While Koch and Simmons ignored class divisions within the African American community by not attempting to sample rural blacks, they did attempt to deal with the subject of class diversity within the Mexican American community. Mexican Americans occupied a very malleable place in the hierarchy of race in the 1920s and still do today. The racial catego- rization of Mexican Americans depended in part upon their social class. Those of poorer backgrounds were treated as a definitive racial group to be separated from whites. Those of middle-class or more elite backgrounds were referred to as white or as having more pure "Spanish" blood.3 In the tests conducted by Koch and Simmons, this malleability existed and was tied not only to observations of social class but also by how lightly or darkly pigmented the individual Mexican American test subject was. Koch and Simmons kept a log on the pigmentation levels of the African American sample as well. For both Mexican Americans and African Americans (the skin pigmentation for whites was not analyzed) the pigmen- tation levels of "light," "intermediate," and "dark" were used; breakdowns of the test scores were given along these categories (Koch and Simmons, 1926:83).

Regarding this clumsy attempt at determining socioeconomic class through a rural-urban opposition, Koch and Simmons concluded that ur- ban populations were smarter than rural ones. They also seconded the large body of national studies alleging African Americans to be the least in- telligent segment of the population. But despite doing so, Koch and Simmons did not even bother to include what would (presumably) have been the lowest possible scores, rural African Americans (Koch and Simmons, 1926:21). In essence, the selection process of the African American sample was incomplete when compared to that of whites and Mexican Americans. The failure to offer any environmental control for the African American sample, as crude as that control may have been, cast a cloud over the in- tentions and assumptions of the whole enterprise, especially since the African American scores were used as a baseline of comparison between white scores and Mexican American scores (Koch and Simmons, 1925:23

urban division was not even uniformly applied to all of the test samples. While the scores for Mexican Americans and whites were subjected to this calculation, urban African Americans were examined without their rural counterparts because allegedly "the rural data for the negroes [sic] are limited in numbers." While the Texas counties Koch and Simmons used to obtain their samples purposely included large numbers of Mexican Americans and whites, they held very few African Americans, as if this sample was not important enough to fully measure (Koch and Sim

There were dire political ramifications of this early IQ research. One polit- ical implication was to assign IQ levels to entire rac

s. Graglia told a group of students that "Blacks and Mexican Americans are not academically competitive with whites in selective insti- tutions," and that "they have a culture that seems not to encourage achievement" (King, 1997). As if this message was not clear enough, Graglia is reported to have lectured to minority students in his classes, "Look around, all you blacks and Hispanics and women, look around and realize that you took the seat of someone who really deserves to be here" (Texas Observer ; 1 997). Since his 1997 comments, Professor Graglia has in pub- lic forums continued to justify the exclusion of Mexican Americans and African Americans from higher education institutions on the basis that "obviously Blacks and Mexican Americans are not academically competi- tive with whites and Asians" (Hoppe, 1999). Graglia's long and strident opposition to a

Thus, human subjects were demoted in status. They no longer actively observed theirown characteristics. They merely behaved—and almost anyone can behave: infants, children,people with mental and emotional disorders, pigeons, or white laboratory rats. This view-point reinforced psychology’s image of people as machines. As one historian noted, “Youput a stimulus in one of the slots and out comes a packet of reactions”(Burt, 1962, p. 232)

Why did Watson allow verbal reports? Despite his aversion to introspection, he couldnot ignore the work of psychophysicists that used introspection. Therefore, he suggestedthat speech reactions, because they are objectively observable, are as meaningful for be-haviorism as any other type of motor response. “Saying is doing—that is, behaving,”Watson wrote. “Speaking overtly or to ourselves (thinking) is just as objective a type ofbehavior as baseball”(Watson, 1930, p. 6).

The book was full of stern advice on the behaviorist way to bring up children.According to Watson, parents should neverhug and kiss them, never let them sit on your lap. If you must, kiss them once on theforehead when they say goodnight. Shake hands with them in the morning. Give them apat on the head if they have made an extraordinarily good job of a difficult task....you will find how easy it is to be perfectly objective with your child and at the sametime kindly. You will be utterly ashamed at the mawkish, sentimental way you havebeen handling it. (1928, pp. 81–82)This book also was extremely popular, and it transformed American child-rearingpractices. A generation of children, including his own, was raised in accordance withthese prescriptions. Watson’s son James, a California businessman, recalled that his fa-ther was unable to show affection to him and his brother. He described Watson asunresponsive, emotionally uncommunicative, unable to express and cope with any feel-ings or emotions of his own, and determined unwittingly to deprive, I think, my brotherand me of any kind of emotional foundation. He deeply believed that any expression oftenderness or affection would have a harmful effect on us. He was very rigid in carryingout his fundamental philosophies as a behaviorist. We were never kissed or held as chil-dren; we were never shown any kind of emotional closeness. It was absolutely verbotenin the family. When I went to bed at night, I recall shaking hands with my parents....Inever tried (nor did my brother Billy) to ever get close to our parents physically becausewe both knew it was taboo. (quoted in Hannush, 1987, pp. 137–138)Watson’s wife, Rosalie, wrote an article for Parents Magazine titled “

In the bookhe presented a more complete statement of his behavioral psychology and argued thatthe methods and principles he had recommended for animal psychology were also ap-propriate for the study of humans.

Watson concluded that our adult fears, anxieties, and phobias must therefore be sim-ple conditioned emotional responses that were established in infancy and childhood andthat stayed with us throughout our lives.