Educational Reformers Celebrate “The Bell Curve”
Who can forget the infamous book entitled “The Bell Curve” by Richard J. Herrnstein and American Enterprise Institutes’ Charles Murray, which made the assertion that intelligence is a predictor of income and success. The book also argued that some differences between racial groups has to do with intelligence, citing lower test scores among African Americans as a possible indicator of genetic inferiority.
This excerpt from the book, sums up the chilling philosphy of the authors:
Inequality of endowments, including intelligence, is a reality. Trying to pretend that inequality does not really exist has led to disaster. Trying to eradicate inequality with artificially manufactured outcomes has led to disaster. It is time for America once again to try living with inequality, as life is lived: understanding that each human being has strengths and weaknesses, qualities we admire and qualities we do not admire, competencies and incompetencies, assets and debits; that the success of each human life is not measured externally but internally; that all of the rewards we can confer on each other, the most precious is a place as a valued fellow citizen.” (pp 551-552)
Most of the “research” about race that the authors used was funded by The Pioneer Fund, the organization whose mission is to “promote eugenics, a philosophy that maintains that “genetically unfit” individuals or races are a threat to society.”
The Pioneer Fund was started by Wickliffe Draper, a millionaire who advocated sending blacks back to Africa.
The book’s coauthor, Charles Murray is a “scholar” at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank with strong ties to politics and foreign policy and whose questionable members have included, besides Murray, Dinesh D’Souza.
D’Souza is a former scholar, author and lecturer at AEI. While a student at Dartmouth College, D’Souza founded and served as editor of the ultra-conservative Dartmouth Review, a publication that was ultimately “kicked off campus” for among other things, publishing “humorous” articles featuring KKK-type stereotypes of Black students and private correspondence of gay students.
One, therefore has to question the philosophy of an organization whose members possess such overtly racist beliefs.
It is interesting to note, therefore, that the so-called “educational reformers” who have the most direct influence over schools and school systems which serve minority children, really seem to like the American Enterprise Institute:
Michelle Rhee, Chancellor of DC Public Schools, a system which serves mostly minority children, has been a frequent speaker at AEI.
Joel Klein, Chancellor of New York City Public Schools, another largely minority district, has also been addressing the Institute with some frequency lately.
Mike Feinberg, co-founder of KIPP schools – the organization which is being touted as the “savior” of minority children” – has also been making appearances.
And lest we forget, Wendy Kopp, founder of Teach for America, the organization who sends in temporary teachers to work in low income schools districts, also appears at AEI.
One has to ask the question, therefore; why are these so-called reformers so involved in an organization whose members think that the KKK is funny and that black people are genetically inferior?
One also has to gravely question the philosophies of such individuals who are so closely responsible for the education of minority children.
What kind of reform do you think they are really trying to make?
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
If you enjoyed this post, please leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
This is truly disturbing. It gives even more credence to the theory that our public schools and society on the whole is under attack by a group of very self-interested people.
There is something really incredible about people like Rhee, who preach to the mountaintops about ending comfort and privileges for adults, ostensibly in the interests of children. Oddly, few point out that a primary focus of education is to prepare children for adulthood.
And the adulthood we’re preparing our children for, apparently, entails crippling one of the last bastions of vibrant unionism, assuring them of fewer, rather than better options.
It’s cold in Canada, but I wonder if my child, who talks of becoming a teacher, might have a warmer future if I were to bring her there.
NYC Educators last blog post..Don’t Shoot Your Lawnmower with a Sawed Off Shotgun
For what it’s worth, I’m going through the institute training with Teach For America right now, and we had an entire session about how wrong that book was, and how we believe every child can be brilliant, regardless of race.
While I don’t know about Wendy Kopp’s politics, the organization itself seems to disagree with this book, just as you do.
OK, do I really have to ask the following question:
If Teach for America feels that the book is “wrong”, then why is Wendy Kopp addressing the Institute whose member wrote the book?
Is this some kind of a test or something?
“how we believe every child can be brilliant, regardless of race.”
Of course TFA doesn’t support bell curve theories. But the “every child can brilliant” is also a phony line because they apply it to a very narrow framework – the achievement gap as measured by standardized tests. There are many areas for children to be brilliant – art, music, sports, voc ed, and broader academic areas which are neglected by the narrow focus.
Another aspect is the idea that every child can be brilliant only if you work real hard in the classroom – sweat equity. It ignores all the other factors, including the impact race has on students and teachers. But also school conditions like class size, safety, etc.
In many ways it is a diversion.
Norms last blog post..Rhee, Klein, Kopp, Feinberg in the land of the KKK…
Matt, what do you believe? Do YOU believe that this book is wrong or is that the position of the organization that you represent?
I actually thought this was satire for awhile, but it appears that the author was dead serious. Let me get this straight. Charles Murray might be racist and he works for the AEI, therefore anyone who speaks to the AEI is also a racist? Interesting logic. Reminiscent of McCarthyism.
It’s made even more outrageous by the fact that the education reformers mentioned are the ones arguing against the implication of The Bell Curve. They are the ones saying, “Yes, ALL kids can learn!”
It’s the naysayer leftists on the sidelines who seem to be the ones content with the bell curve results from our failing schools.
Learners Inherit the Earth, I haven’t read the book myself, so I can’t really say for sure what I think about it.
But, it sounds like the book has a premise that I would disagree with. And as for representing the position of Teach For America, no, of course I cannot do that.
I’m just saying that in my brief and wonderful first weeks of teaching, I have seen for myself that possibility for growth and flashes of brilliance from kids who the bell curve may suggest aren’t as capable.
As for the testing issue, I tend to agree that it’s uncomfortable always teaching for tests. I didn’t join Teach For America for the numbers, I joined it for the students who I hope to inspire — and tests don’t necessarily inspire. But I must say, I have given one test to my students thus far (a midterm); seeing those students who doubled their scores from their diagnostics at the beginning of the summer, and the elation and boost in self-confidence they had, is inspiring, even if it came from a test. I think it’s not a complete measurement, but it does give a much-needed measure that (at least for my kids) can certainly help in those other, less measurable ideals we go for.
The McCarthyism reference just doesn’t work here. There’s a big difference between accusing people of supposedly associating with communists and the founder of an organization that claims to be trying to help low income and minority children acting as a guest speaker to an organization whose members have some very questionable beliefs.
This is from an article by Dinesh D’Souza in an AEI publication:
“We do have accounts by Chinese historians in the third century B.C. describing encounters with savage people “who greatly resemble the monkeys from whom they are descended.” Muslim travellers during the Middle Ages frequently made derogatory comments about blacks. These and other examples seem to establish decisively the presence of color consciousness in various cultures of the ancient world. But do they amount to racism?”
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.18082,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
Here’s another gem from Duncan Currie, entitled “Family Ties” :
“it’s also true that African-American families were much more intact in the decades before the Civil Rights Act than they were in the decades after it”
and makes the conclusion that:
“Today it is culture–not racism or a dearth of economic opportunities–that poses the biggest threat to black family structures, and thus to black progress”
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.27712,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
I love the way people will invent “facts” to support a truth they want to believe. I seriously doubt anyone in third century B.C., whether China or anywhere else in the world, knew anything about evolution or descending from apes. How is it possible that these statements are published without anyone’s common sense radar going off??
I fail to see the difference, Voice.
McCarthyites would use a person’s tangential relationship to a group or another person to try to prove that the accused also shared those views. That’s exactly what you are doing: Michelle Rhee is a guest speaker with AEI therefore she must agree with the controversial racial remarks made by AEI members.
But you failed to address the bigger point: Show one shred of evidence that these ed reformers believe in any of the salient points made by the Bell Curve. Your headline was “Educational Reformers Celebrate ‘The Bell Curve’”. So back it up. How did they celebrate the conclusions of that book?
In fact–once again!–these ed reformers are out to prove the exact opposite: that every kid, regardless of socioeconomic or racial background, can succeed in a rigorous college-prep education.
Teacher- AVIW did not accuse Rhee or Kopp or any others of actually believing these things. She did however ask a question: Is it possible that these people have views that may not align with their supposed missions.
Why is it that when asked to question things or try to dig beneath the surface of what we are asked to believe so many of us would rather turn a blind eye?
Since the title of this post is “Education Reformers Celebrate ‘The Bell Curve,’” I was under the impression that this post would explain how education reformers celebrate “The Bell Curve.” Instead, we’ve got to rely on “guilt by association” – these individuals have appeared at AEI events, ergo they must agree with (or if you prefer, “celebrate”) that which members of AEI have espoused outside of AEI.
I don’t think that logically follows.
FWIW, I had the same experience as Matt during my Teach For America training in 2005. “The Bell Curve” was lifted up and pilloried as a horrendous study that belies the racist attitudes some hold about the capabilities of students of color.
I don’t know Wendy Kopp, but I doubt very much that when she participates in a panel discussion at AEI (or whatever the hell she does there), it’s in order to “celebrate” this racist book.
Peace,
Tom R
When politicians spoke at Oral Roberts U there was quite a stir. Now you don’t have to endorse the beliefs of the sponsoring organization when you speak there. But AEI is not inviting people who would be critical of their overall beliefs.
Take the Mahattan Institute for instance. They mostly invite speakers on education who pretty much endorse their conservative belief system though once in a while you get a few words from Diane Ravitch who has gone off the curve from their point of view.
I agree that Teach For America, Kopp, Klein and others would not endorse “The Bell Curve” but why go there to speak at all? That so many of the so-called ed reformers do so is a sign of where the political ideologies line up and what the agenda really is all about.
Norms last blog post..Rhee, Klein, Kopp, Feinberg in the land of the KKK…
[...] reason would “educational reformers” possibly have to frequently address an organization who publishes [...]
Haven’t we already established that Teach for America is an organization contrived by private interests to eradicate unions and move us closer towards privatization?
Why, then, are we surprised that Kopp is making speeches at the organization that is largely funded by oil money and who is closely involved in Bush’s policies in Iraq?
Haven’t we already established that Teach for America is an organization contrived by private interests to eradicate unions and move us closer towards privatization?
Umm…no, teacherlady…not at all. Where are you getting this stuff?
Peace,
Tom
- Former TFA member
- Former NEA (and state and local) member
- Current and former advocate of public education (NOT privatization)
Tom are you Teach for America?
It’s nice that you as an individual are an advocate for public education.
I am not talking about you.
I am talking about the organization.
When you are ready to open your eyes to the reality of the you live in, we can talk.
Until, then enjoy the fantasy.
We need more people who don’t question the world – keeps us all in line.
Teacher:
I find the McCarthyism reference which you keep going back to be quite fitting.
If you read the post,I have stated the following:
Ed Reformers seem to really like AEI-
I think this is a fair deduction given the fact that they have made frequent appearances there.
I also ask several questions. They are:
One has to ask the question, therefore; why are these so-called reformers so involved in an organization whose members think that the KKK is funny and that black people are genetically inferior?
One also has to gravely question the philosophies of such individuals who are so closely responsible for the education of minority children.
What kind of reform do you think they are really trying to make?
I think it’s pretty reasonable to ask such questions of people who are responsible for the education of children.
As teachers, we are asked to explain just about everything, from the phone calls we make at school to the supplies we use.
Why can we not ask for some accountability from educational leaders.
Here’s what I find most interesting, though.
I never give answers to any of the questions I ask.
You have filled in the gaps yourself.
I never say that they agree or disagree with AEI or Murray.
I simply ask why are they there?
As for the title,do not all of the ed reformers strongly advocate for standardized testing, data, and measurements?
Is this not a part of the bell curve?
Again, you filled in the gaps.
You felt the need to offer the following information, which I never address in the post”
“Show one shred of evidence that these ed reformers believe in any of the salient points made by the Bell Curve. Your headline was “Educational Reformers Celebrate ‘The Bell Curve’”. So back it up. How did they celebrate the conclusions of that book?
In fact–once again!–these ed reformers are out to prove the exact opposite: that every kid, regardless of socioeconomic or racial background, can succeed in a rigorous college-prep education.”
This kind of emotional need to defend and apparent paranoia is very characteristic of McCarthyism.
You were on the right track with the reference.
Here are some questions, Voice:
Since you have mentioned the AEI on your OWN blog multiple times, are you in fact in their pocket?
Are you not involved with education, which has tests and scores? Is this not part of the Bell Curve?
What kind of teacher are you? A racist one?
Since your reasoning is so horrendous, are you paid by the AEI to “defend” the teachers’ unions, thereby making a mockery of them?
Remember, Voice, all I’m doing is asking questions here.
If you respond to them, it will be obvious that you are guilty and paranoid.
Thanks, Learners.
I’m back online.
Teacher:
I mention AEI, yet I do not feel the need to speak at their conferences.
Seems like a bit of a difference to me.
Your logic is quite strange to be perfectly honest and your inabiity to see why it is wrong for so called educators to work with an organization whose members have expressed such blatantly racist rhetoric is more than a bit frightening.
This is probably the most disturbing aspect of what is wrong with the current “ed reform” and it is the number one reason that there needs to be more minorities in positions of authority in the schools.