If I gave all of you the choice, would you rather be born black or white, what would be your HONEST answer?
Mic drop
@Akqi10 - are you implying that being born African American automatically places you at a particular spot on the achievement curve? That’s a total misinterpretation of the conversation AND the Murray analysis, which doesn’t apply at all to individuals. As he has pointed out in his book, even if all intelligence differences among ethnic groups were completely erased - or never even existed in the first place - you’d still see major differences among individuals.
If a group associated with the University decides to invite someone to speak, you have to respect that. Period. None if the students who objected need attend. The left and the right become the same when they meet at extremism and violence.
Why?
@marvin100 I agree you don’t have to respect every invitee. I think peaceful protest is fine; I think what @CU123 is referring to though is violence, not peaceful protest.
That said, to protest, you must be informed. If you just protest because someone told you to protest - tweets, your FB friends etc - or told you what to think, and you don’t bother looking up even remotely the original source material to find out for yourself what the person is actually saying and whether you should protest, then I think you have abdicated your own freedom and independence. You have become simply a tool for others to use.
This is why I object to people protesting Murray without actually reading his work. Just because someone else has labeled him a ‘racist’–this means nothing if you have no idea what he actually said. Pure appeals to authority for your opinions - I know Murray is a racist because x or y says so, or because this authority has given this single quote from a 500 page book, which may or may not be taken out of context, I have no idea - are ultimately are dangerous because you leave yourself open to manipulation and propaganda. You also misuse the wonderful rational brain we have been given.
Also there is the problem of hurling the epithet of ‘racist’ against people as a way of blocking them from speaking, or worse, committing violence against them. The question is: What is a racist? Someone who once says something someone perceives as racist? Does that turn them into a racist forever? Or is it someone whose words are used by other racists? Or someone who condones or participates in violence against minorities based on prejudice? We cannot even agree of what racism is, much less who a racist is. Some people argue it is an endemic power structure only levies against disempowered minorities and therefore white people cannot ever be victims of racism; others argue it is vile prejudice against any group based on their group label. We cannot even agree on what racism means, so how can we toss around the label of Racist - as though this is the sum total of a person?
Lately, ‘racist’ has been used like water. I think this is a huge mistake as it weakens the meaning of the word. There is poisonous racism out there. But to immediately label someone a ‘racist’ - as though he or she is defined by that ad hominem label and as though therefore nothing whatsoever he/she can say should ever be listened to, because he is Evil - is I think morally wrong and hugely problematic. Again who gets to decide? I’ll tell you something–My kids are Latino and I work in an all-Black school district, and I have seen my share of white progressives who believe that saying they are against racism, makes it true, and saying someone else is ‘racist’ somehow makes it true. These are the same people who might work in an all white job, send their kids to all white schools, live in an all white enclave. Listen, nothing wrong with that. But when the labels are tossed - poisonous labels, meant to shut down a person, and incite violence - somehow it’s never against themselves, only against someone like Murray. Who they are told is racist–they don’t even know for themselves. They are simply told. They then label themselves as righteous arbiters of morality. How convenient, that all one must do to be the Righteous One is to label The Other as evil.
This - very sadly - especially goes for some of the faculty at Middlebury, who notably, although highly educated, didn’t even bother to read Murray’s work before they condemned him. What does that say about their adherence to higher reasoning and rigorous rational debate? What does that say about their facility for running their own classrooms, if all they need to do is to be told what to think?
What happened to actions as opposed to words? Who gives anyone the power to judge? Why this person, and not that person? And most importantly–what happened to complex ideas? Why can we not simply debate an idea and give rational reasons we oppose it, or - more likely - oppose parts of it?
Well, to many people, the bigger problem is that a significant portion of the population thinks that being called “racist” or told your actions are racist is worse than all the actual racism that’s taking place.
generations says:
Marvin 100 says:
:-?
News from Middlebury is that Allison Stanger is back in the hospital with after being diagnosed with a concussion. You can see her interview with Dr. Murray here:
http://www.middlebury.edu/newsroom/archive/2017-news/node/545928
Fortunately, she’ll be fine.
Some people believe he is a racist and some believe he is not. And as for others, well perhaps they just don’t know and would like to hear him speak and decide for themselves.
His views are public and easily available. The idea that one must personally be invited to speak at a student’s college in order for that student to become familiar with his or her views is a canard.
Perhaps some did not have time to read his books or just prefer to become familiar with his views by hearing him speak. This event would be a good opportunity for them to do so.
@marvin100: "Well, to many people, the bigger problem is that a significant portion of the population thinks that being called “racist” or told your actions are racist is worse than all the actual racism that’s taking place. "
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Was this supposed to be some sort of put down? I’m asking in all seriousness.
Are you saying that the actual racism taking place is more of a concern than violence, silencing, & bullying against random people we are told we must label as evil racists? If so, that is a bait and switch–the two are separate issues.
No one is saying there is no actual racism taking place. At least, I’m certainly not. No one is saying one thing is worse than another thing.
Have you read my post? Your response is a strange encapsulation of the M.O. currently used against speakers like Murray–take a complex argument, remove a single quote, pretend it is arguing about something it’s not, then argue against it, with yourself cast as morally superior.
Racism continues to be a vile problem the world over. But the topic is coercion and bullying and violence against people one might disagree with–or, as I was arguing, not even with a person we disagree with, but instead a person social media has told us we should hate even though we have zero direct knowledge of what he/she has said or done.
The other issue are those who implicitly consider themselves moral arbiters of what is ‘racism taking place.’ As I wrote, we can’t even agree on what racism is much less what to do about ‘racism taking place.’ However, as someone with Latino children and who works in the inner city, I’m really tired of a brand of self-appointed moral police - all too often upper class and living in non-diverse enclaves (not referring to anyone specifically here)- acting as though it is somehow meaningful to say things like ‘racism is taking place’. Wow. That’s so helpful. And how convenient to believe that all one needs to do is be indignant, post a few things, click ‘like’, go to a couple of protests, say a few words–and one has somehow done something about ‘racism taking place.’
And how do they get off the hook? Why are they not racist? Why are they not being shut down, or fired, or silenced? Again, who gets to decide?
Why do the professors at Middlebury, to use one example, think they are so superior that they can judge a man with a one word epithet without knowing a single thing about him, just because they’re told to? Why is this one man somehow a symbol of ‘racism taking place’ but the professors of Middlebury are not? The professors are magically immune to racism? They judge themselves to be morally pure?
Again, why do they get to judge? Can you not see how self-serving this is? This is actually about inoculating oneself against ostracism from a shame-based group collective, as opposed to actually doing anything at all to solve real-world problems. In other words, it’s self-serving and I think has very little to do with racism; racism is merely the venue.
What gives professors who teach in an elite non-diverse institution to decry racism, sexism, and homophobia without first looking in the mirror and without first and foremost, being actual on the ground agents for change?
And what gives anyone the right to threaten violence and hurl vicious epithets at people whose work we have no direct knowledge of? Let he who is without sin and all that.
@generations - the overwhelming focus of the discourse, here on CC, in the media, and on other social media and message boards, is on the “snowflakes” and “social justice warriors” who are making things “too contentious.”
My comment was an attempt to contextualize that gross overreaction by placing it next to its cause. I’m not striving for moral superiority (believe me: I do not possess it) or for shaming, but rather for a counterpoint to the hand-wringing, pearl-clutching narrative about “kids today” and “the state of our colleges” that the SQW folks are so bent on propating.
This is a false dichotomy. It’s quite possible to do all of these things, and doing one of them doesn’t remotely preclude doing another.
“The idea that one must personally be invited to speak at a student’s college in order for that student to become familiar with his or her views is a canard.”
So @marvin100 who should be invited to speak on campus and who shouldn’t? What’s your criteria for choosing?
It’s not my choice, and it’s none of your business.
Marvin,
Since early in this thread you stated you were against Murray, which of his books have you read and what specifically did you find wrong about them?
But we are headed back into the weeds again. Marvin is correct – it is not his choice. Each individual institution has their own specific criteria which likely includes sufficient interest from the community. Once the community extends an invitation students can protest, but they should be held to standards that fall within the guidelines of the community. They agreed to abide by those policies when they enrolled.
Despite being reminded of Middlebury’s policy at least twice before Murray appeared on stage, a segment of the community disrupted the event to the point where it could not proceed. If Middlebury is committed to the values reflected in their policies then the students will be held accountable. If the community gives them a pass then they can expect an erosion of their own right to invite speakers and actually hear what they have to say.
[quote] That same day, another controversial speaker -- Flemming Rose -- appeared at Franklin & Marshall College. Rose is a Danish journalist who in 2005 -- as culture editor of Jyllands-Posten -- published cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that were criticized by many Muslim groups as blasphemous.
At Franklin & Marshall, Rose spoke – without incident, except for some raised voices in conversations before the event – even as students organized a protest that did not disrupt the lecture.
[/quote]
Gosh, you think?