Nature, 9 May 1996, carried the following news item.
London. The University of Edinburgh has launched
an inquiry into the teaching conduct of Chris Brand, a lecturer
in psychology at the university, and author of a controversial
book on race and intelligence that was withdrawn last month by
its US publishers, John Wiley and Sons. The inquiry--seen by Brand
as signalling the encroachment of 'political correctness' in British
universities--will focus on his teaching methods, following complaints
from students that he made them feel "uncomfortable"
during classroom discussions with his contentious views on race,
gender and intelligence.
In his book, The g factor:
General Intelligence and its Implications, Brand claims that
the genetic component in intelligence outweighs environmental
influences, and repeats the view that blacks in the United States
obtain lower average IQ scores than whites. The publishers withdrew
the book after newspaper interviews quoted Brand as having described
feminism as a 'menace' and suggesting that single mothers ought
to mate with males of a higher IQ. A statement from the publishers
described Brand's assertions as "repellent" (see Nature
381, 10; 1996 ).
The inquiry was announced
at a press conference by Sir Stewart Sutherland, principal of
the university. It will be carried out by Neil MacCormick, dean
of social sciences and professor of law at the university, who
will report to the principal next week. In a statement, Sutherland,
a former vice chancellor of the University of London, said he
had "no hesitation" in saying that "the large majority
of my colleagues in the university do not share conclusions on
eugenics apparently held by Mr Brand".
Many of Brand's students continue
to boycott his classes. Sutherland also announced plans for a
seminar later in the term, to include speakers "with various
viewpoints on intelligence and the relative importance of heredity
and environmental factors".
Brand describes the inquiry
as a "side issue" that is detracting attention from
"the suppression" of his book. The question of his teaching
methods, he says, would not have arisen were it not for the publicity
surrounding the book. He vigorously defends his teaching style
which he describes as "frank and relaxed". "Students
are simply the victims of the religious hysteria of our times,"
he says. "This is why they find everything that touches on
their prejudices to be insensitive. If in deference to 'sensitivity',
I draw a veil [on controversial issues], they'll find me incomprehensible."
Meanwhile, Brand continues
to respond to the controversy he has generated with vigour. Indeed,
the worldwide publicity generated by Wiley's decision to distance
itself from the book appears to have had unexpectedly favourable
consequences. The lecturer claims to have several offers to publish
the book, and says any new publisher is likely to print and sell
many more than the 2,000 copies planned by Wiley. Brand has already
demanded that Wiley pay US$75,000 for a relaunch. The alternative,
he states, is for Wiley to apologize publicly, resume publication
and supply psychology libraries worldwide with a free copy of
the book. The publishers, according to Brand, have merely offered
to provide him with unjacketed copies of the book, and to reassign
the copyright.
Brand's decision to differentiate
his position on race and intelligence from the withdrawal of the
book is a calculated one. It has put many of his scientific opponents,
as well as his university, in the position of having to support
the right to 'academic freedom'. Indeed, many would prefer his
book to be published so that his 'scientific' arguments could
be held up to academic scrutiny.
The book itself presents a
chain of assertions: that IQ is a measure of intelligence; that
intelligence boils down to a measure of the speed of apprehension,
that intelligence is largely governed by genetic factors, and
that all this has implications that should be taken into account
by society, particularly in formulating education policy.
Critics have challenged Brand's
position by attacking the assertions he makes to hold it up. For
example, Nicholas Mackintosh, professor of experimental psychology
at the University of Cambridge, who reviewed the book last week
(see Nature 381, 33; 1996), says that the least academically
sound of his assertions is that the g factor for -- 'general
intelligence' -- can be reduced to a measure of speed of apprehension.
But Mackintosh says that Wiley's decision to withdraw the book
was unwise. "I don't think what they find offensive is new,"
he says. "On the whole I believe that academics ought to
be able to publish what they believe in."
The publishers declined to
add to a statement issued when the book was withdrawn: "John
Wiley Ltd does not want to support these views by disseminating
them or be associated with a book that makes assertions that we
find repellent."
Now: either go back to the summary account of
Wiley and Edinburgh University vs Chris Brand.
Or, for more detail on the history, go to any of
the following websites:
http://www.webcom.com/zurcher/thegfactor/index.html
http://www.webcom.com/zurcher/thegfactor/gpress.html
http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/Brand/