Phony diversity

[Ishmael]

Walter Williams

August 27, 2002

Phony diversity

You've written a tuition check, carted your son or daughter off to college, given those last minute admonitions and made those tearful good byes. For those thousands of dollars, the anguish of seeing your 17- or 18-year-old pack up and leave home for the first time, and entrusting him to some strangers, what are some of the things you
might expect? One thing for sure is that your youngster will encounter and be bombarded with diversity newspeak.

Diversity is a big buzzword on college and university campuses. Diversity has fogged and claimed the minds of campus administrators so much so that they've created diversity fiefdoms. Harvard University Medical School has an Office for Diversity and Community Partnership. Brown University has a Diversity Institute. UC Berkeley
has a Diversity Committee and a Diversity Officer. At George Mason University, where I teach, there's a Diversity Advisory Board and an Office for Diversity Programs and Services. At most colleges and universities, there's a diversity or multiculturalism agenda to propagandize students.

According to Merriam Webster's dictionary, diversity means: diverseness, multifariousness, multiformity, multiplicity and variousness. The opposite of diversity is uniformity or identity. For the bulk of universities and colleges, diversity means race quotas, sex quotas and programs to insure that representative forms of sexual deviancy become an accepted norm. To insure this politically correct vision of campus life, there's one form of diversity that can't be tolerated. That's ideological and political diversity; there must be uniformity and identity.

According to Karl Zinsmeister's article "The Shame of America's One-Party Campuses" in The American Enterprise (September 2002), campus political, and hence ideological, diversity is all but absent. Mr. Zinsmeister sampled faculty political affiliation obtained from local voter registration records at several universities. He classified faculty who registered as Democratic, Green or Working Families Party as members of the party of the Left and those registered as Republicans or Libertarians as members of the party of the Right.

The results were: Brown University, 5 percent of faculty were members of the party of the Right; at Cornell it was 3 percent; Harvard, 4 percent; Penn State, 17 percent; Stanford University, 11 percent; UCLA, 6 percent; and at UC Santa Barbara, 1 percent. There are other universities in the survey; however, the pattern is the same -- a faculty dominated by leftist ideology. In some departments, such as Women's Studies, African-American Studies, Political Science, Sociology, History and English, the entire faculty is leftist. When it came to the 2000 election, 84 percent of Ivy League faculty voted for Al Gore, 6 percent for Ralph Nader and 9 percent for
George Bush. In the general electorate, the vote was split at 48 percent for Gore and Bush, and 3 percent for Nader. Zinsmeister concludes that one would find much greater political diversity at a grocery store or on a city bus.

So what does all this mean? It means your son or daughter will be taught that the Founders of United States were racists and sexists; capitalism is a tool used to oppress women and minorities; literature and philosophy written by "dead white men" is a tool of exploitation, one person's vision of reality is just as valid as another's, one set of cultural values (maybe the Taliban's) is just as good as another, poverty is caused by rich people, and America is destroying the planet.

Americans as taxpayers and donors have been far too generous, and carelessly so, with colleges and universities. It's high time we began to demand accountability, not only in the area of ideological diversity, but in academic honesty and excellence as well. In my opinion, there is nothing that opens the closed minds of academic
administrators better than sounds of pocketbooks snapping shut.

--------------------------------------------------

 

[Ishmael]

A monolithic political mentality in any major institution is not desirable. The concept of checks and balances goes down the drain along with any intellectual debate. It's even more frightening to find this in the institutions of higher learning. This is where the honest presentation of conflicting views is most important. While it is up to the student to make the final decision, it is the institutions obligation to intellectual honesty to at least make available to the student all of the alternatives.

My youngest son recently graduated from college. He's basically of a conservative bent. But he learned early on to sublimate his own beliefs and thoughts to that of the professor if he wanted to keep his GPA high enough to maintain his scholarship. In some of the "social" electives he was not graded on the quality of his critical thought, but how well he was able to 'parrot' the beliefs of the professor. In that respect the courses weren't altogether different than the political indoctrination classes of the former Soviet Union, or the current Chinese regime.

A republic can not long stand without diversity of political views. The long term prognosis is not very bright unless the various states use their financial clout to bring a balance of views to the lecture hall.

Ishmael

 

[Guest]

So, how exactly do you think this situation came about?

 

[Ishmael]

So, how exactly do you think this situation came about?

It started in the seventies with the campus radicals of the Viet Nam era. Up until that time the universtities were fairly well balanced as to political beliefs. In the interest of diversity many of these radicals were brought into the universtiy system. As they gained tenure, instead of recruiting new professor's across the political spectrum, they recruited those of the same beliefs. In other words, the door was opened for them, but once they were inside they slammed the door behind them. There was an excellent article written on this very subject by no less than an old line liberal who was ashamed of the new breeds performance in regard to intellectual honesty.

J. Patrick Moynihan, who couldn't not be considered conservative by any stretch of the imagination, has commented in much the same vein.

Ishmael

 

[SamEyeAm]

Conclusion:

The vast majority of highly intelligent, educated citizens reject the conservative philosophy.


(This was just too good to resist.)

 

[MechaBlade]

Or it could mean that there are there is a hidden tie between liberalism and intellectualism. Plus, who is saying more money to schools? Liberals or Conservatives? The only time conservatives will mention schools is when they advocate vouchers or prayer in them.

Believe me, there are many campuses that sway towards the right. But the idea of a diverse University that is meant to challenge the way you think is a liberal idea.

So what does all this mean? It means your son or daughter will be taught that the Founders of United States were racists and sexists; capitalism is a tool used to oppress women and minorities; literature and philosophy written by "dead white men" is a tool of exploitation, one person's vision of reality is just as valid as another's, one set of cultural values (maybe the Taliban's) is just as good as another, poverty is caused by rich people, and America is destroying the planet.

Not really. Although, most of that is somewhat true. The Founders were somewhat racist and sexist. A Black man counts as 3/5 of a person? Is that not racist? Women could not vote. Is that not sexist? Plus, America is destroying the planet. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we producing more waste and using more resources than any other country in the world? What's wrong with teaching young men and women to be tolerant and environmentally friendly? What's wrong with learning the beauty (and shame) of other cultures? Should every class be filled with patriotic "Go America!" speech?

What do you mean "capitalism is just a tool to oppress women and minorities"? Do you know how many socialist there are on these campuses or are you just equating liberalism with Marxism? Because we all know how Al Gore just wants to do away with all money and make America a capitalist country.

I wonder if you even went to college or if you are just pulling all this paranoid bullshit from movies of colleges in the 60's. I respect your right to be a conservative Republican and vote for cokeheads or even Buchanan. But I can't respect your right to be ignorant.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Ishmael
. . . While it is up to the student to make the final decision, it is the institutions obligation to intellectual honesty to at least make available to the student all of the alternatives. . .

The fact is that this will only happen if the institutions in question are run by people of intellectual and moral integrity. But that is the predominant failing of the left. They cannot be honest about what they truly offer economically and politically because any sane, self-respecting, honest man rejects it. Their only alternative, then, is dishonesty and indoctrination. And they are succeeding far too well.

 

[Sandia]

Conclusion:

The vast majority of highly intelligent, educated citizens reject the conservative philosophy.


(This was just too good to resist.)

It all goes back to the words of that great bumper-sticker: "Not all conservatives are stupid, but all stupid people are conservatives."

Seriously, I'm about 60% with you on this one, Ishmael.

Defining "diversity" in terms of race - exclusively - rather than in terms of background, experiences, ideology, or thoughts... is mind-defyingly stupid.

And I have enough experience in academia to recognize the rhetorical rigidity of higher education when it comes to race, affirmative action, tolerance, and "oppression."

But the true nature of liberal - intellectualism is critical and questioning; you will find more tolerance - on most issues - on college campuses than in any other place.

Where did your son go to school?

 

[Ishmael]

The fact is that this will only happen if the institutions in question are run by people of intellectual and moral integrity. But that is the predominant failing of the left. They cannot be honest about what they truly offer economically and politically because any sane, self-respecting, honest man rejects it. Their only alternative, then, is dishonesty and indoctrination. And they are succeeding far too well.

So true. And, as noted by some of the preceding posts, there is a more than casual tie in some minds to 'intellectualism' and the fact that someone has a job teaching at a universtiy. The two are not mutually inclusive. Nor is it necessarily a fact that a group of like minded people sitting around feeding off of each others 'idea's' is an intellectual excersize in the search for the truth. More an instance of adolescents who happen to agree that the color yellow is superior and everyone must wear yellow or be ostracized from the group.

It astounds me that so many believe the creme de la creme are in the universities when for the most part they are in private industry. Having stayed in the university system inorder to evade the draft does not necessarily make one a great thinker. Or even mediocre. But for many it is like a religion. Taken on faith alone.

The false egalitarianism of the university environment alone should be a red flag. But the students don't really get to see the inner political environment or the closed mindedness that is endemic to most of the institutions.

Ishmael


Ishmael

 

[miles]

What wonderful, insightful gems these are:

The vast majority of highly intelligent, educated citizens reject the conservative philosophy


The only time conservatives will mention schools is when they advocate vouchers or prayer in them.


But I can't respect your right to be ignorant.

The apocalypse is upon us.

 

[70/30]

Maybe some of them recognized that GWB isn't particularly intelligent and has no experience in the international arena. I'd like to see what college profs thought about George SR vs Clinton and Dukakis.

 

[Ishmael]

It all goes back to the words of that great bumper-sticker: "Not all conservatives are stupid, but all stupid people are conservatives."

Seriously, I'm about 60% with you on this one, Ishmael.

Defining "diversity" in terms of race - exclusively - rather than in terms of background, experiences, ideology, or thoughts... is mind-defyingly stupid.

And I have enough experience in academia to recognize the rhetorical rigidity of higher education when it comes to race, affirmative action, tolerance, and "oppression."

But the true nature of liberal - intellectualism is critical and questioning; you will find more tolerance - on most issues - on college campuses than in any other place.

Where did your son go to school?

The problem is that diversity is defined, no not defined, worshipped, in all respects other than political leanings. The Conservative point of view is not to be tolerated. Why should a professor of mathmatics, or physics, or anthropology be questioned concerning his/her political leanings in a sob interview? That is exactly what is occurring today.

"Tolerance" is far to overrated. There is a cultural ethic in play and to exceed those boundries is not good for the institution or society. If the goal is cultural inclusion and eventual assimilation that is one thing. If the goal is cultural sepratism that is another altogether. Cultural sepratism as practiced at most institutions is the encouragement of "Balkanization". The very practice of which is to rip the fabric of society assunder.

There are cultures whose beliefs and practices are so foriegn to one another as to be immiscible. And while the more 'enlightened' group celebrates this great cultural pot pourri, the other group is plotting the destruction of the 'enlightened' group. It's as if all of history can be forgotten because we're going to do the same thing again, only this time it will turn out different because we're smarter and more enlightened.

It seems that all the writings of the ancients are as if they didn't exist. Well, get a clue folks. There is nothing new under the sun regarding man's relationship to his fellow man. And while there are certainly practices that were employed by the ancients that we will not tolerate today, to think that they were less observant of the nature of man is to make a serious error in judgement. If anything, they were probably more discerning. Mainly because they didn't piss their time away on TV, radio, or the internet.

Ishmael

 

[takingchances42]

Too true, Ishmael, thanks for taking the time to write that out. Universities should be center of debate and competition of ideas. Unfortunately, freedom of speech and freedom of thought are endangered species there.

 

[Wrong Element]

Quote: "To insure this politically correct vision of campus life, there's one form of diversity that can't be tolerated. That's ideological and political diversity; there must be uniformity and identity."

Is the author implying that conservatives are somehow being shut out of academia? And if so, where is his evidence? A similar survey of corporate boardrooms or NASCAR drivers would show an opposite ideology holds sway. So what's the point? If conservatives don't want to go into teaching and research, we can't very well force them. Unless Walter Williams is calling for quotas in academia, which would be an interesting and ironic turn of events.

Quote: "So what does all this mean? It means your son or daughter will be taught that the Founders of United States were racists and sexists; capitalism is a tool used to oppress women and minorities; literature and philosophy written by "dead white men" is a tool of exploitation, one person's vision of reality is just as valid as another's, one set of cultural values (maybe the Taliban's) is just as good as another, poverty is caused by rich people, and America is destroying the planet."

Utter bullshit. I went to a major university, and if I had a single professor who was opposed to the capitalist system, he or she certainly kept it a secret (though I do recall with some fondness an economics professor who said he didn't like Ronald Reagan because "I think he's entirely too liberal".) The idea that all or even most people who identify as Democrats believe such things is ridiculous, and a sign that "academic honesty" takes a back seat to cheap polemics for Mr. Williams.

 

[70/30]

If you are worried about impressing the intellects, nominate an intellect. Easy, simple, do it...GWB has "aides" from all around telling him what to do. He is not skilled enough to be president in 2002, you practically need to be the Wizard of Oz, GWB is closer to Uncle Henry.

 

[Ishmael]

If you are worried about impressing the intellects, nominate an intellect. Easy, simple, do it...GWB has "aides" from all around telling him what to do. He is not skilled enough to be president in 2002, you practically need to be the Wizard of Oz, GWB is closer to Uncle Henry.

This keeps coming up and I, for one, would like to hear the source of all this. Other than James Carveille that is.

Gore flunked out of virtually every school he attended. Bush graduated from every school he attended.

The Gore family has every bit of the financial wherewithall of the Bush family. (And the Gore families money is in the petroleum business too. Occidental Petroleum to be precise.) So the mantra of "He bought his way through school." is just so much more bullshit as to defy reason. And if the Bush family was smart enough to 'buy' GW's way through, but the Gore family wasn't, what does that say?

It's the "big lie" right out of Hitler's play book. To say "I think he's stupid." is one thing. To state that as a universal truism is quite another. Put up, or shut up.

Ishmael

 

[takingchances42]

This keeps coming up and I, for one, would like to hear the source of all this. Other than James Carveille that is.

Gore flunked out of virtually every school he attended. Bush graduated from every school he attended.

The Gore family has every bit of the financial wherewithall of the Bush family. (And the Gore families money is in the petroleum business too. Occidental Petroleum to be precise.) So the mantra of "He bought his way through school." is just so much more bullshit as to defy reason. And if the Bush family was smart enough to 'buy' GW's way through, but the Gore family wasn't, what does that say?

It's the "big lie" right out of Hitler's play book. To say "I think he's stupid." is one thing. To state that as a universal truism is quite another. Put up, or shut up.

Ishmael

Mr. Ishmael,

I was quite disturbed by the contents of your "essay". You rely on what you view as being "facts" and "logic", ignoring that this is a discredited method used by males of European descent. What matters is outcome and how people feel about it. Your views are insulting to me, and to those of many of your classmates. You are hereby given an "F" for this essay and course, and asked to withdraw from our fine University. You may re-apply for admission after spending sufficient time at the appropriate re-education camp.

 

[Ishmael]

Mr. Ishmael,

I was quite disturbed by the contents of your "essay". You rely on what you view as being "facts" and "logic", ignoring that this is a discredited method used by males of European descent. What matters is outcome and how people feel about it. Your views are insulting to me, and to those of many of your classmates. You are hereby given an "F" for this essay and course, and asked to withdraw from our fine University. You may re-apply for admission after spending sufficient time at the appropriate re-education camp.

Mea culpa, mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.

Ishmael

 

[Cheyenne]

Mr. Ishmael,

I was quite disturbed by the contents of your "essay". You rely on what you view as being "facts" and "logic", ignoring that this is a discredited method used by males of European descent. What matters is outcome and how people feel about it. Your views are insulting to me, and to those of many of your classmates. You are hereby given an "F" for this essay and course, and asked to withdraw from our fine University. You may re-apply for admission after spending sufficient time at the appropriate re-education camp.

Beautiful.

Except I'd add that FEMALES of "European descent" are guilty, too.

 

[miles]

It's the "big lie" right out of Hitler's play book. To say "I think he's stupid." is one thing. To state that as a universal truism is quite another. Put up, or shut up.

Ishmael

What do you expect, facts?

Sheesh. Some people.

 

[takingchances42]

Beautiful.

Except I'd add that FEMALES of "European descent" are guilty, too.

I would hope that ALL thinking people are guilty. But thanks for your kind words and gender correction, Cheyenne...

 

[Ishmael]

What do you expect, facts?

Sheesh. Some people.

I know, I know. It's a character fault.

Ishmael

 

[70/30]

Where were you all when THE EAGLE CRASH LANDED? For some reason I think GWB wouldn't be president if his name was JEB, it would point out his flaws too much. Tell me what Ivy league course you think GWB would be successful at teaching. I think you all are at least as smart as GWB(except for Cheyenne of course). I think Rumsfeld and Cheney have more control over the administration than GWB, both through emotional willpower and technical knowledge. Really I'd much rather see Ari Fleischer in the Oval Office. This article is about as middle of the road as I can post on it:

Bush gets bad rap on intelligence
By Aubrey Immelman
Times columnist

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed ...
— W. B. Yeats, "The Second Coming"

A week from today, the sun will rise on the second Bush presidency in a generation, in what for some may be a day of trepidation. Does Bush the Younger have what it takes to lead the nation in the new millennium?

It's a question that transcends concerns about George W. Bush's conservatism or a path to power marred by youthful indiscretions. It's not about ideology or character; it's a question of cognitive capacity.

The Spanish physician Juan Huarte in 1575 proposed one of the earliest recorded definitions of intelligence: learning ability, imaginativeness and good judgment. Undoubtedly, the mantle of the modern U.S. presidency imposes a steep learning curve and demands vision, wisdom and discretion.

Equally clear is this: Sheer intellectual brilliance does not cut it in the Oval Office.

In terms of brute brainpower, the smartest postwar presidents were Richard Nixon, a Duke Law School graduate with a reported IQ of 143; Jimmy Carter, who graduated in the top 10 percent of his Naval Academy class; and Rhodes scholar Bill Clinton, a graduate of Georgetown University and Yale Law School. Deeply flawed presidencies all, despite their potential.

In contrast, take high school graduate Harry Truman — railroad worker, clerk, bookkeeper, farmer, road inspector and small-town postmaster — or Ronald Reagan, sports announcer and B-list actor with mediocre college credentials.

Despite their intellectual limitations, both achieved substantial political success as president. And, to press home the point, there is Franklin D. Roosevelt, a top-tier president in rankings of historical greatness, whom the late Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes branded "a second-rate intellect but a first-class temperament."

Huarte's notion of intelligence comprises a mix of mental acumen and emotional discernment that provides a sound foundation for modern-day presidential success.

To put it bluntly, the president need not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but he does need a full deck of cards. He must be comfortable in his own skin, free of emotional demons, and surround himself with competent people. With apologies to Saturday Night Live's Stuart Smalley, the successful president need not be a towering giant, he just needs to be good enough, smart enough — and, doggone-it, people must like him.

George W. Bush can be likable and charming. But, as the New York Times pondered in a front-page article on June 19, 2000, "is he smart enough to be president?"

Unlike John F. Kennedy, who obtained an IQ score of 119, or Al Gore, who achieved scores of 133 and 134 on intelligence tests taken at the beginning of his high school freshman and senior years, no IQ data are available for George W. Bush. But we do know that the young Bush registered a score of 1206 on the SAT, the most widely used test of college aptitude. (The more cerebral Al Gore obtained 1355.)

Statistically, Bush's test performance places him in the top 16 percent of prospective college students — hardly the mark of a dimwit. Of course, the SAT is not designed as an IQ test. But it is highly correlated with general intelligence, to the tune of .80. In plain language, the SAT is two parts a measure of general intelligence and one part a measure of specific scholastic reasoning skills and abilities.

If Bush could score in the top 16 percent of college applicants on the SAT, he would almost certainly rank higher on tests of general intelligence, which are normed with reference to the general population. But even if his rank remained constant at the 84th-percentile level of his SAT score, it would translate to an IQ score of 115.

It's tempting to employ Al Gore's IQ:SAT ratio of 134:1355 as a formula for estimating Bush's probable intelligence quotient — an exercise in fuzzy statistics that predicts a score of 119. If the number sounds familiar, it's precisely the IQ score attributed to Kennedy, whom Princeton political scientist Fred Greenstein, in "The Presidential Difference," commended as "a quick study, whose wit was an indication of a subtle mind."

As a final clue to Bush's cognitive capacity, consider data from Joseph Matarazzo's leading text on intelligence and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: The average IQ is about 105 for high school graduates, 115 for college graduates and 125 for people with advanced professional degrees. With his MBA from Harvard Business School, it's not unreasonable to assume that Bush's IQ surpasses the 115 of the average bachelor's-degree-only college graduate.

George W. Bush has often been underestimated. Almost certainly, he's received a bad rap on the count of cognitive capacity. Indications are that, in the arena of mental ability, Bush is in the same league as John F. Kennedy, who graduated 65th in his high-school class of 110 and, in the words of one biographer, "stumbled through Latin, French, mathematics, and English but made respectable marks in physics and history."

The feisty, sometimes-irreverent Bush's mental acuity may lack a little of the sharpness of his tongue, but plainly it is sharp enough. The real test for the president-elect will be whether he possesses the emotional intelligence — the triumph of reason over rigidity and restraint over impulse — to steer the course.

Aubrey Immelman is a political psychologist and an associate professor of psychology at the College of St. Benedict and St. John's University. You may write to him in care of the St. Cloud Times, P.O. Box 768, St. Cloud, MN 56302.

 

[miles]

Where were you all when THE EAGLE CRASH LANDED? For some reason I think GWB wouldn't be president if his name was JEB, it would point out his flaws too much. Tell me what Ivy league course you think GWB would be successful at teaching. I think you all are at least as smart as GWB(except for Cheyenne of course). I think Rumsfeld and Cheney have more control over the administration than GWB, both through emotional willpower and technical knowledge. Really I'd much rather see Ari Fleischer in the Oval Office. This article is about as middle of the road as I can post on it:

Bush gets bad rap on intelligence
By Aubrey Immelman
Times columnist

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed ...
— W. B. Yeats, "The Second Coming"

A week from today, the sun will rise on the second Bush presidency in a generation, in what for some may be a day of trepidation. Does Bush the Younger have what it takes to lead the nation in the new millennium?

It's a question that transcends concerns about George W. Bush's conservatism or a path to power marred by youthful indiscretions. It's not about ideology or character; it's a question of cognitive capacity.

The Spanish physician Juan Huarte in 1575 proposed one of the earliest recorded definitions of intelligence: learning ability, imaginativeness and good judgment. Undoubtedly, the mantle of the modern U.S. presidency imposes a steep learning curve and demands vision, wisdom and discretion.

Equally clear is this: Sheer intellectual brilliance does not cut it in the Oval Office.

In terms of brute brainpower, the smartest postwar presidents were Richard Nixon, a Duke Law School graduate with a reported IQ of 143; Jimmy Carter, who graduated in the top 10 percent of his Naval Academy class; and Rhodes scholar Bill Clinton, a graduate of Georgetown University and Yale Law School. Deeply flawed presidencies all, despite their potential.

In contrast, take high school graduate Harry Truman — railroad worker, clerk, bookkeeper, farmer, road inspector and small-town postmaster — or Ronald Reagan, sports announcer and B-list actor with mediocre college credentials.

Despite their intellectual limitations, both achieved substantial political success as president. And, to press home the point, there is Franklin D. Roosevelt, a top-tier president in rankings of historical greatness, whom the late Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes branded "a second-rate intellect but a first-class temperament."

Huarte's notion of intelligence comprises a mix of mental acumen and emotional discernment that provides a sound foundation for modern-day presidential success.

To put it bluntly, the president need not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but he does need a full deck of cards. He must be comfortable in his own skin, free of emotional demons, and surround himself with competent people. With apologies to Saturday Night Live's Stuart Smalley, the successful president need not be a towering giant, he just needs to be good enough, smart enough — and, doggone-it, people must like him.

George W. Bush can be likable and charming. But, as the New York Times pondered in a front-page article on June 19, 2000, "is he smart enough to be president?"

Unlike John F. Kennedy, who obtained an IQ score of 119, or Al Gore, who achieved scores of 133 and 134 on intelligence tests taken at the beginning of his high school freshman and senior years, no IQ data are available for George W. Bush. But we do know that the young Bush registered a score of 1206 on the SAT, the most widely used test of college aptitude. (The more cerebral Al Gore obtained 1355.)

Statistically, Bush's test performance places him in the top 16 percent of prospective college students — hardly the mark of a dimwit. Of course, the SAT is not designed as an IQ test. But it is highly correlated with general intelligence, to the tune of .80. In plain language, the SAT is two parts a measure of general intelligence and one part a measure of specific scholastic reasoning skills and abilities.

If Bush could score in the top 16 percent of college applicants on the SAT, he would almost certainly rank higher on tests of general intelligence, which are normed with reference to the general population. But even if his rank remained constant at the 84th-percentile level of his SAT score, it would translate to an IQ score of 115.

It's tempting to employ Al Gore's IQ:SAT ratio of 134:1355 as a formula for estimating Bush's probable intelligence quotient — an exercise in fuzzy statistics that predicts a score of 119. If the number sounds familiar, it's precisely the IQ score attributed to Kennedy, whom Princeton political scientist Fred Greenstein, in "The Presidential Difference," commended as "a quick study, whose wit was an indication of a subtle mind."

As a final clue to Bush's cognitive capacity, consider data from Joseph Matarazzo's leading text on intelligence and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: The average IQ is about 105 for high school graduates, 115 for college graduates and 125 for people with advanced professional degrees. With his MBA from Harvard Business School, it's not unreasonable to assume that Bush's IQ surpasses the 115 of the average bachelor's-degree-only college graduate.

George W. Bush has often been underestimated. Almost certainly, he's received a bad rap on the count of cognitive capacity. Indications are that, in the arena of mental ability, Bush is in the same league as John F. Kennedy, who graduated 65th in his high-school class of 110 and, in the words of one biographer, "stumbled through Latin, French, mathematics, and English but made respectable marks in physics and history."

The feisty, sometimes-irreverent Bush's mental acuity may lack a little of the sharpness of his tongue, but plainly it is sharp enough. The real test for the president-elect will be whether he possesses the emotional intelligence — the triumph of reason over rigidity and restraint over impulse — to steer the course.

Aubrey Immelman is a political psychologist and an associate professor of psychology at the College of St. Benedict and St. John's University. You may write to him in care of the St. Cloud Times, P.O. Box 768, St. Cloud, MN 56302.

So, what's the point?

 

[70/30]

One reason most Ivy League profs don't like GWB, he's not in their smart club and he doesn't portray an intrinsic inclination to be an intellect. He just knocks off Reagan, maybe it's the right thing but he isn't going to get praise in lectures for it.