There is absolutely ZERO reason to ever injure or threaten someone. Despicable and those students should be prosecuted.
That said, I wish universities would stop promoting people who use bad science and misuse statistics. There are certainly debates to be had and they should happen- even testy, controversial debates. But institutions of higher ed need to stop putting up people who have been repeatedly debunked in the interest of “fairness.”
It’s one of the reasons that things like anti-vaxx “debates” still get so much traction. In some debates, there aren’t “two sides to every story,” there are just sides that are right and sides that are wrong based on decades of research.
I oppose violence against academics; I oppose Charles Murray; I oppose respectable institutions of education lending him credibility by inviting him to their campuses.
Murray was invited by a student group affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute, according to https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/03/middlebury-students-shout-down-lecture-charles-murray and https://middleburycampus.com/article/student-protests-prevent-charles-murray-from-delivering-lecture/ . Looks like this group: https://middlebury.collegiatelink.net/organization/AEI . However, it looks like a college official was present to deliver some opening remarks, according to the account from The Middlebury Campus. At the bottom of the article in the latter web site, there are links to numerous open letters in response.
They need to sort out who was actually responsible for injuring the professor. Washington Post is reporting that again “outside agitators” were present in the crowd. That never seems to end well.
Charles Murray spoke at Princeton last December with no issues, although half of the audience did get up and walk out.
Those “outside agitators” sure do get around.
“it looks like a college official was present to deliver some opening remarks”
Not just any old college official, it was the President of the college, Laurie Patton. Also, Middlebiry’s Political Science Dept, co-sponsored Murray’s visit so it was more than just a student initiated effort.
There was another thread going on this subject and I post these there:
Letter from over 640 college community members:
https://middleburycampus.com/article/an-open-letter-to-president-of-middlebury-laurie-l-patton/
Letter from over 500 alums:
https://middleburycampus.com/article/charles-murray-at-middlebury-unacceptable-and-unethical-say-over-450-alumni/
Additionally, here’s a letter from many faculty members upset about Patton introducing Murray:
https://middleburycampus.com/article/letter-from-middlebury-faculty/
@romanigypsyeyes expresses my viewpoints. I don’t condone the violence at all, nor the manner of protest, however he should never have been allowed on campus IMO. I believe in free speech but I don’t believe that anyone should be given a pulpit from which to speak on a college campus.
I definitely stand with all the protesters who did not pull a faculty member’s hair. Whoever did that should be punished and given whatever sentence hair-pullers usually get (I don’t have access to the precedents).
Would the following be the applicable laws?
http://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/13/019/01023
http://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/13/019/01026
@marvin100 - there was a hair-pulling incident on the second or third season of * Real Housewives of New Jersey *. IIRC, the perpetrator got probation and community service.
Sounds about right, @Bestfriendsgirl .
This has nothing to do with ideology or politics. There are minimal standards of civilized behavior at a college.
If a group of students deliberately and provably assaults a faculty member - and hairpulling and twisting someone’s neck counts as assault - those students should be immediately suspended for a year (forfeiting the tuition they paid and their financial aid for that year) or expelled. Full stop. If you ask me, the Faculty Senate at Middlebury should be demanding this.
This violence sounds like it was caused by emotion rather than political agitators. In other words, a “crime of passion” more than premeditation.
Of course assault needs to be punished, probably in court.
However, the university knew ahead of time how strong the emotional reactions were to this guest and so I think they are partially responsible.
Not to condone violence, but colleges are confusing free speech with educational purpose.
What was the educational benefit of having this person speak ?
I can think of an infinite number of better educational opportunities that this college could have presented to its students. Why this ? Why not invite Ringling Brothers Circus to entertain them, they wont be busy much longer ?
I don’t care who invited the speaker, the campus facilities are the responsibility of the college, and are responsible for some level of supervision of student activities. Why not invite Kim Jong Un ? Why not have the Taliban leaders speak ? How about Bill Cosby with tips on how to … You get it.
I wonder what the reaction would be here if a group of white guys from Alabama pulled the hair and twisted the neck of a Professor of Gender Studies at a speech by Lena Dunham, and then attacked the car they were in. I have no doubt it would be significantly different.
As far as whether Charles Murray deserves to be heard, I think Middlebury is exactly right here. He may not be popular, and he may not be right, but despite repeated and consistent attacks on his work for the last twenty years, he is still a consequential voice. He should be allowed to speak. And frankly, if he was so obviously wrong, and had been actually debunked so consistently, there would be absolutely no reason to riot and assault people just to stop him from doing so.
Here is the Boston Globe article https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/03/protesters-aggressively-confront-controversial-scholar-middlebury-college/vJcDcIouqyZ9cbu5LLLahL/story.html
an excerpt: “A controversial figure, Murray is best known as the author of “The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life” and “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.” The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Murray as a “white nationalist” who believes in the intellectual and moral superiority of white men and advocates for the elimination of welfare and affirmative action.”
I object to the violence.
This speaker’s only purpose in my mind would be to educate the students about the abhorrent thought processes of those like him.
“I don’t care who invited the speaker, the campus facilities are the responsibility of the college, and are responsible for some level of supervision of student activities. Why not invite Kim Jong Un ? Why not have the Taliban leaders speak ? How about Bill Cosby with tips on how to … You get it.”
Remember Columbia University inviting Ahmadinejad to speak? It does happen.
Sorry, but too me this sounds similar to saying that a woman provoked rape by wearing a short skirt, or a wife provoked stabbing by cheating on her husband. The personality of the views of the speaker, or the question who extended the invite, have absolutely nothing to do with the acts of violence. I hope that the students get lfietime assaultl history records - the future spouses and employees deserve to know that they are dealing with physically abusive out-of-control individuals, and if they disagree with them, they face the risk of assault.
This is the same argument used in the Middle Ages when scientists were trying to inform the self-proclaimed purveyors of knowledge that the earth was spherical, not flat. These scientists were not allowed to speak and to present their information for some hundred years, and some were jailed of their fanatical thought.
Science, both hard and soft science, is replete with thousands and thousands of such examples, in which the banned turned out to be correct.
My point is wrong or right, presenting counter arguments is the solution and demonstrating that someone is wrong is the answer. If we followed this banning ideas advice, the human race would be a lot more ignorant and much less advanced than it is today.
These bully students need to get a grip and figure out that they do not know enough to tell others what is right or wrong. Sure, the students have opinions, but opinions are not substantive arguments. So for them to think they are smarter for saying shut down is quite intellectually laughable.
The students are in for a rude life awakening very soon, as people in the real world do not take this crap and they (people in the real world) do hit back.
If we used this standard, Howard Zinn would have never been invited to speak on a college campus.
I would feel a lot better with speakers like this if it was presented in a debate format. There are at least 3 or 4 respected sociologists who have written rebuttals to the Bell Curve and they could present their studies and conclusions. That might de-escalate the emotion surrounding the event. I do worry that silencing radical alternative thought “locks the box” so to speak. And while that might not seem too big a deal with subjects such as IQ, in other areas it could have huge implications – what if we were wrong all along?
And the truth of the matter is that Murray and Herrnstein never really argued in the book that IQ differences are in fact genetic. The introduction to the Chapter that caused all the outrage said this: