@Ohiodad51 no need to apologize – I was sincere in my attempt to figure out what transpired at Middlebury. As faculty at a university, I am beginning to despair about these matters. Free speech is being strangled on campus nationwide. We are not teaching students --or modeling for them – the critical skills required for a robust, civic sphere. There is no public intellectual space that can counter the seductive force of private, customizable (i.e. digital) and thus unverifiable discourse. We are telescoping, navel gazing and scanning for hurt feelings while the real, structural problems (global warming, drastic income inequality) that will do us all in are comparatively ignored. The leadership at many of these LACs are starting to understand this and are taking (back) a more enunciative position (Middlebury, Chicago). I applaud the effort because I think it shows both a growing awareness (alarm?) of the fragility of democracy and faith in young people. But I think there will be more violence on campuses because we are living in a time of fear ( and that fear is largely justifiable, for many reasons). The obsession with identity politics has proven disastrous to intellectual thought and exchange; it is also a delicious gift to the true enemies of the demos.
^sorry, Chicago is not a LAC
How can a valid answer to this be anything other than, “Yes, absolutely!”
If the primary purpose of a liberal arts college is to teach students how to think, shouldn’t they be exposed to offensive ideas in order to learn how to refute them when they get out in the real world? Perhaps occasionally they will actually learn from a viewpoint they thought was offensive as well.
@binky17, I don’t disagree with much of what you say, and I would just add that in my opinion the Berkley administration seems to be hitting the right notes in their intitial response to the violence there. The issue, as Murray intimated in his post cited above, is what type of follow through do the colleges show, and what is the reaction.
I fear you are correct that we have lost an important thread in teaching (and exercising) the ability to reason and then engage in robust and civil discourse. In a world when everyone can go to google and find support for the position they want, there is no need to do the hard work of shaping and refining our opinons. Unfortunately, it is this hard work that provided us the perspective to test and examine opinions other than our own. We might disagree in that I believe that the monolithic culture that seems to exist in academia plays a role here as well. When I went to college, a republican was elected president. The idea that students would need grief counselors to deal with such a frightful event would have been seen as ludicrous. This is I think largely because while the majority of the faculty was liberal, they were not as monolithic. So while there were a lot of professors who thought Reagan was either the anti christ or a dunce (or both) there were others who thought he was just one end of the normal American political pendulum. We don’t seem to operate that way anymore.
I think we also probably disagree in that I don’t think the violence we see is because we live in a “time fo fear”, if by that you mean the age of Trump. The violence has been going on for some time now. I am sure you can draw a pretty straight line from Melissa Flick, Shrieking Girl and JiggleyPuff to what happened recently at UCB and Midd. It is just an escalation.
“The SPLC is a joke” Is that a joke???
Some of the current SPLC cases are below. I personally find voters rights, childrens rights and economic justice to be very important and not something that should be attacked with off the wall comments or an attempt to trivialize
Joseph Allen, et al. v. John Bel Edwards, et al.
Criminal Justice Reform
Active Case
Date Filed: February 06, 2017 .
Louisiana officials denied poor people their constitutional right to counsel by failing to establish an effective statewide public defense system. The SPLC and its allies filed suit in state court fix the broken system.
In 2016, a funding crisis forced as many as 33 out of 42 public…
Southern Poverty Law Center, Inc. v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al.
Criminal Justice Reform
Immigrant Justice
Active Case
Date Filed: August 09, 2016 .
After the federal government failed to release records under the Freedom of Information Act that would shed light on controversial – and potentially unconstitutional – immigration raids in 2016 that took more than 100 women and children from their homes and placed them in a Texas detention…
Araujo v. Governor Phil Bryant
Children’s Rights
Active Case
Date Filed: July 11, 2016 .
Mississippi funded its charter schools through an unconstitutional scheme that diverted public tax dollars from traditional public schools. The SPLC filed a lawsuit in state court to end the funding system.
The lawsuit called for the court to strike down the funding provisions of the…
Ebony Roberts, et al. v. Robert J. Black, et al.
Economic Justice
Active Case
Date Filed: June 21, 2016 .
A city court judge in Bogalusa, Louisiana, operated a modern-day debtors’ prison by illegally jailing indigent people unable to pay fines or court costs – including a man fined for stealing $5 worth of food to feed his family. The SPLC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the unconstitutional…
Lesly Methelus, et al. v. The District School Board of Collier County, Florida, et al.
Children’s Rights
Immigrant Justice
Active Case
Date Filed: May 16, 2016 .
Officials with Florida’s Collier County schools effectively barred immigrant children with limited English skills from enrolling in high school and pushed them into an adult English program that offered no opportunity to earn credit toward a high school diploma – a violation of state and federal…
VAYLA New Orleans, et al. v. Tom Schedler, et al.
Immigrant Justice
Date Filed: May 04, 2016 .
Louisiana discriminated against naturalized citizens by requiring them to provide citizenship documents when registering to vote – a requirement that was not asked of other potential voters who were only required to swear that they are U.S. citizens. The SPLC filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of…
Nil Govind Das, et al. v. Bert Brantley
Immigrant Justice
Date Filed: April 27, 2016 .
Georgia discriminated against immigrants by enforcing an unconstitutional policy that directed state officials to deny driver’s licenses to people based on their past – rather than current – immigration status.
The Southern Poverty Law Center and Atlanta immigration attorney Justin W…
How about something simpler? How about “Murray is not a racist because he has not made racist statements.”
“Should campuses give a platform to speakers that are potentially offensive?”
There is NO free speech right on non public institutions. Some of these hate filled racists do not deserve a platform.
They are patently offensive. So please stop using the free speech argument to support , hate , racism, and violence against minorities
Do you believe that Charles Murrey is a hate filled racist?
Sorry but I have to chime in here…
There is a real tangible threat to many right now. Just because YOU don’t feel that threat doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Many of us who work in education have seen our students become upset and in some cases terrified by what is happening. I spent most of the month of January having to talk through issues no child should have to face. And no…these aren’t “snowflake” or leftie kids, they are students who should be able to spend their educational time focusing on learning and not wondering if they will be separated from their families, beaten up or told to “go back where they came from”.
This isn’t just happening is our elementary and secondary schools it is happening across our country.
This absolutely effects the way people, students in particular, view invitations to speak to folks like Milo et all. The point of the invitation is not to educate but to be purposefully provocative and to promote a hateful agenda.
As to Murray…if he was invited to discuss the merits of his work I would propose a panel type of forum where his assertions could be refuted.
And before I’m accused of promoting the type of violence that has occurred at a few counter protests…I do not condone it but that is not the majority of protests speakers encounter…it’s just the ones that get the most attention.
" The idea that students would need grief counselors to deal with such a frightful event would have been seen as ludicrous."
" I am sure you can draw a pretty straight line from Melissa Flick, Shrieking Girl and JiggleyPuff to what happened recently at UCB and Midd. It is just an escalation."
I think you mean Click. And I had to google the other two to even know what you are referencing, @Ohiodad51, which leads me to think you are getting your news from interesting sources. Regardless, I think you are using isolated examples and caricatures to paint some pretty broad brushstrokes. Were grief counselors rampant post-election? I don’t think so.
“Do you believe that Charles Murrey is a hate filled racist?” Yes
Ok, @collegedad13, now that you have made such a bold statement, I am sure you have ample evidence of specific hate filled statements that Murray has made, and you have chomping at the bit to tell everyone about it.
Here is your chance. Go!
But in doing so, I expect that you have done the due diligence to find his original statements and writings, and not rely upon other sources that have their own biases.
@doschicos, if I looked it up I probably would have remembered the Mizzou professor’s name was Click not Flick. And there was extensive discussion here on the issues at Yale, UMass and Mizzou last year. Not that hard to remember. As far as the raw number of grief counselors deemed necessary after the election, I have no idea and no desire to try and google it. But there has been quite a lot of reporting about it, and regardless of the number it is something that I believe to be unique. At least I have no memory of ever hearing of something like that before. That is my point. It is a new thing.
@Ohiodad51 yes, I think we disagree, and probably on a fairly fundamental level at that, but your point is taken. By “time of fear,” I am not referring at all to this presidency – I think this election was a symptom of something much bigger, but to elaborate here would be to distract from the thread’s purpose. Suffice it to say that our children have grown up post-Columbine, post 9-11, post commonwealth virtue, post-Newtown, and mid climate change – and they are terrified. I see it every day.
Also, when you and I were young, a Republican president meant something very different. Despite vehement disagreement about government’s role, there was enough of a shared worldview and belief in bipartisanship for government to function. No such virtue exists today in a cynical oligarchy that depends on illiteracy. This young generation recognizes this very basic breakdown and I see it in their faces, hear it in their voices every day. I am very sad about it all. Ok, sorry everybody for rambling, I will bow out now.
@tonymom, not to minimize individuals’ specific concerns about actions that may be taken by the government in the future, but you have to acknowledge that there is real violence being perpetrated against people of a particular political bent? Isn’t that categorically different?
Honestly, @Ohiodad51, I think you just like to throw out inflammatory/biased stuff. I don’t remember any “JigglyPuff” discussion on CC (not that I read everything). You make bold statements and sweeping comments and it really isn’t helpful to furthering a discussion. Honestly, I don’t think there has been a lot of reporting about things like grief counseling on campus post-election across media channels. I think, again, it is indicative of the “media” you choose to consume to get those impressions.
There was strong negative reaction to Obama being elected.
Ole Miss http://thedmonline.com/students-clash-after-election/ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/anti-obama-protest-at-university-of-mississippi-turns-unruly.html
A celebrity said she couldn’t stop crying http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/freaking-out-the-best-of-the-worst-responses-to-obamas-win/
@hebegebe Thank you
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/charles-murray
•As FAIR’s Jim Naureckas reported, The Bell Curve heavily depended on research funded by the notorious Pioneer Fund, described as a “neo-Nazi organization” by the Telegraph. The Pioneer Fund’s founder, Wickliffe Draper, advocated shipping blacks back to Africa, and the fund’s first president, a notorious white supremacist named Harry Laughlin, spearheaded the campaign in the early 1920s to restrict Jewish immigration, testifying before Congress that 83% of Jewish immigrants from eastern and southern Europe were feeble-minded. In The Bell Curve, Murray describes Laughlin as “a biologist who was especially concerned about keeping up the American level of intelligence by suitable immigration policies.”
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/18/paul_krugman_demolishes_charles_murrays_stunning_racist_dishonesty/
If you need more please let me know.
So Murray is a racist? QED?
One problem with ad hominem attacks is that they circumvent rational discourse and dialogue.
I firmly believe our minds are improved when we are made uncomfortable and forced to argue our point. I think shutting down others through violence or bullying or intimidation or threats or saying, “Lalala I’m not listening,” runs against liberal arts values and democratic values.
I feel it is also morally wrong.
By saying “Murray is racist,” you are essentially saying you get to decide who is a racist and who is not - racist being current shorthand for evil beyond all compare - and then nothing else needs to be said. You have labeled him and that’s all there is to say. Murray is evil because he is a racist and therefore the college shouldn’t let him speak because everyone knows Evil can’t be heard by young college students or else…
By the way, just because the Southern Poverty Law Center says he is a racist, doesn’t mean he is a racist. That is their opinion. Appeals to authority don’t cut it with me. I’ve read his book. I disagree with some parts, agree with others. I respect SPLC’s work but they are not priests on high to decide for me, anyway. I also don’t agree with ‘guilt by association’ eg, “his work was funded by bad guys, so it is bad.” I mean this is good data to have, but it isn’t a substitute for his arguments themselves.
Here are a few questions:
- What if I said, no, I disagree--Murray is not a racist. Then what?
What if I said, say, a beloved Democrat was a racist (NOT referring to anyone in particular!)? Then what? Who gets to decide who is racist?
What is the difference between “a racist” and “someone who has said something I feel is racist”?
Also, what is racist? I bet we can’t even all agree on the definition itself. For instance, some people believe “racism” can only be applied to whites.Others believe it is a universal term.
- What if I said, X may not speak at our campus because he is a terrorist? Y may not speak because she criticizes our religion? Z may not speak because he is a Jew? Q may not speak because she is a stupid woman?
You see where this is heading?
Who gets to decide what speaker is so beyond the pale that they may not speak publicly? Who gets to decide the label?
And if they do decide, why do they have the power?
I think it is far better to hear the speaker. If you don’t want to listen, don’t go. The LACs and other colleges/universities that are nurturing this violence and hate and fear are teaching the wrong message to the students. Or perhaps they are afraid the students lack critical thinking skills and therefore an authority needs to tell them what to hear and what not to? If so, they are not a college I want my kids going to.
@binky17, we agree that the problem is far larger than this Presidency, although that provides a convenient target. I disagree that there was a spirit of bipartisanship in the 80s. I remember the Reagan caused aids argument, or that Tip O’Neal was a drunk, and on and on. The cynic in me says we functioned as a government then because we had to, lest the Soviets gain the upper hand. But certainly our politics have not been bipartisan for some time, if ever. And while I agree that a descent into presidential politics of the past is outside the scope of the thread, your comments on the larger societal issues and their impact on the academy are both thoughtful and well within the proper scope of the discussion.