Is it Andrew Sullivan?.
And what I saw on the video struck me most as a form of religious ritual — a secular exorcism, if you will — that reaches a frenzied, disturbing catharsis. When Murray starts to speak, the students stand and ritually turn their backs on him in silence. The heretic must not be looked at, let alone engaged. Then they recite a common liturgy in unison from sheets of paper. Here’s how they begin: “This is not respectful discourse, or a debate about free speech. These are not ideas that can be fairly debated, it is not ‘representative’ of the other side to give a platform to such dangerous ideologies. There is not a potential for an equal exchange of ideas.” They never specify which of Murray’s ideas they are referring to. Nor do they explain why a lecture on a recent book about social inequality cannot be a “respectful discourse.” The speaker is open to questions and there is a faculty member onstage to engage him afterward. She came prepared with tough questions forwarded from specialists in the field. And yet: “We … cannot engage fully with Charles Murray, while he is known for readily quoting himself. Because of that, we see this talk as hate speech.” They know this before a single word of the speech has been spoken.
Or is Sullivan’s apocalyptic rhetoric just another example of the sort of outrage politics that is dominating the media these days?
It is. If you really want to discuss ideas, there is no other way than discussing ideas. Attending to the difficulties of discussing them rather than the ideas themselves buys in to the difficulties of discussing them, making them largely irrelevant, stage props in a play of our political theater.
Human beings have propensities that makes them want to use piety to win social battles. Pointing this it is at least as interesting as whatever specific topics Murray was talking about.
Pointing out that there is currently a multi-valent religious war ongoing is in itself a valuable idea. That at least one of the religions claims to not be a religion is an important facet of the non-comprehension that prevents people from understanding what is felt viscerally to be the stakes.
Humans have a need to divide things into good and bad, right and wrong–and often into the good guys and the bad guys. Religion can do that, patriotism can do that, but if neither are important to you, art and/or politics can.
Conservatives who accuse leftists of being non-judgmental or valueless have it horribly backwards.
What do you think is going to stop this?
Charles Murray has been hearing this stuff for twenty years, long before Trump existed. The current trend in campus PC predates Trump as well.
If Murray had never published his chapter on race, he would inevitably run up against some other doctrine. Rob Dreher published an article about similar treatment of a doctor that has been doing transgender surgeries for decades. A leader in the industry. But the doctor said that based on a large body of clinical work that perhaps having young children transition might not be the first option doctors pursue because most of them “desist” in the desire to transition once time goes by. No matter, if you don’t want to perform radical surgery on any boy who plays with a doll you are an unperson that needs to be banned.
Pointing out that this feels like “a religion” is nice for making people on the commentariat here feel good, but it isn’t enough to figure out what to do on its own. If your a student at Middlebury what did you learn? I think most of them are going to draw the lesson Mr. Studdock does in That Hideous Strength:
“There was this element in him to which all these exhibitions of power suggested chiefly how much nicer and how much more appropriate it was, all said and done, to be a part of the N.I.C.E then an outsider.”
Charles Murray has been trying to expunge the taint of racism for twenty years. He thinks statistics, or his ex-wife, or denunciations of people he thinks are “the real racists” can do it. Charles Murray can tweet about “Hidden Figures” and claim that racism is alive and well today all he wants (even though his own statistics show it isn’t true and he said as much in The Bell Curve when explicitly states that liberal worries over racism are overblown and we should change laws to reflect that). It’s all nonsense.
Even in the article you link, Andrew Sullivan needs to let everyone know that he doesn’t want to be associated with the “untouchable” part of Murray. As if new untouchable heresies won’t be invented every day. Andrew Sullivan throws up a long list of them at the end of his article, as if praying to all the necessary saints. Andrew Sullivan thinks he can keep up with them, he can’t.
All people see there is *fear*. Charles Murray pays the danegeld, but the danes just keep asking for more.
It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: —
“We invaded you last night–we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!
It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: —
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: —
“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!”
A world where Hillary Clinton is president seems to me one where these people are more powerful, not less. Imagine if the candidate who thinks half the country is deplorable won, what confirmation bias that they are on the right side of history and anyone on the wrong side is to be crushed underfoot.
Sullivan goes on, “No one lives on Mount Olympus. Government lawyers, judges and journalists are all fallible. They are all vulnerable to bias and self-interest. But prior presidents have generally given them the benefit of the doubt. Prior presidents have assumed, absent contrary evidence, that they are motivated by professional standards, not rank partisanship.”
What % of those people do you think would denounce Murray’s work? The facts Murray presented are solid, and people can’t offer much to contradict them. But they “just know” that there is no IQ gap. They “just know” that the null hypothesis in education isn’t true. Etc, etc. Why wouldn’t Trump assume they are rank partisans peddling alternative facts? That’s what most of them would say Charles Murray is doing in his own work.
People need to think harder about what is going on and come up with solutions that are likely to work. Vague appeals to the value of free speech haven’t worked. Libertarians just don’t understand real human beings.
I figured the dumbest thing about protesting Charles Murray is they made more famous than say 1 year ago. These protest were the best thing to happen to Mr. Murray.
1) In California, I have had less race discussions with my (white) kids than my parents did in the 1970s and 1980s. Why? Because their childhood reality is multiculturalism and they have friends from all races because that is their classmates. I bet my kids are more comfortable with a multicultural classroom than the ones I was in 1977 most segregated. At this point, I think it better Affirmative Action is rolled back.
2) I do believe the forces of Bell Curve of 1990 have turned around against the WWC rural communities. So far we are still hearing the these communities are suffering from bad trade deals and illegal immigration not that are making bad choices. (OK there is Kevin Williamson…But I suspect these communities have had enormous brain drain as well.)
3) I do find interesting that ‘Prez’ Steve Bannon has complained about ‘Silicon Valley diversity,’ in which he dislikes the Asian-American participation in that economy. (Most Asian-Americans I know think the whole race debate stupid.)
I wouldn’t assume Charles Murray would relish being famous for being racist.
“Most Asian-Americans I know think the whole race debate stupid.”
Most of the Asians I know think that too, because they wonder why one would ever not be wildly racist.
Steve King is popular in Iowa…Donald Trump won the Presidency with a VERY angry campaign against (illegal) immigrants. (Like a lot of Californians we believe a heavy hating on illegal immigrants is a ‘safer’ way of complaining about the high Hispanic populations in our fair state.) Also, I don’t blame African-American for disliking Charles Murray either but I recommend not protesting him.
Realize Donald Trump almost won Minnesota (!) and he rallied heavily against the mostly legal Somalian immigrants in the Twin Cities. (I lived there 6 years.)
Finally, any viewing of any California State University dating scene will end all race based analysis in few generations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKnTfl5C2bM
This is what kids learn in children movies. At the end of the movie its revealed that in fact there is no biological difference, a disgruntled mammal (white person) is shooting predators with a serum to make them act badly. If we can only overcome our racist fear, we can live in Zootopia.
If you’re raised on this, is Charles Murray not the bad guy? Only by renouncing biology (truth) can you be a good person. You also need to run society on the basis of these untruths, which predictably fails. And if you have to lie about one truth, why not others.
I remember the joke about Zootopia: It is just like Crash (2005) but for kids! Although Zootopia is much better.
Remember with Hollywood animated movies today: They gross Foreign Grosses 2 ($682M): North American Grosses 1 ($341)! So maybe Hollywood goal to brainwash the rest of the world that the US is a colorblind soceity!
(Ok this one is ridiculously close to the 2:1)
I am not so sure that having religious beliefs about the subject is bad.
And you can never be certain about these things anyway.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/opinion/are-we-raising-racists.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0
Are We Raising Racists?
The consequences are serious. When we don’t talk honestly with white children about racism, they become more likely to disbelieve or discount their peers when they report experiencing racism. “But we’re all equal” becomes a rote response that actually blocks white children from recognizing or taking seriously racism when they see it or hear about it. This is at best.
At worst, the consequences are akin to what happens when you breathe in polluted air. Not realizing the pollution is there doesn’t mean it doesn’t affect you. White children are exposed to racism daily. If we parents don’t point it out, show how it works and teach why it is false, over time our children are more likely to accept racist messages at face value. When they see racial inequality — when the only doctors or teachers they see are white, or fewer kids in accelerated classes are black, for example — they won’t blame racism. Instead, they’ll blame people of color for somehow falling short.
…
For example, I’ve tried to go beyond the abstract “be kind to everyone” to encourage my children to recognize racial meanness and understand that white kids have a particular responsibility to challenge racism. These are necessary skills when the racism emboldened by this administration shows up in the world.
We raised people to believe disparate impact = racism. Racism that white people are personally responsible for and have a duty to fight zealously. Young children are instructed in this message before they even understand it. What do you think happens to those kids when they grow up? They protest Charles Murray.
When they see racial inequality — when the only doctors or teachers they see are white, or fewer kids in accelerated classes are black, for example — they won’t blame racism. Instead, they’ll blame people of color for somehow falling short.
Well, there’s the question. How come “fewer kids in accelerated classes are black”? Is it white racism, directly or indirectly (e.g., “white privilege”)? Is it problems in the way black people grow up (e.g., too many kids growing up without fathers, too few parents who value school)? Is it a lower average level of intelligence or executive function or something else that you’re largely stuck with at birth?
Of course, if it can’t be genetic and you can’t “blame the victim”, it has to be the first. But I have long wondered how America’s pervasive racism is so good at keeping blacks and hispanics down but doesn’t have nearly the same effect on Asians. And indeed how all the European immigrants who weren’t considered really white–the Italians and Slavs and, oh my god, even the Irish–managed to be successful.
It’s not really a question though. As Murray proved in The Bell Curve, which drew on an incredible level of source data, genetics accounts for at least 40-80% of IQ heritability and the BW gap is relatively stable across parental SES and other factors.
To be diplomatic Murray then raised his hands to the sky and said “hey, its less then 100%, so I guess you can believe whatever you want to believe.”
That isn’t true though, because even if you pick the low end of that range disparate impact is going to be with us for life, and there aren’t going to be “enough” black doctors. Murray even tried to make a specific point about how the tails of the bell curve are where the differences show up the most.
Murray then went on to make his case against disparate impact and affirmative action based on that data, which makes his claims that “believing genetics plays a roll doesn’t automatically mean you need to believe in a particular policy prescription” a contradiction.
I guess you could continue to support it on the grounds that its ok to have generation after generation of un-meritious sorting to achieve political objectives, but if you state it bluntly like that it seems like an awfully stupid policy that is unfair to a lot of people with no end goal in sight.
Probably a more cynical way to spin it is, “we buy off a racial interest group with giveaways to forward our own politics and you people are too afraid of being called racists to stop it.” As buying off that political group gets to have more and more of a payoff at the ballot box via demographics, expect it to get more and more cynical.
If blacks fall behind, why don’t they just catch them up?
asdf;
I observe on TV (esp. in the advertising) a disproportionate representation of minorities. And we have an awful lot of white males who believe that they were denied a job or a promotion because of Affirmative Action’s pressures. (Indeed, any corporation that doesn’t discriminate in favor of “protected classes” — and hence against unprotected ones — hasn’t paid attention to the statistical requirements imposed by a doctrine of disparate impact.)
Unless you believe in hereditary racial guilt, you should reconsider whether the present approval of your friends outweighs the future of your children.
What’s your definition of “religion”, and how important is that definition here?
We’re clearly looking at an ideology that proscribes a set of objective testable claims as not merely false, but morally anathema and punishable to believe. Perhaps not all anti-heresy sects are religions and not all religions are anti-heresy sects, but if a group is definitely in the “anti-heresy sect” category then it feels silly to debate which of the less-hurtful typical attributes of religions it does or doesn’t share as well.
SJWs are out of control.
For my money, Peter Thiel is the winner. But maybe Charles Murray can pull a Trumpian victory, but that is only if he wants to. Is willing to, and is able to.
The interesting question, for me, is how many other people with unpopular ideas like Murray have learned from his treatment, and countless other similar incidents, to just keep their mouths shut, and what have we lost as a result.
That is an analysis that works until it doesn’t. Early on (1400AD?) you can tamp down criticism about indulgences by making people afraid to criticize indulgences. But it is hard to arrange for only the critics to know about this policy, so in practice you tend to create an environment in which most people know that potential critics are generally silenced by their fear of criticizing indulgences. In such an environment, if you ever lose the ability to stamp out essentially all criticism — e.g,. as critics learn to take advantage of cheap printing technology, and literacy spreads — any bit of effective criticism that you failed to suppress hits like a truck because everyone knows that it was something that everyone was afraid to say.
Charles de Gaulle once said of FDR and his post-war plans for Europe: “his idealism masks a will to power.” So it is with our campus crusaders.
At what point do the brown shirts step in?
I think they already did.
Middlebury being just the latest example.
Cant say that I care very much what a bunch of 20 y/o kids are doing on a campus.
Steve
Those 20 year olds will be running the country here in a few years.
See if this sounds familiar. The college kids in this observation went on to be the very efficient bureaucrats who implemented the Final Solution.
“In the decade preceding the First World War Germany, the country most advanced on the path toward bureaucratic regimentation, witnessed the appearance of a phenomenon hitherto unheard of: the youth movement. Turbulent gangs of untidy boys and girls roamed the country, making much noise and shirking their school lessons. In bombastic words they announced the gospel of a golden age. All preceding generations, they emphasized, were simply idiotic; their incapacity has converted the earth into a hell. But the rising generation is no longer willing to endure gerontocracy, the supremacy of impotent and imbecile senility. Henceforth the brilliant youths will rule. They will destroy everything that is old and useless, they will reject all that was dear to their parents, they will substitute new real and substantial values and ideologies for the antiquated and false ones of capitalist and bourgeois civilization, and they will build a new society of giants and supermen.
“The inflated verbiage of these adolescents was only a poor disguise for their lack of any ideas and of any definite program. They had nothing to say but this: We are young and therefore chosen; we are ingenious because we are young; we are the carriers of the future; we are the deadly foes of the rotten bourgeois and Philistines. And if somebody was not afraid to ask them what their plans were, they knew only one answer: Our leaders will solve all problems.
“It has always been the task of the new generation to provoke changes. But the characteristic feature of the youth movement was that they had neither new ideas nor plans. They called their action the youth movement precisely because they lacked any program which they could use to give a name to their endeavors. In fact they espoused entirely the program of their parents. They did not oppose the trend toward government omnipotence and bureaucratization. Their revolutionary radicalism was nothing but the impudence of the years between boyhood and manhood; it was a phenomenon of a protracted puberty. It was void of any ideological content.
“The chiefs of the youth movement were mentally unbalanced neurotics. Many of them were affected by a morbid sexuality, they were either profligate or homosexual. None of them excelled in any field of activity or contributed anything to human progress. Their names are long since forgotten; the only trace they left were some books and poems preaching sexual perversity. But the bulk of their followers were quite different. They had one aim only: to get a job as soon as possible with the government. Those who were not killed in the wars and revolutions are today pedantic and timid bureaucrats in the innumerable offices of the German Zwangswirtschaft. They are obedient and faithful slaves of Hitler. But they will be no less obedient and faithful handy men of Hitler’s successor, whether he is a German nationalist or a puppet of Stalin.”
von Mises, Ludwig (1945). Bureaucracy