MMENTS _mellariccBell Curve BustedIt should have come as no surpriseto anyone with any rudimentaryknowledge of either people or sci-ence that a new study has pretty~much repudiated the conclusions ofThe Bell Curve.Indeed, the only perplexing thingfor blacks and educated folk is how itever became an issue in the firstplace.As you will remember, that book,published in 1994 and subtitled, Jn-telligence and Class in AmericanLife, argued that much of intelli-gence, and therefore, criminal ten-dencies, are inherited and thatblacks, as a class, were more likely tofail economically and socially and tocommit crimes than whites.It also argued that, since these dif-ferences were the result of geneticinferiority, social programs to easethe effects of poverty or to preventcrime were a waste of time andmoney.Now, it had long been accepted inboth social science and geneticcircles that blacksT poor performanceon IQ and other standardized tests,as well as their overrepresentationin criminal justice circles, was due toenvironmental and economic factors,not race.Reputable scientists everywhereimmediately attacked the book, bothfor its shoddy treatment of scientificfact and for the fact that neither ofits authors had a solid background inthe sciences they cited.Actually, both Charles Murray, apsychologist, and the late RichardHerrnstein, a political scientist, hada strong political agenda in writingthe book, and rather than coming totheir conclusions after examining thefacts, picked and chose facts that fittheir theories.Although roundly rejected by aca-demia, the book was embraced in ul-traconservative circles as oscientific?vindication of what they knew allalong: blacks were inherently infe-rior and dangerous, and liberal socialprograms aimed at helping themwere a waste of the ogood, decent?(meaning white) taxpayersT money.The book and its authors were li-onized in conservative talk circlesand columnists for months after-ward, and it continues to be cited asa oscientific? work there.Will last weekTs study indicatinghow little intelligence is related togenetics make a difference?Probably not. There had been tonsof studies before The Bell Curvecame out, which came to the sameconclusion.Those who saw the book as a vin-dication for their personal prejudicesocial callousness will doubtless notbe impressed.Like the bookTs authors, theyknow what the otruth? is, and willchoose to remember only thoseofacts? that fit that view.So donTt be surprised if, in a fewmonths, you hear another commenta-tor citing The Bell Curve as gospel inpushing his or her pet theories.You just canTt teach some folks.Who knows? Maybe itTs genetic.Tax Breaks for Higher Education AGood BeginningThat most maligned and mostlytaxed portion of the American main-stream, AmericaTs working andmiddle-income families, received aglimmer of hope recently when Con-gress approved tax breaks for at-tending college which had been pro-posed by President Clinton.What is being hailed as a owater-shed event? in fact keeps the door ofopportunity open for individuals toimprove their economic statusthrough access to higher education.ThatTs the good side.The other, maybe not-so-good, sideof the coin appears to be a clear mes-sage to students that at least twoyears of college is the new educa-tional standard.This is an era when education be-yond high school is essential to com-pete for the best new jobs.But let us get back to the taxbreak at hand. The HOPE Scholar-ship, as it is termed, provides a taxcredit of up to $1,500 for the first twoyears of college for working andmiddle-income families, and is cer-tainly a powerful incentive that indi-cates college is available to each andevery American who works hard.Furthermore, the tax break forlifelong learning is the osleeper?item in the entire package, which of-fers a tax credit to juniors, seniors,graduate students, or those who takea course or two to enhance their jobskills.Students of all ages will get a 20percent tax credit on the first $5,000of tuition and fees through 2002, andthe first $10,000 of tuition and feesthereafter for every year they needit and use it.Several other measures supportedby the president that will help fami-lies to pay for college include oeduca-tion savings accounts? which allowfamilies to deposit $500 annually intoan IRA for each child under 18 to ac-cumulate tax-free earnings that canbe used for postsecondary educa-tional expenses.The bill will allow families to with-draw savings from their IRAs pen-alty-free for higher education.Another feature allows employersto provide employees up to $5,250 ineducational benefits per year that isexcluded from the employeeTs tax-able income.Finally, working and middle-in-come families will be able to deductinterest paid in the first 60 months ofrepayment for a government-backedstudent loan.And if statistics are any motiva-tion to you, the U.S. Department ofEducation projects that 341,000 stu-dents in North Carolina will benefitfrom these two new tax breaks forhigher education.Finally, let us remember that thisohand-up? is available to that seg-ment of American society that getsincome the oold fashioned way?T"they EARN it.And yes, we do agree, these aremuch belated and much needed waysand means to provide avenues togrowth and improvement for allAmericans.North Amenca Syndicate Aw ELHESATeinses@AOL COMNEWS BULLETIN: BEAUTY PAGEANT TO ALLOW TWO-PIECE SWIMSUITSThis Way forJae lxSmpowerment 3By Dr. Lenora FulaniWHY WELFARE-TO-WORK ISNTT WORKINGSince President ClintonTs signing of the welfare reformact -- the one his policy advisors told him to veto while hisoscore-points-at-all-costs? political advisors told him to sign -- moving welfare recipients from public assistance to jobshas become a government focus. In his State of the Unionaddress in February, Clinton called on corporate America tojoin in creating new partnerships with government to evolvewelfare-to-work programs. Things donTt appear to be goingso well.Recently, a front page Wall Street Journal article re-ported on what it called the omixed results? of one suchprogram undertaken by Sprint and AT&T in Kansas City,Missouri. These efforts -- loudly trumpeted by the WhiteHouse at the beginning -- have succeeded in placing a totalof seven workers at Sprint, one of whom was let go after thefirst week. AT&T hired one person whom they fired in twoweeks.These statistics do not bode well. And as you might ex-pect, various explanations have begun surfacing. One corpo-rate insider stated that the programs were ineffective be-cause corporate American wasnTt oready.? A supervisor atSprint said, oThere are welfare recipients who choose to suc-ceed and those who choose not to.? Can the same be said ofPresidents?With the success rate so low, a debate has arisen as towhich is the best method to effect welfare-to -work. Onecamp argues that you must train people before placing themin private sector jobs. The other presents the ojob first? argu-ment, where welfare recipients receive a one week crashcourse oriented toward employment basics, like getting towork on time, and not on job skills. This is the approach thatis gaining popularity with policy makers because it ischeaper and because oquick fix? statistics can be used todemonstrate how effectively the program is working.However, there is no quick fix here. The U.S. economyhas been structured over the long haul to be an economywithout full employment. While the range of unemploymentfluctuates between 3% and 7%, depending on various factors,there has always been -- by design -- a sector of Americansrelegated to being unemployed. This economic phenomenonhas historically helped, among other things, to keep wagesdown and, thereby, profits up.The welfare and unemployment programs adopted duringand after the Great Depression which institutionalized un-employment were based on policy makersT acceptance of thismacroeconomic feature of the U.S. economy. Not surpris-ingly an entire culture of being both unemployed and unem-ployable has evolved. Schools educate -- but not everyone --because unemployability is desirable. Welfare must discour-age self-reliance so that the demand for jobs and job trainingfrom within the permanent underclass will be muted. Thisinstitutionalized culture cannot and will not be overcome byojob-first? or even by otraining-first? approaches. *You cannot take a society -- business and the poor alike --socialized over lifetimes for intractable unemployment andthen, because the political climate now opposes Big Govern-ment spending create a few programs that will suddenlytransform the long-term unemployed into reliable workers.Political expediency is one thing Reality is quite another.Politicians of both major parties may hope to pick up votesoff a quick-fix approach to welfare reform, Buy until there isa serious, long-term and developmental approach that repu-diates political considerations and undertakes to readjust atevery level -- from the macroeconomic to the job training andplacement modality -- there will be no effective means ofmoving people from welfare to work.Lenora B. Fulani twice ran for President of the U.S. as anindependent, making history in 1988 when she became thefirst woman and African American to get on the ballot in allfifty states. Dr. Fulani is currently a leading activist in theReform Party and chairs the Committee for a Unified Inde-pendent Party. She can be reached at 800-288-3201.Other ViewpointsBY FRED A. BAUGHMAN, JR., M.D.Virtually all children who have appeared normal frombirth to the day we send them off to school are normal, andare capable of age and grade-appropriate literacy, numeracyand education. DonTt let anyone tell you otherwise.Problems arise at school because these children aren'tbetting an education. TheyTre getting psychologic/psychiatricdiagnosis and treatment instead. They get onew math,?owhile language,? and oinvented spelling,? the stuff of oOBET(outcome based education). This is not because these areproven educational methods, but because psychology andpsychiatry have seduced the university-based oexperts? inthe field of education into believing that psychiatry knowsbest how young minds work. Thus, they flit from one fad anduncontrolled experiment to the next -- with our children astheir captive subjects -- because their paychecks and tenureare never tied in the least to whether the children can readand are educated and prepared or not.In 1987, California officials adopted owhole language?(WL) methodology, to the exclusion of phonics (sounding out)to teach reading. On the 1992 National Assessment of Edu-cational Progress (NAEP) CaliforniaTs 4th graders tied forlast with Mississippi. California officials defended WL andresisted change. As if more proof were necessary, on the1994 NAEP, California 4th graders -- 86% of them less thanoproficient? -- were in sole possession of last place. Nor was ita minority problem, as apologists claimed;. Having fallenseven points since 1992, CaliforniaTs white 4th gradersranked last as well.Having failed to render students literate and capable ofself-education, are CaliforniaTs education officials acceptingthe blame? Are they looking at what works in home-school-ing, private schools or in the for-profit remediation industry,all booming, thanks to public education?No, they continue to blame the victims instead, callingthe children oabnormal,? oprocessing-disordered,? oMBD?(minimal brain damage), oLD? (learning disability), oED?(executive disorder), odyslexic,? odyscalculic,? etc. -- all of itimpugning the childrenTs brains, all of it without a shred ofscientific validity.Behind in reading and more unsure, anxious and fearfulwith each new semester, the children are given another label-- oADD? -- and a drug to go with it: Ritalin.In 1980, the American Psychiatric Association made alist of the most common symptoms of emotional distress ofschoolchildren, and in a stroke that could not be more devoidof science or Hippocratic motive, termed ADD a odisease?. In1987, to cast a wider net, they changed it -- not by sciencebut by vote -- to oADD with or without hyperactivity?(ADHD, which I will refer to simply as oADD?).The fundamental flaw here is that ADD has never beenproven to be a disease, or anything physical or biological.Asked if it was or not, Paul Leber, M.D., of the U.S. Foodand Drug Administration responded on December 22, 1994that oas yet no pathophysiology for the disorder has beendelineated.? Gene R. Haislip of the U.S.. Drug EnforcementAdministration responded on October 25, 1995: oWe are alsounaware that ADHD has been validated as a biologic/organicsyndrome or disease.?In their 1995 annual report, the International NarcoticsControl Board (INCB) of the United Nations warned that theworldwide production of methylphenindate (Ritalin) -- an ad-dictive, Schedule II drug -- had increased from 3.0 tons in1990 to 8.5 tons in 1994, with the U.S. accounting for 90%consumption. INCB also reported that a small percentage ofphysicians issue the majority of prescriptions and that abuseamongst adolescents had increased, along with reports ofserious damage to health.The INCB further cautioned that Ritalin is actively pro-moted by a oparent association? that has received significantcontributions from the manufacturer of the drug and urgedthat international conventions prohibiting the advertise-ment of controlled substances to the public must not be un-dermined by the activities of such oparent associations.?Where does the widespread belief that ADD is a odisease?-- suddenly the most common childhood disease of all -- comefrom?CHADD (Children and Adults with ADD) is the oparentassociation? alluded to in the INCB report. Thirty-five thou-sand members strong, and comprised of believers in drug-ging as the essence of child-rearing and education, it isfunded by the manufacturer of Ritalin. The ADD oepidemic?has grown from a half million in 1988 to 4 million today;Ninety percent are children.Routinely, and with full knowledge of its medical advi-sory board, CHADD misrepresents the research literature. Itroutinely proclaims that ADD is a proven disease, just likediabetes, and that Ritalin is just as essential for ADD asinsulin is for diabetes. In yet another misrepresentation, itclaims thafRitalin is neither dangerous nor addictive.In plain words, ADD is an expensive, elaborately wovenillusion of a disease -- not a disease at all. It was created andexists to support the elaborate, extensive ADD industry, onedoubling in size every 3-4 years.Not a disease, ADD has every appearance of being a for-profit invention, Ritalin has every appearance of being a(See VIEWPOINTS, P. 9)