July 1, 1970

dent Nixon states that our policy is
simply to assure free choice: he seems
to say that any government in any coun-
try is all right, so long as that govern-
ment obtains power by more or less le-
gitimate means. There is not much dif-
ference between these statements of pol-
icy, at least not much difference that can
readily be seen.

The problem is that in fact our goal
in Southeast Asia is not clear. Are we out
to defeat aggression, or are we not? And
why is Southeast Asia of concern to us?
If Vietnam is vital, then why is not Cam-
bodia equally vital to our interests? If
our military commitment is lesser today
than it was yesterday, why is it that our
Air Force has greater combat assign-
ments now than it did a month or so
ago?

Americans are not ashamed to commit
themselves to the cause of freedom, or to
the defense of another land; history
shows that indeed we welcome such a
challenge, when it becomes necessary.
There can be no question of the determi-
nation and courage of our people, if they
are given a cause that they can truly be-
lieve in. But as a free people, Americans
demand, and have a right to know, what
objective it is that they fight for, and
why.

Answers are required, answers that

have not been given either by Congress
or by the President.
_ These are matters that cannot be set-
tled in the easy exchange of simple slo-
gans, or in partisan charge and counter-
charge. The election of 1968 is past, and
it is time that the politicians of that con-
test cease politiking and assume states-
manship. The decisions that must be
taken now and the policies that must be
explained cannot be taken, cannot be ex-
plained, in so simple a fashion as partisan
politics,

We are told often enough by the Presi-
dent that we have three options. But
there are always three options, no matter
what the situation may be: do nothing,
do a little, do a lot. The issue is not over
what the tactics—what the options are—
but why it is that the question concerns
us at all.

If we had three options in Vietnam in
1965, we also had three options in 1968
and in 1970. It is not enough to say that
17 months ago one thing was done, and
now we are doing another. What must be
said is why.

That is not so simple, but that is what
must be explained. I think that our peo-
ple understand the options ‘of life well
enough, but that they—all of us—are
simply puzzled about the larger issue—
what, after all, is our goal? Not how do
we get there, but where is it?

The fact is that Congress has never
answered the question of what our goal
js, and has never itself made a commit-
ment to the war in Southeast Asia,
beyond a resolution that the Senate now
rebuffs, with blessings from the White
House itself. .

And that has led to the fundamental
cause of our national malaise: the use
of conscripts in a protracted; and accord-
ing to the President, indecisive war.

The draft demands that a man go and
fight: wherever required, war or no. But
this is not what can be demanded of a

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

man who calls himself free. A free man
is not one who can be conscripted to go
into combat where his elected represen-
tatives have not declared war to exist,

_ as is required in the Constitution.

Congress once placed rigid restraints
on the use of draftees. Right up until
the very beginning of World War II, no
conscript could be sent out of the West-
ern Hemisphere unless Congress au-
thorized it. But the present draft per-
mits the President to use any number
of conscripts in any place, regardless of
whether Congress has declared war to
exist or not.

And so we now force men into combat
without so much as bothering to say
answer those hard questions: what are
our goals, and what are our national
objectives?

It is little wonder that thousands re-
sist the draft.

I have for several years sponsored a
bill that would prohibit the use of
draftees in a combat zone without a
declaration of war.

Some of my friends think this to be a
radical bill, and others think of its as
less than serious. But in fact it is only
an extension of a protection that Con-
gress itself demanded :30 years ago.

What Congress has lost is the power

to commit our country to war.
_ Until and unless Congress regains
that power, Presidential wars will take
place, and the country will again and
again be plunged into crises such as we
see today.

Congress does not have any authority
to determine the conduct of a war, but
it does have the authority and the re-
sponsibility to determine whether war is
justified, and whether a commitment of
this Nation to war is necessary, and to
what end,

I do not ask that Congress be given
the power to control the movement of
forces in the field; that is for generals.
But what I do ask is that we regain the

power to determine whether free men -

are to be committed to war.

This is not radical; this is not inter-
ference with the President; it is simply
the recognition of plain constitutional
duty, and the exercise of freedom as it
was intended to be exercised.

For if Congress forbade the use of con-
scripts in undeclared wars, we could be
assured that protected wars would be

avoided, at least: until and unless the

Congress determined that such wars are
necessary, and this would require that we
answer those questions that we have so
long avoided in Southeast Asia: What
are our goals, what are our interests?
Some historians have said in assess-
ing the Korean war that the tragedy
was that the American people would per-
mit the use of draftees,in a protected
and indecisive Asian cohflict These ob-
servers believed that the only solution—
since there would be future wars in
Asia—as indeed Vietnam proved there
would be—what had to be done was:-to
provide for a professional army that
would be like the Roman legions of old,
fighting anywhere to protect the Empire.
But this begged the question. The fact
is that in Southeast Asia, France used
only professional soldiers and let an
ally—the United States—pay a good part

H6319

of the bill. But those legions—with a long
and proud history—could not win in In-
dochina. The reason was not military but
political. The people of France had no
clear idea of why they were being taxed
to fight a long and bloody war in Indo-
china,

And so France was defeated.

The equation has not changed in all
the intervening years. The military facts
are the same. The U.S. forees in
Vietnam cannot be defeated militarily.
But this is a political war, and it is beg-
ging the question to say that we cannot
be defeated militarily—we know that—
and it is begging the question to say that
all draftees will be out of combat by
September. It is useless to talk of weap-
ons seized, rice burned, and men killed,
as long as the political questions remain
unanswered, and those answers can be
neither simple nor painless. ’

Cambodia is over, but it remains an
open question, for the United States has
assumed yet another commitment.

The future remains a puzzle, and it
will until we know clearly what it is we
are trying to achieve in Southeast Asia,
and why.

This is what Congress must address it-
self to. This is what the President must
address himself to. It ts a matter demand-
ing leadership. It is a matter demanding
honesty and courage, not shallow. politi-
cal maneuverings, not debating around
moot points. The fact is, painful as it
may be, that the answers to the Vietnam
riddle will be difficult, and that our pain-
ful sacrifice will not easily be ended. I
do not think that Americans will shrink
from the truth;. all they ask is that it be
stated. If we do not have the courage to
face the questions, then we have no right
to be dismayed over division and confu-
sion in the country today. —

Let us get on with our task.

INTEGRATION MAY BLACKS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from Louisiana (Mr. Raricx) is rec-
‘ognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. RARICK. Mr. Speaker, vast sums
of taxpayers’ money have been and con-
tinue to be expended to attain theoret-
ical egalatarian goals through forced in-
tegration. Since forced integration ts un-
natural and the antithesis of liberty, it
has created great hostility among all the
people and has in reality accomplished
nothing. Race relations today are far
worse than before 1954 and there has
been no evidence of any improvement as
the result of appropriations of larger
sums of money or passage of additional
social force laws.

There is no evidence whatever, that
compulsory integration in education has
accomplished more academic progress
thantfree choice would have achieved. In
fact, the opposite has been proven.

Hearings have been conducted before
the General Subcommittee on Education
of the Education and Labor Committee .
concerning integration in education. Two
of our country’s. leading aclenitific au-
thorities on genetics and behavior have

orugiat to ful underseanding of the ec.

  
   
 
H 6320

cational problems we face, that include
the statements of Dr. Ernest Van Den
Haag and Dr. Arthur R. Jensen follow-
ing my remarks for the information of
the Members:

STATEMENT OF Dr. ERNEST VAN DEN HaaG BE~
FORE THE GENERAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON Epu-
CATION, HOUSE EDUCATION AND LABOR CoM-
MITTEE

I. INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Com-
mittee, my name is Ernest, van den Haag. I
am a Professor of Social Philosophy at New
York University, a lecturer at the New School
for Social Research in psychology and soci-
ology, and a psychoanalyst in private prac-
tice, I received an M.A. degree from Univer-
sity of Iowa, and a Ph. D. degree from New
York University. I also have studied in Eu-
rope, at the Sorbonne (the University of
Paris), the University of Florence, and the
University of Naples. I have lectured at Har-
vard and Yale Universities. I am a
member of the Society of Applied. Psy-
choanalysis, Fellow American Sociological
Association, Royal Economic Society and
New York Academy of Sciences; I am
a Guggenheim Fellow (1967). :

Iam the author of Education as an Indus-
try and the coauthor of The Fabric of So-
ciety. I have published nearly 70 scientific
articles in my fields, appearing in profes-
sional journals and encyclopedias as well as
. chapters in books, e.g., “Psychoanalysis and
Discontents,” appearing in Psychoanalysis,
Scientific Method and Philosophy, and
-“Genuine and Spurious Integration,” appear-
ing in Psychoanalysis and the Social Sciences.
I have delivered the Freud Memorial Lecture
to the Philadelphia Psycho-analytic Associa-
tion (“Psychoanalysis and Utopia”).

My work mostly concerns study of the re-
lationship of groups. Research in the fleld of
social dynamies analyzes the causes of the
formation of groups (including classroom
groups or student groups) and how group
members relate to others. Such studies are
directly applicable to predict the educational
result of compulsory congregation in schools.

On the basis of those studies, I appear to-
day to question the validity of the purpose
which the Emergency School Ald Act of 1970,
H.R. 17846, is intended to serve. Essentially.
‘the bill seeks to end what is called racial iso-
latlon—defined as more than 50% minority
attendance in a single classroom. It is the
purpose of the bill as expressed in Section 2

‘to improve the quality of education in the
United States by increasing the degree of
compulsory classroom integration between
the races. But it is simply assumed, without
actual evidence, that integration will be edu-
cationally and psychologically beneficial.

This legislation before the Committee as-

éumes fundamentally that academically and
socially effective classroom groups can be
formed by putting black and white students
together in larger numbers in‘a single class-
room regardless of their wishes and that
this will improve their education and de-
crease the differences as well as, hostilities
which now exist between them. Yet such an
enforced congregation of two identifiable
racial groups, one deprived in relation to the
other,. does not diminish, but rather in-
creases the divisive forces which now exist
between these students and the consequent
increase in classroom tension leads to a sub-
stantial decrease in the educational accom-
Pplishment of both groups and multiplies the
disciplinary problems-which detract from the
essential student attention required for ef-
fective study.
‘If such integration 1s compelled, as this
“bill proposes to do, it will injure rather than
assist the future educatiorial accomplishment
‘of the nation’s schools.

“The biseks who will feel humiliated by
their low performance relative to white
@hildren-—be it owed to genetic, economic,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

subcultural or family conditions—are likely
to react with redoubled hostility to white
pupils, teachers and institutions—to school-
ing as a whole. It will be labeled “irrelevant.”

Il. GROUP MEMBERSHIP AND INDIVIDUAL

IDENTITY

(1) Every individual needs to identify with
a particular group. Such an identification is
essential for the development of personality.
This is clearly expressed by Dr. Glaister A.
Elmer (Michigan State College) in “Identi-
fication as a Social Concept” (Sociology and
Social Research, Vol. 39, No. 2 (1954), pp.
103-109).

“The social psychologists, however, ‘.. ..

should start first by relating the individual
to his reference and membership groups and
then proceed to the finer details of person-
ality problems.’.. . In the binding in-group
formation, the real identification of individ-
ual members are anchored in the group. A
sense of solidarity is generated in them as
@ natural process which manifests iteelf in
actual behavior, In other words, as a group
is formed, or as individuals become members
of the group, the social process of integra-
tion is taking place. Besides the individual
members of the group, the integration binds
the social values and goals, the psychic char-
acteristics, and the in-group symbols with
which the individual members become iden-
tified. The social identification which evolves
thus constitutes the basis of the group sol-
idarity from which results observable, meas-
urable behavior.

“There must be a personal consciousness
of ‘belonging’ or ‘being a part’ which is
reflected in the opinions and behavior of the
persons concerned. Group membership iden-
tification implies not an individual’s reac-
tion toward a group, but his reaction as a
functioning element of the group.”

(2) Men react selectively to their fellow
men. This preferential association is based
upon observable differences, among them
overt physical differences and similarities,
which form the focal point for group orien-
tation and group identification. Professor
George A. Lundberg (University of Wash-
ington; past president of the American
Sociological Association) writes in “Some
Neglected Aspects of the ‘Minorities’ Prob-
lem” (Modern Age, Summer, 1958, pp. 285-
297): _

“In every society men react selectively to
their fellow men, in the sense of seeking
the association of some. and avoiding the
association of others. Selective association is

necessarily based on some observable differ-.

ences between those whose association we
seek and those whose association we avoid.
The differences which are the basis of selec-
tive association are of an indefinitely large
variety, of all degrees of visibility and sub-
tlety, and vastly different in social conse-
-quences, Sex, age, marital condition, religion,
socioeconomic status, color, size, shape,
health, morals, birth, breeding, and _B.O.—
the list of differences is endless and varied,
but all the items have this in common: (1)
they. are observable; and (2) they are sig-
nificant differences to those who react se-
lectively to people with the characteristics
in question. It is, therefore, wholly absurd
to try to ignore, deny or talk out of existence
these differences Just because we do not ap-
prove of some of thelr social results .
Professor Lundberg with an associate also
studied high school students in Seattle,
Washington, to find out the determinants
of their preferential associations in leader-
ship, work, dating, and friendship. Lund-
berg reported in “Selective Association
‘Among Ethnic Groups in a High” School

Population” (American Sociological Review,

Vol. 17, No. 1 (1952)). He found:

“. . every ethnic group showed a prefer-

ence for its own members in each of the

four. relationships covered by the question.
. ethnocentrism or prejudice is not con-

July 1, 1970

fined to the majority of the dominant
group .

JA ‘certain amount of ethnocentrism
is a ‘normal and necessary ingredient of all
group life, i.e., it is the basic characteristic
that differentiates one group from another
and thus is fundamental to social structure.
Ethnocentrism ‘discrimination,’ ‘preju-
dice’) is, therefore, not in itself necessarily
to be regarded as a problem. It is rather
a@ question of determining what degree of it
(a) is functional for social survival and
satisfaction under given conditions, or at
least (b) is not regarded by a society as a
problem in the sense of requiring commu-
nity action. The amount of discrimination
that has been shown to exist in the present
study, for example, is not incompatible
with the peaceful and efficient functioning
of the institution in question .. .”

There are a substantial number of studies
reported in social science literature which
indicate that the attitudes reported in
Lundberg’s study of Seattle, Washington, are
not confined to that particular city. Indeed,
social scientists find in all areas where
groups of diverse origin and appearance
come into contact, some degree of race pref-
erence and selective association is mani-
fested by the various groups.

(3) At one time it was assumed that
certain areas of the world were free from
race prejudice. Hawail and Brazil were often
cited as examples of interracial “alohas”
where all race prejudice had disappeared.
More careful students of these areas have
found that despite a superficial interracial
harmony, racial preferences and prejudices
are manifested in both these areas. In
“Racial Attitudes in Brazil” (American
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 54, No. 5 (1949),
pp. 402-408), Dr. Emilio Willems described
color prejudice in the city of Sao Paulo,
Brazil, as manifested in a series of inter-
views carried out among middle and upper-
class whites. Dr. Willems found:

“Of the 245 advertisers, 194 were inter-
viewed about the reasons for their unfa-
vorable attitude toward Negro servants. In
this interview, 48 were unable to give any
clear answer, but they found their own at-
titude ‘very natural.’ 18 advertisers did not
accept Negro servants because of presumed
lack of cleanliness; 30 thought black house-
maids were always thieves; 14 alleged in-
stability and lack of assiduity; and 12 said
only that they were used to white servants
and therefore did not wish to engage colored
ones. Seven persons precluded Negroes be-
cause of the contact they would have with
their young children. There were a few other
reasons, such as ‘race odor,’ ‘bad character,’
‘laziness,’ ‘cafelessness,’ and other imperfec-
tions that were ascribed to Negro servants.

“There are many situations in social life
where white people refuse to be seen with
Negroes. In such public places as high-class
hotels, restaurants, or casinoes, fashionable
clubs and dances, Negroes are not desired,
and there are few whites who dare to intro-
duce Negro friends or relatives into such
places. This discrimination was strongly re-
sented by middle-class Negroes. On the other
hand, those Negroes complained bitterly of
the contemptuous attitudes that middle-
class mulattoes assumed toward them.

“Yet our inquiry led to some other inter- |
esting results. In 23 out of 36 cases the
questionnaires contained references to for-
mal associations of all Kinds from which
Negroes were excluded. Usually these asso-
ciations are clubs maintained by the upper-
class families of the city. Though there does
not exist any reference to Negro members in
club statutes, these are rarely admitted .. .”

In “Stereotypes, Norms and Interracial Be-

havior in Sao Paulo, Brazil” (American So- . -

ctological Review, Voi, 22, No. 6 (1957)),
Professors Roger Bastide and Pierre van den
Berghe found on the basis of a question-
naire given to 580 white students from five
July 1, 1970

different Teachers’ colleges in Sao Paulo,
Brazil, that:

“Stereotypes against Negroes and mulat-
toes are widespread. Seventy-five per cent of
the sample accept twenty-three or more
stereotypes against Negroes. No one rejects
all stereotypes against Negroes ... Mulat-
toes are judged inferior or superior to whites
on the same traits as Negroes but somewhat
lower percentages. The most widely accepted
stereotypes are lack of hygiene (accepted by
91 per cent), physical unattractiveness (87
per cent), superstition (80 per cent), lack
of financial foresight (77 per cent), lack of a
morality (76 per cent), aggressiveness (73
per cent), laziness (72 per cent), lack of per-
sistence at work (62 per cent), sexual ‘per-
versity’ (57 per cent), and exhibitionism (50
per cent) .”

(4) Strong patterns of racial preference
emerge in pre-school children—even as early
as 214 years of age, In “Evidence Concerning
the Genesis of Interracial. Attitudes” (The
American Anthropologist, Vol. 48, No. 4
(1946)), Dr. Mary Ellen Goodman investi-
gated the age at which racial attitudes be-
come manifest. Fifteen Negro and twelve
white children, ranging in age at the begin-
ning of the study from 2-9 to 44 and who
attended a bi-raclal nursery school were
studied. Dr. Goodman noted that “aware-
ness of one’s racial identity may be regarded
as one facet of that consciousness of self
which is gradually achieved during the first
three or four years of life,” and “preliminary
analysis leads to the belief that these chil-
dren of approximately 3 to 4% years were in
the process of becoming aware of race differ-
ences.” ~

The early genesis of racial attitudes has
been confirmed in other studies in “well-
integrated” areas where there is an absence
of overt racial hostility and legal racial seg-
regation. Drs. Catherine Landreth and Bar-
bara C. Johnson conducted such a study in
the child care centers of Berkeley, Oakland,
and San Francisco, California, and reported
in “Young Children’s Responses to a Picture
and Inset Test Designed to Reveal Reactions
to Persons of Different Skin Color’ (Child
Development, Vol. 24, No. 1, (1953)). They
concluded that “patterns of response to per-
sons of different skin color are present as
early as three years and become accentuated
during the succeeding two years.”

Drs. Marion Radke, Gere Sutherland and
Pearl Rosenberg studied the racial attitudes
of children in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
(Sociometry, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1953). ©

They found “the white children in all the

situations and at all ages (seven to thirteen
years) expressed strong preference for their
own racial group. This is particularly the
case when their choices between Negro and
white children as friends are on an abstract
or wish level.”

(5) Some sociologists content that Negroes
would suffer far more from racial integration
than from racial segregation, Thus Professor
Ichheiser * notes that “. . . if the Negroes
would refuse to identify themselves con-
sciously with the Negroes as a subgroup, then
they would develop a kind of collective neu-
rosis, aS do other minorities, too; for the
conscious ‘we’ would in case of such an ‘at-
titude be persistently in conflict with the
unconscious ‘we,’ and this inner split would
inevitably reflect itself in different patho-
logical distortions of the Negro personality.”

For contrast, Allison Davis (Racial Status
and Personality Development, The Scientific
Monthly, Vol. 57, Oct. 1948) noted “...
where the social group of the racially sub-
ordinate individual is highly organized and
integrated, as in the Little Italies or China~
towns, or in many Southern Negro com-

* Ichhetser, “Socto-psychological and Cul-

tural Factors in Race Relations,” American
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 54, No. 5 (1949).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

munities, its members will usually have
relatively less psychological conflict over
their racial status.” Similarly, Mozelle Hill
(“A Comparative Study of Race Attitudes in
the All-Negro Community in Oklahoma,”
Phylon, 1946) noted that Negroes raised and
educated in an all-Negro community tend to
have “a much higher regard for Negroes,”
and are more favorable in their expression
toward their own race.

Iu. “PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY” ARGUMENT IN
SUPREME COURT

As one of the main grounds for decision
in the 1954 school desegregation case (Brown
v. Board of Education), the Supreme Court
of the United States asserted that (347 US.
483, 494);

“To separate [children in grade and high
schools] from others of similar age and
qualifications solely because of their race
generates a feeling of inferiority as to their
status in the community that may affect
their hearts and minds in a way unlikely
ever to be undone. The effect of this separa-
tion on their educational opportunities was
well stated by a finding in the Kansas case
by a court which nevertheless felt compelled
to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:

“(Segregation of white and colored chil-
dren in public schools has a detrimental
effect upon the colored children. The impact
is greater when it has the sanction of the
law; for the policy of separating the races is
usually interpreted as denoting the in-
feriority of the negro group. A sense of infe-
riorlty affects the motivation of a child to
learn. Segregation with the sanction of law,
therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the
educational and mental development of
Negro children and to deprive them of some
of the benefits they would reecive in a
racial[ly] integrated school system.’

“Whatever may have been the extent of
psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy
v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported
by modern authority.” (emphasis added).

In footnote 11 of Brown vs, Board of Edu-
cation, supra, the Supreme Court quoted a
number of social science materials alleged to
demonstrate the psychological injury basic
to its reversal of Plessy vs. Ferguson. Similar
materials were quoted in an appendix to Ap-
pellant’s Brief signed by a number of promi-
nent social scientists.

Professor Kenneth B. Clark has testified
in three of the actions that led to the Brown
decision. His testimony is part of the record
in Brown and also contributed importantly
to the assertions of the social scientists in
the appendix to Appellant’s Brief and to
those mentioned in footnote 11 of Brown,
Clark maintained that he as well as others
have shown the existence of psychological
injury owing to segregation.

In the South Carolina case Briggs vs. Elliot
(Professor Clark employed the same method
and reached the same conclusions in the
Delaware and Virginia cases which are also
part of the Brown record). Professor Clark
explained that he had shown Negro and white
dolls (or drawings thereof) to Negro chil-
dren in a segregated public school and, hav-

‘ing ascertained that they distinguished

white from Negro people, asked them, in ef-
fect, which doll they preferred, and which
one “looks like you.” Ten (later in the tes-
timony, nine) out of sixteen Negro children
picked the white doll as the one that “looked
like you.” Professor Glark concluded that
“these children . . . have been definitely
harmed in the development of their per-
sonalities.” He knew, of course, that the ques-
tion before the court was whether school
segregation had harmed the children and
testified: “My opinion is that a fundamental
effect of segregation is basic confusion in the
individuals and their concepts about them-
selves conflicting in their self images. That
seemed to be supported by the results of
these sixteen children, ...” The syntax ‘is

H 6321
obscure, but the sense is not. Professor Clark
testified (1) that segregation caused the
harm he found (or at least played a ‘‘funda-
mental role’); (2) later on that this is “con-
sistent with previcus results which we have
obtained in testing over 300 children”; (3)
finally, “and this result was confirmed in
Clarendon County.” Elsewhere Professor
Clark asseverates: ‘Proof that state
imposed segregation inflicts injuries upon
the Negro had to come from the social
psychologists. ...”1

Professor Clark mentioned to the court
that he had made previous experiments
“consistent” with those he entered into the
record. However, these previous experiments
were not themselves ever entered into the
record—for good reason as will be seen.

They had been published, however? 134
Negro children in segregated schools in Ar-
kansas and 119 Negro children in unsegre-
gated nursery and public schools in Spring-
field, Massachusetts, about evenly divided
by sex, were tested?

Black and white dolls were presented, and
the children were asked to indicate the “nice”
and the “bad” one, as well as the one “that
looks like you.” Professor Clark concluded
that “, . the children in the northern
mixed-school situation do not differ from
children in the southern segregated schools
in elther their knowledge of racial differences
or their racial identification,” + except that
“... the southern children in segregated
schools are less pronounced in their prefer-
ence for the white doll, compared to the
northern [ ted] children’s definite
preference for this doll. Although stil] in a
minority, a higher percentage of southern
children, compared to northern, prefer to play
with the colored doll or think that it is a
‘nice’ doll.”* The tables presented by Profes~
sor Clark bear out as much. Table 4,2 more-
over, shows that a significantly higher per-
centage of Negro children when asked “give
me the doll that looks like you” gave the
white doll in the nonsegregated schools—39
percent as opposed to 29 percent in the segre-
gated schools.

Thus, Professor Clark misled the courts.
His “previous results” are not “consistent”
with those entered in the court record,
though he assured the court that they. are.
Actually, his “previous results” clearly con-
tradict those submitted in his sworn testi-
mony. Compared, the response of Negro chil-
dren in segregated and in non-segregated
*chools show that Negro children in segre-
gated schools “are less pronounced in their
preference for the white doll” and more often
think of the colored dolls as “nice” or iden-
tify with them—whereas if segregation were

-barmful and the harm were shown by his

teste, as Professor Clark asserts, the Negro
children in the more segregated schools would

 

1 Clark, “Desegregation, an Appraisal of the
Evidence,” Journal of Social Issues, No. 4,
p. 3 (1953).

? Clark “Racial Identification and Prefer-
ence in Negro Children,” in Bocial
Psychology (Newcomb & Hartley eds., 1947).

*The children ranged from 3 to 7 years of
age; those tested in Clarendon County were ’
between 6 to-9 years old. Professor Clark does
not seem to think that the difference in aver-
age age affects the results, and I have no rea-
son for disagreeing. But, both in view of the
difference in average age, and the small size
of the Clarendon group, I follow Professor
Clark in comparing the two groups described
in his previous tests with each other, rather
than with the Clarendon. group. However,
since it is possible after all that the effects of
segregation vary with age, and particularly
with length of schooling, competent stud-
es should take this into account,

‘ PP. Cit. supra, note 2,

5

* Ibid.
H 6322
have been more pronounced in their prefer-
ence for the white doll. If Professor Clark’s
tests do demonstrate any psychological in-
jury in connection with segregation, they
demonstrate that there is more injury to un-
segregated Negro children and less to segre-
gated Negro children. Yet Professor Clark
told the court that his tests had shown that
“segregation inflicts injuries upon the
Negro.” He did so by ,preeenting only the
tests with the segregated Negro children and
ignoring the tests he had himself undertaken
previously in desegregated and segregated
schools with a far greater number of children.
IV. OBJECTIONS TO PROFESSOR CLARK’S
EXPERIMENT

So far I have proceeded on the assump-
tion that Clark's general method is capable of
showing something about segregation. This
is doubtful.

Whatever Professor Clark demonstrated
about the personality of* segregated Negro
children could be due to general prejudice
in the community rather than to segrega-
tion, or even to circumstances not affecting
Negroes specifically. Professor Clark is con-
fusing on the sources of damage, though
insisting that segregation is “fundamental.”
Tests on white children, or on Jewish and
Christian children, were not presented. Such
tests would be needed to indicate whether
the damage was general (there may be a gen-
eral confusion of self-images in our culture,
a “crisis of identity”); or restricted to minor-

. ittes; or restricted to Negro children. (That

whatever damage can be demonstrated by
his methods is not restricted to segregated
Negro children Professor Clark proved, if he
proved anything; indeed although he misled
the court on this matter, Professor Clark's
tests show that segregation decreases and
congregation, even when not compulsory, in-
creases the damage to Negro children.)
' However, no proof whatever was presented
to indicate that preference for, or identifica-
tion with, a doll different in color from one-
self indicates personality disturbance. I wrote
on this point: 7 .

- Sw dark-haired white children were
to identify blonde dolls as nice; or suppose,
having the choice, they identified teddy bears
as -nice rather than any dolls. Would this
prove injury owing to (nonexistent) segrega-
tion from blondes? Or communal prejudice
against humans? Professor Clark’s logic

suggests that it would. .

“Control tests—which unfortunately were
not presented—might have established an
aiternative explanation for the identifica-
tion of white with nice, and black with bad:
in our own. culture and in many others, in-
cluding cultures where white people are un-
_ knewn, black has traditionally been the color
.of evil, death, sorrow, and fear. People are
‘ealled blackguards or blackhearted when
oonsidered. evil; and children fear darkness.
In these_.same cultures, white is the color of
happiness, joy, and innocence. We need not
speculate on why thia is so to assert that it
is a. fact and that it seems utterly unlikely

 

1 Ross and van den Haag, The “ Fabric of
. Society (Harcourt, Brace & World, 1957),
pp. 165-66.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

that it originated with segregation (though
it may have contributed to it). Professor
Clark’s findings then can be explained with-
out any reference to injury by segregation or
by prejudice. The ‘scientific’ evidence for this
injury ‘is no more ‘scientific’ than the evi-
dence presented in favor of racial prejudice.”

I can only Hst some of the many other

objections that could be raised against the
Clark experiment. (1) The subjects were
neither randomized nor stratified properly by
age, sex, economic, religious, residential and
other criteria; (2) No controls with white
children in segregated and unsegregated en-
vironments; (3) No controls with Negro
children in Negro cultures (e.g. Africa) which
might have had the same results, thus show-
ing that it does not depend on prejudice, let
along segregation; (4) No controls with ob-
jects other than white and black dolls; (5)
No evidence presented that doll tests show
any correlation with personality disturbance;
(6) No evidence about the type of alleged
disturbance and what it means psychiatric-
ally, -
Professor Clark has published a book since
his testimony, relied on by the Supreme
Court: Prejudice and Your Child. On page 45
ff. the following is stated with reference to
the more frequent self-identification of Ne-
gro children in mixed schools with white
dolls:

“On the surface, these findings might sug-
gest that northern Negro children suffer more
personality damage from racial prejudice and
discrimination than southern Negro children.
However, this interpretation would .seem to
be not only superficial but incorrect. The
apparent emotional stability of the southern
Negro child may be indicative only of the
fact that through rigid racial segregation and
isolation he has accepted as normal the fact
of his inferior social status. Such an accept-
ance is not symptomatic of a healthy person-
ality. The emotional turmoil revealed by
some of the northern children may be inter-
preted as an attempt on their part to assert
some positive aspect of the self.”

‘Here Professor Clark starts by speaking of

-“personality darnage”’ and ends by speaking

of “emotional turmoil.” Clark notwithstand-
ing, it seems more likely that “rigid racial
segregation and isolation” would make the
segregated least aware of their status in the
eyes of the group from which they are “iso-
lated” and most likely to identify with each
other.’ Further, “acceptance” of an “inferior,
social status” by any group may be morally
or politically disturbing, but there is no rea-
son to consider it per se a symptom of either
‘healthy personality” or siekness. Not ail
members of castes below brahmins in India
are sick, nor even all “untouchables.” Clark
here confuses his moral views with clinical
evidence. There is no evidence te show that
‘acceptance of inferior, superior or equal
status is a symptom of emotional disturbance.

In his testimony, Professor Clark asserted
categorically that when Negro children iden-

 

* Certainly the theory of reference groups
would lead us to believe so. See Robert K.

Merton, Soctal Structure and Social Theory, .

p. 226 ff.

July 1, 1970

tify with, and prefer, white to colored dolls
it means that personality damage, owing to
segregation has occurred. Now that his previ-
ous experiments, not entered into the court
records, have been brought to public atten-
tion, Professor Clark would have to conclude
that segregation decreases, and congregation
increases, the personality damage that is de-
tected by the doll tests. For the tests not
entered into the court record detect such
personality damage more often where there
is congregation than where there is segre-
gation.

To avoid this embarrassing result Professor
Clark now explains that if segregated Negro
children prefer white dolls it indeed shows
personality damage suffered because of segre-
gation, And if nonsegregated children prefer
white dolls even more frequently it does not
show that they suffer more “personality
damage.” This would be “superficial” and
“incorrect.” The fact that segregated children
prefer the white dolls less often than non-
segregated ones now shows that they have
suffered even deeper personality damage. The
fact that congregated children prefer the
white doll more often suddenly becomes an
indication of comparative health.

Which is to say that whatever the outcome
of the experiment, it shows that there is
personality damage to segregation. When
Negro children identify more often with the

-white doll (North) it is bad and shows

psychological injury. When they identify
Tess often (segregated South) it is even.
worse. But wasn’t the self-identification
of Negro children with the white doll
Supposed to be the very evidence of their
confusion and psychological injury? Yes,
Clark writes now, except when the identifica-
tion occurring less frequently among segre-
gated Negro children would indicate that
segregation makes for mental health. This
would be inconvenient. Wherefore when this
is the case less frequent identification with

.the white doll suddenly indicates more

psychological damage.

Just what choice of dolls would have shown
that segregation does not harm the children?
None of those available. Whichever doll the
children choose would, according to Clark’s
new interpretation, show that segregation ts
harmful. What can an experiment which sup-
ports the same conclusion, regardless of its
outcome, possibly show? Only the experi-
menter’s prejudices and his failure to grasp
the purpose and. nature of experimental
methods of research. Clearly, Professor
Clark’s conclusions do not depend on. any
of his experiments. For these are inconsistent
with his conclusions, if they are meaningful
at all. None of the material which the Su-
preme Court accepted as probative of injury
through segregation is any more cogent. No
injury by segregation per se has been proved
by any scientific test.

Vv. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The primary groups to which an individual
belongs are his family and his peer group.
The latter is the group with which the indi-
vidual identifies himself on the basis of a
feeling of community, observable physical
characteristics, arid commonly shared emo-
tion, Later the individual will aleo become
July 1, 1970

@ member of such groups as are based on
material matters such as membership in a
profession or persons of a given income
level.

Such group membership is a main factor
constituting the individual’s identity or per-
sonality. It 1s essential to the normal indi-
vidual to have a firm feeling of belonging to
@ group. Failure to identify with a group
prevents the individual from functioning
normally, An individual identifies with per-
sons in his own environment whom he takes
as models accepting some characteristics,
developing others of the individual’s own,
and in this way building up the essential
personality of the individual.

Without such a sense of identity, the men-
tal health of the individual will be seriously
impaired. Unrealistic identification is a form
of insanity. An identity once acquired cannot
be lost.

Groups are formed from individuals hay-
ing common self-identification. In the small
child the factors involved will be almost
exclusively visual, such as skin color; but
es the child grows, other factors of intelli-
Bence and achievement will play a part, as
in joining a football team. In different
aspects of activity, the individual belongs
not to one, but to a series of groups.

Group identification must be voluntary.
Involuntary placement in a group with which
the individual does not identify creates hos-
tility. The group approval or disapproval is
extremely important to identity, and the dis-
approval destroys the individual’s image of
himself.

Where ethnic identity is clearly visible, it
becomes a matter of considerable importance
in group relations. The variation in attitude
created by differences in skin color exists in
all countries.

Group members tend to adhere to group
norms, which, if they are within the po-
tential of the individual, is of advantage.
On the other hand, if the norm of the group
exceeds the maximum potential of the in-
dividual, then this gives rise to feelings of
humiliation, incapacity, and inadequacy
which impair his motivation.

Contrary to the “psychological evidence”
which apparently was accorded great weight
by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of
Education, scientific tests have not proved
any injury by segregation per se, In fact,
some sociologists contend that Negroes would
suffer far more from racial integration than
from segregation. :

Under a freedom of choice system for school
attendance, as the individual inereases in
. age, his willingness and ability successfully
to associate himself with other groups would
increase, provided there wag a generally fa-
vorable atmosphere and favorable attitude on
the part of the superintendent, principals,
and teachers, as well as parents. Voluntary
mingling would have beneficial effects on
personality and education, Immediate, total,
enforced integration would lead to even
greater demoralization of Negro pupils than
is already taking place, and would also lead to
lower educational achievement.

Whatever one may think of the more
radical Negro organizations, they have
captured the emotions and the. imagination

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

of a large part of our black population. They
have been, particularly with the young peo-
ple, far more successful in that aspect than
the old style organizations. High school and
college students, if they do not join, do cer-
tainly admire and support organizations such
ae the Black Panthers and the Nation of
Isiam. They look up to such figures as Rap
Brown, Stokeley Carmichael, Eldridge
Cleaver, Malcolm X, et al. The organizations
differ among themselves in their methods
and to the extent one can discern them,

in their purposes. But they have one thing.

in common, They try (and largely succeed)
to produce a prideful racial identity. They
make their followers accept that “black is
beautiful” and they attract support because
they are creating a black identity, and pride
in it.

They do this largely by declaring their in-
dependence of and, in some cases, even hos-
tility to whites. But the hostility here is

largely a gesture necessary to support the.

independence and the pride.

I am not concerned with the justification
of such movements. But they clearly indicate
a psychological need, By gratifying this need,
these organizations have succeeded to an
astonishing extent in rehabilitating members
who previously suffered from major symp-
toms of personalilty disorganization, such as
drug addiction, criminal behavior, general
irresponsibility, etc. This Is not just to say
the Panthers do not allow members to take
drugs. It is that they make the drugs un-
necessary; they offer their members a self-
image of adequacy that makes the resort to
drugs unnecessary. The basic ingredient in

that self-image is the identification with an -

image of historical, racial and cultural ade-
quacy, if not superiority.

IT submit that this is what the black mi-
nority needs more than anything else. It is
in this respect that its problem has dif-

fered from that of other minorities—Irish,'

Italian, Jewish—and it is this ingredient
that a wise and just process of education
should help provide. Integration, desirable
as it may be in the end, is possible only if
the elements to be integrated each feel a
sense of identity and a pride in that identity
rather than a feeling of inadequacy. For
feelings of inadequacy produce hostility to
those who make one feel inadequate.
Black students know this. Their behavior
itself is evidence for the need it tries to ful-
fill, If one looks at recent happenings in our
colleges, one finds that there has been a
great increase in black enrollment in pre-
viously largely white school. That increase,
fostered by the colleges with the idea of
giving blacks the benefits of their college
life, and education, far from leading to im-
mediate integration, has led to the very op-
posite. Thus, at Vassar College where I
served as Visiting Professor in 1969, the
one demand almost immediately made by
the newly-admitted black students was a
separate black dormitory. There were no
complaints of inhospitality on the part of
the white college students. The black col-
lege students simply wanted to have a place
of their own. They wanted to cultivate their
own identity, lead their own life, elaborate
their own traditions, They also wanted black

H 6323

teachers and “black courses.” This develop-
ment has been paralleled in almost every
college in the country.

Many colleges have gone so far as to take
black students less prepared or qualified
than white students. Whatever the motives
that led them to do s0, it is relevant here to
point out that the less well prepared stu-
dents felt necessarily left out, and humi-
liated, when they could not perform as ade-
quately in class as their more qualified white
fellow students did. They, therefore, were
psychologically compelled to seek to achieve
the prestige they had lost in their own eyes—
which they could not achieve in classroom
work—outside the classroom, The opportu-
nity was readily at hand,

They could, and did, achieve status as
revolutionary leaders against the “irrelevant”
college curriculum in which they were un-
able to excel. In some cases (with the help
of disaffected and masochistic whites) they
came near destroying the institutions which
had recruited them. ~

I am fully aware that we are dealing not
with colleges but with primary and second-
ary schools, But I am mentioning this His-
tory because it is about to be repeated in
secondary schools. “Those who do not know
history are condemned to repeat it.” In our
high schools we already have a similar de-
velopment. When well prepared white stu-
dents and inadequately prepared black stu-
dents, in many cases coming from under-
privileged backgrounds, are compelled to-go
to school together, those who cannot per-
form well by the standards of the school,
necessarily become hostile to the school
which humiliates them, and to the whites
who outperform them. They also become
discouraged. They are likely to seek outside
the prestige they lost in school work; and
they will be tempted to make up for the
humiliation suffered by displaying their
hostility to whites and insisting on their
own superiority in activities which under-
mine the academic and educational purposes
of the school. .

This is by no means to say that black
and white students should forever remain
separated or should be separated as a matter
of administrative rule. On the contrary,
what I am advocating is that they should
remain free to select the school and the
fellow students that in each individual case
most fulfill their academic and psychologi-
gal needa. . ,

I foresee that freedom of choice will lead
ultimately to far more integration thah is
now extant, but it will do so slowly. The ad-
vantage of that slowness will be that blacks
will be able to compete both academically
and psychologically with whites in a way that
does not make the school “irrelevant” to
them, nor psychologically requires them to
seek compensation, through subversive or
erlminal activities, for the sense of inade-
quacy that it will generate.

Much research has been done since the
Supreme Court decided (on most dubious
evidence) that separation is educationally
damaging to Negro children. No evidence con-

. firming this idea has been uncovered. Very

little evidence has been offered to show that
integration has been beneficial. Most pro-
H 6324
grams which attempted to remedy the com-
paratively low performance of Negro children
attributed to inferior schooling have been
shown to be ineffective.

Social scientists, therefore, have reached
in many cases the conclusion that the infe-
rior performance may be due to factors in
very early infancy which,’ as yet, we have
found no way of offsetting. Others have Ih-
sisted that there is no evidence of a genetic
difference which may explain the differences
in performance, at least when the same
methods of teaching are used for both
groups.

I wish now to draw the attention of this
Committee to an article “Early Childhood In-
tervention—-The Social Science Base of In-
stitutional Racism” by Stephen F. and Joan
C. Baratz, appearing in: the Harvard Educa-

tional Review (February, 1970). The authors

“Iaintain, with considerable evidence, that
the two models that seek to explain the in-
ferior performance of black children—the
genetic model and the social pathology model
(of which there are many varieties referring
to the family, the subcultural background,
nutrition, etc.}—are both unn . The
authors maintain that if there were a deficit
not just in the actual performance of the
ebiidren, but in their ability to perform, then
such models would be required. But in their
epinion the low performance of Negro chil-
dren is due to the disinclination of teachers,
arid the faiture of schoola to perceive the
linguistic and other resources of these chil-
@ren. This failure leads schools to insist that
Negro children themselves in a lan-
guage to which, In their subculture, they are
not accustomed and in which they become
“damb.” In short, the authors maititain that
by insisting that Negro children have the
‘same linguistic and other resources as white
ehildren and allowing them to use only these
resources, schools produce the lower per-
formance of Negro children. If on the other
hand, the authors maintain, the resources ac-
tually available to Negro children were util-
ized—as are those actually available to white
ehildren—then Negro children might be quite
as able to perform as white children. Thus
the low : of Negro children could

be improved only by distinct teaching meth- °
distinetive

ods and a curriculum utilizing
their subeultural resources. Needless to say,
this would require at least temporary sep-
arate education.

_ I have no personal knowledge that would

‘ indiceate to me whether the contention of |

the authors is correct. They do, however,

quote a great amount-of research that cer-
ry. , that their thesis is worth

/ r ; :And. this is the conclusion that

¥ wish to submit. to this Committee.

' .& great amourit:of money has been spent

Ee

on forced Integration, A great deal of hostility -

hae been grouse on all stdes—certainly race
‘relations are worse than they were before
4954 and there is no evidence whatever that
“com rin ation has letf to more aca-
deniic progress than free choice would have

achieved. More and more evidence is accum-

isting thats ent Negro subculture
existe and regnires for tts y ation dtatinet
_ Methods tf the members are to learn what the

_sondols are trying to teach, This may indeed

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

require separate training for teachers and
separation of those pupils who wish to learn
and are best able to learn by utilizing the
resources of their subculture. If there is any
sort of genetic difference in addition to the
subcultural differences this, too, would
probably lead to different learning and teach-
ing methods.

Iam not suggesting that this Committee
should institute the new methods that may
turn our to be useful. I am, however, sug-
gesting that this Committee should, instead
of throwing further money into an approach
that no one could possibly term successful,
reserve such money (a) for thorough evalu-
ation of the approaches so far tried, and (b)
for thorough exploration and experimenta-
tion with different approaches resting on a
variety of competing teaching methods with
free self selection of pupils.

I do not expect to convince this Committee
that the premise on which such vast federal
expenditures have heen made for the inte-
gration of schools over the past ten or fifteen
years is a false premise, or that the truth
lies elsewhere. I do, however, most seriously
recommend that alternatives be explored and
all approaches sclentifically evaluated before
the educational system of the nation becomes
so far committed to a single article of faith
(“the evidence of things not seen"”)—that
integration of the races brings better edu-
cation—that the point of no return will have
been passed,

Thus I appear here to recommend that in-
vestigation of all views on this question be-
come part of the evaluation directed by this
bill and that we substitute objective meas-
urement for the subjective, if praiseworthy,
opinions of those who see inte-
gration a forwarding of the democratic dream
of equality. If the basic purpose of schools is
to be education, then we should put aside
any preconceived emotional assumptions
about the factors which improve or destroy
the educational accomplishment of any child,
black or white, and use every available scien-
tific facility to isolate the actual factors

. wherever we find them. To do so would be in

the interest of all concerned, of ail children,

black and white, and eontrary only to the

vested intereat of educational degmatists.
"o> SOURCES :

Stell Tr., 218-256.

Hinds County Tr., 271-869 (vol. 1)

Testimony before Senate Committee
the Judiclary on 8. 173 (1964).

Bastide, Roger, & van den Berghe, Pierre,
“Stereotypes, Norms & Interracial Behav-
ior in Sao Paulo, Brazil,” American Bocio-
logical Review, Vol. 22, No: 6 (1857).

Clark, Kenneth B., “Desegregation, an Ap-
praisal of the Evidence,” Journal of Social
Issues, No. 4, p. (1953) .- / .

Clark, Kenneth B., Prejudice and Your
Child. .

Clark, Kenneth B. and Mamie, “Racial
Identification and Preference tn Negro Chil-
dren,” tn Readings tn Social Psy-
chology (Ist ed., 1947).

Davis, Allison, “Hactal Status and Per-
sonality Development,” Selentific Monthly,
Vol. 57 (October, 1948). :

on.

July 1, 1970

Elmer, Glaister A., “Identification as a So-
cial Concept,” Sociology & Social Research,
Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 103-109 (1954).

Goodman, A. M. E. (Mae), “Evidence Con-
cerning the Genesis of Interracial Attitudes,”
The American Anthropologist, Vol. 48, No. 4
(October-December, 1946).

Hill, Mozelle, “A Comparative Study of
Race Attitudes in the All Negro Commu-
nity in Oklahoma,” Phylon (Third Quarter-
ly Issue, 1946).

Ichheiser, Gustav, ‘“Socto-psychological
and Cultural Factors in Race Relations,”
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 54, No.
5 (1949).

Landreth, Catherine, & Johnson, Bar-
bara C., “Young Children’s Responses to a
Picture and Inset Test Designed to Reveal
Reactions to Persons of Different Skin Col-
or,” Child Development, Vo. 24, No. 1 (1953).

Lundberg, George A., “Some Neglected As-
pects of the ‘Minorities’ Problem,” Modern
Age, pp. 285-297 (Summer, 1958). —

Lundberg, George A., “Selective Associa-
tion Among Ethnic Groups in a High School
Population.”

Merton, Robert K., Social Structure and
Social Theory, pp. 225 ff.

Radke, Marion; Sutherland, Gene; and
Rosenberg, Pearl, Sociometry, Vol. 13, No. 2
(1953) (racial attitudes of children in Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania.

van den Haag, Ross & The Fabric of
Soctety (Harcourt, Brace & World, 1957)
(specifically chapter on prejudice).

van den Haag, “Genuine and Spurious
Integration,” Psychoanalysis and the Social

'Setences (New York).

Willems, “Racial Attitudes in Brazil,”
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 54, No.
5 pp. 402-408 (1949). -

StaTemMent oF Dr. ARTHUR R. JENSEN BEFORE
THE GENERAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION,
‘House Epvucarion anp Lason CoMMITTEE

1. INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and members of the Com-

mittee, my name is Arthur R. Jensen and I

am Professor of Educational Psychology at

the University of California at Berkeley. I .

hold a B.A. degree from the University of

California, an M.A. from San Diego State

College, and a Ph. D. degree from Columbia

University. In 1956-58, I was a United States

Public Health Service Research Fellow in

Psychology at the Psychiatric Institute, Uni-

versity of London. In 1961-62, I was a Re-

search Associate at the Institute of Personal-

ity Assesament and Research and in 1964-65

&@ Guggenheim Fellow at the Institute of

- Peychjatry at the Univeratty of London. In

1966-67; I was a Fellow at the. Center for
Advanced Study in the Behavioral Science
at Stanford. I am a member of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science,
the American Association, the
American Educational Research Association,
and the Psychonomics Society.

Z am co-editor of a text on “Social Class,
Race and ical Development,” pub-
lished in 1968 and the author of the article
entitled “How Much Can We Boost IQ and
Scholastic Achievement?”, published in 1969
ip the Haryard Educational Review. I wrote
an article on the “Heritability of Intelli-
July 1, 1970

gence,” published in Engineering and Science
in April, 1970, and have more recently pre-
pard a research resume entitled “Parent and
Teacher Attitudes Toward Integration and
Busing” for the California Advisory Counsel
on Education and Research of the California
Teachers Association.

I am currently in the course of publishing
a comprehensive review on the subject of
“Can We and Should We Study Race Dif-
ferences?”

I appear before you today for the purpose

of raising what appears to me to be an
essential preliminary inquiry to the Com-
mittee’s approval of the present form of H.R.
17846, the Emergency School Aid Act of 1970.
That inquiry relates to the truth or falsity
as a scientific matter of the basic factual
assumption underlying this bill.
“on May 21, President Nixon submitted to
the Congress a special message on aid to
schools and recommended this legislation.
There he stated: “It is clear that racial isola-
tion ordinarily has an adverse effect on
education.”

That premise supports the present declara-
tion of purpose in Section 2 of H.R. 17846—
to prevent racial isolation in schools so as
to improve the quality of education. I do not
believe that this premise alone can be re-
garded as adequate justification for this bill.
Recent comprehensive reviews of research on
the effects of the racial composition of schools
and classes in public schools come to con-
clusions which are highly ambiguous and
inconclusive regarding the causal relationship
between racial composition of the student
body and scholastic performance. Most of the
research on this subject to date has been
too inadequate statistically and methodo-
logically to allow any firm conclusion one
way or the other regarding the effects of a
school’s racial composition on achievement.
I refer you to a thorough review of this re-
search by Nancy H. St. John of Harvrad Uni-
versity; it appears in the February, 1970,
issue of the Review of Educational Research,
& publication of the American Educational
Research Association. Her review supports my
conclusion, which is that we have no scien-
tifically or statistically substantial conclu-
sions at this time. _

I personally favor racial integration and -

I hopefully believe it is coming about. As an
educator, I am concerned that it come about
in such a way as to be of benefit to the
echooling of all children. Achieving racial
balance, while viewed by many of us as de-
sirable for moral, ethical, and social rea-
sons, will not solve existing educational prob-
Jems; it will create new ones, and I am
_ anxious that we provide the means for fully
and objectively assessing them and for dis-
covering the means of solving them, I am
quite convinced on the basis of massive re-
search evidence that the educational abili-
ties and needs of the majority of white and
Negro children are sufficiently different at
this present time in our history that both
groups—and particularly the more disad-
vantaged group—can be cheated out of the
best education we now know how to provide
in our schools if uniformity rather than di-
versity of instructional approaches becomes
the rule. Diversity and desegregation need
not be incompatible goals. I think both are
necessary. But achieving racial balance. and
at the same time ignoring individual differ-
ences in children's special educational needs
could be most destructive to those who are
already the most disadvantaged education-
ally. The allocation of a school’s resources for

children with special educational problems .

cannot be influenced by race; it must be
governed by individual needs.

To insure the developments of integrated
education that could make it just and valid
for all children, therefore, I urge that this
Committee seriously consider the addition

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -—- HOUSE

to the bill of a directive in Section 10 that
& major proportion of the research funds
provided for evaluation shall be used for a
scientifically valid, objective examination of
the educational effects of compulsory school
desegregation. I further suggest that the
technical requirements of the needed re-
search are probably beyond the personnel
and facilities of most school systems, and
that major studies should be conducted by
or in consultation with properly equipped
research institutions under Federal support.

In my opinion, based upon my studies for
the past 20 years and more in the field of
educational psychology, I am convinced that
the study of racial differences and their ap-
plicability to variations in learning and or-
ganization of the educational process are
essential to any true understanding of the
problems which America’s schools face today
in determining the future course of school
integration.

II, THE EXISTING CONTROVERSY OVER IQ AND
SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT

I can best explain the basis of my views
in this area by. summarizing for the Com-
mittee some of the main points I made in the
Harvard Educational Review article to which
Thave referred:

“In my article, I first reviewed the conclu-
sion of a nationwide survey and evaluation
of the large, Federally funded compensatory
education programs done by the U.S. Com-
mission on Civil Rights, which concluded
that these special programs had produced no
significant improvement in the measured
intelligence or scholastic performance of the
disadvantaged children whose educational
achievements they were specifically intended
to raise. The evidence presented by the Civil
Rights Commission suggests to me that
merely applying more of the same approach
to compensatory education on a larger scale
is not likely to lead to the desired results,
namely Increasing the benefits of public
education to the disadvantaged. The well-
documented fruitlessness of these well-in-
tentioned compensatory programs indicates
the importance of now questioning the as-
sumptions, theories, and practices on which
they were based. I point out, also, that some
small-scale experimental intervention pro-
grams have shown more promise of beneficial
results.

“I do not advocate abandoning efforts to
improve the education of the disadvantaged.
I urge increased emphasis on these efforts,
in the spirit of experimentation, expanding
the diversity of approaches and improving
the rigor of evaluation in order to boost our
chances of discovering the methods that will
work best.

“The nature of intelligence

“In my article, I pointed out that IQ tests
evolved to predict scholastic performance in
largely European and North American mid-
dle-class populations around the turn of the
century. They evolved to measure those abil-
ities most relevant to the curriculum and
type of ing ion, which in turn were
shaped by e@ pattern of abilities of the
‘children the schools were. then Eutensied to
serve, -

“IQ or abstract reasoning ability is thus a
selection of just one portion of the total
spectrum of human mental abilities. This
aspect of mental abilities measured by IQ
tests is important to our society, but ig ob-
viously not the only set of educationally or
occupationally relevant abilities. Other men-
tal abilities have not yet been adequately
measured; their distributions in various seg-
ments of the population have not been ade-
quately determined; and their educational
relevance has not been fully explored.

“I believe a much broader assessment of
the spectrum of abilities and potentials, and
the investigation of their utilization for edu-

H 6325

cational achievement, will be an essential
aspect of improving the education of chil-
dren regarded as disadvantaged.

“Inheritance of intelligence

“Much of my paper was a review of the
methods and evidence that lead me to the
conclusion that individual differences in
intelligence, that is, IQ, are predominantly
attributable to genetic differences, with en-
vironmental factors contributing a minor
portion of the variance among individuals.
The heritability of the IQ—that is, the per-
centage of individual differences. variance
attributable to genetic factors—comes out to
about 80 per cent, the average value obtained
from ali relevant studies now reported.

“These estimates of heritability are based
on tests administered to European and North
American populations and cannot properly
be generalized to other populations. I be-
lieve we need similar heritability studies in
minority populations if we are to increase
our understanding of what our tests measure
in these populations and how these abilities
can be most effectively used in the educa-
tional process. -

“Social class differenses

“Although the full range of IQ and other
abilities is found among children in every
socioeconomic stratum in our population, it
is well established that IQ differs on the
average among children from different social
class backgrounds. The evidence, some of
which I referred to in my article, indicates
to me that some of this IQ difference is at-
tributable to environmental differences and
some of it is attributable to genetic differ-
ences between social classes—largely as a re~
sult of differential selection of the parent
generations for different patterns of ability.

“I have not yet met or read a modern
geneticist who disputes this interpretation
of the evidence. In the view of geneticist
Cc. O. Carter: ‘Sociologists who doubt this
show more ingenuity than judgment.’ At
least three prominent sociologists who are
students of this problem—Sorokin, Bruce
Eckland, and Otis Dudley Duncan—all agree
that selective facters in social mobility and
assortative mating have resulted in a genetic
component in social class intelligence differ-
ences. As Eckland points out, this conclusion
holds within socially defined racial groups
but cannot properly be generalized between
racial groups, since barriers to upward mobil-
ity have undoubtedly been quite different for
various racial groups,

“Race differences - ‘

“T have always advocated dealing with per~
sons as individuals, each in terms of his own
merits and characteristics and-am opposed to
according treatment to persons solely on the
basis of their race, color, national origin, or
social class background, But I am also op-
posed to ignoring or refusing to investigate
the causes of the well-established differences
among racial groups in the distribution of
educationally relevant traits, particularly IQ,

*T believe that the causes of observed dif-
ferences in IQ and scholastic performance
among different ethnic groups
fically, still an open question, an important
question, and a researchable one. I believe
thet official statements, such as ‘It is a dem-
onstrable fact that the talent pool in any
one ethnic group is substantially the same
as in any other ethnic groups’ (US. Office of
Education, 1966), and ‘Intelligence potential
is distributed among Negro infants in the
same proportion and pattern as among Tce-
landers or Chinese, or any other group’ (U.S.
Dept. of Labor, 1965), are without scientific
merit. They lack any factual basis and must
be r ded only as hypotheses. :

“It would require more space than I am
allotted to describe the personal and profes-
sional consequences of chall this pre-

vailing hypothesis of genetic equality by sug —

vv

 

is, scienti-

saneneenet
H 6326

gesting alternative hypotheses that invoke
genetic as well as environmental factors as
being among the causes of the observed dif-
ferences in patterns of mental ability among
racial groups.

“The fact that different racial groups in
this country have widely separated geo-
graphic origins and have had quite different
histories which have subjected them to dif-
ferent selective social and economic pressures
make it highly likely that thelr gene pools
differ for some genetically conditioned be-
havioral characteristics, including intelli-
geiice, or abstract reasoning ability. Nearly
every anatomical, physiological and biochem-
ical system investigated shows racial differ-
enees. Why should the brain be any excep-
tion? The reasonableness of the hypothesis
that there are racial differences in genetically
conditioned behavioral characteristics, in-
cluding mental abilities, is not confined to
the poorly informed, but has been expressed
in writings and public statements by such
eminent geneticists as K. Mather, C. D. Darl-

R. A. Fisher, and Francis Crick, to
mame afew. -

“In my article, I indicated several lines of
evidence which support my assertion that a
genetic hypothesis is not unwarranted. The
fact that we still have only inconclusive con-
clusions with respect to this hypothesis does
not mean that the opposite of the hypothesis
is true. Yet some social scientists speak as if
this were the case and have even publicly
-censured me for suggesting an alternative to
purely environmental hypotheses of intelli-
gence differences. Scientific investigation
most effectively by means of what
Platt has called ‘strong inference,’ pitting
alternative hypotheses that lead to different
ions against one another and then
” putting the predictions to an empirical test.

“Learning Ability and IQ

“The article also dealt with my theory of
two bromi categories of mental abilities,
which I call intelligence (or abstract reason-
ing ability) and associative learning ability.
These types of ability appear to be distributed
differently in various social classes and racial
groups. While large racial and social class
differences are found for intelligence, there
are practically negligible differences among
these groups in associative learning abilities,
such as memory span and serial and paired-
associate rote learning.

“Research should be directed at delineat-
ing still other types of abilities and at dis-
covering how the particular strengths in each
adividuals’ pattern of abilities can be most
effectively brought to bear on school learning
and on the attainment of occupational skills.
By pursuing this path, I believe we can dis-
cover the means hy which the reality of in-
dividual differences need not mean educa-
+ienal rewards for some children and utter
frustration and defeat for others.”

31. THE IMPLICATIONS OF RACE DIVFERENCES DU
_ - SDUCATION

Since educators have at least officially as-
eumed that race and social class differences
in poholastic performance are not meeciated
plage any genetic differences in rates

of mental abilities but are due

entirely to discrimination, prejudice, in-

equality of educational opportunity, and

factors in the child’s home environment and

~ peer culture, we have collectively given little
--¥f any serious thought to whether we would
‘do an differently if we knew in fact
thai all educational differences were not due

factors.

pélely to these environmentat
There have been-and still are- obvious envi-

: omental Inequitice and natioes -which

 

-CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Education is one of the chief instruments
for approaching this goal. Every child should
receive the best education that our current
knowledge and technology can provide. This
should not imply that we advocate the same
methods or the same expectations for all
children. There are large individual differ-
ences in rates of mental development, in
patterns of ability, in drives and interests.
These differences exist even among children
of the same family. The good parent does his
best to make the most of each child’s strong
points and to help him on his weak points
but not make these the crux of success or
failure. The school must regard each child,
and the differences among children, in much
the same way as a good parent should do.

I believe we need to find out the extent to
which individual differences, social class dif-
ferences, and race difference in rates of cog-
nitive development and differential patterns
of relative strength and weakness in various
types of ability are attributable to genetically
conditioned biological growth factors. The
answer to this question might imply differ-
ences in our approach to improving the edu-
cation of all children, particularly those we
call the disadvantaged, for many of whom
school is now a frustrating and unrewarding
experience.

“Individuals should be treated in terms of
their individual characteristics and not in
terms of their group membership. This is the
way of a democratic society, and education-
ally it is the only procedure that makes any
sense. Individual variations within any large
socially defined group are always much
greater than the average differences between
groups. There is overlap between groups in
the distributions of all psychological char-
acteristics that we know anything about. But
dealing with children as individuals is not
thie greatest problem. It is in our concern
about the fact that when we do so, we have
& differentiated educational program, and
children of different socially identifiable
groups may not be proportionately repre-
sented in different programs. This is the
“hang-up” ef many persons today and, this is
where our conceptions of equal opportunity
are most Hkely ta. go awry and become
misconceptions.

Group racial and social class differences
are first of all individual differences, but the
causes of the group differences may not be
the same as of the individual differences.*
This is what we must find out, because the
prescription of remedies for our educational
{lis could depend on the answer.

Let_me give one quite hypothetical -ex-
ample. We know that among middle-class
white children, learning to read by ordinary
classroom instruction is related to certain
peychological developmental characteristics.
Educators call it “readiness.” These charact-
eristics of readiness appear at different ages
for different kinds of learning, and at any
given age there are considerable individual
differences among children, even among sibl-
ings reared within the same family. These
developmental differences, in middle-class
white children, are largely conditioned by
genetic factors. If we try to begin a child
too early in reading instruction, he will ex-
perience much greater difficulty than if we
waited until we saw more signs of “readi-
ness.” readiness, he may even be-
come so frustrated as to “turn off” on read-
ing, so that he will then have an emotional
block toward reading later on when he should
have the optimal readiness. The readiness
can. then. not be fully tapped. The child
would have been better off had we postponed

‘other interesting activities for which he was
rendy.. Chances. are be would be a better
reader at, say, 10 or 11 years of age for hav-

~ Sng started a year later, when he could catch
, On. to reading with relative ease and avoid

the unnecessary frustration.. It is very

July 1, 1970

doubtful in this case that some added “en-
richment’’ to his prescheol environment
would have made him learn to read much
more easily a year earlier. If this is largely
@ matter of biological maturation, then the
time at which a child is taught in terms of
his own schedule of development becomes
important. If, on the other hand, it is largely
a@ matter of preschool environmental enrich-
ment, then the thing to do is to go to work
on the preschool environment so as to make
all children equally ready for reading in the
first grade. Lf a child’s difficulty is the result
of both factors, then a combination of both
enrichment and optimal developmental se-
quencing should be recommended,

There is a danger that some educators’
fear of being accused of racial discrimination
could become so misguided as to work to
the disadvantage of many minority children.
Should we deny differential educational
treatments to children when such treatment
will maximize the benefits they receive from
schooling, just because differential treat-
ment might result in disproportionate rep-
resentation of different racial groups in vari-
ous programs? I have seen instances where
Negro children were denied special educa-
tional facilities commonly given to white
children with learning difficulties simply be-
cause school authorities were reluctant to
single out any Negro children, despite their
obvious individual needs, to be treated any
differently from the majority of youngsters
in the school. There was no hesitation about
singting out white children who needed
special attention. Many Negro children of
normal and superior scholastic potential are
consigned to classes in which one-fourth to
one-third of their classmates have IQs below
75, which is the usual borderline of educa-
tional mental retardation. The majority of
these educationally retarded children bene-
fit little or not at all from instruetion in
the normal claseroom, but require special
attention in smaller classes that permit a
high degree of individualized and small group
instruction. Their presence in regular classes
creates unusual difficulties for the conscien-
tious teacher and detracts from the optimal
educational environment for children of nor-
mal ability. Yet there is reluctance to pro-
vide special classes for these educationally
retarded ehildren if they are Negro or Mexi-
can-American. The classrooms. of predom-
Jnantly minority schools often have 20 to 30
percent of such children, which handicaps
the teacher's efforts on behalf of her other
pupils in the normal range of IQ. Thé more
able minority children are thereby disadvan-
taged in the classroom in ways that are
rarely imposed on white children for whom
there are more diverse facilities. Differences
in rates of mental development and in po-
tentials for various types of learning will

“pot disappear by being ignored. It is up to

biologists and peyehologists to discover their
causes, and it is up to educators to create a
@iversity of instructional arrangements best
wuited to the full range of educational differ-
ences that we find in our population. Many
environmentally caused differences can be
minimized or eliminated, given the resources
and the will of society. The differences that
remain aré a challenge for public education.
The challenge will be met by making avail-
able more ways and means for children to
benefit from schooling. This, I am convinced,
can come about only through a greater recog-
nition and understanding of the nature of
human differences. -

- It ts for this reason that I call upon your
Committee to set aside funds under Section
10 of E.R. 17846 to investigate methods of
coping educationally with individual and
group variability and for an tmpertial, tn-
depth study of the effects of classroom de-

research must be done as an essential part of
the task of ameliorating our nation’s grave
educational problems.