How Two Presidents Faced Race Science

Arthur Jensen, b. 1923

Earlier this decade, Skeptic magazine editor Frank Miele published a book entitled Intelligence, Race, And Genetics: Conversations With Arthur R. Jensen based on a series of exchanges he had with the famous Berkley psychologist.  As Jensen is best known for his belief that the root of the black/white gap in intelligence is largely genetic, one of the most interesting topics discussed was what, if anything, powerful people have thought about his work.  Jensen’s fame began with his 1969 Harvard Educational Review article “How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?”

Apparently, it was New York Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who coined the term “Jensenisn,” now an official English word.  Jensen tells about a time he was in Washington for an American Educational Research Association meeting during the Nixon administration and learned that people at the highest levels of government were taking his ideas seriously

. . . I received a message from Moynihan’s secretary asking if I could come to his office while I was in town.  So I met him in the White House at about 4:00 that afternoon.  He was a very open and cordial fellow, quite jolly and immediately likable.  He offered me a drink from the bar in his office and asked if I minded if he invited his “assistant of Jensenism” to come over from the Old Executive Office Building across the street . . . [one of the assistant's jobs] was to read my stuff and keep him [Moynihan] informed about it.  Moynihan in turn forwarded this information to President Nixon, who was keenly interested in Jensenism.

The president believed that genetics put limitations on how much could be done for blacks but that helping them was “the right thing to do.”  Nixon’s unconventional views on race recently made the news when one of his tapes revealed that he thought abortion was necessary when the potential offspring is of mixed black/white descent.  This revelation came seven years after a previous tape revealed him saying politically incorrect things about Jews in the media.

Contrast Nixon’s reaction to information diverging from the liberal line with that of George H. W. Bush.  Jensen recalls

Once after testifying in Congress I met former president George H. W. Bush — at that time a congressman from Texas — and chatted with him for a few minutes.  He knew something about my 1969 HER article but seemed more interested in my personal background — where I was born, where I grew up, where I went to college, things like that.  He acted rather amazed by my answers, especially the fact that up to that time I had never set foot in the Deep South.  When he said, “Isn’t that interesting, you’ve never been in the South?” I assumed he was testing my credentials for my discussing the nature of the Black-White difference in IQ.

The attitudes of Bush and Nixon tell us a lot about human nature.

Richard Nixon (1913 - 1994)

Nixon had a rare quality: he wondered whether a proposition was true or false regardless of its acceptance or lack thereof amongst others.

Like most people, Bush doesn’t have that quality. When he heard someone taking a view outside of the mainstream, he became most interested in the said person’s background and experiences.

Jensen’s talk with Bush reminds me of many conversations I’ve had with people who knew my opinions on race.  They would ask where I grew up or what my parents thought.  No one has ever probed for a sociological reason behind my views on economics or foreign policy.

Humans learn from a very young age on what topics a society does or doesn’t allow variation of opinion.  When they come across someone who breaches a taboo, they need a reason why. Saying because something is true isn’t good enough for the masses, because they can’t imagine themselves going against the grain, even in their own heads, for an abstract concept.  Perhaps the Berkeley psychologist grew up in Alabama, where being a “racist” is OK?  Or maybe he once got robbed by a group of blacks?

It’s no wonder that Nixon was the president that the elites found most difficult to understand.  He was the one least like them, and the rest of humanity for that matter.

I don’t doubt for a second that when mainstream politicians talk about the struggles of blacks or homosexuals they’re anything but sincere.  To think that they’re faking it is a misunderstanding of how human psychology works and how deep the roots of religion (even a secular one like political correctness) go.  Man is a herd animal more than he’s cynical, conniving, principled or concerned with truth.  It’s arguable whether this bodes well or not for changing the minds of our rulers.  At least we may convince ourselves to not hold their platitudinousness against them personally.