From: catapcnl@Rose-Hulman.Edu. (Chris Lawrence)
Subject: Re: T: To All MENSA Members...
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 01:12:17 GMT


In article <1992Jul27.000857.3203@ncsu.edu> sat@ailab.ncsu.edu (Scott Andrew  
Tai) writes:
:
:In article <3766@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, nick+@pitt.edu (Nick C De Mello)  
writes:
:|>  I admit I'm a little confused.  If I understand right, you do not
:|>object to clubs restricted to people of certain, arbitrary, qualities:
:|>age, religion, or certain scores on IQ tests - in general.  You object
:|>to this criteria in mensa because you believe that it has the potential
:|>to be "something great."  Do you mean that it should be above this type
:|>of behavior?
:|>
:|>  What do you think mensa should be?  What "greatness" do you think it
:|>has the potential to fullfill?  Why do you think it has that potential? 
:
:     I think there is a major need for some kind of advocacy or activist 
:organization supporting intelligence.  Highly intelligent people are a 
:tremendous social asset.  From them society gets works of major importance
:that benefit all of us.  Yet for years we have been going through 
:anti-intellectual phases and anti-science phases.  Textbooks are being
:dumbed down and rewritten to accomodate social agendas.  Achievement tests
:are being de-emphasized or dropped for the same reasons.  Gifted programs
:in many counties are being dropped.  In primary and secondary schools,
:classroom groupings based on achievement and ability are being dropped
:under the theory that sacrificing the intelligent is fine because it's
:not fair that they're smarter.  Society seems to be slipping into an
:egalitarian phase and is denying differences exist.  If differences are 
:too great to pretend they're not real, then programs to level the 
:differences are initiated.  
:
:     The problem with MENSA is the 2% rule, and it should be dropped.
:
[justification for killing 2% rule deleted]
:

Maybe we as Mensans would benefit from "lowering" our admissions standards. I  
really don't know. As someone who believes in the 2% rule and who has firsthand  
experience of anti-intellectial attitudes as a public high school student, I  
can assure you that the real substance of this attack on intellegence is that  
America has, in general, been oppressive of intellectuals, albeit subliminally.    
Words like "nerd," "geek," and "dork" are often applied to those who are in  
posession of more intellegence than their peers.  If I were to assault the NFL  
by calling them a bunch of overpaid, stupid jocks, I would be greeted by howls  
of protest, but if I said that college professors are overpaid geeks, the  
cheers would resound from the chambers of our society.  Americans in general  
have been suspicious of the intellectually gifted (notice how in the McCarthy  
era, nobody cared (except for the intellectuals, most of whom got the pleasure  
of the senator's attention) about what was happening until the military were  
investigated), and not one thing has ever been done about this suspicion.  I  
for one will not stick around in a nation that in supposedly granting us  
freedom really seeks to oppress.
--
Chris Lawrence
Pretender to the Throne; Destroyer of the Faith
-----------------------------------------------
"Giving money and power to politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to  
teenage boys."
     - P. J. O'Rourke, "Parliament of Whores"
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa