>>5
I do think SICP is a very important introductory compsci book, but
>>2 might be slightly right on the 'detrimental' parts, as I believe a programmer should first get used to the dirty parts: learn some digital logic, then assembler, then some C, and after that possibly learn some random popular high level OOP language, and after that he can finally read SICP, learn Scheme and then learn Lisp, and be enlightened and enjoy writing beautiful software. If a programmer is already shown what the peak of his experience may be, he may find it unbearable to work with lesser languages, and if his foundations aren't good enough, he might not understand certain concepts that SICP presents in the first try (he can read SICP again, or study something else and come back). Some people may also consider that some students may develop a habit of writing tail-recursive functions instead of loops for everything to be a bad habbit, when working in languages which actually have powerful looping constructs, but I believe that's just a matter of style and preference, and it's up to the programmer to pick which suits the problem best(the tail-recursive version should only be considered if the language he is coding in has TCO). In general, I believe SICP does a lot more good than whatever few bad habits one might pick from it.
Of course, just advocating that one reads 'The C programming language' and avoids SICP altogether is a bad idea, as it only teaches one way to program (in C), as it will make the programmer ignorant of some very interesting and usable ideas and tools that he can make use of.