However, by doing so, the department has given their implicit endorsement of the speaker, whether they want to admit it or not…and consequently, that will impact how Middlebury’s poli-sci department is perceived by others through that implicit endorsement.
I do not believe the department ended up co-sponsoring the appearance.
Actually, I stand corrected they did end up co-sponsoring but did not fund the event.
“Just trying to ascertain the outer boundaries of what is and is not acceptable to people advocating that everyone should have a right to free speech on a college campus.”
I am not advocating “everyone” should have a right to free speech on a college campus.
I myself am advocating that I’d like to hear a variety of views, including those I disagree with, and that if the campus invites a speaker, he/she should be allowed to speak. Peaceful protests are fine, although I’d like to see students actually reading the work involved and making up their own mind, as opposed to hearing on social media that so-and-so is a Racist, with a single quote out of context,. Also the campus should invite a variety of views, including those that make people feel uncomfortable or challenge their views.
Did your kids’ friend report the incident, @generations? I hope so and hope something was done about it. In fact, if that kind of thing is leading to violence on campus, if I was a campus administrator (which I certainly do not wish to be), I might pass on allowing any Pro-Palestinian speakers on campus at that time. There are all sorts of interesting speakers out there to invite on campus to broaden students’ minds and exposure to certain viewpoints. Sometimes I do think one needs to “read the tea leaves” to determine when the best time is for a particular campus given the climate at the time. I think one can pick and choose at any point in time with some thought as to whether it might exacerbate tensions or not. Or one can chose to, as others have suggested, set it up in a certain format whereby people might feel different sides have time to express their views, like a panel discussion. I still think my Murray/Michael Moore showdown would be a good one. 
Both could talk about the divide but I’m sure they would come from very different angles and perspectives.
I agree that IDEALLY students should read up. Sounds like some did get an understanding via assistance from Poli Sci department lunch sessions and such. I also think with reading excerpts and reviews from different perspectives online, one can get a good idea of Murray’s philosophies and viewpoints without reading his works from cover to cover. As busy college students with rigorous course loads, who has time for that? Given the less than two week notice from announcement of his speaking engagement to the actual event itself, I think it is too much to expect the campus community to do so. So, I kind of think that is a somewhat unfair and unrealistic criticism.
Below is the Pol. Science Dept.'s justification for having Murray speak. And seems to me anyone wishing to challenge his views in The Bell Curve could easily grab a copy of James Heckman’s review to offer an effective rebuttal. The work has already been done for you by someone who I assume is reasonably competent.
I think inviting the speaker with this background was a dumb move for Middlebury. Their admissions office is probably anxious. No, not about conservatives but as to whether or not the minority students will show up.
Right now they have fewer than 4% black students and just barely 9% Latino students. Will these students wonder about a college that invites a speaker such as him?
You are probably right the admissions office is nervous, but not for that reason. They are probably thinking “How did we fail so badly that we admitted a bunch of students that don’t know how to mount an effective and peaceful opposition to ideas they disagree with?”
Note that Williams College was able to host Murray in 2016 without the hysterics that occurred at Middlebury.
@doschicos thanks. Ha, I found it. Yes, I removed my post --I realized that after I wrote it and I thought it unnecessarily judgmental.
There have been speakers I’ve definitely been very upset about that have spoken at my kids’ colleges. I have never advocated any of them to be blocked.
You’re giving examples though of dictators and terrorists. Not sure these are good examples.
Better examples are thinkers or politicians whose views I strongly disagree with, and find offensive. Several I have felt to be virulently anti-semitic and dangerous to my Jewish children.
There are many such that, over the years, have spoken at my kids’ campuses. I have never objected and I don’t mind them speaking, as long as the college has a range of speakers and points of view. Depending on the speaker, I might encourage my kids to go listen, as well.
I had a similar thought. It actually occurred to me that maybe my kids have a better chance of acceptance at some colleges this year since their apps lack any political/social justice activism (lots of service, mostly environmental-related activities, but we’re talking on-the-ground with loppers, saws and shovels, not activism). Of course we’ll never know, but it’s interesting to consider…!
They still have a lot to learn and experience before they are anywhere close to “knowing” the answers to this world’s problems. I think social media is pushing some kids to think they understand more than they do. I’m glad my kids aren’t glued to it.
Sorry–I wrote my post last night, but for some reason, it wasn’t put up on the site until this morning, so it’s a bit out of order.
I think the hysterics and violence about an opposing point of view - one that isn’t even articulated or investigated in depth, but all too often merely labeled in ad hominem tweets and FB posts - is a poor advertisement for the school. Not the invitees.
Inviting only ‘noncontroversial’ speakers is not possible. That’s the whole point. Who gets to define controversy? What I find objectionable (I spoke earlier about what my kids found to be blatant anti-semitism on the part of some pro-Palestinian speakers) others may find politically sound or righteous.
I definitely agree that social media plays a role here. To me, it seems to encourage groupthink (on both sides of the political spectrum).
@Ohiodad51 , it should be “blindingly obvious” that the Southern Poverty Law Center is not “a joke.” (Note that this does not require agreeing with them in every particular. )
@doschicos As a layman I have to have SOME faith in highly educated experts. Murray got his BA from Harvard and his PhD from MIT and he’s only the second author of the Bell Curve book (the first author was a Harvard professor).
His one graph is so interesting that I made an avatar similar to it. I bet posters will point out if I misunderstand him or his graph misleads me. To me the college graduates as a group (red) are smarter than no college people as a group (blue), but for every smart red there are multiple blues as smart or smarter. That sounds correct and politically correct.
Many issues on CC can be argued similarly, e.g., kids go to public colleges (blue) vs kids go to Ivy Plus (red).
@consolation, until someone can articulate a reason why All Lives Matter is a hate group and Black Lives Matter is not, I will stand comfortably on the statement that the SPLC is a joke. Does the SPLC do some good things? Sure. But they are there to give liberals moral authority and to scare people into donating money. To use them as some arbiter of morality is crazy. This is particular true when the point being made at the time was that Murray shouldn’t have been permitted to speak because he was on one of the SPLC’s lists.
Murray’s analysis methods, his conclusions, his presentation and the way his work has been used may be distasteful to many. There is a lot of scholarly critique of the Bell Curve, and of the scholars that were approached to sign the WSJ letter noted above, almost half of those contacted refused. The book was criticized for presenting itself as a scholarly work without being peer reviewed as well as for its discussion of the genetic basis for racial differences in IQ test results (APA is American Psychological Association):
Thus, there is at least some basis for the claims of that his book (and he) support racist ideas about ability. As noted above, Murray also supports the idea that woman have an inferior ability to be great.
That doesn’t mean Murray should be banned from a school as perhaps he has enough of a scholarly basis to support his findings.
OTOH, there are those that spout blatantly racist and sexist nonsense or conspiracy theories with no basis in fact or research that I believe should not be sponsored by a college. I am all for free speech, but not sure if every single possible speaker should be welcome - regardless of which side of the political spectrum they fall. Is it appropriate to invite a conspiracy theorist who says 9-11 did not happen and give them a platform to lecture on that with little room for debate except a few questions at the end? I am all for exposing students to scholars on all ends of the ideological spectrum, but not so sure about fringe speakers.
@Ohiodad51 - If you take the SPLC list of hate groups as a list of groups the SPLC hates, it all makes sense.
The extraordinary thing is not that half the scholars refused, but that any of them signed up at all.
Think about what had just happened when he wrote The Bell Curve in the 1990s. Any discussion of race and intelligence was (and still is) a lightning rod. Bringing up the topic earns universal scorn. Stephen Jay Gould was so repulsed that he committed academic fraud in The Mismeasure of Man in trying to refute Murray.
Given this background, if you approached an academic to support what could be a career-ending position, many will refuse. Yet 52 of them bravely defended Murray at the time. And of course, some will refuse to sign because they disagree with his conclusions.
Does this mean Murray’s conclusions were right and still are right? That will be debated forever, but to use a current phrase, Murray’s analysis and conclusions were certainly not made “without any evidence whatsoever.”
Murray is an important social scientist, not because his analysis is better than anyone else’s (it isn’t) or his prescriptions are spot-on (they aren’t). He is an important social scientist because he brings up uncomfortable issues that others are unable to see or unwilling to discuss. He lays out his data for the world to dissect and attack. In that respect, he is far braver than the mindless Middlebury students that kept him from speaking.
Too often, people focus on the speaker and not the speaker’s topic. Charles Murray was a perfect example of this as so many here on this thread only brought up his Bell Curve book. This wasn’t the topic he was going to discuss.
If Dick Cheney was going to do a college lecture tour, how much pushback do you think he would get only based on his name? Would the pushback change based on the following topics which he could discuss: raising a gay child, decision-making on a national level, how the government develops a national strategy or other numerous non-political but policy making topics.
That was before the Liberati saw the world coming apart at the seams in DC.
As the Bell Curve has been mentioned a few times (at least), thought I’d throw this nugget in, to follow on what @Hebegebe is saying in #316.
What’s interesting is Herrstein’s/Murray’s intro. They contrast the public debate (shut down, academics marginalized, careers jeopardized, etc.) vs. the academic debate which actually continued to flourish. Academics merely stopped speaking out, but that didn’t stop the research and debate. From The Bell Curve (pg. 14):
“This is not to say that controversy has ended, only that the controversy within the professional intelligence testing community is much different from that outside it. The issues that seem most salient in articles in the popular press (Isn’t intelligence determined mostly by environment? Aren’t the tests useless because they’re biased?) are not major topics of debate within the profession. On many of the publicly discussed questions, a scholarly consensus has been reached.(34) Rather, the contending parties within the professional community divide along other lines.”
What follows is a summary of the different camps categorizing the academic discussion, with detail following that.
It’s a big book and a big read. Lots of charts and graphs, some math, and a whole lotta info. about the Normal Distribution. Highly recommend that everyone give it a read and debate the merits. Perhaps that’s already happened on this thread? If so, I apologize for jumping in and stating the obvious.
Also, just a thought here: do we really want those in the academy, for fear of being ostracized or fired, to limit their views just to others of the same discipline within the academy? That can’t be good for our civilization. But if we don’t allow views that make us uncomfortable to see the light of day and be honestly debated in the public square, that’s exactly what will continue to happen.