Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.
Please take a moment to read our updated TOS, Privacy Policy, and Forum Rules.

Something very scary and very wrong is happening

12930313234

Replies to: Something very scary and very wrong is happening

  • marvin100marvin100 Registered User Posts: 9,014 Senior Member
    It's not my choice, and it's none of your business.
  • hebegebehebegebe Registered User Posts: 1,740 Senior Member
    Marvin,

    Since early in this thread you stated you were against Murray, which of his books have you read and what specifically did you find wrong about them?
  • HarvestMoon1HarvestMoon1 Registered User Posts: 5,913 Senior Member
    But we are headed back into the weeds again. Marvin is correct -- it is not his choice. Each individual institution has their own specific criteria which likely includes sufficient interest from the community. Once the community extends an invitation students can protest, but they should be held to standards that fall within the guidelines of the community. They agreed to abide by those policies when they enrolled.

    Despite being reminded of Middlebury's policy at least twice before Murray appeared on stage, a segment of the community disrupted the event to the point where it could not proceed. If Middlebury is committed to the values reflected in their policies then the students will be held accountable. If the community gives them a pass then they can expect an erosion of their own right to invite speakers and actually hear what they have to say.
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 9,827 Senior Member
    That same day, another controversial speaker -- Flemming Rose -- appeared at Franklin & Marshall College. Rose is a Danish journalist who in 2005 -- as culture editor of Jyllands-Posten -- published cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that were criticized by many Muslim groups as blasphemous.
    --
    At Franklin & Marshall, Rose spoke -- without incident, except for some raised voices in conversations before the event -- even as students organized a protest that did not disrupt the lecture.
    F&M officials also say that what happened at the college challenges a popular narrative about higher education being intolerant of ideas that may offend students. The reality, they say, is that nondisruptive protests of speakers are far more common that what happened at Middlebury, and are in fact part of free expression at colleges all over the country.

    There have been a number of social critics -- in and outside of the academy -- who have labeled an entire generation of students as illiberal crybullies," said Daniel R. Porterfield (right), president of F&M. "If you work at a college campus, you know that these sweeping denunciations are not accurate. Many students in the last two years have protested speech that they felt was offensive to them in a pro-speech manner, but you don't read a lot of descriptions of the media about pro-speech protest."

    Gosh, you think?

    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/13/how-controversial-speaker-drew-protests-was-able-give-his-talk-franklin-marshall
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 9,827 Senior Member
    Also from that article is IMO an important idea:
    colleges must embrace the importance of free expression all of the time, and not just before a controversial speaker is on campus.

    So there is a lot of time set aside for the community to discuss issues all the time, not just in reaction to a controversial invite.
  • JBStillFlyingJBStillFlying Registered User Posts: 2,366 Senior Member
    edited March 13
    @marvin100 - if it WERE your choice, then who would be invited to speak on campus and who wouldn't? Also, what type of policies would you put in place regarding invited speakers, speech and protest?

  • hebegebehebegebe Registered User Posts: 1,740 Senior Member
    edited March 13
    F&M officials also say that what happened at the college challenges a popular narrative about higher education being intolerant of ideas that may offend students. The reality, they say, is that nondisruptive protests of speakers are far more common that what happened at Middlebury, and are in fact part of free expression at colleges all over the country.
    While this is certainly true, there are a few problems that I see:

    1. An increasing intolerance to ideas and people that are different from the mainstream viewpoint at the college.
    2. An apparent willingness to believe the prevalent narrative without actually reading the source material and making an informed decision. I call this "outsourcing your opinion", and this seems to be true of at least some people on this thread as well.
    3. Recently, an increasing willingness to threaten violence or actually carry it out to stop these non-conforming ideas from being spread.

    Issues #1 and #2 are antithetical to the entire concept of a liberal arts education, and the warning flags on that should be raised. Most worryingly it is happening not just at the student level, but sometimes also at the faculty level.

    Issue #3 has an impact that is far greater than the small number of incidents where the threat of violence or actual violence occurs. Its entire point is to provide a chilling effect nationwide upon potential speakers and the colleges that invite them. Many speakers and faculty members would look at the possibility of bodily harm, and decide it is simply no longer worth doing.
  • EyeVeeeEyeVeee Registered User Posts: 487 Member
    In the back and forth on right and wrong regarding the invitation and student interactions, I recalled one of the most engaging arguments I've encountered for a Liberal Arts education. Robert George and Cornell West of Princeton are ideologically opposed, yet remain intellectually curious enough to appreciate the possibility the other has positions of merit. Included in the presentations (link below) are the following comments:
    But even with our wonderful students, it’s a challenge these days to provoke them to serious self-critical reflection, to get them to understand the importance and the value of leading an examined life.

    We’ll dig deeper. We’ll go down deeper, but the first and most important thing I want to say is that there’s a good reason that the title of this forum is the examined life and the subtitle is the question “What’s the point of a liberal arts education?” The title answers the subtitle’s question. The point of a liberal arts education is an examined life.

    They are eerily articulate, enabling a rational appreciation of the process of education and self awareness. I find their interaction remarkably appropriate for this conversation, and would urge anyone who has an extra hour or two to watch. As noted in the introduction, they most likely have more accomplishment on their CV's than everyone who's made one of the 500 comments combined.

    https://www.aei.org/events/the-examined-life-robert-george-and-cornel-west-on-the-purpose-of-liberal-arts-education/
  • sbjdorlosbjdorlo Registered User Posts: 4,769 Senior Member
    Thanks for bringing this up, @EyeVeee. Here's an article with their conversation. Totally thought provoking.
    https://paw.princeton.edu/article/conversation-speaking-their-minds
  • mom2andmom2and Registered User Posts: 2,129 Senior Member
    Hebegebe: Where is the actual evidence that this is truly an increasing problem? There have been 2 well publicized incidents recently Milo at UCB and Middlebury. There have likely been others like F&M, like Murry appearing at other places, which have gone off without major disruption. Even at Middlebury and certainly at Berkeley it was not ALL of the students, but a subset. And yes there are others, including speakers that decided to not speak, but still given there are over 3000 colleges in the US, not really a common issue.

    At Middlebury, as posted above, there was some effort made to have a discussion about Murray and his views and why they were controversial.

    That being said, there are a small minority of students at some campuses that may be overly sensitive and spot offensive when none was meant or even suggested (some of the micro-aggression discussions in previous posts). Many of those have been blown way out of proportion by certain media outlets (and on CC) to suggest it is common and that students are excessively sensitive when in fact it is very rare. I would venture to say that most college students are just not that political or motivated to go out and protest something like this.

    All it takes is a few to make a peaceful protest turn ugly. Numerous students had done their homework and planned to ask specific questions, but were unable to because of the protesters.

    The current political climate is one of sound bites. On Murray, the point being argued can be reviewed without reading the entire book through articles on both sides of the spectrum. The reality is that most people, again on both sides of almost any issues, are not going to original sources or reading a full article or paper. Yet you keep making the argument that people have no business making any statements without reading the entire book or the entire body of his work. Do you feel the same way about every controversial topic?

    Thanks Ohmom for posting that from F&M.
  • hebegebehebegebe Registered User Posts: 1,740 Senior Member
    On Murray, the point being argued can be reviewed without reading the entire book through articles on both sides of the spectrum. The reality is that most people, again on both sides of almost any issues, are not going to original sources or reading a full article or paper. Yet you keep making the argument that people have no business making any statements without reading the entire book or the entire body of his work. Do you feel the same way about every controversial topic?
    I suppose I do. I spend a lot of time reading...

    So when I discuss IQ, it is because I have read books including The Bell Curve and The Mismeasure of Man, several books about gifted education, and many peer-reviewed articles on how learning ability varies according to age. I consider myself reasonably well informed for a lay person.

    So when people call Murray a racist without having read his work at all, I consider that both incredibly lazy and misguided.
  • collegedad13collegedad13 Registered User Posts: 501 Member
    @hebegebe It is not misguided to not want to give racists a platform. It is called having good ethical principals. I find it odd how so many people want to try and intellectualize racism and make it mainstream. I find it completely and utterly disgusting and repulsive. Murray liked to burn crosses. That sounds like the KKK to me. Milo is into pedophilia.
    This thread is starting to become very repetitive
  • collegedad13collegedad13 Registered User Posts: 501 Member
    "The other problem is that Murray is from the state of Iowa. Everybody knows that Iowa barely makes it into the top 20th percentile when it comes to IQ. " Considering Steven Kings remarks that must be true
  • ZinheadZinhead Registered User Posts: 2,557 Senior Member
    @Mastadon - To counter your argument, recall that Murray attended and graduated from Harvard. On top of that, earned his PhD at MIT, which is worth exactly .999 milliharvards. Only smart people go those schools, even if they are rubes from Iowa.

    He also has a law named after him. How many people can say that?

    Murrays law states:
    Murray's law is a set of conclusions derived by Charles Murray in his book Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950–1980. Essentially, it states that all social welfare programs are doomed to effect a net harm on society, and actually hurt the very people those programs are trying to help. In the end, he concludes that all social welfare programs cannot be successful and should ultimately be eliminated altogether.

    The Law of Imperfect Selection: Any objective rule that defines eligibility for a social transfer program will irrationally exclude some persons.

    The Law of Unintended Rewards: Any social transfer increases the net value of being in the condition that prompted the transfer.

    The Law of Net Harm: The less likely it is that the unwanted behavior will change voluntarily, the more likely it is that a program to induce change will cause net harm.


This discussion has been closed.