Day of Protest Greets 'Bell Curve' Author

Speaking to a crowded but civil audience at the Institute of Politics last night, Charles A. Murray '65 explained the reasoning and defended the premises behind his controversial book, The Bell Curve.

Murray, currently a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., co-authored the book with the late Pierce Professor of Psychology Richard J. Herrnstein, who died in September.

Although the press hype since the book's publication in October has focused on its implication of a link between genetics, I.Q. and race, Murray did not discuss the issue of race until the end of his speech, and then only for about five minutes.

The Bell Curve says that there is a statistically significant difference between the mean I.Q. of Blacks and whites.

In a statement at the beginning of his presentation, Murray argued the book was not about race at all.

"I understand that the temptation is to talk about race," Murray said. "I would much rather talk about The Bell Curve, which is not about race," he continued, in the face of quiet gasps from the audience.

In his tempered but biting rebuttal to Murray, Professor of Geology Stephen J. Gould said the book was indeed about race.

The book treats "arguments about group differences in the reality of America," said Gould, who wrote The Mismeasure of Man. "You can't pretend that somehow has nothing to do with race."

For the most part, the standing-room-only audience listened to Murray's speech in silence. The only real interruption came at the beginning, when 40 members of Kennedy School minority action groups linked arms, stood peacefully for five minutes and quietly walked out. Their seats were soon filled by students who had been waiting at the door to get into the heavily secured auditorium.

Public Service Professor of Jurisprudence in the Kennedy School of Government A. Leon Hig-ginbotham Jr., who moderated the event, brought up the issue of race at the outset.

"Tonight's forum is a part of a continuum to encourage dialogue on crucial and difficult issues to Americans of all races," Higginbotham said in a statement that appeared to set the evening's calm tone.

Higginbotham was speaking for DuBois Professor of the Humanities Henry Louis Gates Jr., who was scheduled to moderate but had to attend an international conference instead.

In response to The Bell Curve's suggestion that Blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites, Higgin-botham said, "There is a profound lesson we can learn. We know that if we use our brain power, rather than just our anger, we can we can respond to their diatribes."

The body of Murray's speech dealt not with race, but with the growing dichotomy he said he perceives between the "cognitive elite" and the "cognitive underclass" in America. Transformations in higher education, centralization of power and occupations requiring high levels of intelligence have created this cognitive elite since the 1950s, he said.

"What worried Dick Herrnstein and me about emerging cognitive elite is itsemergence into a group of society with a view allits own," Murray said.

As a result of the discrepancy between theunderclass and the elite, Murray said theemergence of a "custodial state" is possible,"whereby we take one part of the population, wallthem off and try to continue on normally with therest of the country."

Gould said he took issue not only with Murray's"post-Romantic" arguments about the future ofAmerica, but with The Bell Curve's basicassumptions as well.

"[The book] is based on a paradox: that trueequality of opportunity would stratify us worsethan ever," Gould said.

Gould said he found three of the book's mainarguments--that intelligence is easily definable,that it can be assigned a number and that it isnot subject to significant change--down-rightwrong. The argument that it is heritable may becorrect but is often misinterpreted, Gould said.

"You simply can't construe something as complexas intelligence that way, as a number," Gouldsaid.

Gould and Murray also clashed over whether todiscuss intelligence on an individual or grouplevel.

"We have a situation in which, yes, there is asubstantial difference in means between ethnicgroups as groups. It is not the end of the world,"Murray said. "It is something which can beproblematic if we make it so. I suggest that weare making it so by treating people as groupsrather than as individuals."

Gould argued that claiming to treat people asindividuals may not rectify group inequalities. Heoffered an analogy to make his case, saying thatone's best friends could be Jewish, but one couldstill subscribe to the stereotype that Jews ingeneral are avaricious.

Toward the end of the evening, Murray was askedwhether he was shocked by the prolific andvitriolic response to the book.

"Dick and I knew from the outset that the bookwas going to be controversial," Murray said. "Onthe other hand, I have to say that the intensityof the reaction has surprised me."

When he was recently talking to a friend inpolitics, Murray added, he expressed unhappinessat the possibility of Senate Majority Leader BobDole (R-Kans.) winning the Republican nominationfor the presidency.

"I know what you can do," the friend said,according to Murray. "Come out for him!

As a result of the discrepancy between theunderclass and the elite, Murray said theemergence of a "custodial state" is possible,"whereby we take one part of the population, wallthem off and try to continue on normally with therest of the country."

Gould said he took issue not only with Murray's"post-Romantic" arguments about the future ofAmerica, but with The Bell Curve's basicassumptions as well.

"[The book] is based on a paradox: that trueequality of opportunity would stratify us worsethan ever," Gould said.

Gould said he found three of the book's mainarguments--that intelligence is easily definable,that it can be assigned a number and that it isnot subject to significant change--down-rightwrong. The argument that it is heritable may becorrect but is often misinterpreted, Gould said.

"You simply can't construe something as complexas intelligence that way, as a number," Gouldsaid.

Gould and Murray also clashed over whether todiscuss intelligence on an individual or grouplevel.

"We have a situation in which, yes, there is asubstantial difference in means between ethnicgroups as groups. It is not the end of the world,"Murray said. "It is something which can beproblematic if we make it so. I suggest that weare making it so by treating people as groupsrather than as individuals."

Gould argued that claiming to treat people asindividuals may not rectify group inequalities. Heoffered an analogy to make his case, saying thatone's best friends could be Jewish, but one couldstill subscribe to the stereotype that Jews ingeneral are avaricious.

Toward the end of the evening, Murray was askedwhether he was shocked by the prolific andvitriolic response to the book.

"Dick and I knew from the outset that the bookwas going to be controversial," Murray said. "Onthe other hand, I have to say that the intensityof the reaction has surprised me."

When he was recently talking to a friend inpolitics, Murray added, he expressed unhappinessat the possibility of Senate Majority Leader BobDole (R-Kans.) winning the Republican nominationfor the presidency.

"I know what you can do," the friend said,according to Murray. "Come out for him!