@HarvestMoon1, this is not often the case, but I agree 100%.
You think??!!
This statement is so scientifically benign that it shows what some people are reacting to is ideological-speak, not the science inquiry.
It is rather illustrative that the same people who argue the above quote is out-of-bounds are the same who would use the EXACT SAME argument to justify gay, transgender, gender fluid etc people/behavior, i.e., they were born that way and are a produce their genes. Additionally, the same people say that gender is a social construct. Given these two positions, the argument is being made that genes and environment influence who someone actually is.
Therefore, the logical question to ask is if the aforementioned in the above paragraph is argued to be determined by genes and environment, why cannot/are not other human attributes determined by genes and environment as well? Are genes and environment only limited to affecting what is socially acceptable to believe? Did the genes and the environment get the message and act accordingly?
Bottom-line is too many people are reacting ideologically, such as these students, and are not acknowledging that they are advancing the same constructive argument elements to further things they believe.
The only issue I have with this is it is intellectual discrimination masquerading as fairness. Who determines who are “speakers like this?”
Most modern day social and science studies that academia “deems acceptable” have serious dissenting voices. For example, there is an entire field of science that sees transgender as a medical issue. Same with the issue as to the extent of man-made climate change - tons of dissenting voices with equally valid studies of their own. Yet, these speakers, who promote one point-of-view and are deemed acceptable, can speak without a debate format?
I just do not understand the logic of why Murray (or others) should be forced into a debate format, when others who present positions that are also subject to rigorous dissent by equally brilliant peers should be free of such debate.
This is one of those ideas that sounds good in theory, but becomes discriminatory rather quickly as it is subject the biases of who determines what is controversial and what is not - and that determination sounds determined by mob mentally and threat of mob violence than actual scholarship.
Personally, I would rather see all speakers who are promoting a position to be debated by a peer of equal stature. But, that does not make sense either because a talk to present one’s ideas is a wholly different intellectual exercise, as one rarely gets to delve very deeply into theory and policy in a debate, as one can with a focused speech or talk.
@awcntdb, I think the debate format is best for everybody. Particularly at colleges, which at least hold themselves out as uniquely committed to intellectual inquiry.
@awcntdb - yes, identifying those speakers presents some challenges but we pretty much know what the current “hot button” issues are. If we are looking to mitigate the violence this might be one approach that could help on college campuses where protests occur often.
Unfortunately these specific protests are against a “fictional” version of what Murray and Herrnstein actually said in the book. Their views have been misrepresented so widely that some are reacting without much understanding of what was written.
The whole fiasco could have been avoided if they had simply chosen the term “achievement gap” rather than “IQ gap.” In my view that more accurately reflects the conclusions that they reached which is basically “we just don’t know.”
Probably no one would care. They certainly wouldn’t be as outraged as people are about this incident at Middlebury.
I’m good with the students turning their backs on him during the speech and protesting with signs and such but not with the assault or auto damage.
For the record.
Is what so controversial about Murray because of his views on race and intelligence? I thought his bell curve book was based on some solid data available then. We will get more data and terms, definitions and people’s views will be updated accordingly, his included if he lives long enough. Intelligent people ought to be challenged by different views to remain intelligent IMO. (unless someone’s views are not data/evidence based)
@warbrain, you don’t really believe that, do you?
Actually, the flat earth premise was not a popular one among medieval scholars and educated elite who were aware of the fact the earth was round from reading the Greek classics discussing the topic.
This link is a good starting point for some sources though this has been common knowledge among historians and medieval/early modern European specialists for at least several decades, if not longer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
Indeed.
Giving a legitimizing platform of speaking at a college…especially an elite one to someone whose work has been found to have serious and objectionable methodological problems and hasn’t been peer-reviewed is about as bad as say…inviting proponents of other pseudosciences such as Lysenkoism, “Intelligent Design” or Physiognomy to tout the “scientific validity” of their favored pseudoscience or inviting someone who believes in debunked conspiracy theories about certain racial/ethnic/religious groups to speak about it as legitimate fact.
Incidentally, here’s a clip demonstrating the ridiculousness of Physiognomy as “valid science” in action from Europa, Europa, a movie about how a Jewish adolescent’s(Based on the life of Solomon Perel) efforts to hide from the Nazis resulted in him being adopted by a Nazi officer’s family and being placed in a prestigious Nazi prep school for children of Nazi officials:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drjpLdq9x-s
Saddest part was how this pseudoscience was widely accepted in Western Europe and the US among the highly educated from the mid-late 19th century onwards…including academics as illustrated by why Columbia U’s College undergrad application originally included a section to enclose one’s photograph*.
This pseudoscience was only completely discredited among the highly educated as a result of Nazi Germany’s total defeat at the hands of the “racially inferior” allies and widespread revelations of how that regime took such a pseudoscience to genocidal extremes.
- While it is voluntary now, inclusion of the photograph was mandatory until recent decades for the express purpose of adcoms/university to use physiognomy to summarily reject applicants it felt didn't have the facial/racial features befitting their ideal students.
George L. Mosse’s “Towards the Final Solution” provides a good discussion of the adoption and popularity of Physiognomy among the highly educated in Europe and the US from the mid-late 19th century until the end of WWII.
This is an extremely broad standard of exclusion. I think some of Alan Krueger’s work has serious methodological problems. Should he banned from speaking on college campuses?
Last I checked, there’s not a single admitted atheist in Congress. If you want to take the radical view that only atheists and agnostics are qualified to speak on college campuses, then virtually no national level politicians from either party would qualify.
And highly educated young people cannot discuss this with the civility displayed here. It is a sad day indeed for the college and a smirch on our young adults. Instead of going and leaving the lecture to argue the merits or lack of merits over a beer or soda some of our young people seen to think it is Ok to assault. I really hope these were non-college activists and not students at the college.
There’s a gulf of difference between discussing/teaching ID/Creationism as a part of one’s personal beliefs or in a course on religion or philosophy and likewise as a STEM Prof/instructor in a STEM course…especially in the biological sciences.
Incidentally, there are plenty of biological science Profs/scientists who are Christians…even some fundamentalists who understand this critical difference and act accordingly and find co-religionists who can’t differentiate the two to be an embarrassment to their religion.
Murray wasn’t teaching a class, much less a biology class. He was a guest speaker invited by a student group. Try to keep it related to the original topic.
A guest speaker who published a non-peer reviewed book with serious methodological problems which have been covered and criticized for the last 20+ years.
Not to mention scrutiny of that book was delayed for a time because he handpicked a few reviewers rather than allow it to be subjected to a peer-review process. A practice which is alone considered quite sketchy within his area of academia(Poli-sci).
Amazing the number of apologists for violent behavior and the ways that those apologists can feel superior.
I don’t see anyone here apologizing for violent behavior. I do see posters questioning the wisdom and appropriateness of having Murray as a speaker on campus. 2 different things - the reaction (wrong) and giving him a platform (subject to debate). The former isn’t being debated because no one seems to condone it.
“Murray wasn’t teaching a class, much less a biology class. He was a guest speaker invited by a student group.”
Co-sponsored by the Political Science Department and introduced by the college president. That’s more than just “invited by a student group”.
This piece is from a blog written by a current Middlebury student. Thoughtful and insightful:
https://justwordsonline.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2017/03/03/on-charles-murray/
One person (I believe it’s still unclear whether or not he or she is a student) pulled her hair. That one person should certainly be punished. But you don’t get to decide the punishment, and there are rules and precedents. “Full stop.”
Yet, no one has laid out a coherent theory of who should be allowed as a speaker?
- Was Bollinger wrong for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak at a Columbia event?
- Was every university that ever allowed Howard Zinn to speak wrong for giving their pulpit to someone who repeats factually untrue statements?
- If you use something as broad as a cobrat’s serious methodological problems, you can find serious methodological problems with a lot of research, including from some tenured Ivy League faculty. Should they all be excluded?