Also from that article is IMO an important idea:
So there is a lot of time set aside for the community to discuss issues all the time, not just in reaction to a controversial invite.
@marvin100 - if it WERE your choice, then who would be invited to speak on campus and who wouldn’t? Also, what type of policies would you put in place regarding invited speakers, speech and protest?
While this is certainly true, there are a few problems that I see:
- An increasing intolerance to ideas and people that are different from the mainstream viewpoint at the college.
- An apparent willingness to believe the prevalent narrative without actually reading the source material and making an informed decision. I call this "outsourcing your opinion", and this seems to be true of at least some people on this thread as well.
- Recently, an increasing willingness to threaten violence or actually carry it out to stop these non-conforming ideas from being spread.
Issues #1 and #2 are antithetical to the entire concept of a liberal arts education, and the warning flags on that should be raised. Most worryingly it is happening not just at the student level, but sometimes also at the faculty level.
Issue #3 has an impact that is far greater than the small number of incidents where the threat of violence or actual violence occurs. Its entire point is to provide a chilling effect nationwide upon potential speakers and the colleges that invite them. Many speakers and faculty members would look at the possibility of bodily harm, and decide it is simply no longer worth doing.
In the back and forth on right and wrong regarding the invitation and student interactions, I recalled one of the most engaging arguments I’ve encountered for a Liberal Arts education. Robert George and Cornell West of Princeton are ideologically opposed, yet remain intellectually curious enough to appreciate the possibility the other has positions of merit. Included in the presentations (link below) are the following comments:
They are eerily articulate, enabling a rational appreciation of the process of education and self awareness. I find their interaction remarkably appropriate for this conversation, and would urge anyone who has an extra hour or two to watch. As noted in the introduction, they most likely have more accomplishment on their CV’s than everyone who’s made one of the 500 comments combined.
Thanks for bringing this up, @EyeVeee. Here’s an article with their conversation. Totally thought provoking.
https://paw.princeton.edu/article/conversation-speaking-their-minds
Hebegebe: Where is the actual evidence that this is truly an increasing problem? There have been 2 well publicized incidents recently Milo at UCB and Middlebury. There have likely been others like F&M, like Murry appearing at other places, which have gone off without major disruption. Even at Middlebury and certainly at Berkeley it was not ALL of the students, but a subset. And yes there are others, including speakers that decided to not speak, but still given there are over 3000 colleges in the US, not really a common issue.
At Middlebury, as posted above, there was some effort made to have a discussion about Murray and his views and why they were controversial.
That being said, there are a small minority of students at some campuses that may be overly sensitive and spot offensive when none was meant or even suggested (some of the micro-aggression discussions in previous posts). Many of those have been blown way out of proportion by certain media outlets (and on CC) to suggest it is common and that students are excessively sensitive when in fact it is very rare. I would venture to say that most college students are just not that political or motivated to go out and protest something like this.
All it takes is a few to make a peaceful protest turn ugly. Numerous students had done their homework and planned to ask specific questions, but were unable to because of the protesters.
The current political climate is one of sound bites. On Murray, the point being argued can be reviewed without reading the entire book through articles on both sides of the spectrum. The reality is that most people, again on both sides of almost any issues, are not going to original sources or reading a full article or paper. Yet you keep making the argument that people have no business making any statements without reading the entire book or the entire body of his work. Do you feel the same way about every controversial topic?
Thanks Ohmom for posting that from F&M.
I suppose I do. I spend a lot of time reading…
So when I discuss IQ, it is because I have read books including The Bell Curve and The Mismeasure of Man, several books about gifted education, and many peer-reviewed articles on how learning ability varies according to age. I consider myself reasonably well informed for a lay person.
So when people call Murray a racist without having read his work at all, I consider that both incredibly lazy and misguided.
@hebegebe It is not misguided to not want to give racists a platform. It is called having good ethical principals. I find it odd how so many people want to try and intellectualize racism and make it mainstream. I find it completely and utterly disgusting and repulsive. Murray liked to burn crosses. That sounds like the KKK to me. Milo is into pedophilia.
This thread is starting to become very repetitive
I’ll have to admit that I have not read any of Murray’s books.
It’s nothing personal, he seems like a nice old man.
Please brace yourself, because I know this makes some people uncomfortable, but somebody has to say it if we are going to have any chance of fixing the problem.
You see, one problem with Murray’s book is that he majored in history and his co-author majored in psychology. Everybody knows that history and psychology majors are not among the majors with the highest IQ’s. Since IQ’s predict success, it is unlikely that any public policy suggestions they make will be successful. Why would anyone want to waste their time reading about public policy suggestions that are doomed to failure?
https://qz.com/334926/your-college-major-is-a-pretty-good-indication-of-how-smart-you-are/
The other problem is that Murray is from the state of Iowa. Everybody knows that Iowa barely makes it into the top 20th percentile when it comes to IQ. Given the link between IQ and success, we may need to abandon the notion of democracy because we probably shouldn’t be listening to people from Iowa (or other areas with even lower IQ’s) when making public policy decisions.
http://blog.prepscholar.com/average-sat-and-act-scores-by-stated-adjusted-for-participation-rate
"The other problem is that Murray is from the state of Iowa. Everybody knows that Iowa barely makes it into the top 20th percentile when it comes to IQ. " Considering Steven Kings remarks that must be true
@Mastadon - To counter your argument, recall that Murray attended and graduated from Harvard. On top of that, earned his PhD at MIT, which is worth exactly .999 milliharvards. Only smart people go those schools, even if they are rubes from Iowa.
He also has a law named after him. How many people can say that?
Murrays law states:
You learn something everyday.
Only if you listen to things you haven’t heard before. Some people go years without learning anything.
I particularly try to not learn a bunch of garbage every day like “medicare is doomed to effect a net harm on society” or “social security is bad”
I read The Bell Curve and have followed the scholarship on it extensively. I’ve even taught it and many related tests.
I’m not going to argue that awful book and its totally shoddy “scholarship” on this message board, though–there’s a very large corpus available that has very thoroughly dismantled it (which is one reason its author shouldn’t be welcomed in academia).
For anyone still following this thread, Allison Stanger had an op-ed in the nytimes.
Parts of the op ed are very good. From the op ed
“It is obvious that some protesters made dangerous choices. But with time to reflect, I have to say that I hear and understand the righteous anger of many of those who shouted us down. I know that many students felt they were standing up to protect marginalized people who have been demeaned or even threatened under the guise of free speech.”
Since you read the article, how did you miss this gem:
In other words, Stanger believes that the SPLC paints an intentionally misleading portrait of Murray. This is one of the references you cited as why Murray is a racist. You also gave me a quote from the SPLC site that suggested that Murray was in league with eugenicists, when in fact I showed you that the quote was taken completely out of context.
So, are you now really angry at the SPLC for manipulating your view about Murray, or are you simply so anchored in your view that it doesn’t matter what falsehoods are spread, as long as you agree with the outcome?
@hebegebe You need to stop with the personal attacks. It is really annoying and not appropriate
You are right @collegedad13, I was over the line in the paragraph you quoted. For that, I apologize.