Now, about fifteen years later, there’s another book based on a study around race and intelligence. Intelligence and How to Get It, by Richard Nesbit, posits that intelligence isn’t entirely genetic, though there are consistent genetic differences. The study finds that Asians, Jews, and West Indian Blacks are generally more successful than the rest of the public, yet don’t necessarily have higher IQs overall. This time, the author is quick to point out: “I think the evidence is very good that there is no genetic contribution to the black-white difference on I.Q.,” he said, adding that there also seems to be no genetic difference in intelligence between Whites and Asians. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/opinion/07kristof.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=kristof&st=cse). Rather, he draws conclusions from his research that effort plays a major role in intellectual success. Perhaps because of culture and parenting, members of these groups work harder and do more with what they have.

 

Still, reading about such research, or more, I should say, the conclusions drawn from research, still leaves an uneasy feeling in the pit of my stomach. Do we benefit from analyzing intelligence by race and ethnicity? Is there anything to learn by doing so or are we merely perpetuating stereotypes that have become ingrained in our society and make it more difficult for some groups to succeed? At the same time, I believe that we, as a society, must find a way to discuss such matters as studies that proclaim one group more intelligent than another. It is too easy, and artificial, to simply dismiss it because others do take it very seriously. Discussion brings understanding. There are clearly very important potential policy implications to such research. If the message of the Bell Curve had been more fully embraced by policy makers fifteen years ago, where would we be now in terms of education policy, for example? Instead of "No child left behind," perhaps the policy conclusion would have been to leave Black students behind because they are intellectually inferior anyway. Maybe the policy lessons of the new book by Nesbit are less insidious as it encourages us to invest in education, especially early childhood education, claiming that anyone can make it if they really try. Is the outcome all that matters?