Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
BC according to the students the last time Murray spoke on campus there was an increase of hate crimes including the writing of the N word on Black's dorm room doors.
Your demonstrating that an effective way to bar someone from speaking on campus is to create civil disorder if they do. An increase of crimes is the fault of the criminals, not by someone who is not advocating the increase in crimes. If we must be afraid to speak because some criminals will use the speech to commit crimes, freedom of speech is effectively shut down, eliminated.
It would be nice if people could engage civilly with someone who for many years has had the view that blacks are genetically inferior and cannot compete with white men, who are intellectually, psychologically and morally superior but I think that is a pretty high bar.
Perhaps, your false understanding of Murray is due to not getting a chance to know fully what Murray thinks and says. Shutting his speech down is one way of depriving you of the truth.
Murray does not say that blacks are genetically inferior to whites in the way you describe. Nor that all blacks are genetically inferior to all whites even in the way he is discussing. He is speaking solely on the intelligence level measured by IQ. And, he says, even within that parameter, MANY blacks are superior to MANY whites. His use of IQ in this case is measuring basic groups, races and ethnicities. OVERALL, blacks and Latinos score lower than whites, but, OVERALL, East Asians and Jews score higher than whites. So there is no "white racist" motivation for what he is saying.
And he is certainly not saying that whites are "psychologically and morally superior" to blacks. Nor is he saying that blacks cannot compete with white men. Not only can the many black men who score higher IQ compete intellectually with the many white men who score lower, the majority of black men can outperform the majority of white men in areas which blacks are genetically "superior."
If you know he is going to piss off some many people why invite him to speak unless you believe those discredited views. Invite someone whose views are based in fact.
|
Whether you invite someone to speak who's views are supposedly discredited or not, you are obligated to let him speak if he accepts your invitation.
Murray's views have been "discredited" (falsely in my opinion) by some, but supported by others (see the link I posted above as an "expert" example). The purpose of having him speak is to put his views on display so that the audience has some direct evidence, from his mouth to their ears, on which to help make a judgement. And, usually, if the discourse is civil and not threatened with disruptive noise or violence, there are Q & A sessions after the speech in which points and counterpoints can be clarified and discussed--civilly--if civility is allowed.
Not inviting someone to speak, especially if he is "controversial," because there will be those who are "pissed #^&#^&#^&#^& is being a partner to the elimination of free speech, to the promotion of only allowing certain speech, to allowing mobs and criminals to dictate what is allowed, and to promoting ignorance and to the capture of social norms and behaviors by radical authoritarians.