Herbert C. Kelman, Cabot Professor of Social Ethics, said that although "Herrnstein tries to build a case for his conclusion, I don't think that the results he comes to are inevitable."

"Nevertheless, I think it's a very challenging piece. Herrnstein is proposing some very strong challenges to the liberal assumption that if we could only increase opportunity to open up our system, our social problems would be solved," Kelman continued.

Kelman said that he was worried that Herrnstein's argument could be used by those who wanted to cut off the drive to equalize opportunity.

"I see the whole thing as a challenge that must be dealt with. Although it can be used to support arguments that I'd be unhappy about, I feel it's definitely worth thinking about. If that's the way we're going, then we'd better do something," Kelman said.

***

Although he says he is basically apolitical, Herrnstein has put himself in the middle of a controversy with heavily political implications. And he does, unfortunately, strongly overstate his case.

If Herrnstein had stated that he saw a tendency toward a meritocracy, then his point would have been made. It would have been considered a logical possibility based upon his insights into I.Q. His article could have sounded a very reasonable request to consider the importance of genetics in the solution of social problems.

Herrnstein did formulate a reasonable syllogism which was tentative in its possibilities. The syllogism in and of itself makes sense.

What is questionable is the undifferentiated attitude he takes toward what is fact and what is philosophy. Herrnstein talks of equality of opportunity as if we were fast approaching the ideal liberal state.

It is this confusion which leads Herrnstein to parade speculations about chronic technological unemployment as facts--when they're only beginning to be investigated.

Furthermore, aside from his own predictions, Herrnstein is quite candid about his ignorance of specific social problems and their possible solutions.

But while Herrnstein has definitely not proven that American society is fast becoming a meritocracy, he had carefully shown why the genetic component of I.Q. must be considered a factor in the formulation of social policy.

He has also delivered a strong and healthy challenge to many commonly held notions about man's potential in society.