Charles Murray and the subjugation of free speech – Duke Chronicle

Opinion | Column

let freedom ring

On March 2, Charles Murray, a controversial sociologist and author, was scheduled to speak at Middlebury College. Murray was invited to campus by the schools chapter of the American Enterprise Institute Club, an organization that promotes political conservatism. The schools collective reaction to Murrays mere presence on campus was, in a word, antagonistic. When he took the stage to begin his debate, Murray faced an audience littered with protesters who were intent on denying him the opportunity to speak.

While the protest was simply disruptive at the start, it eventually became violentMurrays co-presenter, Middlebury politics and economics professor Allison Stanger, required a trip to the hospital after being struck by a protester.

Much of the protesters anger towards Murray came from their moral opposition to some of his past writings. While Murray has written on a variety of topics, his most controversial piece was his 1994 work, The Bell Curve, where he dedicates a portion of the book to the possibility that genetic differences between races may contribute to disparities in average IQ test scores. This idea has faced significant criticism from both popular and academic sources, and many students at Middlebury, and Duke, surely find his ideas erroneous and reprehensible.

That said, the fundamental right of freedom of speech is most important in situations like Murrayswhere polarizing speakers propagate equally unpopular opinions. More broadly than ones individual opinion of Murray, the precedent of censoring unpopular opinions on college campuses is dangerous from any perspective.

Many of the speakers who routinely inspire protests on college campuses come from the right, and the history of protests surrounding controversial conservative speakers is extensive. From the violence surrounding Milo Yiannopoulos appearance at the University of California, Berkeley to the cancellation of Condoleezza Rices commencement address at Rutgers University, figures from the right (in both the traditional and alternative sense) have not been welcomed with open arms on college campuses.

Albeit with less controversy, Murray continued his speaking tour by visiting Duke on Tuesday, bringing this issue even closer to home. Without the interference of protesters, Murray had the opportunity to speak to students as he intended to at Middlebury. The fact that Duke, a campus that is overwhelmingly liberal, was able to engage with a speaker whose beliefs starkly diverge from those of most students, speaks highly to the academic environment that Duke has created for its students.

While Duke superseded Middlebury in its ability to tolerate the presence of a controversial conservative speaker, that is not to say that Duke is perfect in its promotion of freedom of speech.

In a recent piece, the Editorial Board of this publication addressed the issue of free speech and controversial guest speakers. Central to the article is the idea that a speaker must be innocuous to earn the right to freely address a university community such as Dukes. While this criterion may sound appealing in the abstract, its application to actual situations is much more difficult. Who gets to decide whether a guest speaker is innocuous, and is it even possible to make that distinction in an equitable, apolitical manner?

Freedom of speech represents a fundamental tenant of any free society or institution of higher learning. In the wake of the 2015 Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in Paris, the Editorial Board confirmed this importance bywarning that we must remain vigilant and aware that there are attempts at curtailing speech occurring everyday. And while the protests at Middlebury differ significantly from the Charlie Hebdo attack in that the protestors did not practice terrorism, their efforts undeniably sought to silence Murray and rob him of his right to speak freely.

It is disappointing that the Editorial Board did not condemn the violence that occurred at Middlebury and reaffirm its commitment to free speech. To the contrary, yesterdays Editorial clearly represented an attack on free speech as it exists at Duke. As one of the thought leaders of the Duke community, the Board holds the sacred responsibility to speak out when such an obvious subjugation of free speech occurs.

Unlike many stories that occur in the news, this one is not far removed from Duke. Many Duke students surely considered Middlebury in their college search process, and Charles Murray, the man whose ideas inspired such vitriolic backlash at Middlebury, walked around this campus just a few days ago.

By nature, it is uncomfortable to encounter ideas that critique and challenge ones own. The events at Middlebury represent a clear example of a dangerous trend in higher education where popular disagreement with an outspoken guest speaker leads to censorship. Protecting the freedom of expression is one of the most important obligations Duke has to its students, and the school must always remain a place where conservatives and liberals, moderates and radicals, have the opportunity to openly debate some of the greatest issues of our time.

Ian Buchanan is a Trinity freshman. His column, "let freedom ring" runs on alternate Thursdays.

The Chronicle is your source for Duke news, sports, culture and dialogue.

Subscribe to the Chronicle: Newsletter | The Dirt | Overtime

See the original post here:
Charles Murray and the subjugation of free speech - Duke Chronicle