Reflections on the revolution in Middlebury
AEIdeas
A few months ago, AEI’s student group at Middlebury College invited me to speak on the themes in Coming Apart and how they relate to the recent presidential election. Professor Allison Stanger of the Political Science Department agreed to serve as moderator of the Q&A and to ask the first three questions herself.
About a week before the event, plans for protests began to emerge, encouraged by several faculty members. Their logic was that since I am a racist, a white supremacist, a white nationalist, a pseudoscientist whose work has been discredited, a sexist, a eugenicist, and (this is a new one) anti-gay, I did not deserve a platform for my hate speech, and hence it was appropriate to keep me from speaking.
Middlebury College.
Last Wednesday, the day before the lecture was to occur, I got an email from Bill Burger, Vice President for Communications at Middlebury. The size and potential ferocity of the planned protests had escalated. We agreed to meet at the Middlebury Inn an hour before the lecture so that we could go over a contingency plan: In the event that the protesters in the lecture hall did not cease and desist after a reasonable period, Professor Stanger and I would repair to a room near the lecture hall where a video studio had been set up that would enable us to live-stream the lecture and take questions via Twitter.
Here’s how it played out.
The lecture hall was at capacity, somewhere around 400. There were lots of signs with lots of slogans (see the list of allegations above), liberally sprinkled with the f-word. A brave member of the AEI student group, Ivan Valladares, gave an eloquent description of what the group was about. Middlebury’s president, Laurie Patton, gave a statement about the importance of free speech even though she disagrees with much of my work. A second brave member of the AEI club, Alexander Khan, introduced me. All this was accompanied by occasional catcalls and outbursts, but not enough to keep the speakers from getting through their material. Then I went onstage, got halfway through my first sentence, and the uproar began.
First came a shouted recitation in unison of what I am told is a piece by James Baldwin. I couldn’t follow the words. That took a few minutes. Then came the chanting. The protesters had prepared several couplets that they chanted in rotations—“hey, hey, ho, ho, white supremacy has to go,” and the like. It was very loud, and stayed loud. It’s hard for me estimate, but perhaps half the audience were protesters and half had come to hear the lecture.
It was very loud, and stayed loud. It’s hard for me estimate, but perhaps half the audience were protesters and half had come to hear the lecture.
I stood at the podium. I didn’t make any attempt to speak—no point in it—but I did make eye contact with students. I remember one in particular, from whom I couldn’t look away for a long time. She reminded me of my daughter Anna (Middlebury ’07) — partly physically, but also in her sweet earnestness. She looked at me reproachfully and a little defiantly, her mouth moving in whatever the current chant was. I’m probably projecting, but I imagined her to be a student who wasn’t particularly political but had learned that this guy Murray was truly evil. So she found herself in the unfamiliar position of activist, not really enjoying it, but doing her civic duty.
The others…. Wow. Some were just having a snarky good time as college undergrads have been known to do, dancing in the aisle to the rhythm of the chants. But many looked like they had come straight out of casting for a film of brownshirt rallies. In some cases, I can only describe their eyes as crazed and their expressions as snarls. Melodramatic, I know. But that’s what they looked like.
This went on for about twenty minutes. My mindset at that point was to wait them out if it took until midnight (which, I was later to realize, probably wouldn’t have been long enough). But finally Bill Burger came on stage and decided, correctly, that the people who had come to hear the lecture deserved a chance to do so. Professor Stanger and I were led out of the hall to the improvised studio.
I started to give an abbreviated version of my standard Coming Apart lecture, speaking into the camera. Then there was the sound of shouting outside, followed by loud banging on the wall of the building. Professor Stanger and I were equipped with lavalier microphones, which are highly directional. The cameraman-cum-sound-technician indicated that we could continue to speak and the noise from outside would not drown us out. Then a fire alarm went off, which was harder to compete with. And so it went through the lecture and during my back and forth conversation with Professor Stanger—a conversation so interesting that minutes sometimes went by while I debated some point with her and completely forgot about the din. But the din never stopped.
We finished around 6:45 and prepared to leave the building to attend a campus dinner with a dozen students and some faculty members. Allison, Bill, and I (by this point I saw both of them as dear friends and still do) were accompanied by two large and capable security guards. (As I write, I still don’t have their names. My gratitude to them is profound.) We walked out the door and into the middle of a mob. I have read that they numbered about twenty. It seemed like a lot more than that to me, maybe fifty or so, but I was not in a position to get a good count. I registered that several of them were wearing ski masks. That was disquieting.
What would have happened after that I don’t know, but I do recall thinking that being on the ground was a really bad idea, and I should try really hard to avoid that. Unlike Allison, I wasn’t actually hurt at all.
I had expected that they would shout expletives at us but no more. So I was nonplussed when I realized that a big man with a sign was standing right in front of us and wasn’t going to let us pass. I instinctively thought, we’ll go around him. But that wasn’t possible. We’d just get blocked by the others who were joining him. So we walked straight into him, one of our security guys pushed him aside, and that’s the way it went from then on: Allison and Bill each holding one of my elbows, the three of us plowing ahead, the security guys clearing our way, and lots of pushing and shoving from all sides.
I didn’t see it happen, but someone grabbed Allison’s hair just as someone else shoved her from another direction, damaging muscles, tendons, and fascia in her neck. I was stumbling because of the shoving. If it hadn’t been for Allison and Bill keeping hold of me and the security guards pulling people off me, I would have been pushed to the ground. That much is sure. What would have happened after that I don’t know, but I do recall thinking that being on the ground was a really bad idea, and I should try really hard to avoid that. Unlike Allison, I wasn’t actually hurt at all.
The three of us got to the car, with the security guards keeping protesters away while we closed and locked the doors. Then we found that the evening wasn’t over. So many protesters surrounded the car, banging on the sides and the windows and rocking the car, climbing onto the hood, that Bill had to inch forward lest he run over them. At the time, I wouldn’t have objected. Bill must have a longer time horizon than I do.
Much of the meaning of the Middlebury affair depends on what Middlebury does next.
Extricating ourselves took a few blocks and several minutes. When we had done so and were finally satisfied that no cars were tailing us, we drove to the dinner venue. Allison and I went in and started chatting with the gathered students and faculty members. Suddenly Bill reappeared and said abruptly, “We’re leaving. Now.” The protesters had discovered where the dinner was being held and were on their way. So it was the three of us in the car again.
Long story short, we ended up at a lovely restaurant several miles out of Middlebury, where our dinner companions eventually rejoined us. I had many interesting conversations with students and faculty over the course of the pleasant evening that followed. In the silver-lining category, the original venue was on campus and would have provided us with all the iced tea we could drink. The lovely restaurant had a full bar.
* * *
Much of the meaning of the Middlebury affair depends on what Middlebury does next. So far, Middlebury’s stance has been exemplary. The administration agreed to host the event. President Patton did not cancel it even after a major protest became inevitable. She appeared at the event, further signaling Middlebury’s commitment to academic freedom. The administration arranged an ingenious Plan B that enabled me to present my ideas and discuss them with Professor Stanger even though the crowd had prevented me from speaking in the lecture hall. I wish that every college in the country had the backbone and determination that Middlebury exhibited.
Both Bill Burger, who made the initial remarks in the lecture hall, and President Patton spelled out Middlebury’s code of conduct and warned that violations could have consequences up to and including expulsion. Those warnings were ignored wholesale. Now what?
I sympathize with the difficulty of President Patton’s task. We’re talking about violations that involve a few hundred students, ranging from ones that call for a serious tutelary response (e.g., for the sweetly earnest young woman) to ones calling for permanent expulsion (for the students who participated in the mob as we exited), to criminal prosecution (at the very least, for those who injured Professor Stanger). The evidence will range from excellent to ambiguous to none. I will urge only that the inability to appropriately punish all of the guilty must not prevent appropriate punishment in cases where the evidence is clear.
Absent an adequate disciplinary response, I fear that the Middlebury episode could become an inflection point. In the twenty-three years since The Bell Curve was published, I have had considerable experience with campus protests. Until last Thursday, all of the ones involving me have been as carefully scripted as kabuki: The college administration meets with the organizers of the protest and ground rules are agreed upon. The protesters have so many minutes to do such and such. It is agreed that after the allotted time, they will leave or desist. These negotiated agreements have always worked. At least a couple of dozen times, I have been able to give my lecture to an attentive (or at least quiet) audience despite an organized protest.
If this becomes the new normal, the number of colleges willing to let themselves in for an experience like Middlebury’s will plunge to near zero. Academia is already largely sequestered in an ideological bubble, but at least it’s translucent. That bubble will become opaque.
Middlebury tried to negotiate such an agreement with the protesters, but, for the first time in my experience, the protesters would not accept any time limits. If this becomes the new normal, the number of colleges willing to let themselves in for an experience like Middlebury’s will plunge to near zero. Academia is already largely sequestered in an ideological bubble, but at least it’s translucent. That bubble will become opaque.
Worse yet, the intellectual thugs will take over many campuses. In the mid-1990s, I could count on students who had wanted to listen to start yelling at the protesters after a certain point, “Sit down and shut up, we want to hear what he has to say.” That kind of pushback had an effect. It reminded the protesters that they were a minority. I am assured by people at Middlebury that their protesters are a minority as well. But they are a minority that has intimidated the majority. The people in the audience who wanted to hear me speak were completely cowed. That cannot be allowed to stand. A campus where a majority of students are fearful to speak openly because they know a minority will jump on them is no longer an intellectually free campus in any meaningful sense.
A college’s faculty is the obvious resource for keeping the bubble translucent and the intellectual thugs from taking over. A faculty that is overwhelmingly on the side of free intellectual exchange, stipulating only that it be conducted with logic, evidence, and civility, can easily lead each new freshman class to understand that’s how academia operates. If faculty members routinely condemn intellectual thuggery, the majority of students who also oppose it will feel entitled to say “sit down and shut up, we want to hear what he has to say” when protesters try to shut down intellectual exchange.
That leads me to two critical questions for which I have no empirical answers: What is the percentage of tenured faculty on American campuses who are still unambiguously on the side of free intellectual exchange? What is the percentage of them who are willing to express that position openly? I am confident that the answer to the first question is still far greater than fifty percent. But what about the answer to the second question? My reading of events on campuses over the last few years is that a minority of faculty are cowing a majority in the same way that a minority of students are cowing the majority.
The people in the audience who wanted to hear me speak were completely cowed. That cannot be allowed to stand.
I’m sure the pattern differs by geography and type of institution. But my impression is that the problem at elite colleges and universities is extremely widespread. In such colleges, events such as the Middlebury episode will further empower the minorities and make the majorities still more timorous.
That’s why the penalties imposed on the protesters need to be many and severe if last Thursday is not to become an inflection point. But let’s be realistic: The pressure to refrain from suspending and expelling large numbers of students will be intense. Parents will bombard the administration with explanations of why their little darlings are special people whose hearts were in the right place. Faculty and media on the left will urge that no one inside the lecture hall be penalized because shouting down awful people like me is morally appropriate. The administration has to recognize that severe sanctions will make the college less attractive to many prospective applicants.
My best guess is that Middlebury’s response will fall short of what I think is needed: A forceful statement to students that breaking the code of conduct is too costly to repeat. But even the response I prefer won’t generalize. A tough response will be met with widespread criticism. Students in other colleges will have no good reason to think their administration will follow Middlebury’s example.
And so I’m pessimistic. I say that realizing that I am probably the most unqualified person to analyze the larger meanings of last week’s events at Middlebury. It will take some time for me to be dispassionate. If you promise to bear that in mind, I will say what I’m thinking and rely on you to discount it appropriately: What happened last Thursday has the potential to be a disaster for American liberal education.
Learn more about opportunities to study with Charles Murray through AEI’s Summer Honors Program.
Charles Murray is one of America’s most important public intellectuals. I suspect that no more than a handful of the thugs who attacked Murray actually read any of his books. I suggest that any student identified in the videos of the events at Middlebury be require to read 3 of Murray’s books and write a review of each. They’d quickly discover the difference between a real thinker and the clowns who’ve been indoctrinating them.
The “disaster to Liberal Education” of which he referred in the last line as long since happened.
The author’s wishful thinking that most of the Professors want high level debate and intellectual discussion and so forth is probably wishful thinking. Like many things in our society, “higher education” an absurd term in this day and age, needs a complete overhaul. This is true for the entire educational system that is and has been for some time completely dominated by graduates indoctrinated into a type of blind conformity as we all know. It is a tragedy perhaps as great for the future of our country as any problem we face, as these “students” are supposed to be the “best and brightest” we have to offer to the world and our society. The lack of reason in discussion that has swept the country can probably be lain at the feet of our college and universities (no capitals). These “institutions of higher learning” are a disgrace in many ways and need a complete re-organization in terms of the way they offer tenure, hire employess, design curriculum, and so much more.
You misused “lain.” Should be “layed.”
You misused “Ted”, it should be “tool”.
Funny.
Well played.
No such word. Should be ‘laid.’
Penelope,
Lain is a word. It is the past participle of lie.
He should have used “laid.” You “laid” something else down. You “lain” yourself down.
she ain’t lyin’
I recall a time when liberals prided themselves on their broadminded approach to intellectual discourse. The progressive today takes pride in their moral superiority. They are so moral that anyone who disagrees must be evil. Of course, an evil demands a forceful response. I am sure if any of the professors who led the charge read this, they are proud of what they accomplished.
You’re painting liberals and progressives with a very wide brush. As a liberal who prides himself on his broardminded approach to intellectual discourse and roundly rejects these juvenile, premature demonstrations of censorship, I take issue with the notion that the campus tantrums define contemporary liberalism, except to the extent that you — and the alt-right — would like to see contemporary liberalism defined by these sophomoric outbursts.
@Jill
You say you are a liberal who rejects the censors.
Where are your peers? point me to the editorials excoriating the protestors in the pages of the NYT, WaPo, or CNN?
Don’t *tell me* ‘real liberals’ support free speech = show me.
Actually, the NYT editorial page opined strongly today against the treatment of Dr. Murray at Middlebury. It is a surprisingly strong–and welcome–stance. Highly recommend you read it. You know something’s truly rotten on elite campuses if even the NYT is weighing in.
Concur. One would think change is coming, that the adults are planning to once again assume command.
Another thought here. Has it occurred to anyone that the demographic headwinds facing small colleges and universities have rendered them completely submissive to those coming from families most able to pay the tuition and fees? Children of the affluent have always been snots so maybe it’s simply time to crack the whip, taking the occasional financial hit along the way.
The NYT editorial refers to Charles Murray as a “notorious social scientist” (as opposed to, maybe, “reviled”?)
They go on to say that he “drew ridicule for promoting widely discredited race-based theories of intelligence”. Hard to know where to begin with that one. It’s clear that they never read Bell Curve (or, at least, didn’t understand it) and probably inherited their impressions of it from some folks who they regard as “right-thinking” people. And then they go ahead to include those impressions in guts of a NYTimes editorial? This from a newspaper that prides itself on fact-checking?
On the good side, they do support academic freedom and are willing to have universities hear speeches even by notorious and ridiculed supporters of discredited theories.
Too bad they don’t also support knowing what you’re talking about.
The more it happens — and it’s happening A LOT all over — the more it will indeed be recognized as a hallmark of the progressive liberal movement. This is one instance of hundreds that have happened at universities all over the country, including my own alma mater. Progressive liberals must own this. You, my friend, are now an exception to the rule.
Charles Murray (@charlesmurray) –
The problem is a disconnect between behavior and consequences.
If events are free to the participants and there is no form of entry control, knowing with any degree of certainty who is participating and that they have an actual interest in the material is difficult. Likewise, unrestricted entrance complicates the ability to hold people responsible for their actions.
If the university doesn’t feel comfortable charging for the event they could at least scan and record the student ID’s. Combined with warnings that the event is being filmed and that code of conduct and criminal behavior will be followed up on and prosecuted.
It seems like it boils down to who pays for the police? 1. The club 2. The local state or fed govt 3. The college 4. The arrested rioters
“If the university doesn’t feel comfortable charging for the event they could at least scan and record the student ID’s.”
Yes, if all student IDs had been recorded, I doubt the talk would have even been forced to a different venue. Mobs rely on anonymity.
This is a great idea and unfortunately will never happen:
“If the university doesn’t feel comfortable charging for the event they could at least scan and record the student ID’s. Combined with warnings that the event is being filmed and that code of conduct and criminal behavior will be followed up on and prosecuted.”
I very much hope that the adults would not give in and allow our voices to be drowned out by the mindless chanting of these children, who on this occasion have convincingly demonstrated that they have neither the ability to articulate rational arguments nor the decency to let others make them.
I commend the Middlebury students and disagree with the New York Times and the Middlebury Administration who defends this as free speech. While I would not have participated in negative slandering and profanity, I think it’s appropriate to show extreme disrespect.
In the early days of Hitler’s rise, people defended his speech. This was admirable, but the result was that his propaganda spread like wildfire. I don’t think anyone needs to be told what the result was.
Free speech between intelligent human beings who disagree with each other is fundamental to the democratic values we all believe in. Hate speech, racial dividing and intollerance is not intelligent behavior. You can have forums to speak this way- go to your KKK rallies, go to many parts of America that tolerate this kind of speech, go to the Trump Administration where these views are welcomed, go to white supremacy forums… but if you come to my state which prides itself on equality then you have to accept that you will be shouted down by the dominant position statement.
I do not disagree with your right to say what you have, I just believe that if you are going to maker value statements that are so abhorently against mine then I have every right to express my anger in your regards as well.
The problem with your comment is who is the ultimate arbiter and decider of what is hate speech, or intolerant or even white supremacy? These points can be debated, but once the ski masks go on, we’re no longer talking about their freedom of speech, we’re talking about their ability and willingness to commit mayhem against persons and property. This cannot be allowed if we truly value freedom of speech. Today’s thug in a mask is tomorrow’s thug in a uniform.
“you have to accept that you will be shouted down by the dominant position statement”
This is Brown Shirt philosophy in a nutshell. This is KKK philosophy.
You can have this only as long as those on the right are willing to be chumps and play by the rules when the left doesn’t. Because if your side gets to put on masks and crack heads in the name of “shouting down”, they can too. And you will have set the example for them to follow.
craig: Right you are. The motorcyclists lie in wait.
How would you know that you aren’t relying on a caricature if you’re going to silence opposing views? That is the problem with this stance: it elevates ideas that have followed a path of least resistance into the zeitgeist and rely on the cacophony of repetition and a sense of self righteousness to maintain, not the quality of ideas. There are many good criticisms of Murray’s earlier book The Bell Curve but I see no evidence that those opposed to him speaking have read any of his books or the secondary literature – just repetition of slogans which make the students seem foolish and unwilling to engage in intelligent reflection.
And if you want to learn why your stance regarding what you conceive as “hateful” speech is a problem then you should probably think a little bit yourself about what constitutes hate speech in countries that do have hate speech laws (hint: nothing Murray has written qualifies). You could further consider the philosophical foundation for your stance on silencing which has very good counter arguments from Mill On Liberty to the expansive academic literature the ethics of discourse and civility; In addition to empirical work in political science and psychology that examines how minds are changed (hint: demonization leads to resentment and feeds ideological conflict).
specific recommendations:
-Cass Sunstein. #Republic:
Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media
-Judy Rookstool. Fostering Civility on Campus (parts of the book can be browsed on google books)
-Mark Kingwell. The World We Want (a meditation on the demands of citizenship)
-Mark Kingwell. A Civil Tongue (a relevant quote lest civility be confused with politeness: “civility as I interpret it still allows ample room for giving offense and for making politically unpopular and even dangerous claims. But these must be claims that are offered as part of an ongoing dialogue of justification-that is, open to further assessment by interlocutors. They must be claims, in short, and not simply abuse or insult”)
Matteo, it is deliciously ironic that you can’t recognize on which side hate was displayed in this incident. Are you really ignorant that you are advocating all the stances and approaches of hatefulness? Don’t you realize you are applauding the implementation of rage and incivility. You desire to rectify—albeit by proxy—the doubleplus crimethink of Murray. You sing the praise of silencing (notwithstanding history never seems to favor the censor). And, in a splendid new twist on Godwin’s law, delight in seeing the tactics of national socialists being put into full fruition whilst claiming that the victim is the Nazi. This is a stunning admission of your lack of faith in the power of your own beliefs. In your world speech is action and, conveniently, you get to decide what action someone’s speech conjures (because your ideas are the best). Yet amid all this, you project your obvious animus onto another who shows none of this rage.
I think I love you, Waterfield. I don’t know for sure if I even understood the entirety of what you wrote, but that I understood…was Awesome.
“Doubleplus Crimethink”? Please explain.
It’s a 1984 reference. It’s been a few years, but I’ll do my best to explain.
One of the ideas put forth in the book is that language could be used as a tool to shape thought. Negative and seditious thoughts could be toned down by changing the language to make them difficult to speak. Language changes like ungood instead of bad. doubleplus instead of best.
Extreme disrespect is different than committing assault and threatening violence. Attempting to use the tools of authoritarianism in the service of egalitarianism is self defeating. Just look at the Soviet Union, which being communist was nominally egalitarian, but which in practice was highly hierarchical, versus Sweden, which is social democratic and in practice is much less hierarchical than communist regimes.
You have to grow up, Matteo. When you graduate you will be in the job market. Try acting this way when your employer says or asks something you don’t like. You’ll get nothing form him but fired. If indeed we were living in a Hitlerian dystopia, those protesters would just disappear –Poof! By the way, have you read anything Dr. Murray has written? Go down to Ben & Jerry’s and chill in a nice safe place. Good luck in your future job search. Stay out of libraries and book stores. They’re full of ideas that would offend your delicate sensibilities.
“…but if you come to my state which prides itself on equality…”
And does your state pride itself for assaulting a woman whose roll was to ask questions of the speaker, and whose known position was in opposition to the speaker?
“…then you have to accept that you will be shouted down by the dominant position statement.”
I hope you are not now attending, nor have you ever attended, an institution of higher learning. If you are attending, or have attended, you wasted your (or your parents’!) money. “Shouting down” has nothing to do with learning.
Perfectly stated, Mark.
You do not have the right to act like Nazi, or Fascist thug and interrupt what others have come to hear. Murray is not any of what you idiots accuse him of being. You twits are little more than poseurs who don’t want the truth to get into your little world.
By the by, Murray has never been refuted. Riots do not refute anything, nor does suppressing that which you do not wish to hear.
And, no, you do not get assault someone as you claim you have the right to do. You should be expelled and stand trial on criminal charges for what you did.
You act like storm troopers of Hitler’s Germany. You are haters and have no idea what liberalism is about. Poor America if you are not stopped soon!
Murray hides his racism behind his dubious academic achievements. Free speech is not the same as providing a platform for disseminating it.
Ah indeed, the unfortunate use of the Hitler analogy and the immediate discrediting of Matteo’s post. Charles Murray as a rising Hitler, indeed. Applauding the kind of intellectual thuggery and lack of civil discourse (note the many F-bombs on the signs) demonstrates a poor appreciation of free speech. Guess who’s really wearing the brownshirts, says Orwell to Matteo through a smirk.
“Hate speech, racial dividing and intollerance [sic] is not intelligent behavior.” Here is the problem: just because YOU say it’s hate speech doesn’t mean it actually is. This is the fundamental error with the protest complaint and, therefore, its credibility. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you (or what the prevailing wisdom says is acceptable), doesn’t mean they are wrong, evil, or hateful. It’s incredible hubris on your part to say so. You’re making incredible assumptions based on an ideological mindset rather than actual empirical data. Have you even read Murray’s books? Do you even know what he actually says?
the KKK was the military arm of the southern Democrats, who defines hate speech? speech is not hateful if it is conducted in a logical manner, all your pejoratives, are out of the Alinskyite book, read Murray sometime it is actually objective. something you have no clue about.
So, you are saying that free speech is fine, as long as you agree with it.
From my perspective, those who promote legalized racism through race-based preferences are in clear violation of the Constitution (14th Amend) and in stark contrast to MLK’s “Dream” speech. Those are the are the racists and horrible people.
People can have vastly different perspectives so it is absurd in a free society to pick and choose which viewpoints are acceptable and which must be banned. The role of government is merely to protect your right to say whatever you want provided you do not harm another person or their property (libel, fire in a crowded theater, etc)
Matteo: “Free speech between intelligent human beings who disagree with each other is fundamental to the democratic values we all believe in.”
Me: True, I agree.
Matteo: “Hate speech, racial dividing and intollerance (misspelled) is not intelligent behavior.”
Me: As we have all learned through the weeks since President Trump’s election, you leftist/liberal/progressives toss around the ‘hate speech’ term very freely. To you, ‘hate speech’ is any speech that disagrees with your beliefs. You espouse tolerance, diversity, and inclusion, but, convinced of your own righteousness, go red-hot crazy when anyone (including the majority of voters) expresses a viewpoint that differs from your own. Now all of America and all of the world see you so-called liberals for what you really are. We see it almost every night on the news. You are the haters, you are the enraged ones, you are the narrow-minded, you are the fascists, you are the moral degenerates who riot in the streets, wounding your fellow Americans, destroying your fellow citizens’ property, interfering with free speech, and calling for violence against the President, his family, and those who voted for him. And, when it comes to ‘racially dividing,’ after 8 years under ‘the first African-American President’ we are more racially divided than ever. Obama could have promoted racial unity, but he did the opposite. The vast majority of white people and the vast majority of conservatives are in favor of peace, harmony, and mutual respect among their fellow Americans of all racial backgrounds. It is not peace-loving, hard-working, salt-of-the earth Americans who are promoting ‘racial dividing;’ it is the rage-filled, self-righteous leftists.
Hitler used violent protest to drown out the voices he disagreed with.
“In the early days of Hitler’s rise, people defended his speech. This was admirable, but the result was that his propaganda spread like wildfire. I don’t think anyone needs to be told what the result was.” You misunderstand the problem here – which was the demise of free speech that ensued. It was the brownshirts who started beating the hell out of anyone who disagreed. Free speech wasn’t the problem that caused Hitler – it was one of the first casualties produced by his rise.
You have chosen physical force over reason and persuasion. You leave me no choice but to deal with you in the only way that you yourself allow, and that is with force. BTW, do not expect my force to be reasonable since it is you who has rejected reason in our interaction.
I agree that students who participated in shutting down this event and who physically assaulted or threatened Mr. Murray and Professor Strange should be expelled.
But what of the faculty who organized the students?
Bingo.
These teen fascists did not, in all likelihood, arrive at Middlebury fully-formed ideologues. The greater probability was that they were trained by Middlebury faculty in every jot and tittle of Saul Alinsky’s RULES FOR RADICALS, and encouraged to shout/shut it down every step of the way; and this is true of every campus in America where any voices outside the Progressive Echo Chamber are made to feel threatened (or at least, most unwelcome).
Maybe we should follow the false breadcrumb trail of “outside agitators”; in the wake of the election, few tenured radicals bothered to shift the blame to such nameless and nebulous malefactors invading their schools from “outside” – naturally, they were too proud of the wards’ destructive handiwork….too high off the endorphin rush of seeing the fear your actions create in others.
But I have a feeling that America’s patience with her campus brownshirts is at an end, and is about to be answered with nightsticks, tear gas and prison sentences. And once *that* begins, all we’ll be hearing about -from one breathless professor after another – is the menace of these “outside agitators” who’ve been causing all the problems.
More like “devolution.”
It fell to Charles Murray in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked mob.
One will rarely go wrong paraphrasing Churchill.
I think perhaps he has here. In what way is Murray like Chamberlain? How was he contradicted by events or deceived by a mob?
Mr Murray, I realize you are a very intelligent and influential member of the conservative establishment, and therefore it is more important that your words be heard than others on the right, but those of us on the ‘deplorable’ side of things have been getting shut down by the left for years now, with no sympathy much less help from the likes of you. So while I probably should feel bad that an intellectual such as yourself has been denied the ability to speak to the public, I actually don’t really care.
If you think Murray is unsympathetic to the “deplorables”, you may want to read this article.
http://www.aei.org/publication/trumps-america/?utm_source=paramount&utm_medium=email&utm_content=AEITHISWEEK&utm_campaign=Weekly021216
There are few public intellectuals who have been judged by more people on the basis of less evidence than Murray.
How do you know that *you* and people like you, whoever that might be, have not been treated sympathetically by Professor Murray and “the likes” of him? What evidence do you have to support that statement? It seems to me that, contrary to what you claim, virtually all of Dr. Murray’s career and professional work has been spent sympathizing with people like you. So I’m not sure what complaint you have against Mr. Murray that would lead you to make such a negative personal statement against him.
For instance, have you actually read even one of his books? Do you actually know what his main ideas are? And if so, which of his ideas do you disagree with so strongly that would cause you to berate him in such a public way?
I applaud AEI for permitting comments about its articles. I’ve disputed with the Weekly Standard for years about this, and they’ve not yet seen that I’m right and they’re wrong. At some point, probably when their subscriptions begin to disappear, they will, out of desperation decide to try “comments” and it might just save their bacon.
I fear that Professor Murray is taking a “best-case scenario” approach in his analysis of what happened to him at Middlebury. It is true that there were many good things that happened there, but there were also many, many very bad things, and as many here have already explained, the chances are somewhere between “slim” and “none” that the university will respond appropriately.
Why, for instance, was there not adequate security to prevent that “mob” from approaching the event in the first place? If it was really only 20 people, it would not have taken a large security brigade to hold off that many. Even if the mob contained 50 or more, why does a responsible college that *knows* trouble is coming not prepare for it? Why only TWO security guards???
Further, why was there not security in the venue to begin with? Why were there not 50-100 security officers INSIDE that auditorium, so when those little twits started their juvenile behavior, they could be picked up by their necks and thrown into the closest paddy wagon waiting outside? THEN the lecture could proceed quietly, and THEN the disrupters could easily be arrested and prosecuted. To hell with lawsuits. Do the right thing and let the chips fall.
The same after the event. Why are only TWO security guards trying to fight off a mob of 20-50? If 50-100 trained security officers had been there, using their night-sticks to crack the heads of masked thugs who tried to attack the speaker, the outcome would’ve been much different. And everything should’ve been videoed by professionals, both to protect the school and to use as evidence against those the school expelled afterwards.
And that, btw, would include the faculty who participated.
You see, if the school had really wanted to protect Professor Murray and those who were with him during his visit to Middlebury, they could’ve. Unfortunately, those responsible for making the decisions that might’ve ensured a better and safer outcome couldn’t be bothered. And it’s a virtual certainty they won’t do anything now, either, to keep this from happening again.
Well said. But forget the school for a minute. What’s on Murray?
[Since Murray hasn’t bitten on my earlier satirical comment….]
Murray: “[The] contingency plan: In the event that the protesters in the lecture hall did not cease and desist after a reasonable period, Professor Stanger and I would repair to a room near the lecture hall where a video studio had been set up that would enable us to live-stream the lecture and take questions via Twitter.”
First, “repair to”? So the back up plan was to runaway and phone it in? If so, why go at all? Why not just do a Periscope? They knew or should have known they were walking into a nascent riot. Why let it see your back, see blood in the water, smell your fear?
Security people (ofttimes off duty cops) are not cheap. Let’s say $100 each so they must spend $5000-10000 (probably far above his honorarium) to let a man speak. When civil discourse requires the expenditure of that much money, it’s over.
These liberal arts colleges are a lost cause. The only question is whether and to what extent the major universities can be salvaged from the nihilism of the academic Left.
It’s clear that both the school and Murray underestimated the potential for this type of violence and escalation. It seems the level of protest and violence at this type of event is escalating exponentially. They will intimidate the speaker in to cancelling through examples of violence such as this, or the institution will not be able to afford the necessary security. In either case, they win…sadly.
At my alma mater, Bowdoin College, students being disciplined for “culural appropriation” were forced to be re-educated. That is, they had to attend classes to learn about cultural sensitivity.
I think the entire Middlebury community, faculty included, ought to be forced to read Coming Apart or view the discussion between Murray and Stanger (if recorded) and participate in discussions of the topics in the book and/or lecture. Don’t want to do it? Expulsion. This would be a great example for all institutions going forward.
Bless you, Jane. I’m hoisting a shot of Cuervo in your honor. And you and I both know that Clayton Rose would have mucked this up much worse.
God bless you Charles Murray. You were truly courageous to persevere through such a lengthy ordeal. Unfortunately the old saw that we think the left is wrong, but they think that we are evil justifies in their minds deranged reactions to speakers such as yourself. My beloved Vermont is teeming with people like this. You’re right about the minority cowing the majority, and Middlebury’s follow up will be critical. With so many opinion pieces having been written on this from both slants, your first hand account, along with Professor Stanger’s give us the true picture of what occurred. Thanks again for your courage and inspirational voice.
The horrific events described by Dr. Murray touch on the ideas expressed in Shelby Steele’s recent op-ed in the WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-exhaustion-of-american-liberalism-1488751826
Steele suggests that”white guilt” keeps most silent for fear of being labeled all the names they attribute falsely to Dr. Murray. I can imagine the fear most white middle class Middlebury students feel when confronted with this type of intimidation. To be labeled as such would effectively ostracized them and give reason to immediately dismiss anything they have to say. Is it too much to ask from teenagers to stand up to this when there are adults who don’t have the courage to do so? Kudos to Dr. Murray for his commitment to the truth, an inspiration for us all in these trying times.
This has all come about because no powerful Conservitive has taken up Andy Breitbart’s challenge seriously when it comes to battling the Left.
He famously said, repeatedly, “F**k You. This is war!”
Until that happens across the board this crap will continue unabated.
Why would a supposedly intelligent man speak about his “white supremacist, misogynist, bigoted ideals” at one of the most liberal colleges in the USA? Maybe his “emotional intelligence” is below average?
Maybe he anticipated an audience open to civil discourse. Clearly he overestimated the “emotional intelligence” of the college faculty and students.
Murray owned and truth told by Z Man:”The incident is a good reminder of Official Right’s worthlessness. Murray’s piece reads like an apology. That’s because it is an apology. The boys and girls of Conservative Inc have always worked to position themselves at the edge of what the Left considers the respectable Right. Twenty years ago, the Bell Curve was right at the edge. Now, the Left considers it heresy and Murray knows it. It’s why he invested so much effort into advertising his opposition to Trump. It’s part of the long apology for his past heresy.”
The administration most likely had no idea the disturbance would be anywhere that out of control. They were prepared to permit some in the tradition of the elite liberal schools in the past and likely even welcomed some in that regard.
A scholar like Murray and those of his quality should never go back. That is what the school deserves. Too bad a police force like the NYPD was not there.
The students, faculty and staff that facilitated or failed to prevent the protest win, either way. He decides to attend and is physically threatened in to leaving, or he decides never to return as a result of the violence. Either way, the protesters win.
I consider myself a liberal and a progressive and have read several of Murray’s books. I don’t always agree with his conclusions, but I consider him a legitimate voice. It is critical that the people who behaved aggressively at the speech are not taken to represent everyone who would disagree with him. In the same way that neo-Nazi’s don’t represent the spectrum of conservatives, those who attacked Murray do not represent the spectrum of progressives.
Bill Prenovitz wrote: “It is critical that the people who behaved aggressively at the speech are not taken to represent everyone who would disagree with him… those who attacked Murray do not represent the spectrum of progressives.”
Bill Prenovitz misunderstands his own movement. Today’s “spectrum of progressives” ranges from Murray’s attackers, through those who shout down ideas, to those who merely sympathize with the thugs and the screamers.
If there is a meaningful number of mainstream progressives who stand for the free exchange of ideas: where are they?
Name the progressive members of the Middlebury College faculty whose response to this sorry affair shows that they are committed to the ideals of free speech.
‘Name the progressive members of the Middlebury College faculty whose response to this sorry affair shows that they are committed to the ideals of free speech.’ :
How about the President of the College:
http://www.middlebury.edu/about/president/addresses/2017-addresses/node/545919
theTimmy, thanks for the link. If Dean of Students Jay Ellison of U. Chicago got an ‘A’ for his letter, Pres. Patton gets a tepid B- or so. Thus far. Violation of the college’s policies couldn’t be plainer, relevant parts here — http://tinyurl.com/jvyk4oc About 270 professors at Middlebury; how many are standing with Pres. Patton on the side of free speech?
https://freeinquiryblog.wordpress.com/
Middlebury professors signing Prof. Jay Parini’s statement of principals.
I’m not saying this to be hateful at all, but did you notice that you did the same thing as this:
“The pressure to refrain from suspending and expelling large numbers of students will be intense. Parents will bombard the administration with explanations of why their little darlings are special people whose hearts were in the right place.”
Because that one girl reminded you of your daughter, you proposed a lighter punishment for her in spite of the fact that her *actions* were identical to the actions of the students who were snarling.
I don’t care whether or not her facial expression was sweet or reminded you of your daughter, she should be expelled. It’s hard to be firm, isn’t it?
“We’re talking about violations that involve a few hundred students, ranging from ones that call for a serious tutelary response (e.g., for the sweetly earnest young woman)”
She should be expelled, not tutored. She’s young. She’ll recover. She needs to learn that actions have consequences and bad actions have bad consequences.
I am a liberal. I fought for civil rights in the South when the KKK beat those of us did not run fast enough and the there was no difference between the KKK and the police. I spent my career as a professor in a southern college. I have read The Bell Curve and almost everything Dr. Murray has published. Dr. Murray published facts, unsettling facts. How one interprets those facts in the Bell Curve is one area that is open to discussion. The Nurture Assumption by Judith Rich Harris counters some of ideas put forth by Murray and it is very clear in “Coming Apart” that Murray is sympathetic to minorities and those who are being segregated primarily based on educational achievement, regardless of skin color or ethnicity. I am disappointed that the students at Middlebury were so rude. This is not a left or right issue. It is about allowing the free expression of ideas. Too bad the students had not read “Coming Apart,” and I doubt most had not read “The Bell Curve.” They might have learned something they obviously did not know.
I support and protect Dr. Murray’s right to speak. I hope more colleges will repeat the format: have a Plan B in place.
“I support and protect Dr. Murray’s right to speak. I hope more colleges will repeat the format: have a Plan B in place.”
I don’t think the Plan B was a good idea. I think the President of Middlebury should have walked through the crowd suspending students until the crowd was quiet and Dr. Murray could be heard. A Plan B lets the disruptors win.
How long has the diversity swindle been in place on American college and university campuses? How has the public responded to assaults on freedom of speech? If they know, do they give a damn? All I detect is a big yawn.
The folks I’ve attempted to enlighten leave me with the impression that they, indeed, don’t know what’s going on, they don’t want to know what’s going on. As Jose Ortega y Gasset noted in his Revolt of the Masses: As to why old men plant trees that they shall never see grow, mass man has no answer. Yesterday was like today and tomorrow will be like today.
I think Middlebury wanted to send a message to all right wing people like myself: come to our campus at your own risk; do not expect adequate protection from our beloved balaclava-wearing thug-students.
How about these riots as a priority for the Dept of Homeland Security? They are an important and growing threat that needs to be, and can be, stopped, demonstrating real success for DHS. Radical Islamic Extremism is far more difficult, one would think.
I am a liberally minded person. I watched the chilling protest video. It was remarkable how illiberal the thinking of the student protestors was. Freedom of speech and freedom of thought are necessary for democracy. Why can’t there be a free exchange of ideas and an intellectual debate on campus? Why do so many college students today think suppressing unpopular speech or thought is their duty? What happened to critical thinking? It seems on too many college campuses reason, respect and intellectual curiosity is in decline. Mr. Murray, I am glad you were not injured. I can’t see myself sending my children to Middlebury.
I grew up hungry and with torn clothing so I know how difficult it is to get out of the lower middle class situation. I am now in the upper class life style so I am aware of the difference of thinking etc. I have not read Murrey’s books but am inclined to do so soon after this scary event at a college my son almost attended. With college boys in liberal arts schools now, my heart is broken knowing these kids are so indoctrinated that their intelligence is being wasted because of professors that bought into fascist ideas of shutting down others opinions. Praying that Middlebury decides to do what is right and prosecute those who violated the 1st amendment and especially those who hurt the professor! I have my theory on how these kids have become so numb regarding tolerance and patience. Yes it comes from the professors but parents have a lot to do with it – over indulging children and allowing their kids to disrespect them at the same time. This I have seen with my own eyes and knew the consequences would be drastic. Now how to fix this insanity?
sorry Murray was misspelled
Monsieur Murray, I don’t know whether there was any cctv security where the riot took place, but there are plenty of photographs of the rioters and I’m sure the college’s security has the licence plates of most of the out of college visitors on that day. Just go to the police and sue the hell out of evybody. Do not let go.
Dear Dr. Murray: I teach at what you refer to in Coming Apart as a third or perhaps fourth tier college in a predominantly working class neighborhood in Lake Worth, Fl.—Palm Beach State College. After seeing the student protest at Middlebury on You Tube, I checked your book out of the public library and read it. Perhaps it’s because I teach U. S. History that I find very little objectionable about either your thesis or conclusions. You’re not an advocate for “white supremacy” nor are you “anti-Gay” as the young protesters ignorantly asserted. Let me add that I would’ve been off that stage and out the door after the first minute of that horrid chanting: I think you’re brave Dr. Murray!
I was fascinated with the Black kids, who weren’t all that enthused about the protest by the mostly white kids over “white supremacy.” I would guess most of them are glad to be at Middlebury. One young man appeared to be aware that he was on camera and I’ll wager was thinking about the possibility that his mother would find out and give him a hiding!
I took the test you presented in the chapter “How Thick is Your Bubble?” And with the exception of the military insignia, which I learned–thank you–I scored a respectable 11-80. Typical: 33. You neglected to include references to the NHL, which I’d recommend for a future test.
My question to you Dr. Murray is how one lone conservative professor (there’s maybe two on our campus!) can get across the founding values: religion, marriage, industry? Down here at the state college, my students really need these values to succeed and climb out of poverty. By the way, I disagree with your theory regarding class; it’s just too Marxist; but then, sociology is one of his creations.
We would be so honored if you visited our college, but I honestly don’t think we could afford you. Still, I’ll give you a standing invitation to visit any time and I can guarantee our students will show respect. Sincerely, Sallie Middleton
It is said that the IQ of a mob can be calculated by dividing the mean IQ of the participants by the number of participants. The Middlebury incident is an exampleof this new bell curve.
As a non academic, and a senior citizen who lives on the other side of the planet, hearing & reading about the “event” at the college and others e.g. Berkley, its seems to me that those who are actually running the colleges could not run a chook (chicken) raffle. I have been to paid for day seminars that were more sophisticated, and they were on computer software. I saw the set up for a euthanasia day seminar in our local council meeting room that had more security, and they were senior citizens, the target audience…how to die with dignity…I saw no masked people demanding that the speakers be driven out of town for suggesting the sick and elderlies life have less meaning, where were the signs…Living with dignity, Old people lives matter?. Having a back up plan for a talk at a university for the safety of the speaker who was not a serial killer or leader of some mass murdering group like Isis or advocating death to the elderly, but an author of books on society of America, because protests were “threatened”…yet allows the “protestors” they were expecting in to the venue in the first place.. shows a naivety that is mind boggling. The President put herself and the speaker in harms way. If the President though her female presence would protect the speaker, she was deluded. If she thought her office would be respected, she was even more deluded. Until the Universities recognise that these organised protest groups are nothing like they had before as its off campus groups pushing their agenda and that the role of drugs and alcohol on the immature mind has it’s impact in mob events, that influence of unseen organisers on and off the campus are responsible…this will continue and it will escalate…you notice that women are the most targeted in these events..its women’s hair pulled, its women maced, its women punched in the face, white women mostly…law and order is part of the college life and it is in society..its time for the men of the college who help run it to be just that men. Because its men behind the protesters who have no respect for women, freedom of speech or academic life. The gangs they are using have no jobs or future in mind, what are they being offered for now?. Its time to talk about banning and expelling after they get the police to start questioning the “protestors”. Its time for the muscle of men to be used. Its time to register attendees to lectures with student id, its time to put some sort of security in the campuses themselves to keep out non attendees. Its time for drug tests of disruptive students, just like athletes have. Its time to read the riot act. What happened at Middle bury and Berkley are riots, they escalated from “protest” to riots. People with masks? We are getting that here in public demonstrations..never had it before and they mostly protest against the right of others freedom of assembly and speech, it gets loud and nasty and they target women, its a deliberate tactic that mobs use against the police, they think the male police with go to protect their female officer, then their people can get to their target. This is a world wide movement to disrupt normal activities. Why are so called educated people so out of touch with this? Who are on the boards of these institutions? Straw men and deluded women apparently.
p.s why the anti freedom of speech protest/riots for an author of social studies books? Well unless you understand who is behind these organised disruptive events the answer will allude you. I’ll give you a clue…practice makes perfect…universities are now training grounds for larger more “civilian” events, and I don’t mean academic ones. Just like here in Australia. Masked protesters and very loud and aggressive protestors would spring up when others with licences to march for control of boarders were marching. Women and the elderly with Australian flags were especially targeted for abuse. You have seen nothing yet…just wait until President Trump really gets his new immigration executive order in place and the numbers prove his policy is working…
The parallels with 1920’s Italy and 1930’s Germany are chilling. People who use the word “Fascist” as an universal epithet against their political adversaries then go on to use the very same Fascist tactics and methods they decry. And I honestly think most of them have no idea that this is so. There probably are a few who understand that, but their not concerned with the methods they use to gain their ends.
When they start eating each other (politically), they might wake up. But by then, it’ll be too late.
We are repeating history-again……..
Mr. Murray, weren’t you a NeverTrumper? Meaning you were willing to accept at least four more years of progressive control.
What do you think the progressives do? How about dangerous things like turning universities into incubators of radical leftist violent thugs? Progressives have accomplished destruction of our universities, of standards of behavior, expanded the administrative state and turned it against the citizenry and have done many other evil things. Did you think they would miraculously cease and desist in the next four years? And as Michael Anton wrote in “The Flight 93 Election,” that it would only be 4 more years is nonsense.
In the NRO, you wrote you needed a better explanation for supporting Trump than “Hillary would be worse.” Well, you got your explanation. You were merely hoist on your own petard.
You said those of you in the public policy profession needed better reason to support Trump than…presumably us low information, uneducated rubes.(Do you also agree with Kevin Williamson the unemployed should go off somewhere and die?) You pompous snob. I am a bit-coastal urban professional (recently retired) with a university and two graduate professional degrees – all from schools ranked much higher than Middlebury. I have even read parts of your books.
Recently you and your ilk have dropped pretty low on the bell curve of understanding consequences. Or were you always really a full in member of the open borders, globalist progressive Uniparty?
You are shaken by your encounter with the increasingly violent progressive left. Yet that’s what you were willing to inflict on the country. As I said, hoist on your own petard.
I first read The Bell Curve about fifteen years ago and have since reread it and passed it on to my children. It is a little challenging for someone who is poorly inclined in the math/sciences and requires some attention to detail to fully appreciate the data interpretation. I would think however, that any college student, even a sociology major, should be able to follow it along. That said I have my doubts that many, if any, of the people who protest the most, have done any more than a superficial glance at the book. Unfortunately kids are being academically groomed to follow the material that most suits their belief systems and criticize the rest. And many of the academics who know the truth are afraid to publicly espouse the truth as demonstrated in The Wall Street Journal report Mainstream Science on Intelligence. In the case of The Bell Curve it’s hard to argue with the math. Disagreement with outcomes would have to concentrate on the data. It has been my observation that many well educated liberals and many uneducated conservatives have a common trait. They can’t debate a contentious point with getting ugly and calling names. We are heading down the Orwellian yellow brick road with the media and the academics and the organized liberal mobs as the “thought police”. As long as you’re a nobody you can have an opinion within your own group. But if you become known you suddenly become a target to be ridiculed, attacked, run out of business, sued and if possible, destroyed. As privacy deteriorates it will become harder to hide from the thought police. We must be brave. Thanks for people like Charles Murray who lead the way.
I have the same fears as you, Dr. Murray. I doubt the administration will have the courage to truly “punish” these activists (protestors is too kind a word). We will descend much further before, I hope, there is some “light at the end of the tunnel.”
The liberal faculties and administrators on many college campus had raised an evil-bending generation of anarchist whose behavior will only deteriorate if unchecked and eventually harm even the feeders of such venomous ideas in their heads. This type of behavior is no different from the Red Guards when Mao started the Great Cultural Revolution in 1966, which quickly became uncontrollable and led to the suicide of tens of thousands of leaders in arts, literature and all areas of academia and many more who died (in the millions) in subsequent armed fights across China. Mao never imagined things could become so bad; I am afraid that none of the Progressives really willing to recognize the serious of current trend in American campuses either. Fallen people’s nature: ‘never admit that I am wrong’. That’s scary and pity.
These students who denonstate this type of behavior will eventually grow up to eat their young.
I have no idea who Charles Murray is or anything about that which he has written. It does catch my attention that he was asked by a political science professor at Middlebury College to give a speech and then meet with students. That my friend’s is reverence, both for the Middlebury professor and now for Mr Murray even though I do not know his ideas. I am afraid from many of the posts herein, some of you will not understand what I mean by reverence.
The protests at Middlebury are not new. When I was an undergrad in the late 70’s, I was on the speaker invitation committee and the same turmoil occurred when we invited speakers who were controversial, mostly due to their links to Vietnam and the perception of war crimes. Pretty violent protests back then. (I hope some of you will remember.) I was a young republican and I do remember not understanding why they would not let one of our speakers talk. I do recall having some of the same emotions I see in the posts here. I guess the years have taught me that holding beliefs is cheap, creating programs that help people not so easy and not always so cheap.
The problem in education is not that undergraduate schools are too liberal its that folks wish to change that political and social bent. Colleges are suppose to be liberal, its what makes them creative, engaging and a place for unfettered learning. For most of us it is the pinnacle moment in which we are free to explore ideas no matter how starry eyed, backwards, liberal or conservative (I was pretty conservative in college). It is also a time to learn how to train our “voices”; when to speak out and what can be the consequences when you do, both to yourself and how it might effect others. It is that freedom of thought, the exercises of one’s voice and interpretation of truths that makes undergraduate school a time of such great potential. To confine or constrict this environment under a veil of “righteousness” would irreparably harm students and our country’s future.
Mr Murray aptly dodged the darts of the twenty-somethings of Middlebury, and he gets to write here to tell us all just how horrible it was.
To the students of Middlebury…. nice try but like the students of 1976, you missed another opportunity to engage the conflict between ideas!
Colleges are not suppose to be liberal. They are suppose to be inclusive and open with people and ideas. They are suppose to provide an environment to learn those ideas, and you can’t do that if only one side gets full representation in the curriculum and faculty.
Colleges and universities do their students a disservice by allowing such a monopoly of ideas to exist at all.
I am an admirer of Murray’s. His views on intelligence as the new arbiter of class have always made sense to me. But in deliberating on the ethical underpinning of the conflicts, I think this is a much more complex matter than a lot of us are willing to admit to.
We know, courtesy of three decades of research on morality in non-human mammals, that justice and a sense of fairness is part of our makeup. Not learned. It’s essential and inherent, part of our legacy as a social species.
In respect to the genetic hand we are all dealt, it is easy to understand why an individual might go through life with a sense of moral outrage at being dealt a bad hand. To use a non-controversial example, I have a friend who is a faculty member at a prestigious university. His son went to Harvard. His daughter was strangled by her umbilical cord during delivery and emerged mentally defective. But she’s aware enough to know she was dealt a bad hand. She has been angry her whole life, and she is hard to be around.
When I was in high school, I played basketball with a very good team. A white team. We made it to the city’s quarter finals, where we finally met up with the best black teams. They slaughtered us, and it was obvious to me that their superiority had nothing to do with practice, as no one could have practiced more than we did. We lost because we were inferior physically. Our opponents were born with superior agility.
I was born with a high IQ. That allowed me to make top grades in school. I went to a top university and graduated with distinction. I rose through the ranks of tech companies and became the CEO of two. I have a high net worth. I have mixed with a lot bright people, but most of them aren’t sufficiently humble in my view. They don’t give enough credit to the lucky hand they were dealt.
It seems wrong that Murray would be castigated for telling the truth. But . . . the truth he is telling is too painful for many to bear. The unfortunates are enraged, and many are enraged on their behalf. And that’s not going to change, any more than the mentally handicapped daughter of my friend is going to wake up one morning and be content that she’s a mental cripple, while her brother is at Harvard.
Let’s not overlook the fact that those who should also suffer the consequences from the Middlebury debacle are the college faculty who encouraged, organized and incited the riots. They should be ‘fired’ and then ‘arrested’ for instigating an event that led to the physical assault and battery of a woman. But, we have a little problem because of elitism and tenure. So I guess these teachers are untouchable to an extent. Further proof that these ‘professors’ don’t live in the real world. They get their minions, petty subjects, and mindless drones to do the physical ‘violent’ work while they sit in their Ivory Towers sipping organic tea, collecting ‘pay’ checks, living comfortably whilst destroying the lives of the students they are supposed to be looking out for.
“Let’s not overlook the fact that those who should also suffer the consequences from the Middlebury debacle are the college faculty who encouraged, organized and incited the riots.”
Disagree, unless faculty promoted violence. Organizing a protest that was intended to be peaceful (but that turned violent) doesn’t make one culpable for that violence.
Another observation is that if no arrests or punishments are handed out then there is no longer any ‘equality’ under the law. As long as you are so-called ‘on the proper side’ you are free to do as thou wilt. A scary proposition.
Mr. Murray, are you “a racist, a white supremacist, a white nationalist, a sexist, a eugenicist, and (this is a new one) anti-gay? ” Do you stand by your work in “The Bell Curve?” Do you believe that straight white men are genetically superior to other human beings?
The behavior of the Liberal Left, Progressives will eventually achieve what socialism has always led to: Nazism and eventually Communism, unless the Lord Jesus comes back soon!
Dear MD/PhD,
I assume with those initials after your name you are quite intelligent. Alas , not so much in political science.
Liberalism in the classic sense (neither US party has any similarity to liberal or conservative philosophies) is not socialism, nor is socialism a recipe for Nazism. The recipe for Nazism is probably autocratic populism. Nor are progressives in any way communists as you probably view the term. Now the Marxism philosophy you might find some good arguments here from folks at AEI. The good news you are in the right place to learn political theory, albeit with a libertarian bent…. AEI….. as I would describe this “think tank” as liberal in the true sense of Locke, Hume and Sidney. Personally I have always admired Montesquieu and Voltaire as one could argue they are the real writers of our constitution and bill of rights.
Study hard!!!
I would enjoy a discussion of the line past which it becomes appropriate for universities to decline to host guest speakers invited by students, and/or when protest becomes appropriate, and/or if it is ever appropriate to protest with the goal of preventing a speaker from effectively communicating his or her ideas. I’m taking it as obvious that violence is never appropriate.
For instance, imagine a speaker who is everything these students accused Murray of being. Racist, eugenicist, white nationalist, purveyor of debunked pseudoscience. If a student neo-Nazi group invited this individual to speak on the genetic superior of whites and the need to exterminate other races, what is the appropriate response from the various groups involved (administration, faculty, students)?
To get him in a properly moderated debate for formally trouncing his butt with superior facts and logic. And then to cheer and promote the best ideas. Where ever they come from.
I went to Middlebury in the ’90s. Even in those days, we were bullied into having the “correct” opinions. Additionally, I can guess EXACTLY which professors pushed and organized this protest. One in particular has been breaking laws at Middlebury for 30 plus years, from sleeping with students and feeding them alcohol so that he can convince them that they gay lifestlye is preferable. And, yes, the administration turned a blind eye. I would NEVER allow my children to go to Middlebury and I do not support the school. I did learn, but it was often by having to fake my way through classes so as to not be berated by bigoted instructors.
Well, I know why students at Middlebury were so upset by the prospect of Mr Murray giving a talk. I read (most) of the Bell Curve and found it quite troubling both as a scientist and as someone who feels the authors thread a very fine line with eugenics. I am not surprised by the co-author with the Harvard connection as it is the birth place of “standardized testing”, which from its beginning was targeting the idea that you could tell difference between races, ethnicities and socioeconomics and intelligence. Problem is that most scientists agree that the links are associative and genetics (aside from the extreme examples from our resident CEO) play a minor role in academic success.
I will agree verbal reasoning is very much associated with academic success, but there are rather eloquent studies that have shown this level of “intelligence” in not nearly as genetic as we had previously thought. It appears more likely that children who read from a young age and continue high level consumption of books through their teen years typically score well above the 80th percentile independent of race, ethnicity, economics, parents or ‘shoe size’.
The problem here is how we define academic success. If it is scoring high on an SAT exam and then placing them in elite schools only to pass more such exams, you really have an educational system more analogous to dairy farming.
Dairy farmers know if you breed the best milk producers you ultimately get a better milk producing herd.
Same with standardized testing; if you select out the best test takers, then measure the test taking ability as a means tests for defining success or intelligence, behold you find an “elite class”. If you prevent other groups from taking the test or denying them through economic and social means of having access to “mating” with the likes of Stanley Kaplan courses or other tutors, you get yourself a “dependent class”. BF Skinner would have called this taking his idea of behavioral modeling to the n’th degree.
I think books like the Bell Curve which basically take retrospective databases to find P values to justified pre-conceived notions or beliefs are indeed dangerous when applied by policy decision makers to justify their approach to solving our nation’s problems, particularly with education and opportunity. It is difficult to persuade individuals who harbor eugenics-lite beliefs that their policy decisions may indeed be flawed when textbooks such as this one are considered “good” science. Its not, its taking data and orchestrating a story. In science data tells you the story.
Books like this do enable debate, and it is unfortunate Middlebury students choice not to take the opportunity to learn how some folks think and how it differs from their own, and why?
However the students do have a justifiable concern, that it is likely in today’s political climate in the USA, that these notions encapsulated in the text “The Bell Curve”could provide an unjustified stimulus for those among us who harbor bigoted and eugenic views for our society. Thus to speak out and protest vehemently in at a minimum understandable, particularly when the voices we have heard from our politicians too often are the ones that should be holding their voices quiet.
the comments died two weeks ago–and no punishments–nothing changes–could we discuss the need for federal funding of institutions in which the inmates condemn what they haven’t read?