The Bell Curve Debate: History, Documents, Opinions

by Russell Jacoby (Editor), Naomi Glauberman

Russell Jacoby and Naomi Glauberman have edited a book on race, class, and intelligence that will stand for the foreseeable future as the authoritative guide to the extraordinary controversy ignited by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray's incendiary bestseller, The Bell Curve. The editors have gathered together both the best of recent reviews and essays, and salient documents drawn from the curious history of this heated debate. The Bell Curve Debate captures the fervor, anger, and scope of an almost unprecedented national argument over the very idea of democracy and the possibility of a tolerant, multiracial America. It is an essential companion and answer to The Bell Curve, and provides scholarship and polemic from every point of view. It is a must-read for the informed citizen in search of all the views fit to print.

Genres: Psychology, Science, Sociology

720 pages, Paperback

First published March 28, 1995

About the author

Russell Jacoby (born April 23, 1945) is a professor of history at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), an author and a critic of academic culture. His fields of interest are twentieth-century European and American intellectual and cultural history, specifically the history of intellectuals and education.

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A COLLECTION OF ESSAYS CRITIQUING "THE BELL CURVE”

The editors note in the Introduction to this 1995 book, "'The Bell Curve' gives a sophisticated voice to a repressed and illiberal sentiment: a belief that ruinous divisions in society are sanctioned by nature itself. For many readers the graphs and charts of The Bell Curve confirm a dark suspicion: the ills of welfare, poverty, and an underclass are less matters of justice than biology. The visceral support for Herrnstein and Murray arises from the endless accounts of crime, which note the arrested never knew a father, the mother is on welfare, and the many siblings are either just entering or leaving prison..." (Pg. ix-x) They add, "We should note that our efforts to include an extract from 'The Bell Curve' or an essay by Charles Murray were rebuffed by the author and his publisher." (Pg. xii) This collection includes articles by Stephen Jay Gould, Christopher Hitchens, K. Anthony Appiah, Arthur Jensen, Nathan Glazer, etc.

One essayist notes, "If this stuff is really true, it's whites that ought to feel inferior. The same IQ tests ... show white children duller than Asian-American children ... if genes are the IQ destiny that The Bell Curve asserts, shouldn't whites be maneuvering to protect themselves against Asians, given that Asians already outnumber Caucasians world-wide?" (Pg. 35)

Another observes, "Surely the most curious of the sources [Charles Murray] and Herrnstein consulted is `Mankind Quarterly'... Five articles from the journal are actually cited... No fewer than seventeen researchers cited in the bibliography of 'The Bell Curve' have contributed to `Mankind Quarterly'... This is interesting because `Mankind Quarterly' is a notorious journal of `racial history' founded, and funded, by men who believe in the genetic superiority of the white race." (Pg. 126) Richard Lynn, an associate editor of Mankind Quarterly, was singled out in the book's acknowledgements, and his work is cited twenty-four times in BC's bibliography. (Pg. 129)

Another essay states, "It is difficult to see... how the status of blacks and whites can be compared. The very existence of a racial stratification correlated with a relative socioeconomic deprivation makes this comparison suspect." (Pg. 635)

This book is one of the best commentaries on The Bell Curve, along with 'The Bell Curve Wars: Race, Intelligence, and the Future of America,' 'Measured Lies: The Bell Curve Examined,' and 'ntelligence, Genes, and Success: Scientists Respond to The Bell Curve.'

[Marc · Rating 1 out of 5]

Gets one star on basis of Gould's essay. This book and its predecessor about which the "debate" is about are very good cases for the discrediting of social studies (I refuse to call it science.