Re-framing Intelligence

By Jade Weston, Mia Lumbley, and Marie Ytell

Each quarter, a group of students, faculty, and staff at WWU convene an environmental justice reading group to read and discuss recent texts. .In Spring 2021, the group is reading Harriet A. Washington’s A Terrible Thing to Waste. This post reflects and extends our discussion.

Harriet Washington’s A Terrible Thing to Waste explores many environmental factors within our modern society that impact the physical and mental health of individuals. Lead and other toxic chemicals, diseases, and microbes are factors that specifically target communities that have a high minority demographic. To measure the toll that these hazards take on the mental capacity of those exposed to them, Washington leans on the IQ test. In the book, the general narrative is that toxic chemicals reduce people’s IQs and thus reduces their ability to live a good life. While we agree that exposure to toxic chemicals is undesirable, we wish to bring some critiques to the table. We take issue with the reliance on IQ tests as it is not a foolproof way to measure someone’s intelligence. IQ tests put every person into a singular box, which reinforces the American public school system that inherently prioritizes the expedited way of learning rather than building one’s life skills. It is clear from our student-led discussions that the typical public school system does not function well for many students as it disregards the many different ways that people learn and retain information. IQ tests frame intelligence as being the only important mental quality of a human when numerous other aspects should be taken into account. Additionally, the loss of IQ from exposure to environmental hazards is framed to be the absolute worst-case scenario, which further marginalizes disabled people.

Playing by the school system doesn’t work for everyone and as discussed in our small group discussions, it hasn’t worked for most people past a certain age. We agreed that being told we were “gifted” as children later caused many people to prioritize getting straight-As at the expense of their mental health. By the time high school came around, the pressure to succeed came with the coupled feelings of anxiety of disappointing one’s family and one’s self. These teenage years are some of the most developmental years of someone’s life as it is the time where someone starts to learn who they are and what they want in life, so having an education system based on retaining extensive knowledge in a short period of time can be detrimental to a person’s mental health. Even for people who thrive in a fast-paced environment, school is based on learning an entire subject within a few months and it doesn’t teach people any basic life skills. This system especially is harmful to people who have learning disabilities, such as autism or ADHD, as it is quite overwhelming to be forced to retain information at such a fast-paced speed and then to be heavily graded on cumulative tests at the end of the school year. Instead of focusing on IQ tests and trying to learn at an impossibly quick speed, we should look to celebrate the unique differences that disability brings.

In critiquing Washington’s framing of intelligence and her reliance on IQ scores, while agreeing with her evidence regarding people of color’s disproportionate exposure to environmental harms, we pose the question, “What other aspects of life can be improved through healthier environments?” A person’s quality of life is not necessarily dependent on their level of intelligence, or on what disabilities they may have. It is important to note the complexities of this topic, understanding that some people with disabilities may wish or search for a cure, while others may not wish to cure their disability, and may hope for a more accepting society. Both experiences of disability are valid and deserve to be recognized, however, Washington’s argument against environmental hazards leaves out any recognition of those who wish to celebrate their disability. It is important to understand and critique the systems of power that harm, and many times disable individuals, but this critique must be accompanied with a critique on how our society treats disability. Disability is something that has been naturally occurring for as long as people have been alive, and it will continue to be a part of our society far into the future. It has been framed as unnatural, which has marginalized those with disabilities. Whether or not someone’s disability was due to something that could have been prevented, the idea that their disability should be cured can be very harmful, both mentally and socially. This leaves us with the complex question, “How can we critique the systems that create heightened exposure to environmental harms while also celebrating the diversity that disability brings to our communities?”