Surprisingly, I found out that my community library still has “The Bell Curve” book on the shelf. I am going to check it out and read it to understand authors’ controversial, provocative and different opinions. I am wondering if those “agitated protesters” will start burning down local libraries.
@dadofd, if the libraries are burned, you can always get the book from Amazon. $8.88 on paperback. Doubt it’s going anywhere, given that it’s listed as a “Best Seller” on both Amazon and NYT. The publisher goes so far as to call it “The CONTROVERSIAL New York Times bestseller” (emphasis mine). That probably puts it up there with “50 Shades of Grey”. And a lot more interesting to read, IMHO.
Coming Apart is listed on Amazon as well.
Following up on @JBStillFlying’s posts, I looked up the sales rank of The Bell Curve. It is #664 among all books on Amazon, and Coming Apart is #383. To put that in perspective, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is #609.
Not only that, the Bell Curve is currently sold out. It is possible and highly ironic that Middlebury’s protests made a lot of money for Murray.
We all agree that violence and intimidation is wrong.
In terms of whether or not to care if controversial speaker come to campus: how do we ascertain what does not belong on campus? Holocaust deniers? Young earth creationists at a biology conference?
@“Snowball City” Who is this “we” of whom you speak?
Edit to add: And why should “we” be ascertaining any such thing?
^ In its very simplest terms, we used to go to college to obtain the ability to reason and think critically, so that it would be possible to make distinctions between ideas that are unpopular in the then current political climate, like Murray’s work in the Bell Curve, and things that are provably and objectively false, like denying that the holocaust occurred.
“Note that Williams College was able to host Murray in 2016 without the hysterics that occurred at Middlebury.”
A lot has happened in the past year that makes certain people feel more threatened, so I can see why there is a different reaction within a year. You’d have to be asleep to not be aware of marked increases in racist and anti-semitic attacks and language, among other things.
“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”
Most high school teenagers aren’t politically active. Most are “woke” in their college years. This is nothing new. Maybe there is hope for your kids yet. 
I don’t think being apolitical should be viewed as an attribute.
“I think social media is pushing some kids to think they understand more than they do.”
Maybe on the margin it has influenced things - easier to connect, easier to communicate and take action e.g. Arab Spring. However, young people thinking they understand more than they do is as old as time. I’m sure cave moms and cave dads complained about it, too.
“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.”
Really? You can’t understand the difference or you chose not to. I’m not going to derail the thread by getting into this discussion with you, but it’s not that complicated for any adult to see. Hint: there is no “Only” in Black Lives Matter. Read up. The internet is your friend. 
“Too often, people focus on the speaker and not the speaker’s topic.”
How can you separate a speaker from his/her body of work? If Hitler wanted to visit a campus to talk about marketing tactics does one ignore the rest of his history? (Yes, I know, an extreme example)
Science has NEVER been pursuing ABSOLUTE truth because there is no such thing. It is simply a scientific result from peer review. Holocaust has been proved to be true with abundant evidence with much more than peer review. You can not just make a socially controversial opinion equal to the holocaust denial. It is not genuine. IMHO
@doschicos, regarding your first point: Japanese-Americans were interred in this country in response to an event that changed everything w/in the course of a few hours, let alone a year. (Yes, I know, an extreme example)
Sentiments of the moment are probably not the best way to gauge the reasonableness of a reaction - or excuse it, for that matter.
@doschicos, regarding your third point (SPLC/BLM/ALM): Please, educate us. Don’t worry about derailing the thread, all related critical thought should be welcome on this issue. Have at it.
Just for the record, I am in no way condoning the reaction. I’m all for peaceful protest. Yeah, the Japanese-American thing is an atrocious part of our history but I don’t see the direct corollary. In fact, I think if people had shut down some of the anti-Japanese-American talk early on, maybe it would not have happened. So, I do think sentiments of the moment can be used when a college president is deciding what speakers to have on campus at any given time. Is this time ripe for a discussion of this issue? Are people in a place to be receptive to it? Or might it be better in a few months or another year and we can choose from hundreds of other interesting speakers? Don’t confuse those thoughts with my saying that it is " the best way to gauge the reasonableness of a reaction - or excuse it, for that matter." Whether she would admit it or not, I would sure bet the Middlebury president might be secretly harboring thoughts that she wishes she had made a different decision at that point in time. That wouldn’t, IMO, change her commitment to free speech.
Yes, but Murray is not out in Middlebury fomenting white supremacy uprisings, nor was he even there to discuss the Bell Curve, a book he wrote 23 years. He was there to discuss Coming Apart, published in 2013, which is highly relevant because it is about how society is separating into multiple groups that can barely relate to each other.
He should create a follow-up book called “Examples of Coming Apart”, with a chapter on the Middlebury students.
@doschicos, regarding your 5th point of not being able to separate the speaker from his/her body of work: My question would be why should the peanut gallery be determining who does and doesn’t get to speak on campus? Sure, Hitler is an extreme example. How about Neitzche? Stalin would have been a bit extreme. How about Marx?
If you must draw a line (given that you are spending your day thinking about all who are offending . . . ) then draw it carefully and liberally. IMHO, the thought bubble shouldn’t be “Who are we NOT letting speak today?” It should be “Who else can we invite?”
“@doschicos, regarding your third point (SPLC/BLM/ALM): Please, educate us. Don’t worry about derailing the thread, all related critical thought should be welcome on this issue. Have at it.”
Not going to take the bait. You can find plenty of dialogue on BLM/ALM online. You just have to be willing to read it with an open mind and heart and step outside your own experience.
"In fact, I think if people had shut down some of the anti-Japanese-American talk early on, maybe it would not have happened. "
@doschicos I’m not sure of your age, but perhaps you can remember the anti-Japanese sentiment of the very early 90’s. Olympic Gold Medalist Kristi Yamaguchi was said to have missed out on the endorsements any other American would have won simply due to her ancestry. There was a lot of hoopla about the “Japanese stealing our jobs” and tanking the economy.
@doschicos #333 - I’m serious. Please share. No bait. Just debate - and dialogue, of course. You should be able to summarize a couple of articulate thoughts on this, right? 
I do remember it. We seem to always need a specter to fear and hate in this country. We’ve seen the same with immigrants - Italians, Irish, Jewish - and the animosity and prejudices different groups have faced in different periods in time. It’s all ugly and misplaced and shameful.
Here’s something about this topic that I read yesterday that I very much agree with (emphasis added). -
Wanna-be fascists on both the left and the right should think about this.
Anyone who remembers my previous posts knows that I strongly believe that the core function of an academic environment requires that universities in particular be zones where people have very wide berths to freely express a diversity of ideas, even if some of them are distasteful and offensive.
I seem to remember one reason for the founding of the SPLC was to fight the KKK. I support the SPLC.
Although some believe sarcasm and ridicule useful tools, the older I get the less likely it seems to me to aid in any positive change. I am willing to believe I’m wrong about that. I think we better start modelling how we want to be treated.
<to me,="" nazis="" marching="" through="" a="" city="" street="" is="" different="" than="" being="" invited="" to="" college="" campus.="">
To me, Nazis (Stalin and Mao) are mobs of self-righteous people marching through the streets and beating people who disagree with them. Regardless of ideology. I have witnessed the insanity of mob violence on the streets (in another country) - believe me, most participants are NOT ideology-driven, they are just violent.