Challenge to the Court: Social Scien_ tists and the Defense of Segregation, 1954-1966 (Revised Edition, 1969) By I. A. Newby Louisiana State, $8.50 This book, a scurrilous work which at no time should have been honored with print, was reviewed by me in NATIONAL REVIEW (Feb. 13, 1968) at the time of its first appearance. Louisiana State University Press has now taken the step of issuing a “revised edition.” Actually, the original plates were re-used; the revision consists solely of appended — short statements of defense by some of those writers who were victimized by Newby’s original charge of “scientific racism”—A. James Gregor, Frank C. J. McGurk, R. T. Osborne, Wesley Critz George, Carleton Putnam, Nathaniel Weyl and Ernest van den Haag. A final reply by Newby closes the present volume. In his closing statement, Newby says that Gregor attempted to have Challenge to the Court removed from cir__ culation. Gregor, in his statement, says: “Only the decision by my attorneys and the attorneys of the Louisiana State Press that Newby’s libels are not legally ‘actionable’ has driven me to put [these hard judgments of Newby] into print.”” The Note from the Publisher in the book’s front refers only to “the right of rebuttal” as reason for the new edition. If so, it was an act of gracious restitution and not a reaction to pressure. Only one of the statements of defense is intemperate in tone. Only one of them—a different one—would justify the label racist to other than a Newby. All of them express bitter resentment against Newby’s tactics of systematic _ misrepresentation, quotation out of context and impugning the motives of anyone who ever did empirical work that even by indirection might cast doubt on the wisdom of politically en_ forced congregation of white and black. _ But oddly enough, none of them men_ tions Newby’s central purpose, in which personal vilification was only incidental. This failure may help to explain the air of bewilderment with which several of these men continue to discuss the various “school” cases, as if the issue between them and Newby centered about public school policy. But in his ~ book and in his final reply Newby announces that he, as well as the various proponents of the cases, aspires to a complete overhaul of American social life. School desegregation was only a proximate goal in a grand design, and it is therefore understandable why Newby in his final reply is in turn puzzled by his respondents. Quite simply, in Newby’s words, white liberals “shall overcome.” IF ONE’S PURPOSE is to overcome, what is the point in discussing evidence? Why not, indeed, impugn the motives of those who have failed to enlist in the cause? Newby accuses Weyl, a Jew and a consistent opponent of restrictive immigration, of being a “nativist.” This “racist” is also on record as _ being against racial segregation, a fact which Newby fails to mention. What Weyl has done, on the basis of extensive research, is to conclude that the Negro population as a whole is less gifted mentally than the Caucasian or Mongolian population, and that this dis_ parity is partly of genetic origin. Other men, after doing work of similar kind and scope, have reached a different – conclusion. In the world of scholarship, the evidence from both sides should be examined, the motives of neither impugned. Nor does the art of snide innuendo have a proper place. It is plainly “racism” and denotes a “racist,” for “Professor van den Haag to join the effort of Southern segregationists to overturn the Brown decision.” What van den Haag may or may not have done to overturn the Brown decision is not disclosed in his written work. He has indeed objected to it, on the constitutional ground that it sanctioned a destructive form of political compulsion, and that the only “social science evidence” cited in the decision was misrepresented to the judges and misinterpreted by them. About this effort, Newby does not exactly say that van den Haag has gotten together with some redneck types to plot something, but he does manage to convey an implication of something sinister afoot. But hold! Newby has not said that van den Haag joined these types, no, he joined their effort. It is plainly “racism” and denotes a “racist,” for “Professor McGurk to use test scores to make what seem to me invidious comparisons between the educability of whites and Negroes.” At the moment I cannot recall a single investigator of Negro-white intelligence (or what McGurk in his own work more cautiously terms psychological tests for predicting school achievement) who has not made such invidious comparisons. What most of them (the “authoritative consensus” Newby refers to) then do is explain away the constant scored mean «differences as the result of Negro cultural deprivation. McGurk correctly asserts that none of the claimants has ever attempted to test that explanation. It is McGurk’s efforts to do so that arouse Newby’s animosity against him. AR ay Here we are at this late date, Newby says in his final paragraph, “grown men in a society threatened by racial holocaust, white men in a largely white nation in a largely non-white and restive world, arguing whether ‘social science research’ and psychological test scores indicate that schools should be segregated along racial lines . . . whether racial equality is a hoax; whether, in effect, the winds of racial change can be halted by what amounts to repressive measures of white supremacy.” The fire next time? And why should even conclusive evidence that average Negro intellectual capacity is somewhat less than that of average white have such import? It is Newby’s implication, not that of any of his respondents save one, that their research supports denial of political equality, freedom of opportunity and full rights of citizenship to Negroes. WEYL AND SEVERAL of the other re- — spondents note that Newby is unable to distinguish between empirical investigation and political tub-thumping. And in effect Newby declares that knowl edge about people and conditions really doesn’t matter—it is already too late. It may be too late, but then the ques tion arises: Who or what is responsible? As this interchange demonstrates, Newby is right on one point. Com munication between him and those he calls “racists” (or interchangeably “ultraconservatives”) is impossible. It may be doubted, for example, that he — could be led to examine this idea: “the holocaust” at least partly results from
his widely-shared belief that any disappointment modern American Negroes may face in achieving or acquiring whatever they desire can be wholly blamed on white racism. This interchange is a valuable one, if only because it could serve to correct a persistent illusion among conservatives. Although not generous, the im- “pulse behind this illusion is understandable enough. The illusion: If things really go smash, they (such as Newby) are going to have a rude _ awakening. Not likely. When a preliterate shaman is reminded by a few disenchanted followers that magical incantations have failed to bring rain, good hunting or a bumper harvest, he tells them that they should have used more _ magic.
Comments