From Charles Murray's website at AEI:
Charles Murray: An open letter to the students of Azusa Pacific University
I was scheduled to speak to you tomorrow. I was going to talk about my new book, “The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Getting Ahead,” and was looking forward to it. But it has been “postponed.” Why? An email from your president, Jon Wallace, to my employer, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), said “Given the lateness of the semester and the full record of Dr. Murray’s scholarship, I realized we needed more time to prepare for a visit and postponed Wednesday’s conversation.” This, about an appearance that has been planned for months. I also understand from another faculty member that he and the provost were afraid of “hurting our faculty and students of color.”
You’re at college, right? Being at college is supposed to mean thinking for yourselves, right? Okay, then do it. Don’t be satisfied with links to websites that specialize in libeling people. Lose the secondary sources. Explore for yourself the “full range” of my scholarship and find out what it is that I’ve written or said that would hurt your faculty or students of color. It’s not hard. In fact, you can do it without moving from your chair if you’re in front of your computer.
You don’t have to buy my books. Instead, go to my web page at AEI. There you will find the full texts of dozens of articles I’ve written for the last quarter-century. Browse through them. Will you find anything that is controversial? That people disagree with? Yes, because (hang on to your hats) scholarship usually means writing about things on which people disagree.
Does this ever happen to Malcolm Gladwell or Tim Wise?
By the way, the name Azusa is short for "Everything from A to Z in the USA."
By the way, the name Azusa is short for "Everything from A to Z in the USA."
Posts
44 comments:
If he'd had a little cleverness, he could have written to them when he was first invited, along the following lines:
"I've been invited, at least provisionally, to talk to you about my new book. However, I wouldn't count on the appearance actually coming off. You see, administrators at 4th tier colleges like yours tend to be exquisitely worried about the tender feelings of the more, ah, remedial types among you, so you can make book they'll find a reason to cancel it. Remember kids, your boomers elders always know what's best for your minds.
"Does this ever happen to Malcolm Gladwell or Tim Wise?"
Maybe it should. Of course the kind of upset that would lead to a talk like that being cancelled would also likely lead to a national guard campaign, but at least we'd all understand The New Rules.
"I also understand from another faculty member that he and the provost were afraid of “hurting our faculty and students of color.”
Isn't life in the ghetto supposed to toughen you up or something? Who knew Vibrant-Americans had such tender little feelings?
fredyetagain
I'm continually reminded of Lenin, when asked why the Party didn't answer Kautsky: "Why should we?..Let us just denounce him; then everyone will know."
Spiked by Azusa Pacific University, no less. Insult say hello to injury and injury's friend pain.
I find it impossible to take Murray seriosly.
The Bell Curve's research is a fraud. The book is a fraud, Murray must have known it was a fraud when he was writing it, and Murray must still know it’s a fraud as he goes around defending it. This is a pattern in Murray's work: academic fraud and data manipulation.
Murray supports Jewish oppression of Palestinians. So, why is he bitching about this? Is what happened to him worse than IDF smashing houses of Palestinians and stealing more land for Jewish invaders?
No rights for Palestinians as he sucks up to Jews at AEI, but poor poor Murray can't give a speech at some college.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azusa_Pacific_University
Anonymous @ 2:28 said:
"I find it impossible to take Murray seriosly."
Guess what? I find it impossible to take people who can't spell the word "seriously" seriously. We here do get a laugh from your vibrant spelling however.
fredyetagain
I remember that jerk Stephen Colbert implying Murray was a Nazi on his show (made a big deal out of some reference Murray had cited that had been funded by the Pioneer fund).
If Leftists hear something they don't like, they stamp their foot like a child and yell "that's Hate" and demand it be silenced.
Azusa Pacific is a real place? I was sure it was an online degree factory.
OT
Must Watch!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd5zP_-P8EE
There was a minor scandal on the UChicago campus when some students created a Politically Incorrect Confessions Facebook page for the undergrads. In response the administration brought in Tim Wise for a who-knows-how-expensive reprogramming lecture. On university campuses Wise is apparently the soothing voice of reason and racial moderation. Even though his message is that whites are so infernal they ought to rejoice in racial seppuku.
"Murray supports Jewish oppression of Palestinians."
Jesus Christ, Murray is a domestic social scientist. He doesn't write professionally on foreign affairs. Go back to MPC or get a hold of yourself.
The snide demeanor of all you "ubermensch" amuses me.
You people are outnumbered and outgunned. In the furtue even more so.
You guys lost and if you don't play nice then...
...well nothing seeing as how you people are a bunch of sad old men with no children or meaningful relationships.
I bought The Bell Curve in Montclair, California, at a little Walden's. The cashier was black. She didn't react at all. Odds are she was illiterate.
Anon at 2:28, you need to go to some sociology blog where they will indulge your silliness. You're in over your head here, bud.
"I remember that jerk Stephen Colbert implying Murray was a Nazi on his show (made a big deal out of some reference Murray had cited that had been funded by the Pioneer fund)."
It would be great fun to put Colbert and Stewart on a panel with people who actually do research. Slaughter.
If they freak over Murray, what will they do with Nick Wade's new book. Wade is a lib, but a man of honor and integrity, a man who actually *thinks.* Will they try to fry him?
I don't think it will work. They'll try to ignore what he says.
We are living in the Dark Ages.
It's tough to recover from the odium theologicum.
From Wiki:
"In 2011, APU was recognized by Diverse Issues in Higher Education as one of the nation’s top schools in awarding degrees to minority students. The university ranked among the top 100 in 11 categories, including 6th for awarding Hispanic master's degrees in the education category, and 65th for total minority master's degrees awarded across all disciplines.[18] More than 70 countries and all fifty states are represented in the student population.
The Student Center for Reconciliation and Diversity provides support and sponsors activities that increase awareness of ethnic diversity, and seeks to cultivate an on campus culture that values ethnic diversity.[19] APU has an International Center to assist international scholars with admissions, immigration, and cultural understanding, and also promotes community through programs and activities including the American International Mentoring Program, International Chapel, Global Fest, and the International Student Association."
What they were really telling Murray and the rest of us was that they were afraid of a riot.
Oh, ye of little faith......
"Does this ever happen to Malcolm Gladwell or Tim Wise?"
Probably not, seeing as their nostrums are in sync with the prejudices of our day. I have, however, observed a certain level of hostility directed at Wise from some of the more radical non-Whites on campus. They rather dislike the fact that a White man like Tim Wise is soaking up speaking fees that could be going to non-Whites.
"We are living in the Dark Ages."
HBD people, have some perspective on things. You couldn't deny the divinity of Jesus in the early modern period, but the Copernican Revolution still happened. Today things are mostly pretty OK but you have to lie about certain truths. Someday in the near future you won't have to lie about them anymore. Approach this state of affairs with some maturity, i.e. don't become an acolyte of Mencius Moldbug. There's a reason why Steve never mentions the "Dark Enlightenment" explicitly. It's nerd-ish, hothouse political thinking, dreamed up during a lull in a MtG tournament.
I already knew many "students of color" have precious, precious feelings which can be hurt by anything which might trigger a sad. But the faculty, too? Sheesh.
I'd recommend they man-up, but that'd undoubtedly trigger something even worse.
I find it impossible to take Gould cereal.
The Mismeasure of Man's research is a fraud. The book is a fraud, Gould must have known it was a fraud when he was writing it, and Gould must still know it’s a fraud as he goes around defending it. This is a pattern in Gould's work: academic fraud and data manipulation.
I thought Stephen J Gould was dead.
Stewart has debated O'Reilly, a Harvard Kennedy School alumnus, on pay per view.
...well nothing seeing as how you people are a bunch of sad old men with no children or meaningful relationships.
That's complete bs. I know for a fact Anonymous has 5 kids and is in a loving marriage with a wife of 30 years. And the other anonymous is a grandfather of 17!!
I just know Azusa Pacificas the alma mater of the Nigerisn Nightmare Christian Okoye.
Dan in DC
Maybe the leaders of this Christian university were afraid he might offend their Muslim students?
"Today things are mostly pretty OK but you have to lie about certain truths. Someday in the near future you won't have to lie about them anymore."
Thing is, in the privacy of their own homes, everyone talks the truth of these things. Well, almost everyone. Even gays.
"Stewart has debated O'Reilly, a Harvard Kennedy School alumnus, on pay per view."
Two blowhards. O'Reilly knows he's a blowhard. Stewart doesn't.
"Explore for yourself the “full range” of my scholarship and find out what it is that I’ve written or said that would hurt your faculty or students of color. It’s not hard. In fact, you can do it without moving from your chair if you’re in front of your computer."
I love it. An exhilarating challenge to be open minded. The people who are holding him off simply can't believe that they aren't being open minded, that they're the censors. Is it ever thus?
"I have, however, observed a certain level of hostility directed at Wise from some of the more radical non-Whites on campus. They rather dislike the fact that a White man like Tim Wise is soaking up speaking fees that could be going to non-Whites."
T can understand their frustration. Wise is a fraud who obviously doesn't believe a word he says. His website is like an infomercial, hawking different things. He knows exactly what to say to push the right buttons, and is getting rich doing so. Nice work if you can get it.
Anon 2:49, yeah, you're probably correct.
I just hope to be dead and buried with the rest of the white guys before everything is broken and can't be repaired due to the lack of white guys.
But the influx of Asians may change all that. You'd better hope THAT particular scenario doesn't occur. You think you have problems with us crackas!
"Anonymous said...
I bought The Bell Curve in Montclair, California, at a little Walden's. The cashier was black. She didn't react at all. Odds are she was illiterate.
4/22/14, 2:51 PM"
What did you want her to say? Those stores sell thousands of titles. Should she have grabbed you book and read the blurb on the back and then questioned you about the contents before she rang up your sale?
If you were a cashier at a chain bookstore, do you think you'd comment on all the books the customers bought -- and keep your job?
Win-win for all.
Controversy = publicity. Murray and his work get more attention, the community college gets put on the map for the canonical 15 minutes of fame ("In your FACE, ITT Institute!"), the budding intellectuals there feel like daring rebels for clicking through Murray's website, and a riot doesn't have to go through the formality (and expense) of actually existing - and all this without anyone's having to leave the couch. Pass the potato chips, Susan.
Strictly by comparison, giving or hearing the actual speech would have been a drag. And somebody saved on airfare!
Maybe Murray should consider not giving speeches more often.
http://www.samtiden.com/tbc/la...
"While Herrnstein and Murray do an excellent job of exposing the flaws in the argument that tests are culturally biased by showing that the greatest black-white differences are not on the questions which presuppose middle-class vocabulary or experiences, but on abstract questions such as spatial perceptual ability, their conclusion that this "phenomenon seems peculiarly concentrated in comparisons of ethnic groups" is simply wrong."
"... Perhaps the strongest evidence against a genetic basis for intergroup differences in IQ is that the average level of mental test performance has changed very significantly for whole populations over time and, moreover, particular ethnic groups within the population have changed their relative positions during a period when there was very little intermarriage to change the genetic makeup of these groups."
"While The Bell Curve cites the work of James R. Flynn, who found substantial increases in mental test performances from one generation to the next in a number of countries around the world, the authors seem not to acknowledge the devastating implications of that finding for the genetic theory of intergroup differences, or for their own reiteration of long-standing claims that the higher fertility of low-IQ groups implies a declining national IQ level. This latter claim is indeed logically consistent with the assumption that genetics is a major factor in interracial differences in IQ scores. But ultimately this too is an empirical issue--and empirical evidence has likewise refuted the claim that IQ test performance would decline over time."
"... Perhaps the most intellectually troubling aspect of The Bell Curve is the authors' uncritical approach to statistical correlations. ..."
That was Thomas Sowell. The fact is that the book is simply wrong in the parts where it treats the whole genetic/IQ bit, and expecting people not to take notice of the similarities to 19th century pseudo-science because of the other good parts is naive. And blaming the controversy on the public's supposed stupidity is simply disingenuous on Murray's part.
My favorite line in the comments below Mr. Murray's letter was this: "The reason he is attacked by the establishment is that he undermines the utopian fantasies of the secular humanists."
Back when Gucci Little Piggy shut down his blog a couple of weeks ago, I wondered what was going to become of his bizarre hanger-on of a troll who called himself "anti-racist".
I see now that he landed on his feet here at iSteve, bringing his single-minded quest to inform the world that "People Of Color have lots of kids. White people have few kids.".
I would recommend not engaging him. He's a little unbalanced, by his own admission. He claimed several times that internet trolling was his only social outlet, and that he considered the commenters on that site (who did nothing but make fun of him) to be the closest things to friends he had.
"Perhaps the strongest evidence against a genetic basis for intergroup differences in IQ is that the average level of mental test performance has changed very significantly for whole populations over time and, moreover, particular ethnic groups within the population have changed their relative positions during a period when there was very little intermarriage to change the genetic makeup of these groups."
Is that so? Which groups would those have been? Did it use to be that blacks did a lot better than whites, and now they don't? Enlighten us, please.
"The fact is that the book is simply wrong in the parts where it treats the whole genetic/IQ bit, and expecting people not to take notice of the similarities to 19th century pseudo-science because of the other good parts is naive."
It far from a fact that the book is wrong in its treatment of the hereditary nature of intelligence. There is nothing pseudo-scientific about hereditarian explanations of intelligence, but there is certainly something perverse, pseudo-religious in nature, about the aggressive insistence that all individuals and all groups are absolutely, totally, completely equal, equal, equal in potential.
The fact is that the book is simply wrong in the parts where it treats the whole genetic/IQ bit, and expecting people not to take notice of the similarities to 19th century pseudo-science because of the other good parts is naive.
And what 19th-century pseudoscience would that be?
>> Is that so? Which groups would those have been? Did it use to be that blacks did a lot better than whites, and now they don't? Enlighten us, please.
Sowell’s review of the Bell Curve was titled “Ethnicity and IQ” and was in Vol. 28, American Spectator, 02-01-1995, pp 32
Google for it and you’ll find it. It's online.
"Google for it and you’ll find it. It's online."
I see. So not only are you too lazy to actually read a book you're criticizing for yourself, you're now too lazy to even post a proper link.
Here's what he's talking about:
"Perhaps the most dramatic changes were those in the mental test performances of Jews in the United States. The results of World War I mental tests conducted among American soldiers born in Russia--the great majority of whom were Jews--showed such low scores as to cause Carl Brigham, creator of the Scholastic Aptitude Test, to declare that these results "disprove the popular belief that the Jew is highly intelligent." Within a decade, however, Jews in the United States were scoring above the national average on mental tests, and the data in The Bell Curve indicate that they are now far above the national average in IQ."
Well, I guess some questions spring immediately to mind.
Are the Russian Jews who emigrated to America representative of all Russian Jews? Are Russian Jews representative of Jews as a whole?
Most importantly, are the Jews who signed up for military service a representative slice of all Jews in America? Is there any reason to believe that they are?
The important thing to notice, though, is that he was SURPRISED by the findings. He thought, like all people thought, and had thought for generations, that Jews were more intelligent than the average.
So which do you think is more likely? Do you think it is more likely that people ERRONEOUSLY thought that an often-despised minority was intelligent when really they were dumb, then a test tested them accurately and found that they were dumb, and they then somehow got a lot more intelligent in the next few years, to the point where they were just as intelligent as people always thought they were?
Or do you think that maybe people thought Jews were intelligent because they WERE, and the guy who tested them screwed up the test somehow, or it was a simple outlier, and Jews are just as smart as they've always been?
Because I think Occam's Razor would tell you to go with the second one.
Then he writes:
"My own research of twenty years ago showed that the IQs of both Italian-Americans and Polish-Americans also rose substantially over a period of decades."
Oh, his own research! How nice! Well, has he published it? Can we see it? If not, how are we supposed to know how good it is? Let's ask him!
"Unfortunately, there are many statistical problems with these particular data, growing out of the conditions under which they were collected."
Oh. Thanks there, Thomas.
Anyway. If you had ever bothered to actually READ The Bell Curve (which you haven't, of course. None of the people talking about how bad it is have ever read it, in my experience.), then you would notice that Murray and Herrnstein even make the point that, even if race differences in IQ AREN'T genetic, it hardly matters. They are the way they are, and so far, nobody has found a way to change them.
And why are you arguing with Charles Murray anyway? He's not the one to come up with this idea. It's not even controversial to notice that different races have different IQs on average. It's not controversial to notice that most of the variance is heritable. And it's not even controversial to notice that, when you control for environment, the differences don't go away.
It's only controversial to put them all together, because people don't want to lose their jobs.
And I understand that you don't want to believe it. I didn't either at first. You're still in like the Creationist stage, where you just refuse to believe the evidence because you don't want to. I used to be like you. I was all like "My internet links to random columns will TOTALLY wipe out all that nasty ol' evidence people collect!". It didn't happen that way. Eventually, I had to admit that the evidence was on the HBD side.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"Stewart has debated O'Reilly, a Harvard Kennedy School alumnus, on pay per view."
"Two blowhards. O'Reilly knows he's a blowhard. Stewart doesn't."
O'Reilly also uses his real name. Jon Leibowitz doesn't.
Anonymous, if you failed to recognize the blindingly obvious humor in Dave Pinsen's comment you must be APU faculty, with tenure
Post a Comment