GUEST COLUMN: "Of Bell Curves, Individuals and Generalizations

The mere fact that a standardized performance evaluation consistently shows a difference between groups does not mean that the evaluation process is flawed. In fact, consistency and replicability, along with construct validity, are the standards by which standardized evaluations are measured. Case in point: my high school soccer tryouts. These evaluations were, without a doubt, biased. They were conducted in such a way as to discriminate against people who could not run, dribble, pass, or shoot. This process, however, did not come under much fire because those people, even good friends of mine, who did poorly in tryouts were indeed consistently worse than those who did well (replicability), and it was reasonable to assume that less skilled players would make a less successful team (construct validity). Similarly, the SAT and GRE tests are genuinely biased. They discriminate against people who do not exhibit the math skills or the command of the standard academic English language to predict success in college or graduate schools. The reasons for this lack of certain skills varies from person to person, but the tests' results have had enough predictive value over time and across demographics to be considered reliable and valid. Finally, the IQ tests which are currently used for young children are biased against kids who can't put puzzles together, place sequential pictures in logical order, and perform a variety of other seemingly culturally-neutral tasks. Most scientists in relevant fields seem to agree that these tests do measure a general innate cognitive ability, and that the scoring system (all scores are relative to the mean) is indeed consistent throughout the development of the child. There seems to be relatively little debate in the scientific community over the reliability and validity of intelligence testing. The controversy over The Bell Curve and other research of its kind is primarily political. The extreme right side of the debate holds that blacks and poor people are genetically and irreparably inferior to middle- and upper-class whites. They have the findings of studies like The Bell Curve, white hysteria over crime and the economy, and a perverse sense of history as their ammunition. Their goal is to end social programs which they view as cost-ineffective because these programs take resources from the smart people who could put them to good use and give them to dumb people who can't. The extreme left side holds that these tests are creations of the middle- and upper-class whites who want to justify their continued racism and mistreatment of the less fortunate, and that the tests themselves are geared toward the specific experiences of white people (even four-year-old white people). The proponents of this theory have innumerable examples of black achievement and Horatio Alger-type biographies, as well as political correctness and white liberal guilt in their corner, fighting the good fight toward expansion of bootstrap social programs designed to increase opportunities for the traditionally oppressed. Toward the middle (and closer to where reality lies), are those who might say that it is not scientifically unreasonable to suggest that the average intelligence of the black American population is slightly below that of the white American population, but that there is certainly enough variation among individuals from each group to render invalid the use of this generality as a foundation for public policy. Furthermore, it is invalid to assume a priority the intelligence of an individual based on nothing more than the color of his skin. And it is true that IQ is not the only indicator of a person's potential to succeed and contribute to society. My own IQ (yes I've been tested) may be nearly double that of Muhammad Ali, but it's not quite on par with Reggie Jackson, and both of these men have been far more significant to far more people than I probably ever will, both as entertainers and agents of social change. The problem with studies of this kind is not necessarily that they are erroneous, but rather that they alter our public consciousness in negative ways. Unfortunately, the knowledge that a general trend exists in a group affects the way we perceive individual members of that group, especially groups that are in the minority. It is difficult to pin a stereotype on a group that is as diversely represented as white people. Any such attempt can be dismissed as short-sighted and not really applicable on a person-by-person basis. It is far easier to impose unfair stereotypes on groups whose visibility is lower and representation is less diverse. There will always be a few individuals who fit these stereotypes, but innumerably more who do not. The idea that blacks on average are less intelligent than whites is one that people will believe or disbelieve for their own reasons. Arguably, reporting such information, whether it is true or not, can lead to many things negative and nothing positive. The truth is that blacks as a group are every bit as heterogenous as whites. It would be foolish for me to assume that because a person has a lower IQ than I do, he is black. It is equally wrong to assume that because he is black he will have a lower IQ than a white man like myself. Darin Smith is Records Supervisor at the University's Financial Aid Office and a 1993 College graduate. The Balding Of... appears alternate Wednesdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.