There’s been a kerfluffle in the legal world over an e-mail sent by a Harvard Law student. Short version, following up on a dinner conversation she sent an e-mail that stated, “I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent.” That’s considered the most offensive passage of the e-mail, which languished for months until one of the recipients had a falling-out with the author and started forwarding the e-mail all over the place. The complete e-mail is available within Volokh’s coverage, if you’re interested. Naturally, the student has been roundly denounced, including a condemnation from the Dean, and even the traditional grovelling apology hasn’t quelled the thundering anathemas directed at her.
There are several obvious points. First, what the young lady wrote is entirely reasonable. There’s reason to think that intelligence has a genetic component, and if so, it’s hardly a given that there is an even distribution of these genes across human populations. To dogmatically say otherwise is to deny evolution. To provide a simple example: gene X boosts IQ by about 10 points, and is found in 40% of population A and 70% of population B — all else being equal, population B will have a higher average intelligence than population A. If X bestows a level of intelligence Y, then 4/10 members of A will be at Y, while 7/10 of B will be at Y. The real factors of cognitive intelligence and population genetics are more complex, of course, but that doesn’t render this sort of investigation impossible.
Secondly, one can decry the PC police and the race-hustlers who have tried with some success to ruin this woman’s life over speculation in a private e-mail. And certainly there’s plenty to be said there as well. However, what has been largely ignored is the complex of psychological motives that lie around race and intelligence at places like Harvard.
Ours is a culture where instrumental reason or technical/logical intelligence is highly valued. We have systems set up to skim the cream of the cognitive crop off and funnel them into prestigious institutions and jobs. One’s capacity for instrumental reason/technical intelligence can be measured with a fair degree of accuracy, and those skilled at it rise as part of our “meritocracy”. Institutions like Harvard Law School are devoted to this; it’s all about the LSAT scores, GPAs, before that the SAT, etc… Harvard Law grads go on to wealth, prestige and power because they aced all the intelligence tests along the way, and they are generally very proud of their superior intelligence. They probably aren’t quite so clever as they think they are, but very few of us are, and there’s no denying that a place like Harvard Law draws from the top few percentiles of intelligence.
Thus, Harvard Law is at the apex of a social system that offers great rewards to the highly intelligent, and those receiving those rewards have been told that they are their due. But there’s a race problem. From the LSAT to the SAT to straight IQ tests, there are marked differences in racial averages, and these differences correspond to the usual racial stereotypes: East Asians on top, then whites, then Hispanics, then blacks. The education system spends billions trying to close these racial gaps, but they remain stubbornly open, and theorizing about cultural factors or biased testing mechanics provides limited comfort. Bending standards through affirmative action helps bring the percentages in line, but also contributes to a cognitive dissonance.
Much of the moral self-identity of the folks at Harvard Law and its ilk is derived from a firm rejection of anything perceived as racist. However, their self-esteem (and of course their position in society) rests upon the exaltation of instrumental reason. The fact that the same tests and measures that got them to their privileged position show differences, on average, between racial groups is consequently a sore spot that they prefer not to think about. Thus, the furious vituperation directed at the author of the e-mail has little to do with her, and much to do with a blustering attempt suppress their own incoherence. They don’t want to have to choose between feeling socially and intellectually superior or morally superior.
