Let the teaching begin!
March 7, 2017 7:48 AM Subscribe
Speech, protest, and violence at Middlebury College. On March 2nd, Charles Murray, American Enterprise Institute fellow and author of The Bell Curve (1994), visited Middlebury College to give a talk on Coming Apart (2012).
Students, seeing Murray as racist, sexist, classist, and pro-eugenics (Southern Poverty Law Center profile), protested, blocking the speech. Subsequent protests followed, leading to a physical struggle. Someone tore at Middlebury professor Allison Stanger's hair hard enough to send her to the ER.
Video of the first protest has been widely shared.
Professor Stanger summarized and reflected on her experience on Facebook. Middlebury president Laurie L. Patton an official statement. A Middlebury political scientist wrote his thoughts. The Middlebury Campus published, then updated an article. Some students offered a very different account of the event. Murray offered his perspective.
There's more, as observers try to discern a large meaning in the event:
The New York Times editorial board condemns the protest with a "Hey, hey, ho, ho — heck no".
One of professor Stanger's former students wrote a US News op-ed.
One Inside Higher Ed piece supports the protestors.
Conor Friedersdorf weighs in.
Previously.
Students, seeing Murray as racist, sexist, classist, and pro-eugenics (Southern Poverty Law Center profile), protested, blocking the speech. Subsequent protests followed, leading to a physical struggle. Someone tore at Middlebury professor Allison Stanger's hair hard enough to send her to the ER.
Video of the first protest has been widely shared.
Professor Stanger summarized and reflected on her experience on Facebook. Middlebury president Laurie L. Patton an official statement. A Middlebury political scientist wrote his thoughts. The Middlebury Campus published, then updated an article. Some students offered a very different account of the event. Murray offered his perspective.
There's more, as observers try to discern a large meaning in the event:
The New York Times editorial board condemns the protest with a "Hey, hey, ho, ho — heck no".
One of professor Stanger's former students wrote a US News op-ed.
One Inside Higher Ed piece supports the protestors.
Conor Friedersdorf weighs in.
Previously.
Professor Stanger's story is pretty scary, and nothing good can come from a mob no matter what its original intentions were.
posted by Slothrup at 8:02 AM on March 7, 2017 [11 favorites]
posted by Slothrup at 8:02 AM on March 7, 2017 [11 favorites]
Fuck Charles Murray.
posted by Talez at 8:03 AM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by Talez at 8:03 AM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
For what it was worth, Murray came to Boston to discuss the Bell Curve 20 years ago. It was controversial, and met with protests, though those mostly involved a silent walk out.
What was interesting was how faculty got involved. Henry Louis Gates moderated the discussion, and the late Stephen Jay Gould gave a counterpoint discussion on race and held Murray's feet to the fire. It was one model for how to deal with high profile controversy, both allowing the speaker to talk and refuting their claims in a public manner.
posted by blahblahblah at 8:04 AM on March 7, 2017 [40 favorites]
What was interesting was how faculty got involved. Henry Louis Gates moderated the discussion, and the late Stephen Jay Gould gave a counterpoint discussion on race and held Murray's feet to the fire. It was one model for how to deal with high profile controversy, both allowing the speaker to talk and refuting their claims in a public manner.
posted by blahblahblah at 8:04 AM on March 7, 2017 [40 favorites]
Twenty years ago, we did not have a white nationalist president. There is a reason Murray's getting attention right now.
posted by hydropsyche at 8:08 AM on March 7, 2017 [41 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 8:08 AM on March 7, 2017 [41 favorites]
While it's tragic and utterly unacceptable for what happened to Stanger, her justifications for participating in the farce really come across as naive.
It was one model for how to deal with high profile controversy, both allowing the speaker to talk and refuting their claims in a public manner.
And it doesn't work in this scenario. (It worked then because at that time Murray was trying to appear as a member of academia, but he's long since abandoned that charade.) His point isn't to have an actual debate, but to use that debate to legitimize his bigotry. Which is why academia needs to respond by saying "go away, you bigoted fraud, and don't ever darken our doorstep again."
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:11 AM on March 7, 2017 [23 favorites]
It was one model for how to deal with high profile controversy, both allowing the speaker to talk and refuting their claims in a public manner.
And it doesn't work in this scenario. (It worked then because at that time Murray was trying to appear as a member of academia, but he's long since abandoned that charade.) His point isn't to have an actual debate, but to use that debate to legitimize his bigotry. Which is why academia needs to respond by saying "go away, you bigoted fraud, and don't ever darken our doorstep again."
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:11 AM on March 7, 2017 [23 favorites]
That Alison Stranger post is really thoughtful and well-written. On the one hand, I totally sympathize with her desire to be able to talk with people with whom we disagree, without a violent protest erupting. On the other hand, there's a certain threshold past which it's not possible to engage with someone. You can't argue with Nazis, you can only punch them in the face. I'm really sorry that Ms. Stranger was caught in the crossfire, but Charles fucking Murray doesn't deserve the oxygen he takes up.
posted by Mayor West at 8:11 AM on March 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by Mayor West at 8:11 AM on March 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
This is the unfortunate middle ground, where things get ugly, and which makes me worry deeply about civil unrest. Okay, we (mostly) agree it's okay to, as an individual, zanily sucker-punch a Nazi. But what about when you're part of a mob? What about when that one punch will be followed by others? What if the person isn't a Nazi, but shares some similar views? What about when that person, like Allison Stranger, just happens to be sharing space with the person you hate? What if she's actually there to push back?
posted by corb at 8:14 AM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by corb at 8:14 AM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
We disagree with half the voting country. If we can't talk to them without violence then civil war is where we'll end up.
posted by Slothrup at 8:15 AM on March 7, 2017 [19 favorites]
posted by Slothrup at 8:15 AM on March 7, 2017 [19 favorites]
The students' account, which alleges that the physical altercations were all instigated by security personnel, and that a college administrator literally drove through a crowd of protestors, is a side of the story which doesn't seem to have been widely told.
If it's true that a peaceful protest was turned into a physical struggle by security, well, it wouldn't be the first time that happened.
posted by edheil at 8:15 AM on March 7, 2017 [13 favorites]
If it's true that a peaceful protest was turned into a physical struggle by security, well, it wouldn't be the first time that happened.
posted by edheil at 8:15 AM on March 7, 2017 [13 favorites]
"I do not believe that we have to give ascholarly pseudoscience like Murray's room on a college campus"
OK, but someone obviously disagrees with you. Otherwise he would not have been invited to the campus.
posted by kevinbelt at 8:15 AM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
OK, but someone obviously disagrees with you. Otherwise he would not have been invited to the campus.
posted by kevinbelt at 8:15 AM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
The student's account admits protesters were "pushing" on the sides of the car, after Allison Strangers' hair had been ripped out/neck twisted. No matter how well intentioned the initial action may have been, it sure sounds like a riot, and I well believe it was terrifying.
posted by corb at 8:18 AM on March 7, 2017 [10 favorites]
posted by corb at 8:18 AM on March 7, 2017 [10 favorites]
Alison Stanger shouldn't have been harmed but this:
I agreed to participate in the event with Charles Murray, because several of my students asked me to do so. They are smart and good people, all of them, and this was their big event of the year.
I question whether some (almost certainly white) students who want to invite a noted racist to speak are "good and smart people." I also think this is some weak sauce justification for participating and supporting his invitation. As with the hoopla over Milo, free speech doesn't mean entitlement to a book deal or a invitation to speak at a prestigious school. Charles Murray is free to be racist, and she was free to say no to this.
posted by Mavri at 8:19 AM on March 7, 2017 [23 favorites]
I agreed to participate in the event with Charles Murray, because several of my students asked me to do so. They are smart and good people, all of them, and this was their big event of the year.
I question whether some (almost certainly white) students who want to invite a noted racist to speak are "good and smart people." I also think this is some weak sauce justification for participating and supporting his invitation. As with the hoopla over Milo, free speech doesn't mean entitlement to a book deal or a invitation to speak at a prestigious school. Charles Murray is free to be racist, and she was free to say no to this.
posted by Mavri at 8:19 AM on March 7, 2017 [23 favorites]
I guess that I think that we, as a movement, need to come up with ways other than violence to make it clear that people aren't part of a legitimate debate. I don't think that violence accomplishes what we want to accomplish, but I also don't think we can stand by when people like Murray are given a platform that make them look like they're one side of the debate about whether black people are genetically inferior.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:20 AM on March 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:20 AM on March 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
Okay, we (mostly) agree it's okay to, as an individual, zanily sucker-punch a Nazi.
We do? Who's "we"?
posted by Sangermaine at 8:21 AM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
We do? Who's "we"?
posted by Sangermaine at 8:21 AM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
I guess what I find confusing about this is how a single event at a small, elite private college is being turned into a battle for the soul of America. What happened was bad, inviting Charles Murray to spread his race science arguably hurts many more people than that, but I have a hard time believing there would be anywhere near this level of breathless coverage if something equivalent had happened at Southeast Missouri State (not that Murray would ever deign to appear somewhere like that). Sure, elite colleges are a bubble, but it's a bubble the media is obsessed with and can't stop gazing into as if 5% of America's youth is somehow indicative of broader trends in society.
posted by Copronymus at 8:21 AM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by Copronymus at 8:21 AM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
OK, but someone obviously disagrees with you. Otherwise he would not have been invited to the campus.
This is because in the US, we fetishize free speech and discourse to an unhealthy level, which causes well educated people to not understand how debate can be bent to bad ends legitimization of the indefensible.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:21 AM on March 7, 2017 [26 favorites]
This is because in the US, we fetishize free speech and discourse to an unhealthy level, which causes well educated people to not understand how debate can be bent to bad ends legitimization of the indefensible.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:21 AM on March 7, 2017 [26 favorites]
Stanger made up her mind to be a good academic without regard to what an awful person and academic Murray is, and then she decided that everyone who disagreed with her was fundamentally wrong:
I was genuinely surprised and troubled to learn that some of my faculty colleagues had rendered judgement on Dr. Murray’s work and character, while openly admitting that they had not read anything he had written.... I saw some of my faculty colleagues who had publicly acknowledged that they had not read anything Dr. Murray had written join the effort to shut down the lecture.... Those who wanted the event to take place made eye contact with me. Those intent on disrupting it steadfastly refused to do so. It was clear to me that they had effectively dehumanized me. They couldn’t look me in the eye, because if they had, they would have seen another human being.posted by Etrigan at 8:23 AM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
I agreed to participate in the event with Charles Murray, because several of my students asked me to do so. They are smart and good people, all of them, and this was their big event of the year.
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume this was well-intentioned (maybe they wanted to see an actual evolutionary biologist flay Murray in front of a large audience), but that's not a tactic that works with people like him. If a public evisceration by Stephen Jay Gould wasn't enough to make this chucklehead crawl back into the primordial ooze from which he first emerged, no amount of ridicule and marginalization is going to. He just wants a platform from which to spew hatred, and it's up to the academic community not to give it to him.
posted by Mayor West at 8:24 AM on March 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume this was well-intentioned (maybe they wanted to see an actual evolutionary biologist flay Murray in front of a large audience), but that's not a tactic that works with people like him. If a public evisceration by Stephen Jay Gould wasn't enough to make this chucklehead crawl back into the primordial ooze from which he first emerged, no amount of ridicule and marginalization is going to. He just wants a platform from which to spew hatred, and it's up to the academic community not to give it to him.
posted by Mayor West at 8:24 AM on March 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
I guess what I find confusing about this is how a single event at a small, elite private college is being turned into a battle for the soul of America.
It's about admissions and from a year ago: Shut Up About Harvard- "A focus on elite schools ignores the issues most college students" face.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:24 AM on March 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
It's about admissions and from a year ago: Shut Up About Harvard- "A focus on elite schools ignores the issues most college students" face.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:24 AM on March 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
This is because in the US, we fetishize free speech and discourse to an unhealthy level, which causes well educated people to not understand how debate can be bent to bad ends legitimization of the indefensible.
It's a good thing we have people to tell us what is indefensible and beyond civil discussion.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:25 AM on March 7, 2017 [22 favorites]
It's a good thing we have people to tell us what is indefensible and beyond civil discussion.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:25 AM on March 7, 2017 [22 favorites]
This is the unfortunate middle ground, where things get ugly, and which makes me worry deeply about civil unrest.
Okay, we (mostly) agree it's okay to, as an individual, zanily sucker-punch a Nazi.
Yes
But what about when you're part of a mob?
I mean I don't think punching people is good as a general rule but I also think maybe there wouldn't be a mob if there weren't Nazis around? Like not to sound too much like an eight year old but they started it by being Nazis and advocating violence. I don't think people should get beaten up BUT I also don't think people should be Nazis!
What about when that one punch will be followed by others?
Again, if they are Nazis, they are already being violent and bad just by being Nazis. A lot more violence is committed BY Nazis than AGAINST Nazis. Maybe they should just stop fucking spewing disgusting violence racist rhetoric and we can stop needing to punch them! I would be happy with this trade-off!
What if the person isn't a Nazi, but shares some similar views?
If they share similar views to a Nazi they're a Nazi. Problem solved!
What about when that person, like Allison Stranger, just happens to be sharing space with the person you hate?
Is anyone saying "we should punch people based solely on proximity to Nazis"? If they aren't, problem solved!
What if she's actually there to push back?
Oh I see the confusion! If people are there to say "Nazis are bad, please ignore Nazis" it is not good to punch them. Please refrain.
So pleased I could be of assistance!
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 8:25 AM on March 7, 2017 [36 favorites]
Okay, we (mostly) agree it's okay to, as an individual, zanily sucker-punch a Nazi.
Yes
But what about when you're part of a mob?
I mean I don't think punching people is good as a general rule but I also think maybe there wouldn't be a mob if there weren't Nazis around? Like not to sound too much like an eight year old but they started it by being Nazis and advocating violence. I don't think people should get beaten up BUT I also don't think people should be Nazis!
What about when that one punch will be followed by others?
Again, if they are Nazis, they are already being violent and bad just by being Nazis. A lot more violence is committed BY Nazis than AGAINST Nazis. Maybe they should just stop fucking spewing disgusting violence racist rhetoric and we can stop needing to punch them! I would be happy with this trade-off!
What if the person isn't a Nazi, but shares some similar views?
If they share similar views to a Nazi they're a Nazi. Problem solved!
What about when that person, like Allison Stranger, just happens to be sharing space with the person you hate?
Is anyone saying "we should punch people based solely on proximity to Nazis"? If they aren't, problem solved!
What if she's actually there to push back?
Oh I see the confusion! If people are there to say "Nazis are bad, please ignore Nazis" it is not good to punch them. Please refrain.
So pleased I could be of assistance!
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 8:25 AM on March 7, 2017 [36 favorites]
I guess what I find confusing about this is how a single event at a small, elite private college is being turned into a battle for the soul of America. What happened was bad, inviting Charles Murray to spread his race science arguably hurts many more people than that, but I have a hard time believing there would be anywhere near this level of breathless coverage if something equivalent had happened at Southeast Missouri State (not that Murray would ever deign to appear somewhere like that).I actually think it's part of a bigger discussion that started with the Milo mess and includes the dingbat proposal from a dingbat Iowa legislator to mandate that Democrats and Republicans be equally represented on Iowa public college faculties. There's a lot of stupid going around, and not all of it is aimed at elite private colleges.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:25 AM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
The students' account, which alleges that the physical altercations were all instigated by security personnel, and that a college administrator literally drove through a crowd of protestors, is a side of the story which doesn't seem to have been widely told.
And that the violent actions against Stanger were committed by outside agitators. Also, remember that the initial media reports about the Berkeley protests had a protester shooting a supporter, when it was actually the opposite case.
Fuck Charles Murray.
Also: Fuck Conor Friedersdorf. He always finds a way to blame These Kids Today for every problem, and seems to believe that a right to free speech is also a right to a platform. He and Jonathan Chait are the go-to guys for the media to do a "balanced" view on campus free speech, even though they're pretty much in complete agreement that students are always the no-good, very-bad people in these situations.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:28 AM on March 7, 2017 [10 favorites]
And that the violent actions against Stanger were committed by outside agitators. Also, remember that the initial media reports about the Berkeley protests had a protester shooting a supporter, when it was actually the opposite case.
Fuck Charles Murray.
Also: Fuck Conor Friedersdorf. He always finds a way to blame These Kids Today for every problem, and seems to believe that a right to free speech is also a right to a platform. He and Jonathan Chait are the go-to guys for the media to do a "balanced" view on campus free speech, even though they're pretty much in complete agreement that students are always the no-good, very-bad people in these situations.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:28 AM on March 7, 2017 [10 favorites]
It's a good thing we have people to tell us what is indefensible and beyond civil discussion.
Bigotry wrapped in a pseudoscientific mantle - Murray's entire stock in trade - is by its very nature uncivil, no matter how politely it may be phrased.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:28 AM on March 7, 2017 [29 favorites]
Bigotry wrapped in a pseudoscientific mantle - Murray's entire stock in trade - is by its very nature uncivil, no matter how politely it may be phrased.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:28 AM on March 7, 2017 [29 favorites]
It's a good thing we have people to tell us what is indefensible and beyond civil discussion.
There are definitely some people who inhabit the divide between "person arguing a bad thing, but in good faith and worthy of debate" and "actual goose-stepping Nazi." Charles Murray is not one of them.
posted by Mayor West at 8:28 AM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
There are definitely some people who inhabit the divide between "person arguing a bad thing, but in good faith and worthy of debate" and "actual goose-stepping Nazi." Charles Murray is not one of them.
posted by Mayor West at 8:28 AM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
I haven't read it either, but I'm willing to believe that The Bell Curve is a bad book written by a bad person. Murray was invited to speak on Coming Apart, which is effectively about the last election (though it was actually written five years ago) and people I respect including Andrew Gelman have read it and commented on it.
posted by Slothrup at 8:29 AM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by Slothrup at 8:29 AM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
We disagree with half the voting country. If we can't talk to them without violence then civil war is where we'll end up.
But, again, violence is already happening! I don't like violence, I think it's bad and I eschew it where possible, but my fucking God when vulnerable people are being attacked and their lives threatened both physically and legislatively (taking away healthcare is in fact a threat to someone's life; people will literally die, this is not hyperbole) I think maybe tut tutting at those of us who don't like Nazis and racism and hatred because of a few isolated incidents of violence when violence is already being used against SO MANY PEOPLE does more harm than good.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 8:30 AM on March 7, 2017 [30 favorites]
But, again, violence is already happening! I don't like violence, I think it's bad and I eschew it where possible, but my fucking God when vulnerable people are being attacked and their lives threatened both physically and legislatively (taking away healthcare is in fact a threat to someone's life; people will literally die, this is not hyperbole) I think maybe tut tutting at those of us who don't like Nazis and racism and hatred because of a few isolated incidents of violence when violence is already being used against SO MANY PEOPLE does more harm than good.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 8:30 AM on March 7, 2017 [30 favorites]
But, again, violence is already happening!
Fight talk with talk. Fight violence with violence. It scares me when people start equating talk with violence because that can be used to justify nearly anything.
posted by Slothrup at 8:32 AM on March 7, 2017 [15 favorites]
Fight talk with talk. Fight violence with violence. It scares me when people start equating talk with violence because that can be used to justify nearly anything.
posted by Slothrup at 8:32 AM on March 7, 2017 [15 favorites]
> I guess what I find confusing about this is how a single event at a small, elite private college is being turned into a battle for the soul of America.
Because we are, culturally, very suspicious of intellectuals and anything smacking of intellectualism, and because for decades the right has been peddling this tale of The Downfall of America beginning on college campuses with those kids being brainwashed by commie professors.
I've been limiting my intake of national mainstream media, so maybe I've missed it, but I'm not seeing a lot of op-eds and hand-wringing essays from anyone on the right about what it means that KKK and white power recruiting posters and flyers are turning up on college campuses all over the place. Those, I guess, are just little individuals blips of nothing, not a sign of anything systemic and terrifying.
posted by rtha at 8:32 AM on March 7, 2017 [17 favorites]
Because we are, culturally, very suspicious of intellectuals and anything smacking of intellectualism, and because for decades the right has been peddling this tale of The Downfall of America beginning on college campuses with those kids being brainwashed by commie professors.
I've been limiting my intake of national mainstream media, so maybe I've missed it, but I'm not seeing a lot of op-eds and hand-wringing essays from anyone on the right about what it means that KKK and white power recruiting posters and flyers are turning up on college campuses all over the place. Those, I guess, are just little individuals blips of nothing, not a sign of anything systemic and terrifying.
posted by rtha at 8:32 AM on March 7, 2017 [17 favorites]
Fight talk with talk. Fight violence with violence. It scares me when people start equating talk with violence because that can be used to justify nearly anything.
What about dialogue?posted by Mayor West at 8:34 AM on March 7, 2017 [33 favorites]
Dialogue is for reasonable people acting in good faith. Dialogue is between two acceptable positions. “Taxes need to be raised” vs. “taxes need to be lowered” is grounds for dialogue. “Taxes need to be raised” vs. “Jews should be thrown in ovens” is grounds for a beating.
We disagree with half the voting country. If we can't talk to them without violence then civil war is where we'll end up.
They're committing violence as we speak. It's not just the resurgence of white supremacy movements, threats and attacks on Jewish and Muslim organizations, shootings of PoC, elimination of LGBTQ rights, and all the other crazy. It's also a vicious and wide-ranging social and economic war directly informed by Murray's work, cloaked in additional layers of pseudoscience and enabled by conservatives and libertarians who refuse to have conversations without speaking in hypotheticals and "both sides are to blame" bullshit.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:37 AM on March 7, 2017 [17 favorites]
They're committing violence as we speak. It's not just the resurgence of white supremacy movements, threats and attacks on Jewish and Muslim organizations, shootings of PoC, elimination of LGBTQ rights, and all the other crazy. It's also a vicious and wide-ranging social and economic war directly informed by Murray's work, cloaked in additional layers of pseudoscience and enabled by conservatives and libertarians who refuse to have conversations without speaking in hypotheticals and "both sides are to blame" bullshit.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:37 AM on March 7, 2017 [17 favorites]
I heard Murray interviewed about Coming Apart when it came out. You're right, it was just as racist as is the current hand wringing about the poor disenfranchised white voter. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that he and the AEI are behind some of the rhetoric about how misunderstood poor white people had no choice but to vote for Trump (ignoring the fact that his biggest supporters were middle class and wealthier white people).
posted by hydropsyche at 8:37 AM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 8:37 AM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
Also, it's not like Murray has disavowed the racism and eugenics in The Bell Curve. He's still quite proud of it.
posted by hydropsyche at 8:38 AM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 8:38 AM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
Fight talk with talk. Fight violence with violence. It scares me when people start equating talk with violence because that can be used to justify nearly anything.
Yeah I do totally get that, but part of the problem is that this man should not be given a public platform. He will use it to incite violence (I believe this ties in to stochastic terrorism? Someone else might be able to speak better to this). Violence will happen if he is allowed to spread his message, even if it's "refuted". I get that referring to speech as violence is problematic, but speech like his actually is violent in that it creates a situation in which other people will carry out violence because of him. Saying his speech isn't violent is like saying hiring a hitman isn't murder. I don't want violence used against him, I don't want violence used against anyone! But if people are given platforms to spread speech that actually does, empirically, cause violence, even if more/"better" speech is used against them, what are we supposed to do? I don't like violence but I would like the Nazis to be too afraid to use their violent rhetoric to hurt people, which it demonstrably does.
If you have a better solution -- and I really, REALLY hope you do, it would be so great! -- I would love to hear it. I don't actually condone violence (except in very limited cases and I'm really sorry about what happened to Professor Strange) but, compared to everything else that's happening, violence against racists/Nazis is pretty low on my list of stuff to condemn.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 8:42 AM on March 7, 2017 [15 favorites]
Yeah I do totally get that, but part of the problem is that this man should not be given a public platform. He will use it to incite violence (I believe this ties in to stochastic terrorism? Someone else might be able to speak better to this). Violence will happen if he is allowed to spread his message, even if it's "refuted". I get that referring to speech as violence is problematic, but speech like his actually is violent in that it creates a situation in which other people will carry out violence because of him. Saying his speech isn't violent is like saying hiring a hitman isn't murder. I don't want violence used against him, I don't want violence used against anyone! But if people are given platforms to spread speech that actually does, empirically, cause violence, even if more/"better" speech is used against them, what are we supposed to do? I don't like violence but I would like the Nazis to be too afraid to use their violent rhetoric to hurt people, which it demonstrably does.
If you have a better solution -- and I really, REALLY hope you do, it would be so great! -- I would love to hear it. I don't actually condone violence (except in very limited cases and I'm really sorry about what happened to Professor Strange) but, compared to everything else that's happening, violence against racists/Nazis is pretty low on my list of stuff to condemn.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 8:42 AM on March 7, 2017 [15 favorites]
Thursday was "the saddest day of my life," wrote Allison Stanger
I wonder whether she's just led an amazingly charmed life so far so none of the various calamities that usually strike someone by middle-age just haven't happened to her -- never lost a parent, never been dumped or divorced, never had any significant professional setback, never dealt with a health scare -- or whether she's a psychopath who didn't particularly care when her mother got cancer or whatever actually has happened.
Or whether she's just a hyperbolizing doofus.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:43 AM on March 7, 2017 [15 favorites]
I wonder whether she's just led an amazingly charmed life so far so none of the various calamities that usually strike someone by middle-age just haven't happened to her -- never lost a parent, never been dumped or divorced, never had any significant professional setback, never dealt with a health scare -- or whether she's a psychopath who didn't particularly care when her mother got cancer or whatever actually has happened.
Or whether she's just a hyperbolizing doofus.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:43 AM on March 7, 2017 [15 favorites]
I'm not sure if Murray should have been prevented from speaking, but when the "other side" ignores the very real, and very violent threat to free speech and even freedom of assembly posed by the right, it's very odd to say the least. The very least.
posted by My Dad at 8:43 AM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by My Dad at 8:43 AM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
Fight talk with talk. Fight violence with violence. It scares me when people start equating talk with violence because that can be used to justify nearly anything.
But talk can be violence. See the unprecedented dozens of JCC bomb threats. See the massive increase in mosque arson. See the shootings of Sikhs, muslims, people of color. All of these things have increased in proportion to the amount of white supremacy being aired in the public sphere.
Civil disobedience and someone getting their hair pulled =/= the gun violence that was experienced at my university a month ago.
posted by Existential Dread at 8:44 AM on March 7, 2017 [18 favorites]
But talk can be violence. See the unprecedented dozens of JCC bomb threats. See the massive increase in mosque arson. See the shootings of Sikhs, muslims, people of color. All of these things have increased in proportion to the amount of white supremacy being aired in the public sphere.
Civil disobedience and someone getting their hair pulled =/= the gun violence that was experienced at my university a month ago.
posted by Existential Dread at 8:44 AM on March 7, 2017 [18 favorites]
the late Stephen Jay Gould gave a counterpoint discussion on race and held Murray's feet to the fire.
The problem with this sort of thing is that most schools don't have a Stephen Jay Gould just sitting around. It's not a reasonable expectation for how to deal with this sort of stuff in academic settings. When I was in law school, the Federalist Society would bring in these conservatives to talk about stuff--people who I'd even heard of--and they seemed to somehow have money none of the rest of the groups had for food, so they'd draw big crowds with free Chipotle burritos.
There was always a counterpoint speaker. It was always phrased as a discussion or a debate. And the progressive side was always represented by my Con Law professor. Who I liked a lot. Who was a bright man and firmly believed in what he was saying. But he was not a professional public speaker. He was a guy who had a day job doing something else who didn't have tons of time to prepare elaborate rebuttals for everything that was going to be said, every time.
So one viewpoint was using this experience to do recruitment and propaganda, and my little third-tier law school was in no way prepared to counter it. Our ACLU chapter did not have those sorts of resources coming in to pay for travel expenses for the best and brightest in their fields. So every year they generated a new class of attorneys into our area, and most of them had been to multiple Federalist Society events.
I like the idea of engaging, in theory. But if the conservative groups bringing speakers onto campus have budgets that the liberal groups can never dream of, then there's no way to actually make it a fair and good-faith exchange of ideas. The deck is getting stacked the other direction, and there has to be something more done about it than talking. Maybe not, at least in this sort of situation, anything violent, but certainly protest seems more than reasonable.
posted by Sequence at 8:45 AM on March 7, 2017 [35 favorites]
The problem with this sort of thing is that most schools don't have a Stephen Jay Gould just sitting around. It's not a reasonable expectation for how to deal with this sort of stuff in academic settings. When I was in law school, the Federalist Society would bring in these conservatives to talk about stuff--people who I'd even heard of--and they seemed to somehow have money none of the rest of the groups had for food, so they'd draw big crowds with free Chipotle burritos.
There was always a counterpoint speaker. It was always phrased as a discussion or a debate. And the progressive side was always represented by my Con Law professor. Who I liked a lot. Who was a bright man and firmly believed in what he was saying. But he was not a professional public speaker. He was a guy who had a day job doing something else who didn't have tons of time to prepare elaborate rebuttals for everything that was going to be said, every time.
So one viewpoint was using this experience to do recruitment and propaganda, and my little third-tier law school was in no way prepared to counter it. Our ACLU chapter did not have those sorts of resources coming in to pay for travel expenses for the best and brightest in their fields. So every year they generated a new class of attorneys into our area, and most of them had been to multiple Federalist Society events.
I like the idea of engaging, in theory. But if the conservative groups bringing speakers onto campus have budgets that the liberal groups can never dream of, then there's no way to actually make it a fair and good-faith exchange of ideas. The deck is getting stacked the other direction, and there has to be something more done about it than talking. Maybe not, at least in this sort of situation, anything violent, but certainly protest seems more than reasonable.
posted by Sequence at 8:45 AM on March 7, 2017 [35 favorites]
One wild aspect of the Stanger facebook piece is how, right after complaining about being "dehumanized" because not enough people were looking at her, she calls one person a "thug" (the person who pulled her hair, not the paid private security officers for whom violence is a-okay) and likens the whole crowd to a "scene from Homeland". The people angry at the racist speaker are not behaving like college students, but like foreigners. Foreigners who got in the way of her tranquil dinner.
I can only speculate as to what exactly she was referring to, but to be fair the most recent episode of Homeland at the time she wrote her statement (which might be the episode most fresh on her mind) featured a scene where an unruly mob (of New Yorkers I assume) formed in front of Carrie's house in New York and threw rocks at her window. So I think it would be unfair to accuse her of portraying protesters as foreigners.
posted by gyc at 8:56 AM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
I can only speculate as to what exactly she was referring to, but to be fair the most recent episode of Homeland at the time she wrote her statement (which might be the episode most fresh on her mind) featured a scene where an unruly mob (of New Yorkers I assume) formed in front of Carrie's house in New York and threw rocks at her window. So I think it would be unfair to accuse her of portraying protesters as foreigners.
posted by gyc at 8:56 AM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure if Murray should have been prevented from speaking, but when the "other side" ignores the very real, and very violent threat to free speech and even freedom of assembly posed by the right, it's very odd to say the least. The very least.
My Dad
I'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate here. It seems very unfair, to say the least (the very least), to imply that those criticizing the use of violence against speakers support campus shootings and attacks on black churches.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:59 AM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
My Dad
I'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate here. It seems very unfair, to say the least (the very least), to imply that those criticizing the use of violence against speakers support campus shootings and attacks on black churches.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:59 AM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
I was a graduate student in the same psychology department as Phil Rushton's at the height of his infamy.
It was interesting how he was treated in the department at University of Western Ontario. He got lots of funding from the usual right wing sources but still used the graduate student computer lab to print things. He was extremely quiet to the point of awkwardness. He wasn't allowed to teach classes (security being the justification - department wide relief being the result). He had no graduate students and was largely ostracized both academically and socially. I am not sure he even conducted any research on campus with the undergraduate subject pool. His academic freedom to study what he wanted how he wanted was defended though.
People were all pretty up-to-date on why his work was so seriously flawed but interestingly those criticisms were only ever applied to his and other racists' research. It is only now almost 25 years later that the same criticisms have spread to all of psychology and psych methodology with the replication crisis and subsequent but unevenly distributed pushes for the open science framework, preregistration and better understanding of statistics and such.
So while i feel these idiots don't deserve a platform I do think it is critical to examine the flaws in the systems of research and logic that they exploit not just to defeat their odious ideas but also in order to defend ourselves from more pleasant smelling but incorrect ideas, like power posing and 95% of the embodied cognition and social priming work, as well. Refusing to hear it or read it prevents this critical examination.
I guess maybe I worry about a sort of research 'hygiene hypothesis' where our science is weakened because it is not exposed to enough obvious shit by obviously shitty scientists so the system fails to develop the anti-bodies required to defend against them and ends up with allergies to everything instead. It seems to me that it is pretty clear we need those anti-bodies now more than ever before.
posted by srboisvert at 9:06 AM on March 7, 2017 [10 favorites]
It was interesting how he was treated in the department at University of Western Ontario. He got lots of funding from the usual right wing sources but still used the graduate student computer lab to print things. He was extremely quiet to the point of awkwardness. He wasn't allowed to teach classes (security being the justification - department wide relief being the result). He had no graduate students and was largely ostracized both academically and socially. I am not sure he even conducted any research on campus with the undergraduate subject pool. His academic freedom to study what he wanted how he wanted was defended though.
People were all pretty up-to-date on why his work was so seriously flawed but interestingly those criticisms were only ever applied to his and other racists' research. It is only now almost 25 years later that the same criticisms have spread to all of psychology and psych methodology with the replication crisis and subsequent but unevenly distributed pushes for the open science framework, preregistration and better understanding of statistics and such.
So while i feel these idiots don't deserve a platform I do think it is critical to examine the flaws in the systems of research and logic that they exploit not just to defeat their odious ideas but also in order to defend ourselves from more pleasant smelling but incorrect ideas, like power posing and 95% of the embodied cognition and social priming work, as well. Refusing to hear it or read it prevents this critical examination.
I guess maybe I worry about a sort of research 'hygiene hypothesis' where our science is weakened because it is not exposed to enough obvious shit by obviously shitty scientists so the system fails to develop the anti-bodies required to defend against them and ends up with allergies to everything instead. It seems to me that it is pretty clear we need those anti-bodies now more than ever before.
posted by srboisvert at 9:06 AM on March 7, 2017 [10 favorites]
I'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate here.
For one thing, I'm trying to discuss, not insinuate.
To clarify, I have heard a lot of people, including mainstream pundits, decry the efforts to prevent Murray from speaking. Some of my online contacts, who may trend "right" on the political spectrum, also talk about "leftist Fascists" etc.
What I never hear about is the fact that the right routinely uses violent methods, such as the shooting at UW, to discourage freedom of speech.
The Charlston shootings, as well as the long history of firebombing black churches, are also a very violent attack on free speech.
But it's always "the Left" that is somehow trying to shut down freedom of speech. When it's a shooter it's always "oh, that's a crazy person."
posted by My Dad at 9:08 AM on March 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
For one thing, I'm trying to discuss, not insinuate.
To clarify, I have heard a lot of people, including mainstream pundits, decry the efforts to prevent Murray from speaking. Some of my online contacts, who may trend "right" on the political spectrum, also talk about "leftist Fascists" etc.
What I never hear about is the fact that the right routinely uses violent methods, such as the shooting at UW, to discourage freedom of speech.
The Charlston shootings, as well as the long history of firebombing black churches, are also a very violent attack on free speech.
But it's always "the Left" that is somehow trying to shut down freedom of speech. When it's a shooter it's always "oh, that's a crazy person."
posted by My Dad at 9:08 AM on March 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
I think maybe tut tutting at those of us who don't like Nazis and racism and hatred because of a few isolated incidents of violence when violence is already being used against SO MANY PEOPLE does more harm than good
I think the conversation is actually much more complex than that, though.
For me, this conversation is anything but abstract. I am a person who is morally okay with punching an actual Nazi, and may actually believe it to be a moral imperative. I am married to an anarchist who has connections to and has participated in antifa actions. The protester who was shot up here belongs to the same circles that he does. We are having many, many conversations about when violence is appropriate and how far is too far, because we are trying to figure out what we are okay with and when it is time to step in.
At this time, I am okay with punching a Nazi. I am okay with repeatedly punching a Nazi in the event he is in the act of violence against another individual, up to and including serious harm. I am definitely not okay with beating someone to death just because he is a Nazi and I see him on the street - nor, I think, would most Mefites.
But somewhere in between "where I am definitely okay" and "where I am definitely not okay" is where I am going to have to live, and my counterparts are going to have to live. And these cases really get into how wide that difference is. What do you do? What is okay? Where do my moral imperatives lie? If I was in that crowd, would I have been blocking Allison Stranger's car or helping her to safety? I need to decide these questions before I wind up in a mob and find myself being carried along into something I don't want to be a part of.
posted by corb at 9:08 AM on March 7, 2017 [10 favorites]
I think the conversation is actually much more complex than that, though.
For me, this conversation is anything but abstract. I am a person who is morally okay with punching an actual Nazi, and may actually believe it to be a moral imperative. I am married to an anarchist who has connections to and has participated in antifa actions. The protester who was shot up here belongs to the same circles that he does. We are having many, many conversations about when violence is appropriate and how far is too far, because we are trying to figure out what we are okay with and when it is time to step in.
At this time, I am okay with punching a Nazi. I am okay with repeatedly punching a Nazi in the event he is in the act of violence against another individual, up to and including serious harm. I am definitely not okay with beating someone to death just because he is a Nazi and I see him on the street - nor, I think, would most Mefites.
But somewhere in between "where I am definitely okay" and "where I am definitely not okay" is where I am going to have to live, and my counterparts are going to have to live. And these cases really get into how wide that difference is. What do you do? What is okay? Where do my moral imperatives lie? If I was in that crowd, would I have been blocking Allison Stranger's car or helping her to safety? I need to decide these questions before I wind up in a mob and find myself being carried along into something I don't want to be a part of.
posted by corb at 9:08 AM on March 7, 2017 [10 favorites]
Murray is not Milo. Personally I think Murray would have been more discredited if his arguments were put out in the open and his evidence debated. Its not pseudoscience--its just wrong. A lot of stuff that is wrong is worth debating. Plus Coming Apart is not The Bell Curve.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:11 AM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:11 AM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
Murray is not Milo. Personally I think Murray would have been more discredited if his arguments were put out in the open and his evidence debated. Its not pseudoscience--its just wrong. A lot of stuff that is wrong is worth debating. Plus Coming Apart is not The Bell Curve.
It's still coming from the same poisoned wellspring of bigotry wrapped in pseudoscientific clothing. And no, debating it won't work because they're not looking to win, but just to establish themselves as "the other side", legitimizing themselves.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:21 AM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
It's still coming from the same poisoned wellspring of bigotry wrapped in pseudoscientific clothing. And no, debating it won't work because they're not looking to win, but just to establish themselves as "the other side", legitimizing themselves.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:21 AM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
Murray is not Milo. Personally I think Murray would have been more discredited if his arguments were put out in the open and his evidence debated. Its not pseudoscience--its just wrong. A lot of stuff that is wrong is worth debating. Plus Coming Apart is not The Bell Curve.
It's been put out in the open. It's been debunked repeatedly. What's next? We bring back phrenology? How about humoral theory? That was a fucking great one. Alchemy! We haven't had a good society wide shitfight on turning lead into gold for a few hundred years! And now we have nuclear transmutation as a red herring!
posted by Talez at 9:24 AM on March 7, 2017 [18 favorites]
It's been put out in the open. It's been debunked repeatedly. What's next? We bring back phrenology? How about humoral theory? That was a fucking great one. Alchemy! We haven't had a good society wide shitfight on turning lead into gold for a few hundred years! And now we have nuclear transmutation as a red herring!
posted by Talez at 9:24 AM on March 7, 2017 [18 favorites]
If we can't talk to them without violence then civil war is where we'll end up.
What if they can't talk to us without violence?
posted by PMdixon at 9:25 AM on March 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
What if they can't talk to us without violence?
posted by PMdixon at 9:25 AM on March 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
"I guess what I find confusing about this is how a single event at a small, elite private college is being turned into a battle for the soul of America. What happened was bad, inviting Charles Murray to spread his race science arguably hurts many more people than that, but I have a hard time believing there would be anywhere near this level of breathless coverage if something equivalent had happened at Southeast Missouri State (not that Murray would ever deign to appear somewhere like that). Sure, elite colleges are a bubble, but it's a bubble the media is obsessed with and can't stop gazing into as if 5% of America's youth is somehow indicative of broader trends in society."
Except it's not a single event. This isn't even the first violent protest this year, and it's only been 10 weeks. No-platforming has been going on for years. It may only be 5% of kids (maybe even less!), but those 5% are the future elite of the country, and if they're neo-Stalinists, I kind of think that would be nice to know, just like if they were neo-fascists, I'd like to know that, too.
And, to reiterate, this discussion was about "Coming Apart", not "The Bell Curve". "Coming Apart", while not a particularly good book (I gave up about halfway through), is not racial in nature. Indeed, the very subtitle of the book makes it clear that he is only talking about white people.
posted by kevinbelt at 9:25 AM on March 7, 2017
Except it's not a single event. This isn't even the first violent protest this year, and it's only been 10 weeks. No-platforming has been going on for years. It may only be 5% of kids (maybe even less!), but those 5% are the future elite of the country, and if they're neo-Stalinists, I kind of think that would be nice to know, just like if they were neo-fascists, I'd like to know that, too.
And, to reiterate, this discussion was about "Coming Apart", not "The Bell Curve". "Coming Apart", while not a particularly good book (I gave up about halfway through), is not racial in nature. Indeed, the very subtitle of the book makes it clear that he is only talking about white people.
posted by kevinbelt at 9:25 AM on March 7, 2017
Except Murray was there to talk about Coming Apart, not The Bell Curve.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:26 AM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:26 AM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
Except Murray was there to talk about Coming Apart, not The Bell Curve.
Until he repudiates The Bell Curve, he will never not be talking about it. Sorry, it's one of those "you fuck one goat" things.
posted by PMdixon at 9:27 AM on March 7, 2017 [35 favorites]
Until he repudiates The Bell Curve, he will never not be talking about it. Sorry, it's one of those "you fuck one goat" things.
posted by PMdixon at 9:27 AM on March 7, 2017 [35 favorites]
Except it's not a single event. This isn't even the first violent protest this year, and it's only been 10 weeks.
So, two events? At least one of which was confirmed to have violence from people who weren't students and a shooting committed by a white supremacist, for the record.
It may only be 5% of kids (maybe even less!), but those 5% are the future elite of the country, and if they're neo-Stalinists
I don't see how protests by the elite 5% of kids on campus (which isn't true of many if not most of them) against bigots is anywhere close a endorsing the dictatorship of a working-class dropout to starving millions of people to death and erasing people from historical records.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:36 AM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
So, two events? At least one of which was confirmed to have violence from people who weren't students and a shooting committed by a white supremacist, for the record.
It may only be 5% of kids (maybe even less!), but those 5% are the future elite of the country, and if they're neo-Stalinists
I don't see how protests by the elite 5% of kids on campus (which isn't true of many if not most of them) against bigots is anywhere close a endorsing the dictatorship of a working-class dropout to starving millions of people to death and erasing people from historical records.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:36 AM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
Except Murray was there to talk about Coming Apart, not The Bell Curve.
And your point? As people have pointed out, The Bell Curve was such a work of racist pseudoscientific bullshit that it has permanently tarnished the man's reputation, and for good reason! Furthermore, from what I've read about it, Coming Apart also springs from that same worldview.
To put it simply, why do you believe that it's important for academia to give time to an unrepentant bigot?
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:37 AM on March 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
And your point? As people have pointed out, The Bell Curve was such a work of racist pseudoscientific bullshit that it has permanently tarnished the man's reputation, and for good reason! Furthermore, from what I've read about it, Coming Apart also springs from that same worldview.
To put it simply, why do you believe that it's important for academia to give time to an unrepentant bigot?
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:37 AM on March 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
And, to reiterate, this discussion was about "Coming Apart", not "The Bell Curve". "Coming Apart", while not a particularly good book (I gave up about halfway through), is not racial in nature.
I'm not on the side of defending the violence against speech but I have to say restricting your concern to whites only is racial.
posted by srboisvert at 9:37 AM on March 7, 2017 [14 favorites]
I'm not on the side of defending the violence against speech but I have to say restricting your concern to whites only is racial.
posted by srboisvert at 9:37 AM on March 7, 2017 [14 favorites]
"Coming Apart", while not a particularly good book (I gave up about halfway through), is not racial in nature. Indeed, the very subtitle of the book makes it clear that he is only talking about white people.Right, because white people don't have race. A book explicitly about white people isn't racial.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:38 AM on March 7, 2017 [36 favorites]
To put it simply, why do you believe that it's important for academia to give time to an unrepentant bigot?
I don't. But I think responding to Murray speaking at a college campus about a pretty innocuous but still flawed book with protests a) designed to shut down any dialogue and b) risking violence is bad behavior on the part of the students. I would have been against inviting Murray at all. But the reaction was unwarranted.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:41 AM on March 7, 2017
I don't. But I think responding to Murray speaking at a college campus about a pretty innocuous but still flawed book with protests a) designed to shut down any dialogue and b) risking violence is bad behavior on the part of the students. I would have been against inviting Murray at all. But the reaction was unwarranted.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:41 AM on March 7, 2017
We disagree with half the voting country our abusers. If we can't talk to them without violence
Just pointing out how that changes things. You don't go to couples therapy with an abuser, because it's another vector for abuse.
then civil war is where we'll end up.
I'm not sure you get that for many people, the people who aren't white, male, privileged in a few key ways -- we're already there.
posted by schadenfrau at 9:43 AM on March 7, 2017 [15 favorites]
Just pointing out how that changes things. You don't go to couples therapy with an abuser, because it's another vector for abuse.
then civil war is where we'll end up.
I'm not sure you get that for many people, the people who aren't white, male, privileged in a few key ways -- we're already there.
posted by schadenfrau at 9:43 AM on March 7, 2017 [15 favorites]
Mod note: One deleted. Please don't troll here.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:48 AM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:48 AM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
To put it simply, why do you believe that it's important for academia to give time to an unrepentant bigot?
It's a problem, because there is no one else on the planet who's qualified to write about social trends among poor people. They looked, they tried, but literally no one else could write that, so we're left with a near-universally-acknowledged racist and everyone has to shut up while he talks so that we can glean the unique brilliance of his work. Perhaps later on, once he's left, we may be allowed to register some mild discomfort with what he said about morally superior skull shapes.
posted by Copronymus at 9:51 AM on March 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
It's a problem, because there is no one else on the planet who's qualified to write about social trends among poor people. They looked, they tried, but literally no one else could write that, so we're left with a near-universally-acknowledged racist and everyone has to shut up while he talks so that we can glean the unique brilliance of his work. Perhaps later on, once he's left, we may be allowed to register some mild discomfort with what he said about morally superior skull shapes.
posted by Copronymus at 9:51 AM on March 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
Duh.
posted by PMdixon at 9:54 AM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by PMdixon at 9:54 AM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
Except Murray was there to talk about Coming Apart, not The Bell Curve.
Didn't Coming Apart get a thorough airing out in 2012? I distinctly remember discussing it at length here, there, and everywhere else online.
IIRC, and based on a brief refresher, The thesis of his book is that the problems with this country come from the fact that middle-class white people (who he calls the "new lower class") are held down by a "new upper class" elite. He uses circular reasoning to declare that this elite is made up of affluent Democrats. This book was published at the height of the pushback against Occupy Wallstreet and was widely seen as an attempt to tell people who the *real* bad guys are - not wealthy hedge fund managers, oh no, its you cultural tolerant liberals with your locally sourced kale and morning cup of kombucha! So maybe we didn't do a particularly good job of looking at how batshit racist his arguments always end up being.
posted by muddgirl at 9:54 AM on March 7, 2017 [14 favorites]
Didn't Coming Apart get a thorough airing out in 2012? I distinctly remember discussing it at length here, there, and everywhere else online.
IIRC, and based on a brief refresher, The thesis of his book is that the problems with this country come from the fact that middle-class white people (who he calls the "new lower class") are held down by a "new upper class" elite. He uses circular reasoning to declare that this elite is made up of affluent Democrats. This book was published at the height of the pushback against Occupy Wallstreet and was widely seen as an attempt to tell people who the *real* bad guys are - not wealthy hedge fund managers, oh no, its you cultural tolerant liberals with your locally sourced kale and morning cup of kombucha! So maybe we didn't do a particularly good job of looking at how batshit racist his arguments always end up being.
posted by muddgirl at 9:54 AM on March 7, 2017 [14 favorites]
But I think responding to Murray speaking at a college campus about a pretty innocuous but still flawed book with protests a) designed to shut down any dialogue and b) risking violence is bad behavior on the part of the students. I would have been against inviting Murray at all. But the reaction was unwarranted.
There was no dialogue to be had. As was pointed out earlier, dialogue requires parties arguing in good faith, which gets broken when one party is an unrepentant bigot. Which leaves you with a farce meant to legitimize the bigot.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:54 AM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
There was no dialogue to be had. As was pointed out earlier, dialogue requires parties arguing in good faith, which gets broken when one party is an unrepentant bigot. Which leaves you with a farce meant to legitimize the bigot.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:54 AM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
> Personally I think Murray would have been more discredited if his arguments were put out in the open and his evidence debated.
You being unaware of the discrediting doesn't mean it didn't happen.
posted by rtha at 9:56 AM on March 7, 2017 [13 favorites]
You being unaware of the discrediting doesn't mean it didn't happen.
posted by rtha at 9:56 AM on March 7, 2017 [13 favorites]
Here's an old editorial by Bob Herbert about The Bell Curve in which it comes out that Calipers Murray and his friends burned a cross when they were boys. He said it had no greater meaning, of course. Ah, the energy and excess of youth!
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:57 AM on March 7, 2017 [15 favorites]
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:57 AM on March 7, 2017 [15 favorites]
Except it's not a single event. This isn't even the first violent protest this year, and it's only been 10 weeks. No-platforming has been going on for years. It may only be 5% of kids (maybe even less!), but those 5% are the future elite of the country, and if they're neo-Stalinists, I kind of think that would be nice to know, just like if they were neo-fascists, I'd like to know that, too.
You.... you genuinely believe that a bunch of college kids protesting a speaker because of his views on eugenics are Stalinists? How? How does one make that connection? What views do they share with Stalin? What tactics do they share with Stalin? This is just mind-boggling to me.
posted by armadillo1224 at 9:58 AM on March 7, 2017 [16 favorites]
You.... you genuinely believe that a bunch of college kids protesting a speaker because of his views on eugenics are Stalinists? How? How does one make that connection? What views do they share with Stalin? What tactics do they share with Stalin? This is just mind-boggling to me.
posted by armadillo1224 at 9:58 AM on March 7, 2017 [16 favorites]
About the principle that racists should not be allowed a platform, agreed.
But let's talk tactics for a moment. Suppose Murray gives a talk at Middlebury. Ie that scenario, Murray gives a talk at Middlebury, which most of the world did not attend. Big effing deal. It doesn't change the intellectual universe one whit.
Is there a downside to denying Murray and the like their chance to speak? Isn't it a gift to these neo-fascists that they can pose as an oppressed minority and instill fear and loathing of "the Stalinist left" among people who may never set foot on a college campus, but who will vote for politicians who promise, as Ronald Reagan did back in the 60s, to whip those student radicals into line?
Those who are harmed by such politicians and by the public support they enjoy won't be the students and faculty of Middlebury, Oberlin, Wesleyan, Bennington, etc. They will be the students and faculty of state colleges that are already struggling with crazy restrictions on their budgets, admissions and educational policy.
It's a hell of a paradox. You deliver what you call resistance, and the other side transforms it into support. That mechanism has to be broken (but how to is a topic for another discussion).
Yes, it's unfair that "the left" (as defined in US terms) is held to a higher standard than the right, when it comes to honesty, behavior, rationality, beneficence, etc. It is unfair because it is a whole lot easier to be an obsessed, raging, fact-denying liar. But the point of living in a liberal democracy is that if we can convince the majority of people to live up to a higher standard, we can all avoid repeating the wars of religion for the umpteenth time. That's worth it. Giving the fascists the excuse that "the other side does it too" doesn't push us all in the direction of peaceful conflict resolution.
posted by homerica at 10:00 AM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
But let's talk tactics for a moment. Suppose Murray gives a talk at Middlebury. Ie that scenario, Murray gives a talk at Middlebury, which most of the world did not attend. Big effing deal. It doesn't change the intellectual universe one whit.
Is there a downside to denying Murray and the like their chance to speak? Isn't it a gift to these neo-fascists that they can pose as an oppressed minority and instill fear and loathing of "the Stalinist left" among people who may never set foot on a college campus, but who will vote for politicians who promise, as Ronald Reagan did back in the 60s, to whip those student radicals into line?
Those who are harmed by such politicians and by the public support they enjoy won't be the students and faculty of Middlebury, Oberlin, Wesleyan, Bennington, etc. They will be the students and faculty of state colleges that are already struggling with crazy restrictions on their budgets, admissions and educational policy.
It's a hell of a paradox. You deliver what you call resistance, and the other side transforms it into support. That mechanism has to be broken (but how to is a topic for another discussion).
Yes, it's unfair that "the left" (as defined in US terms) is held to a higher standard than the right, when it comes to honesty, behavior, rationality, beneficence, etc. It is unfair because it is a whole lot easier to be an obsessed, raging, fact-denying liar. But the point of living in a liberal democracy is that if we can convince the majority of people to live up to a higher standard, we can all avoid repeating the wars of religion for the umpteenth time. That's worth it. Giving the fascists the excuse that "the other side does it too" doesn't push us all in the direction of peaceful conflict resolution.
posted by homerica at 10:00 AM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
You.... you genuinely believe that a bunch of college kids protesting a speaker because of his views on eugenics are Stalinists? How? How does one make that connection? What views do they share with Stalin? What tactics do they share with Stalin? This is just mind-boggling to me.
It was not uncommon a while ago, in certain parts, to declare that the desire to reject blatantly unscientific conclusions like creationism, antivax, global warming denial, etc. was akin to Lysenkoism. I assume this has combined with the equally nonsensical accusations that all pro-diversity positions constitute "cultural Marxism" to create the new "neo-Stalinist" slur.
In other words, it's just bullshit somebody pulled out their ass because it sounds smart.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:07 AM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
It was not uncommon a while ago, in certain parts, to declare that the desire to reject blatantly unscientific conclusions like creationism, antivax, global warming denial, etc. was akin to Lysenkoism. I assume this has combined with the equally nonsensical accusations that all pro-diversity positions constitute "cultural Marxism" to create the new "neo-Stalinist" slur.
In other words, it's just bullshit somebody pulled out their ass because it sounds smart.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:07 AM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
In other words, it's just bullshit somebody pulled out their ass because it sounds smart.
Actually, especially in terms of the Lysenkoism, it's projection.
posted by PMdixon at 10:09 AM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
Actually, especially in terms of the Lysenkoism, it's projection.
posted by PMdixon at 10:09 AM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
nonsensical accusations that all pro-diversity positions constitute "cultural Marxism"
Yes, but on the right this is a very potent pejorative for the Left. "Cultural Marxism" has really gotten traction. It's how the Left is interpreted now.
posted by My Dad at 10:11 AM on March 7, 2017
Yes, but on the right this is a very potent pejorative for the Left. "Cultural Marxism" has really gotten traction. It's how the Left is interpreted now.
posted by My Dad at 10:11 AM on March 7, 2017
Ah, looking back on the last Murray thread is bittersweet. We were so young.
posted by muddgirl at 10:11 AM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by muddgirl at 10:11 AM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
It's a hell of a paradox. You deliver what you call resistance, and the other side transforms it into support. That mechanism has to be broken (but how to is a topic for another discussion).
The other side will turn anything into support - it's how their dynamic works. Once you realize this, it frees you from fretting about whether or not you resisting will enable them.
Giving the fascists the excuse that "the other side does it too" doesn't push us all in the direction of peaceful conflict resolution.
I'm sorry, but how exactly are you going to peacefully resolve the argument that some people are inferior because of their race and/or gender? Because that's what Murray is arguing for.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:14 AM on March 7, 2017 [17 favorites]
The other side will turn anything into support - it's how their dynamic works. Once you realize this, it frees you from fretting about whether or not you resisting will enable them.
Giving the fascists the excuse that "the other side does it too" doesn't push us all in the direction of peaceful conflict resolution.
I'm sorry, but how exactly are you going to peacefully resolve the argument that some people are inferior because of their race and/or gender? Because that's what Murray is arguing for.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:14 AM on March 7, 2017 [17 favorites]
Yes, but on the right this is a very potent pejorative for the Left. "Cultural Marxism" has really gotten traction.
Citation needed on the "potent" part. Yes, it's gotten traction among the gloobergrapes and internet neo-Nazis of the world, but I've seen no reason to believe that it's made its way outside that subculture.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:21 AM on March 7, 2017
Citation needed on the "potent" part. Yes, it's gotten traction among the gloobergrapes and internet neo-Nazis of the world, but I've seen no reason to believe that it's made its way outside that subculture.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:21 AM on March 7, 2017
The type of mainstream respectable pundits that have been calling Obama 'far left' for over a decade now all let out a little gleeful dribble of pee when they heard 'cultural marxism' for the first time. Any scary-sounding term ever concocted associated with communism will get robbed of meaning and used against centrist establishment liberals no matter how the actual left comports themselves, so don't sweat it.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:28 AM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by Space Coyote at 10:28 AM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
> Isn't it a gift to these neo-fascists that they can pose as an oppressed minority
They already do this. They are already the Ultimate Victims, with no pulled invitation from universities necessary. Don't you get it? It doesn't matter what we do, or don't do, to show we disagree. Our level of respect or utter lack of it it irrelevant to them; if we ignore them utterly, they will use that as ammunition; if we protest peacefully and dressed nicely, they will use that. If we write mildly irritated letters to the editor, the same. Our simple existence is enough ammunition to them.
posted by rtha at 10:28 AM on March 7, 2017 [31 favorites]
They already do this. They are already the Ultimate Victims, with no pulled invitation from universities necessary. Don't you get it? It doesn't matter what we do, or don't do, to show we disagree. Our level of respect or utter lack of it it irrelevant to them; if we ignore them utterly, they will use that as ammunition; if we protest peacefully and dressed nicely, they will use that. If we write mildly irritated letters to the editor, the same. Our simple existence is enough ammunition to them.
posted by rtha at 10:28 AM on March 7, 2017 [31 favorites]
After reading those book excerpts that Greg Nog posted, I have to question just What The Fuck the college hoped to achieve by inviting this racist hack to speak. That shit read like the sanitized ramblings from a David Duke facebook post. (And just barely sanitized, at that.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:30 AM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:30 AM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
This whole topic and thread hit me like time travel: Suddenly it's the 90's again, and Murray's making waves with The Bell Curve, and sane people are up in arms.
I agree with the 'WTF? Middlebury' camp. In this day and age, you cannot even slightly pretend that Murray is some sort of neutral, vaguely respected sociological figure with a slightly controversial take on population and intelligence.
That you'd give him a microphone in the current political climate... i dunno. I'd rather listen to someone go on about lizard people and the UN, myself.
posted by mrdaneri at 10:35 AM on March 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
I agree with the 'WTF? Middlebury' camp. In this day and age, you cannot even slightly pretend that Murray is some sort of neutral, vaguely respected sociological figure with a slightly controversial take on population and intelligence.
That you'd give him a microphone in the current political climate... i dunno. I'd rather listen to someone go on about lizard people and the UN, myself.
posted by mrdaneri at 10:35 AM on March 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
I agree with the 'WTF? Middlebury' camp. In this day and age, you cannot even slightly pretend that Murray is some sort of neutral, vaguely respected sociological figure with a slightly controversial take on population and intelligence.
They had minds so open that their brains fell out.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:36 AM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
They had minds so open that their brains fell out.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:36 AM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
Our simple existence is enough ammunition to them.
I'm learning that many people have a very hard time understanding this. Often but not always white cishets.
posted by PMdixon at 10:43 AM on March 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
I'm learning that many people have a very hard time understanding this. Often but not always white cishets.
posted by PMdixon at 10:43 AM on March 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
Because we are, culturally, very suspicious of intellectuals and anything smacking of intellectualism
Because nothing says "intellectual" like a violent mob attacking professors.
posted by jpe at 10:49 AM on March 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
Because nothing says "intellectual" like a violent mob attacking professors.
posted by jpe at 10:49 AM on March 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
I'd rather listen to someone go on about lizard people and the UN, myself.
Check your MeMail.
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:50 AM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
Check your MeMail.
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:50 AM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
I have to question just What The Fuck the college hoped to achieve by inviting this racist hack to speak.
It's typically conservative student groups who do the inviting of these trolls, you know. It's not like the faculty and trustees of Middlebury had a meeting and decided this would be awesome.
posted by thelonius at 10:50 AM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
It's typically conservative student groups who do the inviting of these trolls, you know. It's not like the faculty and trustees of Middlebury had a meeting and decided this would be awesome.
posted by thelonius at 10:50 AM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
You.... you genuinely believe that a bunch of college kids protesting a speaker because of his views on eugenics are Stalinists? How? How does one make that connection? What views do they share with Stalin?
Well, how many cows does Murray have? Has he sent on his grain to Moscow?
posted by corb at 10:51 AM on March 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
Well, how many cows does Murray have? Has he sent on his grain to Moscow?
posted by corb at 10:51 AM on March 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
We disagree with half the voting country.
I suspect much, much more than half of the voting country disagrees with you and doesn't approve of violence being used to censor or suppress speech.
posted by jpe at 10:51 AM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
I suspect much, much more than half of the voting country disagrees with you and doesn't approve of violence being used to censor or suppress speech.
posted by jpe at 10:51 AM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
Oh good, Bill Buckley has arrived to chastise us. /tugs forelock
posted by rtha at 10:56 AM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by rtha at 10:56 AM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
I suspect much, much more than half of the voting country disagrees with you and doesn't approve of violence being used to censor or suppress speech.
Yes, less than half of the voting country hasn't been harassed to the point that they've considered suicide. You're right. Some of the rest of us are a little sick of enabling it.
posted by Etrigan at 10:57 AM on March 7, 2017 [11 favorites]
Yes, less than half of the voting country hasn't been harassed to the point that they've considered suicide. You're right. Some of the rest of us are a little sick of enabling it.
posted by Etrigan at 10:57 AM on March 7, 2017 [11 favorites]
Clark McPhail is a sociologist who has spent decades studying crowd behavior at protests - originally looking at anti-Vietnam war demonstrations in the 1960s.
His examinations consistently conclude that public protests turn physical because of the actions of the authorities - not the protestors "getting out of hand."
I haven't read all the details from Middlebury, but it's worth looking at history for some context, I think. (I was a lucky student of Dr. McPhail's many years ago.)
posted by pantarei70 at 10:58 AM on March 7, 2017 [19 favorites]
His examinations consistently conclude that public protests turn physical because of the actions of the authorities - not the protestors "getting out of hand."
I haven't read all the details from Middlebury, but it's worth looking at history for some context, I think. (I was a lucky student of Dr. McPhail's many years ago.)
posted by pantarei70 at 10:58 AM on March 7, 2017 [19 favorites]
I suspect much, much more than half of the voting country disagrees with you and doesn't approve of violence being used to censor or suppress speech.
Yes, raucous protestors are much less desirable than using the faceless, antiseptic power of the state to crush your enemies via the school-to-prison pipeline and denial of bathroom access.
Every time this kind of line gets trotted out I want to do the Walter Sobchak sarcastic "They're going to kill that poor woman!" dance. Murray has a goddamn published book. He's not being silenced, nor censored. He (and Milo, and Richard SiegHeil Spencer) can go and book a hotel conference room and air their abhorrent views all they want. And protestors are free to go there and protest them as well.
No-platforming racists and extremists is good.
posted by Existential Dread at 11:02 AM on March 7, 2017 [22 favorites]
Yes, raucous protestors are much less desirable than using the faceless, antiseptic power of the state to crush your enemies via the school-to-prison pipeline and denial of bathroom access.
Every time this kind of line gets trotted out I want to do the Walter Sobchak sarcastic "They're going to kill that poor woman!" dance. Murray has a goddamn published book. He's not being silenced, nor censored. He (and Milo, and Richard SiegHeil Spencer) can go and book a hotel conference room and air their abhorrent views all they want. And protestors are free to go there and protest them as well.
No-platforming racists and extremists is good.
posted by Existential Dread at 11:02 AM on March 7, 2017 [22 favorites]
Because nothing says "intellectual" like a violent mob attacking professors.
You say this like students showed up armed with guns and molotov cocktails. As far as I can tell, the extent of the violence allegedly perpetrated by a protestor is that a professor's hair got pulled. I am sorry that she had to go to the hospital, but as far as I can tell despite repeated warnings from students and staff, the school did not have appropriate and trained crowd control with a predictable result.
posted by muddgirl at 11:02 AM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
You say this like students showed up armed with guns and molotov cocktails. As far as I can tell, the extent of the violence allegedly perpetrated by a protestor is that a professor's hair got pulled. I am sorry that she had to go to the hospital, but as far as I can tell despite repeated warnings from students and staff, the school did not have appropriate and trained crowd control with a predictable result.
posted by muddgirl at 11:02 AM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
>Yes, but on the right this is a very potent pejorative for the Left. "Cultural Marxism" has really gotten traction.
Citation needed on the "potent" part. Yes, it's gotten traction among the gloobergrapes and internet neo-Nazis of the world, but I've seen no reason to believe that it's made its way outside that subculture.
I guess my own Facebook feed. I'm one of those people you hear about who try to venture outside the "bubble." A number of my online friends (we share a connection to a particular country and a particular line of work, and have similar experiences with family and children) are libertarians and mild Trumpists.
I have heard a lot of complaints about Milo getting shut down by "Leftist Fascists" and I was wondering "wtf???" And then I read the Breitbart essay about "cultural Marxists" and it all came together.
Basically, "cultural Marxism" is the descendent of whatever garbage Christopher Hitchens was ranting about before his death. It might have been garbage, but it was potent garbage to a broad segment of the political spectrum, and "cultural Marxism" is the same.
Be on the lookout for it. You'll notice it.
posted by My Dad at 11:09 AM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
Citation needed on the "potent" part. Yes, it's gotten traction among the gloobergrapes and internet neo-Nazis of the world, but I've seen no reason to believe that it's made its way outside that subculture.
I guess my own Facebook feed. I'm one of those people you hear about who try to venture outside the "bubble." A number of my online friends (we share a connection to a particular country and a particular line of work, and have similar experiences with family and children) are libertarians and mild Trumpists.
I have heard a lot of complaints about Milo getting shut down by "Leftist Fascists" and I was wondering "wtf???" And then I read the Breitbart essay about "cultural Marxists" and it all came together.
Basically, "cultural Marxism" is the descendent of whatever garbage Christopher Hitchens was ranting about before his death. It might have been garbage, but it was potent garbage to a broad segment of the political spectrum, and "cultural Marxism" is the same.
Be on the lookout for it. You'll notice it.
posted by My Dad at 11:09 AM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
Half the country would love to bring back fucking Jim Crow and are OK with slavery as long as we don't call it that, and half of them would like to just repeal the 13th through 15th Amendments altogether, along with 10, 19, and 23-26. Same goes for just allowing LGBTQ people just to exist, let alone have equal rights.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:09 AM on March 7, 2017 [21 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 11:09 AM on March 7, 2017 [21 favorites]
It's typically conservative student groups who do the inviting of these trolls, you know. It's not like the faculty and trustees of Middlebury had a meeting and decided this would be awesome.
True enough, but when someone decides to be a useful idiot like Stanger and burble about how awesome and smart her students are as she helps them mainstream racist propaganda, we can mock the fuck out her.
posted by tavella at 11:10 AM on March 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
True enough, but when someone decides to be a useful idiot like Stanger and burble about how awesome and smart her students are as she helps them mainstream racist propaganda, we can mock the fuck out her.
posted by tavella at 11:10 AM on March 7, 2017 [6 favorites]
(And no, I don't particularly think she should be physically attacked, but the faux-innocence she's putting on grinds my gears.)
posted by tavella at 11:12 AM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by tavella at 11:12 AM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
"It's typically conservative student groups who do the inviting of these trolls, you know. It's not like the faculty and trustees of Middlebury had a meeting and decided this would be awesome."
This.
So, what do we do about this? Is there anything that can be done? If we tell conservative groups they can't invite their vile trolls, then they will cry censorship. But more importantly, if we succeed in preventing conservative groups from inviting outsiders with vile trollish agendas, then the right will immediately be able to succeed in preventing left leaning groups from inviting progressive speakers.
The government must be content-neutral in it's actions. This is a good thing! If this weren't the case, Trump would prevent progressive speakers from appearing and it would be right-wing speakers all the time.
To those that think that violent demonstrations are the answer to any problem - I really don't know what to say to you. Violence begets violence. From a practical standpoint it's probably unwise for the left to start using violence as a tactic as the right are armed the to the fucking teeth and are happy to escalate violence. Given the *aim* of the fucking nazi's is to initiate a racist war, I would argue that employing violence is helping them achieve their stated aims; they are literally stockpiling weapons and praying for a racist war.
To the person who said it's okay to punch a nazi in defense of someone that they are assaulting - well yeah, obviously... But that's true regardless of the political viewpoint of the person committing assault.
Sure, it *sounds* fun to punch a nazi, but can anyone here speak to any possible positive outcome such actions could have? I certainly can paint a ton of negative scenarios that can come about from such actions.
Honestly, there are a bunch of sentiments expressed in this thread (in advocating or defending initiating violence) that make me ashamed to be associated with metafilter.
posted by el io at 11:16 AM on March 7, 2017 [12 favorites]
This.
So, what do we do about this? Is there anything that can be done? If we tell conservative groups they can't invite their vile trolls, then they will cry censorship. But more importantly, if we succeed in preventing conservative groups from inviting outsiders with vile trollish agendas, then the right will immediately be able to succeed in preventing left leaning groups from inviting progressive speakers.
The government must be content-neutral in it's actions. This is a good thing! If this weren't the case, Trump would prevent progressive speakers from appearing and it would be right-wing speakers all the time.
To those that think that violent demonstrations are the answer to any problem - I really don't know what to say to you. Violence begets violence. From a practical standpoint it's probably unwise for the left to start using violence as a tactic as the right are armed the to the fucking teeth and are happy to escalate violence. Given the *aim* of the fucking nazi's is to initiate a racist war, I would argue that employing violence is helping them achieve their stated aims; they are literally stockpiling weapons and praying for a racist war.
To the person who said it's okay to punch a nazi in defense of someone that they are assaulting - well yeah, obviously... But that's true regardless of the political viewpoint of the person committing assault.
Sure, it *sounds* fun to punch a nazi, but can anyone here speak to any possible positive outcome such actions could have? I certainly can paint a ton of negative scenarios that can come about from such actions.
Honestly, there are a bunch of sentiments expressed in this thread (in advocating or defending initiating violence) that make me ashamed to be associated with metafilter.
posted by el io at 11:16 AM on March 7, 2017 [12 favorites]
Given the *aim* of the fucking nazi's is to initiate a racist war, I would argue that employing violence is helping them achieve their stated aims
The aim of the fucking Nazis is to win a racist war. Showing them that they wouldn't win is a pretty good use of time, far as I'm concerned.
posted by Etrigan at 11:19 AM on March 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
The aim of the fucking Nazis is to win a racist war. Showing them that they wouldn't win is a pretty good use of time, far as I'm concerned.
posted by Etrigan at 11:19 AM on March 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
Given the *aim* of the fucking nazi's is to initiate a racist war
There's been a violent and almost entirely one-sided race war going on for over 200 years, if you haven't noticed.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:21 AM on March 7, 2017 [16 favorites]
There's been a violent and almost entirely one-sided race war going on for over 200 years, if you haven't noticed.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:21 AM on March 7, 2017 [16 favorites]
Sure, it *sounds* fun to punch a nazi, but can anyone here speak to any possible positive outcome such actions could have?
The whole keyboard warrior discussion about how it's noble to "punch a Nazi" is so inherently ridiculous and pathetic that I am going to have to resort to a goddamn John Lennon quote of all things to argue against it:
“When it gets down to having to use violence, then you are playing the system’s game. The establishment will irritate you – pull your beard, flick your face – to make you fight. Because once they’ve got you violent, then they know how to handle you. The only thing they don’t know how to handle is non-violence and humor.”
posted by My Dad at 11:24 AM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
The whole keyboard warrior discussion about how it's noble to "punch a Nazi" is so inherently ridiculous and pathetic that I am going to have to resort to a goddamn John Lennon quote of all things to argue against it:
“When it gets down to having to use violence, then you are playing the system’s game. The establishment will irritate you – pull your beard, flick your face – to make you fight. Because once they’ve got you violent, then they know how to handle you. The only thing they don’t know how to handle is non-violence and humor.”
posted by My Dad at 11:24 AM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
John Lennon also beat his wife and child and wrote a song with the chorus "I'd rather see you dead little girl, than to be with another man."
posted by zombieflanders at 11:28 AM on March 7, 2017 [12 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 11:28 AM on March 7, 2017 [12 favorites]
Mod note: Folks, we've had several recent threads going over the Nazi-punching thing, not clear the benefit of having the exact same discussion over again here, and especially the "people on Metafilter are like this" meta-discussion.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:29 AM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:29 AM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
The government must be content-neutral in it's actions.
This is a blatant falsehood.
posted by PMdixon at 11:31 AM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
This is a blatant falsehood.
posted by PMdixon at 11:31 AM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
The government must be content-neutral in it's actions.I'm not sure exactly what you mean to by this... But the hilarious trolls who call themselves satanists have been using this to great effect - oh, you want to distribute your religious materials in schools; great, we will too!
This is a blatant falsehood.
Here is a legal discussion of the topic.
Perhaps I inartfully stated this, but the idea is if the government wants to regulate speech, it can't be because of the viewpoint of the speech. The 1st amendment is pretty clear about this sort of thing.
posted by el io at 11:37 AM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
I guess my own Facebook feed. I'm one of those people you hear about who try to venture outside the "bubble."
Bully for you. You waded into the fever swamps and discovered that the denizens like the term "cultural marxism".
But that doesn't mean it's potent. There are lots of popular memes that nonetheless have zero potency.
"Welfare queen" has potency. "Cultural marxism" is just an empty rhetorical gambit.
posted by tobascodagama at 11:42 AM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
Bully for you. You waded into the fever swamps and discovered that the denizens like the term "cultural marxism".
But that doesn't mean it's potent. There are lots of popular memes that nonetheless have zero potency.
"Welfare queen" has potency. "Cultural marxism" is just an empty rhetorical gambit.
posted by tobascodagama at 11:42 AM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
But more importantly, if we succeed in preventing conservative groups from inviting outsiders with vile trollish agendas, then the right will immediately be able to succeed in preventing left leaning groups from inviting progressive speakers.
From my experiences as related above, I think this would still be a net positive. Because of money. If you have a student ACLU group and a student Federalist Society group, and the ACLU group is scrounging just to cover occasional pizza and the Federalist Society is getting big checks from outside, then I'd rather see less emphasis on colleges bringing in outside speakers, period, than see a lot of schools where the ACLU speaker is a local activist who could probably find a venue to speak elsewhere for the size of group who's likely to attend, and the Federalist Society speaker is a nationally-known figure who's repeatedly treated women and POC like shit who will get treated like a subject matter expert in front of a huge crowd who's been brought in with the promise of free burritos. The playing field right now is even only in theory.
posted by Sequence at 11:43 AM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
From my experiences as related above, I think this would still be a net positive. Because of money. If you have a student ACLU group and a student Federalist Society group, and the ACLU group is scrounging just to cover occasional pizza and the Federalist Society is getting big checks from outside, then I'd rather see less emphasis on colleges bringing in outside speakers, period, than see a lot of schools where the ACLU speaker is a local activist who could probably find a venue to speak elsewhere for the size of group who's likely to attend, and the Federalist Society speaker is a nationally-known figure who's repeatedly treated women and POC like shit who will get treated like a subject matter expert in front of a huge crowd who's been brought in with the promise of free burritos. The playing field right now is even only in theory.
posted by Sequence at 11:43 AM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
Perhaps I inartfully stated this, but the idea is if the government wants to regulate speech, it can't be because of the viewpoint of the speech. The 1st amendment is pretty clear about this sort of thing.
Good thing Middlebury College isn't the government, leaving aside all the times SCOTUS said some particular content restriction was AOK.
posted by PMdixon at 11:46 AM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
Good thing Middlebury College isn't the government, leaving aside all the times SCOTUS said some particular content restriction was AOK.
posted by PMdixon at 11:46 AM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
just checking in to say that I identify as a cultural Marxist--Marx didn't turn out to be great in his policy proposals, but for describing the status quo, he's the best, and boy howdy is he still right about culture
also sending mrdaneri some choice intel on Pindar, the Pinnacle of the Draco
posted by radicalawyer at 11:47 AM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
also sending mrdaneri some choice intel on Pindar, the Pinnacle of the Draco
posted by radicalawyer at 11:47 AM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
Why colleges don’t “host” speakers—and why it matters.
"Like many, I think that judging Murray a poor scholar and a vicious racist (not far from my own opinion) does not constitute even a weak case for shouting him down or trying to beat him up. But less attention has been paid to how we talk about invited speakers in the first place.
...
The invitation was extended—and wholly funded—by a student group, the American Enterprise Institute Club. (Murray is affiliated with AEI.) The political science department offered the same matter-of-course co sponsorship, with no money attached, that it apparently extends to any talk that is related to political science and is likely to attract student interest.
...talk of Murray being “granted a platform” (by agent or agents unknown) gets things badly wrong. There is no single platform, and no one agent deciding who may hold forth. When it comes to invited speakers—and, I’d argue, in other respects too—universities are less like club owners booking gigs than they are like convention-center managers making room for hundreds of booths, jostling and competing for our attention.
...
Anyone at the university—whether an individual or a group— who regards a given entity’s invitation decisions as foolish, or racist, may freely try to impose the requisite, not trivial, costs: imposing on that entity a reputation as fools, or racists.
The result, to be sure, is that no central decision maker can be held responsible for vindicating, through intellectual and moral vetting, the collective purpose of the academic community as a whole. That is surely a good education in how free societies work too. Others’ judgments of whose ideas are worth hearing are subject to our condemnation but not to our control."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 11:47 AM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
"Like many, I think that judging Murray a poor scholar and a vicious racist (not far from my own opinion) does not constitute even a weak case for shouting him down or trying to beat him up. But less attention has been paid to how we talk about invited speakers in the first place.
...
The invitation was extended—and wholly funded—by a student group, the American Enterprise Institute Club. (Murray is affiliated with AEI.) The political science department offered the same matter-of-course co sponsorship, with no money attached, that it apparently extends to any talk that is related to political science and is likely to attract student interest.
...talk of Murray being “granted a platform” (by agent or agents unknown) gets things badly wrong. There is no single platform, and no one agent deciding who may hold forth. When it comes to invited speakers—and, I’d argue, in other respects too—universities are less like club owners booking gigs than they are like convention-center managers making room for hundreds of booths, jostling and competing for our attention.
...
Anyone at the university—whether an individual or a group— who regards a given entity’s invitation decisions as foolish, or racist, may freely try to impose the requisite, not trivial, costs: imposing on that entity a reputation as fools, or racists.
The result, to be sure, is that no central decision maker can be held responsible for vindicating, through intellectual and moral vetting, the collective purpose of the academic community as a whole. That is surely a good education in how free societies work too. Others’ judgments of whose ideas are worth hearing are subject to our condemnation but not to our control."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 11:47 AM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
Anyone at the university—whether an individual or a group— who regards a given entity’s invitation decisions as foolish, or racist, may freely try to impose the requisite, not trivial, costs: imposing on that entity a reputation as fools, or racists.
Thankfully the effects of events at educational institutions are confined to their grounds. Although I'm less clear why the only permissible costs are reputational.
posted by PMdixon at 11:50 AM on March 7, 2017
Thankfully the effects of events at educational institutions are confined to their grounds. Although I'm less clear why the only permissible costs are reputational.
posted by PMdixon at 11:50 AM on March 7, 2017
just checking in to say that I identify as a cultural Marxist--Marx didn't turn out to be great in his policy proposals, but for describing the status quo, he's the best, and boy howdy is he still right about culture
"Cultural marxism" has nothing to do with Marx, actually. Ironically, the thing people are trying to invoke when they fling around "cultural marxism" is actually Mao's Cultural Revolution. "Cultural Maoism" would be just as sinister while also having a bit of accuracy to it.
But, again, it's just an empty rhetorical gambit, so it's best not to parse the meaning too deeply.
posted by tobascodagama at 11:53 AM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
"Cultural marxism" has nothing to do with Marx, actually. Ironically, the thing people are trying to invoke when they fling around "cultural marxism" is actually Mao's Cultural Revolution. "Cultural Maoism" would be just as sinister while also having a bit of accuracy to it.
But, again, it's just an empty rhetorical gambit, so it's best not to parse the meaning too deeply.
posted by tobascodagama at 11:53 AM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
If we tell conservative groups they can't invite their vile trolls, then they will cry censorship
So? Just because they call it censorship doesn't make it so.
Do you also advocate unlimited cookies for toddlers who might scream "it's not fair"?
posted by schadenfrau at 11:56 AM on March 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
So? Just because they call it censorship doesn't make it so.
Do you also advocate unlimited cookies for toddlers who might scream "it's not fair"?
posted by schadenfrau at 11:56 AM on March 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
John Lennon also beat his wife and child and wrote a song with the chorus "I'd rather see you dead little girl, than to be with another man."
Yes, that's how ridiculous it all is.
posted by My Dad at 11:56 AM on March 7, 2017
Yes, that's how ridiculous it all is.
posted by My Dad at 11:56 AM on March 7, 2017
How anti-Vietnam War activists stopped violent protest from hijacking their movement
posted by My Dad at 11:57 AM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by My Dad at 11:57 AM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
As with the hoopla over Milo, free speech doesn't mean entitlement to a book deal or a invitation to speak at a prestigious school.
Well, yes, but it does mean that if you get a book deal, you get to write and publish a book, and if you get an invitation, you get to come deliver a speech. Since there will always be deals to write offensive books and there will always be invitations to deliver offensive speeches, we have to deal with that reality. It seems to me the choices are:
1) Make such books and speeches illegal, prioritizing delegitimizing certain ideas over the traditional, fairly radical conception of free speech in America. This is possible (though would require a constitutional amendment) but I don't think we want go down that road, especially given the speech the those who currently hold power would want to make illegal. For me, the disadvantages clearly outweigh the potential good.
2) Physically prevent such speech from taking place by blocking venues, staging loud protests that drown out the speaker, and defacing books when we see them. Here we face a similar problem, which is that if one side chooses to use force and the threat of force to prevent legal speech, the other side almost certainly will as well. I keep encountering liberals who seem to think they can punch their way to victory, but I strongly suspect we have less practice punching folks and far fewer bullets than the reactionary crowd. I happen to be a committed pacifist for philosophical /theological reasons, but even setting that aside, I don't think "let's punch people we find offensive" is a rule that is going to work out well for liberals.
3) Use our own free speech powers to lay out a compelling alternative vision for the future. People say that folks like Murray shouldn't be debated because it legitimizes them. In large part, I agree. So, fine, ignore him. Let him do his own thing when he gets an invitation. In the meantime, we produce our own books, our own speeches, our own art, and set out our vision of society in every platform we can. This is where liberals can succeed. We have the scientists, we have the artists, we have the writers. We have the academics. And we've been winning the culture wars at a pretty rapid clip. I know we have a long way to go and the current administration is scary as hell, but we live in a time when same-sex marriage is legal everywhere and fighting for trans rights is on the forefront of the national conversation. Who would have believed 20 years ago that things would shift that rapidly?
I guess I still agree that the solution to bad speech is more speech. And I think that's a battleground that we can win. If we start using coercive government power or physical violence to block speech, I think we've lit the fuse on a bomb that will blow up in our faces. Perhaps I'm completely wrong. We will see.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:02 PM on March 7, 2017 [19 favorites]
Well, yes, but it does mean that if you get a book deal, you get to write and publish a book, and if you get an invitation, you get to come deliver a speech. Since there will always be deals to write offensive books and there will always be invitations to deliver offensive speeches, we have to deal with that reality. It seems to me the choices are:
1) Make such books and speeches illegal, prioritizing delegitimizing certain ideas over the traditional, fairly radical conception of free speech in America. This is possible (though would require a constitutional amendment) but I don't think we want go down that road, especially given the speech the those who currently hold power would want to make illegal. For me, the disadvantages clearly outweigh the potential good.
2) Physically prevent such speech from taking place by blocking venues, staging loud protests that drown out the speaker, and defacing books when we see them. Here we face a similar problem, which is that if one side chooses to use force and the threat of force to prevent legal speech, the other side almost certainly will as well. I keep encountering liberals who seem to think they can punch their way to victory, but I strongly suspect we have less practice punching folks and far fewer bullets than the reactionary crowd. I happen to be a committed pacifist for philosophical /theological reasons, but even setting that aside, I don't think "let's punch people we find offensive" is a rule that is going to work out well for liberals.
3) Use our own free speech powers to lay out a compelling alternative vision for the future. People say that folks like Murray shouldn't be debated because it legitimizes them. In large part, I agree. So, fine, ignore him. Let him do his own thing when he gets an invitation. In the meantime, we produce our own books, our own speeches, our own art, and set out our vision of society in every platform we can. This is where liberals can succeed. We have the scientists, we have the artists, we have the writers. We have the academics. And we've been winning the culture wars at a pretty rapid clip. I know we have a long way to go and the current administration is scary as hell, but we live in a time when same-sex marriage is legal everywhere and fighting for trans rights is on the forefront of the national conversation. Who would have believed 20 years ago that things would shift that rapidly?
I guess I still agree that the solution to bad speech is more speech. And I think that's a battleground that we can win. If we start using coercive government power or physical violence to block speech, I think we've lit the fuse on a bomb that will blow up in our faces. Perhaps I'm completely wrong. We will see.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:02 PM on March 7, 2017 [19 favorites]
People say that folks like Murray shouldn't be debated because it legitimizes them. In large part, I agree. So, fine, ignore him. Let him do his own thing when he get an invitation. In the meantime, we produce our own books, our own speeches, our own art and set out our vision of society in every platform we can. This is where liberals can succeed
The left has been doing this for decades. To show for our efforts, we now have an executive branch actively promoting white nationalism, a legislature rolling back eighty years of social reforms, and a burgeoning group of neonazis who have discovered that they don't even have to dogwhistle anymore. Now, at an elite liberal arts college, one of the few supposed bastions of leftism left in this blasted hellscape country, the enemy is at the gates, and we're supposed to play pinochle in the adjoining dorm rooms while he thoughtfully lays out his case for why black people are genetically inferior to white people? Fuck that noise. When I see a Nazi, I'm going to punch him in his goddamn face, and then laugh and laugh and laugh as the right wing tries to take up the torch of nonviolence and make a big showing of victimhood.
posted by Mayor West at 12:14 PM on March 7, 2017 [22 favorites]
The left has been doing this for decades. To show for our efforts, we now have an executive branch actively promoting white nationalism, a legislature rolling back eighty years of social reforms, and a burgeoning group of neonazis who have discovered that they don't even have to dogwhistle anymore. Now, at an elite liberal arts college, one of the few supposed bastions of leftism left in this blasted hellscape country, the enemy is at the gates, and we're supposed to play pinochle in the adjoining dorm rooms while he thoughtfully lays out his case for why black people are genetically inferior to white people? Fuck that noise. When I see a Nazi, I'm going to punch him in his goddamn face, and then laugh and laugh and laugh as the right wing tries to take up the torch of nonviolence and make a big showing of victimhood.
posted by Mayor West at 12:14 PM on March 7, 2017 [22 favorites]
Seriously, ignoring the last hundred-or-so years of passive resistance to the forces of fascism is a bad look. The methods suggested in this thread have been tried, and they've failed. It's time for different methods.
posted by tobascodagama at 12:16 PM on March 7, 2017 [10 favorites]
posted by tobascodagama at 12:16 PM on March 7, 2017 [10 favorites]
"... if we succeed in preventing conservative groups from inviting outsiders with vile trollish agendas, then the right will immediately be able to succeed in preventing left leaning groups from inviting progressive speakers.
"If"?
Clearly the "we" in question have already done so, and continue to do so. And while there's a whole lot of nasty debate on-line with trollish types, I don't see a whole lot of conservative action to prevent progressive speakers be they ever so loony from speaking on campuses. Alert us when this happens and I'll be happy to criticize.
posted by IndigoJones at 12:28 PM on March 7, 2017
"If"?
Clearly the "we" in question have already done so, and continue to do so. And while there's a whole lot of nasty debate on-line with trollish types, I don't see a whole lot of conservative action to prevent progressive speakers be they ever so loony from speaking on campuses. Alert us when this happens and I'll be happy to criticize.
posted by IndigoJones at 12:28 PM on March 7, 2017
Well, yes, but it does mean that if you get a book deal, you get to write and publish a book, and if you get an invitation, you get to come deliver a speech.
No they don't, because as we saw with Milo, such offers can be and are recinded when the person offered them winds up to be a bigot whom the organization doesn't want to be associated with. A right that is also protected by the First Amendment.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:33 PM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
No they don't, because as we saw with Milo, such offers can be and are recinded when the person offered them winds up to be a bigot whom the organization doesn't want to be associated with. A right that is also protected by the First Amendment.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:33 PM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
Also, let's not forget Milo has threatened to sic his followers on and/or out PoC, transgender, and immigrant students. That's not free speech, that's incitement.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:37 PM on March 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 12:37 PM on March 7, 2017 [7 favorites]
There's a difference between the government telling publishers "you are prohibited from publishing this author" and the public telling publishers "we don't want to read this author and if you publish them we will boycott you to demonstrate this". Only one of these is covered by the First Amendment.
David Perry, a professor at Dominican University, has been tweeting about this, and about how using more of the same tactics we've been using isn't workable. Some Storified here.
posted by Lexica at 12:41 PM on March 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
David Perry, a professor at Dominican University, has been tweeting about this, and about how using more of the same tactics we've been using isn't workable. Some Storified here.
posted by Lexica at 12:41 PM on March 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
"His examinations consistently conclude that public protests turn physical because of the actions of the authorities - not the protestors "getting out of hand." "
This.
There should be more focus on the police and other responses to the protests, and less concern about why he was invited or not. I was in Baltimore during the Freddie Gray "riots". The two biggest factors that pushed things in the riot direction were 1) The City cancelling bus service from the Mondawmin hub, meaning youths could not go home after school. 2.) City police in military-style riot gear assembling in those areas looking for confrontation.
My biggest fear with Jeff Sessions is that the DOJ will now push for more of that type of response, and less Ferguson/Baltimore consent decrees that aimed to lessen it.
posted by jetsetsc at 12:51 PM on March 7, 2017 [14 favorites]
This.
There should be more focus on the police and other responses to the protests, and less concern about why he was invited or not. I was in Baltimore during the Freddie Gray "riots". The two biggest factors that pushed things in the riot direction were 1) The City cancelling bus service from the Mondawmin hub, meaning youths could not go home after school. 2.) City police in military-style riot gear assembling in those areas looking for confrontation.
My biggest fear with Jeff Sessions is that the DOJ will now push for more of that type of response, and less Ferguson/Baltimore consent decrees that aimed to lessen it.
posted by jetsetsc at 12:51 PM on March 7, 2017 [14 favorites]
Hahahahah no, that is not what free speech is all about. It's just about the government not jailing you for opinions.
There are two different avenues of free speech. The first, as you say, is the ability to use your speech without the government penalizing you. While there are often restrictions, that is the crux of it.
The second is the ideal of free speech, of the "marketplace of ideas". Encouraging a boycott to discourage speech does actually violate those ideals, but it's important to note that those ideals aren't actually the law or anything, it's just an ideal that some people hold and which has its own problems.
posted by corb at 12:58 PM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
There are two different avenues of free speech. The first, as you say, is the ability to use your speech without the government penalizing you. While there are often restrictions, that is the crux of it.
The second is the ideal of free speech, of the "marketplace of ideas". Encouraging a boycott to discourage speech does actually violate those ideals, but it's important to note that those ideals aren't actually the law or anything, it's just an ideal that some people hold and which has its own problems.
posted by corb at 12:58 PM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
What happens if one of these guys is called by a group to do a speech, does that speech, only the 10 guys from the AEI club attend and then he leaves? The student paper then runs an op-ed about how AEI were gross for inviting them. What's so wrong with that? I say this as a person who was affected by Bell Curve-esque ideology during my college years because it was big on the internet at that time. If someone would've invited him, I would then see that group as serious, old-school "we proved that black people are inferior" racists. I would not jeopardize my education by trying to turn over a car.
posted by Selena777 at 1:10 PM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 1:10 PM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
The student statement read during the protest has a glaring omission:
Charles Murray himself has had a lot to say on the subject of Jewish genetic differences, and while it's ostensibly complimentary it's coming from the same place: it's a paean to eugenics. It doesn't matter whether a eugenicist is saying that a particular group is smarter or stupider or more or less physically inclined; it always ends up being used as an excuse to persecute minority groups.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:11 PM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
Science has always been used to legitimize racism, sexism, classism, transphobia, ableism, and homophobia, all veiled as rational and fact, and supported by the government and state.Middlebury College has a relatively large Jewish population and I'm certainly not ascribing any bad reason to whoever drafted it, but one of the ways antisemitism persists is that its opponents are reluctant to mention it except in extremis.
Charles Murray himself has had a lot to say on the subject of Jewish genetic differences, and while it's ostensibly complimentary it's coming from the same place: it's a paean to eugenics. It doesn't matter whether a eugenicist is saying that a particular group is smarter or stupider or more or less physically inclined; it always ends up being used as an excuse to persecute minority groups.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:11 PM on March 7, 2017 [2 favorites]
One of those (major) problems free speech absolutism shares with free market absolutism being the "marketplace," whether of ideas or services is that, in reality, both are used by idiots and charlatans and bigots to create and maintain a permanent underclass they can oppress while using words like "freedom" and "liberty" directly opposite of their actual definition.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:11 PM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 1:11 PM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
I don't see a whole lot of conservative action to prevent progressive speakers be they ever so loony from speaking on campuses
Firstly, the eliminationist rhetoric of Murray or Yiannopoulos is not loony, it's dangerous. And I don't mean in a foofy "dangerous to the market of ideas" sense, I mean that it gets people killed. The only vaguely leftist dangerous equivalent I can think of is vaccine-denialism (which has its proponents on the right as well). I would protest if a student group at my alma mater asked Andrew Wakefield to speak on campus.
Secondly, I see a whole lot of conservative action to prevent progressive voices on college campuses, it just happens at the level of boards of trustees and state legislatures. Conservative students don't have to protest because politicians will do the work for them.
posted by muddgirl at 1:14 PM on March 7, 2017 [16 favorites]
Firstly, the eliminationist rhetoric of Murray or Yiannopoulos is not loony, it's dangerous. And I don't mean in a foofy "dangerous to the market of ideas" sense, I mean that it gets people killed. The only vaguely leftist dangerous equivalent I can think of is vaccine-denialism (which has its proponents on the right as well). I would protest if a student group at my alma mater asked Andrew Wakefield to speak on campus.
Secondly, I see a whole lot of conservative action to prevent progressive voices on college campuses, it just happens at the level of boards of trustees and state legislatures. Conservative students don't have to protest because politicians will do the work for them.
posted by muddgirl at 1:14 PM on March 7, 2017 [16 favorites]
shit, if anyone truly deserves a punch in the face it's Andrew Wakefield
posted by Existential Dread at 1:16 PM on March 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
posted by Existential Dread at 1:16 PM on March 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
I would then see that group as serious, old-school "we proved that black people are inferior" racists
And they would care because? And it would limit their influence how?
posted by PMdixon at 1:16 PM on March 7, 2017
And they would care because? And it would limit their influence how?
posted by PMdixon at 1:16 PM on March 7, 2017
They wouldn't care about my black opinion at all, but doesn't stigma limit influence?
posted by Selena777 at 1:25 PM on March 7, 2017
posted by Selena777 at 1:25 PM on March 7, 2017
Ironically, the thing people are trying to invoke when they fling around "cultural marxism" is actually Mao's Cultural Revolution.
What? No it isn't. It's an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory about leftist academics based on a lunatic idea of the reach of the Frankfurt School. There's a decent brief history of the conspiracy theory on Wikipedia (of all places); it was primarily promulgated by William S. Lind in the '90s.
posted by RogerB at 1:45 PM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
What? No it isn't. It's an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory about leftist academics based on a lunatic idea of the reach of the Frankfurt School. There's a decent brief history of the conspiracy theory on Wikipedia (of all places); it was primarily promulgated by William S. Lind in the '90s.
posted by RogerB at 1:45 PM on March 7, 2017 [5 favorites]
I am a Middlebury graduate and my daughter is currently in her second year there. Not surprisingly, we've talked about this and as part of the discussion I sent her a link to this post and got this back: "People on MetaFilter have much more rational opinions than most people I've heard so far".
She also mentioned a NYT op-ed by Middlebury students if you want a mix of what they're thinking.
posted by skyscraper at 1:46 PM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
She also mentioned a NYT op-ed by Middlebury students if you want a mix of what they're thinking.
posted by skyscraper at 1:46 PM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
The second is the ideal of free speech, of the "marketplace of ideas". Encouraging a boycott to discourage speech does actually violate those ideals,
Except that it doesn't, because the thing about marketplaces is that a) people can choose to not buy what you are selling, and b) people can convince other people to also not buy. So boycotts are very much in the spirit of the marketplace of ideas, not counter.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:49 PM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
Except that it doesn't, because the thing about marketplaces is that a) people can choose to not buy what you are selling, and b) people can convince other people to also not buy. So boycotts are very much in the spirit of the marketplace of ideas, not counter.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:49 PM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
They wouldn't care about my black opinion at all, but doesn't stigma limit influence?
You're presuming that people would know about your opinion and care about it. That's unlikely to be the case. In fact, since you say that no fuss should be made when racists are invited to lecture, there's basically no downside for anyone inviting them: if no fuss is made then they're validated, because it's acceptable; if students protest then they're still validated because people are trying to silence them.
Also, Breitbart and Fox News appear to be the most influential news media in the USA at present. Breitbart's former CEO is Trump's chief strategist and he probably has more effective influence on the President than anyone else. Lots of people would say that these organisations are racist, or at least not worried about supporting racism. That stigma hasn't hurt them, not with the country, not with the President.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:51 PM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
You're presuming that people would know about your opinion and care about it. That's unlikely to be the case. In fact, since you say that no fuss should be made when racists are invited to lecture, there's basically no downside for anyone inviting them: if no fuss is made then they're validated, because it's acceptable; if students protest then they're still validated because people are trying to silence them.
Also, Breitbart and Fox News appear to be the most influential news media in the USA at present. Breitbart's former CEO is Trump's chief strategist and he probably has more effective influence on the President than anyone else. Lots of people would say that these organisations are racist, or at least not worried about supporting racism. That stigma hasn't hurt them, not with the country, not with the President.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:51 PM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
What happens if one of these guys is called by a group to do a speech, does that speech, only the 10 guys from the AEI club attend and then he leaves? The student paper then runs an op-ed about how AEI were gross for inviting them. What's so wrong with that?
Because it never works out that way. As was pointed out in an earlier comment, conservative groups like AEI and the Federalist Society see these as tools for recruitment and legitimacy, and thus throw money to make them major events.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:52 PM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
Because it never works out that way. As was pointed out in an earlier comment, conservative groups like AEI and the Federalist Society see these as tools for recruitment and legitimacy, and thus throw money to make them major events.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:52 PM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
Pater Aletheias,
Thanks for the above comment. I think it framed this current discussion well.
What side is the ACLU taking? When in doubt, I err on the side of the ACLU. They consistently seem to be on the right side of history. I know it feels icky at this time but I think the moral consistency of the ACLU is a good anchor for right now.
I haven't read found anything about their stance on Murray, but I think everyone saw this Washington Post article when it came out:
And so we come up against the great conundrum: Do we silence outrageous, hateful voices or let them have their say in the name of free speech? The American Civil Liberties Union’s Lee Rowland told me that much of what Yiannopoulos says is “absolutely hateful and despicable — but those adjectives don’t remove his speech from the Constitution’s protection.”
“To the contrary,” she added, “it’s easy to protect speech we agree with, but more important to protect speech we abhor, lest the First Amendment simply become a popularity contest.”
Murray is an odious toad. His ideas are despicable. Unfortunately, we can't win this one with violence. Every Time these protests get ugly we're just feeding the narrative on the right. I firmly believe that Trump won with a spite vote. It feels good to be angry, it feels good to to give in to the angry voices in your head. I don't think that's how we win though. We need to get more people to see things our way. (Our as in the collective belief in classic liberal values and the tenets of the enlightenment. If you don't agree with those values then sorry for including you.)
You think allowing someone to speak normalizes them? Making them seem like the victim of frothing radicals normalizes them. I think this is a get clean for Gene moment not a man the ramparts moment.
We all want to be Captain America punching Hitler or The Mighty Atom taking out 20 Nazis with a bat. We actually come off as those antifa kids stopping people from walking to work. (Sorry for linking to some conservative click brand.) If we're going to fight this we have to change peoples' minds and work within the system to steer it in a better direction.
posted by Telf at 2:18 PM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
Thanks for the above comment. I think it framed this current discussion well.
What side is the ACLU taking? When in doubt, I err on the side of the ACLU. They consistently seem to be on the right side of history. I know it feels icky at this time but I think the moral consistency of the ACLU is a good anchor for right now.
I haven't read found anything about their stance on Murray, but I think everyone saw this Washington Post article when it came out:
And so we come up against the great conundrum: Do we silence outrageous, hateful voices or let them have their say in the name of free speech? The American Civil Liberties Union’s Lee Rowland told me that much of what Yiannopoulos says is “absolutely hateful and despicable — but those adjectives don’t remove his speech from the Constitution’s protection.”
“To the contrary,” she added, “it’s easy to protect speech we agree with, but more important to protect speech we abhor, lest the First Amendment simply become a popularity contest.”
Murray is an odious toad. His ideas are despicable. Unfortunately, we can't win this one with violence. Every Time these protests get ugly we're just feeding the narrative on the right. I firmly believe that Trump won with a spite vote. It feels good to be angry, it feels good to to give in to the angry voices in your head. I don't think that's how we win though. We need to get more people to see things our way. (Our as in the collective belief in classic liberal values and the tenets of the enlightenment. If you don't agree with those values then sorry for including you.)
You think allowing someone to speak normalizes them? Making them seem like the victim of frothing radicals normalizes them. I think this is a get clean for Gene moment not a man the ramparts moment.
We all want to be Captain America punching Hitler or The Mighty Atom taking out 20 Nazis with a bat. We actually come off as those antifa kids stopping people from walking to work. (Sorry for linking to some conservative click brand.) If we're going to fight this we have to change peoples' minds and work within the system to steer it in a better direction.
posted by Telf at 2:18 PM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
There's a decent brief history of the conspiracy theory on Wikipedia (of all places)
Well, I stand corrected! Thanks for the link.
We actually come off as...
Yeah, listen. The thing about fighting fascists is that they will paint their enemies that way regardless of what they actually do. So, the less time wasted thinking about how the fascists will paint our actions and the more time spent coming up with effect ways to stop the fascists, the better.
Thus far, mass demonstrations and physically blocking access have done more to stop fascists from spreading their ideas than literally half a century of politely debating them.
posted by tobascodagama at 2:24 PM on March 7, 2017 [15 favorites]
Well, I stand corrected! Thanks for the link.
We actually come off as...
Yeah, listen. The thing about fighting fascists is that they will paint their enemies that way regardless of what they actually do. So, the less time wasted thinking about how the fascists will paint our actions and the more time spent coming up with effect ways to stop the fascists, the better.
Thus far, mass demonstrations and physically blocking access have done more to stop fascists from spreading their ideas than literally half a century of politely debating them.
posted by tobascodagama at 2:24 PM on March 7, 2017 [15 favorites]
Also, the First Amendment doesn't say "thou shalt allow any random asshole to speak at a school on any topic whatsoever".
posted by tobascodagama at 2:25 PM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by tobascodagama at 2:25 PM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
Anything we do will "feed" their narrative, because they have created a narrative where they are always the "victim", and thus are always in the right. Realizing this is incredibly freeing, because knowing they will always twist things to fit their narrative means not needing to worry that opposing them will help them (because they will twist whatever you do into a positive in their minds.)
As for the ACLU, while they do a lot of good work, they are not above reproach, and they tend to get looked upon a bit more hagiographically than I like (for example, there are legitimate criticisms of their choice to defend neo-Nazis marching through Skokie.) A good recent point where I think the ACLU winds up on the wrong side is online harassment - they wind up focusing so much on chilling effects and such that they wind up ignoring how harassment chases the disempowered from online spaces.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:31 PM on March 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
As for the ACLU, while they do a lot of good work, they are not above reproach, and they tend to get looked upon a bit more hagiographically than I like (for example, there are legitimate criticisms of their choice to defend neo-Nazis marching through Skokie.) A good recent point where I think the ACLU winds up on the wrong side is online harassment - they wind up focusing so much on chilling effects and such that they wind up ignoring how harassment chases the disempowered from online spaces.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:31 PM on March 7, 2017 [9 favorites]
Not everyone we/I disagree with is a fascist. I know it feels good to paint people that way, but there are lots of silent majority types who aren't fascists. We could make the point that they are condoning creeping fascism by voting for trump etc. Who came off worse in the Milo debacle? If people were sitting on the fence, which way do you think they were nudged? It's not about the fascists, it's about our aunts and uncles and cousins living in small towns.
Also, I'm glad the First Amendment isn't that specific. It'd be a pretty crap amendment if it were written that way.
posted by Telf at 2:31 PM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
Also, I'm glad the First Amendment isn't that specific. It'd be a pretty crap amendment if it were written that way.
posted by Telf at 2:31 PM on March 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
> What side is the ACLU taking?
In terms of what? In terms of whether or not he's entitled by the 1st Amendment to get invited to speak on college campuses (or anywhere else, I guess)? In terms of whether or not his 1st Amendment rights are violated when students protest - whether violently, or just by sign-waving and op-ed writing? What "side" in this do you think the ACLU should be on?
posted by rtha at 2:31 PM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
In terms of what? In terms of whether or not he's entitled by the 1st Amendment to get invited to speak on college campuses (or anywhere else, I guess)? In terms of whether or not his 1st Amendment rights are violated when students protest - whether violently, or just by sign-waving and op-ed writing? What "side" in this do you think the ACLU should be on?
posted by rtha at 2:31 PM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
Not everyone we/I disagree with is a fascist.
Good thing nobody's saying that, then!
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:34 PM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
Good thing nobody's saying that, then!
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:34 PM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
It's not about the fascists, it's about our aunts and uncles and cousins living in small towns.
You need to look up the usage and history of the phrase "Good Germans," apparently.
posted by PMdixon at 2:37 PM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
You need to look up the usage and history of the phrase "Good Germans," apparently.
posted by PMdixon at 2:37 PM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
NoxAeternum,
Fair points. The ACLU is not beyond reproach based on my own gut feelings, but they are consistent. I also imagine what it would be like if I were on the other side and people were preventing me from saying what I wanted to say. I allow them some wiggle room because I alway think we'd be worse off without them.
rtha,
Regarding the ACLU,I don't think that's up to me. It'll be interesting to see if they release a statement.
Regarding the other response,
Yeah, listen. The thing about fighting fascists is that they will paint their enemies that way regardless of what they actually do. So, the less time wasted thinking about how the fascists will paint our actions and the more time spent coming up with effect ways to stop the fascists, the better.
I was talking about how the American public perceived the protests and that was the above response. I feel as though people we disagree with were being conflated with fascists. Sorry if I misread that.
posted by Telf at 2:37 PM on March 7, 2017
Fair points. The ACLU is not beyond reproach based on my own gut feelings, but they are consistent. I also imagine what it would be like if I were on the other side and people were preventing me from saying what I wanted to say. I allow them some wiggle room because I alway think we'd be worse off without them.
rtha,
Regarding the ACLU,I don't think that's up to me. It'll be interesting to see if they release a statement.
Regarding the other response,
Yeah, listen. The thing about fighting fascists is that they will paint their enemies that way regardless of what they actually do. So, the less time wasted thinking about how the fascists will paint our actions and the more time spent coming up with effect ways to stop the fascists, the better.
I was talking about how the American public perceived the protests and that was the above response. I feel as though people we disagree with were being conflated with fascists. Sorry if I misread that.
posted by Telf at 2:37 PM on March 7, 2017
This is my last response before bed, I'm sure this will be all sorted out and agreed upon by tomorrow.
"It's not about the fascists, it's about our aunts and uncles and cousins living in small towns.
You need to look up the usage and history of the phrase "Good Germans," apparently.
posted by PMdixon "
I really don't get it. Again, are you saying that small town Americans are fascists. I understand your reference but I think you need to pull yourself out of the echo chambers and get some fresh air. People can disagree with you and you don't need to make another Germany/Hitler/Nazi reference. Is there such a paucity of shitty times in history that we alway have to revert to Nazis?
posted by Telf at 2:41 PM on March 7, 2017
"It's not about the fascists, it's about our aunts and uncles and cousins living in small towns.
You need to look up the usage and history of the phrase "Good Germans," apparently.
posted by PMdixon "
I really don't get it. Again, are you saying that small town Americans are fascists. I understand your reference but I think you need to pull yourself out of the echo chambers and get some fresh air. People can disagree with you and you don't need to make another Germany/Hitler/Nazi reference. Is there such a paucity of shitty times in history that we alway have to revert to Nazis?
posted by Telf at 2:41 PM on March 7, 2017
The folks shooting immigrants in their own driveways aren't necessarily fascists, they've been listening to Rush Limbaugh for the last 30 years, a mainstream Republican. The problem is bigger than the fascists and honestly it's frightening.
posted by Space Coyote at 2:43 PM on March 7, 2017 [10 favorites]
posted by Space Coyote at 2:43 PM on March 7, 2017 [10 favorites]
How could they nazi this coming?
posted by OverlappingElvis at 2:48 PM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by OverlappingElvis at 2:48 PM on March 7, 2017 [4 favorites]
Is there such a paucity of shitty times in history that we alway have to revert to Nazis?
Of course not! There's also Mussolini's fascists, the Falangists, the Peronists, Salazar, arguably also the Soviets! You can pick your brand of national-greatness autocratic.
The entire point of the phrase "Good Germans" is that successful fascists are enabled by people who aren't fascists but are OK with it. Do you really believe that somewhere in 1931 the entire German populace suddenly started believing the same weird mythico-racial national greatness ideology?
posted by PMdixon at 2:50 PM on March 7, 2017 [22 favorites]
Of course not! There's also Mussolini's fascists, the Falangists, the Peronists, Salazar, arguably also the Soviets! You can pick your brand of national-greatness autocratic.
The entire point of the phrase "Good Germans" is that successful fascists are enabled by people who aren't fascists but are OK with it. Do you really believe that somewhere in 1931 the entire German populace suddenly started believing the same weird mythico-racial national greatness ideology?
posted by PMdixon at 2:50 PM on March 7, 2017 [22 favorites]
Also, the First Amendment doesn't say "thou shalt allow any random asshole to speak at a school on any topic whatsoever".
Seriously. Schools are not political speech zones, they are academic, teaching, and research centers. I don't see what issue should be raised by disallowing speeches by discredited fucking eugenicists like Murray, or trollish intellectual lightweights like Milo. I get that students have politically minded groups and that political science and debate have a role to play at universities, but anti-intellectual idiots with zero scholarly rigor should be politely declined by the powers-that-be, IMO. They can go give their talks elsewhere and their First Amendment rights will not have been abridged.
w/r/t whether or not these times may appropriately be compared to Nazi Germany, or other fascists, one need only look at the evidence. Ethnonationalists in the executive branch? Check. Groundswell of antisemitic and anti-immigrant rhetoric and violence? Check. Executive actions aimed at targeting vulnerable populations of immigrants, LGTBQ, and even citizens? Check. Attempts to alter the ethnic makeup of the country by force? Check. Hell, we even have a huge law enforcement agency violating civil rights with impunity and zero oversight. Comparisons with Nazi Germany are not unwarranted.
posted by Existential Dread at 3:07 PM on March 7, 2017 [13 favorites]
Seriously. Schools are not political speech zones, they are academic, teaching, and research centers. I don't see what issue should be raised by disallowing speeches by discredited fucking eugenicists like Murray, or trollish intellectual lightweights like Milo. I get that students have politically minded groups and that political science and debate have a role to play at universities, but anti-intellectual idiots with zero scholarly rigor should be politely declined by the powers-that-be, IMO. They can go give their talks elsewhere and their First Amendment rights will not have been abridged.
w/r/t whether or not these times may appropriately be compared to Nazi Germany, or other fascists, one need only look at the evidence. Ethnonationalists in the executive branch? Check. Groundswell of antisemitic and anti-immigrant rhetoric and violence? Check. Executive actions aimed at targeting vulnerable populations of immigrants, LGTBQ, and even citizens? Check. Attempts to alter the ethnic makeup of the country by force? Check. Hell, we even have a huge law enforcement agency violating civil rights with impunity and zero oversight. Comparisons with Nazi Germany are not unwarranted.
posted by Existential Dread at 3:07 PM on March 7, 2017 [13 favorites]
(and of course on my commute home I remembered how Anita Sarkeesian and Breanna Wu, among others, were prevented from giving invited talks at colleges and conferences by constant and unceasing death threats.)
posted by muddgirl at 3:25 PM on March 7, 2017 [13 favorites]
posted by muddgirl at 3:25 PM on March 7, 2017 [13 favorites]
"You're presuming that people would know about your opinion and care about it. That's unlikely to be the case."
Sorry, I'm assuming that other students would feel the same way, given the whole "famous racist" deal.
"In fact, since you say that no fuss should be made when racists are invited to lecture, there's basically no downside for anyone inviting them: if no fuss is made then they're validated, because it's acceptable; if students protest then they're still validated because people are trying to silence them."
So you're saying that both responses are ineffective?
posted by Selena777 at 4:40 PM on March 7, 2017
Sorry, I'm assuming that other students would feel the same way, given the whole "famous racist" deal.
"In fact, since you say that no fuss should be made when racists are invited to lecture, there's basically no downside for anyone inviting them: if no fuss is made then they're validated, because it's acceptable; if students protest then they're still validated because people are trying to silence them."
So you're saying that both responses are ineffective?
posted by Selena777 at 4:40 PM on March 7, 2017
There's an interesting debate to be had about whether it's better to engage provocateurs like Murray in reasoned debate or to drown them out with protest. But responding to his words -- however hateful -- with violence? Not only is that drastically disproportionate and callous, it's a strategic disaster, convincing no one and putting the entire protest in a bad light.
For what its worth, as a member of one of those groups that Charles Murray would argue is inferior, I'd much rather hear irrefutable reasons why he's wrong than see him shouted down for being a bad man who says bad things. Although perhaps in an ideal world we'd have it both ways: destroying his arguments in debate AND condemning his racism through protest.
posted by Kilter at 4:55 PM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
For what its worth, as a member of one of those groups that Charles Murray would argue is inferior, I'd much rather hear irrefutable reasons why he's wrong than see him shouted down for being a bad man who says bad things. Although perhaps in an ideal world we'd have it both ways: destroying his arguments in debate AND condemning his racism through protest.
posted by Kilter at 4:55 PM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
The thing is that Stephen Jay Gould (among many many other experts) thoroughly refuted Murray almost 25 years ago and the asshole still won't shut up and go away. He just keeps spouting the same nonsense, and people keep giving him new platforms to do so. I don't see how reasoned debate helps at this point, since his supporters are impervious to reason.
posted by hydropsyche at 5:32 PM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 5:32 PM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
The Amazon sales rank for Murray's two most famous books, The Bell Curve and Coming Apart, surged from about 14000 and 6000 to around 300 and 100 after this event, and they have stayed high in the days since. Google Trends tells a similar story.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether Middlebury should have rescinded his invitation by a small fringe group on campus, or at what point the protesters went too far.
But I don't think you can argue that he was effectively "no platformed." Middlebury as an institution never even disinvited him, and the PR from the event has given him a louder megaphone than he has had in 2 decades.
If anyone has numbers that show otherwise, please share them, but my guess is that this incident has greatly bolstered the legitimacy of the alt-right & friends. I get it, the other side is way worse, not just in content, but in tactics (ie, one of them shot someone at UW). That does not prove that such tactics are effective.
posted by andrewpcone at 6:22 PM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
Reasonable people can disagree about whether Middlebury should have rescinded his invitation by a small fringe group on campus, or at what point the protesters went too far.
But I don't think you can argue that he was effectively "no platformed." Middlebury as an institution never even disinvited him, and the PR from the event has given him a louder megaphone than he has had in 2 decades.
If anyone has numbers that show otherwise, please share them, but my guess is that this incident has greatly bolstered the legitimacy of the alt-right & friends. I get it, the other side is way worse, not just in content, but in tactics (ie, one of them shot someone at UW). That does not prove that such tactics are effective.
posted by andrewpcone at 6:22 PM on March 7, 2017 [3 favorites]
I get that students have politically minded groups and that political science and debate have a role to play at universities, but anti-intellectual idiots with zero scholarly rigor should be politely declined by the powers-that-be, IMO.
I do see the issue, though, that student groups and faculty members need to have the freedom to invite whomever they want without administrative oversight. That in itself is part of academic freedom and the development of the skills of participation in civil society. As Mr. Know-It-Some posted above, the university doesn't have veto power over the invitations extended by members of its community. Some members of this community wanted to hear this guy talk and were given the money to invite him. That sucks for a lot of reasons, but the underlying reason that students have the right to mostly invite who they want seems like a value worth defending. Given the Milo debacle, I'm no longer sure how to handle this tension. Students are always going to want to invite provocative figures, and there are always going to be right-wing orgs that will foot the bill and then make hay of the outcome. Beyond insisting that people who make overt calls to violent action should not be allowed on campus (which would disqualify Milo), I wouldn't be sure how to adjudicate people like Murray.
Here's where I see a problem: the implied endorsement of the school in scheduling the President to introduce him and a faculty member to moderate:
posted by Miko at 7:39 PM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
I do see the issue, though, that student groups and faculty members need to have the freedom to invite whomever they want without administrative oversight. That in itself is part of academic freedom and the development of the skills of participation in civil society. As Mr. Know-It-Some posted above, the university doesn't have veto power over the invitations extended by members of its community. Some members of this community wanted to hear this guy talk and were given the money to invite him. That sucks for a lot of reasons, but the underlying reason that students have the right to mostly invite who they want seems like a value worth defending. Given the Milo debacle, I'm no longer sure how to handle this tension. Students are always going to want to invite provocative figures, and there are always going to be right-wing orgs that will foot the bill and then make hay of the outcome. Beyond insisting that people who make overt calls to violent action should not be allowed on campus (which would disqualify Milo), I wouldn't be sure how to adjudicate people like Murray.
Here's where I see a problem: the implied endorsement of the school in scheduling the President to introduce him and a faculty member to moderate:
the event was co-sponsored by the political science department and featured opening remarks by the president of the College, elevating the speaker’s institutional legitimacy. While students have the right to bring speakers of all kinds to campus, the university itself must be responsible and academically honest when giving such events a show of approval through cosponsorship.It's interesting to read the reflections of the students in the NYT piece and note how confused and conflicted many of them seem to be - not about their beliefs, but about their choice of resistance tactics and difficulty opposing the trajectory of a mass action.
posted by Miko at 7:39 PM on March 7, 2017 [8 favorites]
Do you really believe that somewhere in 1931 the entire German populace suddenly started believing the same weird mythico-racial national greatness ideology?
My husband's family on one side immigrated to Canada because of the rise of Hitler. The person who made that decision, his great-grandfather, was subsequently haunted by his shame in being German, his own cowardice in leaving and failing to resist, as well as the loss of his pretty well-off lifestyle in Germany which turned into a rough life in B.C. Especially once all Germans were classified as the enemy.
He and his friends in Germany did recognize some of what was happening. It was not that they woke up one morning to learn about the Holocaust.
My own family tree includes a similar tale although it wasn't as discussed, and my German great-grandparents integrated better in the US. They were a part of the flight of the intellectual class.
We're taking that as a sobering family learning experience these days, even up here. I have to say that growing up I perceived my family as smart for leaving but these days I think a bit more about cowardice and disengagement. But I wasn't there.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:13 AM on March 8, 2017 [5 favorites]
My husband's family on one side immigrated to Canada because of the rise of Hitler. The person who made that decision, his great-grandfather, was subsequently haunted by his shame in being German, his own cowardice in leaving and failing to resist, as well as the loss of his pretty well-off lifestyle in Germany which turned into a rough life in B.C. Especially once all Germans were classified as the enemy.
He and his friends in Germany did recognize some of what was happening. It was not that they woke up one morning to learn about the Holocaust.
My own family tree includes a similar tale although it wasn't as discussed, and my German great-grandparents integrated better in the US. They were a part of the flight of the intellectual class.
We're taking that as a sobering family learning experience these days, even up here. I have to say that growing up I perceived my family as smart for leaving but these days I think a bit more about cowardice and disengagement. But I wasn't there.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:13 AM on March 8, 2017 [5 favorites]
But I don't think you can argue that he was effectively "no platformed." Middlebury as an institution never even disinvited him, and the PR from the event has given him a louder megaphone than he has had in 2 decades.
Which is still not very loud. But y'all need to make up your minds about whether attention is good or bad. Either sunlight is the best disinfectant or not. In any case, this is almost assuredly a temporary blip. We've seen it happen over and over again, most recently with groups like the puppies, who now have to resort to an incestuous and insular recommendation system every couple days in vain attempts to stay relevant. They're also reflexivly turtling around actual instigators of violence like Milo, which means they've gotten so turned around that they're now pretty much in direct opposition to their stated values and missions. On top of that, they're so excited about the most fascist actions of Trump that, like Murray, they've revealed themselves to be exactly the bigots they so petulantly whined about being accused of.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:33 AM on March 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
Which is still not very loud. But y'all need to make up your minds about whether attention is good or bad. Either sunlight is the best disinfectant or not. In any case, this is almost assuredly a temporary blip. We've seen it happen over and over again, most recently with groups like the puppies, who now have to resort to an incestuous and insular recommendation system every couple days in vain attempts to stay relevant. They're also reflexivly turtling around actual instigators of violence like Milo, which means they've gotten so turned around that they're now pretty much in direct opposition to their stated values and missions. On top of that, they're so excited about the most fascist actions of Trump that, like Murray, they've revealed themselves to be exactly the bigots they so petulantly whined about being accused of.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:33 AM on March 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
I do see the issue, though, that student groups and faculty members need to have the freedom to invite whomever they want without administrative oversight. That in itself is part of academic freedom and the development of the skills of participation in civil society. As Mr. Know-It-Some posted above, the university doesn't have veto power over the invitations extended by members of its community.
Two points:
1. As I keep saying over and over, if you keep using "academic freedom" to defend hate and abuse, you shouldn't be surprised when other people affected by that begin to view it as illegitimate. Arguing that you have to give a platform to an unrepentant bigot because of "academic freedom" actually hurts the cause of academic freedom by undermining support for it.
2. The argument that schools have no veto power over guest speakers is easily disproven - do you think that a college would allow an official college group to have a talk on campus by David Duke? No? Then the school does, in fact, have veto power over speakers - they just choose to be lenient in using it. And in this case, they were too lenient.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:13 AM on March 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
Two points:
1. As I keep saying over and over, if you keep using "academic freedom" to defend hate and abuse, you shouldn't be surprised when other people affected by that begin to view it as illegitimate. Arguing that you have to give a platform to an unrepentant bigot because of "academic freedom" actually hurts the cause of academic freedom by undermining support for it.
2. The argument that schools have no veto power over guest speakers is easily disproven - do you think that a college would allow an official college group to have a talk on campus by David Duke? No? Then the school does, in fact, have veto power over speakers - they just choose to be lenient in using it. And in this case, they were too lenient.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:13 AM on March 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
I have to say that growing up I perceived my family as smart for leaving but these days I think a bit more about cowardice and disengagement.
I have been struggling with this question in the future tense as part of my contingency planning and I think it is true that at some point a system is so blood soaked, and your ability to change that for the better so limited, that just the level of complicitness involved in living in that system is an immoral act that one could legitimately feel unable to offset. But in the best version it's not disengagement, it's engaging from outside.
(There were also Germans who resisted. Most of them died, often horribly. A state is a machine that is built around the capacity to do violence, and when that machine falls into malicious hands there are no good answers.)
posted by PMdixon at 7:21 AM on March 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
I have been struggling with this question in the future tense as part of my contingency planning and I think it is true that at some point a system is so blood soaked, and your ability to change that for the better so limited, that just the level of complicitness involved in living in that system is an immoral act that one could legitimately feel unable to offset. But in the best version it's not disengagement, it's engaging from outside.
(There were also Germans who resisted. Most of them died, often horribly. A state is a machine that is built around the capacity to do violence, and when that machine falls into malicious hands there are no good answers.)
posted by PMdixon at 7:21 AM on March 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
do you think that a college would allow an official college group to have a talk on campus by David Duke?
Former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke drew protesters to a U.S. Senate candidate debate... at Dillard University, a historically black college in New Orleans.
Historically black Dillard University agreed to be site of Senate debate before it knew the candidates. Despite criticism, the president stood by the decision. Protesters disagreed.
posted by Miko at 8:12 AM on March 8, 2017 [3 favorites]
Former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke drew protesters to a U.S. Senate candidate debate... at Dillard University, a historically black college in New Orleans.
Historically black Dillard University agreed to be site of Senate debate before it knew the candidates. Despite criticism, the president stood by the decision. Protesters disagreed.
posted by Miko at 8:12 AM on March 8, 2017 [3 favorites]
Arguing that you have to give a platform to an unrepentant bigot because of "academic freedom" actually hurts the cause of academic freedom by undermining support for it.
The conundrum being that if you revoke academic freedom, you become the caricature your enemies want, and I refuse to be that. I am willing to stand up for students' and faculty members' rights to bring whomever they want to campus, barring only those (as I said above) who are inciting violence, targeting individuals, and other forms of clear and immediate threat. In short, the Brandenburg test. I am admittedly a pretty staunch First-Amendment defender, but I also would really hesistate to create strong restrictions on who may be invited to campus and by whom, because that would immediately and prejudicially be exploited to silence leftist perspectives. Let the other guys do censorship. I'm not in support of it.
That being said, I support the notion that the school can refuse to lend staff time to such events, can grant or deny the use of spaces and support facilities and event staff as long as that is done fairly from a political perspective, can require all sorts of protections and ask the student group to cover the costs of additional security, live feed, etc. And I support the faculty and students in mounting their opposition, writing their co-signed letter, using the student and national press to air their perspectives, staging a protest, and everything up to breaking the law by committing an assault, - recognizing that even that is murky.
posted by Miko at 8:21 AM on March 8, 2017 [5 favorites]
The conundrum being that if you revoke academic freedom, you become the caricature your enemies want, and I refuse to be that. I am willing to stand up for students' and faculty members' rights to bring whomever they want to campus, barring only those (as I said above) who are inciting violence, targeting individuals, and other forms of clear and immediate threat. In short, the Brandenburg test. I am admittedly a pretty staunch First-Amendment defender, but I also would really hesistate to create strong restrictions on who may be invited to campus and by whom, because that would immediately and prejudicially be exploited to silence leftist perspectives. Let the other guys do censorship. I'm not in support of it.
That being said, I support the notion that the school can refuse to lend staff time to such events, can grant or deny the use of spaces and support facilities and event staff as long as that is done fairly from a political perspective, can require all sorts of protections and ask the student group to cover the costs of additional security, live feed, etc. And I support the faculty and students in mounting their opposition, writing their co-signed letter, using the student and national press to air their perspectives, staging a protest, and everything up to breaking the law by committing an assault, - recognizing that even that is murky.
posted by Miko at 8:21 AM on March 8, 2017 [5 favorites]
The conundrum being that if you revoke academic freedom, you become the caricature your enemies want, and I refuse to be that.
Your enemies are going to reduce you to a caricature no matter what - it's how they function - so why not stand for the weak? This idea that telling bigots that they have no place in academia is the first step on the slippery slope to the end of academic freedom boggles me.
Second, Brandenburg is not the noble defense of free speech you think it is - the ruling comes across as a horrified reaction to a white bigot being held to the same standards as the underclass. And the narrow scope of the ruling makes it functionally useless in dealing with harassment and intimidation, which winds up chilling the free speech of the people targeted.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:58 AM on March 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
Your enemies are going to reduce you to a caricature no matter what - it's how they function - so why not stand for the weak? This idea that telling bigots that they have no place in academia is the first step on the slippery slope to the end of academic freedom boggles me.
Second, Brandenburg is not the noble defense of free speech you think it is - the ruling comes across as a horrified reaction to a white bigot being held to the same standards as the underclass. And the narrow scope of the ruling makes it functionally useless in dealing with harassment and intimidation, which winds up chilling the free speech of the people targeted.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:58 AM on March 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
Also, those articles about the LA Senate seat debate miss my point entirely for a few reasons:
* First, it wasn't a student group, but the university offering to host the debate,
* Second, the offer was put forth before it was known that Duke made the cut, and most importantly,
* Third, everyone was in agreement that the university president had the full right and authority to recind the offer, but elected not to (a decision that he took a great deal of flack for because of it allowing Duke to speak.) Which is my point in a nutshell - there is a difference between "leadership does not possess this power" and "leadership declines to use the power it has".
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:20 AM on March 8, 2017 [4 favorites]
* First, it wasn't a student group, but the university offering to host the debate,
* Second, the offer was put forth before it was known that Duke made the cut, and most importantly,
* Third, everyone was in agreement that the university president had the full right and authority to recind the offer, but elected not to (a decision that he took a great deal of flack for because of it allowing Duke to speak.) Which is my point in a nutshell - there is a difference between "leadership does not possess this power" and "leadership declines to use the power it has".
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:20 AM on March 8, 2017 [4 favorites]
And of course they're going to caricature you no matter what. I simply am against actually becoming the caricature of a speech-limiting organization that is supposed to simultaneously be embracing intellectual freedom.
Second, Brandenburg is not the noble defense of free speech you think it is
The case isn't noble, no. Still, it remains the legal test.
posted by Miko at 10:14 AM on March 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
Second, Brandenburg is not the noble defense of free speech you think it is
The case isn't noble, no. Still, it remains the legal test.
posted by Miko at 10:14 AM on March 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
And of course they're going to caricature you no matter what. I simply am against actually becoming the caricature of a speech-limiting organization that is supposed to simultaneously be embracing intellectual freedom.
But you're not doing that by telling bigots that they have no place in academia. Academia already boots cranks out for good reason - there's no reason why we shouldn't add bigots to that as well. The people who you are so worried about are relying on the reaction you're having, because they're hoping that you will cuff your own hands of your own accord, letting them spew their hate.
The case isn't noble, no. Still, it remains the legal test.
And your point?
This here is the problem with First Amendment fetishism - the confusal of the law for moral argument. Yes, Brandenburg may be the law, but so was Jim Crow, remember. Saying that we have to turn a blind eye to abuse and its chilling effects because it doesn't quite meet the legal definition is what makes people question the principles you're trying to defend. The First Amendment is not the alpha and omega of free speech and discourse, and we treat it as such at our own peril.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:39 AM on March 8, 2017 [4 favorites]
But you're not doing that by telling bigots that they have no place in academia. Academia already boots cranks out for good reason - there's no reason why we shouldn't add bigots to that as well. The people who you are so worried about are relying on the reaction you're having, because they're hoping that you will cuff your own hands of your own accord, letting them spew their hate.
The case isn't noble, no. Still, it remains the legal test.
And your point?
This here is the problem with First Amendment fetishism - the confusal of the law for moral argument. Yes, Brandenburg may be the law, but so was Jim Crow, remember. Saying that we have to turn a blind eye to abuse and its chilling effects because it doesn't quite meet the legal definition is what makes people question the principles you're trying to defend. The First Amendment is not the alpha and omega of free speech and discourse, and we treat it as such at our own peril.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:39 AM on March 8, 2017 [4 favorites]
But you're not doing that by telling bigots that they have no place in academia
We're talking about a student group invitation here. The student groups are empowered and encouraged to develop their own programs, as a way of helping young adults learn how to participate in a society that has free association and a tremendous number of productive voluntary organizations.
"they're hoping that you will cuff your own hands of your own accord"
This is where you confuse me. Coming up with some policy that asserts the right of a university or its faculty or student body to bar bigots is, to me, cuffing our hands of our own accord.
The First Amendment is not the alpha and omega of free speech and discourse, and we treat it as such at our own peril.
Sure, and in this case we don't really have a First Amendment issue anyway since the government has not insisted that anyone not speak - Middlebury is not even a state school. But I do support the intellectual freedoms of students in universities, and I think that the test of incitement of violence provided by the Supreme Court for First Amendment protection happens to be a good guideline for schools to follow.
posted by Miko at 11:11 AM on March 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
We're talking about a student group invitation here. The student groups are empowered and encouraged to develop their own programs, as a way of helping young adults learn how to participate in a society that has free association and a tremendous number of productive voluntary organizations.
"they're hoping that you will cuff your own hands of your own accord"
This is where you confuse me. Coming up with some policy that asserts the right of a university or its faculty or student body to bar bigots is, to me, cuffing our hands of our own accord.
The First Amendment is not the alpha and omega of free speech and discourse, and we treat it as such at our own peril.
Sure, and in this case we don't really have a First Amendment issue anyway since the government has not insisted that anyone not speak - Middlebury is not even a state school. But I do support the intellectual freedoms of students in universities, and I think that the test of incitement of violence provided by the Supreme Court for First Amendment protection happens to be a good guideline for schools to follow.
posted by Miko at 11:11 AM on March 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
The student groups are empowered and encouraged to develop their own programs, as a way of helping young adults learn how to participate in a society that has free association and a tremendous number of productive voluntary organizations.
And now they've learned that there are various forms of association and participation that will incur tremendous blowback, at basically no cost. Many people who have to learn that lesson in a hands on fashion do so while bleeding out from a cop-fired gunshot.
posted by PMdixon at 11:53 AM on March 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
And now they've learned that there are various forms of association and participation that will incur tremendous blowback, at basically no cost. Many people who have to learn that lesson in a hands on fashion do so while bleeding out from a cop-fired gunshot.
posted by PMdixon at 11:53 AM on March 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
We're talking about a student group invitation here. The student groups are empowered and encouraged to develop their own programs, as a way of helping young adults learn how to participate in a society that has free association and a tremendous number of productive voluntary organizations.
Let's deal with the elephant in the room here - it wasn't a "student group" that invited Murray - it was the local chapter of the college recruitment arm of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative "think tank" that's long been in the business of retreading conservative bigots (like Murray) and cranks (like disgraced academic and Internet sockpuppeteer John Lott.) This is not a group that is about "empowerment" - this is a group about achieving the goals of the parent organization, hence the invite to Murray as part of his retreading.
This is where you confuse me. Coming up with some policy that asserts the right of a university or its faculty or student body to bar bigots is, to me, cuffing our hands of our own accord.
Tell me - what benefit does academia get from giving time and space for an unrepentant bigot to speak? Your whole defense of academic freedom only makes sense if academic freedom meant we were obligated to open the floor to anyone, no matter what their ideas or beliefs. But that has never been what it means, and thus the point is if we kick cranks out of academia, why not bigots as well?
But I do support the intellectual freedoms of students in universities, and I think that the test of incitement of violence provided by the Supreme Court for First Amendment protection happens to be a good guideline for schools to follow.
Why? Because when I keep hearing about how minorities keep having to deal with all sorts of shit piled onto them in the academic sphere, and then told to just bear it in the name of "academic freedom", and how that impacts their intellectual freedom, I tend to wonder if we're missing the point.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:54 AM on March 8, 2017 [8 favorites]
Let's deal with the elephant in the room here - it wasn't a "student group" that invited Murray - it was the local chapter of the college recruitment arm of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative "think tank" that's long been in the business of retreading conservative bigots (like Murray) and cranks (like disgraced academic and Internet sockpuppeteer John Lott.) This is not a group that is about "empowerment" - this is a group about achieving the goals of the parent organization, hence the invite to Murray as part of his retreading.
This is where you confuse me. Coming up with some policy that asserts the right of a university or its faculty or student body to bar bigots is, to me, cuffing our hands of our own accord.
Tell me - what benefit does academia get from giving time and space for an unrepentant bigot to speak? Your whole defense of academic freedom only makes sense if academic freedom meant we were obligated to open the floor to anyone, no matter what their ideas or beliefs. But that has never been what it means, and thus the point is if we kick cranks out of academia, why not bigots as well?
But I do support the intellectual freedoms of students in universities, and I think that the test of incitement of violence provided by the Supreme Court for First Amendment protection happens to be a good guideline for schools to follow.
Why? Because when I keep hearing about how minorities keep having to deal with all sorts of shit piled onto them in the academic sphere, and then told to just bear it in the name of "academic freedom", and how that impacts their intellectual freedom, I tend to wonder if we're missing the point.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:54 AM on March 8, 2017 [8 favorites]
if you revoke academic freedom, you become the caricature your enemies want
Good thing no one is arguing that Murray should be fired from his academic job at the… uh… American Enterprise Institute, then!
posted by RogerB at 12:21 PM on March 8, 2017 [4 favorites]
Good thing no one is arguing that Murray should be fired from his academic job at the… uh… American Enterprise Institute, then!
posted by RogerB at 12:21 PM on March 8, 2017 [4 favorites]
Let's not mistake me for someone who ideologically opposes you. I don't ideologically oppose you.
it wasn't a "student group" that invited Murray - it was the local chapter of the college recruitment arm of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI),
I know who the AEI is. But it is their student group on campus. Just like the National Organization for Women, Slow Food USA, Amnesty International, these national and international organizations do have associated student groups and "recruiting arms" on campus. Lose one, risk losing all.
when I keep hearing about how minorities keep having to deal with all sorts of shit piled onto them in the academic sphere, and then told to just bear it in the name of "academic freedom", and how that impacts their intellectual freedom, I tend to wonder if we're missing the point.
I agree that it's miserable that these invitations mean that people suffer, directly and indirectly, and that it can make the learning environment hostile. I'm interested in learning about alternative responses that don't involve blanket bans or ideological tests.
posted by Miko at 12:59 PM on March 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
it wasn't a "student group" that invited Murray - it was the local chapter of the college recruitment arm of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI),
I know who the AEI is. But it is their student group on campus. Just like the National Organization for Women, Slow Food USA, Amnesty International, these national and international organizations do have associated student groups and "recruiting arms" on campus. Lose one, risk losing all.
when I keep hearing about how minorities keep having to deal with all sorts of shit piled onto them in the academic sphere, and then told to just bear it in the name of "academic freedom", and how that impacts their intellectual freedom, I tend to wonder if we're missing the point.
I agree that it's miserable that these invitations mean that people suffer, directly and indirectly, and that it can make the learning environment hostile. I'm interested in learning about alternative responses that don't involve blanket bans or ideological tests.
posted by Miko at 12:59 PM on March 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
I agree that it's miserable that these invitations mean that people suffer, directly and indirectly, and that it can make the learning environment hostile. I'm interested in learning about alternative responses that don't involve blanket bans or ideological tests.
If "Charles Murray is odious because of his racist pseudoscience and we don't want him here because it makes people suffer and the learning environment hostile" isn't non-blanket or non-ideological enough for you, then I have to wonder whether there ever could possibly be anything.
posted by Etrigan at 1:21 PM on March 8, 2017 [6 favorites]
If "Charles Murray is odious because of his racist pseudoscience and we don't want him here because it makes people suffer and the learning environment hostile" isn't non-blanket or non-ideological enough for you, then I have to wonder whether there ever could possibly be anything.
posted by Etrigan at 1:21 PM on March 8, 2017 [6 favorites]
Let's not mistake me for someone who ideologically opposes you. I don't ideologically oppose you.
Except that you do, because you seem to be ideologically opposed to the idea of saying "this is bigotry, and it has no place in academia", out of some fealty to a concept of "academic freedom" that places the freedom for the College Republican set to openly invite unrepentant bigots to speak over the freedom of the people he targets to not have to live in an environment that expects them to just accept bigotry and hate tossed at them in the name of an "intellectual freedom" that always seems to leave them out.
In short, if you're defending allowing bigots into academia because you see it as "ideology", then we are ideologically opposed, and you are not my ally.
I know who the AEI is. But it is their student group on campus. Just like the National Organization for Women, Slow Food USA, Amnesty International, these national and international organizations do have associated student groups and "recruiting arms" on campus. Lose one, risk losing all.
The conservative groups aren't the same as those groups - their whole point is indoctrination and acting in bad faith (i.e. the infamous "affirmative action bake sale" ploy that gets routinely trotted out.) The AEI student branch inviting an AEI fellow who is an unrepentant bigot falls into the latter, and I see no reason why we should treat any arm of an organization that openly supports bigotry as acting in good faith.
I agree that it's miserable that these invitations mean that people suffer, directly and indirectly, and that it can make the learning environment hostile. I'm interested in learning about alternative responses that don't involve blanket bans or ideological tests.
People aren't opposed to Charles Murray because he's conservative.
People are opposed to Charles Murray because he's a fucking unrepentant bigot.
And as Etrigan pointed out, if "no bigots allowed" is too ideologically restrictive for you, then perhaps you should be looking at your own standards for ideology.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:26 PM on March 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
Except that you do, because you seem to be ideologically opposed to the idea of saying "this is bigotry, and it has no place in academia", out of some fealty to a concept of "academic freedom" that places the freedom for the College Republican set to openly invite unrepentant bigots to speak over the freedom of the people he targets to not have to live in an environment that expects them to just accept bigotry and hate tossed at them in the name of an "intellectual freedom" that always seems to leave them out.
In short, if you're defending allowing bigots into academia because you see it as "ideology", then we are ideologically opposed, and you are not my ally.
I know who the AEI is. But it is their student group on campus. Just like the National Organization for Women, Slow Food USA, Amnesty International, these national and international organizations do have associated student groups and "recruiting arms" on campus. Lose one, risk losing all.
The conservative groups aren't the same as those groups - their whole point is indoctrination and acting in bad faith (i.e. the infamous "affirmative action bake sale" ploy that gets routinely trotted out.) The AEI student branch inviting an AEI fellow who is an unrepentant bigot falls into the latter, and I see no reason why we should treat any arm of an organization that openly supports bigotry as acting in good faith.
I agree that it's miserable that these invitations mean that people suffer, directly and indirectly, and that it can make the learning environment hostile. I'm interested in learning about alternative responses that don't involve blanket bans or ideological tests.
People aren't opposed to Charles Murray because he's conservative.
People are opposed to Charles Murray because he's a fucking unrepentant bigot.
And as Etrigan pointed out, if "no bigots allowed" is too ideologically restrictive for you, then perhaps you should be looking at your own standards for ideology.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:26 PM on March 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
Except that you do, because you seem to be ideologically opposed to the idea of saying "this is bigotry, and it has no place in academia", out of some fealty to a concept of "academic freedom" that places the freedom for the College Republican set to openly invite unrepentant bigots to speak over the freedom of the people he targets to not have to live in an environment that expects them to just accept bigotry and hate tossed at them in the name of an "intellectual freedom" that always seems to leave them out.
In short, if you're defending allowing bigots into academia because you see it as "ideology", then we are ideologically opposed, and you are not my ally.
You're right. I was under the misappropriation that we believed in the same values, but we don't. I need to accept that the political conversation has evolved and that there are some people I want to support, but just can't. I think your logic is bankrupt and I wouldn't want the country to move in the direction you espouse. I think the logical conclusions of your own beliefs would lead to a different form of fascism if the balance shifted in your direction. I think your argumentation is ugly and aggressive and we are not on the same side.
And that's ok. I can continue to believe in equal rights and liberties and trying to help fix a biased system but not by the means you endorse.
posted by Telf at 1:42 PM on March 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
In short, if you're defending allowing bigots into academia because you see it as "ideology", then we are ideologically opposed, and you are not my ally.
You're right. I was under the misappropriation that we believed in the same values, but we don't. I need to accept that the political conversation has evolved and that there are some people I want to support, but just can't. I think your logic is bankrupt and I wouldn't want the country to move in the direction you espouse. I think the logical conclusions of your own beliefs would lead to a different form of fascism if the balance shifted in your direction. I think your argumentation is ugly and aggressive and we are not on the same side.
And that's ok. I can continue to believe in equal rights and liberties and trying to help fix a biased system but not by the means you endorse.
posted by Telf at 1:42 PM on March 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
Care to explain how my logic is bankrupt? Or are you going to just toss that attack out there without defending it?
But you are right - my argumentation is ugly, because we are dealing with ugly things. Civility and politeness are not the same, and I'm tired of seeing people defend bigots under the banners of ideals that those bigots would happily shred themselves, all because the bigot knows how to code shift in a way that cues that response. I don't believe that you can have equal rights and liberties while asking groups to tolerate and accept routine attacks on them out of some concept of discourse that criticizes overt action meant to increase the number of people in the dialogue, while ignoring the covert actions that cause them to leave out of a need to protect themselves.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:02 PM on March 8, 2017 [6 favorites]
But you are right - my argumentation is ugly, because we are dealing with ugly things. Civility and politeness are not the same, and I'm tired of seeing people defend bigots under the banners of ideals that those bigots would happily shred themselves, all because the bigot knows how to code shift in a way that cues that response. I don't believe that you can have equal rights and liberties while asking groups to tolerate and accept routine attacks on them out of some concept of discourse that criticizes overt action meant to increase the number of people in the dialogue, while ignoring the covert actions that cause them to leave out of a need to protect themselves.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:02 PM on March 8, 2017 [6 favorites]
I'm bowing out of this conversation. We're just going to talk past each other and it's not adding to the conversation. Feel free to mail me if you want talk further but publicly let's just agree to disagree.
posted by Telf at 2:05 PM on March 8, 2017
posted by Telf at 2:05 PM on March 8, 2017
"Charles Murray is odious because of his racist pseudoscience and we don't want him here because it makes people suffer and the learning environment hostile"
That's a great thing to say and I definitely support the sentiment and the students' and faculty members' right to say it.
I think I am aligned with what Telf is saying here: that I'm agreement with moving society toward justice, but not with colleges controlling the actions of student groups, or of other unnecessary restrictions on speech in academic environments. I want to see the process of action and reaction unfold. I understand that this puts me into a moral quandary at times, and at odds with some people I generally agree with on political and human rights issues, but recognize that particular moral quandary as a predicament of Americanness that I must wrestle with at a personal and political level. I'm not done wrestling with it, and never will be. I have at times suffered from it directly myself. But that difficulty doesn't mean I throw the ideal of intellectual freedom under the bus in order to preserve the ideological values I prefer. The ACLU's guidance on this hews fairly close to my own values.
We agree this kind of campus activity creates a problem. But barring campus community members and associations from inviting who they wish is not, to me, the solution. It is indirect. It plays into the agendas of those people by promoting their names and ideas. it cuts both ways and diminishes the power of everyone to express themselves. It asks too much in individual, cultural, and institutional compromise.
It is okay with me if we don't agree on this.
posted by Miko at 2:09 PM on March 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
That's a great thing to say and I definitely support the sentiment and the students' and faculty members' right to say it.
I think I am aligned with what Telf is saying here: that I'm agreement with moving society toward justice, but not with colleges controlling the actions of student groups, or of other unnecessary restrictions on speech in academic environments. I want to see the process of action and reaction unfold. I understand that this puts me into a moral quandary at times, and at odds with some people I generally agree with on political and human rights issues, but recognize that particular moral quandary as a predicament of Americanness that I must wrestle with at a personal and political level. I'm not done wrestling with it, and never will be. I have at times suffered from it directly myself. But that difficulty doesn't mean I throw the ideal of intellectual freedom under the bus in order to preserve the ideological values I prefer. The ACLU's guidance on this hews fairly close to my own values.
We agree this kind of campus activity creates a problem. But barring campus community members and associations from inviting who they wish is not, to me, the solution. It is indirect. It plays into the agendas of those people by promoting their names and ideas. it cuts both ways and diminishes the power of everyone to express themselves. It asks too much in individual, cultural, and institutional compromise.
It is okay with me if we don't agree on this.
posted by Miko at 2:09 PM on March 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
Colleges already exert significant control over student organizations in a number of ways - are you against "all comer" policies that require student organizations that receive school funding to be open to all students? And people are pointing out that not allowing bigots to speak is, in fact, necessary, because of how bigotry corrodes the environment for those it attacks, and how it makes them feel like they have to retreat from the discussion for their own safety. This was the heart of the whole mess at Yale - students being reminded to not be a dick to their fellow students improves the discourse, not inhibits it - because it turns out that when the disprivliged don't feel under attack, they feel that they can also engage!
As for the ACLU guidelines, this is where the "not above reproach" point comes in, because I'm tired of the framing that seems to be common with them and other defenders of free speech that defines the opposition to hate speech to be that of disagreement, as opposed to the fact that hate speech chases people out of the public forum and silences them. Because when you actually acknowledge why people are opposed to hate speech, the ACLU's position becomes a lot less defensible.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:40 PM on March 8, 2017 [7 favorites]
As for the ACLU guidelines, this is where the "not above reproach" point comes in, because I'm tired of the framing that seems to be common with them and other defenders of free speech that defines the opposition to hate speech to be that of disagreement, as opposed to the fact that hate speech chases people out of the public forum and silences them. Because when you actually acknowledge why people are opposed to hate speech, the ACLU's position becomes a lot less defensible.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:40 PM on March 8, 2017 [7 favorites]
are you against "all comer" policies that require student organizations that receive school funding to be open to all students?
Not at all.
students being reminded to not be a dick to their fellow students improves the discourse, not inhibits it - because it turns out that when the disprivliged don't feel under attack, they feel that they can also engage!
yes. Those student actions were awesome.
posted by Miko at 6:55 PM on March 8, 2017
Not at all.
students being reminded to not be a dick to their fellow students improves the discourse, not inhibits it - because it turns out that when the disprivliged don't feel under attack, they feel that they can also engage!
yes. Those student actions were awesome.
posted by Miko at 6:55 PM on March 8, 2017
The Myth of the “Marketplace of Ideas” on Campus - "For too long this Manichean conservative narrative, even when reasonably applied, has stood in the way of a more challenging set of questions about free speech on campus: Is there really a “marketplace of ideas,” and does it actually work?"
White Supremacists Step Up Recruiting on Campus, Report Says
Who decides?!
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:42 PM on March 8, 2017 [3 favorites]
White Supremacists Step Up Recruiting on Campus, Report Says
Who decides?!
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:42 PM on March 8, 2017 [3 favorites]
From the first link:
The "Who Decides?" piece is, I think, kind of content-free. It's framed around a discussion that didn't take place ("maybe we should form a committee, etc.") rather than the numerous ones that did. The college did decline to intervene in such a way as to rescind the invitation, and that was an action. But it didn't happen because of an abdication of responsibility for having the conversation - there was no simple shoulder shrug. Here is the letter from faculty in the political science discussing their debate around the criteria for co-sponsorship and whether Murray met them (they agreed he did; these criteria may be a part of the problem); here is the letter announcing the event from AEI students, a post-event statement of principles signed by 80some faculty. One of the political science professors wrote on his blog
posted by Miko at 9:15 PM on March 8, 2017 [3 favorites]
the more strenuously the marketplace rejects the ideas of speakers like Murray, the more valuable such speakers become on account of their rejection. The marketplace of ideas can behave more like a marketplace of controversy in which we perpetually re-litigate discredited ideas precisely because they’re unpopular....The outsized power of controversy within the marketplace may be cause to avoid interrupting and shouting down speakers. Indeed, while I think disinvitation is the prerogative of any institution with autonomy over its platforms and duty to provide the highest possible quality speakers across the political spectrum, I don’t think it’s smart to shout down people who are already there. Better for those opposed to hearing the speaker to host a separate event and let diminished numbers at the main event speak to the diminished status of bad ideas.Personally, I think the problem with the "marketplace" metaphor is that students and the campus are not the actual marketplace for these ideas and provocations. That marketplace exists off campus, on talk shows, on bookstore shelves, in the political ruckus. The students are a vehicle and showcase, but not the actual market.
The "Who Decides?" piece is, I think, kind of content-free. It's framed around a discussion that didn't take place ("maybe we should form a committee, etc.") rather than the numerous ones that did. The college did decline to intervene in such a way as to rescind the invitation, and that was an action. But it didn't happen because of an abdication of responsibility for having the conversation - there was no simple shoulder shrug. Here is the letter from faculty in the political science discussing their debate around the criteria for co-sponsorship and whether Murray met them (they agreed he did; these criteria may be a part of the problem); here is the letter announcing the event from AEI students, a post-event statement of principles signed by 80some faculty. One of the political science professors wrote on his blog
the protests prevented those students who wished to engage with Murray from hearing him speak and, more importantly, it prevented them from pressing back against his research. Two days before Murray’s talk I spent my entire weekly politics luncheon discussing Murray’s research in the Bell Curve, and acquainting students with many of the critiques of his findings. My presentation was attended by a packed audience of students and local residents, and many of the students went away primed to do battle with Murray. A few of them, drawing in part on my slide presentation, put together a pamphlet outlining five criticisms of Murray’s argument in the Bell Curve, which they placed on every seat in Wilson Hall. Unfortunately, due to the actions of protesters, my students never had the opportunity to engage Murray beyond a few questions directed at him via Twitter. What’s worse, they now find themselves inaccurately characterized in media outlets as coddled, immature “snowflakes” and “liberal fascists” bent on promoting intolerance and hate.It doesn't look to me like anyone is throwing up their hands. The administration, student body, and faculty seem to all be engaged in understanding what happened and determining the best path forward, collaboratively, but without compromising the educational values they prize.
posted by Miko at 9:15 PM on March 8, 2017 [3 favorites]
Oh, so Middlebury oh so politely and formally decided to promote a racist and his screeds for white supremacy. Woohoo. That makes it all better, right?
Fuck 'em, I say.
posted by tavella at 10:47 PM on March 8, 2017 [4 favorites]
Fuck 'em, I say.
posted by tavella at 10:47 PM on March 8, 2017 [4 favorites]
The whole problem is that we just had a year in which the idea that sunlight is the best disinfectant for hate, that we can combat bigotry through debate got pretty thoroughly refuted. It turns out that giving bigotry a platform allows it to spread, that combating it through discourse doesn't really work for reasons that Upton Sinclair pointed out over a century ago, and that hate speech causes the people it targets to retreat from the discussion for their own safety (which makes the ACLU's exhortation of "more speech" really problematic, as it winds up coming across as asking these groups to "take one for the team" and put aside their concerns over safety. That's a damn big ask, and it needs to be acknowledged as such.)
This is why the argument that we need to allow bigots in to speak to defend "academic freedom" strikes a raw nerve for a lot of us - because from where I (and several others) are sitting, a concept of academic freedom where we are obliged to make the learning environment more hostile for others because of bigots who politely spew hate doesn't come across as all that terribly free.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:47 AM on March 9, 2017 [12 favorites]
This is why the argument that we need to allow bigots in to speak to defend "academic freedom" strikes a raw nerve for a lot of us - because from where I (and several others) are sitting, a concept of academic freedom where we are obliged to make the learning environment more hostile for others because of bigots who politely spew hate doesn't come across as all that terribly free.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:47 AM on March 9, 2017 [12 favorites]
That blog bit from from the Middlebury political science professor just is the perfect summation of the uselessness of the "well-meaning" white moderate in the Age of Trump. The college president lent their imprimatur and presence to Murray, the political science department signed off on a racist fuckwit being a totally legitimate scientist... and he thinks that his flyers on seats are going to solve the problem of the re-normalization of white supremacy ideology in the United States.
Fucking flyers.
posted by tavella at 10:40 AM on March 9, 2017 [3 favorites]
Fucking flyers.
posted by tavella at 10:40 AM on March 9, 2017 [3 favorites]
I see your points. Just not sure that the proposed cure is better than the disease.
posted by Miko at 1:34 PM on March 9, 2017
posted by Miko at 1:34 PM on March 9, 2017
Just not sure that the proposed cure is better than the disease.
I'm of the mind that the disease is incurable and all we can do now is palliative care and slowing the decline.
posted by PMdixon at 4:06 PM on March 9, 2017
I'm of the mind that the disease is incurable and all we can do now is palliative care and slowing the decline.
posted by PMdixon at 4:06 PM on March 9, 2017
I tend to think the disease is chronic, with periodic intense flare-ups, but that it can be driven into remission with concentrated effort.
posted by Miko at 4:26 PM on March 9, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Miko at 4:26 PM on March 9, 2017 [1 favorite]
Well, I definitely hope you're right and I'm wrong.
posted by PMdixon at 4:34 PM on March 9, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by PMdixon at 4:34 PM on March 9, 2017 [2 favorites]
Hannah Gais in The Baffler: From a Darling of White Supremacists, a Shrug and a “Who, Me?”
Murray, it turns out, is not keen to be associated with the kind of far-right white nationalism now roosting in the White House, despite its more than passing resemblance to his own Bell Curve-era work. As protesters gathered outside of Lerner Hall clutching signs declaring “No Free Speech for Racists,” Murray asked the central question of his lecture: “Are Elites to Blame for Donald Trump?” But more than anything, he wanted us to know that he himself was not to blame.posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:05 PM on March 29, 2017 [3 favorites]
The Murray of 2017 has little to say about the racial hierarchies he and Richard Herrnstein peddled in The Bell Curve (remember how it “must . . . be acknowledged [that] Latino and black immigrants are, at least in the short run, putting some downward pressure on the distribution of intelligence”?). Instead, he focuses on the divisions within white America and how to mend them—an indication of how carefully he has repackaged his sloppy sociology in recent years. Still, implicit in this shift is the suggestion that white America—his America—is the only one worth saving.
An artificial rift has opened up between an underclass of unskilled whites and a “new upper class” of white elites, Murray told the Columbia audience, lamenting that instead of working to repair the rift, too many are content to drown their sorrows “watching television and playing video games stoned.” Whatever happened to those who strove for a better order, in which each would know his rightful market- and morality-appointed place?
So far, Murray was sticking closely to the script of his latest book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960–2010, published in 2012. It was when he attempted to update this script to account for the rise of Trumpism that his hand-washing, nose-holding “Who, me?”-ism really began to show.
Anthropologist Jon Marks has an excellent post on why Murray is a threat to the academy and why engagement is not the answer. It's worth reading the whole piece, but this is the stand out portion:
We should not be debating the innate intelligence of black people, or of the poor, on college campuses or anywhere. It is a morally corrupt pseudoscientific proposition.
It's like inviting a creationist or an inventor of a perpetual motion machine. The university should not be a censor, but it sure as hell is a gatekeeper. At this point, sometimes they go all radical epistemological relativist and and say that all ideas deserve a hearing. But all ideas don't deserve a hearing. The universe of things that do get discussed and debated on college campuses is rather small in proportion to the ideas that people have debated over the years. Should we stone witches? No. Might the speed of light be 140,000 miles per second, rather than 186,000? No. Might the universe just be made up of earth, air, water, and fire? No. Might Africans just be genetically stupid? Might people who want to debate this point have their fundamental civic morality called into question instead?
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:17 PM on April 5, 2017
We should not be debating the innate intelligence of black people, or of the poor, on college campuses or anywhere. It is a morally corrupt pseudoscientific proposition.
It's like inviting a creationist or an inventor of a perpetual motion machine. The university should not be a censor, but it sure as hell is a gatekeeper. At this point, sometimes they go all radical epistemological relativist and and say that all ideas deserve a hearing. But all ideas don't deserve a hearing. The universe of things that do get discussed and debated on college campuses is rather small in proportion to the ideas that people have debated over the years. Should we stone witches? No. Might the speed of light be 140,000 miles per second, rather than 186,000? No. Might the universe just be made up of earth, air, water, and fire? No. Might Africans just be genetically stupid? Might people who want to debate this point have their fundamental civic morality called into question instead?
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:17 PM on April 5, 2017
We should not be debating the innate intelligence of black people, or of the poor, on college campuses or anywhere. It is a morally corrupt pseudoscientific proposition.
Read the whole thing. I can agree with your excerpt, but he was not doing that. This entire argument seems to be based on the subject of his previous book, The Bell Curve, rather than his most recent (but still old) book, Coming Apart. I have not and will not read Coming Apart, but I have read a lot about its content, and its focus is on attacking the white working class and the liberal elites who in his view have failed to control them, not on black people's intelligence. He was invited specifically to discuss the recent book, making arguments based on The Bell Curve and not featured as a component of the newer book much less relevant.
Also, Stanger didn't invite him; the student AEI group did. Stanger instead agreed at their request to moderate. In the piece the author links, he says:
In the end I think everything happened as it should, up to the point at which violence became physical. The AEI students had a right to invite, the professor and school had a right to schedule the program, the student body had a right to protest, and the shouting down made his unwelcomeness very clear, and they had a backup plan. It's too bad the violence happened, because now it's all people focus on and it's become a flashpoint. Had it just been a very successful peaceful protest I think many people would be justified in feeling satisfied that civic processes worked.
posted by Miko at 2:50 PM on April 5, 2017
Read the whole thing. I can agree with your excerpt, but he was not doing that. This entire argument seems to be based on the subject of his previous book, The Bell Curve, rather than his most recent (but still old) book, Coming Apart. I have not and will not read Coming Apart, but I have read a lot about its content, and its focus is on attacking the white working class and the liberal elites who in his view have failed to control them, not on black people's intelligence. He was invited specifically to discuss the recent book, making arguments based on The Bell Curve and not featured as a component of the newer book much less relevant.
Also, Stanger didn't invite him; the student AEI group did. Stanger instead agreed at their request to moderate. In the piece the author links, he says:
Though he is someone with whom I disagree, I welcomed the opportunity to moderate a talk with him on campus on March 2 because several of my students asked me to do so. They know I am a Democrat, but the college courses I teach are nonpartisan. As I wrote on Facebook immediately after the incident, this was a chance to demonstrate publicly a commitment to a free and fair exchange of views in my classroom.I'm not sure that saying he's a terrible scholar means he shouldn't have been invited. Lots of terrible scholars (and non-scholars) speak at campuses. And it's possible for someone to be culturally relevant and have a view of interest to political science students and others while still being very bad at arguing and having bad data, because their work has had some sort of significance to the polity. I'd say he's in such a category.
In the end I think everything happened as it should, up to the point at which violence became physical. The AEI students had a right to invite, the professor and school had a right to schedule the program, the student body had a right to protest, and the shouting down made his unwelcomeness very clear, and they had a backup plan. It's too bad the violence happened, because now it's all people focus on and it's become a flashpoint. Had it just been a very successful peaceful protest I think many people would be justified in feeling satisfied that civic processes worked.
posted by Miko at 2:50 PM on April 5, 2017
Murray isn't a scholar, he's a bigot who pretends at being one. And that's the whole damn point you keep dodging - why should the academy give a unvarnished bigot a platform to speak, and thus give him legitimacy? Academic freedom doesn't work here, because the academy also routinely pushes out cranks, and nobody sees that as an attack on academic freedom. Furthermore, minority students routinely report that this sort of normalization of white supremacy causes them to feel like they cannot speak freely in academia, so it's not actually improving discourse either. So what's the justification? And no, saying that he was there about his new book doesn't fix the problem, because a) it comes from the same toxic wellspring, and b) It doesn't change that he's an unrepentant bigot.
And no, the AEI students don't have a right to invite bigots to speak, the professors shouldn't be legitimizing bigots in the academy, and minority students shouldn't have to put up with the indignity of their school hosting a man who has argued that they are genetically inferior.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:05 PM on April 5, 2017 [7 favorites]
And no, the AEI students don't have a right to invite bigots to speak, the professors shouldn't be legitimizing bigots in the academy, and minority students shouldn't have to put up with the indignity of their school hosting a man who has argued that they are genetically inferior.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:05 PM on April 5, 2017 [7 favorites]
I'm not dodging the point. I've already said that I think a college campus is a place to hear from people with a wide range of views, including terrible ones. That's part of the purpose of a college campus.
I remain troubled about the normalization and hostile-climate issues, but I can't quite go so far as to say that no people who have ever held bigoted views should ever be allowed to speak in a voluntary campus event developed by students.
As I said above, and hasn't changed, we'll probably continue disagreeing about this no matter how many bloggers who agree with you you can find. I can find them too. I just don't agree with them.
posted by Miko at 5:03 PM on April 5, 2017
I remain troubled about the normalization and hostile-climate issues, but I can't quite go so far as to say that no people who have ever held bigoted views should ever be allowed to speak in a voluntary campus event developed by students.
As I said above, and hasn't changed, we'll probably continue disagreeing about this no matter how many bloggers who agree with you you can find. I can find them too. I just don't agree with them.
posted by Miko at 5:03 PM on April 5, 2017
I'm not dodging the point. I've already said that I think a college campus is a place to hear from people with a wide range of views, including terrible ones. That's part of the purpose of a college campus.
I remain troubled about the normalization and hostile-climate issues, but I can't quite go so far as to say that no people who have ever held bigoted views should ever be allowed to speak in a voluntary campus event developed by students.
First, there's a reason why I keep putting that "unrepentant" in there. It's one thing to have someone speak that was a bigot but has since repudiated those views. It is something entirely different to invite a flagbearer for white supremacy to speak.
Second, we've already established that while the academy is a place for a wide range of views, this does not mean that it is a place for every view under the sun - that the academy does, in fact, have a role as gatekeeper. As such, the argument that "but people should hear from a wide range of views" is not an answer to "why should the academy give a platform - and thus legitimacy - to an unrepentant bigot?"
Finally, you keep saying that you're concerned about the normalization of white supremacy and the creation of hostile environments on campus. You're just not concerned enough to do anything about it. Because the simple point is that the way you stop that normalization, you stop that hostile environment from forming is to make it unacceptable. And it shouldn't be on the heads of minorities and the dispossessed to have to constantly fight that argument through protest - we need to be fucking backing them up by saying that their humanity is not up for discussion. When we tell them to just accept polite hate in the name of "academic freedom", we demean and diminish the concept - and ourselves.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:55 PM on April 5, 2017
I remain troubled about the normalization and hostile-climate issues, but I can't quite go so far as to say that no people who have ever held bigoted views should ever be allowed to speak in a voluntary campus event developed by students.
First, there's a reason why I keep putting that "unrepentant" in there. It's one thing to have someone speak that was a bigot but has since repudiated those views. It is something entirely different to invite a flagbearer for white supremacy to speak.
Second, we've already established that while the academy is a place for a wide range of views, this does not mean that it is a place for every view under the sun - that the academy does, in fact, have a role as gatekeeper. As such, the argument that "but people should hear from a wide range of views" is not an answer to "why should the academy give a platform - and thus legitimacy - to an unrepentant bigot?"
Finally, you keep saying that you're concerned about the normalization of white supremacy and the creation of hostile environments on campus. You're just not concerned enough to do anything about it. Because the simple point is that the way you stop that normalization, you stop that hostile environment from forming is to make it unacceptable. And it shouldn't be on the heads of minorities and the dispossessed to have to constantly fight that argument through protest - we need to be fucking backing them up by saying that their humanity is not up for discussion. When we tell them to just accept polite hate in the name of "academic freedom", we demean and diminish the concept - and ourselves.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:55 PM on April 5, 2017
You're just not concerned enough to do anything about it
Not against the values I feel are also at stake.
the way you stop that normalization, you stop that hostile environment from forming is to make it unacceptable
History, including quite recent history, argues against this.
I'm sure we're boring everyone by now. You are welcome to beat on me by MeMail if it continues to be important to you.
posted by Miko at 5:57 PM on April 5, 2017
Not against the values I feel are also at stake.
the way you stop that normalization, you stop that hostile environment from forming is to make it unacceptable
History, including quite recent history, argues against this.
I'm sure we're boring everyone by now. You are welcome to beat on me by MeMail if it continues to be important to you.
posted by Miko at 5:57 PM on April 5, 2017
To clarify because my meaning is not explicit in the above, there is plenty to do about it, but stil without compromising the values I feel are also at stake.
posted by Miko at 6:03 PM on April 5, 2017
posted by Miko at 6:03 PM on April 5, 2017
And what values are those? An "academic freedom" that includes bigotry and hate? That allows an adjunct arm of a wingnut welfare concern in the business of retreading disgraced scholars to use the academy to give them the imprimatur of legitimacy? You'll pardon me if I don't see that as a value worth defending. As I keep saying in thread after thread, when you allow a principle to become a defense of hate and abuse, you should not be surprised when others no longer see it as legitimate. When you say that the academy should allow and even give its imprimatur to a debate with an unrepentant bigot for the sake of "academic freedom", you shouldn't be surprised when the takeaway for a lot of people is that sort of academic freedom isn't worth defending, if it's going to legitimize bigotry as a "topic of discussion".
(And no, I don't see these AEI groups as the same as other student groups - they get their marching orders from the main organization, and exist purely as recruiting tools. So if they want to invite bigots to hear from, they're more than welcome to do so - on the AEI's dime, and without the imprimatur of the school.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:53 PM on April 5, 2017
(And no, I don't see these AEI groups as the same as other student groups - they get their marching orders from the main organization, and exist purely as recruiting tools. So if they want to invite bigots to hear from, they're more than welcome to do so - on the AEI's dime, and without the imprimatur of the school.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:53 PM on April 5, 2017
And what values are those?
Again, I'm available via MeMail if you care to give it a try, though I don't think there's anything new to say and at this point I am not highly motivated to engage in patient interchange because I am not optimistic it will be productive. We don't agree on this, and I'm fine leaving it there. I know many people don't agree with me on issues like these, but don't take that to mean that I just haven't had the right amount of arguing in my life.
posted by Miko at 6:59 PM on April 5, 2017
Again, I'm available via MeMail if you care to give it a try, though I don't think there's anything new to say and at this point I am not highly motivated to engage in patient interchange because I am not optimistic it will be productive. We don't agree on this, and I'm fine leaving it there. I know many people don't agree with me on issues like these, but don't take that to mean that I just haven't had the right amount of arguing in my life.
posted by Miko at 6:59 PM on April 5, 2017
This keeps popping up at or near the top of my recent activity, and for what it's worth, I must madly disagree with Miko's
> I think a college campus is a place to hear from people with a wide range of views, including terrible ones. That's part of the purpose of a college campus.
because not all views have academic legitimacy, and not all views SHOULD have academic legitimacy. Murray's pretend Bell Curve science has been refuted endlessly over the decades, and his more recent "well, not really science but here are my thoughts, legit them plz" should not be entertained either. He's a bullshit artist and to treat him otherwise is gross.
posted by rtha at 8:48 PM on April 5, 2017 [8 favorites]
> I think a college campus is a place to hear from people with a wide range of views, including terrible ones. That's part of the purpose of a college campus.
because not all views have academic legitimacy, and not all views SHOULD have academic legitimacy. Murray's pretend Bell Curve science has been refuted endlessly over the decades, and his more recent "well, not really science but here are my thoughts, legit them plz" should not be entertained either. He's a bullshit artist and to treat him otherwise is gross.
posted by rtha at 8:48 PM on April 5, 2017 [8 favorites]
I don't think it's his bad science that makes him interesting from the politIcal angle. As one of the pieces I linked long ago described, that aspect of him is easy to take down. But the relevance of his views and the influence of his (and similar others') rhetoric to current events and attitudes is undeniable.
posted by Miko at 5:34 AM on April 6, 2017
posted by Miko at 5:34 AM on April 6, 2017
He's "relevant" because he's a longstanding flagbearer for white supremacy, and "influential" because he's been at the lead of the movement to give white supremacy a varnish of scientific legitimacy through eugenics cloaked as genetics. Neither are any sort of grounds for the academy to give him legitimacy.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:09 AM on April 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:09 AM on April 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
He's "relevant" because he's a longstanding flagbearer for white supremacy, and "influential" because he's been at the lead of the movement to give white supremacy a varnish of scientific legitimacy through eugenics cloaked as genetics
Yes, indeed. Two longstanding strains of American thought that have not only gone away despite efforts to ignore and suppress them, but are currently resurgent and a powerful force influencing contemporary political life. Odious views indeed. Yet views that are, in some quarters, ascendant - views that are influencing students' and others' lives on and off campus, views that need open, public challenge and criticism.
One reason campuses are a good place for this sort of idea to be aired is that, unlike the rest of the world, campuses provide the best possible tools for informatively contextualizing these views. As the piece linked (far) above notes, professors can situate these views in a historical timeline, surface their weaknesses, assign readings and reflections that complicate these views, put students inclined to endorse them on the back foot to support the views using strong evidence, provide venues such as campus student groups and student papers for further unpacking and discussion, generate research questions and further scholarship, and so on.
My perspective on public expression is informed by many life experiences, but I was reflecting that an important one among them was that my undergraduate years took place in the late 80s/early 90s, time of the culture wars/sex wars, when my peers and I were often on the other end of the pressure to limit student/faculty freedoms to invite speakers or express unpopular views. At that time, students were having these debates over speakers like Andrea Dworkin, Camille Paglia, Gloria Steinem, Naomi Wolf - as well as the likes of Newt Gingrich, William Bennet, Oliver North.
I am for vociferous protest and aggressive challenge to odious views. But it's likely I will continue to support the views of the American Association of University Professors:
Yes, indeed. Two longstanding strains of American thought that have not only gone away despite efforts to ignore and suppress them, but are currently resurgent and a powerful force influencing contemporary political life. Odious views indeed. Yet views that are, in some quarters, ascendant - views that are influencing students' and others' lives on and off campus, views that need open, public challenge and criticism.
One reason campuses are a good place for this sort of idea to be aired is that, unlike the rest of the world, campuses provide the best possible tools for informatively contextualizing these views. As the piece linked (far) above notes, professors can situate these views in a historical timeline, surface their weaknesses, assign readings and reflections that complicate these views, put students inclined to endorse them on the back foot to support the views using strong evidence, provide venues such as campus student groups and student papers for further unpacking and discussion, generate research questions and further scholarship, and so on.
My perspective on public expression is informed by many life experiences, but I was reflecting that an important one among them was that my undergraduate years took place in the late 80s/early 90s, time of the culture wars/sex wars, when my peers and I were often on the other end of the pressure to limit student/faculty freedoms to invite speakers or express unpopular views. At that time, students were having these debates over speakers like Andrea Dworkin, Camille Paglia, Gloria Steinem, Naomi Wolf - as well as the likes of Newt Gingrich, William Bennet, Oliver North.
I am for vociferous protest and aggressive challenge to odious views. But it's likely I will continue to support the views of the American Association of University Professors:
Since its founding, the American Association of University Professors has been concerned with infringements of academic freedom when colleges interfere with invited speakers. The first time the AAUP seems to have addressed the problem categorically, however, was through a resolution adopted fifty years ago by the annual meeting. The Association took action after the House of Representatives Un-American Activities Committee issued a list of "radical and/or revolutionary speakers" and colleges and universities repeatedly canceled their appearances. The 1957 annual meeting resolution, asserting that "it is educationally desirable that students be confronted with diverse opinions of all kinds," held that "any person who is presented by a recognized student or faculty organization should be allowed to speak on a college or university campus."posted by Miko at 7:51 AM on April 6, 2017
For more, here is the Newseum on legal and constitutional issues relating to campus speakers.
One reason campuses are a good place for this sort of idea to be aired is that, unlike the rest of the world, campuses provide the best possible tools for informatively contextualizing these views. As the piece linked (far) above notes, professors can situate these views in a historical timeline, surface their weaknesses, assign readings and reflections that complicate these views, put students inclined to endorse them on the back foot to support the views using strong evidence, provide venues such as campus student groups and student papers for further unpacking and discussion, generate research questions and further scholarship, and so on.
Racism is not a logic-based argument but an emotional one. It isn't a problem to be be solved academically, and convincing people who have adopted emotional arguments that their fellow human beings are inferior that they are wrong is unlikely to happen solely through scholarship. Historically speaking, very, very few colleges have put in the effort that you're describing with classes and extensive education intended to evoke empathy unless students are being physically attacked.
Grant racists a public airing of their views isn't desirable for many reasons. Human beings have tribal tendencies and are prone to delineating self-defined groups to which they belong, as well as othering rather than empathizing with outsiders. We live in a world defined by competition and are often receptive to arguments that we are either being treated unfairly or deceptively by others.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Offering a microphone to racists won't necessarily result in racism being challenged and lessened. It might very well make things worse for targeted minority students, whose harassers will empathize with their own, rather than the minority. That has happened before on college campuses. Ask Jewish students who have attended large colleges here in the US if antisemitic opinions should be given a "fair" hearing on their campuses. Minority groups rightfully have more to fear from the spread of racism against them in an enclosed environment.
posted by zarq at 8:19 AM on April 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
Racism is not a logic-based argument but an emotional one. It isn't a problem to be be solved academically, and convincing people who have adopted emotional arguments that their fellow human beings are inferior that they are wrong is unlikely to happen solely through scholarship. Historically speaking, very, very few colleges have put in the effort that you're describing with classes and extensive education intended to evoke empathy unless students are being physically attacked.
Grant racists a public airing of their views isn't desirable for many reasons. Human beings have tribal tendencies and are prone to delineating self-defined groups to which they belong, as well as othering rather than empathizing with outsiders. We live in a world defined by competition and are often receptive to arguments that we are either being treated unfairly or deceptively by others.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Offering a microphone to racists won't necessarily result in racism being challenged and lessened. It might very well make things worse for targeted minority students, whose harassers will empathize with their own, rather than the minority. That has happened before on college campuses. Ask Jewish students who have attended large colleges here in the US if antisemitic opinions should be given a "fair" hearing on their campuses. Minority groups rightfully have more to fear from the spread of racism against them in an enclosed environment.
posted by zarq at 8:19 AM on April 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
Two longstanding strains of American thought that have not only gone away despite efforts to ignore and suppress them, but are currently resurgent and a powerful force influencing contemporary political life. Odious views indeed. Yet views that are, in some quarters, ascendant - views that are influencing students' and others' lives on and off campus, views that need open, public challenge and criticism.
I'm only in my 40s, but I don't remember a time when white supremacy and its supposed genetic bases didn't get far more "open, public challenge and criticism" than "efforts to ignore and suppress them".
posted by Etrigan at 8:22 AM on April 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
I'm only in my 40s, but I don't remember a time when white supremacy and its supposed genetic bases didn't get far more "open, public challenge and criticism" than "efforts to ignore and suppress them".
posted by Etrigan at 8:22 AM on April 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
Can we please stop with the argument that people oppose bigotry and hate because it's an unpopular view? It's an argument that has no basis in reality - if anything, opposition is driven by it being popular. It's a dishonest argument that covers up why people are opposed to bigotry and hate, and just provides cover for the bigots to claim that they're the ones being oppressed.
And the AAUP position is a naive one, because it assumes good faith by student groups, which is something that it's hard to argue that an organization like AEI, which is in the business of rehabilitating the reputations of disgraced "scholars", is engaged in.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:04 AM on April 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
And the AAUP position is a naive one, because it assumes good faith by student groups, which is something that it's hard to argue that an organization like AEI, which is in the business of rehabilitating the reputations of disgraced "scholars", is engaged in.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:04 AM on April 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
« Older There is nothing illusory in this tiny heaven. | I'm a groan woman! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Or, you know, what the Middlebury faculty said in an open letter to the college president before all this shit went down.
posted by hydropsyche at 8:01 AM on March 7, 2017 [51 favorites]