Charles Murray’s Upcoming Talk Prompted Faculty Letter to Hamilton
The faculty has expressed their dismay regarding Charles Murray’s event on campus. Many have chosen to undersign the document to show their support of the letter.
March 24, 2017
Charles Murray believes that intelligence is based on race. He co-authored the 1994 book “The Bell Curve” — which explains this hypothesis — and is scheduled to speak with the NYU branch of the American Enterprise Institute today at the Torch Club.
Murray also asserts that social welfare programs are doomed to fail. His controversial viewpoints spawned students at Middlebury College in Vermont to protest the speech he was giving on campus, as reported by the New York Times. They reported that his talk was therefore truncated.
Yesterday at noon, 12 members of the Faculty of Color Caucus at NYU wrote a letter addressed to NYU President Andrew Hamilton and Provost Katherine Fleming that expressed their dismay about Murray speaking on campus. The letter is posted on the NYU Sanctuary website and received over 140 faculty signatures from various schools within NYU — no Stern or School of Professional Studies faculty members were included of the major schools.
The letter expresses that while the faculty members believe freedom of speech is paramount, they find Murray’s invitation troubling. The letter states that the event is shrouded in more mystery than the faculty is comfortable with. Rather than fully advertising the event, the faculty feels it seems that NYU has let it fly under the radar.
“If you read the letter, you may have noticed that we are very perturbed by the idea that he is speaking at an NYU venue almost under the cover of secrecy: there is no on-campus sponsoring organization and no-one to whom questions can be addressed,” Associate Professor of History Rebecca Karl said, who signed the letter. “Murray is a man whose work is based in white supremacy and eugenicist racist thinking. These are not ‘ideas’ — this is hate, and hate is not an idea.”
Professor of Neural Science Andre Fenton, who is part of the Faculty of Color Steering Committee also saw Murray’s ideas as hateful and therefore thought it was important to take action. Fenton said he undersigned the letter due to the possible effects that Murray’s ideas could have on his community.
“I signed the letter because, whether or not I agree, the fact is that Charles Murray and what he promotes is important and therefore demands engaging, understanding and as necessary, confronting,” Fenton said. “Because Murray’s ideas are insulting and threatening to me and my daughter and family and friends, as well as many of us in the NYU community, because his ideas are widely recognized as hateful, and because he is nonetheless influential, Murray’s invitation to NYU is a special case that demands my attention.”
But attention was exactly what Fenton thought this event lacks — he said that once one of his colleagues heard about the event yesterday, the tickets required to attend the event had already run out.
“Contrast this with how easy it is to find out that I will be an invited lecturer in the Biology Department’s lecture series in a month or so,” Fenton said. “Search online for my lecture and Murray’s. Eventually I learned that it was not even possible to get a ticket to attend the Murray lecture.”
While this letter was purported to express grievances, it was not meant to bar Murray from coming — signees such as Professor Marion Kaplan of the Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies believed that Murray should still be allowed a platform. Kaplan has studied eugenics and said that Murray’s claims have been debunked many times.
“To put it simply, Murray peddles the insidious argument that disadvantaged people are disadvantaged because, on average, they cannot compete with white men, who are intellectually, psychologically and morally superior,” Kaplan said. “This is not simply a matter of a serious scholarly debate. It is junk science purporting to be serious. It is seriously racist.”
Additional Reporting by Coco Wang. Email Htoo Min at [email protected].
Veronica • Mar 26, 2017 at 1:12 am
To repeat myself, this story has little, if anything, to do with intersectionality. Or Israel. I appreciate your commitment to trolling but copying and pasting irrelevant and highly problematic texts from neo-McCarthyist websites will not even get you any attention beyond this reminder. I am sorry that you are this lonely…
Arafat • Mar 25, 2017 at 4:10 pm
During the event, Erakat said that the “solidarity” between blacks and Palestinians began in 2014, with the nightly riots in Ferguson, Missouri, following the police shooting of Michael Brown. Signs there could be seen reading “From Palestine to Ferguson,” a sentiment that soon became ubiquitous among boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) activists. Last summer, Black Lives Matter (BLM) returned the favor by publishing a platform accusing Israel of apartheid and genocide, which was endorsed by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).
Relying heavily on neo-Marxist jargon, Erakat proposed that the mission of “solidarity” extend beyond “Palestinian liberation” to “working to dismantle [the] white supremacy” that allegedly “affects us all,” including Jews, “who are also battling against white supremacy. … Zionism, rather than combat white supremacy head on, internalizes some of those Orientalizing tropes that exclude Jews from humanity, as well.”
Although she claimed to reject a binary view of the black-Palestinian alliance by alluding to the existence of black or Jewish Palestinians, her hypotheses about Jews indicated otherwise –good Jews avoid “Orientalizing tropes,” while bad Jews are pro-Israel Zionists.
Above all, Erakat sought to inspire the audience to do “the work” of social activism. She was particularly pleased with the BDS movement’s successful “work” in spoiling Israeli efforts to forge relations with prominent American institutions, and of disrupting an NFL junket to Israel and excluding Israeli swag bags at the Oscars. She blithely dismissed such outreach as “propaganda.”
In response to an audience member’s question about whether “it was productive to tease out differences to strengthen the bonds of solidarity,” Erakat began by asking, “How many here identify as activists? … You shape the future and the past.” As if there were any doubt, she then added proudly, “I’m an activist.”
The night’s final question was from a self-described pro-Israel student who asked if the panelists supported SJP’s policy of anti-normalization and non-engagement with students like herself. Obviously, she noted, this “prevents people from having dialogue.”
A visibly outraged Erakat turned the question on its head by highlighting Fordham University’s decision to prevent SJP from forming a campus chapter due to its polarizing rhetoric and tactics: “Fordham is going to ban the [SJP] and refuse to let it talk to other groups. Are you serious? … [I]f you do believe in dialogue, shouldn’t you create a larger platform for SJP?”
SJP demonizes Israel as an apartheid, Nazi-like state, while intimidating pro-Israel students and shouting down pro-Israel speakers — hardly the basis of dialogue. Yet Erakat launched an extended rant alleging that SJP, which she hailed as among the most “educative engines” for promulgating BDS in American universities, is being victimized. A lawfare enthusiast, Erakat hypocritically complained about lawyers who resist SJP with hardball legal tactics. She finished by declaring: “The criminalization of this kind of protest, by the way, is not just about Palestinians. It’s going to be about everybody. It’s all of us or none of us.”
The University of New Mexico’s Alex Lubin — the panel moderator — then concluded eloquently, “That was, like, the perfect answer,” as the audience erupted with loud and extended applause.
Erakat and her anti-Israel, anti-Western colleagues have abandoned rigorous scholarship and teaching for agitprop based on blatant bigotry. They prefer demonization to dialogue because, as with all ideologues, their intellectual impoverishment compliments their hate-filled activism. That her ilk has overtaken Middle East studies departments in academia demonstrates the urgent need for thorough reform.
Mara Schiffren, who has a Ph.D. from Harvard University in the Study of Religion, is currently working on a book about historical Israel. This essay was sponsored by Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. A version of this article was originally published by The Daily Caller.
Arafat • Mar 25, 2017 at 4:08 pm
Israel-bashing in the name of “intersectional solidarity” is now a feature of Black History Month, according to New York University’s Hagop Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies. In late February, the Center co-sponsored a panel discussion — “When I See Them, I See Us: Black Palestinian Solidarity” — with the NYU chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).
More than 100 people filled the Labowitz Theatre for the Performing Arts, while a few stragglers sat on benches off to the side, unable to fully view the panel. The panel discussed “intersectionality,” the latest fad in academic theories, and promoted an alliance between black and Palestinian “social justice” activists.
George Mason University professor Noura Erakat was a predictable choice to represent the Palestinian perspective. The niece of Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erakat, a devout anti-Israel activist and a practitioner of lawfare, Erakat is notorious for tweeting that: “an active [Israeli] combat soldier, even if not in the field, can be killed.” She is also the lead producer of a video whose title inspired the panel — “When I See Them, I See Us.”
March 24, 2017 7:05 am
0
Westminster Carnage, Turkish Delight
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan didn’t know he was going to get so lucky on Wednesday, when a threat he…
During the event, Erakat said that the “solidarity” between blacks and Palestinians began in 2014, with the nightly riots in Ferguson, Missouri, following the police shooting of Michael Brown. Signs there could be seen reading “From Palestine to Ferguson,” a sentiment that soon became ubiquitous among boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) activists. Last summer, Black Lives Matter (BLM) returned the favor by publishing a platform accusing Israel of apartheid and genocide, which was endorsed by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).
Relying heavily on neo-Marxist jargon, Erakat proposed that the mission of “solidarity” extend beyond “Palestinian liberation” to “working to dismantle [the] white supremacy” that allegedly “affects us all,” including Jews, “who are also battling against white supremacy. … Zionism, rather than combat white supremacy head on, internalizes some of those Orientalizing tropes that exclude Jews from humanity, as well.”
Although she claimed to reject a binary view of the black-Palestinian alliance by alluding to the existence of black or Jewish Palestinians, her hypotheses about Jews indicated otherwise –good Jews avoid “Orientalizing tropes,” while bad Jews are pro-Israel Zionists.
Above all, Erakat sought to inspire the audience to do “the work” of social activism. She was particularly pleased with the BDS movement’s successful “work” in spoiling Israeli efforts to forge relations with prominent American institutions, and of disrupting an NFL junket to Israel and excluding Israeli swag bags at the Oscars. She blithely dismissed such outreach as “propaganda.”
In response to an audience member’s question about whether “it was productive to tease out differences to strengthen the bonds of solidarity,” Erakat began by asking, “How many here identify as activists? … You shape the future and the past.” As if there were any doubt, she then added proudly, “I’m an activist.”
The night’s final question was from a self-described pro-Israel student who asked if the panelists supported SJP’s policy of anti-normalization and non-engagement with students like herself. Obviously, she noted, this “prevents people from having dialogue.”
A visibly outraged Erakat turned the question on its head by highlighting Fordham University’s decision to prevent SJP from forming a campus chapter due to its polarizing rhetoric and tactics: “Fordham is going to ban the [SJP] and refuse to let it talk to other groups. Are you serious? … [I]f you do believe in dialogue, shouldn’t you create a larger platform for SJP?”
SJP demonizes Israel as an apartheid, Nazi-like state, while intimidating pro-Israel students and shouting down pro-Israel speakers — hardly the basis of dialogue. Yet Erakat launched an extended rant alleging that SJP, which she hailed as among the most “educative engines” for promulgating BDS in American universities, is being victimized. A lawfare enthusiast, Erakat hypocritically complained about lawyers who resist SJP with hardball legal tactics. She finished by declaring: “The criminalization of this kind of protest, by the way, is not just about Palestinians. It’s going to be about everybody. It’s all of us or none of us.”
The University of New Mexico’s Alex Lubin — the panel moderator — then concluded eloquently, “That was, like, the perfect answer,” as the audience erupted with loud and extended applause.
Erakat and her anti-Israel, anti-Western colleagues have abandoned rigorous scholarship and teaching for agitprop based on blatant bigotry. They prefer demonization to dialogue because, as with all ideologues, their intellectual impoverishment compliments their hate-filled activism. That her ilk has overtaken Middle East studies departments in academia demonstrates the urgent need for thorough reform.
Mara Schiffren, who has a Ph.D. from Harvard University in the Study of Religion, is currently working on a book about historical Israel. This essay was sponsored by Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. A version of this article was originally published by The Daily Caller.
Veronica • Mar 25, 2017 at 1:44 pm
I am not accusing you of anything other than being a no-life troll commenting on issues about which you clearly know nothing. I was referring to Charles Murray. But you were unable to make this connection, because you do not write these myriad comments on this website for engaging in a discussion. You write them because you are a lonely loser seeking attention. And intersectionality, which is a theoretical framework compatible with most if not all knowledge produced by social science departments, has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
Arafat • Mar 25, 2017 at 1:26 pm
I love it how liberals always accuse me of being a white supremacist.
I am a strong proponent of Hindu and East Asia immigration to Amerika.
No doubt you are a believer in non-scientific garbage like the hip new intersectionality bullsh*t.
Veronica • Mar 25, 2017 at 11:44 am
Or maybe they are not interested in absolutely non-scientific garbage to be promoted at institutions of higher education? Also, I love how a no-life troll accuses people of fascism to promote white supremacism. This is very convincing.
🙂
Arafat • Mar 25, 2017 at 8:46 am
“…essor of History Rebecca Karl said, who signed the letter. “Murray is a man whose work is based in white supremacy and eugenicist racist thinking. These are not ‘ideas’ — this is hate, and hate is not an idea.”
OK…if you say so.
No, Rebecca. Hate is what you claim it is. What is hate is what happened to Murray thanks to liberals like you when he visited Middlebury. That’s true unbridled hatred brought to you by liberals like you.
Arafat • Mar 25, 2017 at 8:44 am
“The letter expresses that while the faculty members believe freedom of speech is paramount, they find Murray’s invitation troubling.”
LOL.
This comment reeks of Marxism and fascism. The insinuation and innuendo is so typical. In plain speak they are saying they want to force any opposing views to be shut down.