Protests broke out this week at Middlebury College when Charles Murray appeared for a guest lecture. The crux of his message was the work that he has done on race in the United States, and his assertion that IQ is the biggest predictor of success in America. Students came to protest and the rally turned violent at the end.
Some students were wholeheartedly opposed to Murray’s lecture and urged the university to cancel it. Others felt uncomfortable with his message but equally uncomfortable with shutting down the lecture. I personally feel that the lecture should absolutely, 100% continue. I agree with little, if any, of what Murray claims, but free speech and the exchange of ideas simply must be preserved. An open dialogue about any issue is so crucial to its eventual resolution that by shutting down any side of the argument we invariably make the issue worse. Places of higher learning have an especially sacred responsibility to preserve the freedom of speech. No one person or institution can be the arbiter of what one is allowed to say or not – rather, ideas that are harmful, backwards, or untrue must be sifted out of the collective consciousness through their expression, not their being silenced.
Read the full article here.
BYU Kennedy Center Live 
I agree with you that Charles Murray has the right to share his thoughts (whether that includes giving a speech at a private university even when students are less than enthused, I’m not so sure about). However, this whole situation worries me—I’ve noticed that over the past few years, “protest” has become a dirty word of sorts. While obviously protesters should be nonviolent, resistance is a necessary thing in any society.
I agree that he has the right to share his thoughts, especially at an institution of learning. Issues such as race are polarizing and divisive, yet that doesn’t mean that one side deserves to be punished for their thinking. Opposition, debate, and protest are all acceptable ways to communicate on a polarizing issue but violence is not. The views of the students in the article were articulate in their reasoning, but there are much more effective ways to stand against a view that is opposite one’s own. Charles Murray’s studies and opinions are worthy of criticism and debate, violence is not the answer that students or anyone should take to resolve it.
I agree that Murray has the right to give a lecture if the University invited him and it can be an important part of education to be exposed to ideas that you don’t agree with. However I also firmly believe that the students have the right to express their distaste. What I don’t agree with is the methods used. By simply boycotting the lecture the students could have been protesting, or it could have been more vocal and still civil. Somehow as a society we have to find a way to disagree with but still respect those with opposing opinions.
I agree with what’s been said above–it’s disturbing to see the increasing trend of trying to silence opposing views instead of engaging in meaningful discourse. However, I do think that peaceful protests hold an important place in our history and should in no way be discouraged or limited.