The New York Review of Books December 1, 1994 Feature
The Tainted Sources of 'The Bell Curve' By Charles Lane
For all the shock value of its assertion that blacks are intractably,
and probably biologically, inferior in intelligence to whites and
Asians, The Bell Curve is not quite an original piece of research. It
is, in spite of all the controversy that is attending its publication,
only a review of the literature-an elaborate interpretation of data
culled from the work of other social scientists. For this reason, the
credibility of its authors, Charles Murray and Richard J. Herrnstein,
rests significantly on the credibility of their sources.
The press and television have for the most part taken The Bell Curve's
extensive bibliography and footnotes at face value. And, to be sure,
many of the book's data are drawn from relatively reputable academic
sources, or from neutral ones such as the Census Bureau. Certain of the
book's major factual contentions are not in dispute-such as the claim
that blacks consistently have scored lower than whites on IQ tests, or
that affirmative action generally promotes minorities who scored lower
on aptitude tests than whites. And obviously intelligence is both to
some degree definable and to some degree heritable.
The interpretation of those data, however, is very much in dispute. So,
too, are the authors' conclusions that little or nothing can or should
be done to raise the ability of the IQ-impaired, since so much of their
lower intelligence is due to heredity. Murray and Herrnstein instead
write sympathetically about eugenic approaches to public policy (though
they do not endorse them outright). It is therefore interesting that
Charles Murray recently expressed his own sense of queasiness about the
book's sources to a reporter from The New York Times: "Here was a case
of stumbling onto a subject that had all the allure of the forbidden,"
he said. "Some of the things we read to do this work, we literally hide
when we're on planes and trains. We're furtively peering at this
What sort of "stuff" could Murray mean? Surely the most curious of the
sources he and Herrnstein consulted is Mankind Quarterly-a journal of
anthropology founded in Edinburgh in 1960. Five articles from the
journal are actually cited in The Bell Curve's bibliography (pp. 775,
807, and 828). But the influence on the book of scholars linked to
Mankind Quarterly is more significant. No fewer than seventeen
researchers cited in the bibliography of The Bell Curve have contributed
to Mankind Quarterly. Ten are present or former editors, or members of
its editorial advisory board. This is interesting because Mankind
Quarterly is a notorious journal of "racial history" founded, and
funded, by men who believe in the genetic superiority of the white
Mankind Quarterly was established during decolonization and the US civil
rights movement. Defenders of the old order were eager to brush a patina
of science on their efforts. Thus Mankind Quarterly's avowed purpose was
to counter the "Communist" and "egalitarian" influences that were
allegedly causing anthropology to neglect the fact of racial
differences. "The crimes of the Nazis," wrote Robert Gayre, Mankind
Quarterly's founder and editor-in-chief until 1978, "did not, however,
justify the enthronement of a doctrine of a-racialism as fact, nor of
egalitarianism as ethnically and ethically demonstrable."
Gayre was a champion of apartheid in South Africa, and belonged to the
ultra-right Candour League of white-ruled Rhodesia. In 1968, he
testified for the defense at the hate speech trial of five members of
the British Racial Preservation Society, offering his expert opinion
that blacks are "worthless." The founders of Mankind Quarterly also
included Henry E. Garrett of Columbia University, a one-time pamphleteer
for the White Citizens' Councils who provided expert testimony for the
defense in Brown v. Board of Education; and Corrado Gini, leader of
fascist Italy's eugenics movement and author of a 1927 Mussolini
apologia called "The Scientific Basis of Fascism."
Mainstream anthropologists denounced Mankind Quarterly. "It is earnestly
hoped that The Mankind Quarterly will succumb before it can further
discredit anthropology and lead to even more harm to mankind," G.
Ainsworth Harrison wrote in a 1961 article in Man, the journal of
Britain's Royal Institute of Anthropology. Bozo Skerlj, a Slovene
anthropologist who had survived Dachau, resigned in protest from his
post on the editorial advisory board of Mankind Quarterly, saying that
he had joined unaware of the journal's "racial prejudice."
Undaunted, Mankind Quarterly published work by some of those who had
taken part in research under Hitler's regime in Germany. Ottmar von
Verschuer, a leading race scientist in Nazi Germany and an academic
mentor of Josef Mengele, even served on the Mankind Quarterly editorial
Since 1978, the journal has been in the hands of Roger Pearson, a
British anthropologist best known for establishing the Northern League
in 1958. The group was dedicated to "the interests, friendship and
solidarity of all Teutonic nations." In 1980, Pearson resigned from the
ultra-right World Anti-Communist League in a struggle with members who
said he was too far to the right. But Mankind Quarterly didn't
change. Pearson published eugenically minded attacks on school
integration by two American academics, Ralph Scott and Donald Swan, who
were alleged to have pro-Nazi affiliations; reports on a sperm bank in
which geniuses have deposited their superior genetic material; elaborate
accounts of the inherited mental inferiority of blacks; and the fact
that Jews first came to South Africa because its gold and diamonds were
"attractive" to them.
Pearson's Institute for the Study of Man, which publishes Mankind
Quarterly, is bankrolled by the Pioneer Fund, a New York foundation
established in 1937 with the money of Wickliffe Draper. Draper, a
textile magnate who was fascinated by eugenics, expressed early sympathy
for Nazi Germany, and later advocated the "repatriation" of blacks to
Africa. The fund's first president, Harry Laughlin, was a leader in the
eugenicist movement to ban genetically inferior immigrants, and also an
early admirer of the Nazi regime's eugenic policies.
The Pioneer Fund's current president, Harry Weyher, has denied any Nazi
or white supremacist connections. But the fund's current agenda remains
true to the purpose set forth in its charter of 1937: "race betterment,
with special reference to the people of the United States." In a letter
in 1989, the fund proposed that America abandon integration, on the
grounds that "raising the intelligence of blacks or others still remains
beyond our capabilities." The fund not only underwrites Mankind
Quarterly and many other Pearson publications, but has also provided
millions of dollars in research grants to sustain the "scholars" who
write for it and serve on its editorial board.
Which brings us back to Murray and Herrnstein. They cite in their book
no fewer than thirteen scholars who have benefited from Pioneer Fund
grants in the last two decades-the grants total more than $4 million.
Many of The Bell Curve's sources who worked for Mankind Quarterly were
also granted Pioneer money.
Most of The Bell Curve does not explicitly address the relationship
between race, genes, and IQ-as Murray has taken great pains to point
out. Rather, the book couches its arguments about the impact of IQ on
social behavior in terms of class, mostly using examples drawn from data
on whites. But in view of the characteristic overlaps between race and
class in American society, the insinuation is that all the connections
between social pathology and low IQ which the authors find for whites
must go double for blacks. It is only after one factors in their
argument that IQ itself is mostly inherited (however hedged that
argument may be), that the racial connotations of their policy
prescriptions become evident.
And many of The Bell Curve's most important assertions which establish
causal links between IQ and social behavior, and IQ and race, are
derived partially or totally from the Mankind Quarterly-Pioneer Fund
scholarly circle. The University of California's Arthur Jensen, cited
twenty-three times in The Bell Curve's bibliography, is the book's
principal authority on the intellectual inferiority of blacks. He has
received $1.1 million from the Pioneer Fund. To buttress Jensen's
argument, Murray and Herrnstein draw on a book edited by University of
Georgia psychologist R. Travis Osborne (the book, co-edited by former
Mankind Quarterly editorial advisory board member Frank McGurk, is also
cited by Murray and Herrnstein as an authority on the link between low
IQ and criminality: pp. 277, 339). Osborne, the recipient of $387,000
from Pioneer, once testified as an expert witness for plaintiffs in a
federal suit to overturn the Brown v. Board of Education decision.
Other scholars who have received substantial amounts of money from
Pioneer include Robert A. Gordon, a Johns Hopkins sociologist cited by
Murray and Herrnstein on the causal link between low IQ and black
criminality (pp. 321, 327, and 338); Linda Gottfredson of the University
of Delaware, cited on the disproportionate representation of lower-IQ
blacks in the professions; and University of Pennsylvania demographer
Daniel Vining, Jr., a former Mankind Quarterly editorial advisory board
member, cited on incipient "dysgenesis," or biological decline, in
America, owing to the falling birthrate among the most intelligent
members of society.
The tainted funding of some of the scholars Murray and Herrnstein cite
does not by itself invalidate those scholars' findings. After all,
history is full of examples of scientists who were pilloried as
crackpots in their own times but are hailed as geniuses today. However
shocking it may be that some of Murray and Herrnstein's sources have
chosen to affiliate themselves with such organizations, their work-and
those parts of The Bell Curve that draw upon it-must be judged on the
Take the case of Richard Lynn. A professor of psychology at the
University of Ulster in Coleraine, Northern Ireland, Lynn was
particularly influential in guiding the two authors of The Bell Curve
through their review of the literature. In the book's acknowledgments,
they say they "benefited especially" from the "advice" of Lynn, whom
they identify only as "a leading scholar of racial and ethnic
differences" (pp. xxv, 272).
Lynn is an associate editor of Mankind Quarterly, and has received
$325,000 from the Pioneer Fund. One of his articles expressed
support for the view that "the poor and the ill" are "weak specimens
whose proliferation needs to be discouraged in the interests of the
improvement of the genetic quality of the group, and ultimately of group
survival." He has also written that the genetic mental superiority
of the Jews may be a happy Darwinian byproduct of "intermittent
persecutions which the more intelligent may have been able to foresee
Lynn's work is cited twenty-four times in The Bell Curve's
bibliography. It is used to support three important claims: that
East Asians have a higher average IQ than whites; that most immigrants
come from groups with subpar IQs; and that the IQ score of blacks in
Africa is "substantially below" the American black average. Each of
these seemingly discrete claims has a key role in the formulation of The
Bell Curve's broader suggestions about the relationship among race,
heredity, IQ, and social structure.
The assertion about inferior black African intelligence has particularly
far-reaching implications. If it can be shown that low IQ predicts
social ills such as crime, poverty, and unstable families, current views
of Africa and of the sources of its tragic problems would have to be
significantly revised. The finding would also support the claim that the
IQ superiority of whites is genetic, because the African-American edge
over blacks in Africa could be attributed to their admixture of white
genes. (Murray and Herrnstein note pointedly that South African
"coloureds" have about the same IQ as American blacks.) And lagging
African IQ could also be taken to refute the claim that black Americans'
lower IQ is a legacy of racism-assuming, as Murray and Herrnstein put
it, that "the African black population has not been subjected to the
historical legacy of American black slavery and discrimination and might
therefore have higher scores" (p. 288).
Setting up their discussion of Lynn's data, Murray and Herrnstein
contend that the comparison between black Americans and black Africans
is a valid exercise because IQ scores have been found to predict job and
school performance of black Africans as well as those of black Americans
(p. 288). They also attribute the paucity of published estimates of an
overall average IQ score for blacks in Africa to the fact that these
scores have been extremely low-the implication being that researchers
are reluctant to publish such politically incorrect findings (p. 289).
These assertions are based on a highly selective reading of the article
Murray and Herrnstein cite to support them: a comprehensive 1988 review
titled "Test Performance of Blacks in Southern Africa," by the South
African psychologists I.M. Kendall, M.A. Verster, and J.W.V. Mollendorf
(p. 289). The main point of these three researchers' argument is to
question sweeping comparisons such as the one Lynn attempts, and Murray
and Herrnstein repeat. The three South African psychologists write:
It would be rash to suppose that psychometric tests constitute valid
measures of intelligence among non-westerners. The inability of most
psychologists to look beyond the confines of their own culture has led
to the kind of arrogance whereby judgments are made concerning the
"simplicity" of African mental structure and "retarded" cognitive
Given the host of environmental and cultural factors that hamper black
Africans' test performance, they also say, "one wonders whether there is
any point in even considering genetic factors as an additional source of
variance between the average performance levels of westerners and
Nevertheless, Murray and Herrnstein venture an estimate of African IQ,
drawn mainly from an article by Lynn that appeared in Mankind Quarterly
in 1991. It should be noted, for a start, that the authors of The Bell
Curve misreport Lynn's data. They say he found a median IQ of 75 in
Africa (p. 289). But in his article, "Race Differences in Intelligence:
The Global Perspective," Lynn said that the mean African IQ-not the
In any event, how did Lynn arrive at his number? First, he assembled
eleven studies of the intelligence of "pure African Negroids," drawn
from different tests of several different peoples and widely varying
sample sizes in the years from 1929 to 1991. Then, he decided which was
the "best": a 1989 study from South Africa. In this test, he says, 1,093
sixteen-year-old black students (who had been in school for eight years
and were therefore familiar with pencil-and-paper tests) scored a mean
of 69 on the South African Junior Aptitude Test. Finally, Lynn rounded
this result up to 70, and declared it a valid approximation of black IQ
in the continent of Africa as a whole.
This methodology alone invites skepticism. But Lynn also seems to have
misconstrued the study. Its author, Dr. Ken Owen, told me his test was
"not at all" an indication that intelligence is inherited. He blamed the
low performance of blacks on environmental factors such as poorer
schooling for blacks under apartheid and their difficulty with English.
Owen said his results "certainly cannot" be taken as an indication of
intelligence among blacks in Africa as a whole.
Lynn further defends his choice of 70 as a "reasonable" mean for Africa
on the grounds that 70 was the median of the average IQ scores reported
in the eleven studies he had found. This statistical artifact aside, his
list of studies is dubious. It includes what he calls "the first good
study of the intelligence of pure African Negroids": an experiment in
1929 in which 293 blacks in South Africa were given the US Army Beta
Test, and got a mean score of 65.
The test was administered by M.L. Fick, whom Kendall, Verster, and
Mollendorf call an "extreme protagonist" of the view that blacks are
inherently inferior to whites. The Beta test, which was developed
for illiterate recruits in the US military, shows blatant cultural bias.
One question presents a picture of people playing tennis without a net;
respondents are supposed to sketch in the net to get full credit. In
1930, just a year after the Beta test was given in South Africa, C.C.
Brigham, who had been its leading proponent in the US, finally admitted
that the test was invalid for non-Americans. Lynn does not mention this
Far from refuting the thesis that the legacy of racism is to blame for
black Americans' lower IQ scores vis-à-vis whites, as Murray and
Herrnstein contend, Lynn's data actually support it (to the extent they
have any meaning at all). Of Lynn's eleven studies, five were conducted
in South Africa under apartheid (and one in the Belgian Congo in
1952). If any country oppressed black people more than the United
States, it was South Africa. Indeed, as the modern South African
psychologists now acknowledge, one of the main uses of IQ tests under
apartheid was to provide "scientific" justification for that system.
The assertion of an East Asian IQ advantage over whites, though
essentially a success story, also plays a subtle, but crucial,
supporting role in The Bell Curve's overall argument about the
connections among IQ, social achievement, and race. Coming before the
discussion of black-white differences, it helps prepare the reader to
accept racial categories as units of social analysis. It also conforms
to readers' preconceptions, shaped both by the media and by everyday
experience, about the amazing brilliance of Asian immigrants and their
The authors would seem to be on firmer ground invoking Lynn here, since
his specialty is the inherited mental superiority of East Asians, or
"Mongoloids," as he refers to them. In Mankind Quarterly, he has
contended that the Japanese "have the highest intelligence in the
world." In an article in Nature in 1982, Lynn claimed the Japanese
enjoy a ten-point IQ advantage over European whites, and that this
difference is growing. He suggested that this helps to explain the
postwar economic miracle in Japan.
But two American psychologists, Harold W. Stevenson and Hiroshi Azuma,
pointed out in a rebuttal in Nature that the Japanese sample Lynn used
was made up of children of relatively well-off urban parents-a fact Lynn
failed to disclose in his article. Lynn's result was thus fatally
flawed: he had tried to compare this socially skewed sample with a much
broader and more representative American one. Murray and
Herrnstein's sole mention of this is a footnote: "For a critique of
Lynn's early work, see Stevenson and Azuma 1983" (p. 716).
At the opening of their section headed "Do Asians Have Higher IQs Than
Whites?" Murray and Herrnstein seem to be struggling to salvage some
meaning from Lynn's data. The basic problem is the enormous difficulty
of drawing conclusions about the relative intelligence of people who
come from vastly different civilizations. They cite a string of Lynn's
comparisons that suggest East Asians are superior, but eventually back
off, conceding that the various test results he has assembled are not
really comparable. Finally, the authors note: "Given the complexities of
crossnational comparisons, the issue [of relative East Asian-white-black
intelligence] must eventually be settled by a sufficient body of data
obtained from identical tests that are comparable except for race" (pp.
Murray and Herrnstein write that they "have been able to identify three
such efforts." In the first, they say, "samples of American, British,
and Japanese students ages thirteen to fifteen were administered a test
of abstract reasoning and spatial relations"-the British and American
students did far worse than the Japanese, naturally. In the second "set
of studies," they write, nine-year-olds in Japan, Hong Kong, and
Britain, drawn from comparable socioeconomic populations, were
administered the Ravens Standard Progressive Matrices. Once again, the
British children lost out by "well over half a standard deviation" (p.
Only by checking the footnotes (at the back of the 845-page book) can
readers discover that the author of both these studies is Richard Lynn.
With regard to the first case, The Bell Curve's text leaves the
impression that the tests were conducted with similar samples in the
three countries at more or less the same time. This is not quite what
happened, as one learns from reading the 1987 Mankind Quarterly article
from which these data are drawn. Lynn and his assistants gave the test
in 1985 to 178 Japanese children. The tiny sample was not checked to
reflect the social makeup of Japan as a whole (some 57 percent of the
test-takers were boys). The test-givers merely showed up at two schools,
one rural and one urban, and gave the tests to whoever was present. Lynn
then compared this result to results from an American test that had been
given thirteen years earlier to 64,000 subjects screened for their
representativity, and to the results of a test given in 1978 to a
similarly representative sample of 10,000 students in Britain. His
conclusion that Japanese children do better was arrived at by
distributing extra points among the three groups to "adjust" for the
time lag among the three tests. 
The second "set of studies" is in the same 1991 Mankind Quarterly
article in which Lynn presented his claims about "pure African
Negroids." He says that a group of 118 Hong Kong nine-year-olds scored a
113 IQ, a sample of 444 Japanese children got a 110 IQ, and a sample of
239 British children got a 100 IQ. He asserts that all three samples
were "representative" and drawn from "typical public primary schools,"
as Murray and Herrnstein report. But in the article Lynn does not
explain how he assured the "representativity" of the samples, or the
"typicality" of the schools.
Murray and Herrnstein then go on to describe a third set of studies done
by Harold Stevenson in Minnesota. In contrast to their seeming
circumspection about Lynn's identity, they mention Stevenson's name in
the main text of the book. As they note, he "carefully matched the
children on socio-economic and demographic variables"-and found no
difference at all between the IQs of Japanese, Taiwanese, and American
children (pp. 274-275).
"Where does this leave us?" Murray and Herrnstein then ask. On the one
hand, we have two methodologically dubious studies by Lynn, a professor
who believes, as he wrote in the Mankind Quarterly article, that "the
Caucasoids and the Mongoloids are the only two races that have made any
significant contribution to civilization."  On the other hand is a
rigorous study by a social scientist with no known axe to grind, who
finds no IQ disparity between whites and Asians. But Murray and
Herrnstein portray this as a debate among a large number of contentious
and equally reputable experts. "We will continue to hedge," they write;
and simply split the difference. They venture that East Asian IQ exceeds
that of whites by three points, a figure which "most resembles a
consensus, tentative though it still is" (pp. 276).
By the time Murray and Herrnstein get around to talking about
immigrants, their "tentative consensus" on the East Asian-white IQ gap
has grown by two points, and hardened into a datum firm enough to be
factored into immigration policy. Drawing, once again, on Lynn's 1991
article in Mankind Quarterly, they assign East Asians a mean IQ of 105,
whites 100, "Pacific" populations a score of 91, and blacks 84. Without
reference to Lynn or any other source, Murray and Herrnstein give
"Latinos"-a designation empty of meaningful "racial" content-a mean IQ
of 91. They give no data on IQs of South Asians and Middle Eastern
people, who supplied 11 percent of the immigrants in the 1980s. They're
just "omitted from the analysis," as the authors put it. From this
hodgepodge of assumptions Murray and Herrnstein produce the "basic
statement" that 57 percent of legal immigrants in the 1980s came from
ethnic groups with average IQs less than that of American whites, and
therefore the mean for all immigrants is probably below that of all
native-born Americans (pp. 359-360).
Even if their "basic statement" is true, it says nothing at all about
the scores of the individuals who actually did immigrate to the US. Thus
Murray and Herrnstein must deal with the common-sense notion that
immigrants generally represent the brightest and most energetic members
of their former societies, by virtue of their willingness to get up and
go to the US. This the authors try to do by citing numbers from the
National Longitudinal Survey, or NLSY. They find that foreignborn NLSY
members had a mean IQ ".4 standard deviation" lower than the rest of the
NLSY sample (p. 360).
But the NLSY began in 1979, as a survey of people who were fourteen to
twenty-two years old at the time, and have then been re-examined and
re-interviewed each succeeding year. Thus it has no bearing at all on
people who arrived in the United States after 1979, when immigration
from the third world reached its height-as Murray and Herrnstein
themselves report. (Probably for this reason, the sample did not include
a statistically significant percentage of East Asians.) The authors also
acknowledge that the slightly poorer IQ performance of those Latino
immigrants who were interviewed in the NLSY probably reflects their weak
command of English. That normally improves in a few years, and IQ rises
along with it. Finally, Murray and Herrnstein find that foreignborn
blacks in the NLSY score five points higher than native-born blacks (p.
360)-a fact they are utterly at a loss to explain, perhaps because some
of the immigrants must have come from Africa, and they have just
finished alleging that black Africans are even stupider than American
"Nonetheless," Murray and Herrnstein assert, "keeping all of these
qualifications in mind, the kernel of evidence that must also be
acknowledged is that Latino and black immigrants are, at least in the
short run, putting some downward pressure on the distribution of
intelligence" (pp. 360-361). One hundred eighty-nine pages later, this
strained contention is used to justify their inclination toward a more
eugenically minded-and, hence, restrictive-US immigration policy. Yet
other than Lynn's flawed survey, and their own bald assertion that
Latinos have a mean IQ of 91, there is no "kernel of evidence" of the
kind they refer to (p. 360).
Murray and Herrnstein aren't answerable for every belief of every member
of the racialist crowd they rely on for so much of their data. (And they
didn't get any money from Pioneer.) Still, there are two matters on
which their book and the intellectual mission of the men who founded
Mankind Quarterly overlap: both sought to restore the scientific status
of race, and to reintroduce eugenic thinking into the public policy
The more pertinent issue here is full disclosure, or what used to be
called intellectual honesty. Just as Murray blushingly covered some of
his materials on the Delta shuttle, so The Bell Curve tiptoes around
facts that might have an inconvenient influence on its readers'
evaluation of the book's sources and data-not to mention the judgment of
its authors in choosing those sources. Geoffrey Cowley of Newsweek, in a
sympathetic review of the book, pronounced its scholarship
"overwhelmingly mainstream." Would he have done so if Murray and
Herrnstein had provided a full account of the provenance of their data?
Indeed, would this heavily marketed book have achieved the same sales
success and as much respectful press attention if it had leveled with
readers about all of its sources?
There is no way to isolate the scholarship of Richard Lynn, and that of
the other Mankind Quarterly contributors, from their racial and
political views. Social science is not so easily insulated from
ideology, as Murray and Herrnstein are quick to emphasize when railing
against their critics. The scholarly subcultures on which the authors of
The Bell Curve depend for information are hardly less biased than those
they are summoned to rebut. The bias of the Mankind Quarterly
contributors, however, is much nastier. And as we have seen, some of the
scholars Murray and Herrnstein rely on distort the evidence, which in
key cases does not support The Bell Curve's contentions.
 Jason DeParle, "Daring Research or Social Science Pornography?" The
New York Times Magazine, October 9, 1994, p. 51.
 Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, The Bell Curve (Free
 According to the bibliography of The Bell Curve, and to back issues
of the Mankind Quarterly, the seventeen are W.J. Andrews, Cyril Burt,
Raymond B. Cattell (eight citations), Hans J. Eysenck, Seymour Itzkoff,
Arthur Jensen (twenty-three citations), Richard Lynn (twenty-four
citations), Robert E. Kuttner, Frank C.J. McGurk (six citations), C.E.
Noble, R. Travis Osborne (three citations), Roger Pearson, J. Philippe
Rushton (eleven citations), William Shockley, Audrey Shuey, Daniel
Vining (three citations), and Nathaniel Weyl.
The ten who are or were either editors or members of the editorial board
are: Cattell, Eysenck, Itzkoff, Kuttner, Lynn, McGurk, Noble, Pearson,
Shuey, and Vining.
 Robert Gayre, "The Mankind Quarterly Under Attack," The Mankind
Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 2 (October-December 1961), p. 79. Emphasis in
 Michael Billig, Die Rassistische Internationale (Frankfurt: Neue
Kritik, 1981), p. 101. This is the German edition of Billig's 1979 book
Psychology, Racism, and Fascism (Birmingham, England: A. F. and R.
Publications/ Searchlight, 1979).
 Billig, Die Rassistische Internationale, p. 97.
 Billig, Die Rassistische Internationale, pp. 103-104, and Adam
Miller, "Professors of Hate," Rolling Stone, October 20, 1994, p. 113.
Garrett also wrote in 1961 that "Hitler's persecution of the Jews has
greatly oversensitized the American Jew toward anything which smacks of
racial distinction. The pre-occupation of the Jews with racial matters
today is evident in the activities of various Jewish organizations. Most
of these belligerently support the equalitarian dogma which they accept
as having been 'scientifically' proven." Mankind Quarterly, Vol. 1, No.
4 (1961), p. 256.
 Billig, Die Rassistische Internationale, p. 104.
 G. Ainsworth Harrison, "The Mankind Quarterly," Man, September 1961,
 Bozo Skerlj, "Correspondence," Man, November 1960, pp. 172-173.
 Billig, Die Rassistische Internationale, p. 106; Stefan Kuehl, The
Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National
Socialism (Oxford University Press, 1994), pp. 102-103.
 Kuehl, The Nazi Connection, p. 4; Miller, "Professors of Hate," p.
113; and Tim Kelsey and Trevor Rowe, "Academics 'were funded by racist
American trust,' " The Independent, March 4, 1990, p. 4.
 Kuehl, The Nazi Connection, p. xv passim.
 Kuehl, The Nazi Connection, p. 6; Miller, "Professors of Hate," p.
114; and Kelsey and Rowe, "Academics 'were funded by racist American
 Miller, "Professors of Hate," Kuehl, The Nazi Connection, pp. 9,
10, and Kelsey and Rowe, "Academics 'were funded by racist American
trust.' " See also copies of federal form 990-PF tax returns filed by
the Pioneer Fund, which are available on microfiche at The Foundation
Center, Washington, DC.
 The numbers were derived by cross-checking the Murray-Herrnstein
bibliography with Kuehl, Billig, Miller, and Kelsey, back issues of
Mankind Quarterly, and copies of federal form 990-PF filed by the
 Miller, "Professors of Hate," p. 114.
 Miller, "Professors of Hate," p. 113.
 Miller, "Professors of Hate," p. 114, and the federal 990-PF forms
filed by the Pioneer Fund at The Foundation Center. Vining is also
thanked in the book's acknowledgments. The amounts of the Pioneer Grants
are often in the hundreds of thousands of dollars over several years.
Another major recipient, J. Philippe Rushton of Canada's University of
Western Ontario, is cited eleven times in The Bell Curve bibliography,
and receives a two-page mention in the book's appendix (pp. 642-643)
defending his highly controversial work. Rushton believes that blacks
have been selected by evolution to have low intelligence. They have
small heads, large genitalia, and other supposed racial features,
because they developed in the warm savannah and jungle climates of
Africa, where natural selection favored a reproductive strategy of high
birth rates and low parental investment. In other words, Rushton
believes that black people are genetically programmed to be
irresponsible parents; he has also written that this genetic
predisposition to sexual excess explains why so many blacks have AIDS
 Miller, "Professors of Hate," p. 114.
 Richard Lynn, "Civilization and the Quality of Population," Journal
of Social, Political and Economic Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Spring 1991),
p. 123. This is another Roger Pearson publication.
 Richard Lynn, "Orientals: The Emerging American Elite?" Mankind
Quarterly, Vol. 31, Nos. 1 and 2 (Fall/Winter 1990), p. 189.
 Six of the Lynn articles cited by Murray and Herrnstein appeared in
Personality and Individual Differences, a British journal edited by Hans
J. Eysenck. Eysenck is the recipient of $250,000 in Pioneer grants and a
frequent contributor to Mankind Quarterly. In 1990, two years after the
University of London barred Eysenck from taking any more funds from
Pioneer, Lynn channeled $30,000 from one of his Pioneer grants to
Eysenck. All told, eighteen of The Bell Curve's bibliographical
citations are from Eysenck's journal. See Pioneer Fund's 990-PF forms at
The Foundation Center, and Kelsey and Rowe, "Academics 'were funded by
racist American trust.' "
 I.M. Kendall, Mary Ann Verster, and J.W. Von Mollendorf, "Test
Performance of Blacks in Southern Africa," in S.H. Irvine and J.W.
Berry, editors, Human Abilities in Cultural Context (Cambridge
University Press, 1988), p. 328.
 Kendall, Verster, and Mollendorf, "Test Performance of Blacks in
Southern Africa," p. 326.
 Richard Lynn, "Race Differences in Intelligence: A Global
Perspective," The Mankind Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Spring 1991), p.
 Lynn, "Race Differences in Intelligence: A Global Perspective," p.
 Interview with the author.
 Lynn, "Race Differences in Intelligence: A Global Perspective," p.
 Lynn, "Race Differences in Intelligence: A Global Perspective," p.
267; Kendall, Verster, and Mollendorf, "Test Performance of Blacks in
Southern Africa," p. 300.
 Steven Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man (Norton, 1981), p. 233.
 Lynn, "Race Differences in Intelligence: A Global Perspective," p.
 Richard Lynn, Susan L. Hampson, and Saburo Iwakawi, "Abstract
Reasoning and Spatial Abilities Among American, British and Japanese
Adolescents," The Mankind Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Summer 1987), p.
 Lynn, "IQ in Japan and the United States shows a growing
disparity," Nature, Vol. 297 (May 20, 1982), pp. 222-223.
 Harold Stevenson and Hiroshi Azuma, "IQ in Japan and the United
States," Nature, Vol. 306 (November 17, 1983), pp. 291-292.
 Lynn, "Abstract Reasoning and Spatial Abilities Among American,
British, and Japanese Adolescents," pp. 400 and 401.
 Lynn, "Race Differences in Intelligence: A Global Perspective," pp.
 Lynn, "Race Differences in Intelligence: A Global Perspective," p.
 Geoffrey Cowley, "Testing the Science of Intelligence," Newsweek,
October 24, 1994, p. 56.