IQ and PC

National Review, Jan 27, 1997 by Kevin Lamb

Publishers have become more concerned with their reputations than with disseminating the truth.

ONE hallmark of modern civil society is its commitment to a free exchange of ideas and viewpoints. Scholars often depend upon unfettered access to colleagues' research. The suppression of peer-reviewed material not only restricts the dissemination of scientific findings, but also jeopardizes the academic tradition of free inquiry. Such constraints on open debate threaten the autonomy of free institutions.

Reputable publishers serve as gatekeepers by determining which manuscripts are worthy of publication. The decision to publish a manuscript involves several factors: the author's credibility, the validity of the specific work in question, the book's likely marketability and profitability, and so on. Another critical factor, however, can be the pressure of political correctness. Publishers, fearful of losing access to distributors and wholesalers -- and, through them, to the indispensable booksellers -- are reluctant to issue books that challenge the prevailing orthodoxy of social taboos. This places politically correct constraints on what major houses consider "safe" to publish.

One leading publisher of academic titles, for instance, no longer even considers studies that examine racial differences in IQ, even though the American Psychological Association issued a task-force report last year that accepts the reality of these differences. This distinguished panel of experts concluded:

The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socioeconomic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential.

Last July, John Wiley & Sons declined to publish Arthur R. Jensen's latest work, The g Factor, after reviewing it for ten months. Jensen's eight-hundred-page tome provides detailed evidence for a general level of intelligence, or g, as it was called by Charles Spearman, the pioneering British psychologist. Two of the book's fourteen chapters consider possible genetic and environmental explanations for racial differences in IQ. Even though the book received favorable reviews from independent referees, including one who stated that it could be the definitive study on general intelligence for years to come, and though it was supported by the publisher's psychology editor, Jensen received a brief letter simply stating that Wiley had decided to reject The g Factor.

When asked why Wiley decided not to publish Prof. Jensen's book, Susan Spilka, Wiley's Manager of Corporate Communications, replied, "I have no idea and we'll probably never know. Chances are it wasn't a quality factor." Furthermore, Miss Spilka noted that the rejection of Prof. Jensen's book was a "very deliberate decision" since Wiley does "not want to publish in this field."

These views merely confirm the suspicions that scholars had last spring when, in an unprecedented move, Wiley retracted another work on general intelligence after review copies and pre-paid backorders had already been distributed. Wiley dropped Christopher Brand's The g Factor: General Intelligence and Its Implications, two days before its official publication date. Brand, a lecturer in psychology at the University of Edinburgh, examines the significance of general mental ability, the degree to which it is inherited, and the reasons why society must recognize the reality of innate individual differences. What exactly prompted Wiley to try to suppress a book that was already available in British bookstores and has been acquired by several academic libraries?

In a newspaper interview just before the book's release, Brand rejected the idea that environmental explanations alone can fully account for racial differences in IQ. Defying the conventional wisdom, he stated that these differences are "deep-seated" and probably genetic in origin. He also suggested that in order to curb high rates of illegitimacy among the underclass, black teens should refrain from casual sexual encounters, and he argued that when it comes to relationships, intelligence is an important trait that one should value in others. In a long and candid interview, Brand denied that he was a "racist," but added that it his views could be described as those of a "scientific racist."

The next day Wiley issued a press release stating that it had decided to abandon their publishing arrangement with Brand. Susan Spilka noted that in the light of Brand's offhand remarks one could easily misconstrue certain aspects of his book. But when asked to identify the specific passages in question Miss Spilka replied, "I'd prefer not to get into details on that. Wiley is not comfortable with being the publisher." She added that Wiley believes the book deserves to be published -- but by someone else.