He is only indirectly guilty of racism. All the genetic statistics refer only to North American or Western European whites. Yet his conclusions are directed against blacks, Puerto Ricans, and Chicanos, as well as poor whites. Minority races mainly fall in his category of "low-capacity residue" that he fatalistically predicts will appear. This led Alvin F. Poussaint, associate professor of Psychiatry at the Massachusetts General Hospital, to conclude in his Dec. 3 Globe article, "whether he intended it or not," Herrnstein "has become an enemy of black people and his pronouncements are a threat to the survival of every black person in American."

Herrnstein also shows callous lack of sympathy for poor people. While he proclaims himself to be "a liberal or left of that," he refers to poverty in such glib terms as "poor and unattractive surroundings." It seems almost out of place to remember that maybe better surroundings like trees and parks would be nice; yet poverty means unemployment, rats, disease, and, in his field, brain damage to infants born to mothers malnourished during pregnancy.

Herrnstein's thesis rests on the underlying premise that a meritocracy based on intelligence is a social good. His syllogism points to-society's discrimination in favor of people with high I.Q.'s (and if one replaces the word "race" for "mental abilities" in the syllogism, one easily sees how society also discriminates racially). Herrnstein never questions the fundamental problems of discrimination or social stratification because of this I.Q. bias.

A society whose leaders are chosen predominantly on the basis of intelligence does not guarantee justice. Are intelligent people necessarily the best people? Mere intelligence will not help one make important value judgements or moral choices. Smart people are equally if not more capable of perpetrating injustice. Consider the war policies of Henry Kissinger, McGeorge Bundy, or Dean Rusk--all of whom are distinguished scholars. So when a society distributes its goods, factors like need, hard work and rare talent deserve reward as much as intelligence.

Given all these considerations, a final look at the fallacy behind Herrnstein's syllogism is in order. The second part says that success requires mental abilities. To support this idea early in the article he presents 1945 data by T.W. and M.S. Harell published in "Educational and Psychological Measurement" which correlates status of occupation to the average I.Q. of those in that occupation. For example, the highest job status on the list is the accountant who has an average I.Q. of 128.1, while teamsters are the lowest on job status with an average I.Q. of 87.7. From this, Herrnstein concludes that most teamsters are too dull (as he calls those with low I.Q.'s) to be anything better than teamsters because an accountant, for example, needs a higher I.Q. "A high I.Q. is necessary for some occupations," he asserts.

In the vast majority of cases, this conclusion is erroneous. Herrnstein begs the important questions in presenting the data primarily in terms of average I.Q. He vastly underplays the importance of differences within each occupation. He notes only incidentally that one truck driver registered an I.Q. of 149, and a P.R. man who supposedly needs an I.Q. of around 126 had only 100. According to well-accepted statistics of the Harvard Center for Educational Policy Research (CEPR), I.Q. explains only 17 per cent in occupational differences.

Herbert Gintis of CEPR, who made many of these studies, said. "The only reason the accountant has got a high I.Q. is that he went to school longer." Rick Edward's CEPR study concludes that job adequacy is not related to intelligence but more importantly to personality traits like docility, relation to authority, subordinancy, and lack of creativity. Gintis's studies show that schools discriminate in favor of those with high I.Q.'s and that the more school one completes, the more one will absorb these personality traits which determine job status. But Gintis warns that I.Q. tells us little that is not already known: as a predictor "social class, independent of I.Q., is a much better determinant of educational and occupational attainment."

Harvard social scientists have a proclivity for lending ideological support to reactionary policies. Should Herrnstein be fired for shoddy work with politically explosive implications? Perhaps, but then what about other Harvard professors who are equally if not more guilty? His I.Q. article deserves a political response since he wrote politically. His ideas should be discredited. But Harvard scholars have rallied to his defense using again the old smoke-screen of "academic freedom." Even if professors within the walls of the "academic community" met their moral responsibility and criticized Herrnstein, would those who read the Atlantic last September ever hear about it?