Totally agree, ohiodad.
It is highly ironic that SPLC accuses Murray of being a eugenicist while supporting Planned Parenthood. Perhaps they don’t know that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood was a noted eugenicist.
Whenever I use the word Black, Asian, White, or Mexican, my middle schooler son yells racist. Obviously definitions of many terms have changed over time and they may mean different things to different people. I’m going to get a copy of the Bell Curve to challenge the kid’s critical thinking because there are lots of tables and figures in the book that must come from tons of data. I’d appreciate posters pointing out specific mistakes particularly related to the graphic and numeric presentations. We don’t know our IQs or DNA sequences.
Trying to get a middle schooler to think critically about a book that discusses racial means sounds like a recipe for inadvertently getting a middle schooler to stereotype groups based on statistics…
I haven’t read Murray’s work, which is why most of my comments on this thread concern protesting in general. I don’t necessarily think there is anything wrong with him as a speaker (though I would never see myself going to hear him speak), but I do think people can use his words to further very negative arguments. Facts are facts, but using those facts to form generalizations about groups of people is a very harmful thing to do.
@hebegebe “An institutions was bad decades ago so it must be bad now” is pretty bad logic…
@OHMomof2 – thanks for the link to the inside higher ed article.
I don’t think a link to Pres Patton’s letter has been linked on this thread:
http://www.middlebury.edu/about/president/addresses/2017-addresses/node/545919
I completely agree. Which makes it all the more puzzling why the SPLC continues to distort Murray’s record about one chapter in a book he wrote 23 years ago and that many academics defended. Does the SPLC think they were all white nationalists? If so, perhaps that tells you more about the SPLC than Murray.
“… a book that discusses racial means …”
The book is called “Bell Curve”. Visualize a bell and not the string it hangs from. In the book there are two IQ curves of 23-year olds in 1930: people with no college degrees vs college graduates. Instead of the two curves standing side by side, the no college curve completely covers the college graduates curve. The only difference is the college graduates bell is slimmer and stands on the right side WITHIN the no college curve. What does that mean to people? Do people pay attention to numbers and graphs? I trust my middle schooler understands the graph. I hope he does.
@eiholi Ever take a statistics course? Don’t put too much weight into numbers and graphs without understanding the methodologies and data behind it.
“Lies, damned lies, and statistics”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics
Who were the professors involved in the violence itself @Ohiodad51 ? That is news to me.
@binky17, no offense intended, but please don’t put words in my mouth. I did not say professors were involved in the violence. As far as I know, no names have been released, and no specific charges have been raised against anyone, although I haven’t really been looking for such information.
Planned Parenthood denounces Sanger’s views on eugenics. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/9214/7612/8734/Sanger_Fact_Sheet_Oct_2016.pdf
We also believe that the way to move forward is to acknowledge Sanger’s wrongdoings, encourage open conversations, and continue to address racism and ableism wherever they exist – outside or inside our organization.
“If some of the professors were involved in the violence does that speak poorly of the faculty?”
@Ohiodad51 ^I didn’t put words in your mouth; these are your words. I now understand you were being rhetorical. Thanks for clarifying.
"Well the SPLC must not of read The Bell Curve. In it he clearly states that Asians are the most intelligent race. "
Just because he stated Asians are the most intelligent race doesn’t make him not a racist. That conclusion can definitely not be drawn. I’d argue it gives some merit to those that do.
I think everyone agrees that the violence was unacceptable.
The debates I see remaining are:
Should students protest speakers that they disagree with?
Should campuses give a platform to speakers that are potentially offensive?
Anything I have missed?
I guess a fair number of Midd students weren’t totally clueless about Murray’s philosophies. From a Poli Sci Professor at Middlebury who was actually supportive of Murray’s visit to campus.
“Two days before Murray’s talk I spent my entire weekly politics luncheon discussing Murray’s research in the Bell Curve, and acquainting students with many of the critiques of his findings. My presentation was attended by a packed audience of students and local residents, and many of the students went away primed to do battle with Murray. A few of them, drawing in part on my slide presentation, put together a pamphlet outlining five criticisms of Murray’s argument in the Bell Curve, which they placed on every seat in Wilson Hall. Unfortunately, due to the actions of protesters, my students never had the opportunity to engage Murray beyond a few questions directed at him via Twitter. What’s worse, they now find themselves inaccurately characterized in media outlets as coddled, immature “snowflakes” and “liberal fascists” bent on promoting intolerance and hate.”
I highly recommend reading the prof’s comments in the link. Something for everyone. 
I also recommend reading the comments to this one. With a boneheaded exception or two, there is very interesting and intelligent viewpoints and thought expressed in many of the comments many of which are from other Midd faculty, a few alums, professors at other colleges (you can google their names to get an understanding of who is who).
@binky17, I wasn’t being rhetorical, I was being literal. I try really hard to be clear. I believe the quoted statement should be commonly understood to be conditional, in other words if (I can’t think of a different word to use) it is shown that professors were violent, then that would reflect poorly on the faculty. I don’t believe there is another fair interpretation of that statement.
@“Snowball City”, I have never heard or seen anyone question your first point. I think the issue for most people is where is the line between legitimate protest and efforts to intimidate and/or drown out speakers they disapprove of.
@doschicos, it’s good that some kids made some effort to get “primed” by their Professor to “do battle” with Murray. That’s better then just mindlessly screaming and violence, certainly. I personally would prefer that the kids would have listened to both Dr Dickinson and Murray with an open mind, rather than pre printing cheat sheets for their perhaps less motivated colleagues, but that is probably a bridge too far.
@Ohiodad51 The conditional construction is a rhetorical structure – but like I said, your response to my query clarified matters. I am relieved to know that no professor was involved in the violence. Cheers.
@binky17, I am the proverbial one legged man in a butt kicking contest in any serious discussion about grammar. I took your reference to rhetorical in the sense of trying to be persuasive. And yeah, I am the same guy who is constantly banging on about making assumptions. Oh well. Sorry if you found my initial sentence unclear.
Not everyone can be above average.