I read the review and thought "ad hominem" was a minor matter. Far more important was Weigel's critique of the book's historical inadequacy, esp. as regards social history. There is no response to this below. One problem with the book is its narrowness of vision, one example 1/
being the discussion of Charles Murray, who has continued for two decades to comment negatively on black intelligence, without -- as far as I can see -- even acknowledging the criticisms of expert psychologists like Robert Sternberg - from the authors' own field (!). This is 2/
not to defend the student attack, but to suggest that avoidance of historical and sociological factors weakens the book's analysis -- though perhaps rendering it more "accessible." 3/
