Something very scary and very wrong is happening

Parent Cafe
241

It has been suggested that it is peaceful over here in STEM-land. It probably is more peaceful on average, though not completely peaceful, as cobrat has pointed out. I have been at a conference where a speaker’s answer to a question was met with a call of “Baloney!” from someone in the audience. I have also heard of work being characterized in print as “mistaken, wrong-headed, and confused.” I haven’t seen any actual violence, though.

The reason that I am posting is that I am very pro-discussion. I think that people can learn something from radically differing viewpoints, if only how to strengthen the arguments for their own side.

When I was an undergraduate, Linus Pauling spoke at my university. Pauling was a Nobel Laureate in Chemistry and again in Peace. Pauling had advocated that people who were heterozygous for sickle-cell anemia should not marry each other. (They are carriers, but do not have sickle-cell anemia. As I understand it, being heterozygous confers an advantage, in terms of resistance to malaria.) There were protestors at the talk who came down the aisle and accused him of advocating something that was tantamount to genocide.

The argument gave me a new view of the issue, which had not occurred to me before. I don’t actually have a settled opinion on this topic yet. It seems to me that it would be important to know what percentage of any given population actually is heterozygous for the trait. It would also be important to know what advances have been made in treating sickle-cell anemia, and what the prognosis is at present. The big question: if two people have a 25% chance of having a child together with a fairly serious disease (vs. 0% chance if they marry someone who is homozygous non-sickle cell), and they marry, what then? Some people have personal answers to that. I do not.

Overall, my eyes were opened by the protestors, and I realized that there is a substantial moral quandary. In the long run, I think that science/medicine will resolve this issue. But the resolution has not come in time for people of my generation.

242

Midd Profs reply with a list of core principles for higher education (https://freeinquiryblog.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/):

Free Inquiry on Campus
Posted on March 6, 2017
Free Inquiry on Campus: A Statement of Principles by a Collection of Middlebury College Professors
On March 2, 2017, roughly 100 of our 2500 students prevented a controversial visiting speaker, Dr. Charles Murray, from communicating with his audience on the campus of Middlebury College. Afterwards, a group of unidentified assailants mobbed the speaker, and one of our faculty members was seriously injured. In view of these unacceptable acts, we have produced this document stating core principles that seem to us unassailable in the context of higher education within a free society.

These principles are as follows:

Genuine higher learning is possible only where free, reasoned, and civil speech and discussion are respected.

Only through the contest of clashing viewpoints do we have any hope of replacing mere opinion with knowledge.

The incivility and coarseness that characterize so much of American politics and culture cannot justify a response of incivility and coarseness on the college campus.

The impossibility of attaining a perfectly egalitarian sphere of free discourse can never justify efforts to silence speech and debate.

Exposure to controversial points of view does not constitute violence.

Students have the right to challenge and to protest non-disruptively the views of their professors and guest speakers.

A protest that prevents campus speakers from communicating with their audience is a coercive act.

No group of professors or students has the right to act as final arbiter of the opinions that students may entertain.

No group of professors or students has the right to determine for the entire community that a question is closed for discussion.

The purpose of college is not to make faculty or students comfortable in their opinions and prejudices.

The purpose of education is not the promotion of any particular political or social agenda.

The primary purpose of higher education is the cultivation of the mind, thus allowing for intelligence to do the hard work of assimilating and sorting information and drawing rational conclusions.

A good education produces modesty with respect to our own intellectual powers and opinions as well as openness to considering contrary views.

All our students possess the strength, in head and in heart, to consider and evaluate challenging opinions from every quarter.

We are steadfast in our purpose to provide all current and future students an education on this model, and we encourage our colleagues at colleges across the country to do the same.

Signed,

Jay Parini, English and American Literatures
Keegan Callanan, Political Science
Molly Anderson, Food Studies
Ata Anzali, Religion
Jason Arndt, Psychology and Neuroscience
Tom Beyer, Russian
Erik Bleich, Political Science
Carole Cavanaugh, Japanese Studies
Sunhee Choi, Chemistry and Biochemistry
Robert Cluss, Chemistry and Biochemistry
Eric Davis, Political Science
Matthew Dickinson, Political Science
Stephen Donadio, Literary Studies
Murray Dry, Political Science
Eilat Glikman, Physics
Shalom Goldman, Religion
Erick Gong, Economics
Noah Graham, Physics
Leger Grindon, Film and Media Studies
Larry Hamberlin, Music
Jessica Holmes, Economics
Jonathan Isham, Jr., Economics and Environmental Studies
Bertram Johnson, Political Science
Tom Manley, Geology
Gary Margolis, College Mental Health Services, Emeritus
Thomas Moran, Chinese Language and Literature
Paul Monod, History
Jeff Munroe, Geology
Kamakshi Murti, German
Caitlin Knowles Myers, Economics
Marybeth Nevins, Sociology and Anthropology
Victor Nuovo, Philosophy
Clarissa Parker, Psychology and Neuroscience
Will Pyle, Economics
Theodore Sasson, Jewish Studies
Richard Saunder, History of Art and Architecture
Robert Schine, Religion and Jewish Studies
John Schmitt, Mathematics
Peter Schumer, Mathematics
Christopher Shaw, English and American Literature/Creative Writing
Grace Spatafora, Biology
David Stoll, Sociology and Anthropology
Frank Swenton, Mathematics
Ioana Uricaru, Film and Media Studies
Hector Vila, Writing
Don Wyatt, History

THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN REPRESENT ONLY THE PERSONAL VIEWS OF THE SIGNATORIES.
[This site will be updated regularly with new signatures through March 11.]

243

Good for them.

244

Love this post, @LACluster

245

I don’t think the students who agitated will care about this statement of principles from the faculty, unless there are consequences to bad behavior. At this point in the game, it is not going to make any difference, because according to the agitators “some ideas don’t deserve to be heard”. They are just going to laugh at this “weak pleading from the faculty”. Punishment is the only way to correct bad behavior now. Appealing to fairness is just not going to work here.

246

“Freedom of speech does not include the freedom to say things that some people might find offensive.”

I’ve heard variations of the above assertion advanced by both students and faculty at some of America’s leading institutions of higher learning.

To paraphrase a Chuck Berry title, “Roll over George Orwell!”

247

One of the issues for the students, and one way this differed from Berkeley/Milo is that while Murray was invited by a student group, the event ended up being co-sponsored by the College. Some students felt this was equivalent to support for Murray’s ideas. Students also objected to the format, in that Murray got to talk, they had to listen and maybe had a few minutes to ask questions. Of course, as it turned out he couldn’t talk and no questions could be asked. Protest is great, not letting him speak or turning violent is not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/opinion/discord-at-middlebury-students-on-the-anti-murray-protests.html?_r=0

Is there a difference in that the College decided to embrace him when not only his conclusions and suggested remedies, but also the validity of his methods are in question? Yes, colleges should expose students to all view points, but those view points should be based on valid, peer-reviewed findings. One criticism of the Bell Curve was that it was presented as “scientific” but was not peer reviewed. Is that a valid reason to exclude him?

I am all for free speech and exposing students to differing opinions, if those opinions have a valid and defensible basis. When Condoleezza Rice decided not to speak at one of my kid’s colleges due to protests, I thought it was inexcusable - she is an important political figure who had valuable things to say. I would also say that a student group has the right to invite whoever they want to speak - but the school does not have to be a party to that speaker (beyond allowing it and providing space/security as it would for all speakers). But not so sure a college has to invite a speaker they believe does not support their beliefs or vision.

Murray has also made findings that are anti-woman, IMO:

““No woman has been a significant original thinker in any of the world’s great philosophical traditions.” So said the author Charles Murray in a 2005 essay titled “The Inequality Taboo,” in which he argued that men are better at abstract thinking than women are. In a recent talk at the University of Austin, timed to promote his new book The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Getting Ahead, a student asked Murray if he stood by this claim. As Amanda Marcotte notes in a piece at Slate, Murray began with condescension (“tell me who you had in mind”), and then added, “Until somebody gives me evidence to the contrary, yeah, I’ll stick with that statement.””

He also argues that there is an inherent reason (perhaps hormonal) that women have not achieved the same level of success in the arts (no great musical composers) and math/science (no women winning the Field medal and very few winning the Nobel prize). Neglecting, of course, that it is only recently that women have had access to the same education and research opportunities afforded to men.

248

All the more ironic and repugnant that one “protesting” Murray assaulted a woman, who was a professor at Middlebury, exchanging ideas with him.

249

Away from pointing out that irony, @gildo, what do you make of the anti-female comments in post 246? Do they sit well with you, beyond your deflecting the dialogue to point out your perceived irony?

250

Well what Murray specifically attributes to women’s lack of “significant” contributions is this:

So propagation of the species - something women should be exalted for. Kind of “significant” right?

And this is one of my issues with him relative to that essay – what purpose does it serve to couch something as essential as “motherhood” in the negative context of what we are in his estimation not accomplishing?? Does he think we don’t already see and lament the few female names on all those Nobel Prize and Fields Medal lists? Does he think we don’t already know the sacrifices we willingly make in our own careers for the benefit of our children?

Not really sure what his point was with that essay – was it to irritate or placate us? I found it annoying.

251

Plus, it is stereotyping. I definitely know more than one example where the fathers are much more nurturing and caring parents than the mothers.

252

“Away from pointing out that irony, @gildo, what do you make of the anti-female comments in post 246? Do they sit well with you, beyond your deflecting the dialogue to point out your perceived irony?”

Argue the man’s conclusions. Say he is wrong. I don’t think it’s a valid equivalent to compare one point he makes in everything he has said and written to assault! The university thought enough of what he written to let him speak. Just because some don’t believe or like what he says doesn’t mean he’s not worth listening to. It’s not a reason to shout him down and certainly not a reason to attack his car and injure someone. Let him speak and let people draw their own conclusions.

253

Each particular institution makes a decision about a speaker based on their own criteria. Many universities have made the decision to invite Murray to campus including Swarthmore, Virginia Tech, Princeton and Yale Law. Although there were often protests he was able to speak. What was so different about Middlebury I wonder?

And if this is allowed to occur going forward how does that work? We won’t be hearing anyone speak because there will always be someone willing to interfere.

Think live stream video is going to have to be the medium used going forward. Who wants to risk life and limb just for a speaking engagement?

254

He is pretty consistent in his conclusion that there is a biological basis for the difference in achievement between men and women and among different racial groups.

Do the students have a point in their argument that having one speaker on one side of a discussion lecture to them with only limited time for questions does not promote a true dialogue? Would speakers with very controversial ideas fit better in a panel where both (or several) sides of an argument are presented? Perhaps that would reduce the protests and get everyone to listen to all sides. Just a thought, not sure it makes sense.

I don’t agree with shouting out those you don’t want to hear. Are things less civil now or do we just hear more about the protests?

255

Well I think with regard to ethnic differences his conclusion was this:

256

“Something very scary and very wrong is happening” here. This thread has become repetitive and a platform for what I believe is best described as scientific racism. I find many of the comments to be offensive. The moderator should close the thread or move it to the race thread

257

It’s not repetitive – we are now also discussing Murray’s views relative to women.

258

@collegedad13,

So now you want to close the thread because you cannot defend your assertion that Murray is a hate filled racist?

I will ask you again, have you actually actually read any of Murray’s books? Given that you only seem to be able to repeat biased statements from others, it seems unlikely.

259

Really @collegedad13, that’s the whole purpose of this forum – to discuss things.

260

@collegedad13 Moderators closing this thread, because YOU find it offensive, is the same level of close-minded censorship that is occurring when schools cancel speakers such as Murray, Milo, etc. For God’s sake, why do we have to shut down everything that we do not agree with?