Even before it hit bookstores this week, The Bell Curve was controversial.

In early August, the Boston Globe was already predicting an "intellectual firefight" over the book, by late Harvard professor Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles A. Murray '65, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

The newspaper wasn't far wrong about the book, which links race and IQ and asserts that it does not matter whether differences in IQ stem from genetic or environmental factors.

The debate begun by Herrnstein and Murray is now on the cover of Newsweek. The New Republic filled its October 31 issue, released more than a week ago, with arguments for and against it.

This week alone, there have been more than 100 articles in newspapers and magazines across the country questioning whether the Bell Curve is solid scientific research or racist propaganda.

As the book says in Chapter 13, "Nothing seems more fearsome to many commentators than the possibility that ethnic and race differences have any genetic component at all. This belief is a fundamental error."

The dispute reaches all the way up to President Bill Clinton, who said last Friday the idea that "there are inherent racially based differences" in IQ "goes against our entire history and our whole tradition."

At Harvard, which exploded with protests over Herrnstein's 1971 article linking IQ to success in society, professors have come down on both sides of the issue. Most professors say they have not yet read the book but know its arguments.

Some, like DuBois Professor of the Humanities Henry Louis Gates, have been vocal in their opposition. Gates wrote strongly against the study in The New Republic.

Others defended their former colleague's right to free academic expression but declined to state their views.

But even those who disagreed with his conclusions remember the late professor of psychology as a thoughtful, considerate man who stood up for what he believed in.

The Issues

The book, subtitled "Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life," uses history, demographic surveys and behavioral studies to back the thesis that American society is dividing into a self-selected "cognitive elite" and a less educated, less intelligent lower class.

Using IQ as a measure, the book suggests a correlation between social problems and low intelligence. More controversially, it implies a tie between race and intelligence.

Most professors interviewed disagreed with the book's implications about race and IQ.

"It's certainly not accepted," said Professor of Sociology Mary C. Waters of the proposition that IQs differ according to race. Last year, Waters taught Sociology 60, "Race and Ethnic Relations."

Professor of Anthropology Michael Herzfeld echoed Waters' criticism.

"I have yet to see evidence that would convince me that IQ is related to race," said Professor of Anthropology Michael Herzfeld.

But Associate Professor of Psychology Gene M. Heyman said the differences in IQ test scores between Blacks and whites, if not the conclusions the book draws, are indisputable.

"There is about a 15-point difference between Blacks and whites on an IQ test," Heyman said. "No one is saying that's not true."

The genetic basis of IQ, if not a link between IQ and race, is an established fact in the scientific world, he said.

"I think everybody in the field now agrees that IQ is heritable," Heyman said. "I think everybody agrees that IQ is correlated with various measures of social success."

Professors also question the book's emphasis on IQ as an effective measure of intelligence.

"It's true to a limited extent that IQ plays a role as a kind of capacity to learn, but it's not a measure of actual learning," said Ford Professor of Social Sciences Emeritus Daniel Bell, who argued against some of Herrnstein's earlier work in a 1976 book. "To use it as a generalized tool, like a measuring rod or stick, would be wrong."

One faculty member defended Herrnstein, however, saying attacks on his work are political and come mainly from liberals worried about social change.

"He just came under attack for his views, which seemed to set limits on the possibilities of social reform," said Kenan Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield Jr. '53. "He was really a bogey man for the left."

Scientific Validity

Some Harvard faculty members said they believed that Herrnstein's research methods were impeccable, while others found them unreliable.

In 1971, students picketed lectures for Herrnstein's class after he wrote a controversial article about IQ.

"What is really the point in books of the sort is to read the original studies that they cite," said Henderson Professor of the Psychology of Personality Brendan A. Maher, who said he has read a good part of the book. "The book's use of other people's research was done in a reasonably valid way. They did go and look at the questions that should be looked at."

One member of the sociology department, however, blasted the methods used in researching The Bell Curve.

"From everything I can see, the conclusions in [the book] are based on quite out-of-date research and are rather critical about quite out-of-date research," said Moore Professor of Biological Anthropology Irven DeVore.

Herrnstein made his name in behavioral science, not in research about IQ, Heyman said.

"He was very much respected for his early work," Bell said. "He took B.F. Skinner's work and gave it a very strong foundation in math psychology. There was no question that he had really earned his fur, so to speak."

Herrnstein Himself

The controversy over Herrnstein's work is nothing new. In 1971, he first proposed that genetic factors such as IQ could create social stratification in societies increasingly based upon achievement.

After Herrnstein's theory appeared in Atlantic Monthly magazine, students picketed lectures for his class.

But despite his incendiary work, colleagues who knew Herrnstein are unwavering in their praise of his personal merits. They say he was unfailingly kind, witty and knowledgeable.

Above all, they said he was principled.

"Dick kept us honest," said Professor of Social Psychology Robert Rosenthal. "He was often the only person on one side of an issue. He was a very important colleague precisely because he often disagreed with members of the department but was never disagreeable doing it."

Maher said that Herrnstein remembered how he had voted one year or two years before on certain issues and stuck to his beliefs.

"It was a matter of integrity to him that if he developed a principle, he should live with it," Maher said.

Herrnstein was also unusually dedicated to his students, professors said.

"He was always very willing to find out what the student perspective was and what the effect on student would be," said Secretary to the Administrative Board Virginia L. Mackay-Smith '78. Herrnstein was "a very good citizen of this community," said Secretary to the Faculty Council John B. Fox Jr. '59. At different times, he served on the Ad Board, the Faculty Council and the standing committee on athletics. Last year, he was appointed a member of the committee on the structure of Harvard College.

Whatever he wrote was not intended to hurt anyone, Heyman said.

"I don't think that anything he wrote was mean-spirited," Heyman said. "You could think of it as just the opposite, that he thought people were wasting their money with false expectations in programs" like Head Start.

"I think he believed he was working in a way to improve conditions for all people," Heyman said.

One colleague said Herrnstein should be evaluated not on one isolated controversy but on his entire body of work.

"When someone has been a colleague for thirty-plus years, you look at the whole of the thirty years," Maher said. "Most of us tend to evaluate or react to each other for what we see as the long-haul contribution the person is making to the scientific field."Photo Courtesy the Harvard News OfficeRICHARD J. HERRNSTEIN