From
the Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, Vol 5, No.
2, 1996, 231-250 Copyright Human Sciences Press, 1996. Reproduced
with permission of Human Sciences Press, Inc. This paper was
published as a reply to: Rushton, J. P. (1996). Political correctness
and the study of racial differences. Journal of Social Distress
and the Homeless, Vol. 5, No. 2, 213-229.
The
Context of Correctness: A Comment on Rushton(1)
Andrew
S. Winston
University
of Guelph
Andrew S. Winston, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
University of Guelph
Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
awinston@uoguelph.ca
519-824-4120 Ex. 3539
Abstract
According
to Philippe Rushton, the "equalitarian fiction," a
"scientific hoax" that races are genetically equal
in cognitive ability, underlies the "politically correct"
objections to his research on racial differences. He maintains
there is a taboo against race unequaled by the Inquisition.
I show that while Rushton has been publicly harassed, he has
had continuous opportunities to present his findings in diverse,
widely available, respectable journals and no general suppression
within academic psychology is evident. Similarly, Henry Garrett
and his associates in the IAAEE, dedicated to preserving segregation
and preventing "race suicide," disseminated their
ideas widely, although Garrett complained of the "equalitarian
fiction" in 1961. Examination of the intertwined history
of Mankind Quarterly, German Rassenhygiene, far right
politics, Henry Garrett, and Roger Pearson suggests that some
cries of "political correctness" must be viewed with
great caution.
"We
geneticists and racial hygienists have been fortunate to have
seen our quiet work in the scholar's study and the scientific
laboratory find application in the life of the people"
- Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, 1939, quoted in Proctor (1988,
p. 295).
"Scientific
theories do not cause people to commit murder" - J. P.
Rushton (1995a, p. 256).
The
Context of Correctness: A Comment on Rushton
Rushton
(1996) argues that there exists a "taboo on race"
in science for which "there is no parallel . . . not the
inquisition, not Stalin, not Hitler." He maintains that
this taboo helps explain the protests over his evolutionary
theory of average differences between Black, White, and Oriental
"races". Given that Rushton continues to hold a tenured
professorship, to teach and write about race, and has suffered
neither the rack, the Gulag, nor worse, his statement is difficult
to interpret. The strength of his words conveys a dire image
of the silencing of scientific truth. Certainly he has been
harassed; we must all deplore any threats made against Rushton,
and all academics must be concerned about threatened government
interference in university teaching. My purpose here is first
to examine whether or not Rushton has been censored within the
academic community, particularly within psychology. Given his
assertions of censorship resulting from the "egalitarian
fiction" (Rushton, 1996), it is necessary to examine his
access to publication outlets and his opportunities to respond
to his critics.
Discussion
of research on race differences in intelligence must be informed
by history and social context, including the history of eugenics.
The literature on this history and context is vast and cannot
be reviewed here (e.g., see Allen, 1986; Barkan, 1992; Kevles,
1985; Kühl, 1994; Proctor, 1988; Sokal, 1987; Tucker, 1994;
Weingart, 1988). Nor is this the place to review the scientific
status of Rushton's claims, which have been the subject of strong
criticisms by the research community (e.g. Cain and Vanderwolf,
1990; Cernovsky & Litman, 1993; Gabor & Roberts, 1990;
Lynn, 1989; Peters, 1991, 1993, 1995a,b; Weizmann, Weiner, Wiesenthal,
& Ziegler, 1990, 1991; Zuckerman, 1990; Zuckerman &
Brody, 1988).
Nevertheless,
it is possible to place some essential features of Rushton's
argument in context. I wish to focus on Rushton's assertion
that a pervasive "egalitarian fiction" or "equalitarian
dogma" has prevented free academic discussion of race differences
for some time, possibly since World War II. In this discussion,
I will focus on the work of Henry Garrett, who, according to
Rushton, proposed that the equalitarian dogma was in full force
in 1961, and Roger Pearson, the de facto editor (see
below) of Mankind Quarterly, who described the treatment
of Rushton and other "scholar-victims" in detail,
and argued that "political correctness" is at work
in this arena (Pearson, 1991). Rushton (1994a, 1996) suggested
that Pearson (1991) is an authority on the "fascism"
of left-wing egalitarians, whose political correctness suppresses
the truth.
Opportunities
to be Heard
Rushton's
work on evolutionary approaches to race differences shares theoretical
underpinnings with his sociobiological work on altruism, mate
selection, and genetic similarity theory. This work, including
some discussion of race differences, first appeared in Behavior
Genetics (Rushton, Russell, & Wells, 1984) and in the
Annals of Theoretical Psychology (Rushton, 1984). The
work on genetic similarity theory, which argues that data on
mate selection, friendship selection, and ethnocentrism can
partly be explained by an evolved tendency to seek out and support
genetically similar individuals, also appeared in Ethology
and Sociobiology, a standard journal in the area. Other
work was reported in Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, USA (Rushton, Littlefield, & Lumsden, 1986),
and the well-respected Brain and Behavioral Sciences
(Rushton, 1989). The presentations explicitly dealing with race
differences and Differential K theory appeared in a series of
five papers in the widely available journal Personality and
Individual Differences, edited by Hans J. Eysenck. The most
important and comprehensive of these is probably Rushton (1988).
Four papers also appeared before 1990 in the highly respectable
Academic Press Journal of Research in Personality (formerly
the Journal of Experimental Research in Personality).
Additional papers appeared in Intelligence, and Acta
Geneticae Medicae et Gemellogiae. In sum, Rushton published
more than 20 papers on genetic similarity theory and race differences
in widely accessible, respectable journals from 1984 through
1989, the year of his American Association for the Advancement
of Science (AAAS) talk.
As
Rushton (1996) notes, wide publicity and public concern over
his work began after the 1989 AAAS paper. The talk was published
in Psychological Reports, (Rushton, 1992), which is not
a prestigious journal but one that insures a short publication
lag. If publicity over the talk created a politically correct
reaction, we might expect subsequent reduction in Rushton's
visibility. This does not seem to be the case, although Rushton
(1994a) reported cancellations and withdrawals of his work.
From 1990 to the end of 1995, Rushton published at least 20
additional papers on race differences, heredity, and evolution.
Five more papers appeared in Personality and Individual Differences,
four in Intelligence, and others appeared in Society,
Social Science and Medicine, the Canadian Journal
of Criminology, Canadian Psychology, Psychologische
Beiträge, and other sources. Many of Rushton's publications
during this time have been in the form of replies to critics,
and it is important to note that Rushton was given the opportunity
to reply (at the very least in a letter or note) in nearly every
journal, including American Psychologist (received by
all members of APA) and Psychological Science (the official
journal of the American Psychological Society) in which he was
criticized. He has reached audiences in sociology, anthropology,
and criminology as well as psychology and neuroscience.
Rushton
(1994a) reported a disturbing event: an article to an unnamed
journal was rejected after the page proofs were returned
to the journal, despite the protests of the editor. Clearly
such action is wrong, although there may be circumstances (e.g.,
the discovery of new information) which makes such a decision
justifiable. The details of this case are unknown, and probably
will never be known. But, as Rushton notes, the "pulled"
article was subsequently published in the respected journal,
Intelligence (1994b). Moreover, Rushton was given an
extraordinary opportunity: to write an editorial "The Equalitarian
Dogma Revisited" (1994a), which appeared in Intelligence
in the same issue. What was particularly remarkable about this
editorial was the inclusion of a photo of a person writing a
slogan on Rushton's door, which is again reproduced in this
journal. It is unprecedented for a scholarly research journal
to include a photograph of this sort, and its inclusion suggests
the latitude extended to Rushton.
Rushton
is correct in his report of hostile responses in the media(2),
but Race Evolution and Behavior (Rushton, 1995a) received
a cautiously supportive review in The New York Times Book
Review (Oct. 16, 1994). The New York Times (Feb.
21, 1996) recently printed his reply to a column criticizing
his research. He made a number of radio and television appearances,
during which he was able to explain his findings (see Horowitz,
1995). While some speaking engagements have undoubtedly been
canceled due to fear of disruptions, he has continued to present
papers at the annual meetings of the American Psychological
Association, and recently returned to the AAAS meeting to present
a poster (The Globe and Mail, Feb. 12, 1996). His work
is now receiving attention in introductory psychology textbooks.
In one case, Rushton's evolutionary theory is presented as a
potentially reasonable scientific interpretation of racial differences
in IQ scores (Roediger, Capaldi, Paris, Polivy, & Herman,
1996).
One
consequence of the public concern over Rushton's work and the
calls for his dismissal (which were not pursued by subsequent
left-leaning or right-leaning governments in Ontario) was an
increased interest in his work among diverse academic audiences,
including groups who would never have read his articles in Intelligence
or Personality and Individual Differences. Discussions
of his views on brain size and IQ have thus appeared in Society
(1994c, 1995b) and the Journal of Social Distress and the
Homeless, when the topic of the special issue or section
in a journal was Cyril Burt or "political correctness.
(3)
Table 1 in Rushton (1996) previously appeared in Intelligence,
(Rushton, 1994a) in his 1995 book, in Canadian Psychology,
(Rushton, 1991), in the Journal of Research in Personality
(Rushton, 1989b) and in modified form in other journals. Sections
of the present paper in Journal of Social Distress and the
Homeless (e.g., "De Facto Censorship") appeared
in Intelligence (Rushton 1994a). This repetition of material
further illustrates Rushton's extensive opportunities to make
his case.
Unfortunately,
the technical details and the fundamental controversies over
such work are unavailable to these new audiences. In Table 1,
three measures of brain size are reported, and in two of these
"Orientals" appear to have larger brains than "Whites"
which are in turn larger than "Blacks." The claimed
superiority of "Orientals" to "Whites" on
intelligence tests, a debated and unstable phenomenon (e.g.,
see Flynn 1988, Sautman, 1995), is, to Rushton, partly the result
of larger "Oriental" brains. What is not shown in
Table 1 or the text is whether these are the "raw"
brain sizes, or are corrected for height, as Rushton usually
does (e.g. Rushton 1994b). Without the correction, taller "Europeans"
have larger brains than shorter "East Asians," and
the IQ interpretation collapses. As Peters (1991, 1993, 1995a,b)
has shown, the relationship of body size and brain size is highly
complex, and there is no clear rationale for the height corrections
that Rushton makes. Readers of the Journal of Social Distress
and the Homeless will encounter no hint of this controversy,
nor fundamental difficulties with the tripartite division of
races, the aggregation of data, and countless other problems
in Rushton (1996).
Thus
Rushton has had continued access to diverse, respectable scholarly
outlets for his work. This pattern is similar to that of Arthur
Jensen and Hans J. Eysenck. Despite the intense controversy
and public harassment over their writings on intelligence and
race, both continued to publish actively in this area. University
libraries carry their works, as well as dozens of recent monographs
on behavior genetics by the very prolific researchers in this
area. Yet Rushton compares the treatment of these researchers
to the Inquisition and speaks of "an ideological war over
human nature."
Garrett,
Segregation, and Mankind Quarterly
The
belief that the "equalitarian dogma" lies behind the
alleged suppression of race differences research is crucial
to Rushton's argument. Another researcher in race differences,
Linda Gottfredson (1994), referred to the "egalitarian
fiction" as a "collective fraud," "a great
falsehood," and a "scientific lie."(p. 53). (4)
Given that it is highly unusual in scientific discourse to refer
to the alternative hypothesis as a "hoax" or "fraud,"
and given the rhetorical uses to which this phrase is put, it
is important to inquire into its origins and context. Rushton
(1994a) opened the abstract of his editorial in Intelligence,
as follows:
Henry
Garrett (1961), a president of the American Psychological
Association claimed that 'the equalitarian dogma,' the belief
that Blacks and Whites are genetically equal in cognitive
ability, was the `scientific hoax' of the twentieth century.
Since then, the dogma has become more ingrained, despite increased
contrary evidence. The dogma has been perpetuated by intimidation
as well as by pious thinking. Its long endurance is a scandal
of great proportion (p. 263).
The
invocation of Henry Garrett (1894-1973), Chair at Columbia for
16 years, president of the APA, Eastern Psychological Association,
and the Psychometric Society, fellow of the AAAS and member
of the prestigious National Research Council, seems to add respectability
to this argument. Racial and group differences were a major
focus of his research from early in his 30 year career at Columbia,
(e.g. Garrett, 1929), and he published research on race differences
in intelligence in Science and other journals during
the 1940s. He is remembered among psychologists for a widely
read statistics book and a volume called Great Experiments
in Psychology. His other, related activities are not well
known, but have recently been discussed by Tucker (1994), Popplestone
and MacPherson (1994), and Lane (1994).
In
1959, Garrett and others founded the International Association
for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics (IAAEE). Their
purpose was to disseminate research on genetics and race and
secondarily, to fight school desegregation in the United States.
Garrett and his associates had been very disturbed by the 1950
UNESCO statement on race, in which an international panel of
scientists denied any scientific basis for genetically based
differences in intelligence and affirmed that humans were one
species (see Barkan, 1992). The UNESCO statement was blamed
on Franz Boas and the influence of his students, such as Otto
Klineberg (see Garrett, 1961a). Founding members of the IAAEE
included (among others) Robert Kuttner, a prominent member of
Willis Carto's Liberty Lobby, political scientist A. James Gregor
who praised the notions of ideal racial archetypes from late
National Socialism, and psychologist R. Travis Osborne, who
would later become Rushton's co-author on a study of brain size
(Rushton & Osborne, 1995). Alfred Avins, attorney for the
Liberty Lobby, served as counsel (Tucker, 1994). The Liberty
Lobby has been one of the most influential far-right organizations
since the 1960s. While its membership included a spectrum of
right-wing thought, Willis Carto and his organization have emerged
as major proponents of white racial superiority, international
Jewish conspiracies, and Holocaust denial, with many ties to
neo-Nazi activity (Bellant, 1991; Lippstat, 1993; Mintz, 1985;
Simonds, 1971).
Garrett
and other members of the IAAEE led an open fight against school
integration. Garrett gave extensive testimony in 1952 in one
of the cases that was then appealed as Brown v. Topeka Board
of Education (see Kluger, 1976). During this period Garrett
had access to Science, to Perspectives in Biology
and Medicine, and he was interviewed for U.S. News and
World Report. He was able to present the following view
in a letter in the prestigious journal Science:
No
matter how low...an American white may be, his ancestors built
the civilizations of Europe, and no matter how high...a Negro
may be, his ancestors were (and his kinsmen still are) savages
in an African Jungle. Free and general race mixture of Negro-white
groups in this country would inevitably be not only dysgenic
but socially disastrous. (1962, p. 984).
Such
words suggest an a priori commitment to a racial hierarchy,
rather than a conclusion based on data. If the "equalitarian
dogma" was indeed in force, it is surprising that such
a statement was possible in Science.
In
1962, Stell v. the Savannah Board of Education was brought
as a suit to prevent carrying out desegregation in Georgia,
eight years after Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka,
Kansas. R. Travis Osborne testified on the genetic basis
of lower test scores of black versus white students.. Garrett
testified that the black white differences could not be changed
by environmental intervention. Another IAAEE member, Ernest
van der Haag, testified to alleged damage caused by integration
for both black and white children. The judge made careful use
of research by another IAAEE member, psychologist Frank McGurk,
on racial differences before rendering a judgment that the damaging
effects of integration had been demonstrated, a judgement soon
overturned on appeal (see Tucker, 1994).
Despite
this defeat, Garrett pressed on with a series of blatantly racist
pamphlets often distributed by White Citizens Councils: "Children:
Black & White" (see illustration in Popplestone &
MacPherson, 1994 p. 167), "Breeding Down," "How
Classroom Desegregation will work," and "IQ and Racial
Differences." "Breeding Down," which according
to Tucker (1994) was distributed free to hundreds of thousands
of teachers, warned that the goal of the civil rights movement
was to bring whites down to the Negro level though "mongrelization."
Garrett testified at a 1967 Senate hearing on an omnibus civil
rights bill that Negroes were "younger" in evolutionary
terms, with lighter brains and less developed frontal lobes.
He was introduced to the committee by William Hicks of the Liberty
Lobby (Mintz, 1985). Thus Garrett's work through the early 1970s
continued a cornerstone principle of early 20th century, "mainline
eugenics" (Kevles, 1985): hybridization reduces the "higher"
form to a lower level, therefore "race crossing" as
it was once called, must be avoided.
This
tradition of interest in policy issues such as school integration
has continued into the present. Thus, Hans J. Eysenck, Rushton's
mentor at the University of London, wrote in his introduction
to Roger Pearson's (1991) Race, Intelligence and Bias in
Academe:
The
evil consequences of ignoring scientific facts, and believing
instead ideological preconceptions, are well illustrated by
the American "busing laws," enforcing racial integration
by busing white children to predominantly black schools, often
many miles away, and equally, busing black children to predominantly
white schools. These laws, spawned by unscientific thinking
and wilful ignorance, have had predictable effects, which
have been carefully researched by Ralph Scott, whose book
Education and Ethnicity: The U.S. Experiment in School
Integration (Council for Social and Economic Studies,
1987) summarizes the many studies which have been done on
this topic. (p. 53).
Eysenck
went on to quote two pages from Scott's book, which was published
by Roger Pearson. What Eysenck may not have known was that Scott,
professor of educational psychology at the University of Northern
Iowa, had been vice president of the German-American National
Congress, a group which publicized favorable discussions of
the Third Reich. In addition, Scott had been a candidate for
governor under the American Party, supported by the Liberty
Lobby's Willis Carto (Bellant, 1991; Mehler, 1989; Tucker, 1994,
p. 260). Scott contributed a number of articles to Mankind
Quarterly promoting the scientific evidence for segregation.
During
the 1950s and 1960s, Garrett helped to distribute grants for
the now notorious Pioneer Fund, which later provided money for
racial difference research by Rushton, Linda Gottfredson, Hans
J. Eysenck, Richard Lynn, Thomas Bouchard, and Robert Gordon
as well as providing funds to Roger Pearson, William Shockley,
Ralph Scott, and anti-immigration groups (see Kühl, 1994). Garrett
received Pioneer Fund money as well, partially through the Foundation
of Human Understanding, an offshoot group of IAAEE directors,
including R.Travis Osborne, Rushton's recent coauthor in a study
of brain size (Rushton & Osborne, 1995). During the l950s,
Wylcliffe Draper, the fund's founder, personally offered grant
money for studies that would not only prove black inferiority
but promote repatriation to Africa and, in his words, insure
"racial homogeneity in the United States" (Kühl, 1994
p. 106, Tucker, 1994).
The
members of the IAAEE also helped to found and promote the journal
Mankind Quarterly . Begun in 1960, the journal was edited
until at least 1974 by Robert Gayre, a Scottish physical anthropologist.
Gayre argued that Black races were genetically suited to humour,
music, art, community life, emotional religious experience,
boxing and running, while Whites excelled in intellectual skills
(see Linklater, 1995). He was a champion of apartheid (Billig,
1979), promoted the work of the premier Rassenhygienist of Nazi
Germany, Hans Günther, and he joined Roger Pearson's Northern
League for Pan-Nordic Friendship, discussed below.
Joining
Garrett as honorary associate editor of Mankind Quarterly
during these early years was eminent British geneticist R. Ruggles
Gates; who actively opposed all racial intermarriage and argued
that races were separate species (see Barkan, 1992). Robert
Kuttner, important member of Carto's Liberty Lobby and co-founder
of IAAEE with Garrett, joined as an assistant editor in 1962,
along with IAAEE member Donald Swan, who was later accused of
having ties to the American Nazi Party (see Sautman, 1995, note
45). Hans J. Eysenck appeared on the Honorary Advisory Board
from 1975 until 1978, when it was described as being re-organized,
and Raymond B. Cattell has been an advisory board member since
1980. In 1979, Hans W. Jürgens of Kiel, West Germany appeared,
along with Richard Lynn, as the Associate Editors. Both have
remained as editors through current issues.
German
geneticist Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, the noted Rassenhygienist,
was listed as a member of the Honorary Advisory Board from 1966
to 1978. (5)
In a 1941 race hygiene textbook, he called for "a complete
solution to the Jewish question"; by 1944 he could publicly
declare that "the dangers posed by Jews and Gypsies to
the German people had been eliminated through the racial-political
measures of recent years" (quoted in Proctor, 1988, p.
211). During the war, in his position at the Kaiser Wilhelm
Institute, von Verschuer had urged his former graduate student
and assistant, Josef Mengele, to take up the opportunity for
unique research possibilities at Auschwitz (see Kühl, 1994;
Proctor, 1988). It is not trivial to mention Mengele in this
context. Both Mengele and von Verschuer shared the view that
the study of twins was the premier method of genetics. Accordingly,
Mengele sent the results of his "experiments" at Auschwitz,
including body parts, to von Verschuer for further analysis
(see Proctor, 1988, p. 44.) Despite the supposed pervasiveness
of the postwar "equalitarian dogma," von Verschuer
was called to the prestigious chair of human genetics at Münster
in 1951. His reputation as a "neutral scientist" was
restored, despite that fact that a postwar German investigation
described him as "one of the most dangerous Nazi activists
of the Third Reich," and declared that he should not be
permitted to teach (quoted in Proctor, p. 307).
Mankind
Quarterly also became a place for Garrett to explain who
was responsible for the "equalitarian dogma." The
shift from an earlier consensus that blacks were inferior had
been accomplished through the propaganda spread by Franz Boas,
the noted anthropologist, and his students, such as Otto Klineberg.
In his "equalitarian dogma" article, Garrett (1961a,
1961b) also blamed "Jewish organizations," most of
whom "belligerently support the equalitarian dogma which
they accept as having been `scientifically' proven" (p.
256). (6)
Garrett was not alone in this view, which was more forcefully
presented by Carleton Putnam (1961) in his widely read racist
tract Race and Reason. Putnam also blamed the Jewish
background of Boas and his group and even tracked down Ashley
Montagu's Jewish origins (see also Pearson, 1995a). Putnam claimed
that scientists who studied race were being "muzzled"
(Tucker, 1994). Nor was this a new view in eugenics circles;
according to Samelson (1975), Prescott Hall of the Immigration
Restriction League wrote to Madison Grant, author of The
Passing of the Great Race, in 1918 that "I am up against
the Jews all the time in the equality argument" (see also
Allen, 1986, note 51). In Mankind Quarterly, Garrett
(1961c) argued that those who supported genetic equality of
the races were "mostly members of minority groups"
and "seem willing to destroy Anglo-Saxon civilization because
of real or imagined grievances" (p. 106). The theme that
Jews are "culture-destroyers" is a common one in both
old and new antisemitic propaganda of the far right, including
the publications of Willis Carto's Liberty Lobby (see Mintz,
1985). It may be useful to compare this tradition of blaming
the Jews for the "equalitarian dogma" with Rushton's
view in his (1995) book, which he attributed in turn to Degler
(1991):
Among
the refugees who fled Nazi persecution and entered Britain
and the United States in the 1930s and 1940s, there were many
who exerted a powerful influence on the zeitgeist of the social
sciences, helping to create an orthodoxy of egalitarianism
and environmentalism (p. 14) .
Rushton
(1995a) also refers to Franz Boas as a "powerful ideologue"
(p. 13). Roger Pearson (1995a) recently echoed this concern,
and described Boas as having "forty-six communist front
connections" as well as ancestors who were "intimately
connected with the radical socialist revolutionary movement"
(p. 345). Rushton and Pearson share the belief that the "equalitarian
dogma" is a left-wing ideology.
I
do not mean to imply or suggest that Rushton is antisemitic
or that he can be held responsible for Garrett's work. Moreover,
it is clearly true that many of the strongest critics of eugenics
and racial research, both before and after World War II, were
of Jewish background or held socialist or communist political
views; the political inclinations of Richard Lewontin, Steven
Rose, and others are well-known. The problem here is that Jewish
background and leftist politics are said to account for, and
permit dismissal of the criticism. While claiming scientific
neutrality, those who decried the "equalitarian dogma"
were clearly committed to preserving a segregated society. For
the past 36 years, Mankind Quarterly has offered a steady
stream of research and argument proclaiming the average genetic
inferiority of Blacks and offering policy recommendations based
on this assertion. Garrett and others were criticized, but hardly
silenced; he even published the same article in two journals
in the same year (1961a,b). Yet Roger Pearson (1991) has vociferously
argued that the truth has been suppressed.
Science
and Politics: Roger Pearson
In
an article in Rolling Stone, journalist Adam Miller (1994)
reported on an interview with Rushton. He showed Rushton a quote
from Roger Pearson (1966a):"If a nation with a more advanced,
more specialized, or in any way superior set of genes mingles
with, instead of exterminating, an inferior tribe, then it commits
racial suicide."(p. 26). According to Miller, Rushton 's
reaction was "why should I pass value judgments on other
people's political opinions?" When pressed, Rushton is
reported to have terminated the interview.
Rushton
might well wish to avoid discussion of Roger Pearson's views,
and to avoid exploring Pearson's use of "race suicide,"
a concept used by early eugenicists and Nazi race hygienists.
Pearson's (1991) Race, Intelligence, and Bias in Academe
devoted an entire chapter to the treatment of Rushton, along
with Jensen, Shockley, and Eysenck whom Pearson termed "scholar-victims."
A similar article on Rushton's persecution appeared in Mankind
Quarterly (Macgregor, 1995). It should be noted that Rushton
contributed to Mankind Quarterly only once (Rushton,
1987). He drew on Richard Lynn's research in Mankind Quarterly
for his (1995a) book, and he relied on data supplied by Mankind
Quarterly editor Hans W. Jürgens for a recent study of race
and cranial capacity (Rushton, 1994b).
Roger
Pearson (1927- ) received a Master's degree in Economics and
Sociology and a doctorate in Anthropology from the University
of London (Pearson, 1991). In a short pamphlet called "Blood
Groups and Race" (Pearson, 1959), he described the basic
racial types as "sub-species," which he in turn defined
as:"a distinctive group of individuals which are on their
way to becoming separate species, but which have not been isolated
long enough, or had time to become sufficiently diversified
to lose the power to inter-breed."(p. 7). This hope that
races would subdivide into groups that were biologically unable
to interbreed was shared by the eminent psychologist, Raymond
B. Cattell (e.g. 1987), whose recent works are published by
Roger Pearson. Much earlier, Cattell (1937) had praised the
eugenic laws of the Third Reich for promoting racial improvement
(see Tucker, 1994 for a full discussion of Cattell). Pearson
was clear about the problem of contact between races:
...evolutionary
progress can only take place properly amongst small non-cross-breeding
groups. Always, a cross between two types meant the annihilation
of the better type, for although the lower sub-species would
be improved by such a cross, the more advanced would be retarded,
and would then have a weaker chance in the harsh and entirely
amoral competition for survival (1959, pp. 9-10).
This
position was hardly unique, and was shared by noted geneticist
R. Ruggles Gates (see above) and many other scientists (see
Provine, 1973). Most critically, this view was a cornerstone
of German Rassenkunde (race studies) and Rassenhygiene
(race hygiene). As shown by Proctor (1988) and other historians,
the 1935 German laws against intermarriage of Jews and non-Jews
were conceived as measures for public health, and were said
to be based on sound, scientific knowledge of the genetic defects
of the Jews. One scientific view of the 1930s was that Jews
could not be permitted to intermarry because Jews were partly
African and partly Oriental, and this hybrid resulted in genetic
weakness and susceptibility to disease (Proctor, 1988). Some
years later, Roger Pearson (1966b) also suggested that Jews
carried African blood, as evidenced by blood group research.
At
the same time that he produced Blood Groups and Race,
Pearson was also publishing a journal called Northern World,
in which he was much more explicit about Nordic superiority.
He urged Nordics to "develop a worldwide bond between our
own kind" in order preserve racial purity and "not
to be annihilated as a species" (1959, quoted in Tucker,
1994). Pearson did not merely write about these issues as scientific
problems; he devoted himself to their political solution. In
England, between 1957 and 1959 he formed the Northern League
for Pan-Nordic Friendship, an organization to instruct those
of Nordic descent about their biological heritage (see Anderson
& Anderson, 1986; Billig, 1979) . Hans Günther, one of the
most important Nazi race scientists, was a founding member,
as was Robert Gayre, founder of Mankind Quarterly. (Billlig,
1979). Both Pearson and Gayre praised Günther's work. Günther's
1931 Rassenkunde des jüdichen Volkes proposed that Jewish
ancestry could be detected by observing posture (Proctor, 1988,
p. 110-111).
According
to Valentine (1978) Pearson moved to the United States in 1965,
and formed an alliance with Willis Carto, founder of the Liberty
Lobby. Together they continued Northern World as Western
Destiny, a periodical with articles of Nordic supremacy
and the dangers facing the Nordic race from the "Culture
Distorters," Carto's code phrase for Jews. According to
Pearson, the Nordic race would only survive if the "Culture
Distorters" could be prevented from "capturing the
minds, morals, and souls of our children" (1965, p.3).
The nature of Carto's position is best illustrated by the titles
re-issued by Carto's Noontide Press of Costa Mesa, California:
Germany Reborn, by Herman Goering, The Myth of the
Twentieth Century, by the prominent Nazi ideologue, Alfred
Rosenberg; The Inequality of the Human Races, by Comte
Arthur de Gobineau, generally considered the "ur"
text of Nordic supremacy. Noontide Press published the now classic
Holocaust denial books: Paul Rassinier's (1978) Debunking
the Genocide myth: a study of the Nazi concentration camps and
the alleged extermination of European Jewry and the anonymously
authored 1969 book, The Myth of the Six Million. In addition
to classic Nazi works and Holocaust denial books, Noontide Press
distributed books and pamphlets on race differences in IQ by
IAAEE members Garrett, Osborne, and McGurk. Carto also founded
the Institute for Historical Review, which published the Journal
of Historical Review, a journal of "revisionist history"
(see Lipstadt, 1993).
In
1978, Robert Gayre announced that he was retiring from the editorship
of Mankind Quarterly, and that publication would continue
in America under the editorship of Roger Pearson, although Pearson's
name has never subsequently appeared on the masthead, except
as a regular author. The General Editor was listed as "appointment
pending" in 1979-80. After 1980, no Editor-in-Chief was
ever listed, only the Editorial Committee of Hans W. Jürgens
(who was the source for Rushton's 1994b head size data) and
Richard Lynn, later joined by others. It is unusual for an academic
journal not to have an Editor-in-Chief. In contrast, Pearson
is clearly listed as editor of the Journal of Social, Political,
and Economic Studies. As Tucker (1994) noted, the manuscript
submissions, subscriptions and all business of Mankind Quarterly
was handled at Pearson's Institute for the Study of Man, of
which he was President.
In
the mid 1970s, Pearson had set up the Council for American Affairs
in Washington, which then became the publisher of a number of
journals and monographs, including the Journal of Social,
Political, and Economic Studies. The Council for American
Affairs became the American representative of the World Anti-Communist
League. The extent to which the World Anti-Communist League
became a haven for ex-SS officers, members of the British National
Front, ex-Ustashi, ex-Romanian Iron Guards, and other neo-fascists
has been outlined by Anderson and Anderson (1986) and Valentine
(1978). By the 1980s, Pearson was no longer associated with
the World Anti-Communist League, and instead concentrated on
publishing efforts.
Lest
it be thought that the earlier quotations from Roger Pearson
reflect his older thinking, and that his views on human "subspecies"
(i.e., races) have softened, he wrote recently in Mankind
Quarterly about the ways in which the Human Genome Project
and other advances are opening up new possibility for eugenics,
but he warned:
It
has been said that when a species is reduced to a single subspecies
(e.g.. panmixia), it is nearing extinction. Long term evolutionary
survival is by way of speciation and this necessarily involves
subspeciation. Evolution cannot occur unless "favorable"
genes are segregated out from amongst "unfavorable"
genetic formulae".....any population that adopts a perverted
or dysgenic form of altruism - one which encourages a breeding
community to breed disproportionately those of its members
who are genetically handicapped rather than from those who
are genetically favored, or which aids rival breeding populations
to expand while restricting its own birthrate - is unlikely
to survive into the definite future (p. 96) . . .The belief
that humankind could benefit from being leveled into a single
subspecies also flouts the laws of evolution, since evolution
is rooted in differentiation (1995b, p. 97).
Thus
Pearson's ideas seem unchanged from the 1950s, and are identical
to the "race suicide" concerns expressed by American
eugenicists at the turn of the century. In Pearson's analysis
of the human condition, "race prejudice" is an evolved
mechanism that is essential to discourage interbreeding and
allow the necessary subspeciation. Rushton (1995a) takes a similar
view of the biological basis of prejudice, but without the subspeciation
concept.
Finally,
it must be noted that Pearson (1991) placed quotation marks
around the words "holocaust" (p. 246) and "death
camps" (p. 248, although not on p. 250). I have seen no
other use of quotation marks with these terms other than to
suggest that these events are not real or are not as usually
represented. The fact that Pearson was directly connected with
Willis Carto, one of the foremost leaders in the distribution
of antisemitic and Holocaust denial literature (Bellant, 1991;
Lipstadt, 1993; Mintz, 1985; Simonds, 1971), makes the use of
the quotation marks more alarming. The issue is particularly
acute given Pearson's editorial work with Carto's Western
Destiny. When one critic (Mehler, 1983) suggested that homosexuals
might be at risk from extreme eugenicists, Pearson argued that
this was a "figment of Mehler's imagination" and since
"strict homosexual behavior can never lead to procreation,"
then "homosexuals would hardly be a target for even the
most far-reaching of 'negative' eugenics programs" (p.
249). But the most far-reaching program, that of the Nazis,
certainly did classify homosexuals as "sick" or "degenerate"
and exterminated them in death camps.
Thus
Roger Pearson's attack on "political correctness"
for suppressing the truth about race has a complex context.
The disturbing interconnections among Nazi Rassenhygiene, far
right politics, holocaust denial groups, and contemporary eugenic
and racial theorizing may sound melodramatic, but they should
not be seen in terms of conspiracy, only as the activities
of like-minded individuals. It is understandable that the memberships
and boards of Mankind Quarterly, the IAAEE, the Liberty
Lobby, and other groups overlap substantially, and that these
individuals would engage in joint ventures. It would be unjustified
to conclude that each shared all the views of the others.
The
important point here is that writers such as Garrett and Pearson
attempted to cloak themselves in the honorific mantle of "scientific
neutrality" and to deny that their position of race was
influenced by any broader political-social agenda. Such a strategy
is often used in charges of "political correctness"-
implying that your views are based on politics, but mine
are not, my views are based on "value-free"
scientific data. When such data consist of the intelligence
test performance of Black South African children living under
apartheid (e.g., Lynn, 1991) data used by Rushton in his analyses,
then the problems are self-evident.
Conclusions
Rushton's
discussion of the "equalitarian dogma" suggest that
brave, politically neutral scientists resisted the attempts
of powerful left-wing forces to control their work. However,
when the history of postwar racial difference research is examined,
the picture is one of a relatively powerful set of well-funded
people, most of whom believed in the basic tenets of early 20th
century eugenics (7)
and were strongly opposed to both integration and intermarriage,
fearing "race suicide." They used every scientific
and public communication channel available to convince their
colleagues and the public of their position. Far from suffering
academic censorship, they had access to prestigious scientific
journals and meetings, gave court and government testimony,
and distributed pamphlets. Their "controversial" work
received attention in every textbook. All retained their tenured
positions, sometimes funded by the taxes of the very people
they declared to be, on average, biologically inferior. They
suffered protests and attacks in the popular press, and some
deplorable assaults by protesters, with no serious injuries.
Their research was often subjected to special scrutiny, and
some were asked not to accept money from the Pioneer Fund. None
were expelled from the American Psychological Association. Comparison
of these events to the Inquisition, Stalin, and Hitler, is inappropriate,
to say the least.
The
continued criticism and concern over Rushton's work naturally
flow from the view that his theory is one of racial superiority,
albeit one in which Asian groups come out ahead of others. But
Rushton (1996) explicitly disavows the terms "inferior"
and "superior." The readers must judge whether Table
1, in which blacks are said to have, on average, smaller brains,
lower intelligence, lower cultural achievements, higher aggressiveness,
lower law-abidingness, lower marital stability and less sexual
restraint than whites, and the differences are attributed partially
to heredity, implies that they are "inferior." Readers
must also judge whether Rushton's (e.g., 1995a) r vs. K theory
in which the climate of Africa is said to have selected for
high birth rates and low parental care suggests the "inferiority"
of blacks. No one can doubt the uses that will be made of Rushton's
research by such groups as David Duke's National Association
for the Advancement of White People, whose newsletter advertised
IAAEE's publications and Mankind Quarterly, alongside
the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (see Tucker
1994, for an extensive discussion of the use of racial research
by the far right).
Rushton
explicitly disavows any policy implications of his research.
In this sense, he cannot be considered a eugenicist, since eugenics
always involved social policy. However, Rushton simultaneously
argues in this journal that "if all people were treated
the same, most average race differences would not disappear"
(p. 3), a statement which in no way follows from his research
and might be thought to carry policy implications for welfare,
compensatory education, and employment equity. In contrast to
Rushton's cautious approach Henry Garrett, Roger Pearson, T.
Travis Osborne and especially Freiherr von Verschuer, quoted
at the outset of this paper, embraced, and campaigned for the
implementation of policy based on race difference research.
Philippe
Rushton cannot be held responsible for the work of these men,
and shares no "guilt by association." But those who
maintain that a scientific theory cannot incite people to murder
should review the history of scientific racism, the history
of German Rassenhygiene, and the contemporary use of racial
theory in Bosnia (see Kohn, 1995). Those who maintain that the
data of racial research are "politically neutral"
and "value-free" should understand the political commitments
of those who conducted and promoted much of this research. Those
who wish to promote open, honest discussion should contemplate
the meaning of a book on worldwide race differences (Rushton,
1995a) in which "apartheid," "poverty,"
"colonialism," "slavery," and "segregation"
do not appear in the index. Only then can an informed judgment
about "political correctness" and racial research
be made.
Notes
1. Preparation
of this paper was not supported by any grant, foundation, political
or religious organization. I am indebted to the work of William
Tucker (1994) for his outstanding analysis of many of the issues
discussed here. I am grateful to Michael Billig for providing
a copy of his 1979 pioneering work. I thank Judith Winston for
comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Author's address:
Dr. Andrew S. Winston, Dept. of Psychology, University of Guelph,
Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1. EMAIL: awinston@uoguelph.ca
2. See
Synderman & Rothman (1988) for a discussion of media responses
to race difference research.
3. Readers
should remain cautious regarding the exoneration of Sir Cyril
Burt (see Samelson, 1992). The evidence that the chimeric J.
Conway "has been found" remains highly ambiguous.
According to Samelson (1995), the J. Conway who was found never
came forward to exonerate Burt while he was under attack, and
never mentioned her work with Burt to her children. She is now
deceased. The use of the word "hoax" (Rushton, 1994c)
to describe the charges of Burt's dishonesty is noteworthy.
4. Rushton's
(1994) notion of the "equalitarian fiction" is that
blacks and whites are genetically equal in cognitive ability.
Gottfredson's (1994) notion of the "egalitarian fiction"
is that "racial-ethnic groups never differ in average developed
intelligence" (p.53). I have never seen a scholarly source
which maintained that groups never show mean differences in
intelligence test scores. Gottfredson gives no reference for
anyone who holds this position
5. Von
Verschuer died in 1969. However, it was common for editors and
board members of Mankind Quarterly to be listed long
after their death, usually with a cross.
6. For
a discussion of antisemitism at Columbia University and in psychology
in general see Winston (1996).
7. The
diversity of thought within the eugenics community, even in
the early 20th century is beyond the scope of this paper. See
Kevles (1985).
References
Allen,
G. E. (1986). The Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor,
1910-1940: An essay in institutional history. Osiris,
II, 1986.
Anderson,
S. & Anderson, J. L. (1986). Inside the league. New
York: Dodd, Mead & Company.
Barkan,
E. (1992). The retreat of scientific racism: Changing concepts
of race in Britain and the United States between the world wars.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bellant,
R. (1991). Old Nazis, the new right and the Republican Party.
Boston: South End Press.
Billig,
M. (1979). Psychology, Racism, and Fascism. Birmingham:
A. F. & R./Searchlight.
Cain,
D. P., & Vanderwolf, C. H. (1990). A critique of Rushton
on race, brain size, and intelligence. Personality and Individual
Differences, 11, 777-784
Cattell,
R. B. (1937). The fight for our national intelligence.
London: P. S. King
Cattell,
R. B. (1987). Beyondism: Religion from science. New York:
Praeger.
Cernovsky,
Z. Z. & Litman, L. C. (1993). Re-analysis of Rushton's crime
data. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 35, 31-36.
Degler,
C. (1991). In search of human nature. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Flynn,
J. (1988). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really
measure. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 171-191.
Gabor,
T. & Roberts, J. V. (1990). Rushton on race and crime: The
evidence remains unconvincing. Canadian Journal of Criminology,
32, 335-343.
Garrett,
H. E. (1929). Jews and others: some group differences in personality,
intelligence and college achievement. The Personnel Journal,
7, 341-348.
Garrett,
H. E. (1961a). The equalitarian dogma. Perspectives in Biology
and Medicine, 4, 480-484.
Garrett,
H. E. (1961b). The equalitarian dogma. Mankind Quarterly,
1, 253-257.
Garrett,
H. E. (1961c). The scientific racism of Juan Comas. Mankind
Quarterly, 2, 100-106.
Garrett,
H. E. (1962). Racial differences and witch hunting. Science,
135, 982-983
Gottfredson,
L. (1994). Egalitarian fiction and collective fraud. Society,
31, 53-59.
Herrnstein,
R. J. & Murray, C. (1994). The Bell Curve. New York:
Free Press.
Horowitz,
I. L. (1995). The Rushton file: Racial comparisons and media
passions. Society, 32, 7-17.
Kevles,
D. J. (1985). In the name of eugenics: Genetics and the uses
of human heredity. New York: Knopf.
Kluger,
R. (1976). Simple justice: The history of Brown v. Board
of Education and Black America's struggle for equality.
New York: Knopf.
Kohn,
M. (1995). The race gallery: The return of racial science.
London: Jonathan Cape.
Kühl,
S. (1994). Eugenics, American racism, and German National
Socialism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lane,
C. (1994, Dec. 1). The tainted sources of the Bell Curve. New
York Review of Books, 14-19.
Linklater,
M. (1994, Nov. 23). Racism and the barmy Laird of Nigg. The
Times of London.
Lipstadt,
D. (1993). Denying the Holocaust: The growing assault on
truth and memory. New York: The Free Press.
Lynn,
M. (1989). Race differences in sexual behavior: A critique of
Rushton and Bogaert's evolutionary hypothesis. Journal of
Research in Personality, 23, 1-6.
Lynn,
R. (1991). Race differences in intelligence: A global perspective.
Mankind Quarterly, 32, 99-121.
MacGregor,
J. (1995). Race, prejudice, and a Guggenheim Fellow. Mankind
Quarterly, 35, 267-285.
Mehler,
B. (1983). The new eugenics: Academic racism in the U. S. today.
Science for the People, 15, 18-23.
Mehler,
B. (1989). Foundations for fascism: The New Eugenics Movement
in the United States. Patterns of Prejudice, 23,
17-25.
Miller,
A. (1994, Oct. 20). Professors of hate. Rolling Stone.
Reprinted in R. Jacoby & N. Glauberman (Eds.), The Bell
Curve Debate: History, documents, opinions (pp. 162-178).
New York: Times Books.
Mintz,
F. P. (1985). The Liberty Lobby and the American right: Race,
conspiracy, and culture. Wesport, CONN: Greenwood Press.
Pearson,
R. (1965). Editorials: Our new look. Western Destiny,
10, no. 9, 3-5.
Pearson,
R. (1966a). Eugenics and race. London: Clair Press.
Pearson,
R. (1966b). Blood groups and race. (rev. ed.) London:
Clair Press.
Pearson,
R. (1991). Race, intelligence, and bias in academe. Washington,
DC: Scott-Townsend.
Pearson,
R. (1995a). The concept of heredity in Western thought: Part
two, the myth of biological egalitarianism. Mankind Quarterly,
35, 343-371.
Pearson,
R. (1995b). The concept of heredity in Western thought: Part
three, the revival of interest in genetics. Mankind Quarterly,
36, 73-103.
Peters,
M. (1991). Sex differences in human brain size and the general
meaning of differences in brain size. Canadian Journal of
Psychology, 45, 507-522
Peters,
M. (1993). Still no convincing evidence of a relation between
brain size and intelligence in humans. Canadian Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 47, 751-756.
Peters,
M. (1995a). Does brain size matter? A reply to Rushton and Ankney.
Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49,
570-576.
Peters,
M. (1995b). Race differences in brain size: Things are not as
clear as they seem to be. American Psychologist, 49,
570-576.
Popplestone,
J. A. & MacPherson, M. W. (1994). An illustrated history
of American Psychology. Madison, WI: Wm. C. Brown.
Proctor,
R. (1988). Racial hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Provine,
W. (1973). Geneticists and thee biology of race crossing, Science,
182, 790-796.
Putnam,
C. (1961). Race and reason. Washington, DC: Public Affairs
Press.
Roediger,
H. L., Capaldi, E. D., Paris, S. G., Polivy, J., & Herman,
C. P. (1996). Psychology (4th. ed.). Minneapolis/St.
Paul: West Publishing
Rushton,
J. P. (1984). Sociobiology: Toward a theory of individual and
group differences in personality and social behavior (with commentaries
and authors response). In J. Royce and L. P. Mos (Eds.) Annals
of Theoretical Psychology, Vol 2, (p. 1-81). New
York: Plenum.
Rushton,
J.P. (1987). Evolution, altruism and genetic similarity theory.
Mankind Quarterly, 27, 379-395.
Rushton,
J. P. (1988). Race differences in behaviour: A review and evolutionary
analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 9,
1009-1024.
Rushton,
J. P. (1989a). Genetic similarity, human altruism, and group
selection (with commentaries and author's response). Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 12, 503-59.
Rushton,
J. P. (1989b). Invited review: The evolution of racial differences:
a response to M. Lynn. Journal of Research in Personality,
23, 7-20.
Rushton,
J. P. (1991). Do r-K strategies underlie human race differences?
A reply to Weizmann et al. Canadian Psychology, 32,
29 - 42.
Rushton,
J. P. (1992). Contributions to the history of psychology: XC.
Evolutionary biology and heritable traits (with reference to
Oriental-white-black differences): The 1989 AAAS paper. Psychological
Reports, 71, 811-821.
Rushton,
J. P. (1994a). Editorial: The equalitarian dogma revisited.
Intelligence, 19, 263-280.
Rushton,
J. P. (1994b). Sex and race differences in cranial capacity
from international labour office data Intelligence 19,
281-294.
Rushton,
J. P.(1994c). Victim of a scientific hoax. Society, 31,
40-44.
Rushton,
J. P. (1995a). Race, evolution, and behavior: A life history
perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Rushton,
J. P. (1995b). Race and crime: An international dilemma. Society,
32, 37-41.
Rushton,
J. P. (1996). Political correctness and the study of racial
differences. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless,
in press.
Rushton,
J. P. & Osborne, R. T. (1995). Genetic and environmental
contributions to cranial capacity in Black and White adolescents.
Intelligence, 20, 1-13.
Rushton,
J. P., Littlefield, C. H., & Lumsden, C. J.(1986). Gene-culture
coevolution of complex social behavior: Human altruism and mate
choice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
USA, 83, 7340-7343.
Rushton,
J. P., Russell, , R. J.H., & Wells, P.A. (1984). Genetic
similarity theory: Beyond kin selection. Behavior Genetics,
14, 179-193.
Samelson,
F. (1974). On the science and politics of the IQ. Social
Research, 41, 467-488.
Samelson,
F. (1992). Rescuing the reputation of Sir Cyril Burt. Journal
of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 28, 221-233.
Samelson,
F. (1995, June). Updating the Burt affair. Paper presented at
the XXVII Annual Meeting of CHEIRON, the International Society
for History of the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Bowdoin,
Maine.
Sautman,
Barry (1995). Theories of East Asian superiority. In R. Jacoby
& N. Glauberman (Eds.), The Bell Curve Debate: History,
documents, opinions (pp. 201-220). New York: Times Books.
Simonds,
C. S. (1971, Sept. 10). The strange story of Willis Carto. National
Review, 978-989.
Snyderman,
M. & Rothman, S. (1988). The IQ Controversey, the Media,
and Public Policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Sokal,
M. (1987). Psychological Testing and American Society,
1890 - 1930. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Tucker,
W. H. (1994). The science and politics of racial research.
Urbana, ILL: University of Illinois Press.
Valentine,
P. W. (1978, May 28). The fascist specter behind the world anti-red
league. Washington Post, pp. C1, C2.
Weingart,
Peter (1988). German eugenics between science and politics.
Osiris, 5, 260-282.
Weizmann,
F ., Weiner, N. I., Wiesenthal, D. L, & Ziegler, M. (1990).
Differential K theory and racial hierarchies. Canadian Psychology,
31, 1 - 13.
Weizmann,
F., Weiner, N. I., Wiesenthal, D. L, & Ziegler, M. (1991).
Eggs, eggplants, and eggheads: A rejoinder to Rushton. Canadian
Psychology, 32, 43 - 50.
Winston,
A. S. (1996). "As his name indicates...": R. S. Woodworth's
letters of reference and employment for Jewish psychologists
in the 1930s. Journal for the History of the Behavioral Sciences,
32, 30-43.
Zuckerman,
M. (1990). Some dubious premises in research and theory on racial
differences. American Psychologist, 45, 1297-1303.
Zuckerman,
M. , & Brody, N. (1988). Oysters, rabbits, and people. A
critique of "Race Differences in Behavior" by J. P.
Rushton. Personality and Individual Differences, 9,
1025-1033.
