mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
campus speech wars
A Campus Free Speech Case Study Emerges In Vermont
Features Icon
show comments
  • lukelea

    How did we ever get to this point?

    • Makaden

      Cue Peter Berger and the pluralization of worldviews as part of cultural globalization. And Roland Robertson. And Peter Beyer. All the cultural globalization theorists have been charting and theorizing about this since the mid nineties. And for the most part, they were spot on in their predictions–which is remarkable for sociology.

    • ვეფხისტყაოსანი

      It has long been a cliche that Republicans think Democrats are stupid — and Democrats think Republicans are evil. Since real evil is difficult to fight (especially when the only weapons one is willing to use are hashtags and drones) and hard to bear, it feels much better to elevate disagreement to the status of Pure Evil and fight it as one of the self-named Righteous.

      Really, the wars of religion never stopped ….

    • Jim__L

      Because the Left was allowed to take over academia.

      Is it really that mysterious?

  • WigWag

    Any student who interrupts Murray’s lecture should be suspended for the rest of the semester. Any faculty member who interrupts should be fired.

    By the way, Murray’s book was prescient in predicting the Trump phenomenon, but Murray himself was vitriolic in his criticism of the Trump candidacy.

    • Pait

      Why stop at suspension? People who disagree with you should be sent to prison at the very least, don’t you think?

      • WigWag

        No, the punishment should suit the infraction. Suspension will do.

      • Makaden

        Disingenuous. Disagreement and chaotic disruption aren’t the same. But you are a troll, so why bother with the meaning of things?

        • Jim__L

          He’s not even a particularly funny or creative troll. I mean, that comment there could have been made by a 7th grader in a school debate.

      • Enemy Leopard

        And people who cut me off should be executed by firing squad, because in the world of your second-rate trolling there are no gradations in the severity of offenses.

        • Pait

          I think you missed a little irony…

  • FriendlyGoat

    Charles Murray is not Milo. He will prove that in his talk, I imagine.

    • Jim__L

      He’s not George Takei either, for which we can all be very thankful.

  • Pait

    This is not a good comparison: Murray is a pseudo-scientist, while Chomsky is a serious and respected scientist. From the scientific point of view, Chomsky has earned a right to be heard; while endorsing Murray’s work as scientific is ridiculous.

    From the point of view of freedom of speech, of course both have the right to speak, and the public has the right to hear them, although in politics both sound like stopped clocks which may sometimes be right and mostly speak nonsense.

    • Thom Burnett

      I hope you’re being sarcastic but Chomsky has been a nut for decades. He is not respected by anyone who has read his recent works.

      • Pait

        His scientific work is solid and respected. That remains true regardless of his politics.

        I find his political opinions nonsense. My opinion doesn’t change though he may occasionally say something correct. But it’s a question of opinion – we’re all entitled to our own.

        • Josephbleau

          His natural language theory has been thoroughly discredited, innate language acquisition is now considered a quaint notion by Pinker et al. But Science advances one funeral at a time so he still has the floor until the deck is cleared.

          • Pait

            It is not true that his theory has been discredited. It is true that there is a growing amount of doubt about it. It is also true that the scientific contribution was relevant at that time – we don’t ignore Newton’s work because it has been superseded by new physics.

  • Gugliemus

    Nicely done, Mr. Cohen. We do not have a “right” not to be offended by speech. In fact, we actually have an obligation to listen to views expressed by those with whom we think we disagree. Free speech without listeners is a bit like books without readers. What is the point?

  • Beauceron

    “Our view is that if we stand for anything, it’s the free exchange of ideas.”
    It’s a nice sentiment, but I don’t think anyone seriously associates the free exchange of ideas with universities these days.

    • Makaden

      Insofar as the president indicated she will support the right of the speaker to speak and to be present at the lecture to hear, she, and her university, are supporting the free exchange of ideas. Credit where credit is due, even if it is small.

  • Humility

    Any prospective student should consider carefully what his/her expectations are from this institution of learning. If you do not fit their preferred demographic, you may want to go elsewhere.

  • Linda Seebach

    The thesis of Murray and Herrstein’s “The Bell Curve” is that individually measured IQ is a better predictor of life outcomes (good or bad) than family socioeconomic status, and that this thesis is equally true for blacks and whites. Cohen would know that if he’d ever read it, rather than parroting the caricature of his work popular among leftist critics. M&H had no need to prove (let alone “purport to prove”) that average IQ for American blacks is lower than for American whites; it’s irrelevant to their thesis, and moreover it was already well established (however unpalatable) and had been for decade before they wrote their book.

    • Ofer Imanuel

      I would add one small correction – The MAIN thesis of Murray and Hernstein’s …
      Also, the book also looks into intelligence measure of east Asians, and mentions that for math and spatial measurements, they are half a standard deviation (i.e. 107 to 100) higher that whites, while slightly less on language. In other words, Murray did not present whites as the best racially.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service