“SCIENCE FICTION OR SCIENCE FACT” ARE WHITES INHERENTLY MORE INTELLIGENT THAN BLACKS ?

( Delroy Constantine-Simms
University of Essex (UK) &

Marciea Monique McMillian
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (USA)

ABSTRACT
The publication of Hernstein & Murray’s (1994) “The Bell Curve” appears to be the latest expression of pseudo scientific theories with respect to race and intelligence. This paper gives an historical and ideological insight behind the development and application of intelligence tests by citing examples of their impact on legislation, social policy and intervention programmes in relation to Blacks. More importantly, a discussion of cultural bias in test design focuses on the response of Black psychologists who developed Black intelligence tests that portray whites as intellectually inferior in the same manner that Blacks are portrayed as intellectually inferior on tests devised by white psychologist. Furthermore, The hereditary perspective of intelligence is challenged by empirical evidence that centres on children with white ancestry to assess whether white genes influence intelligence while citing several sources that support the environmental explanation of the race gap in test scores. Consequently, this discussion questions the reliability and validity of intelligence tests that are used to reinforce the Black intellectual inferiority myth. The conclusive argument suggests in no uncertain terms that the Bell Curve is nothing more than the repackaging of racist pseudo-scientific conclusions by right wing academics, intent on rekindling a political debate premised on a racist manifesto to justify the withdrawal of intervention programmes that challenge existing social and racial hierarchies, that are perceived to transfer white power and privileges to undeserving Blacks.

Special Thanks to: Dr. Madge Willis Morehouse College Atlanta Georgia (USA) Dr. Gerald Horne University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (USA) Dr. Colin Samson University of Essex (UK) Shonga M’gadzah University of East London (UK) Gail Pringle University of Leicester (UK)

HISTORICAL PESPECTIVE OF INTELLIGENCE AND RACE

The publication of the Bell Curve is the latest pseudo- intellectual accelerant being used to fuel the debate on social Darwinism, intelligence race and the need to abolish the welfare state. The last academic to court such controversy on these issues was Jensen (1969). He reviewed all the literature which compared Black and white IQ tests and concluded that on average Blacks were 15 IQ points below the average white population, therefore educational programmes such as head start were a waste of time. In order to understand the historical and ideological premise of the Bell Curve and the impact of such ideas on social policy and intervention programmes, for Black people, one has to look at the work of David Hulme as cited in Howitt & Owusu-Bempah (1994), who devised methods of academic racism combined with Christianity to characterise Black people as satanic in order to justify racism, while using science to ease the Christian conscience that would have otherwise protested at the disgusting atrocities of slavery. However, Chase (1977) suggests that Thomas Malthus not David Hulme should be accorded the title “ founding father of scientific racism” as he provided the blue print for the extermination of the poor, the sick and Black people as outlined in his essay “The Principles of Population” (1798) It is quite clear that Malthuses views were based on Darwin’s ideas, which provided the scientific justification for his fundamental opposition to social reform including universal education, minimum standards of health, occupational safety and sanitation Chase (1977). On the basis of hereditary theory, Malthus argued for a pragmatic eugenics in his principles of psychology by suggesting that selective breeding was necessary in order to eliminate unfit races. In his view of the unfit Black people were inferior to the least worthy white person and deserved what they got. As extreme as these ideas were Howitt & Owusu-Bempah (1994) note that the racist policies of Spencer (1870) are rarely acknowledged let alone discussed by historians. Nevertheless, his version of eugenics has been highly influential in modern psychology. For example, Chase (1977) suggests Spencer influenced Thorndike’s textbooks on mental development, the psychology of education and child psychology and the teaching profession were a reflection of his commitment to the eugenic solution of compulsory sterilisation to any psychological intervention. In retrospect, the charges of scientific impropriety should be directed at Charles Darwin, The biologist responsible for laying the ideological foundations of pseudo science, social and biological determinism from which others have used academic respectability to
2

attack Black people at every opportunity available in order to justify the biological justification of a hierarchical social order. However, Bannister (1979) an ardent supporter of Darwinism and social selection argues that: “The Descent of Man” reinforced a hierarchical view of human development and the assumption that history was a progression from barbarism to civilisation…….In this context, Darwin’s predictions concerning the extermination of lower races were not prescriptions for racial imperialism but a summary of recent anthropological and apparently undeniable results of European expansion since the renaissance. But Darwin also insisted that this process was not to be confused the biological evolution or the process whereby differences originally appeared” Bannister’s interpretation clearly supports the argument that white society civilised Black countries. Bannister also suggests that Herbert Spencer (1870) and his alumni contributed an intellectual rationale for paternalistic but humane philanthropic and educational initiatives. According to Bannister, Darwin can only be held to be racist on the basis of association and scattered assumptions. This defence of Darwin’s theory of natural selection by Bannister (1979) borders beyond the depths of rationality, especially when it is clear that Darwin is the chief ideological architect and mentor to his half cousin Francis Galton (1869) who examined the family tree of 415 highly distinguished judges, scientists, literary figures, only to conclude that eminence ran in the family in the same way as unusual physical attributes such as height, weight, skin colour, therefore genius is also largely hereditary. To put it bluntly, he regarded the British upper class as a highly productive intellectual stud farm. Galton’s concern was that good hereditary stock was being swamped by bad stock. The solution to this problem was the science of Eugenics as suggested by Galton, (1869) who invented and defined eugenics as part of the scientific commitment to bio-social programmes to give the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable ones. Unfortunately, Galton’s ideas did not die with him. Howitt and Owusu-Bempah (1994) argue that the link between Galton’s hereditarian ideas and modern psychology have been re-established through Cyril Burt (1966), who fraudulently massaged his data on mental inheritance in twins. The other link with modern psychology is the fact that Burt whose general practitioner father knew Galton, regarded Burt as his prodigy. Furthermore, Burt was a student of Mc Dougall (1921), who supported race segregation in the United States and regarded the untrained and excessive indulgence with sex as the main source of problems in the Black community, not injustice. An argument that has the support of

3

Murray & Hernstein (1994) who make similar references in respect of minorities, women and the poor. THE DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF INTELLIGENCE TESTS Binet & Simon (1909) may have constructed, the first intelligence test, Terman of Stanford University may have revised the Binet-Simon test and called it the Revised Stanford Binet Scales. However, (Tanser, 1939; Mc Gurk, 1951; Burt, 1966; Shuey, 1966; Cattell, 1971; Jencks, 1980 ) and many others have used such tests to label Black people as genetically and intellectually inferior. Moreover, they all believed that inferior people paupers, disabled, and criminals & Black people posed a threat to society. A view that was responsible for the enactment of sterilisation laws in more than thirty American states to prevent people of low intelligence mainly Black people from reproducing. In Virginia it led to more than 7,500 compulsory sterilisation's between 1924 and 1972. Sadly, the premise of these notions are based on previous tests that have consistently failed to include minorities in the standardisation process, yet (Shuey, 1958; Jensen, 1969; Murray & Hernstein 1994; Brand, 1996; ) support their work even though question marks surround the validity of their research findings. Therefore it comes as no surprise when Hilliard (1995) argues that the current assault on African and African people by the misuse of psychometric theories regarding intellectual inferiority is nothing new let alone improved. In order to understand the point being made by Hilliard (1995) just take a closer look at the Wechsler Scale for children (WISC) that was based on a sample of 2,200 children, all white. Even in the revised (WISC-R), only 165 Black males and 165 Black females were used. Interestingly, enough the Stanford Binet was based on 3,000 American born white children before it was revised in 1960. Also the Peabody Picture Vocabulary test based on 4,000 white students from Nashville, Tennessee until it was revised in 1937. The very nature of IQ tests, represents a major stumbling block to Murray & Hernstein's argument. Hence, my reasons for supporting Mercer (1973 when she argues that, IQ tests are Anglo-centric, because they measure the extent to which an individual's background matches the average cultural pattern of American society, i.e. white middle class society. Her conclusions led to legislation making it illegal since 1978 to determine that a child is retarded on the sole basis of it's score on IQ tests. However, standardised testing remains problematic, as they still tend to reward a narrow social, gender, racial, and ethnic status, rather than real notions of merit Sadker and Sadker (1994).
4

THE RESPONSE OF BLACK PSYCHOLOGISTS TO BIASED INTELLIGENCE TESTING TOOLS In recognition of the fact that it is certainly easier to devise tests which are blatantly biased than to construct a culture fair or culture free test. Black Psychologists, educators and sociologists have responded to the application of traditional tests by developing culturally loaded tests using references to materials familiar to African-Americans via culturally sensitive instruments such as the Dove Counter Culture Balance General Intelligence Test, The Test of Cultural Empathy (TOCE), Black Intelligence of Cultural Homogeneity (BITCH-100), developed by (Dove, & Sullivan 1973; Goodyear, 1973; Williams, 1975; Tanser; 1939 ) which all draw on Black language culture and experience respectively. More importantly, these tests have been validated at some stage. An example, is the cross validation study of the BITCH-100 conducted by McNeil (1975) who compared the performance of 74 Black students (37 male and 37 female) to 155 white students (76 male and 79 female) on the BITCH and the Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence. On the LorgeThorndike Test, the average score for white students was 13.08 or 3.95 points higher than the average score of 9.13 for Black students. On the BITCH-100, however, Black students scored an average of 18.05 points higher than the white students. The disparity between the averages was favourable for Black students since, as Mc Neil (1975) argues, Black students must learn how to deal with their immediate environment from which the BITCH-100 is drawn and with the dominant values of white middle class culture from which the Lorge-Thorndike is based. Unfortunately, there is no compulsion for whites to understand Black culture which is considerably different to white culture in many ways. The culture specific BITCH represents an alternative approach to intelligence testing in that it attempts to assess what Black students have learned. Williams (1970) conducted a comparative study and found that Black students had a 36 mean point superiority over white students. Furthermore, the shapes of the Black and white groups response distributions were asymmetrical. Neither curve was proportionally balanced, both curves deviated significantly from the bell shaped distribution usually sought on standardised tests. The following study by Mercer (1973) is also compelling. She developed a test routine of life skills, like keeping score at baseball or reading a news paper. Mercer gave
5

this test to Blacks and Whites with IQ’s under 70. The test was scored pass/fail. None of the Whites passed the test, but 95% of the Blacks did. This suggests that IQ tests are measuring something fundamentally different for Blacks and Whites, at least for low scores. Similar findings were reported by Matarazzo and Weins (1975) who compared the BITCH-100 and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) scores but a bimodal one for the BITCH-100. In addition, Correlational analysis revealed no relationship between the BITCH-100 and WAIS scores. Again, the BITCH-100 may be picking up information not usually measured in traditional IQ tests. In respect of cultural bias, these results demonstrate that differences in test scores are closely related to cultural bias in traditional tests as cited by (Williams, 1970; Mc Neil, 1974; Dove, 1968;. Despite all the evidence to substantiate the influence of test bias Jensen (1974) continued to argue that test bias is not a problem because the race gap is larger on non verbal tests than on verbal tests, which are more likely to be culturally loaded. But Scarr (1981) found that Blacks did relatively better on less culturally loaded tests when the instructions were made comprehensible. Whitely and Davis (1974) found that a single 50-minute test preparation session raised Black scores significantly on an analogies test. William’s (1970), found that Blacks did score higher on culturally specific tests than on standard IQ tests. Therefore, it seems likely that the use of non standard English dialects by many Blacks would affect their performance on tests written in standard English. Admittedly, Quay (1971) noted that Black English translations of the IQ test made no difference to the results, whereas as William’s (1970) found that Blacks out performed whites on a translated test. The causes of this discrepancy are unclear, but one possibility is the quality of the translation and the fact that these test have been standardised on white populations. Consequently, there are several other factors which affect the scores of Blacks. For example, environmental factors have never, in reality, been similar, and class bias has not been controlled adequately. The inability to control for these two variables alone could lead to significant differences in test scores between Blacks and whites Crane (1994). However, the lack of data concerning these variables serves to bolster the hereditarian school of thought as a feasible explanation in respect of the intellectual inferiority of Blacks in America and the Diaspora.

THE CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENES; ENVIRONMENT AND INTELLIGENCE
6

Academics have suggested that the relationship between race and intelligence is a consequence of genes causing people to seek out particular environments (Murray & Hernstein, 1994; Jencks, 1980; Plomi et al. 1977). They imply that it is not implausible that people who are innately intelligent tend to be more interested in intellectual pursuits and thus put more time and effort into developing their cognitive skills. If this is true, the inheritability estimates fail to distinguish between the direct effect of genes and the indirect effect that works through choices of individuals to expose themselves to intellectual enrichment. It is also quite possible that other types of genes could influence the effort a person puts into learning. Lewontin (1976) showed that even if the heritability of a trait is 100% within two groups, differences in the trait between the groups could be completely environmental. The hypothetical response by Crane (1994) is to assume for arguments the sake that height is completely determined by genes and nutrition. He argues that it there were two islands, one extremely lush and the other extremely sparse. The two islands and the other extremely sparse. The two sets of islands have identical distribution of genes determining height. Every one has the same diet, but the diet on the lush island is nutritiously more richer than the one on the sparse island.. Thus the people on the island are taller than average. In that case, differences in height within each set would be completely genetic, whereas the differences between them would be environmental. The hereditarian response to Lewonitin (1976) is that within group heritability estimates are applicable to between group differences except to the extent that there are environmental effects that are unique to one of the groups (Jensen, 1975a; Urbach, 1974). With respect to the issue at hand, this would correspond to the phenomenon of race specific environmental effects, like racism or unique aspects of Black culture. This is because any environmental effects common to both races, like (SES), would be taken into account by within race heritability estimates. Hereditarians argue that it is implausible that such race specific effects could be large enough to account for a substantial portion of the race gap in IQ. But there is some ancillary evidence that supports environmental explanations of the race gap (Eyeferth, 1961; Scarr & Weinberg; 1976) Cross national comparisons offer less direct evidence, but they are suggestive. In Puerto Rico, where SES differences between races are smaller than they are in continental United States, IQ differences between Blacks and Whites are less than a third of those on the mainland Flynn, (1980).

7

There are numerous countries and sub-populations of Whites that have or at some point had mean IQ’s that are approximately the same as African American Blacks. Some of these have varied by more than 15 point race gap over just a few decades (too short a time to be explained by changes in the gene pool) or across environments. Ceci (1990) noted the case of the Burakumi, a Japanese ethnic group with SES characteristics and IQ scores similar to African-American. But in America, Burakumi children do as well on tests and in schools as other Japanese. This goes to show that there are other influences that mental measurement tools are insensitive too. Even, if IQ were 100% heritable, the race gap could still be a by product of environmental disadvantages that Blacks experience. Because of the causal relationships between genes and the environment, two general types of causal relationships make genetic and environmental effects on cognitive skills non additive. Within each type, there are several defined hypothesis about how genes and various aspects of the environment might relate in ways that would affect cognitive skills. One general type of casual relationship is the tendency of an environment to react differently to people with different genes (Jencks, 1980; Plommin; Defries & Loehlin; 1977).

For example Crane (1994), explains this phenomenon by focusing on height and it’s impact on basketball skills. Crane argues that all other things being equal, taller people are better at basketball. Also, tall people tend to catch the eye of Basketball coaches, who are likely to try and encourage them to try out for the team and work a lot with them if they do Crane (1994) asserts that tall people will tend to receive more environmental nurturance of their skills. Similarly, he argues that it is quite possible that children who develop more cognitive skills than average, because their genes also tend to receive greater than average encouragement to pursue intellectual activities and more help from parents and teachers. Racial discrimination in general is another example of causal relationships of this type. People with genes for Black skin systematically encounter different environments than do others in society. This illustrates the fact that the “environmental explanation” of the gap of cognitive skills actually assumes that the cause of the gap is both 100% genetic and 100% environmental in the sense that genes for Black skin causes the environment to react to the individual in such a way as to discourage the development of such skills. But of course these are not the same genes that hereditarians assume are causing the gap.
8

WHITE ANCESTRY AND BLACK INTELLIGENCE If the recent hereditarian assertions implied by Murray & Hernstein (1994) and Brand (1996) are correct, then Black people with varying amounts of white ancestry, and many white genes, should on average have higher IQ's than those with little or no white ancestry. Such notions are discredited by Witty & Jenkins (1936) who conducted a study of Black School Children in Chicago, which focused on 91 children with the highest IQ among 8,000 students enrolled in the Chicago school system. They reasoned that if Black children are genetically inferior to white children then these Black children should come from an ancestry that is predominantly white. An updated experiment conducted by Scarr (1977) used 43 blood group markers to estimate the proportion of white ancestry of Philadelphia school children who were subjects in the study. Their results showed no association between racial ancestry and four separate tests of intellectual performance: the correlation's were all very close to zero, hence their conclusion that their are no associations between race & intelligence. Thus reinforcing the scientific fact that most anatomical and physiological and biochemical systems in humans display no racial differences. Tobias (1970) reviewed all published comparisons of the brains of Black & White Americans and concluded that their is no acceptable evidence for differences in IQ or other performance tests that can support the hereditarian theory. Whether Murray & Hernstein (1994) like it or not their are two studies which prove that their argument surrounding intelligence and genetics in relation to mixed race children are also flawed. Firstly, Eyferth's (1961) study focused on Besatzungskinder - the illegitimate offspring of American occupation troops and German women, following the second world war. A comparison was made between the white & the mixed race off spring. The studies showed conclusively that there was no difference between the average IQ of the mixed children & white children. The second study carried out by Scarr & Weinberg (1977) focused on groups of Black, mixed race and white children raised in white adoptive homes, were found to have nearly the same IQ's which is very hard to reconcile with the hereditarian thesis. In the light of all the racial crossing studies and admixture studies and bearing in mind that these tests are only direct tests of the Eysenck hereditarian thesis, it is hard to see how Murray & Hernstein (1994), can continue to claim that the existing evidence support the thesis that race differences in IQ are largely determined by genetic factors.
9

THE FAILURE OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS TO OVERTHROW THE HEREDITARIAN PERSPECTIVE ON INTELLIGENCE AND RACE

The work of (Shuey, 1958; Jensen, 1969; 1980;) has convinced many professional and academics to accept that whites are more intelligent than Blacks, despite evidence to the contrary, as shown by Snyderman and Rothman (1990), who administered a questionnaire to assess the Black white difference is a product of genes or environment. The majority agreed with the hereditarian view. Compliance with the hereditarian perspective exposes the flaws of psychometric science, as there is no scientific definition of race as cited by (Fairchild, 1991; Montague, 1974; Yee, 1983;). Furthermore, there is no accounting for the intervening variable of school treatment, and there is no accounting for linguistic and cultural diversity in the design of mental measurement instruments Helms (1992). Yet Psychometricians are still confident of the predictive ability of their instruments. This should be of great concern as there is ample evidence of test abuse in (Gould 1981; Guthrie, 1976, Kamin, 1974;) Unfortunately, their perception of the facts are far from parallel with public opinion which may explain the popularity of pseudo-scientist such as Murray and Hernstein (1994) and more recently Brand (1996). The facts regarding the utility and futility of cognitive test are self evident to those who reject the hereditarian perspective, At the same time environmentalists must also come up with a reliable form of cognitive test device. The ultimate question is what can be done and who by ? Several solutions tests have been posed in the past. Among the early approaches were the issues of culturally free and culturally fair testing. The difficulty with culture free tests is that they fail to measure scholastic aptitude the very thing they were designed to measure. Culturally free tests are meant to eliminate cultural influences eliminating words or the use of language from a test instrument. However, it is virtually impossible to eliminate cultural influences from testing tools. ethnic groups. The alternative is to acknowledge cultural differences by constructing a culturally fair test containing items that are familiar to many Despite the problems with Black psychology tests they do offer some convincing arguments against the hereditarian thesis in test scores between Black and white subjects, while exposing the additional problem of cultural and linguistic bias in tests that claim to be culture free. Consequently, test scores based on traditional tests continue

10

to be presented with unwarranted conclusions concerning the intellectual inferiority of Black people in America and the Diaspora compared to whites.

CONCLUSIONS
One of the defining features of the mainstream rights racial project is it’s re-defining of the term racial equality in terms of colour blindness. Ruth Frankenburg (1993) points out that colour blindness on the part of whites represents a mode of thinking about race organised around an effort not to see or acknowledge their racial privilege and power. Colour blindness is a double move toward colour evasiveness and power evasiveness, it represents a polite language of race that is deceitful when it come to acknowledging the complicity of whites with the structural and institutional inequality. Murray & Hernstein’ (1994) colour blind racial politics supports a reconceptualised understanding of racial equality based on civic individualism. According to this re-formulation, equality is the result of individual striving, merit and deserved achievement and discrimination. If intentional it is against individuals not groups. The Bell Curve is therefore an extension of mainstream right wing colour blind racial politics; it is the rationalisation of a colour blind, nevertheless racialized meritocracy. To be fair to Hernstein & Murray (1994) cannot be directly accused of being little Adolf Hitler's, Moreover their work is certainly no Mein Kampf, but it does come very close. Their work may be considered an expression of pseudo scientific rhetoric, yet it could take us down a dangerous road, similar to the one that led to the introduction of IQ tests in Nazi Germany in the 1930's. More importantly, The reason why this book is getting so much attention contrary to popular belief has nothing to do with their scientific findings, It is inextricably linked to political arguments aimed at defeating liberal reforms such as health; welfare; unemployment benefits; Workers compensation and affirmative action. The nature of books such as The Bell Curve (1994) and The g Factor (1996) serve to reinforce the belief that human populations differ in their inherited mental qualities which is the basic premises of racist thought. The specific formulation of their genetic doctrine is nothing new, it just varies in sophistication from period to period, but the essence is always the same. Some races are said to inherit a capacity for abstract
11

thought, others learning only by rote; some are equipped with foresight, while others are fated to be creatures of impulse. Such differences are unalterable, whether one views them as in the blood or encoded in the genes. For the white racist, the genetic argument offers an apparently scientific basis for viewing Blacks as inferior. Since Blacks and whites inherit different physical features such as skin colour, hair texture, why not different psychic structures ? The next step is to assert that the intellectual, economic, social and political potential of Blacks is genetically limited, as compared with whites. The message conveyed from this book and others like it, are clear. It’s the same old shit in new clothes, just another strategy for a violent and racist society to say Black people's problems are their own. Which means, it’s easier for the racist to blame (Black) their genes than to improve the present social economic political structure of a society that disadvantages so many Blacks and other visible ethnic minority groups. Contact details: Delroysimms@yahoo.com

References
Bannister, R.C. (1979). Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo American Thought. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Binet, A., Simon,T (1909) Les Idees Modernees Sur Les Enfants. Paris Flammavion. Blau, Z.S. (1981) Black Children/White Children: Competence, Socialisation, and Social Boyce, C., & Darlington, R. (1981, March) Black Proficiency in Abstract Reasoning. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of Eastern Psychology Association, New York. Brand, C. (1996 ) The g factor. New York. Wiley ( Withdrawn and unpublished) Bruce, M. (1940). Factors Affecting Intelligence: Test Performance of Whites and Negroes in the Rural South. Archives of Psychology. New York. Burt, C. L. (1966) The Genetic Determination of Differences In intelligence: A Study of Monozygotic Twins Reared Together and Apart. British Journal of Psychology, 57,137153. Cattell, R.B. (1971) The Structure of Intelligence in Relation to the Nature-Nurture Controversy In R. Cancro (Ed.), Intelligence: Genetic and Environmental Influences. New York: Grune & Stratton. Ceci, S.J. & Nightengale, N.N.(1990) Abstract Reasoning and Racial Differences: The Eye of the Beholder: Unpublished Manuscript, Cornell University. Chase, A (1980). The Legacy of Malthus: The Social Cost of The New Scientific Racism: University of Illinois Press, Chicago.
12

Chase, A. (1977). The legacy of Malthus: The social cost of scientific racism. New York: Alfred. Crane, J. (1994) Exploding The Myth of Scientific Support For The Theory of Black Intellectual Inferiority. Journal of Black Psychology 20. 2, 189-209. Dione, E.J. Nov 1994 Washington Post Dove, A. & Sullivan, A.R. (1973) Issues in Assessing Multi-Cultured Youth: It’s Implication For Teachers. Prepared For The Conference on Competency Based Teacher Education, Teachers Corp Associates: Madison, Wisconsin. Eyeferth, K. (1961) Leistungen Verscheidener Gruppen Von Besatzungskindern in Hamburg-Wechsler Intelligenstest Fur Kinder (HAWICK). Archive Fur Die Gesamte Psychologie, 113, 222-241. Eynseck, J. (1971) Race, Intelligence and Education London: Temple Smith. Fairchild, H.H.(1991). The Cloak of Objectivity. Journal of Social Issues, 47(3), 101-115. Flynn, J. R. (1980). Race and IQ. London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Franenberg, R. (1993). The Social construction of whiteness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Galton, F. (1869) The Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into it's Laws and Consequences (2nd ed,1892 reprinted 1978) London: Julian Friedman. Goddard, H.H. (1920) Human Efficiency and Levels of Intelligence. Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press. Goodyear, F.H. (1973). A Test of Cultural Empathy. Paper Presented at the Speech Association Convention. Gould, S. (1981). The Mis-measure of Man. New York: Norton. Guthrie, R(1976). Even The Rat Was White. New York: Harper & Row. Helms, J.E. (1992). Why is There No Study of Cultural Equivalence In Standardising Cognitive Ability Testing ? American Psychologist, 47(9) 1083-1101. Hilliard III, A.G. (1995) The Ideology of Intelligence and 1Q Magic in Education in Testing African American Students (ed) Hilliard III, A.G. Chicago, Third World Press Hilliard, A.G.; III (ed) 1995) Testing African-American Students. Chicago: Third World Press. Howitt, D & Owusu-Bempah, J. (1994) The Racism of Psychology: Time For Change. Harvester Wheatsheaf: London. In C. Senna (ed), The Fallacy of IQ. New York: Third Press. Jencks, C. (1980). Hereditary, Environment, and Policy Reconsidered. American Sociological Review, 45, 723-736.
13

Jensen A.R, (1974). How Biased Are Culturally Loaded Tests ? Genetic Psychology Monographs, 90, 184-244. Jensen A.R, (1975a). The Meaning of Heritability in the Behavioural Sciences. Educational Psychologist, 11, 171-183. Jensen, A. (1980). Bias in Mental Testing. New York: Wiley Jensen, A.R. (1969). How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement ? Harvard Educational Review, 39,1-123. Jensen, A.R. (1974). How Biased Are Culture Loaded Tests ? Genetic Psychology Monographs, 90 184-244. Jensen, A.R. (1975a). The Meaning of Heritability in the Behavioural Sciences. Educational Psychologist, 11,171-183). Jensen, A.R., & Figueroa (1975). Forward and Backward Digit Span Interaction With Race and IQ: Predictions from Jensen’s Theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 882-893. Kamin, L. (1974). The Science and Politics of IQ New York: Wiley. Klineberg, O. (1944). Characteristics of the American Negro. New York: Harper & Row. Lewontin, R. (1976). The Fallacy of Biological Determinism. The Sciences, 16, 6-10. Matarazzo and Weins op. cit (1977) B.J. Wright and V.R. Isenstein, Psychological Test and Minorities (DHEW), Publication No. ADM. 78-482, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office). Mc Dougall.W. (1921) Is America Ready for Democracy ? New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Mc Gurk F.C.J. (1951) Comparisons of the Performance of Negro and White High School Seniors on Cultural and Non Cultural Tests Questions. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press. McNeil, op. cit (1977) B.J. Wright and V.R. Isenstein, Psychological Test and Minorities (DHEW), Publication No. ADM. 78-482, Washington, D.C.: Office). Mercer, J. R & Brown, W.C. (1973). Racial Differences in IQ: Fact or Artifact. Mercer, J. R.(1973). Labelling The Mentally Retarded. Berkeley: University of California Press. Montague, A. (1974). Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race. New York. Muntie, J., Fager (1988). Racial Difference and IQ: Item Analysis of the Stanford Binet at three years. Intelligence, 12, 315-352. Government Printing

14

Murray, C. Hernstein, R.J.(1994). The Bell Curve, Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life: New York. The Free Press. Plommin, R; Defries. J.C.; & Loehlin.(1977). Genotype-environment Interaction and Correlation in the Analysis of Human Behaviour. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 309-322. Quay, L.C. (1971). Language Dialect, Reinforcement, The Intelligence Test Performance Of Negro Children. Child Development, 42, 5-15. Ryan, J. (1972) IQ: The illusion of objectivity ink Richards and D.Spears (eds), Race Culture and Intelligence. (pp36-55) Harmondsworth: Penguin. Sadker, M. and Sadker, (1994). Failing at Fairness: How Our Schools Cheat Girls. New York: Touchstone. Scarr, S. (1981). Race, Class Social Class, and Individual Differences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Scarr, S. Pakstis, A.J., S.H. and Barker W.B.(1977) Absence of a relationship between degree of White ancestry and intellectual skills within a Black population. Human Genetics, 39,69-86. Scarr, S., & Weinberg (1976). IQ Test Performance of Black Children Adopted By White Families. American Psychologist, 31, 726-739. Showunmi, V & Constantine-Simms (1995) Teachers For The Future. Stoke: Trentham Shuey, A.M.(1966) The Testing of Negro Intelligence (2nd ed.) New York: Social Science Press. Snyderman, M; & Rothman, S. (1990). The IQ Controversy: The Media and Public Policy. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction.. Tanser, H.A. (1939) The Settlement of Negroes in Kent County, Ontario and a Study of the Mental Capacity of their Descendants. Chatham, Ontario: Shephard. Termam,. L. M. (1916) The Measurement of Intelligence. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Tobias, PV (1970) Brain Size, Grey Matter and Race: Fact or Fiction. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 34, 3-25 Urbach, P. (1974). Progress and Degeneration in the IQ Debate. British Journal of Philosophy of Science, 25, 99-135. Wechsler, D. (1987) Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. New York: Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1947) Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. New York: Psychological Corporation. Whitely, S.E., & Dawis, R.V.(1974). Effects of Cognitive Intervention On Latent Ability Measured From Analogy Items. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 710-717.
15

Williams, R.L. ( 1975) The BITCH-100: A Culture Specific Test. Journal of AfroAmerican Issues, 3 (1) 103-116. Williams, R.L. (1970). Black Pride, Academic Relevance, and Individual Achievement. The Counselling Psychologist, 2,18-22. Witty, P.A. and Jenkins, MD (1936) Intra-Race testing of Negro Intelligence. Journal of Psychology, 1,199-192 Yee, A.H. (1983). Ethnicity and Race: Psychological Perspectives. Educational Psychologist, 18(1),14-24.

16