The Brand Affair

The latest in a string of gutless PC acts by major publishers has just hit the fan in England and Scotland and the US. Christopher Brand, well respected researcher and scholar on IQ at Edinburgh University had his new book, The g Factor was pulled by John Wiley Publishers only a week before release. A few copies got out, particularly to reviewers. Wiley has had little to say about the matter, but their spokesman, MS. Susan Spilka has commented in a letter to Professor J. Philippe Rushton: "Wiley objects to Mr. Brand's pronouncements linking race, intelligence, genetics, and social and economic performance. I hope you will try to understand that our objection is not superficial and political." No? That's exactly how I would describe it. Such an approach would eliminate much of the most valuable sociological literature being published today. Does Wiley (UK) also expect to withdraw it's recent CIBA book on genetics and crime?

Dateline: Edinburgh; Tuesday, 21 May 1996

After considering the matter at length and in depth, the US National Association of Scholars has decided that Wiley DePublisher must be condemned in forthright terms, as follows.

PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY.

The National Association of Scholars (in the United States)and the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship (in Canada) released the following statement on theJohn Wiley & Sons' suspension of publication, and withdrawal from circulation, of Christopher Brand's "The 'g' Factor":

" We view with deep concern the decision of the American publishing house,John Wiley & Sons, Inc., to suspend British publication of, and withdraw from circulation, Christopher Brand's "The 'g' Factor." We recognize the editorial freedom of publishing houses to decide what and what not to publish, but the withdrawal of a book following an agreement to publish--and after the processes of scholarly review, approval, and production have been completed--seriously impedes the free flow of ideas, chills the intellectual climate, and encourages efforts to suppress opinions of every stripe. While we understand and sympathize with Wiley's discomfort over some of the statements made to the British press by The 'g' Factor's" author, we believe that its actions constitute a dangerous precedent, and fall far short of the level of professional responsibility expected of a leading academic publisher.

NAS president Stephen H. Balch, noting that Wiley's action had, at the very least, delayed the publication of the book for some months, urged the publishing house to reconsider its decision and proceed with its original commitment to publish. Return to Top of Page

The following letter on the matter from Professor Hans J. Eysenck (the world's most published psychologist) appeared in The Sunday Times of April 28, 1996.

STEVE CONNOR'S criticism of psychologists for ignorance of genetics seems quite unfair, as is the suspicion from Professor Steve Jones that psychologists are misunderstanding the limitations of genetics (Gene genie unbottles old prejudices, News Review, last week). The fact that heredity plays a large part in causing IQ differences in white and black samples does not mean that black and white differences are genetic; as I said in my 1971 book, "Can we argue that genetic studies give direct support to the heritarian position? The answer must I think be in the negative."

This is recognised by all the leading psychologists I know, and forms part of the official policy of the American Psychological Association. It is emphasised by Herrnstein and Murray in The Bell Curve, sometimes erroneously reported as maintaining the opposite. Most psychologists interested in this field take care to be well informed on the latest advances in genetics, and collaborate with geneticists in their empirical work.

Before I retired I took good care to have at least one high-level geneticist working in my department. To say that few psychologists seem to understand how heritability is calculated is absurd; if we did not, our geneticist collaborators would hardly allow us to get away with it.

I do not know what Christopher Brand may have said in interviews, but his book, The g Factor, is an excellent presentation of the evidence on the present status of intelligence as a scientific concept, and for John Wiley, the publishers, to have withdrawn the book is a sin against the holy ghost; freedom of speech should not be jettisoned that readily. Stalin banned IQ testing because it was bourgeois; Hitler banned it because it was Jewish. Political correctness seems to ban it because it is scientific; shall we now have a burning of the books?

I am surprised you do not protest against this illiberal, intolerant and bigoted action; the very definition of tolerance is to grant freedom of speech to those whose view we whole-heartedly oppose. If they are wrong, they can be shown to be so on rational grounds. That surely, is the democratic way.

Hans Eysenck Professor Emeritus of Psychology University of London London SE5
Return to Top of Page

The following letter from Professor J. Philippe Rushton was posted to the Behavioral Genetics board the second week of May, 1996.

Having followed Christopher Brand's travails with the British media, his publisher, and now some of his university colleagues I am writing to express my increasing dismay at what appears to be increasing signs of a witch hunt. I am also writing to express an opinion on the quality of his research.

Having just published a book Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1995, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ) dealing with racial group differences in achievement and other variables I can attest to how super- sensitive this topic is and how easy it is to take statements out of context and distort them to win a debating point. All the more reason why academic freedom needs to be defended absolutely. Although some will say it is not WHAT was said but rather HOW it was said, or WHERE it was said, or WHEN it was said, in fact, as clear as crystal is the fact that if Chris Brand had made the exact OPPOSITE statements about Black/White IQ differences in exactly the same WAY, he would not be encountering the difficulties he is currently encountering. It is the content of what has been said that is the cause of his difficulties.

Similar attacks on scholars occur predictably as soon as they dare to suggest what most experts believe (from published surveys documented in Brand's book), that is, that some part of the Black/White achievement discrepancy is due to genetic factors. How are we ever to get good research done on this important topic if every time the genetic hypothesis is roached the punishments rain down. A terrible signal is sent to other academics that they too must not enter the fray less something similar happen to them.

I have read Dr. Brand's book and find the science in it exemplary. I discovered new information myself that I was previously unaware of (and this is my area of specialization) and know he has accurately represented all the areas that I am familiar with. Dr. Brand himself is one of Britain's leading theoreticians in the field of individual differences with a well earned international reputation for publishing in peer reviewed technical journals. His research is sound. His own path breaking work on Inspection Time measures of IQ are taken seriously in labs around the world.

I have heard approximately the same favorable opinion about Brand's work expressed in conversation by most psychologists familiar with his work, even when they deplore the publicity created by the work. But to ask Dr. Brand to leave the field of intellectual battle in the public area is unfair for no such calls will be issued to the academics at other institutions who hotly disagree with him. There comes a point at which people need to speak up; if only to remind ourselves that academic freedom anf freedom of speech more generally means nothing unless tested periodically with unpopular ideas.

Yours sincerely,

Websites

Christopher Brand has his own Edinburgh website and newsletter, The g Factor , where you can read all about the controversy and even order a photo-copy of the book. The site includes chapter summaries, portions of book reviews, and links to editorials critical of Wiley's action in various scientific journals such as Nature. Brand gives daily updates on the newsletter.

Gavan Tredoux's Upstream site has also added some pages on the Brand affair, including statements from Edinburgh University and links to appropriate people there. see his special section at Upstream: People: Christopher Brand. While you're at it, look over the rest of this great resource.

You can also read about it on The Times (of London) site. Sign up for free access, then use the Internet Archives to search for articles and letters. Two articles are listed - April 18th "Publisher dumps 'racist' IQ book" and April 21st "Gene genie bottles old prejudices." The other sites have much newer information.

Other Articles and Editorials

Chronicle of Higher Education (May 17, 1996)
Return to Top of Page

---

Comments by Scholars in Psychology

I thought we were moving away from this political correctness sort of thing. It just boggles the mind.
-Thomas Bouchard

The cowardice of publishers is a real problem that makes progress toward understanding the real world...difficult.
-James Flynn

This is an egregious error, and Wiley's reputation is at stake. It was a knee-jerk liberal response.
-Douglas K. Detterman

Political Correctness is more subtle than Nazism, but just as dangerous.
-Christopher Brand

Return to Top of Page

---

May 16, 1996

The powerful Anti-Nazi League (its name reaching back to the Battle for Britain from 1939-1945), is at this posting holding a large rally on the University of Edinburgh campus, and a main speaker is Professor Stephen Rose. Brand was denied entrace by a University security guard. Brand reports that the UK papers are beginning to take increasing note of how thoroughly the story is blacked out of the American media. Given the fact that by all indications the decision was made at Wiley NY to stop the publication of the book in Britain (it was a British publication, intended only to be imported into the US & indeed reportedly 500 copies arrived shortly after April 17 by boat into New York harbor--where are they now??) one would hope American media would have at least had a backpage interest.

The total "blackout" of coverage seems to the British media "a bit much" . IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN THE EXTREME IF ACADEMICIANS WHO HAVE READ THE BOOK AND JOURNALISTS, AS WELL, COULD MAKE SOME SORT OF INDICATION OF HOW DEVOID THE BOOK IS OF ANYTHING THAT CAN BE DEFENSIBLY CALLED 'REPELLENT'. Brand has dealt with the issue of race / IQ/ biological intelligence / quite appropriately in the book. Wiley should be pressued to release quite a number of unjacketed copies within the U.S. That a book like The "g" Factor can be deemed an object for attention by an anti-Nazi league is indicative of near mass hysteria.

Return to Top of Page

THE g FACTOR Newsletter

Edinburgh; Thursday, May 16th, 1996

Today:

Today's 'Nature' should carry the supportive letter that I have seen from Edinburgh academic colleagues. Peter Caryl and Ian Deary condemn Wiley's threat to academic freedom, fear that press sensationalism will hinder research on intellectual abilities, and defend my relatively high estimate of the broad heritability of IQ as in line with the conclusions of the 1995 task force of the American Psychological Association (U.Neisser, 1996, American Psychologist 51, 77-101). Admittedly, Caryl and Deary abstain from backing my relatively high estimate of the (negative) correlation between intelligence and 'inspection time'; but their own intricate and sophisticated work using the wonders of modern gadgetry - with attendant problems of unreliability and visual after-effects - has typically involved lower IT/IQ correlations than those which are readily achieved by 'steam age' tachistoscopic presentation. (- As I explain in Chapter 3 of 'THE g FACTOR'....)

Together with the letter in last week's 'Times Higher' (c. 10 v) condemning the "PC bully boys", this means I am achieving a non-zero level of published support from British academia. However, the worthies of the Association of University Teachers and of the British Psychological Society are nowhere to be seen. So far not a single organized body of people in the west has condemned Wiley's withdrawal of the book.

Still no action from US Wiley DePublisher. They have employed a Chancery Lane attorney to handle everything for them so this slows things down even more than is usual chez Wiley. A month after their amazing withdrawal of the "repellent" book, Wiley have started sending US academics photocopied photocopies of British press coverage meaning thus to offer excuse for their stupidity and cowardice. Of course, Wiley never once inquired of me what my views actually were. They were as hysterical as the E.U. student politicians. Now they have had a month to scour my book for the 'passages which they found repellent'; but they have come up with precisely *nothing*. Here we see the true face of the act-on-your-'sensitive'-feelings PC movement. Mercifully this face of tyranny in the 1990's now has egg all over it!

One idea being mooted among supporters of THE g FACTOR in the USA is to have a 'telephone conference' with Wiley to try to persuade them to release perhaps a hundred unjacketed copies of the book. Although eight American libraries apparently have copies, as do some two dozen individual academics, this is hardly enough to meet demand from people who want to see the book before condemning it (or condemning US Wiley's behavior). My own argument would certainly be that Wiley are doing great damage with every passing day that they fail to release copies. - Whether the damage is more to my reputation or to theirs remains to be seen.

Some people ask why I have not been 'made redundant', as can now happen to UK academics. The answer is partly that, because Edinburgh Uni has never promoted me, I am still on the old contract which does not permit 'redundancy' operations against academics by university employers. Of course, Edinburgh University could make my life difficult; but I don't think they will. Rather, I think they will agree with me that it is time they granted me the four terms' sabbatical leave which they owe me.

The results of E.U. student elections have been announced. All four top jobs [including entire sabbatical years funded by the taxpayer] have gone to women; and the Executive of E.U.Student Association (EUSA) is now *100% female*. After some exciting recounts, one of the girls was, according to EUSA 'Midweek', "overcome with excitement, so her friend Natasha .... gave a speech on her behalf." However, the would-be instrument of my nemesis, one Beth ........., was not among the lucky winners. She will have to content herself with being the organizer-in-chief for the visit to Edinburgh today of the Open University's IQ-bashing 'neuroscientist', Steven Rose.

When the unashamed fellow-traveller eventually sees my book, he will see that his own work re IQ is mentioned in several places - though not all of these places are indexed. My book is not only reasonably frank about race. It is also frank about who are the leading 'critics of IQ' today - most of them non-psychologists for some reason or other. Opponents of IQ who want to learn what are the best modern lines of argument against the London School will find my book much more useful than many competing texts. All they need do is look up 'critics of IQ' in the Index: that will get them started easily, even though the Index is not comprehensive, and reading the book itself and attending to its sometimes paragraph-long arguments is advisable.

PS The Anti-Nazi League 'Rally Against Racists - Stop Brand Now' attracted perhaps 200 people. - It was hard to see because my way was barred by a beefy doorman who looked as if he would have been quite at home in meeting of the British National Party. (I confess I didn't stay to argue the toss with him - I would have been roundly condemned as 'provocative', 'insensitive' and 'asking for trouble' if I had done so.) The Rally was to be addressed by Prof Steve, Glyn Ford (a Labour Euro-MP) and Brian Richardson (the national leader of the popularly-titled Anti-Nazi League. Prominently displayed were the banners of various Trade Unions - reminiscent of the heady days of working class solidarity during the Miners' Strike of 1983.

Return to Top of Page

---

THE g FACTOR Newsletter

May 15, 1996

Edinburgh University Provost of Law & Social Science, Professor Neil MacCormick, is now implicitly accusing Britain's top scientific journal, 'Nature' (London), of incorrectly reporting the brief of the 'Inquiry' into the Brand affair. The Provost now denies in correspondence that the 'Inquiry' has anything to do with the students feeling "uncomfortable" in my lectures. His argument with 'Nature' was brought to light by a Canadian psychologist, Professor John Furedy .

As a lawyer - indeed, a distinguished student of jurisprudence - Professor MacCormick must be terrified as to where all this is leading. My own understanding is that the 'Nature' report was correct. The 'Inquiry' was in fact set up as an Inquisition into anything and everything that any student, past or present, wished to throw at me. However, it will be good to see Professor McCormick moving publicly to delimit its terms of reference. It will also be good to know whether members of the `Inquiry' team have in fact read my book, THE g FACTOR, which was the cause of the inquisition being set up. The book would show team members what I try to teach and thus help explain some of the difficulties which I inevitably encounter in lecturing to students of dogmatic social-environmentalist persuasions.

Return to Top of Page

---

Civil (Please!) outrage may be addressed to Ms. Susan Spilka, Manager of Corporate Communications at Wiley US.

---