IQ and PC.

Publishers have become more concerned with their reputations than with disseminating the truth.

ONE hallmark of modern civil society is its commitment to a free exchange of ideas and viewpoints. Scholars often depend upon unfettered access to colleagues' research. The suppression of peer-reviewed material not only restricts the dissemination of scientific findings, but also jeopardizes the academic tradition of free inquiry. Such constraints on open debate threaten the autonomy of free institutions.

Reputable publishers serve as gatekeepers by determining which manuscripts are worthy of publication. The decision to publish a manuscript involves several factors: the author's credibility, the validity of the specific work in question, the book's likely marketability and profitability, and so on. Another critical factor, however, can be the pressure of political correctness. Publishers, fearful of losing access to distributors and wholesalers -- and, through them, to the indispensable booksellers -- are reluctant to issue books that challenge the prevailing orthodoxy of social taboos. This places politically correct constraints on what major houses consider "safe" to publish.

One leading publisher of academic titles, for instance, no longer even considers studies that examine racial differences in IQ, even though the American Psychological Association issued a task-force report last year that accepts the reality of these differences. This distinguished panel of experts concluded:

The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socioeconomic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential.

Last July, John Wiley & Sons declined to publish Arthur R. Jensen's latest work, The g Factor, after reviewing it for ten months. Jensen's eight-hundred-page tome provides detailed evidence for a general level of intelligence, or g, as it was called by Charles Spearman, the pioneering British psychologist. Two of the book's fourteen chapters consider possible genetic and environmental explanations for racial differences in IQ. Even though the book received favorable reviews from independent referees, including one who stated that it could be the definitive study on general intelligence for years to come, and though it was supported by the publisher's psychology editor, Jensen received a brief letter simply stating that Wiley had decided to reject The g Factor.

When asked why Wiley decided not to publish Prof. Jensen's book, Susan Spilka, Wiley's Manager of Corporate Communications, replied, "I have no idea and we'll probably never know. Chances are it wasn't a quality factor." Furthermore, Miss Spilka noted that the rejection of Prof. Jensen's book was a "very deliberate decision" since Wiley does "not want to publish in this field."

These views merely confirm the suspicions that scholars had last spring when, in an unprecedented move, Wiley retracted another work on general intelligence after review copies and pre-paid backorders had already been distributed. Wiley dropped Christopher Brand's The g Factor: General Intelligence and Its Implications, two days before its official publication date. Brand, a lecturer in psychology at the University of Edinburgh, examines the significance of general mental ability, the degree to which it is inherited, and the reasons why society must recognize the reality of innate individual differences. What exactly prompted Wiley to try to suppress a book that was already available in British bookstores and has been acquired by several academic libraries?

In a newspaper interview just before the book's release, Brand rejected the idea that environmental explanations alone can fully account for racial differences in IQ. Defying the conventional wisdom, he stated that these differences are "deep-seated" and probably genetic in origin. He also suggested that in order to curb high rates of illegitimacy among the underclass, black teens should refrain from casual sexual encounters, and he argued that when it comes to relationships, intelligence is an important trait that one should value in others. In a long and candid interview, Brand denied that he was a "racist," but added that it his views could be described as those of a "scientific racist."

The next day Wiley issued a press release stating that it had decided to abandon their publishing arrangement with Brand. Susan Spilka noted that in the light of Brand's offhand remarks one could easily misconstrue certain aspects of his book. But when asked to identify the specific passages in question Miss Spilka replied, "I'd prefer not to get into details on that. Wiley is not comfortable with being the publisher." She added that Wiley believes the book deserves to be published -- but by someone else.

Many scholars regard Brand's work as an insightful summary of current studies on intelligence. Brand reviews the evidence for g in a broad philosophical context, explaining abstruse concepts, like speed of mental measurement, in practical terms. He explains why the results of certain experiments support the concept of general intelligence, scrutinizes popular criticisms of IQ tests, and recommends utilizing IQ research as a way of improving educational policies.

Moreover, Brand considers whether or not rising IQ scores reflect actual increases in general intelligence. Some researchers like James R. Flynn, a political philosopher at the University of Otago in New Zealand, attribute this rise to improvements in nutrition and the quality of the home environment. As Newsweek reported last May, Flynn and others believe that the 15-point black - white gap in IQ scores may be narrowing. The explanation of the actual cause of this 15-point differential remains one of the most sought-after things in IQ research.

Wiley's treatment of Brand and Jensen has set off a storm of criticism within the scientific community. A whole range of scholars have criticized Wiley's actions, including Flynn; Thomas J. Bouchard, professor of Psychology at the University of Minnesota; and Cambridge University psychologist Nicholas J. Mackintosh. The National Association of Scholars has issued a joint statement with Canada's Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship, noting that this "seriously impedes the free flow of ideas, chills the academic climate, and encourages efforts to suppress opinions of every stripe." In Brand's case, even some who disagree with his views, such as the principal of Edinburgh University, Sir Stewart Sutherland, believe that Wiley should have honored its publishing agreement.

ARE the Jensen and Brand incidents merely isolated cases, or are they part of an emerging pattern of rejections of controversial manuscripts under peculiar circumstances?

Michael Levin, professor of philosophy at City College of New York and the author of two published books, experienced similar difficulties with his controversial manuscript Why Race Matters: Race Differences and Their Implications. An exhaustive critique of egalitarianism, Why Race Matters probes the social consequences of race differences in meticulous detail. Dozens of publishers have rejected this manuscript, including several academic houses that initially seemed interested. (Praeger has now agreed to publish Levin's book later this year.)

One of the editors to whom Levin sent his manuscript was at the University of Oklahoma Press. The editor seemed enthusiastic about publishing it and, following customary academic-publishing practice, sent it to two independent referees. Months passed before the editor finally notified Levin that a third referee would have to review his work. When the editor started failing to return Prof. Levin's calls, it became clear that after 15 months the press was unwilling to publish his book. As it turns out, two out of the three reviews were favorable.

"I had a very interesting definite no from Yale University Press," Levin recalls. "My agent sent them the first chapter and, amazingly, they asked to see the rest of the manuscript. So I sent the rest of the manuscript, and I got it back before I got the little postcard saying, 'We've received your manuscript.' They read three sentences and all had heart failure and immediately put the radioactive thing back in the mail before it could contaminate the office."

Fortune columnist Daniel Seligman encountered similar problems in his efforts to publish his 1992 book, A Question of Intelligence. The book was acquired by Whittle Communications and then canceled late in the editing process. Christopher Whittle, who was initially enthusiastic enough to give Seligman a sizable advance, canceled publication, apparently to avoid any controversy that could have adversely affected his investments in educational reform. Seligman walked away with both Whittle's advance and his initial manuscript, which Birch Lane Press published in 1992.

J. Philippe Rushton, a former Guggenheim fellow and now professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, is the author of nearly two hundred published research papers and six books. Rushton contends that human differences resulting from evolutionary factors can explain diverse patterns of human behavior. His work stems from data analysis involving dozens of variables that shows consistent global patterns of racial differences in physical and behavioral traits. Rushton submitted the results of one study, which showed average racial differences in head size, to Behavioral Brain Research, a prestigious journal in the neurosciences. Rushton's study passed the peer-review process and several levels of editing. However, the publisher, Holland's Elsevier Science, intervened and pulled the paper in the final proof stages. The intervention by a publisher in the affairs of an academic journal, overriding the judgment of the journal's editor as well as independent referees, is extremely uncommon.

Rushton's most recent book, Race, Evolution, and Behavior, expands upon his controversial theory of racial differences. Before Transaction decided to publish it, Rushton ran into difficulties with Cambridge University Press. He had a signed contract with CUP, but when the editors saw the emphasis the manuscript placed on race, they kept Rushton dangling for many months, and then canceled the contract. Moreover, after Transaction published the book, Canadian customs officials blocked its entry into Canada for nine months on the grounds that it constituted "hate literature."

Shortly after Arthur Jensen's seminal work Bias in Mental Testing was published, Jensen was asked by the editor of The Free Press to write another book covering the same material in layman's terms. Straight Talk about Mental Tests appeared in 1981, one year after Bias in Mental Testing, and it generated numerous reviews and steady retail sales. Once it appeared in paperback, some college professors started using it as a supplemental textbook for their undergraduates.

A staff change at The Free Press during the 1980s affected the handling of Jensen's popular book. Although it was still in print, customers were told that it was "unavailable," and ads that once promoted it stopped appearing in trade catalogues. Why would a publisher let a book go out of print when it was still selling strongly? Once Jensen considered legal action, The Free Press made the book available again. Fifteen years after it first appeared, Straight Talk remains in print.

There was a similar incident involving Jensen's often-cited 1969 Harvard Educational Review article, "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" Jensen's article was one of the most publicized in the history of academe, provoking a series of rebuttals and seminars. On average, scholarly papers published in academic journals generate fewer than 25 reprint requests. Jensen received thousands of reprint requests for this book-length article, and, after depleting his own supply, he started referring such inquiries to the Harvard Educational Review. The Review initially refused to fulfill these requests. Jensen had to retain a lawyer to negotiate a deal with the Review, under which it continues to provide copies of the article and he receives half of the annual sale proceeds.

In defending its decision not to publish Jensen's latest book, Wiley noted that unsolicited manuscripts are rejected quite frequently. However, it would seem reasonable for a reputable scholar to expect some explanation as to why, despite positive reviews and the support of the publisher's editor, his work was discarded.

When The Free Press published The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein, some IQ experts thought that once such a comprehensive and lucid account of IQ research captured the public's attention, the controversial implications of these findings would no longer remain taboo. Moreover, given the level of public interest in The Bell Curve (over 500,000 copies in print), one would think that any publishing obstacles on IQ-related matters would now be minimized. Think again.