Some of the justification for scientific racism is also over the top. I think a lot of it belongs on Breibart news.
@roethlisburger Affirmative Action is in part to make up for the racist behavior of the past. It is to correct a societal wrong
So you want to punish some kid born in 2000 for the sins of his grandparents or great-grandparents and that sounds fair to you?
Except that you haven’t proven scientific racism at all. You asserted it, and accepted it, and so in your mind anyone who disagrees with you is automatically an acolyte of Steve Bannon. And somehow in all this you failed to recognize the multiple non-sequitors.
Have any of the anti-Murray posters, other than @al2simon, read the book he was there to speak about: Coming Apart - The State of White America?
@roethlisburger This isn’t an affirmative action thread despite your desire to keep going there.
Charles Murray’s essay on his experience at Middlebury this past Thursday night:
http://www.aei.org/publication/reflections-on-the-revolution-in-middlebury/
Although it’s peripheral to all the goings-on, I found it noteworthy that he has a daughter who graduated from Middlebury ten years ago. . . Anyway, I think it’s a worthwhile read in terms of the events before, during, and after his talk, as well as his take on what might or should happen next.
I have also read Coming Apart and think that @al2simon did an excellent job describing it (I expect nothing less from another Calvin and Hobbes fan).
For those of you that are so sure that Murray is racist, why would he bother with writing Coming Apart, a book that mentioned nothing about race yet largely had the same prescriptions as the Bell Curve?
IMO the answer to that reveals both Murray’s greatest strength and weakness. Murray’s strength is in finding the differences that exist in society that others are either unable to find or unwilling to disclose, both across races and within races. His weakness is in his prescription of conservative values as the solution for all of society’s ills.
“For those of you that are so sure that Murray is racist, why would he bother with writing Coming Apart, a book that mentioned nothing about race yet largely had the same prescriptions as the Bell Curve?”
Well, @al2simon probably answered that question with this statement: "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. "
^Maybe he figured he’d get more speaking engagements, and therefore $$, if he downplayed that in his recent writings. If nothing else, he is a self-marketer. 
So @doschicos, in other words, he is not a racist. He is something almost as bad: A capitalist.
Why does it seem these small liberal arts colleges are the worst when it comes to free speech and engaging with diverse viewpoints?
I agree @WildestDream. They seem to be producing some of the most closed minded college graduates out there. So glad my D didn’t follow my initial suggestion of applying to the liberal arts schools (which I had suggested due to their higher admit rates).
ETA: I guess I shouldn’t paint just liberal arts schools as closed minded. Berkeley seems to have gotten there as well.
Last year you all were dishing on Yale. Before that, University of Missouri. Just to name a few. Also not LACs.
@hebegebe Higher acceptances rates than what? A handful or two of Ivies and other top schools?
For the record, I embrace capitalism. To some people’s surprise, it’s not anathema to all liberal leaning folk.
Good memory @doschicos. For unknown reasons, our HS seems to have a freakishly high ED rate to Amherst and Williams. Yale didn’t make D’s list after I showed her the Jerelyn Luther video, despite her first cousin being a recent graduate.
And I was joking about the capitalist part.
That’s the million dollar question
If you think FIRE is a good arbiter of which schools are “worst” for free speech, then liberal arts colleges are not only not worst but often best. Only one of the top ten is a LAC: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-10-worst-colleges-for-free-speech-2017_us_58ac64bfe4b0417c4066c2f1
I swear some people like to bash LACs because the word “liberal” is in the phrase.
A follow up today:
In which Midd says there were outsiders but also students involved in the melee outside after.
Some students have issued a statement too, and their version of events is different:
Speaking of diversity of viewpoints, Dinesh D’souza also has an interesting take on this subject
I don’t understand the criticism of Middlebury per se here. It seems like the administration has done a pretty good job to date, both in trying to provide a forum and addressing the afterrmath. If some of the professors were involved in the violence does that speak poorly of the faculty? Yeah. And, if the comments by the professor who was assaulted were true, it speaks very poorly of the faculty’s habit of intellectualism that they were involved in the protest without reading Murray’s work. But a diverse faculty is going to have its fringe elements. In a lot of ways, learning and knowledge move forward not only because of the work of tweed jacketed pipe smokers thinking hard about whether the end of Ulysses is supposed to link to the beginning like in Finnegan’s Wake, or whether Joyce was just messing with everyone’s head. We need more radical thinkers push and pull us to new ideas.
The real tragedy is that we appear to have only one fringe on many campuses, and the dearth of conservative scholars means that there is no natural push back against the more radical lefties. Which brings me to the student letter linked by @OHMomof2. It is really sad that kids at one of the preeminent centers of thought in the world would view that missive as somehow putting them in a better light, or explaining their actions. The idea that some one who is at all intellectually aware can write “What is most important must be spoken, made verbal and shared, even at the risk of having it bruised or misunderstood” in defense of what happened and without apparent irony is really, really sad. But like the man said, when you only know one side of the argument, you don’t even know that. They would have been far better off taking the tack of Robert Reich and several here and claim that all of the bad stuff was done either by closet right wingers or nefarious outside agitators.
Well the SPLC must not of read The Bell Curve. In it he clearly states that Asians are the most intelligent race. It’s been a long time since I read it but I don’t remember him separating the races by sex.
The SPLC is a joke. White Lives Matter and All Lives Matter are hate groups, but Black Lives Matter is not. The Family Research Council and Focus on the Family are hate groups, but Code Pink and Planned Parenthood are not. The organization exists as a fund raising vehicle and as cover for lefties to do things like attack Charles Murray.