Charles Murray in a tie.

Author and American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholar Charles Murray, widely criticized for racist views voiced in his book The Bell Curve, was shouted down by protesters at Middlebury in early March. Murray came to speak at Columbia last night without a hitch, despite a number of protesters outside Lerner. The event, hosted by the AEI Council at Columbia and co-sponsored by the Columbia College Republicans and Columbia Political Union, addressed whether elites are to blame for the rise of Donald Trump, and discussed his book Coming Apart. We sent senior staffer Sarah Dahl to report. 

Murray’s campus speaking engagement raises vital questions about free speech and the role of universities in promoting–or stifling–robust debate. Does Murray, who has espoused racist views, deserve an elevated platform to speak at Columbia? Does he deserve to be shouted down and turned away, as he was at Middlebury? Deserve is a difficult word, and not useful here, in my opinion.

Murray was introduced by student leaders of the AEI Council and the College Republicans, who explained that they had invited him to campus in a desire to increase dialogue between opposing  viewpoints, protect free speech, and introduce ideas from every part of the political spectrum. They even said that they were amenable to nonviolent disruptions, as long as the disruptions didn’t lead to complete silencing of the speaker.

Free speech, promoting dialogue across a political diametric–these are worthy goals. Columbia is no doubt a near-opaque bubble when it comes to understanding differing political views, upbringings, backgrounds, and cultures.

Bubbles were what Murray came to discuss, and he raised interesting points about the broad divide between today’s “new upper class” and mainstream America. Murray has created something called “The Bubble Quiz,” The bubble quiz consists of questions aimed at telling you how removed you are from the mainstream. I.e., have you ever walked on a factory floor? If not, you’re closed off to a huge part of the world–everything you own and wear was made in a factory.

Murray talked about changes in American lifestyles and culture since the 1950s. The new upper class is cut off from mainstream America in its intellectualism. The new upper class rarely watches TV, and it certainly never watches programs like “Dr. Phil.” The new upper class is really, really smart. The new upper class is ignorant of the realities many of its countrymen face. The new upper class dislikes and condescends toward mainstream America (aka “flyover country,” full of rednecks and evangelical Christians), which in turn feels resentment toward the new upper class. Modern American society is divided, from our neighborhoods, to our entertainment choices, to where we get our news.

Certainly, there’s a lower class bubble as well. But Murray argued that it’s not as important if flyover-inhabitants are bigoted and racist, because they don’t have power. It’s much more problematic if a news anchor is unable to empathize with mainstreamers. That’s why our media is broadly partisan.

While interesting, the points Murray made are generalizations. Certainly, some of the rich in Greenwich watch Dr. Phil, or came from humble origins. Some of the poor in Missouri will go to Harvard, and think eugenics are wrong. Murray noted that while writing Coming Apart, he worried about how to convince readers of his arguments because he lacked solid quantitative data. So he winged it..and it worked. The bubble quiz, which  tracks participants’ zip codes, has a 0.4 correlation to income. “That’s pretty good,” Murray noted repeatedly. Still, though, generalizations.

Toward the end of the talk, Murray discussed the disappearance of core American values and the American creed: freedom, individualism, and egalitarianism. “I miss the old America,” Murray said. “It’s only going to be preserved if smart people like you don’t move to Greenwich, even if you can afford it… get out of the claustrophobic bubble you’re in, because maybe you’ll love it, and because what we had [in America] was precious.”

Murray was harkening back to a time when CEOs and factory workers lived next to each other, as they did in his hometown of Newton, Iowa. When everyone watched the same TV shows. When “seemliness” and being humble about one’s wealth were more important than buying a Cadillac. Obviously, these are nice values to remember, and perhaps tp strive for. But old America was also racist, and deeply segregated, and grossly unequal. It still is. That’s why Trump won.

After the talk, there was room for Q and A. Most of the questions were bland. All of them were respectful. One man self-identified as an alt-right Trump supporter/”vile feedback” (Murray’s words–he detests Trump, and often receives ‘vile feedback’ about it on Twitter). One woman came closest to criticizing Murray when she asked why only elites need to leave their bubble (i.e., what about racists, homophobes, anti-Semites?). Murray says it’s because elites hold the power. Moreover, he said that to identify mainstream America with the alt-right is a huge mistake. The alt-right is much smaller than that.

Combating the alt-right is what I’m interested in, and I’d like to know more about how to do that. I think a large answer is, as Murray says, for liberals like us to get out of our bubble. We need to be strong in our intellectual vigor to combat bigoted ideology and to address our country’s problems. We can’t address the diametric divide that allowed Trump to win, or that allows racists, sexists, and homophobes to thrive, without understanding opposing viewpoints and critiquing/questioning them. Take the bubble quiz. Talk to some Republicans (or Libertarians!). Sign up for Hi From the Other Side to engage with Trump supporters. Obviously, all this sounds much easier on paper than it is in reality. But it’s worth aspiring to.

Still, I’m incredibly disappointed that Murray wasn’t asked tough questions about his racist and sexist views–even if he kept his talk mild (probably as a result of the threats he received at Middlebury). I wish that the audience last night had been larger, more diverse, and more critical. I wish a more robust debate had occurred, one that truly lived up to the purposes of our First Amendment.

Photo via Eventbrite.