Suppose the argument that there is a measurable IQ difference between two groups is true. Suppose even that IQ measures someting. You would have one race group with an IQ of 100 and another, say, with 107. Both would have bell curve distributions.
That would also mean that a substantial portion of the "less smart" group would be much smarter than the "smart group" (overlapping bell curves). The tail ends on the "dumb side" are not worth arguing about (in the context of most social programs and education) since we're basically talking about severely handicapped people. On the "bright side" of the tail ends you might find, for example, that the "less intelligent" group had one per 1000 superbright folks while the other group had 1.5 or 2. These are statistically significant findings but so what? Are you going to tell the "superintelligent" member of the "less intelligent group" that you aren't going to find a way for him/her to go to college?
Therefore, even if you believed that IQ was an appropriate basis for discrimination in society, you would still have no basis for discrimination on race.
In other words, even if you grant all the ifs, ands, and buts to the "IQ among races is detectable" side (and you don't have to do that), you still don't emerge with any basis on which to organize any particular social resources--including education, income, or anything else. So what is the point of the argument?
-- Gregory P. Nowell Associate Professor Department of Political Science, Milne 100 State University of New York 135 Western Ave. Albany, New York 12222
Fax 518-442-5298