The Appeal of Charles Murray

Like a white knight (and I mean that in every sense of the phrase), Chuck Murray rides to the rescue of Larry Summers and all who would like to believe that innate genetic differences between men and women, and between whites and people of color, are the real culprits behind inequality in America. Atrios has done the dirty work of destroying Murray here, and you can find links to other critics here.

The question that interests me is how and why Murray and his ilk manage to recur so often, especially among those who should know better. Scott has done an excellent job of debunking the latest claptrap about women and math, this time from Larry Summers and his apparent waterboy, Lord Saletan. Certainly, applying the aroma of science can make even shit smell better to those who don’t take the time to consider basic issues of causation or rudimentary statistical techniques. Nonetheless, I’m inclined to believe that there’s something else going on; the Saletans and Summers of the world find this type of argument attractive because it explains otherwise difficult and contradictory facts.

Consider: Believing that the causes of inequality are social, and not genetic, means accepting that the basic institutions of American democracy and American capitalism are in some very important way corrupt. This is perhaps not such a difficult thing to accept; there are lots of rednecks in Birmingham, for example, who believe noxious things about women and people of color. However, things aren’t that easy for our Summers and Saletan, because the institutions of academia and journalism are often no more representative (and sometimes less) than the other institutions of American life. Being part of academia, I know that I and my comrades prefer to think of the institution as meritocratic. It is troubling and difficult to accept that even this institution, near and dear to our hearts, chock full of the liberal coastal elite, is shot through with racism and misogyny. I don’t doubt that Lord Saletan feels the same way about the journalistic profession. Accepting that genetics cannot explain inequality in academia means accepting that there is something ugly about academia, which is dreadfully difficult to do.

But it goes one step further. The ideology of meritocracy dominates every institution of American life. The successful in any position like to believe that they win because they are good. The less capable are left behind because they are, well, less capable. Accepting that racism and misogyny corrupt our institutions means abandoning this meritocratic fantasy. When we do that, uncomfortable questions about our own positions within these institutions arise. We prefer to think that racism and misogyny exist in the hearts of our prototypical Alabama redneck. Accepting first that such attitudes exist within our own halls, and second that we ourselves may owe our positions to such corruption is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do. If our institutions are not meritocratic, then our presence at the top of those institutions may not be evidence of our merit. It is far easier, of course, to simply shake our heads and accept that women and people of color, with the exceptions of some prominent individuals, just aren’t quite as good as the rest of us, the rest of us being white men. This is why the trolls still come gunning for Atrios whenever he suggests Murray may not be up to snuff.

A few years ago at a political science conference, I was part of a discussion with several prominent political scientists regarding the foreign policy team of the first W administration. The conversation about each individual followed this pattern: “Dick Cheney? Yeah, he’s a real asshole, but he’s also one hell of a smart guy.” Heads nodded. Virtually the same process was repeated for Wolfowitz, Powell, Armitage, and Rumsfeld. Condoleeza Rice, however, did not merit quite the same respect. Indeed, the mention of Condi was responded to universally by the grim shaking of heads; her qualifications, or lack thereof, were better left undiscussed. One individual broke the silence and opined that “She’s not very bright.” The conversation then moved forward.

Now, I tend to believe that Condoleeza Rice has demonstrated herself to be dangerously unqualified for the position she has attained. However, I think that every other member of the administration’s foreign policy team has demonstrated the same thing. Moreover, I don’t think it’s accidental that Condi drew the ire of the political scientists more than Rummy or Cheney, and I don’t think it had anything to do with her tenure at Stanford.

Without going into a tremendous amount of detail, I would submit that such beliefs are pervasive even in the liberal ivory tower of academia. When they think no one is listening, men blame their inability to get jobs on affirmative action policies, apparently not noticing that political science as a field remains dominated by white men. The evaluation of job candidates and of graduate students are colored, sometimes heavily, by unspoken assumptions about race and gender. If such attitudes prevail even in the most left wing institutions of the country, I have no doubt that they prevail in every other institution, and that they go a long way to explaining the inequality that so puzzles Summers and Saletan.