@roethlisburger - did you read this?
https://justwordsonline.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2017/03/03/on-charles-murray/
And you don’t get to decide who other people can invite as speakers or what ideas should be censored. “Full stop.”
Correct, and I’m not trying to do so. Come on now.
Let’s be more specific, @al2simon - do you think that
should be the consistent punishment for hair pulling?
And do you have information that the hair puller is a current Middlebury student?
Because, as is frequently the case, there are two sides to every story, everyone should read this as it provides another perspective. Who knows what’s true? Where’s the video. In 2017, isn’t there always a video?
Wow, thanks @doschicos :
Violence is bad, I don’t condone it. I don’t see anyone in this thread condoning it. I don’t get where @Ohiodad51 is drawing this false comparison where we on the left would be more outraged if conservatives attacked a professor speaking alongside Lena Dunham (who actually is not well liked by most of the left) was attacked. I think all of these actions are bad.
However, I don’t think these controversial and sometimes subtlety/blatantly inappropriate speakers have a right to speak on college campuses. They are not required to be given a platform, and I would like private colleges to stop giving them a platform.
I did not turn violent when Milo came to Vanderbilt. I didn’t protest, I actually wasn’t even on the campus. Even so, I don’t care whether or not he (or speakers like him) are given an open forum at private institutions, because he’s not guaranteed one.
Some posters on this site seem to be of the opinion that we need to just engage in peaceful discourse with white supremacists, homophobes, and other controversial characters. Except…I’m not sure how I’m supposed to engage in discourse with people that are presenting a basic attack on my identity.
Louis Farrakhan came to my university to speak when I was an undergrad in the 1990s. I remember feeling incredibly uncomfortable and afraid when he was there. Did I or other people shout at him while he was speaking, assault him or his supporters or others just willing to listen to him, stand up and turn our backs while he was speaking (the latter of which is peaceful, but just rude and bully-ish to the audience members, IMO)? No. I may not have liked the fact that he was there, but I recognized the right of those who did want to hear and see him, so I and many others who felt like I did just stayed away. If I had attended his event, what would I have done, and, according to reports and some acquaintances, what did those who felt like I did do if they attended? Listened. Yes, my stomach would have likely churned, but I would have tried to at least understand what his positions were so that I could learn another’s point of view (however wrong I thought it was) and intelligently form my own opinions and responses, which is the best way to fight back in these instances, IMO. Yes, aggressive action is sometimes necessary, but I don’t think these campus visits necessitate it in the form of violence or this incredibly rude, and, imo, anti-intelligent behavior.
Here is a new article on what happened. It is obviously written from a particular slant, but some of the quotes at least appear illuminating. http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-middlebury-mob/article/2007092
Half way down the page linked below is the video of what transpired inside Wilson Hall when Murray attempted to speak. It’s 45 minutes so here’s a re-cap:
0:45 - College administrator advises students about the college’s policy of “disrupting events” – violations may result in suspension.
1:15 - One of the event organizers speaks.
7:00 - President Patton speaks on freedom of expression - “we are an intellectual community and part of an intellectual community is to argue.” Says she does not endorse and profoundly disagrees with Murray’s views. Announces Middlebury will host another controversial speaker next week - Edward Snowden. (via video I assume.) Again warns students that attempts to shut down the speech of others is a violation of school policy.
13:45 - another event organizer - starts off with criticism of Trump and says these are Murray’s views – then introduces him. (assume this was an effort to find common ground?)
18:45 Murray is introduced, students turn their backs and start to read from a script of their own. Chants, shouting and drums ensue.
37:00 Murray has been standing at the podium for 15 minutes unable to say anything. An administrator and Professor Stranger join him on stage and attempt to negotiate which is unsuccessful.
People like Timothy McVeigh and Bill Ayers also believed in risky, direct action in order to fight what they saw as oppression. These “black block” campus protesters that you celebrate so much are much closer to the McVeigh’s and Ayers of the world than the MLK’s.
According to the link above students couldn’t even formulate questions? Disgusting. Education is not about necessarily knowing the answers and far more about what questions to ask. Kids need a wake up call.
I am actually shocked to learn that Murray is a “scholar” with the AEI.
I thought–mistakenly–that they were more intellectually respectable than that.
Here is a recent talk that Charles Murray gave at the Manhattan Institute.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPb2dS2lBH0
So what is so controversial about Murray?
I’d have preferred to see the students make superior arguments during a Q&A.
Murray is a racist buffoon and a two-bit liar. There’s not enough time in any one man or woman’s life to even begin to document the totality of Murray’s atrocious inanity, but help yourself. There’s this thing called the interwebs where it’s all pretty clear. That said, Murray has crafted a wonderful career for himself putting a dim-wit’s idea of what an intellectual sheen looks like onto the basest and most repellent racist garbage. Good work if you can get it and burning crosses seemed too exhausting. Anyone with more than a couple of brain cells to rub together should understand that the conservative think-tanks can never be a part of any solution; they exist solely to further a retrograde restructuring of the civil society to benefit the sorts of human garbage who fund right-wing think tanks. No college or university should have anything to with enabling or normalizing the sort of repugnant twaddle Murray and his ilk are paid to spew onto public discourse. Every stupid idea or point of view should not and must not be recognized as valid and correct–and Murray only has blatantly stupid and ugly ideas.
^^^ A scholar has spoken. If I don’t like something is is pseudo science and only stupid people would so much as give it a glance. If I do like it then it is proven science and all who do not agree are again stupid.
Now that it’s been cleared up we can all go back to our decaf coffee. =((
But OHMomof2…sounds like they had difficulty even coming up with questions…I’m not quite as strong as ARCTT, but I half to admit when I read about some of this nonsense I have to think oh my goodness that is alot of money for kids to “shut their ears” and truly exhibit the narcissistic nature of some of our younger adults. They gotta lot to learn about people different than them but it doesn’t appear that is going to happen on elite college campuses anytime in the near future unfortunately.
@momofthreeboys That article you are referencing with the “problem coming up with questions” was written by an alum who seems to be relying on 2nd or 3rd hand info and who was a founder of the AEI Chapter on campus. Maybe it is accurate, maybe not, but definitely the author of the article has a bias and is trying to posit a certain angle to her “reporting”. I just wouldn’t take it as the gospel.
@cobrat -
A Berkeley student who was one of the rioters disagrees with you:
http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/black-bloc-campus/
and this former Berkeley student disagrees with you:
https://itsgoingdown.org/berkeley-behind-bandana/
And this current Berkeley student disagrees with you:
https://itsgoingdown.org/beating-milo-how-berkeley-defeated-alt-rights-biggest-■■■■■/