The CSLD’s Disinvited Dinner is an effort to re-offer a podium to individuals whose First Amendment rights have been abridged elsewhere. In other words, this is an exercise in applied First Amendment theory. While we may disagree with the content of our speakers’ talks, that is no matter. With this dinner we celebrate and affirm First Amendment principles, the importance and meaning of academic freedom, and the search for Truth.I like the idea of the University of Wisconsin distinguishing itself by showing a commitment to intellectual diversity and to the values that underlie the First Amendment. That doesn't mean students and others who don't like what Murray has to say must refrain from staging their own events, only that they shouldn't use their own speech and action to obstruct the people who do want to hear him. The "applied exercise" in First Amendment theory isn't just about Murray having a podium. (Give him a podium, and a lectern too.) It's also about the people who choose to "celebrate" by sitting politely through dinner in a somewhat posh club and the people who don't want to do that or can't attend an event that is "$50 by invitation only" (whatever that means).
The keynote speaker at our first annual Disinvited Dinner will be Dr. Charles Murray, the W. H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, whose 1994 New York Times bestseller The Bell Curve (1994) sparked heated controversy for its analysis of the role of IQ in shaping America’s class structure. Dr. Murray’s other books include What It Means to Be a Libertarian (1997), Human Accomplishment (2003), In Our Hands (2006), Real Education (2008), and the New York Times bestseller Coming Apart (2012).
Dr. Murray has the honor of being disinvited from Azusa University in 2014, and Virginia Tech in 2016. More recently a mob of leftist activists drove him from the stage at Middlebury College and put a political science professor in the hospital in so doing. Although our invitation to Dr. Murray long preceded this ugly event, it nevertheless underscores the principle we are pursuing. During our dinner, Dr. Murray will deliver a talk called "Coming Apart: Trump’s Transformation of the Right."
For those who do attend, is it really possible to celebrate the First Amendment and not also the speaker? It seems to me that by attending an event in such an elegant setting, where only one person is speaking, you are inherently honoring the individual, unless you violate the social norms of an sedate dinner. You can find out about the person's ideas by reading his books and articles or by looking at on-line video of his speaking. We're not living in a time when we must see someone in in the flesh to know what he has to say. Of all the people you might take the trouble to go out and hear speak in person, should you prioritize those who've been hooted out of other places? I think the honest answer is: Yes, but only if I also want to give support to his ideas. And what about people who just don't get invited anywhere, like those Westboro Church folks or out-and-proud Nazis? They won't get an invitation to the Disinvited Dinner, but if they did, can you imagine sitting through a dinner where they were going to speak and thinking of yourself as merely celebrating the idea of the First Amendment?
For those who don't attend and who might want to oppose Charles Murray, I have 3 recommendations: 1. Educate yourself about what he actually has said so you don't hurt your own cause by saying and doing ignorant things or waste your time by fighting things you're not even against, 2. Don't help your opponent by committing or threatening acts of violence that make him seem like a sympathetic victim or a cool rebel, and 3. Don't lower yourself by looking like a mob. Use words. Good words. If you can't think of any, reread point #2 and consider doing nothing.
Posts
112 comments:
I can already here it....."Mic Check!"
So, Anne, what are your predictions of whether or not Murray will actually get to speak?
I would guess it is 50/50.
Sorry, I am so used to writing "Anne" rather than "Ann".
The Bell Curve is a sound work. The protesters either a)do not like its data; or b) haven't read it.
No, I don't think you only go to hear Charles Murray or any other speaker because you already agree with him. In fact, you should be more eager to hear a speaker with whom you are NOT familiar, than one who has already persuaded you.
Under present circumstances, you might go to hear Murray because you aren't familiar with his work and are interested in hearing what he has to say (and don't want to have to slog through The Bell Curve). Or, you might want to hear him to honor him or his work or to identify with them; just as I went to hear speeches by Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan.
Or, particularly in this case, you might want to go to this function to honor the ideal of free speech, which has been dishonored by opponents of Murray's ideas (and those of others). That would be a particularly good reason for @Althouse to attend.
Who are these gentle souls who might listen to your recommendations?
Better prepare a lot of safe spaces and lollipops.
I read "The Bell Curve" when it came out over 20 years ago. It was a little boring because he quoted so many research articles that I read in Grad school (e.g., Frank Schmitt and John Hunter). The research was overwhelmingly supported by data and the researchers he cited were the best in the field. One might debate his conclusions, but that is always the case in discussing the implications of empirical scientific research.
I doubt that the protesting students and their instigating SJW professors have read the book or have much knowledge of the research Herrnstein & Murray cited.
In this way Fascism and anti-intellectualism is born. We are dealing with a cult, not rational humans.
"No, I don't think you only go to hear Charles Murray or any other speaker because you already agree with him."
Straw man.
That's not what I said. I said it shows some support for the speaker and cannot be limited merely to support for the idea that speakers that other people want to hear should not be obstructed.
"In fact, you should be more eager to hear a speaker with whom you are NOT familiar, than one who has already persuaded you."
You would not go out to an entire DINNER (especially where you are paying $50) just to find out about someone you are not even familiar with.
I didn't say you'd only go out if you AGREED with him, but that you'd need some level of support for him. You would not go out to see an out-and-proud Nazi, for example, to give him a chance to persuade you, especially if it were a dinner and you'd have to sit there quietly and sedately while he spoke.
The LISTENER is part of what the First Amendment is about. You get to select what you want to spend your time listening to (or reading). It's an odd situation to be asked to sit through a lecture by someone BECAUSE he's been obstructed elsewhere. I'm against the obstruction, but I don't want to have to spend my time listening to a person JUST BECAUSE he was a victim of obstruction. And I don't believe that every obstructed speaker will get an equivalent invitation. I think Murray gets it because he's within some magic circle of elitism. He's got some status.
"Or, particularly in this case, you might want to go to this function to honor the ideal of free speech, which has been dishonored by opponents of Murray's ideas (and those of others). That would be a particularly good reason for @Althouse to attend."
I'm having a hard time picturing this kind of containment of honoring. I do feel a certain obligation to honor THE CENTER. I like the title of the event. There's something cool about it.
Suggested reading: Charles Murray's recent annotated editing to the SPLC bio on him.
I would like to see Meade suit up ala Based Stick Mam and be ready to do battle with the pro-fascist antifa types who will descend on the event under the mistake impression that the only conservative types in Madison who will attend will be a bunch of weenies.
Based Stick Man. Damn these typos.
I'm sure they will heed your wise advice.
Fifty bucks a plate certainly bends it towards a Testimonial Dinner. Unless you have the chicken a la king.
Was Milo deemed too far beyond the pale? (to use an un-PC expression)
If it is a open bar and the food is halfway decent, it would be a bargain. Go!
I would love to attend this event. Distinguished speaker, fascinating presentation, excellent dinner, AND celebrate free speech right in the face of SJWs of Madison...all for only 50 bux!? Fat chance I would get invited however. Probably have a better chance of being struck by a meteor.
"an event that is "$50 by invitation only" (whatever that means)." Prog SJWs not invited, and not allowed in.
"For those who don't attend and who might want to oppose Charles Murray, I have 3 recommendations" That's so nice of you.
"Straw man. That's not what I said. I said it shows some support for the speaker and cannot be limited merely to support for the idea that speakers that other people want to hear should not be obstructed." Hair-splitting.
Anyway, Murray has already answered the vile Bell Curve slander directed at him over the years. Racial groups do differ in intelligence, some of that difference is due to genetics (he professed himself agnostic on the extent), and regardless of its source the difference makes a great difference in a society that is increasingly cognitively stratified. The SJW campaign against him is one of the best illustrations of the fundamental dishonesty of the contemporary left.
@ Althouse: "That doesn't mean students and others who don't like what Murray has to say..."
What percentage of those student protesters will know Murray's ideas in order to like it dislike them? How many will have read his words?
I would wager less than one percent.
Bickel said: "I will wager one percent (have read Murray's ideas)
I will take you up on that offer.
I will guess that one percent of the instigating SJW professors have read Chas. Murray.
I will also guess that closer to 0.1% of his students have read Murray's original work.
This is intended to be an annual affair. Too bad, why not make it a series of speakers over a semester? Haven't there been enough disinvitees over the last couple of years to do this? Condoleezza Rice, Hirsi Ali, Ann Coulter, certainly your readers can think up a few more off the top of their heads.
Although it sounds like a nice idea, and may even be a nice idea, it's still leftist politics at its heart, which is to say it is entirely about virtue signaling. It's just that this time, they're signaling a virtue (respect for free speech) that is only newly being seen as a virtue on the left because of the bad press from Berkeley and Middlebury and other recent events.
...like or dislike...
@ Francisco D
I only mentioned students and I am taking the under.
If it's a lecture it has only one core purpose, common to all lectures:
The lecturer and the audience join in affirming a single proposition. They join in affirming that organized talking can reflect, express, delineate, protray - if not come to grips with - the real world, and that, finally, there is a real, structured, somewhat unitary world out there to comprehend. (After all, that's what distinguishes lectures from stints at the podium openly designed as entertainments.) And here, surely, we have the lecturer's real contract. Whatever his substantive domain, whatever his school of thought, and whatever his inclination to piety or impiety, he signs the same agreement and he serves the same cause: to protect us from the wind, to stand up and seriously project the assumption that through lecturing, a meaningful picture of some part of the world can be conveyed, and that the talker can have access to a picture worth conveying.
It is in this sense that every lecturer, merely by presuming to lecture before an audience, is a functionary of the cognitive establishment, actively suporting the same position: I repeat, that there is structure to the world, that this structure can be perceived and reported, and therefore, that speaking before an audience and listening to a speaker are reasonable things to be doing, and incidentally, of course, that the auspices of the occasion had warrant for making the whole thing possible.
- Erving Goffman, _Forms of Talk_, "The Lecture", p.194-195.
This however may be a new thing, not affirming that at all, but taking on only the form of a lecture, the positions, and the sound might as well be off.
Hate to be a negative slob, but this isnt a solution.
The real problem is a power imbalance in the system, where there is no scope for liberty and a culture of brainwashing. And, to add, remarkably low academic standards that are a direct result of the prevailing orthodoxy.
This can't be resolved by a charity, consolation prize event. Human systems are well understood, and the means to change them are well understood, historically. Unfortunately history doesnt yield comfortable answers.
The only real solution is destruction, replacement of the current personnel of the liberal arts academy, and the social sciences, and much else besides. The current lot are polluted beyond reconstruction, and even in much of the sciences, decadent beyond utility.
That, or the bypassing of the current education system by a different technology. The current one must be made obsolete, and its institutions and their personnel with it.
And when the self-proclaimed arbiters of permitted speech show up, and surely they will, we will then see how deep UW's commitment to free speech really goes.
I vaugely recall when colleges and universities proudly upheld the notion they were institutions who welcomed and respected the broad spectrum of all points of view. Hiding behind the First Amendnent excuse says we already know we hate you and your ideas at our institution but will let you talk at a dinner anyways.
"What percentage of those student protesters will know Murray's ideas in order to like it dislike them? How many will have read his words?"
Yep. They're throwing fits over what they were told Murray wrote.
My recommendation would be to read his work and find out what the man actually said. But that's work and would mean exposing oneself to impure ideas.
@ rehajm
Like Erdogan, Leftist Collectivists ride the democracy, free speech and liberalism train until it reaches their planned stop. Then they get off the train.
One can do much intellectual growth by listening to ideas that on the surface seem off-putting. Anyone who has a basic understanding of statistics and reality know that large samples are never homogeneous. There has to be some sort of bell curve! If Professor Althouse's worst student grade on one of her exams is an "A" there will still be a bell curve.
The path of researching why someone is wrong may lead to some interesting places.
You're talking to leftists with the emotional continence of an infant with diarrhea. The "Center for the Study of Liberal Democracy" had better have a fucking army of security.
Either way, win-win.
Either the leftists get slapped down, or they escalate their violence more and the coming reckoning grows by that much.
Intentional prevention of an individual's right to speak and another individual's right to hear what they say should be a punishable crime. There is no more basic right under our constitution.
So..how are they determining who to invite? I guess I can't be disinvited if not invited to begin with...
@ Vance
The under on students or the professors?
Or both?
Here in the South we have a saying when we don't understand or didn't hear clearly what someone just said to us..."Do what?" I imagine Madison students are saying the same thing if they read this post.
buwaya said...
Hate to be a negative slob, but this isn't a solution.
The real problem is a power imbalance in the system, where there is no scope for liberty and a culture of brainwashing.
I disagree about the brainwashing. What is happening on college campus's today and at leftist "protests" around the country is the same pattern of the left throughout history. They use the political process until they get enough power then they get of. They use the carrot of free stuff on the weak and violently assault anyone who believes in justice and freedom. If we didn't have the second amendment they would already be running around beating dissenters with the backing of the fed's now. They already have had the tacit approval of several local governments in several instances not just on campus's.
I don't think you need to brainwash people into being amoral power mad thugs. It is actually the natural state of humans without religion. I think the mistake is thinking these people here are any different than any other leftist gang of thugs.
I doubt that the protesting students and their instigating SJW professors have read the book
The question is which version of the Bell Curve did they read ?
The one by Murray or the one in their heads?
After a few cautious and thoughtful reviews, the book was excoriated by academics and popular science writers alike. A kind of grotesque mythology grew around it. It was depicted as a tome of racial antipathy; a thinly veiled expression of its authors’ bigotry; an epic scientific fraud, full of slipshod scholarship and outright lies. As hostile reviews piled up, the real Bell Curve, a sober and judiciously argued book, was eclipsed by a fictitious alternative. This fictitious Bell Curve still inspires enmity; and its surviving co-author is still caricatured as a racist, a classist, an elitist, and a white nationalist.
Myths have consequences. At Middlebury college, a crowd of disgruntled students, inspired by the fictitious Bell Curve — it is doubtful that many had bothered to read the actual book — interrupted Charles Murray’s March 2nd speech with chants of “hey, hey, ho, ho, Charles Murray has got to go,” and “racist, sexist, anti-gay, Charles Murray go away!”
With a generation of college students who don't know who won the Civil War, this is not too surprising.
@ Birkel
At those odds, I agree.
It's pretty sad. People are "educated" to have opinions without facts.
unless you violate the social norms of an sedate dinner.
Since when has the Left ever been shy about violating social norms? (or any other norms..like Reid in the Senate) Their insistence on doing so is a big reason Trump got elected.
Those who protest Murray (and other conservatives) have about as much interest in debate as the firemen in Fahrenheit 451. They have a goal, and it has literally nothing to do with learning, or education, or freedom. The goal is power. The sooner there is a realization of this, and a reckoning, the better. It may very well come to violence; indeed, it already has for one side. I don't expect that the other side will simply sit by and take it forever, but I might be wrong.
Universities have chosen this path. Administrations think it is the right way to go, but they are fools. They are playing with a bigger match than they realize when they separate their institutions from the society that supports them.
"And what about people who just don't get invited anywhere, like those Westboro Church folks or out-and-proud Nazis? They won't get an invitation to the Disinvited Dinner, but if they did, can you imagine sitting through a dinner where they were going to speak and thinking of yourself as merely celebrating the idea of the First Amendment?"
What if we attended looking at it as supporting our 2nd Amendment Rights to protect the 1st Amendment?
I am Laslo.
Hey! Did they steal this idea or is it a case of great minds thinking alike?
At Yale, the student-run William F. Buckley Society (or some such name) started an annual Disinvitation Dinner a few years ago. The only speaker I remember was Ray Kelly after the silliness at Brown that had college students in safe spaces with coloring books and puppies.
Wow, amazing -- a man with opinions with which a lot of leftists differ, actually gets invited to speak? And, there are no riots and protests?
But he preaches HATE! (Sarcasm off).
Murray published The Bell Curve over 20 years ago. In it, he hypothesized that IQ does correlate to success in life, and, as a whole, certain ethnic groups have lower IQ's than other ethnic groups.
He may be right, he may be wrong. Myself, I'm not a big enthusiast for IQ tests.
But, if published today, Murray would be lynched at most major universities by our tolerant left-wing friends. Because....HATE
Ann Althouse said...
I think Murray gets it because he's within some magic circle of elitism. He's got some status.
This is necessary but not sufficient. He get's it because his critics are so obviously lying about the content of his beliefs and because he had status some small number of people not on the right bothered to figure that out.
We will see if Murray gets to speak. I would not bet the farm on it.
Bay Area Guy said...
Wow, amazing -- a man with opinions with which a lot of leftists differ, actually gets invited to speak? And, there are no riots and protests?
--
Yet to be seen. Though..depending on who gets invited, any action/acting out might be outside the Madison Club.
(Madison Club is right off the capitol square..close to "campus".)
If by elite circle you mean serious scholars with real data, then yes he's part of an elite circle. I am surprised you would implicitly count yourself outside it.
I, for one, would go to hear an out and proud Nazi at an event like this. How do you argue against the ideas of someone you haven't listened to? Wouldn't that put you in the same position as the students? Minus the yelling and violence of course.
Is this the same Bell Curve Shockely wrote about?
So what ever happened to the the Left-wing thugs who attacked Murray and injured a Professor?
Anything? 'Cause that's what I'm more interested in.
If you really want "free speech on campus" you're going to have to start punishing left-wing fascists who want to shut down speech they dislike. And when I say punish, I mean you'll have to punish them the same way you punish people who are "racist" and "Sexist", by expelling and/or criminally prosecuting them. Do the Left-wing College Administrators have the guts or the desire to do that? Are the Alumni or the State Legislatures willing to force the issue? I doubt it.
James Smith
Why, no, not the same Bell Curve since it was written in 1994 and Shockley died in 1989. You should probably go to the lecture or have someone read the book to you.
Just FYI. The Bell Curve is not, and never was, about Race and IQ. The Left has been attacking Murray with that Strawman for over 20 years.
That people think "The Bell Curve" was about Race, or think might be about Race, simply shows that the Left is able to manipulate people a lot more than they understand.
So I guess Prof. Althouse was pretty unhappy when Harvard invited Alexander Solzhenitsyn to speak. I mean, it's fine to honor fighters against totalitarianism in the abstract, but by sitting and listening to the man, you endorse his ideas about nationalist theocracy, which I doubt Prof. Althouse would want to do.
Althouse's courage and sincerity would be more apparent if she took on tougher targets than Charles Murray.
Solzhenitsyn was right.
"You should probably go to the lecture or have someone read the book to you."
It would be too shocking to actually go listen. Better to have someone rad a Cliff Notes on the book to you.
The sly trickster play would be to wrangle an invitation and then get yourself disinvited.
Did not read "Bell Curve", but did "Coming Apart" and found it quite interesting.
After the absolute asinine behavior directed at and videotaped by Vicki McKenna outside of the Shapiro event I won't be surprised to see things get out of hand here either.
It's my understanding that Murray leads an honorable private life and that his book was written in accordance with scholarly practices. Why get so outraged? The conclusions can and should be debated, but to make of this man and his work something foul and disreputable is antithetical to the idea of a university. The most effective way of protesting the protests is by going to the dinner.......I've never read his book and don't intend to. The upside for Professor Murray is that his dry tome has probably sold a bit more than it ordinarily would have because of the protests......What is the proper way to show respect for Salman Rushdie if you think his books are boring and his personal life is tacky?
@James Smith
Have you read William Shockley or Charles Murray?
I am guessing the answer is no. You seem to have no clue.
Have you graduated high school yet?
@Althouse: Isn't the "what if it were a Nazi" response pretty stale by now?
The Bell Curve is a sound work. The protesters either a)do not like its data; or b) haven't read it.
The thing that cracks me up about that book is nearly every leftist on the internet describes it using phrases like "roundly debunked", and yet the debunkings all boil down to feels.
Francisco D
Any decent high school student would know that a dead person cannot write about a work not yet written or any book for that matter.
Sebastian said...
The SJW campaign against him is one of the best illustrations of the fundamental dishonesty of the contemporary left.
Indeed. And he should sue the ScamPLC for libel.
The CSLD’s Disinvited Dinner is an effort to re-offer a podium to individuals whose First Amendment rights have been abridged elsewhere.
Credit where it is due!
That said, I'll bet $100 that the brownshirts of UW Madison will not permit Charles Murray's presentation to be heard. Any takers? I'd be happy to entrust our hostess or her husband to hold the pot and award the winner.
Murray wrote two interesting books - The Bell Curve and Coming Apart. Coming Apart describes the condition of the working class in America today. It lays out many of the social pathologies resulting from lost jobs. The Democrats have no solution for the job problem, they don't even try; they even pride themselves on hostility to business in an era when business (and all the jobs) can up and go somewhere more welcoming. And they have made a point of trying to prevent the President from negotiating a better deal for the workers. So rather than allow Murray to explain his ideas on the the condition of the American worker - which is so bad it shames the do-nothing Democrats - those Democrats talk about Murray's other interesting book, The Bell Curve.
When the Bell Curve came out I had just started to study eugenics and the book caught my attention because it states that its main line of argument is based on "Galtonian" psychology. Galton was the founder of eugenics. I purchased, read and made notes on the book for months so please do say that I have not read it. I concluded that 40 past or (then) present members of the English or American eugenics societies contributed everything that mattered to Murray's argument. This showed (as I was then contending, and as I still say) that eugenics continued to be an unacknowledged force in society and contributed mightily to the form racism took post World War II. This racism consisted of the assertion that blacks had a genetic defect in IQ such that their average IQ was one standard deviation below that of the while average and further below the Asian average. Their alleged average was 85, the white average 100, the Asian average 106. And this genetic defect in IQ was the cause of the low place blacks hold in American society. They just aren't up to technological society. The eugenic society members included Cyril Burt, Arthur Jensen, HJ Eysenck, Chris Brand, Richard Lynn and others who less well known even then and even more forgotten now.
It is true that all the well known workers in the genetics-IQ field agreed on the argument Murray brought forward
and it's also true that they were all funded by the Pioneer Fund (except Chris Brand) and were all members of eugenics societies.
Further, they were mostly students of each other and following each other around to the same few university departments that they dominated.
The agreement in the field did not reflect a consensus reached by independent scientists but an agenda being pushed by ideologues who had a hidden nexus.
Furthermore after the year 2000 when the Human Genome Project ended it was discovered that identical twins do not necessarily have the same genome because methyl side chains which turn on and off gene expression can become attached to an individual's DNA as a result of various environmental conditions. Studies of twin IQ were used to determine how much of IQ was nature and how much nurture because it was assumed that the DNA of identical twins was the same. But the studies following the end of the Human Genome Project showed that the DNA of identical twins is not necessarily the same and this vitiates are the studies of identical twins which did not take this into account. So there is no scientific basis in 2017 for saying that we know anything about the genetic basis of IQ and its relation to race.
And Murray is not talking about race - IQ any more. He's talking about the working class in America Losing Ground. His comments on Losing Ground are being silenced by forcing all discussion to be on the Bell Curve. If I were an invited guest I might ask Murray how he relates the two arguments of the two books or if he does. I might ask him how he thinks Trump's policies will affect the situation - or whether what he is describing is a religious crisis. I have a feeling I don't agree with him on why Losing Ground is happening but the disagreement is not lying openly on the surface as it was with the Bell Curve. So if he were allowed to talk about his current book he would be interesting to me because I don't quite understand the book. And isn't that what makes a speaker interesting? - a big topic, a lot of research by a clever man and you aren't quite sure you understand what being said?
Birkel said...
@ rehajm
Like Erdogan, Leftist Collectivists ride the democracy, free speech and liberalism train until it reaches their planned stop. Then they get off the train.
**********
Yep. One man, one vote. One time.
You can tell Althouse knows that the whole "caps thing" is lame.
That's why it shows up in comments more than posts.
Weirdo, imho.
"So there is no scientific basis in 2017 for saying that we know anything about the genetic basis of IQ and its relation to race."
Sounds political to me. The distribution is the distribution.
One item of interest to me is whether the mean IQ of African blacks is the same as American. Maybe the ones who lost wars and got caught by black rulers in west Africa and sold into slavery were the ones with lower IQ. There is no question that some tribes, like the Igbo in Nigeria, do very well in math and are often employed as "Quants" in trading stocks.
It's all speculation now to me as I am unaware of systematic studies of African blacks.
Some achievement differences are cultural as my foreign black students, even those from the Caribbean who would have a slavery ancestry, do better than American blacks in medical school.
"It's all speculation now to me as I am unaware of systematic studies of African blacks.
Some achievement differences are cultural as my foreign black students, even those from the Caribbean who would have a slavery ancestry, do better than American blacks in medical school."
Doc Mike, not to get too science-y on ya, but how about separating the realization that it's unwise to make claims based only on your own anecdotes further away from your claiming certitude re achievement differences based only on your anecdotes.
Just sayin'
There are in fact some interesting studies on achievement tests taken in Britain by people of African ancestry, usefully broken down by country of origin. British blacks of course are predominantly recent immigrants straight from Africa or from the Caribbean, or their immediate descendants.
There are very large differences by national origin, and by ethnic origin. It seems that, for instance, Ibo or Igbo peoples (from Nigeria) and people from Ghana do particularly well, better than the UK white average.
Other African groups do poorly, or no better than one would expect given the usually cited population IQ.
And there are apparently great differences between the US and the UK vis-a-vis numbers in the right "tail" of black academic achievement. The UK seems to have a great number and proportion of black academic high achievers.
There is a very interesting article on this in Unz, you may want to have a look.
What the hell does liberal democracy have to do with a guy who wanted to use a useless intelligence metric to bolster outdated racial categories? Sure, he had the right to propose such a bone-headed blunder. No, it wouldn't have promoted liberal democracy. Since then he's been doing interesting work musing about UBI. But the notoriety and infamy he gained for that first trailblazing foray into reviving scientific racism is about as stupid a thing to celebrate/absolve him for as anything else. "Intellectual diversity?" The Bell Curve was neither. Good grief.
"Bell Curve" had next to zip about racially determined IQ.
Almost all of it was about the nature and significance of intelligence, its economic value, and the consequences of its increasing importance vis modern society.
Very worthwhile, also as a survey of the state of the field 20 years ago.
Very worth reading. A run-through of that is a very good start on a host of social-science matters.
So... what's going on here tonight? (Late to the thread). Should I assume we're going to hear from a bunch of lockstep reactionaries about how "race" is a natural category? Again, good grief. I remember last asking a commenter named "Fen" who maintained as much where he got the idea that humans did not cross the Sahara Desert, the Ural Mountains, and the other geographic markers between South and East Asia, as that would obviously be a strict requirement to believing that the groups on either side of these landforms lived in strict biological isolation from one another.
Conservatives are boneheads, end of story. That's why they hate going into intellectual pursuits. There are exceptions, and Murray's not even a conservative IIRC. But their whole raison d'etre is to remove barriers to unity, and being partial to conformity is their specialty.There is no more favorable way to assess a political movement claiming as its enemies the media, the academy and anything that takes issue with "alternative facts."
Hi Ritmo,
You are your old sweet self tonight.
Perhaps you would better spend your time reading some good books, or even, as we are over here right now, watching "I Dream of Jeannie". It is quite clever, more so than I remember. It is instructive really, as avtime capsule of sorts of the implications of the society it was aimed at versus today.
Who would, for instance, today, insert a good long snatch of the Rubaiat in a sitcom?
Almost all of it was about the nature and significance of intelligence -
SNIP!
Unless he came to the obvious conclusion that an intelligence "metric" (of the very sort his book relied upon) is flawed in itself, then that was the first problem of his book right there.
Whether he said IQ was racially determined or not, the book did give great weight to correlations between them. Greater than any liberal democracy can actually find useful.
Listening to him since, his heart might have been in the right place. But his head was clearly up his small government sphincter.
Hi Ritmo,
You are your old sweet self tonight.
Perhaps you would better spend your time reading some good books, or even, as we are over here right now, watching "I Dream of Jeannie". It is quite clever, more so than I remember. It is instructive really, as avtime capsule of sorts of the implications of the society it was aimed at versus today.
Who would, for instance, today, insert a good long snatch of the Rubaiat in a sitcom?
Oh, I see.
"Intellectual diversity" is great when it serves the conservative cause of playing on divisive and useless stereotypical tropes. But not when used to questions the presumptions in this particular blog's post.
Gotcha.
Much of the book was based on analysis of achievement tests and placement tests, especially the armed forces AVSAB.
Really, do read it.
I absolutely do not understand your last Ritmo.
I get that you object to something, but otherwise you are inscrutable. We Hispanic/Asians often find you white people thus.
I prefer having you summarize it to me.
I want to keep an open mind about this, but let's not pretend some things aren't a bridge too far. Will Althouse defend inviting Sarah Palin in that forum with an exposition of her book "Going Rogue?"
Maybe that would fit the objective. If it's political, and it's conservative, then it's intellectually valuable, right?
What's a Hispanic/Asian?
The blog post claimed to uphold "intellectual diversity."
I maintain that challenging the opinions in the post and in the approving comments is ipso facto intellectual diversity.
There is no question that some tribes, like the Igbo in Nigeria, do very well in math and are often employed as "Quants" in trading stocks.
https://www.ted.com/talks/ron_eglash_on_african_fractals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n36qV4Lk94
"We Hispanic/Asians often find you white people thus."
Is it annoying to hear so-called East Asians claim that you're not the truest Asians? Maybe this isn't widespread, but I know several folks that strongly feel this way.
"If it's political, and it's conservative, then it's intellectually valuable, right?"
Traffic.
As for academics and intellectual conditions in US universities -
I have a very great deal of experience here, as a customer if the system, as an employer, hiring manager and parent. Technology (and that only in instruction) plus mathematics and the more rigorous sciences are just fine. But all of that can be done much more simply and cheaply.
The "liberal arts" are a wasteland. Teaching of the classics is a pathetic remnant, also actual English lit.
The whole industry is decadent beyond redemption. Its time for a whole new technology and a whole new system.
The "liberal arts" are a wasteland.
The whole industry is decadent beyond redemption. Its time for a whole new technology and a whole new system.
Very good. Nazis thought so, too.
Im sorry to say, Ritmo, that sometimes one must suffer to gain depth. It is through the deep immersion in the facts that one can extract a valuable insight, and perspective. The true value of these short conversations is in the hint, the glimpse, of worlds beyond your experience, and paths to reach them.
Hence Murray.
So also does Salman Khan (Khan Academy).
Its quite telling just how much the existing school systems depend on this and similar providers even now.
The replacement for the current system is coming together. Its not all here yet, but we can see the outlines of the overthrow of the existing system.
Also, if one cares to listen to actual Asians, one has to consider competition from abroad. The graduates of, say, the IIT system have a certain attitude vs US universities, very similar to mine.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
The "liberal arts" are a wasteland.
The whole industry is decadent beyond redemption. Its time for a whole new technology and a whole new system.
Very good. Nazis thought so, too.
Socialists/communists in general thought so, too.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
I prefer having you summarize it to me.
You realize that in that situation you would have to accept his summary or admit to discussing in bad faith right?
I want to keep an open mind about this, but let's not pretend some things aren't a bridge too far. Will Althouse defend inviting Sarah Palin in that forum with an exposition of her book "Going Rogue?"
Not sure what your hatred for Palin revolves around. Her single accomplishment as Governor was to side with democrats in the Alaskan legislature against republicans and the oil lobby to secure a better deal for Alaskan citizens. After she was driven out by leftist lawfare they quickly trashed that deal and went right back to the crony status quo.
Maybe that would fit the objective. If it's political, and it's conservative, then it's intellectually valuable, right?
You are really stuck on trying to rule things out of bounds and declaring things not valuable. Do you really think Hillary Clinton would have been a better president than Sarah Palin? Look at what they actually did and not what a bunch of leftists said about them.
The truly instructive thing in all of this is the bald prejudice the left shows on cultural issues. Anyone who doesn't live like them and make the same decisions as they do in the US is a stupid hick. There are some stupid hicks and there are some very smart hicks. There are a lot of truly stupid people in the urban culture too. I live in the city and hang around coders. There are many different ways to be smart and ways to be stupid. I have been on college campuses long enough to see mountains of stupidity.
Calling everyone who is different than you is one way to be stupid.
"Use words. Good words. If you can't think of any, reread point #2 and consider doing nothing."
Kind of sad, Ann. When you have to remind so called adults not to act like children.
But then TTR shows up and proves your point.
Buwaya: great comments. I agree with your point about Solzhenitsyn. I remember eating up his books from "Ivan Denisovitch" onward through "Gulag Archipelago," and yet when he came to the U.S. and criticized its mindless consumerism I was shocked. That's because I had not really understood either him or the culture. Eventually I did; a little, anyway. A very great man.
"If by elite circle you mean serious scholars with real data, then yes he's part of an elite circle. I am surprised you would implicitly count yourself outside it."
I'm surprised there's a purple elephant outside my window right now.
I've looked at Murray's data. It looks pretty credible. I think the big reason for hysteria is that the slaveholder left does not want it examined deeper. Yes, there is a difference in racial populations but I think their problem is that the differences illustrated do not come close to explaining the actual disparity in life experiences.
It also amuses me that the same people who will get hysterical at any kind of questioning of the Theory of Evolution, like to pretend it doesn't apply to humans when the evidence is overwhelming.
"So..how are they determining who to invite? I guess I can't be disinvited if not invited to begin with..."
Yes, it's funny for the dinner to make a thing out of disinvitedness and then say you've got to be invited to attend.
That Goffman quote is interestingly weird. It doesn't seem right at all and I was annoyed at having to translate it into English.
Charles Murray spoke last week without incident at the University of Notre Dame.
Notre Dame took care to set up a better structure than this proposed Wisconsin lecture. Murray was invited by a professor whose class was reading his work (and the class had invited the opposite/contrasting viewpoint's author last year). Having Murray lecture to an informed audience addressed Ann's first recommendation.
There were protesters, but they were held outside a permimeter, unlike at Middlebury where they were allowed to take over and intimidate the actual lecture hall. The buffer let the protesters assert their views while leaving the audience free from the problems at Middlebury.
Since Murray was invited for a class, there was no admission fee, and thus no conflict over whether the fee did or did not express implicit support.
Here is a statement and an interview from the professor who invited Murray. I urge you to read and listen to these. Interestingly, this professor leads the Constitutional Studies program at Notre Dame:
1) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/03/22/why_i_invited_charles_murray_to_speak_at_notre_dame_133401.html
2) http://video.foxnews.com/v/5372142130001
And here is news coverage of the protests and the event --
1) http://college.usatoday.com/2017/03/28/student-protests-follow-charles-murray-to-notre-dame/
2) http://ndsmcobserver.com/2017/03/students-protest-charles-murray/
3) http://ndsmcobserver.com/2017/03/charles-murrays-visit-notre-dame/
One of the articles said Murray has also spoken at other campuses since Middlebury. Perhaps the media is focusing only on the most extreme and outrageous responses. This is why I think it is important to provide the contrasts above.
This is an example of how things should be run on a campus and provides a great contrast to Middlebury's shameful behavior. . Ann's recommendations are good and Notre Dame structured this educational opportunity in ways that addressed them. I encourage other colleges to learn from Ann and Notre Dame!
"Only that they shouldn't use their own speech and action to obstruct the people who do want to hear him."
-- It is sad we've moved from a heckler's veto to a rioter's veto.
"It's an odd situation to be asked to sit through a lecture by someone BECAUSE he's been obstructed elsewhere."
-- I agree; there's a distinction between giving someone who was silenced a chance to talk, and forcing people to listen.
Will: thanks for info on Notre Dame's experience. Yes, of *course* the media want to cover the most outrageous events: bleeds = leads. It is important therefore to collect and share templates of positive behavior and data about events where the most remarkable thing is that nothing remarkable happens.
I know the Left needs enemies but picking on Murray was unwise. He can defend himself and does: his deconstruction of the SPLC profile of him is a must-read. Why he doesn't sue for defamation is a wonderment.
"The "Center for the Study of Liberal Democracy" had better have a fucking army of security."
-- Only if they'll actually secure the place. Recent evidence says that paying for security, a la Berkley, may just be a waste of money.
"Those who protest Murray (and other conservatives) have about as much interest in debate as the firemen in Fahrenheit 451."
-- Don't Beatty and Montag have a fairly famous debate right before Montag burns him up? Though, maybe it is more of Beatty doing a villainous monologue. Been awhile since I read it.
Matthew Sablan said...
"The "Center for the Study of Liberal Democracy" had better have a fucking army of security."
-- Only if they'll actually secure the place. Recent evidence says that paying for security, a la Berkley, may just be a waste of money.
UW's highlighting of the free speech rights beforehand shows they have a commitment that was lacking in other venues. It's not hard to stop this nonsense, you just have to want to. The longer term question is whether this is something UW is creating for show or have they come to realize how dangerous and destructive campus radicals have become. My money's on just for show.
It's true that Murray did not spend his whole book discussing race. He spent a great deal of time building the case that IQ has a measurable genetic component and that this component has been measured scientifically and that IQ is reason for success in economic life. That gave weight to his conclusion that the black average IQ is 85 and this is the reason the blacks are mostly at the bottom of society and that the problem cannot be solved by social engineering. So the conclusion reached was about race and IQ and it had social policy implications. And it was based on research by eugenic society members so one social policy was to increase funding for contraception and abortion and decrease welfare and affirmative action - the idea being that we are encouraging the wrong people to have children.
He does discuss black-white differences at length; it's easier to see this in the Appendixes - see Appendix 5 p. 625-643 which discusses the theories of JP Rushton and their scientific basis; Appendix 6 provides data on socio-economic status and IQ for White, Black,Latino 645-653; Appendix 7 Evolution of Affirmative Action in the workplace p. 655-663. That's 40 pages of data on race.
There were questions about the data Murray used at the time the Bell Curve was written. It was intricate and as I have said I think that the new post Human Genome techniques which have revealed gen-X interactions make the whole question moot. Twin studies simply are not valid and without them there is nothing scientific in Murray's argument.
Blacks came over in the bottom of ships and now they are at the bottom of society - mostly. We excluded them from our culture till the Sixties of the last century and they don't do well in the schools that teach the culture they were excluded from - mostly. It isn't scientific necessity that this be so. They do better in charter schools but the teacher's unions oppose these schools.
Blacks were working in manufacturing in 1970 - 80% employment among the men - mostly married - but then the elite made bad trade deals and sold American manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China. Blacks were hit hardest. Another tragedy, another situation that is not a scientific necessity. Only Donald Trump proposes to even try to do something. But the Democrats are trying to sabotage his efforts. That isn't scientifically necessary either.
Michael, Michael K Fransico
Did it even cross your minds that the Bell Curve referred to in my question was not the book, but the actual Bell Curve? You know the graph that gets its name from its shape? Because it is shaped like a Bell Curve. Or was your snark just a sop to your insecurity over your intellectual shallowness?
I read some of Shockley. but found him to be disingenuous, at the least. His statements in public did not match his presentation in the book. His public comments mirrored what Murray seems to be saying now. I have not read Murray, yet. Race based intelligence studies leave me bored.
I do, however, have to thank you for proving me correct in allowing out and proud Nazis to expose themselves for what they truly are.
"The CSLD’s Disinvited Dinner"
Virtue signalling. Of course we support free speech! We have an event planned. And will have another next year (probably).
Of course those that were so visibly bad last time will be allowed to go their merry ways.....
You really need an editor, Ms. Althouse.
The wrong color. The [class] diversitists will abort him, and cannibalize him for spare parts, too.
Post a Comment