I see what you did there.
(you typed this ironically, demonstrating how wrong it is for the Middlebury students to try to shut down a presentation because they don’t like what the speaker is saying.)
“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.”
NOW, it’s getting repetitive. 
@collegedad13, I don’t find views here ‘offensive’. I’m enjoying the debate. I disagree with some views, for sure. That doesn’t mean this thread needs to be taken down. Pretty ironic to want to shut down the debate at a college, then shut it down here. It’s precisely this point we’re debating. Surely we can discuss issues we disagree with and be exposed to points of view that are different from our own.
As far as Murray’s views on women, I have two points:
- Several very prominent figures have what I personally regard as sexist views on women. Lawrence Summers is a prominent case in point. He was a Harvard president and Obama appointee in the White House and then worked for hedge fund investors as well as returning to Harvard. Summers stated that one reason there are fewer female scientists is because of "intrinsic aptitude." He didn't really back off on his statement at the time. He said he 'hoped' he'd be proven wrong. This is very similar to what Murray argues.
So what are we saying? That all figures who, in their lifetimes, say what some regard as a sexist or racist thing, are not then invited to speak at colleges? Or is it only some people, eg people whose political leanings are on the ‘opposite’ side, or certain groups and not others? Once again, who gets to choose? And why should a handful of people get to decide who gets to speak?
I agree with the Middlebury Professors in their statement today, 100%.
- As a woman who wanted to be a scientist until obnoxious sexism in the chem lab drove me out, I would never seek to block a speaker based on their views on sexism. Ever. I would either not go, or go, and seek to understand and perhaps refute their argument.
I strongly feel the word “offensive” is used far too much to mean “I disagree with what you’re saying” Surely in a democracy, we should use rational discourse to debate, as opposed to attempting to shutting down an opposing view through coercion.
Curious as to where some of you would draw the line on your support of free speech for all? Are there any instances, anything vile enough or boneheaded enough where you say, “Nope!”?
@doschicos: No, there are no lines for speech. Mein Kampf has been released for publication; as a Jew whose relatives were slaughtered in the Holocaust, I’m not happy about it, but I also don’t think a book should be suppressed.
As for colleges inviting speakers: Perhaps there are speakers a college would not want to invite. My list is going to be different from yours, and yours, and yours. But that should be up to the individual college. Once they are invited, students may peacefully protest. Peacefully. Or they can go and hear the speech.
UChicago came out with a report today related to this topic which states
***Protesters are fully within their free-speech rights to counter and object to speech, as long as they are doing so without blocking or disrupting the free-speech rights of others.
Disruptive conduct may itself be a form of speech, but that does not mean that it is a protected form of speech. Like other forms of civil disobedience, disruptive conduct may lead to disciplinary consequences for those engaged in such conduct.***
The report lists these consequences for disruptors.
Warning: An official letter is placed in the student’s educational record. A prior warning related to misconduct under Statute 21 must be considered in determining a sanction for a current offense.
Disciplinary Probation: During this defined period, a student may continue to enjoy all the rights and privileges of a student except as the Committee stipulates. A prior disciplinary probation related to misconduct under Statute 21 must be considered in determining a sanction for a current offense.
Loss of University Privileges: Specific student rights and privileges, such as access to certain University buildings, events, organizations, or employment, may be suspended for a defined period.
Discretionary Sanctions: The Committee may require the completion of additional academic work, community service, or restitution/fines by a given deadline.
Disciplinary Suspension: For a period of no more than nine consecutive quarters, a student is prohibited from exercising any rights or privileges of a student at the University.
Disciplinary Expulsion: An expelled student forfeits the rights and privileges of a student at the University. Ordinarily, the University will not consider a re-application for eleven consecutive quarters following the date of the expulsion.
Revocation of a Degree: A policy violation that occurred before a degree was awarded may lead to a Committee recommendation that a degree be revoked.
So, if some head of NMBLA was coming to speak on campus to expose his views, you’d be okay with that? To me, it’s not always the words of the speaker themselves but the message it sends by providing a pulpit from which to speak.
For some of you with a more conservative bent, what if theoretically Fidel or Che during their heyday or Chavez, or Kim Jong-Un or an advocate of ISIS were given a forum on campus? (ignore the logistics for the sake of discussion 
)
When I was in HS in the 70s one of my classmates–in fact, my lab partner in physics class at the time–murdered two siblings (both students at the school), his mother, and his grandmother in an apparent psychotic break. He then disappeared for several days. We had no idea whether he was the killer, or perhaps had been kidnapped. We were shocked, confused, and sometimes terrified.
We had no grief counselors. In fact, only one of my teachers even mentioned it.
You know what, we could REALLY have used some help in dealing with it. The fact that your college in the 80s wasn’t interested in emotionally supporting its students is not a virtue, IMHO.
When Trump was elected, a lot of people were genuinely devastated. It is simply a fact. It is not that we are any more sensitive than past generations. I’ve been on the losing end of plenty of elections. This was different. This election and this candidate were DIFFERENT.
Frankly, I could have used a grief counselor this time.
I fully expected to be attacked for my point of view. I was not disappointed. I do not think that scientific racism and attacking women and minorities as genetically inferior should have a platform here or at a college campus. As I mentioned previously there is no absolute right to free speech. You can not yell Fire in a crowded theatre. Free speech rights are limited in regards to adult material. Free speech only applies to public entities. @generations thanks for mentioning Larry Summers. He resigned in disgrace from Harvard after getting a vote of no confidence from the faculty senate. That was probably a poor example
Some decades ago, the ACLU stood up for Nazis marching through Skokie, Illinois (a Chicago suburb that was predominately Jewish).
My view is: if you don’t like the speaker or his/her views, don’t listen. If you think the basis of Murray’s book isn’t scientific, show the flaws in the research. All should be done without riots or violence.
@doschicos people on the right absolutely complained about Amajhanedad speaking at Columbia. But again, protest itself is ok. It is what came after here and at Berkeley that is the problem. And for what it is worth, I agree that there are some positions and ideas that are so far outside what is widely considered acceptable by our society that a college should not provide a platform. To me, that band should be very narrow, and it seems like there is a concerted effort to widen it.
This is why I am so thrilled that D is joining UChicago this fall! <:-P
@consolation, the effort to conflate a gruesome murder with a Presidential election illustrates the larger issue nicely.
I am not conflating them. (I knew that accusation would be hurled, but I hoped it was not necessary to deflect it in advance. Unfortunately, common sense cannot be counted on to prevail.) I am saying that sensibilities and expectaions HAVE CHANGED, and not necessarily for the worse.
@Ohiodad51 Again, I don’t think anyone here is debating that violence was okay. I think most here support the right to protest peacefully as its own form of free speech.
To me, Nazis marching through a city street is different than being invited to a college campus.
As far as UChicago outlining their policies, that is A LOT of steps. I could easily see where orchestrated disruptive protests could still take place within the confines of that policy. Easily.
274 - A speech at a college campus is much easier to avoid than a march in front of your own house. But yeah, I know the difference. The street is public and government controlled. It must be available for all (with the proper permits) to be used for marches.
I am beginning to think it is a trend. A friend told me last night she went to a town hall (in her town) and she, her husband and a bunch of people ended up walking out because the audience was so rude and so noisy and disruptive they couldn’t hear the speaker they came to hear. I think intolerance and rudeness is sadly becoming more normalized. The problem is that in general the intolerant rude people think they are reformers and are doing the “right thing”, saving someone from something, but it doesn’t matter one bit which side of an issue you are on - if you are disrupting other people going about their business, if you are drowning out events with invited speakers and attendance at will, if you are harming bystanders or nearby people with pushing shoving and hair pulling you are intolerant and you might be breaking the law. No moral quandry with me. Their citizen rights are no less or no greater than mine or anyone who desired or chose to the lecture.
@collegedad13 I am perplexed that you feel posters are attacking you for your views. To the contrary, I think what is being said is that your views are just a welcome as anyone else’s.
But certainly you understand the pushback when you are advocating shutting down a thread that addresses whether or not certain speech should be suppressed. I do wonder though what you think such suppression accomplishes in the long run. The views of that speaker then go unaddressed and unchallenged. That just doesn’t seem like a win to me.
You know what they say about UChicago " where fun goes to die" And remember Indivisible is just copying the tea party playbook with a different message. Did the same posters who are complaining about Midd also complain about the tea party?