BOOKS
307
THE POLITICS OF
I.
QUING
BIAS IN MENTAL TESTING. By Arthur
R.
Jensen.
Free Press. $29.95.
The educational psychologist Arthur Jensen first attracted
national attention in 1969 with a long review article called "How
Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" In it he argued
that systematic differences in scholastic performance between blacks
and whites are mainly genetic in origin. The article was sharply
criticized for its faulty methods of analysis and its use of inaccurate and
partially bogus data. In his new book,
Bias in Mental Testing,
Jensen
makes a fresh start. He no longer defends, or even mentions, the notion
that whites are inherently smarter than blacks . He is also silent on the
eponymous issue of his 1969 paper; the phrase "compensatory educa–
tion" does not appear in the index. Yet the new book and the 1969
paper have much in common. Jensen again presents an elaborate but
technically unsound argument to support a simple political thesis:
affirmative action and preferential recruitment are undemocratic, he
argues, and academic and occupational selection shou ld be based on
"psychometricall y sound" standardized tests .
Affirmative action and preferential recruitment are undemocratic,
says Jensen, because they violate two democratic principles: one, the
principle of equal opportunity, and two, the principle of "treating
every person according to the person 's
individual
characteris tics ."
Jensen seems not to have noticed that these two principles sometimes
clash. A may be better than B at a certain skill, but he may also have
had more opportunity
to
develop that skill. Should B be preferred at
A's expense (principle one)? Or should A be preferred because, by his
superior performance, he has earned the opport"";nity (principle two)?
If
A is white and B is black, the question is more complex. One may
decide to discriminate in favor of B not because B himself deserves
favored treatment but because a policy of reverse discrimination will
promote equality of opportunity for future generations.
The principle of "treating every person according to the person 's
individual
characteristics" belongs to a political tradition different
from that of Locke, Jefferson, Madison, and Paine-a tradition whose
most eloquent spokesman was Plato, who argued:
The god who fashioned you mixed some gold in the nature of those
capable of ruling because they are
to
be
honored mosl. In those who
