Actually, many folks have been pointing out flaws in his work and public statements while it seems you’re the one “pounding the table” by continuing to assert otherwise.
Biological and racial determinism has had a long sordid legacy in our recent history from the justifications for Black slavery to derivative pseudosciences like Physiognomy which were once widely accepted in European and American educated circles* and when taken to the next levels by Nazi Germany, lead us to the heinous war crimes and mass genocide of millions of marginalized groups from the Jewish population to the Roma…
The "include your photograph" section on Columbia U's College application is an artifact from the period when physiognomy was widely accepted within the European and American academics and adcoms. While voluntary now, it was once mandatory due to the wide acceptance of that pseudoscience.
That is until the Nazi regime was completely defeated and its genocidal crimes became widely known throughout the world thanks to the efforts to document the Nazi death camps by General Eisenhower and other Allied military leaders.
So we are moving the target now to one student who had to read one book for class, who then wrote an unspecified article establishing that Murray’s theories are garbage as a stand in for people protesting something they admittedly know nothing about, and saying that there is “a lot of scientific criticism” of Murray is a justification for what exactly? That the school administration should have never allowed such a person to pollute their campus in the first place? Is the Middlebury administration allowed to decide who may speak on their campus? Or must we default to the left most segment of campus to determine what is acceptable? I mean what are we talking about here? This is not a case of a faculty deciding whether to offer tenure to a controversial scholar, or whether a particular course will qualify for credit. We are talking about another violent assault perpetrated by individuals who are trying to silence people with whom they disagree.
I provide more support to my daughter than my son (her tuition is more expensive). Then again my son eats a lot more, so maybe it evens out.
But it would be nice if we could keep the discussion to the topic of the current climate on campuses, or at least the Wikipedia driven disquisitions on why Charles Murray is a hack, and deserved whatever he got.
@ohiodad51 You cant yell fire in a crowded theatre. Adult material is controlled under free speech doctrines. And yes the administration should not allow a racist to pollute their campus . Do you think the KKK should be allowed to pollute a campus?
"@ tanbiko are you saying that women are genetically inferior to men or is that a joke? "
"Your poor kids. "
My daughter is not genetically inferior to my son. They are just different because one is a man and another is a women. My son has a higher IQ but my daughter has many other strengths. I expect that my daughter’s starting salary will be twice my son’s starting salary.
Yes, Charles Murray is definitively a racist. I think that if there is one thing that has become clear, it is that there is no academic justification for his work at all. Heck, I understand he even votes for some Republicans if you can believe that!
@collegedad13 , I agree with Murray that IQ distribution is different for men and women. There are more men with very high and very low IQ. My personal experiences tell me the same thing.
The Bell Curve was published over 20 years ago. I think Murray was going to Middlebury to talk about his latest book, which he wrote about 3 years ago. Its title is “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010”.
Murray deliberately focused on just “White” America because he didn’t want to get bogged down in a discussion of racial and ethnic issues. He believes that even mentioning race or ethnicity makes any sort of intellectual discussion impossible, so he deliberately mostly stays away from these topics in this book. Ironically, these events serve to prove him right.
I read the book a few years ago. IIRC, the central arguments are that
America is increasingly becoming a class-based society.
The upper and lower classes are increasingly living separate lives and also live by different values; in particular the upper class is cocooning itself off from everyone else.
An important foundation of upper class success is that they live by “traditional values” - intact marriages, low rates of illegitimacy, high male employment rates. The reverse holds for those in the lower classes.
For example, today within the top 20% SES almost 90% of young white children live with both biological parents, while less than 45% of young white children in the bottom 30% SES do. In 1960, both rates were over 95%.
Another major contributor to the class divide is that occupational success increasingly requires college education. Upper middle class families send their kids to college so that they can have good careers and so they can marry other college educated people. The rate of intermarriage between college-educated and non-college educated people is low and falling. This amplifies the class divide and makes class status almost a birthright since Murray thinks that IQ has a strong hereditary component, and IQ + money = send kids to college.
He uses these facts to argue that living by “conservative” values are, in part, the solution. He also thinks that the upper-class clearly lives by these values, but lacks the courage to “preach what they practice”.
Personally, I thought the book was somewhat interesting but wasn’t that well argued. To no one’s surprise, he thinks the solutions can be found in implementing his conservative political agenda. I think Murray did a fair amount of cherry-picking of facts to support his ideology and his own biases.On the other hand, this is par for the course when it comes to this genre. You’d have to burn 3/4’s of the popular books on topics like education, etc. and shut down the NYT if you think that this is a cardinal sin.
The SPLC description of Charles Murrary is so over the top it belongs in The Onion. It gave me a good laugh.
I don’t know enough about Joseph Graves to evaluate his claims regarding The Bell Curve. Here are the claims you attributed to him about the Bell Curve:
1.claims that are not supported by the data given
2.errors in calculation that invariably support the hypothesis
3.no mention of data that contradict the hypothesis
4.no mention of theories and data that conflict with core assumptions
5.bold policy recommendations that are consistent with those advocated by racists
I cannot evaluate #1-#4 with what you have given me, except to say that Stephen Jay Gould was found guilty of them without a doubt. However, the fact that Graves listed #5 raises a number of red flags with me about Graves credibility.
Let me explain. Just because a policy is advocated by racists does not automatically make it a racist policy. For example, many people believe that the US immigration laws should be enforced, because they believe the US should be a nation of laws. However, just about all racists believe immigration laws should be enforced, but because of xenophobia. Graves’ logic would lead to the incorrect conclusion that all people that believe in enforcing immigration laws are racist, which is clearly faulty.
Thank you, @al2simon , for giving the main points of the book as you see them.
There doesn’t seem to be anything outrageous in those four points, though certainly they can be debated, in whole or in part. Some things sound and make us feel uncomfortable, but sometimes observations – and the lens through which we view them (lest we forget the importance of perspective) – can lead us to uncomfortable conclusions.
Like many of the more controversial topics, there are a lot of conclusions we could draw that would include kernels of truth… but there are probably also some rotten kernels. How to bring together all the healthy kernels, while keeping out the rotten ones, to form the whole ear of corn – now that would be the cat’s meow. Or, the cow’s.
Of course, just when you think you have the full picture, someone points out one flick of the paintbrush you got wrong.
But I suppose the sojourn to truth is in itself worthy even if the searcher – searchers – never quite satisfy their thirst to have an issue licked.
@doschicos, originally, I was referring to the quotes in the article I posted (including one from the professor who was allegedly assaulted) which recorded that several of the protestors, students and teachers alike, had not read Murray’s work. Another poster responded by stating he or she had seen an article where one student had read the Bell Curve for a class. To me that is moving the goal posts. To you it may be something else. But no, I of course do not know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Nor do I have personal knowledge of how many of the protestors had digested Murray’s works.
Personally, I pretend to no knowledge on the legitimacy of his research. I kinda knew who he was because my mother got her D of Ed towards the end of her career several years ago and her research had something to do with testing methodology and cultural bias, and I remember some of what she talked about. But I am by no means the expert many here appear to be.
Isn’t it practically a tautology that a racist is someone who believes some people should be treated differently based on their race? Isn’t affirmative action by definition treating people differently based on race?
