors I think have forgotten what country they are
     from.  One of the world's largest slave owners, apartheid
     systems, destroyers of its native people, and foreign
     colonies, sterilizers of Puerto Rican women, environmental
     destruction for the sake of trees -- I'll stop.  Without
     societal policies, we would still have maintained these
     horrendous policies.  Murray and Herrnstein call for an end
     to all special programs, i.e., . . . anything that helps the
     less cognitive because they are immutable.  Despite being
     elitists, and racists, these authors would appear shallow
     and cold.  It is no wonder that scholars and progressives
     are nervous by the great reception that this book has
     received.  
     
          This book has already had an effect on U.S. society. 
     It has been the topic of debate once again.  Administrators
     and teachers are often the receptors of these public
     feelings.  Through the popularity of this book, I'm sure
     issues of whether remedial programs are necessary, bilingual
     programs work, or are children from the urban ghettos worth
     teaching?  What about multicultural programs or hiring more
     Black and Latino teachers.  According to these authors,
     there is no need for these policies.  Minority students are
     performing horrendously because they are mentally inferior,
     and it isn't due to living in a ghetto, poorly paid
     teachers, lack of cultural understanding, cold school
     environment, poor parental relations between teachers and
     parents, few jobs in the community.  It is because they have
     poor cognitive abilities based on genetics and that because
     their parents are poor and live in this type of environment
     they must be "dull" and that can't change!  Already, many
     conservative groups will use this upcoming Republican
     Congress with this book as scientific proof to advocate for
     societal changes.  Its effect will go largely unmeasured but
     the fact that it is discussed in public forums shows the
     book has an impact on our society.  
     
          Genetic hierarchy, U.S. superiority and a host of other
     theories have been used to exclude members of society. 
     Americans have tried to hide the mentally ill in warehouses,
     minorities in ghettos, criminals in rural prisons.  This
     book does more to reveal American thinking than anything
     else.  The fact that this book is popular reveals the type
     of society we exist in.  Latinos were considered deviants
     because of their rebellious and undemocratic Spanish blood
     mixed in with the blood of noble savages and black beasts;
     Asians were considered the "Yellow Peril", and Blacks were
     considered "The Negro Problem".  Today, there are still
     strong residues of this thinking.  THE BELL CURVE is more of
     a measurement of American society's belief and how far we
     need to improve, than a measurement of intelligence.