Campus Free Speech

Charles Murray Called a 'White Nationalist,' Shouted Down By Illiberal Students at Middlebury

"Who is the enemy? White supremacy!"



Middlebury College students disrupted a guest lecture by American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray, forcing administrators to move him to an undisclosed location.

They also jumped on top of the car transporting him to a different building, in an effort to prevent Murray from leaving campus.

Murray, the author of The Bell Curve and Coming Apart, was invited to speak by conservative students. When he tried to speak, hecklers talked over him, chanting, "Racist, sexist, anti-gay, Charles Murray, go away" and "Who is the enemy? White supremacy."

Eventually, Murray was taken to another room, where he was interviewed by a professor. That conversation was livestreamed for students to watch.

Murray's work is controversial: The Bell Curve made claims that members of certain races are genetically predisposed toward lower IQ scores. That thesis has been widely criticized, including in the pages of Reason. The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Murray as a white nationalist, which might be overstating the matter just a bit. (For one thing, Murray actually supports gay marriage, despite the students' assertions to the contrary.)

Astonishingly, the Associated Press accepted SPLC's hyperbolic description of Murray in its headline about the incident, "College students protest speaker branded white nationalist." (The writer didn't even bother to put white nationalist in scare-quotes!)

Middlebury's administration handled the matter responsibly, making clear that the college did not subscribe to Murray's views but strongly supported students' rights to learn about them.

"The very premise of free speech on this campus is that a speaker has a right to be heard," said Laurie Patton, president of Middlebury.

But colleges like Middlebury must do a better job of identifying—and disciplining—student hecklers if they actually intend to protect free speech on campus. It isn't enough to say that free speech matters, and that controversial speakers are welcome on campus. If administrators permit the illiberal left to get away with silencing everyone and anyone who offends some segment of the population, they have failed in their duties.

NEXT: Why Trade Can Still Thrive Under a Protectionist Like Donald Trump

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Not sure if I’m supposed to hate Robbie this time or tolerate Robbie. He was mean to proggies, so…tolerate, but with reservations?

    1. Sounds good tulpa

  2. This is by far the most disturbing incident in the Left’s increasing intolerance. The Bell Curve may be controversial (and collectivist, which is my criticism), but it’s strange to label this as ‘white supremacist’, considering that the book doesn’t label whites as all that supreme (other racial groups are ranked above whites, in terms of intellect). This also ignores Murray’s books such as Coming Apart, which predicted the angst of the working class in the West that we have seen play out over the past few years.

    The only tweet that Trump ever made that was correct was when he stated that is is time to start de-funding so called universities that allow fascist tactics by the illiberal Left to flourish.

    1. other racial groups are ranked above whites

      Asians have been “white” for some time now.

      1. That’s a weird observation. I suppose to social justice warriors this is the case, but for big kids they are still a distinct racial group

        1. I guess I needed a /sarc tag.

          1. I wasn’t trying to insult you just SJWs. Sorry

      2. If we’re talking college admissions, sure. They’re even more privileged than whites and therefore need to be checked more harshly. But Asians get oppressed status if the occasion demands.…..ill-be-ok/

        1. Saying that Asians are good at math is also “racist”, as the word continues to find new sharks to jump.

          1. Of course that is racist. Being racist is not limited to saying negative things about a race.

            1. “Racist” is by definition making negative statements based on race.

              The correct term is “racial” when making objective statements about race such as Murray does.

            2. So, when progressives note that white people do better in school and earn more money, they’re being racist against white people?

      3. They are “white” unless you serve bad sushi in the college commisary, in which case they are a distinct race needing protection against cultural appropriations by evil white dominated institution food services.

        1. Except in terms of cultural appropriation Japan is really bad; Kanji was culturally appropriated from the Chinese, tempura from the Portuguese, high school uniforms from the Prussian Military.

    2. The riots against Milo at Berzerkley were worse, I think.

      Not that this isn’t terrible and a reminder that the left is full of fascist mobs, but nothing was lit on fire which apparently is the new measuring stick for leftist anti-speech protests.

      1. I see that. I’m just saying that Murray is a legit scholar, which cannot be said for Milo. And now the little Maoists are using violence (they jumped on his car to prevent him from leaving to a secure location) to silence inconvenient scholarship.

        1. Murray is a racialist. But his misguided views should be engaged through debate, not hissy fit tantrums.

          1. I’m not sure that most people would classify him as a ‘racialist’.

            1. Yeah, he’s not exactly Steve Sailor, and definitely not Jared Taylor. He doesn’t seem to encourage discriminatory treatment, he merely makes the case that ethnicity correlates with innate ability. One may argue that he overstates his case, but in some measure, it is simply a fact, and if it’s a racialist position, then reality is ‘racialist.’

              Even Peter Singer (not exactly a right winger) distinguishes from equality of ability and ‘moral equality’, tacitly acknowledging that innate ability is not equal across ethnicity/race.

    3. Coming Apart was great.

      Murray’s extended thesis, in Real Education and Coming Apart and all his post-Bell Curve books, is that people find primary value in several areas: 1) Family, 2) Religion, 3) Community, and 4) Work. You don’t need all of them, but you need some, and the more the better.

    4. but it’s strange to label this as ‘white supremacist’,

  3. The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Murray as a white nationalist,

    They also describe Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an “anti-muslim extremist”. Because, you know, speaking out against genital mutilation is *CRAZY*

    SPLC is not a source = they’re a band of partisan-hack nutjobs who use minorities as props in political-smear campaigns. And this was pretty much widely accepted decades ago.

    Someone didn’t get the memo, apparently.

    1. It’s a badge of honor now to be labeled a ‘hate group’ by the Southern Poverty Law Center. That group is a joke now.

      1. It might be more accurate to say the SPLC is a hate group.

    2. SPLC, is a non profit business, a very profitable non profit business

      1. Hey, they’ve got half a billion dollars in the bank to sue you with so you don’t say that!

    3. “…political-smear campaigns.” You mean all those poop swastikas the SPLC keeps finding all over the place?

      1. They, like any activist group, steadily dumbs-down and dilutes what qualifies as evidence of their chosen grief so they can claim there is always more and more and more of it.

        Lately, they like to collect data on number of “reports” of crimes (rather than number of crimes), which ensures that regardless of whether the incident turned out to be real or fake or maybe even never happened, they can retain “reports” as a #. Because the reports themselves were real. It also conveniently allows them to imply that “all reports = crimes” even tho many are incidents of ‘hate speech’ that don’t even qualify as vandalism.

        this story about how the UK media ginned up a fake-narrative of ‘surging hate crimes’ in the wake of Brexit is worth a read. expect it to be emulated/repeated many times over in the coming years.

        1. steadily dumbs-down and dilutes what qualifies as evidence of their chosen grief so they can claim there is always more and more and more of it.

          Oh no.

          They deny Leftist racism all the time.

          Their actual “chosen grief” is the same as all the Left – that anyone has any freedom from their power.

  4. IIRC the bell curve wasn’t racist. It simply observed that a larger bell curve will reach farther, in both directions.

    For example, if both black and white intelligence is a uniform distribution then at the top you will have the same proportion of blacks and whites as at the middle. But if it is a bell curve, then at the extremes you will find only whites.

    It isn’t racism. It is math.

    1. Larry summers pointed out that the bell curve was wider for men; explaining both why there are more men in society’s elite and more in homeless shelters and prisons, and he got run out of Harvard.

      That’s the party of science for you.

      1. Bubbas not right about the b/w curves, but you’re on the right track with m/f. Thing is, we know exactly why men have larger standard deviations in IQ: we have less DNA.

        1. My suspicion was that Bubba might be confusing gender and race regarding the difference in IQ variance.

          Interesting, I had not heard of that explanation. I suppose it may make sense if there are ‘haplosufficient’ genes related to cognitive ability on the X chromosome?

    2. People that cling to the Bell Curve to make themselves feel superior about their own race don’t realize that they are also justifying all kinds of government action to level the playing field. If you make the argument that blacks have lower intelligence (which is bullshit), you are also saying that affirmative action and welfare are justified to make things fair.

      1. Uh… no?

        1. I mean, you’re claiming to be a libertarian who favors equality of outcome?

          1. What? I am not arguing for that. I am saying what the takeaway would be for most people. And it would not be equality of outcome, but equality of opportunity.

            1. How could understanding different bell curves mean that people should favor lots of government intervention possibly be anything but an argument for equality of outcome instead of opportunity?

      2. Affirmative action for the Stupid!

        We need more idiot level brain surgeons! They’re under represented!

    3. The center of the bell curve for a large population of black people was centered about a lower IQ number than the curve for a much larger group of white people.

      1. There are persistent cultural factors in black communities that lower IQ. For example, poor black parents rarely read to their children, have few books in the house, and don’t sit and talk with the children much. This is not genetic but a cultural trap. As the kids get older, it is considered “acting white” to study and discouraged by other kids. There is less pressure against girls which is why so many more black girls do ok in school and go to college.
        None of this is hereditary or innate, but culture can be very persistent. Ask people for example why we dress in costumes on Halloween. No one knows but no one can stop doing it.

        1. IQ is affected/caused both both environment and genetics. All of the pathologies you describe can be caused both by culture and by biology. Poor whites are similar.

          There are many IQ tests that attempt to remove the effects of culture. One example is the length of time it takes a person’s hand to move when asked to press a button under a circle when there are four shapes displayed. There are others. All combined, you get a reliable measure of IQ.

          And, the data show genetics is a large part of predicting IQ. People that have lower IQ are poorer as a group. These things are true. Even if they are uncomfortable.

  5. “”””Cost of Middlebury Education””

    “”””Tuition $49,648″””

    “””Room and Board $14,269″”

    “”””Student Activity Fee $415″””

    That’s a lot of money to stay ignorant.

    1. All of them are ignorant, or just the handful of protesters cited?

      1. I lived there, it’s at least 3/4.

        1. Probably not as bad as Oberlin.

    2. well, few of them pay that, but yeah, it’s still expensive.

      1. Yeah, paying the list cost for private college is doing it wrong. Those places hand out scholarships and grants like candy on Halloween.

        1. Yeah it’s a deceptive sales tactic detailed here, along with other such tactics:

  6. Charles Murray is still around?! It looks like the College Republicans almost got away with one before the leftist hive mind reacted with fresh marching orders – good on them for keeping the left on its toes.

    1. Republicans at a few colleges should publicize that they’ve invited William F. Buckley Jr. to come speak at their school. The protests against zombie Buckley would be hilarious.

      1. Put a cardboard cutout of Buckley at the podium with a tape recorder of one of his speeches playing (bonus if it splices in his slur against Vidal). $10 some dipshit college student still rushes the stage to throw a pie in his face.

        1. Do you have a Patreon or gofundme?

  7. The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Murray as a white nationalist, which might be overstating the matter just a bit. (For one thing, Murray actually supports gay marriage, despite the students’ assertions to the contrary.)

    Sounds like a non sequitur. Why should someone’s position on gay marriage have any impact on being a white nationalist?

    1. If some gay-married folks are white nationalists,
      and some white nationalists are against gay marriage,

    2. I was wondering the same thing.

    3. The entire election cycle showed that there’s a large group of people who have a singular idea of what their political opponents are, and it’s a cliched anti-gay, Christian racist Nazi.

      1. That are Russophiles. Watch out! Russians- under your bed!

      2. In the leftist mind, it’s forever 1933, and anyone who disagrees with them are varying degrees of Hitler.

        1. I hate to say it, but… “Varying Degrees of Hitler” is an excellent album name.

          1. It really is

      3. On the contrary one of the funniest developments this cycle is watching Republicans embrace gays (like Milo!) as a means to the end of targeting Muslims for bigotry.

        One wonders why they need a minority scapegoat all the time instead of actual ideas, but whatever.

        1. As always Tony, your insight proves to be superficial and a greater indicator of your own inability to comprehend reality than an actual substantial position.

          1. This version is pretty out of his depth and will merely serve as a shit-flinging whipping boy until he’s cycled out. Nowhere near the standards set by illustrious predecessors Tony #3 and Tony #7.

            1. Now I’m just thinking of the vault in Fallout:New Vegas, where they’re all psychotic clones named “Gary”, who only say the word “Gary”…

        2. One wonders why they need a minority scapegoat all the time instead of actual ideas, but whatever.

          Because so many are identity politics retards, and won’t listen to ideas unless they come from a cis white male.

        3. I dunno, why do progressives need their minority scapegoat, the straight white males, to be the cause of all the world’s problems?

          1. Poor put-upon straight white men. Will they ever get a break?

    4. I think he supports marriage for gay whites only. If too many white people reproduce, it fucks up the curve.

    5. I think it’s because it was mentioned earlier that the students were heckling him by chanting, “Racist, sexist, anti-gay, Charles Murray, go away”

      1. “Well, they got his name right, so there’s that.”

  8. Apparently “white supremacy” is the theory that performance is a result of ability.

    1. And that non-ashkenazi whites don’t have the highest abilities. These people are retarded.

  9. With this, cannot figure out why anybody would oppose punching Nazis given how accurate their descriptions are here.

  10. The SPLC are a bunch of hysterical racists.

  11. There has long been a group (industry?) of professional leftist organizers who inhabit college campuses. They were at mine in the early 90s – these middle aged bald guys with beards, who were there to agitate for some cause (think it was divest from South Africa back then). Few students gave a shit, but they were able to get a good number, including the girl I was dating at the time, to go in and disrupt a board of trustees meeting.

    There are probably similar groups at Middlebury doing the same thing here and other places- I doubt that 99.99% of the students at Middlebury have even heard of Charles Murray.

    1. That would mean a max of 2 protesters. It’s not a large school

      1. Wait, I missed the 4th 9. So zero.

        1. .2 protesters. I assum that means a head in a jar.

    2. Here’s the problem: even the normal students who aren’t that interested are affected in subtle way. They may think the protestors are a bit hysterical, but they are more seen as ‘going too far in service of a good cause.’ A normal, non-hysterical student might go through four years of this and accrue subtle biases that people who read or quote Charles Murray or Thomas Sowell must be bigots; people who question the wage gap are misogynists; people who read Milton Friedman want the poor to starve in the streets.

      Most students do, to some extent, passively accept some of the ideas of the radical activists. If you hear some of your friends going on about what a horrible Nazi X is, and you know nothing about X yourself, you might resent their bitching, but if you meet someone or are interviewing someone for a job down the road who mentions, ‘oh I live to read books by X’, it’s liable to occur to you, ‘oh, X, the nazi my friends were always bitching about; I wonder if this guy is one of them?”

  12. +1000 to Reason for correctly using the word illiberal. There is no better word for these snowflakes.

  13. They also jumped on top of the car transporting him to a different building, in an effort to prevent Murray from leaving campus.

    So they didn’t want him coming to campus, but they also … didn’t want him leaving campus?

    God, we’re turning out some geniuses at our elite colleges, aren’t we?

    1. I was wondering about that. Did they want to murder him or something? I can’t think of why else they would want to prevent him from leaving.

    2. They want to threaten and terrorize.

      Pour encourager les autres.

      I’d note that all that scum should be arrested and prosecuted, though I’d settle for a blanket order to fire into rioting mobs.

  14. I once saw Charles Murray speak. In the Q&A, he defended gay parenting to a conservative audience, with data, of course. He’s intellectually curious and always draws a distinction between data on groups, hypotheses of that data, and the inapplicability of anything he says to actual individuals. Racists usually don’t give individuals the benefit of the doubt, and if they do, they couch it as an exception. Charles is absolutely not a racist or a white supremacist.

    1. I beg to differ. I am on mobile, so can’t easily link, but I have posted racist and sexist quotes from Murray before. Google it. The sexist ones in particular are easy to find.

      1. I’ll search around, I don’t know much about him outside his books.

    2. He’s a very bad scientist and the only reason he’s famous and gets to give lectures is because racists love him.

      1. You honestly might be the dumbest commentator on this site. Congrats!

        1. Prove me wrong, buttmunch. Who are you anyway? You’re a poor man’s John or a rich man’s Sevo. Either way, totally useless.

          1. Prove you wrong? Murray is famous for being right, so…

            1. Is this what counts as proof in the Klan library, the only place this guy’s so-called scholarship is taken seriously?

              1. Does the ‘Klan library’ include Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, Huffington Post, and the Weekly Standard?

                Perhaps you should go away now, before you get offended by a microagression

                1. And look at this. He’s contributed to Reason before, too. I guess you read a Klan periodical.


              2. Honestly, Tony, how dumb do you want to look? Specify what you think he is wrong about, and then you will be humiliated line by line.

              3. Is this what counts as proof in the Klan library, the only place this guy’s so-called scholarship is taken seriously?

                Tony in a nutshell. The right people have told him what to think about this subject, and those opinions are repeated with nary a critical impulse.

        2. the only reason he’s famous and gets to give lectures is because racists love him.

          Murray was famous for Losing Ground a decade before The Bell Curve.

          But I guess pointing out the harm the Dependency State does to it’s victims is racist racist racist too.

      2. Tony, The Bell Curve has never been successfully debunked. Have you read it? It only briefly mentions race near the end of the book.

        Do you believe that intelligence is not inheritable? Do you believe there is no biological basis for intelligence? Both ideas are generally accepted in academia. It explains a lot of the social problems in our society.

        But as Crying Zelda mentioned, you cannot use the conclusions of the book to assume that any particular individual is not intelligent. You’re a racist if you meet a black person and automatically think they aren’t intelligent. You aren’t a racist for believing the evidence that poor people as a group have lower intelligence than more affluent people.

        1. The problem is that all sorts of idiots will read (and have read) the book and will look at a black person and automatically think they aren’t intelligent. People are dumb.

          Personally I think he may be right, but I want a society where black people are treated as individuals and not as statistically-average-black-person.
          I think it probably would have better if he had published his research in obscure scientific language and not written a book about it in layman’s terms for popular consumption, because the end result of that has been to provide aid and comfort to white supremacists.

          1. “Hide truth because someone will be mean or dumb with it” doesn’t sell well … and utterly corrupts both science and political discourse.

            So, no.

            If we’re why we can’t have nice things, to that extent, we might as well just give up on civilization.

            1. (Assuming he’s right and honest, that is.

              If he was, in fact, producing dishonest output, that’s another matter entirely.

              But the claim was about what people would do with the claims, not their being false.)

            2. It’s not hidden if it’s published in scientific journals. It just makes it harder for mean and dumb people to find it and understand it.

              1. find it and [mis]understand it.


          2. Unfortunately this is the case for all science, not just the study of race and intelligence. Look at the anti-vaccine or anti-pharmaceutical types, or all the diets that come in and out of vogue based on misinterpretations or over-interpretations of scientific findings.

            And this is doubly so for social science. Hell, as far as sexy academic social science filtering own to the mainstream goes, the only thing unusual about Murray is that it would be the right, rather than the left, misinterpreting his finding. Political distortion of research is more the rule than the exception.

        2. Genes are racist

      3. I’ll await your refutation of his case.

        Honestly Tony, consider this hypothesis: Nature, in its abiding devotion to our normative political philosophies (emergent only in the 20th century) decided to disseminate abilities in a perfectly egalitarian manner, such that people of each nationality or ethnicity, and each gender, had the same average IQ.

        How fucking unlikely does that sound? You would have to believe in a God, and one with views very peculiarly similar to late 20th/early 21st century westerners to expect that hypothesis to be true. We know cognitive ability is partly heritable. We know ethnic groups are genetically different; they are genetically predisposed to different diseases, they have different skin colors, have different body types, different platelet counts, etc. But you’re going to tell me that for some magical reason, either 1) intelligence is unrelated to genetics, or 2) our genes decided to be egalitarian regarding intellifence, despite being so obviously inegalitarian in their distribution of physical abilities?

        You have to be dumber than a creationist to assert that. You have to go beyond denying natural history; you have to deny the basic, empirically proven principles of genetics to maintain that position of genetic ‘egalitarianism’.

    3. He’s intellectually curious and always draws a distinction between data on groups, hypotheses of that data, and the inapplicability of anything he says to actual individuals.

      What i think some people fail to understand is that … these characteristics don’t mean they’re “protesting him despite his reputation as a reasonable, respectable scholar”…. they protest people like him *because* he’s rational and compelling and open-minded.

      The entire point is to prevent debate. They’re not interested in telling anyone why he’s wrong; and they probably don’t even know why. They oppose anyone being able to talk about things without their permission.

      1. This would look much better with bullet-points.

            1. Buttons are just fashionable bullet-points

          1. Cars.

      2. And he’s open to debate. I listen to a lot of EconTalk, and one of the thing’s that surprised me most is how open social scientists and economists are to their ideas being wrong. Even topics like climate science are usually done without malice, with some exceptions. Journalists often cite academic papers in terms far more conclusive than the researchers envision.

      3. I think you have a point. To them, the intellectual opponent is far more insidious than the vulgar opponent because they’re more persuasive. They’re the master propagandist disseminating a well-crafted lie meant to deceive the peasants who follow them.

        Much as most progressives talk up the idea of the liberal intellectual elite against the conservative rabble, with the exception of the moderate, establishment ‘Davos’ liberals, most think the real ‘enemy’ is the conspiring, rich, power hungry (white, male) elite; the ‘knuckle dragging rednecks’ are just pawns. So in the progressive narrative, a guy like Murray, an academic, calm, intellectual type is closer to the evil core than a less sophisticated right winger is.

        Or, it’s possible they’re just upset at having to face the prospect that their opposition can’t honestly be reduce to a caricature, that it is more intellectually sophisticated than their cartoonish stereotypes permit.

  15. These are not protesters, they are terrorists as they are practicing terrorism – violence for political gain. Period.

    1. Now we are two.

  16. Murray’s an interesting dude, and in my experience appears pretty honest and open to debate. If there is the case to be made that he fits the ‘racialist’ label, then he’s the kind of racialist we should want to hear from.

    As Robby S says, it’d be nice if these colleges would come down harder on these children. They’re actively impeding other students’ use of the college’s services. THIS IS LIBRARY!

  17. I don’t understand why Murray doesn’t pull up a chair, announce that he will wait for the children to tire themselves out with their tantrum, and screw around on his phone for an hour or so

    1. This makes me think of a scene from the movie Man on the Moon about Andy Kaufman. It shows Andy appearing at a college for what the students think is going to be one of his stand up routines. Sold out.

      Andy proceeds to open a book and start reading aloud. He just reads and reads. People starting to boo, then stand up and shout and then start leaving, throwing things on stage. He spends all night on the stool, and finishes the book the next morning. A couple students are still there asleep in their seats.

      It’s a great movie.

      1. Hated it.

        1. Then I hate you!!!

          *Turns back huffily and stomps away*

  18. I don’t think there has ever been a real “debunking” of The Bell Curve.

    I read that book many years ago and it had a profound impact on how I think about things. There are many social problems that I don’t think are solvable in the conventional sense because on a large scale, many pathologies are caused by low intelligence. Schools that serve poor areas can’t possibly get test scores as high as affluent suburban schools because, from a high level, the poorer kids have lower intelligence. A large component of that is biological and nothing can be done to correct it.

    Statistics about large groups of people do not predict individual outcomes. Of course there lots of poor people that are smart. But policies are generally created based on characteristics of groups of people.

    This is one my axioms: if something is true, it must be believed. Only then can you make proper judgements about things.

    1. There are many social problems that I don’t think are solvable in the conventional sense because on a large scale, many pathologies are caused by low intelligence.

      Any demographic sociological statistical analysis that doesn’t condition on IQ is bogus.

  19. Obviously as a libertarian I can’t support someone who believes in state licensing of gay marriage. Not because they are gay of course but because the state should not exist at all.

  20. He should just write a letter to the editor of the student newspaper explaining what his actual views are and thereby embarrassing the protestors for not knowing what the heck they are talking about.

    1. This, of course, is impossible.

    2. White-supremacist-splaining. It would just enrage the students further.

      1. White-supremacist-splaining

        Oh, I’m going to use that.

  21. Who is the enemy? White supremacy!

    Whitey is the Devil!

  22. Murray’s work is controversial: The Bell Curve made claims that members of certain races are genetically predisposed toward lower IQ scores. That thesis has been widely criticized, including in the pages of Reason.

    Looks like writing for reason also “predisposes toward lowers IQ scores”.

    Denying a genetic basis in intelligence is like denying a genetic basis in height. Pure pants shitting cognitive dissonance.

    We’re all just as smart! We’re all just as tall! We’re all just as fast!
    Anyone who says otherwise is racist, racist, racist!

    1. Yup! It’s called intellectual rigor: if something is true, it must be believed.

  23. It might be “overstating things a bit” to call Murray a white nationalist? Don’t you think that appraisal might be UNDERESTIMATING things a bit? He is not a white nationalist. Period. But what does the fact that he supports gay marriage have to do with his alleged white nationalism anyway?

    1. Murray is also married to an Asian American (and has been for 13 years) so those accusing him of being a “white nationalist” (or “white supremacist”) have no idea what they are talking about.

  24. “The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Murray as a white nationalist, which might be overstating the matter just a bit. (For one thing, Murray actually supports gay marriage, despite the students’ assertions to the contrary.)”
    The more important thing is that Charles Murray has said nothing that implies that whites should have a special legal status or that they should separate themselves on the basis of race. In fact his work implies that any separation will and/or should be on the basis of ability which will result in a mixed race groups. Of course the high ability group will (according to Murray) be disproportionately white, but not exclusively so and will not include all whites.

    1. It would not contain most whites. But, the number of whites would be a higher percentage of the group than they are of the general population.

    2. Since Murray is also married to an Asian American clearly the Southern Poverty Law Centre have not idea what they are talking about. Which in turn suggests that either they are speaking from ignorance or from malice.

  25. Such attacks on speakers are scary, but confused defenses against such attacks aren’t much better, in my opinion.
    “… a speaker has a right to be heard” according to the president of that university.
    I find that disturbing and likely destructive in the long-term.

  26. Steve Sailer talk about the SPLC at UNZ and Takimag titled “SPLC 2: The search for more money”, lol.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.