Title
Charles Murray,
Opinion Journal,
Jan 18, 2007
"Half of all children are below average in intelligence." Strictly speaking, this is false. And like this misleading observation, the author's point will resonate: 'There is no reason to believe that raising intelligence significantly and permanently is a current policy option, no matter how much money we are willing to spend." The paean is, of course, for an elitist school system - money should not be spent helping children who simply cannot do better. The folly of this article (and the other two that follow: part two, part three, is the presupposition that intelligence is genetic. And that it is therefore the basis for discrimination.
Murray's position is not only factually wrong, it is morally repugnant. "The gifted should not be taught to be nonjudgmental; they need to learn how to make accurate judgments," writes Murray in part three. As though there were a contradiction in these two positions. As though it is wrong to say that making accurate judgments just means being non-judgmental, that it just means respecting the intelligence even of those branded, stupidly, as unintelligent. No person is a stone; no neural structure is immutable (death is the proof of that). Via Christian Long.
Murray's position is not only factually wrong, it is morally repugnant. "The gifted should not be taught to be nonjudgmental; they need to learn how to make accurate judgments," writes Murray in part three. As though there were a contradiction in these two positions. As though it is wrong to say that making accurate judgments just means being non-judgmental, that it just means respecting the intelligence even of those branded, stupidly, as unintelligent. No person is a stone; no neural structure is immutable (death is the proof of that). Via Christian Long.
Today: 1 Total: 83 [Direct link] [Share]
