Affirmative action
The January Monitor makes note of the fact that APA has filed another amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court for a case challenging affirmative action at the University of Texas. In its brief, the APA claims to be uniquely positioned to present the social science evidence to the court because APA members research the psychological causes, development and consequences of racial prejudice. As the Monitor explains, the brief then reviews studies showing that increased campus racial diversity is a proven remedy for the educational problems brought on by underrepresentation of minority groups on campus.
However, the brief's conclusion that "higher education institutions should be permitted to employ race-conscious admission practices" does not logically follow from the empirical evidence reviewed. To get from the scientific evidence to this conclusion requires the claim that the benefits of affirmative action are such a compelling interest to the state that they supersede the 14th Amendment's guarantee that all Americans shall be treated equally regardless of race. This claim is not an empirical one, and social science studies cannot prove it. Instead, APA has let its liberal ideology dictate the conclusions it draws from the scientific evidence.
Gerald Zuriff, PhD
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Listening to killers
Three issues and four solutions raised in the February Monitor article, "Listening to killers," merit elaboration. First, repeated abuse and neglect during development affects brain anatomy, biochemistry, genetics and physiology. Over time, this type of repeated stress can result in dissociative disorder, and among some, psychosis: 20 percent of murderers have mental illness, while 59 percent of mass murders have psychiatric challenges.
Second, conventional approaches — such as judgment, interviews, physical exams, short tests and ineffective monitoring — miss 54 percent to 61 percent of at-risk persons. Internet-based tests are 97 percent sensitive and 97 percent specific.
Finally, over 60 years in 500 peer-reviewed articles on interventions, the greatest effect sizes and return on investment come from jobs (37 percent diversion from violence), mentoring (25 percent diversion) and anger-management training (25 percent diversion). The best way to stop a bullet is with a job.
So, there is hope for the highest at-risk. Using Internet-based tests and evidence-based treatments lower challenges and costly homicides. First, among the violence-prone, testing and providing jobs, mentors and anger management could reverse the developmental impact of repeated stress to divert them from jails. Second, using tests to release nonviolent offenders with electronic bracelets relieves prison overcrowding.
Third, assessing emergency room patients for psychiatric, substance abuse or violence issues deflects them from hospital or jail.
Lastly, tests are used in employee selection, promotion, retention, crisis-debriefing and fitness for duty.
Robert John Zagar, PhD, MPH
James Garbarino, PhD
Chicago
Please send letters to Sara Martin, Monitor Editor. Letters should be no more than 250 words and may be edited for space and clarity.