Society and Culture

Charles Murray: An open letter to the students of Azusa Pacific University

Image Credit: YouTube

Image Credit: YouTube

I was scheduled to speak to you tomorrow. I was going to talk about my new book, “The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Getting Ahead,” and was looking forward to it. But it has been “postponed.” Why? An email from your president, Jon Wallace, to my employer, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), said “Given the lateness of the semester and the full record of Dr. Murray’s scholarship, I realized we needed more time to prepare for a visit and postponed Wednesday’s conversation.” This, about an appearance that has been planned for months. I also understand from another faculty member that he and the provost were afraid of “hurting our faculty and students of color.”

You’re at college, right? Being at college is supposed to mean thinking for yourselves, right? Okay, then do it. Don’t be satisfied with links to websites that specialize in libeling people. Lose the secondary sources. Explore for yourself the “full range” of my scholarship and find out what it is that I’ve written or said that would hurt your faculty or students of color. It’s not hard. In fact, you can do it without moving from your chair if you’re in front of your computer.

You don’t have to buy my books. Instead, go to my web page at AEI. There you will find the full texts of dozens of articles I’ve written for the last quarter-century. Browse through them. Will you find anything that is controversial? That people disagree with? Yes, because (hang on to your hats) scholarship usually means writing about things on which people disagree.

The task of the scholar is to present a case for his or her position based on evidence and logic. Another task of the scholar is to do so in a way that invites everybody into the discussion rather than demonize those who disagree. Try to find anything under my name that is not written in that spirit. Try to find even a paragraph that is written in anger, takes a cheap shot, or attacks women, African Americans, Latinos, Asians, or anyone else.

But there’s another way to decide whether you would have been safe in my hands if I had spoken at Azusa Pacific. Go to YouTube and search “Charles Murray.” You will get links to dozens of lectures, panel discussions, and television interviews. You can watch Q&A sessions in which I field questions from students like you, including extremely hostile ones. Watch even for a few minutes. Ask yourself if I insult them or lash out. If I do anything except take their questions seriously and answer them accordingly. Ask yourself if I’m anything more dangerous than an earnest and nerdy old guy.

Azusa Pacific’s administration wants to protect you from earnest and nerdy old guys who have opinions that some of your faculty do not share. Ask if this is why you’re getting a college education.

Sincerely,

Charles Murray

Follow AEIdeas on Twitter at @AEIdeas.

166 thoughts on “Charles Murray: An open letter to the students of Azusa Pacific University

  1. I am a current student at Azusa Pacific and must say a majority of these comments are invalid when commenting on our school’s theology and ideology.
    Let me tell you from a Roman Catholic student attending a highly protestant school, we hold ourselves to have high morals and make it a hope to act like great followers of Christ. Given that WE ARE NOT PERFECT and to put that pressure on any student or any institution is ridiculous.
    By all means criticize on facts that you know and not on what you believe. If you have not stepped a foot on Azusa Pacific’s campus, then therefor keep your ignorant opinion to yourself.
    As to the cancellation of your invitation Dr. Murray know that not all students agree with this. I believe there was no reason to this cancellation and in fact I would’ve enjoyed if you did push our buttons or anger us in some way. The fact of the matter is that I go to a very sheltered school. We are not a normal university, we are a Christian university therefor we like to uphold ourselves with Christian morals and if someone accused you of being a public “racist” then understand that of course you would be uninvited to my university.
    Again, not all students agree with this ideology. I sure don’t. But THAT is the university that I attend and therefore THAT is the way it is going to be.

    (Sometimes you just have to abide by the institution that offers you those most scholarship).
    But as a side note, as much as I don’t agree with the institution on MANY issues… Azusa Pacific is a fantastic school with amazing open minded students and faculty, so don’t label us all as these stereotypical “liberal” or “conservative” Christians. Many of us here are not even close to that.

    Thank you.

    • Dear APU Student @ Pardon me, but your comment to Mr. Murray’s letter is overreacting and missing the point entirely. The postponing diplomatically implied there was something with Mr. Murray’s past, trying to make a judgement that students should have given the possibility to make.

      You claim this is how a Christian University should work. But Christianity is not about the teacher avoiding students to confront a (probably) different view.
      What struck me the most is hearing you say : if you are accused of being racist you are uninvited to my University.

      Here’s 2 errors : a) being accused is not being already convicted (except in Communist Romania, e.g., where i grew. What’s left of the US if you do not have due process?). This is crediting a virtual-mob-lynch. b) you are uninvited to my university = you speak as if this was your private property and as if you alone incarnate the rest of the students.

      Christianity is Freedom. The Truth will set you free. And truth doesn’t come through administrative censorship but through reason and experience.

    • You have no right to be indignant. They had already scheduled the lecture. If they had turned him down in the first place it would have been different. They cancelled it out of cowardice the day before he was about to speak.

      It’s depressing that Christians would jump on the secular egalitarian bandwagon and label someone a racist who simply talks about scientific facts. The reason he is attacked by the establishment is that he undermines the utopian fantasies of the secular humanists. You are allying yourself with people who hold your in just as much disdain as him.

    • APU Student, you write at an early elementary school level. I am embarrassed for you. It’s no wonder that you chose to use a pseudonym.

      • After three years at APU, I’m convinced some students were admitted purely on their Sunday School attendance record. I would consider myself dumber and more socially inept than the average college graduate (hence why I attend APU and not somewhere more prestigious), but there’s no way half of the students here were admitted due to their intellectual capabilities.

        • I have to say that I’ve been thinking the same thing. for college students, this is some of the worst writing I’ve ever read, and I taught remedial English at Cal Fullerton. I went to check out APU page, and it claims to have been recognized by a number of prestigious schools. My experience in Christian U’s has been that set an even higher standard than the secular school. What has happened?

    • Would an atheist have been uninvited or a Leftist who is decidedly proMarxist? Only the Right seem to continue to be uninvited. Where is the open mindedness and diversity of ideology? Certainly not on college campuses these days.

  2. The biggest problem facing America is it’s not American.

    The moment America became anti-White then it ceased to exist. Conservatives are terrified of being called “racist” which is why they always lose. Either Conservatives, which are overwhelmingly White, accept that the world hates, steals, rapes, murders, and displaces Whites or they disappear.

    Politics is presence. When America isn’t White it isn’t America. If America was explicitly 100% White there would be no discussion about Turd World immigration, illegals, or foreign aid. Whites have no need of non-Whites and never have.

    When I point this out White Conservatives sound no different from Libtards. Mass non-White immigration and so-called “refugees” from the Turd World. Whites go out of their way to “prove” they’re not “racist” by giving them Welfare, Rent, and Tuition. Then the non-Whites rape, rob, murder, and vote Democrat.

    There is no such thing as Left and Right. There’s only White and anti-White. Either Whites ask themselves – What’s good for Whites? Or they lose every time.

    What’s good for Whites?
    * Mass non-White immigration and Refugees from the Turd World? – No.

    What’s good for Whites?
    * Foreign Aid for non-Whites? – No.

    What’s good for Whites?
    * Welfare, EBT, and tuition for non-Whites? – No.

    Only Whites are FORCED to spend money on non-Whites. Get off of the Cross Whitey!

    • Respectfully, as someone who’s pretty sour cream colored, you’re full of it. I am shocked and appalled that there are people who still think this way. People are people and the way we look has no bearing on that. I actually have very little to say to this comment because it’s so amazingly horrible and despicable that I can’t find a set of polite words to say. Moreover, I refuse to dignify the absurdity and evil of your comment by giving it more than the couple minutes I’ve given it now which, admittedly, is more than it deserves. I’m sorry for you and I hope that you learn that everyone is equal.

      • Height, weight, athleticism, resistances, hormones, puberty, R/K selection, all are determined by genes. But according to you there’s some “magical quality” that makes us all “magically equal.”

        Don’t posture moral enlightenment. That doesn’t work anymore. We can get that from Libtards. You’re not “sorry” for anyone. You sound like a typical dopey White ignoramus who lives around Whites, works with Whites, has a White life yet worships the failed god of “equality” from behind a gated fence. You’re an ethno-masochist, which is not simply suicidal but genocidal. You’ve made it your religious mission like an Arab strapped with C4 to blow up and murder the chances of group identity and thus survival of your own family and lineage. You’re so far beyond stupid you actually feel self-righteous when attacking Whites for existing.

        In South Africa, while know-nothing Whites like you were screaming “racism” from a White America, Joe Slovo organized and shipped in hordes of low-IQ, sub-saharan Africans by the millions. They were singing “Kill the White Farmer! Kill the Boer!” South Africa, once a small colony of religious people like the Amish who escaped Europe, became a blood bath. Now it’s infested with 70 IQ and looks like Detroit, when it used to look like the Motor City from the 50′s, because people like you believe that evolution stops at the neck. It doesn’t.

        Go get a bone marrow transplant and you’ll magically discover that biological race still exists. Of course, you can’t verify any of this. It’s impossible for you. You’re beyond stupid. Your brain is short circuiting as you read this. The most salient feature of indoctrination is self-censorship. It’s easy to verify for anyone who isn’t indoctrinated. You’ve made “equality” a religion, which is why you speak of “evil.”

        Whites cannot love all races and not hate their own.
        Whites cannot serve other races and not steal from their own.
        Whites cannot acknowledge other races and not denigrate their own.
        To be multi-racial is to be anti-White.

      • The worst racist murder in Britain in the last 30 years, involved a 14 year old boy being ambushed by 3 racist men who went out looking for someone to kill. They found this lone, small boy.

        They kidnapped him. While he was still alive, they gouged out his eyes, they castrated him. They stabbed him many times in the back of their car. Still not dead, they dumped his castrated, blinded body – and set fire to him.

        Guess what? The 3 men were muslim asians, the boy was white. They killed him for his colour alone (or maybe also for him not being muslim). But it is your whites-are-the-racists mentality that meant they could do this.

        http://bit.ly/19UPrQv

        Moreover, the memory of this victim of racist violence has been expunged from the national consciousness. All we ever hear about, is a black teenager killed (without premeditation) by 3 white teenagers. White people are 85% of the UK population; 50% of the victims of racist violence are white. Get that? The racist violence is disproportionately directed to the indigenous population, by the immigrants from the last 50 years (most of the attacks on jews in the UK are also by “immigrants).

        “People are people and the way we look has no bearing on that. I actually have very little to say to this comment because it’s so amazingly horrible and despicable that I can’t find a set of polite words to say.”

        Because it challenges your deeply held religious belief: racism.

    • I assume you meant the Koch brothers. Your reply was a foolish as the original post. As Christians we are one in Christ. We should never shrink from discovering the truth even when it hurts. The truth helps us to grow and adjust to the world. If daa shows that there is an IQ discrepancy between races, should we not find out if there is some problem causing it? That means being honest about the issue from the outset.

  3. So I didn’t know about Murray coming to our school until a friend of mine (who is of a race not mentioned) pointed it out to me and showed me some of the things he has written, some of which aggravated me and others which I might have agreed with at first glance. However this letter above is one of the reasons why I don’t think he should be coming to speak at a fairly conservative Christian campus. Sir in your letter you sounds like no more than a grumpy articulate racist. One who knows how to handle themselves so as to blend into society and cause minor ripples of discontent. So please, if you do still intend on paying us a visit do realize to which school you will be speaking and know that some of your ideas while written up nice and pretty seem to be legitimate are in some aspects hurtful and disrespectful to those of races different to your own. Oh and next time don’t post a whiny letter to your company website, it just makes you look like a child who got told they were no longer having McDonald’s for dinner.
    Sincerely,
    Liberal, African American, APU student, with a brain as equally as competent as yours.

    • In trying to follow this issue you didn’t succeed in pointing out what precisely is Mr Murray’s guilt. you just came up with the racist libel and repressed anger. Plus you speak as well as if everybody agrees to you. The last commentary, on the other hand clarified a little bit that Mr Murray insisted that economically, governmental welfare programs din more harm than good to your community. Can you follow the logic and stop being emotional? Because even though you invoke the brain you do not construct an argument but you are blaming without proofs. PS I got on this page by accident and followed the dispute out of curiosity.

    • Intrigued Bystander, can you provide quotes from Murray’s letter that support your accusation that he’s a secret racist? I will bet my house that you can’t, which is why you didn’t. You may (or may not) have a competent brain, but your mind is flaccid. Great job, APU!

    • I did not get that from his letter at all. I read it as a challenge to look at his writing for yourself instead of getting information secondhand.

    • Okay, fixated on race, fearful of hearing different ideas, and practically illiterate. Check. A fine representative of another school I would have zero interest in my children attending.

    • Intrigued Bystander, I am glad that your university’s president took action to protect your competent brain from being hurt by Dr. Murray’s ideas.

    • Where in your comment is this allegedly competent brain put to use? All I see is the typical ad hominems, baseless libels, and race-card shaming of a closed and uncurious mind.

    • I’ll be damned if this isn’t APU’s School Government Association’s president. I’m glad he considers himself competent, I guess, but his competence in arguing a position seems to be lacking.

  4. I know that some universities have summer reading programs, or reading assignments for incoming freshman. If APU has such a program, I would like the assignment to be Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s 1965 paper, “The Negro Family: The Case For National Action” coupled with Charles Murray’s “Losing Ground”. The first made the prescient case for the impact that the social welfare programs of the Great Society would have, and the second put data to the anecdeotal evidence of those negative impacts of government social engineering.

    Then the students would be able to critically assess this issue without the emotion or talking points of partisan politics. They might even learn something.

    • i will read moynihans paper, but i would say that if there are problems with black folks families, several hundred years of slavery, along with all the evil done to them every day of their lives, the worst must have been splitting up families, selling husbands, wives, children, grandparents, such casual evil cruelty, how terrible to know that your ancestors were treated in this way, there is no memorial for those broken people is there, are they just supposed to get over it? just move on? and still people hate them, think! people think!

      • Cora, If you were to read “Losing Ground” you would see that the data shows that blacks had recovered from the slavery experience, and that their situation with respect to family integrity was not dramatically different from other population groups. In 1950, 78% of black families had two parents. In 1967, that was down to 72%, down to 63% in 1974 and 59% in 1980. (that figure is 30% today.) Perversely, government policies provided economic incentives for poor women with children to NOT marry. (JFK addressed this issue in 1961.) Marriage to a low income man would result in a net loss of income/benefits. Exacerbating this in the black population was the great increase in black teen births, the only group to show a dramatic increase in childbirth rates. By 1980, 82% of black births were to unmarried women, the vast majority teenagers.

        Another interesting tidbit, young (16-24) black males had a higher rate of participation (74%) in the labor force than did young white males in 1960 (2.7% higher). By 1970, those numbers had reversed, and young black males were 3.6% behind their white contemporaries. This happened during a time on great economic expansion and a decrease in overall unemployment. The major difference over the previous decade was the implementation of Great Society programs that had the perverse result of hurting those it was designed to help. By the way, the labor force participation rate for young black males was down to 57% in 2010, and has continued to fall since then.

        Much of the data presented applies to all poor, not just blacks. One problem that Dr. Murray faced was that earlier statistical data did not have the same levels of detail as later data so, for some of the analysis, blacks were the statistical stand-in for the overall poor population.

      • Up until “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years” LBJ’s Great Society, the black family was 70-75% intact…with both mother and FATHER present in the home. After LBJ’s programs were implemented, the black family structure collapsed. Today, 75% of households are run by women with no father figure in sight. The only positive is for the democrat party as LBJ set up. They treat blacks as state-owned pets – feed ‘em, vaccinate ‘em and they will vote themselves more of the same.

        • Well put! Murray makes much the same point in all of his books that social pathology, not race, is the primary cause for poverty, not the other way around.

      • Cora, you do know that slavery was common throughout man’s history around the world and not really abolished until the late 1800′s and early 1900s in the muslim world. Actually slaving is still practiced in Yemen, the Sudan, Egypt and other muslim countries today.

        There were more white Europeans inducted into slavery by muslims in North Africa, some 1.5 million, than blacks into the US. Your Marine Hymn contains the words “to the shores of Tripoli” because the US Navy was created by Thomas Jefferson to combat this slave trade.

        The word slave comes from Slavic in Europe. Blacks using this long past slavery are just searching for an excuse so they can remain victims.

        • Racism is alive and well. Structural racism can be found and monitored in almost any modern academic article on educational disparity. This includes Hispanics and African Americans. Just as Native American’s were made dependent on the government purposely through policy, so are many minorities forced to live in socioeconomic poverty due to education and law. Anyone who works within social justice system knows that structural racism is effecting the marginalized.

          • This is nonsense. At one time this might have been true, but by the late seventies and early eighties, affirmative action programs were the norm and structural bias was eliminated, and in may cases, reversed. Now minorities are told that there is some insidious plot to block them from success, something they can’t actually see, but there, nonetheless. In reality, the problems with minority populations today are related to a lack of a father in the home, and an emphasis by parents away from intellectual pursuit. This does not just occur in minority populations, but also in the White population. Asians, who do not have a high rate of single motherhood, and an emphasis on education and success, do not have this problem and excel past Whites, on average.

      • In other wards , come to our. College before you judge us, we will judge you as being a racist because other. People say you are a racist without investigating your beliefs ourself, that is ok because we are a religious school that is sheltered. That does not sound like the religion I grew up with.

  5. Our country’s citizens have lost the fine art of filtering. We blurt! Instead of listening we interrupt. Instead of tap-dance around issue of race or accepting whatever you read on in the internet, I challenge all Americans to practice thoughtfulness. Before you blurt out the very first thing that comes into your head, do some research, create a solid opinion and prepare for the party listening, to disagree! This is America! Be brave. Be different but be respectful to each other. It is easy to follow trends. It takes courage to respectfully disagree. Remember, you have to live with what you say and write. Your words will be part of your footprint for life.

    When our nation no longer exercises the ability to respectfully disagree yet come together, we as a nation fail.

  6. Universities today are for the most part nothing more than left wing/communist propaganda dispensers. The faculty/communist propagandists hate America and admire all who hate America, so swallow their poison at your own peril.

  7. I go to Azusa because of a gracious athletic scholarship. I have been trapped in this bubble for two years now, and will likely spend two more years. Charles Murray is correct in accusing Apu students of faculty-induced thinking. It is difficult to find students at Azusa Pacifc who have a working mind that is capable of independent thought past the biased thinking of the University(or as another has commented, the “babysitters”). Azusa should not be considered a college in reference to scholarship, for, as Charles Murray suggests, scholarship requires disagreeance. Azusa Pacifc, along with many private religious programs (yes, I will speak in a stereotypical tongue), fail to adequately develop students. All this, is taking religion out of the equation, because religion itself is not the problem. The problem perhaps lies as a result of facilitated, collegiate religion: let’s call this the “religious canopy” that engulfs Azusa Pacific. Sadly, I am trapped at this university for the remainder of my undergraduate program due to subjective units that Apy only to Azusa. Pardon My Venting.

    • I’m at APU for another 4 or 5 semesters and can’t convince myself to leave, considering how neck-deep I’ve gotten in debt. I am not your typical Christian, and it amuses me how people look at me when I speak with my friends on campus about “controversial” topics, such as American Christians being the laziest form of Christianity, or sex, or drugs, or drinking, or even Asian jokes (I’m 100% Asian myself). There is this lovely (note the sarcasm) bubble that these kids have lived in for so long that they forget that there is a world out there that is racist and harsh and doesn’t coddle the weak. The faculty has a tendency to try and shelter us from “the real world”, and it’s sad to see these all these (somewhat) brilliant minds go to waste. I think if Murray had come as a speaker, APU students would have had heart attacks in the middle of chapel (let’s be real).

  8. I go to Azusa because of a gracious athletic scholarship. I have been trapped in this bubble for two years now, and will likely spend two more years. Charles Murray is correct in accusing Apu students of faculty-induced thinking. It is difficult to find students at Azusa Pacifc who have a working mind that is capable of independent thought past the biased thinking of the University(or as another has commented, the “babysitters”). Azusa should not be considered a college in reference to scholarship, for, as Charles Murray suggests, scholarship requires disagreeance. Azusa Pacifc, along with many private religious programs (yes, I will speak in a stereotypical tongue), fail to adequately develop students. All this, is taking religion out of the equation, because religion itself is not the problem. The problem perhaps lies as a result of facilitated, collegiate religion: let’s call this the “religious canopy” that engulfs Azusa Pacific. Sadly, I am trapped at this university for the remainder of my undergraduate program due to subjective units that Aply only to Azusa. Pardon My Venting.

  9. You were going to speak at our chapel. I think it is inappropriate that my school invited someone during a time set apart for Jesus, to come talk about his book.
    This would have hurt people, especially my friends who’s families are within situations that your book describes, and honestly I would have been pissed the school did that during a CHAPEL hour we are REQUIRED to sit through.

    It seems like we are doing things for the sake of being Christian (Going to chapel) not for the sake of loving Jesus (going to chapel to learn about Jesus).

    • Good point! That sounds like a sorry confusion of worship and learning. The problem wouldn’t be special to Mr. Murray speaking, though, and would be worse, in fact, if it was some pastor who was talking on a secular subject, because it would seem he was speaking with the authority of a pastor preaching.

    • You do have a great point here. Chapel should be a time used to teach the scriptures. Unfortunately, you also seem to confuse offense with hurt. A speech such as this cannot physically hurt people. It can offend people, but it can’t hurt them. Some times it’s good to be offended; it allows us to practice being more like Christ. It also aids us in the task of analyzing our beliefs.

      Also, please reconsider your approach – wanting to learn to love Christ more – if you are going to communicate being “pissed” at being forced to sit and listen to a speaker. This is wrong on so many levels. First, it’s vulgar. As Christians, we are called to have gracious speech. Second, believers all over the world suffer much more egregious wrongs, and then are called to love and forgive their tormentors. If those in authority over you call you to sit through a simple speech, it’s something you should easily be able to handle without grumbling. Remember those who are being called to suffer much worse. (I just had coffee with a woman who fled Iraq because of Christ. This was after many of her friends were murdered.) And third, how is that you want to love Christ, but you dismiss being gracious to Murray? Can your tone not be gentler, more respectful?

      Finally, please represent your college well by proofing your text. It’s whose families, not who’s – which means who is. This may seem like I’m being extremely picky, but it goes to the heart of a great concern in our country. Many fear that universities are focusing on peripheral issues rather than teaching how to think critically and communicate effectively – which ironically, goes back to a lot of Murray’s points. Perhaps God had a plan for him being there after all.

      Grace and peace, young believer. May the Lord bless and keep you as He works out His plan in your life.

  10. C. Murray misrepresents the communication the University had with him. Murray said the reason given for the postponement was, ““Given the lateness of the semester and the full record of Dr. Murray’s scholarship, I realized we needed more time to prepare for a visit and postponed Wednesday’s conversation.” ”

    However, the major point of contention stems from Murray’s personal quote: “”I also understand from another faculty member that he and the provost were afraid of “hurting our faculty and students of color.””

    Many robust conversations and statements are based on this unverifiable quote than only Murray himself has offered. How are we to know these words were actually spoken, and spoken by someone who represents the University?

    Also, according to the University’s website, Murray’s talk would have taken place only 5 calendar days before finals week. That’s IS very late in the school year to begin a complex, campus-wide conversation. So, postponing makes a lot of sense.

    This seems more like a scheduling error than anything else.

  11. When I attended APU it was the most liberal school I had seen. So if they decided to postpone something it wasn’t for something as stupid as hurting someones feelings. It more than likely had more to do with something that had nothing to do with the subject matter. I also appreciate the approach with this post. I does not tear down the university or any person for the decision, but encourages an open minded opinion. This IS what APU was always about.

    • “Most liberal school”? Sure, considering this is a Christian institution, we’re a bit more liberal compared to schools such as Biola, but have you ever been to a public school? A non-Christian/religious university? Kids like me who have sex, smoke, and drink are the norm there. Here, it’s not spoken of on campus. There is a bubble here, and it’s real.

  12. Dear S. Rey. While literate comments follow, yours was the first in this thread that followed the general rules of the English language throughout. I appreciate what you and the Romanian ex-pat had to say and the way that you expressed yourself. Some of the comments cause me to fear for the scholarship at an institution that I’ve long heald in some regard. BTW, Noah was my grandfather, and I don’t know anyone who isn’t my cousin. Thomas Sowell and Paul Johnson have written excellent books that deal with differences between cultures. To quote Sowell (I can’t remember which book) there are no superior races, but there are cultures that are superior or inferior.

  13. There are too many comments (and many of such poor quality) that I’m not sure if this has already been said yet, so please forgive me if I am repetitive.

    I feel a need to stand up for the administration of APU (not the discussion-fearing faculty and students, mind you), especially John Wallace. As someone who has met Dr. Wallace heard some of the conversations surrounding this postponement, I really believe that his words are meant earnestly.

    This chapel lecture was to occur during Dead Week (the week before finals, for those of you who aren’t up on your college lingo). Because of this would be very poorly attended, and it would have fallen on very few, very stressed, and very tired ears…hardly an appropriate audience for engaging a scholarly and controversial subject.

    Additionally, this lecture would have been immediately followed by finals week and summer dismissal, leaving virtually no time (and certainly no willing student participants) for further interaction or discussion. I would dare to say that this whole thing is, perhaps, merely the oversight of a single chapel-booker being blown out of proportion by some hyper-sensitive and attention-hungry people.

    I’ve seen APU handle controversial material; they’ll have a required chapel lecture, an optional post-lecture in a dormitory hall, a banquet lecture following that, and faculty panel later on in the week. With so little time following this lecture to do anything of this nature, I believe the APU administration made a wise choice in postponing (not canceling) this lecture.

    I agree with Dr. Murray’s words towards the students and staff of APU, and I think the student body’s outrage surrounding his lecture only proves the fact that the University needs both more time and a more appropriate time to prepare for his speaking.

    • Good comment. It’s plausible, but the University should have fixed up a new date at the same time that it cancelled the original one. Since the late cancellation was an inconvenience to Mr. Murray caused the university’s negligence, the university should have given his talk first priority and rescheduled next fall as necessary to make the new date for his talk convenient for him.
      If that were done, an email with a list of lots of possible dates would have been OK. Mr. Murray would have responded immediately if any of the dates were ok, and otherwise a phone conversation coudl be arranged to figure out what to do.
      An email just postponing indefinitely is impolite, though. It should have been an apologetic phone call.

      • I agree with Eric about sending an ‘email’ to postpone the engagement, but I personally think it to be a bit unprofessional to officially cancel ‘any’ appointment that way. In this particular case, the email, should have been followed by a phone, with the intention of explaining the reasons for the cancellation, and ended with letting the speaker know that they would be receiving an ‘official’ restating what was said on the phone, and more if necessary.
        That being said, many of us were confused as to why you even planned for him to come to the campus. What you call “controversial” is need of serious questioning. This is not as simple as discussing one doctrine of faith over another. This is a very serious mistake, one that I and others would put in the same category as inviting a “Nazi sympathizer.” And as you can see from the way Mr. Murray handled this, he is more justified in his rant within the boundaries of secularism -though, just as unprofessional – than the schools’ reaction to him, regardless of the reason they’ve stated.
        This situation is baffling to people both on and off the campus.
        Needless to say, many are thinking that APU is avoiding telling the truth around this situation, which is unfortunate, because it only makes the school look bad, especially in light of how the other students are responding to Mr. Murray’s “rant.”

  14. As a 2013 graduate of APU, I’m not surprised by this. APU is an extremely sheltered community, and from experience, is proactive on siding with its faculty rather than the interests of its student body. I had multiple issues with my employer on campus, which APU took the side of the faculty member. I run a mildly controversial Facebook page focused on student expression that I was pressured to shut down because of faculty’s displeasure. I can easily say that APU has it’s main focus on the individuals who teach, rather than the student who pays thousands to learn.

    God First since 1899, eh?

    • That’s so interesting! You end your post with “God First since 1899,…” yet your whole conversation is about how ‘you’ were handled at the school. I guess the mission/doctrinal statement of the school wasn’t the reason you went there, right? Because at the end of the day (or the First Day of Lord), it’s going to be about the impact of your “controversial Facebook page,” and not whether you submitted yourself to the authority over you. An authority that you placed yourself under when you decided to attend that school – RIGHT?

      I have to admit that I have serious questions about the school, but only because of the posts that have been made on this page. APU could be 100% wrong in the way they are handling this situation, but for students to come here and voice their displeasure? Hmmm, there’s something very “unchristian” going on here.

      • Of course my post was about how I was “handled” at the school. Over the course of 4 years I spent over $100,000 there to receive an education, is it such a shameful act that being a paying customer, one who is expressing my displeasure, is something to look down upon? Can you explain how that is “unchristian”? I’m appalled at such a statement.

        I selected APU as my college of choice because of the mission/doctrine, not a school that continually overstretched it’s boundaries that began to limit freedom of speech. Authority is one thing, dictatorship is another.

        • Ah! The unmistakeable cry of the “entitled” student, who in one breath validates the school by pointing out the “100,000″ bill he’ll be paying over the next 20 years. Then, in the next breath raises up his indignation, placing it on a pedestal for all to see, because the idea of submitting to the authority of those whom he paid the 100,000 to learn from was too much of a burden? Really? Did you think that your Christian education and growth were limited to those times spent ‘inside’ the classroom?

          What I know about APU is based on information from about 10 years ago. The shift of these schools to a more secular worldview has been studied and documented, along with the “new” Christian students leaving their campuses. The reason for the study? Because of the increasingly temperamental, and barely visible evidence of Christian humility, tolerance and understanding in the graduating classes of those schools. (Note: This does not reflect the findings of those students called to the
          missionary field).
          Another study done in the late 90′s determined that a four-year college education had become the equivalent of a ‘high-class’ community college degree, because most employers were happy to find graduate students – who above all else – capable of following directions, respecting authority and building upon the foundation of basic skills learned in a four-year institution. So, to spend that kind of money
          Now that’s appalling.

        • Ah! The unmistakeable cry of the “entitled” student, who in one breath validates the school by pointing out the “100,000″ bill he’ll be paying over the next 20 years. Then, in the next breath raises up his indignation, placing it on a pedestal for all to see, because the idea of submitting to the authority of those whom he paid the 100,000 to learn from was too much of a burden? Really? Did you think that your Christian education and growth were limited to those times spent ‘inside’ the classroom?

          What I know about APU is based on information from about 10 years ago. The shift of these schools to a more secular worldview has been studied and documented, along with the “new” Christian students leaving their campuses. The reason for the study? Because of the increasingly temperamental, and barely visible evidence of Christian humility, tolerance and understanding in the graduating classes of those schools. (Note: This does not reflect the findings of those students called to the
          missionary field).
          Another study done in the late 90′s determined that a four-year college education had become the equivalent of a ‘high-class’ community college degree, because most employers were happy to find graduate students – who above all else – capable of following directions, respecting authority and building upon the foundation of basic skills learned in a four-year institution.
          So, for all that money spent to show employers an ability to display the basic skills most young people should have acquired by the end of high school; skills Christian students are raised to reflect as a sign of spiritual growth and maturity, all you’ve gotten of this are bad feelings because of a controversial blog?
          Now that’s appalling.

  15. You weren’t welcome by the students not the school. A student and alumni mounted protest was going to take place outside your lecture this week and the school decided to cancel in response to the students outrage that you were invited. You’re right, it was their bad. But they weren’t babysitting us. Simply pacifying. That’s how the politics on campus work. You mention a gay straight alliance, they give a speech about homosexuality in chapel. You mention the necessity for a conversation on gay marriage within the church from both sides, they have a lecture the donors would agree with. But I’m very glad you weren’t allowed on campus given your history. Student’s rallied because your policies near bigotry. And those who stand in solidarity with people of color on this campus and those of color themselves, don’t intend to host you. Just as we wouldn’t host the Westboro Baptist church leaders for a lecture.

  16. This brand of tolerant intolerance is becoming commonplace for two reasons:

    1. Liberalism has become a quasi-religion and views itself as being a moral force for good. More particularly, liberals embrace a stark dichotomy, meaning there are only two kinds of white people: Liberals who are as virtuous as they are smart, and fascists who are as vicious as they are stupid.

    2. Multi-ethnic societies are the most fragile and volatile composites imaginable. The only way to maintain stability in such a society is through authoritarian rule, which means forbidding any remarks that could inflame ethnic tensions. Events in Ukraine are only the most current case in point.

    Sadly, we are finding out the hard way that it is possible to be we-are-the-world liberals, or Americans, but not both.

  17. Please forgive me, but I’m confused. I thought this was a ‘Christian’ University. You’re located in California, right? I had planned on taking courses there years ago. So, here’s my question:
    Why would a Christian school invite and/or welcome a “White Nationalist” to speak?? This isn’t making any sense. I agree that as Christians we shouldn’t be “in the dark” as it were, but to openly accept darkness into your lives, on your campus, in your heart?
    Are you guys aware of what’s happening here? Instead of debating with each other, for the benefit of this person who is clearly out to create this ‘tension’, it seems to me like you guys need to confront the school and ask them why this door was opened in the first place, because if they invite someone to speak to you, the speakers fee comes out of your pockets, your parents pockets, and – let me say it again – ‘your’ pockets.
    Christian Universities are not set up to be run from a ‘secular’ perspective. The UC and Cal State system is set up for the type of dialogue that would bring Mr. Murray to the campus. That’s not supposed to be a ‘Christian’ consideration on any level.
    The Christian school is supposed to have one responsibility, namely to make sure that everything they do is in keeping with the mission/doctrinal statement that brought you to the school.
    I’d be knocking on the door of your school and ask them who dropped the ball, and whether or not this is going to be a habit.

    • A better question is why you accept the defamatory label assigned by an organization like SPLC who labels organizations as “hate groups” for being against same sex marriage. They are an ideological mouthpiece of the extreme left.

      • Josh,
        I’m not sure if you’re affiliated with Asuza or just visiting here, but I think you check out your post and place it where it was intended. Your response has nothing to do with post which is right above yours.

        • It has everything to do with his post, since the SPLC is the organization that wrongly labeled the doctor as a White Nationalist.

          • Are you really a “doctor” or are you just a “pseudo-christian” playing one to make an impression? If Mr. Murray is NOT a White Nationalist – which he is, as I have known of him and his works going back as far as the mid-eighties – why is the page still up? And please, don’t tell me that they refused to take it down.
            The problem here is NOT Mr. Murray’s fault. America has bred a generation that -even with the convenience of the internet for information- they will not invest the time to learn about the work of this person.

          • So instead of providing some kind of proof for your assertion, you attack me. Great logical fallacy. Now instead of playing the ad hominem card, try defending your position with some citations (other than a leftist organization, like the SPLC that has been rejected as a source by most people, including the US Military, after providing false information regarding “terrorist organizations”)

          • Sorry hon, but I don’t play that game. I deal with liberals like you who twist arguments around all the time. So, please enjoy defending your ‘employer’, friend or whoever he is to you.
            This whole thing reeks of deception and manipulation, and there is NOTHING you can say or do – in his name – that will change that…Doc!

          • Wow. So you refuse to defend your assertion. You equate me with “liberals” you have talked to in the past and you refuse to defend your position. Then tell me I know Dr. Murray and that is the only reason I could possibly want proof of your attack on him. Okay. Great argument! Let me educate you on a few points. I am a conservative. I attended APU and believe they are too liberal. Dr. Murray is a scientist who believes genetics plays a part in IQ scores. I don’t think you will find a psychologist or neurologist anywhere in the world that does not agree with that belief. The issue came when Dr. Murray published a book showing that certain races scored much lower than others on a standard IQ test. He never asserted that the difference was genetic, and in fact asserted that environment played a much greater part in causing the difference. The differences he found are constant across a plethora of studies, including separated twin studies. The fact that you refuse to defend your point of view reveals a great deal about your beliefs.

          • Sorry, but I won’t engage!:) I read “The Bell Curve” when it came out. I watched the discussion of it on the talk shows, including the segment on “Phil Donohue.” My faith/belief – as a Christian places me firmly on the side of “Constitutionalist” conservative, and is not open to being challenged by you.
            Imagine how much of this would have been avoided if you simply sat still, instead of riling up students in the name of who? – Not God, that’s for sure.

          • What in the world makes you think I care about your political beliefs? or whether I would want you to change them. You are all over the map. I just want you to defend your assertions about Dr. Murray. Show me proof that his writings are racist of White Nationalist. You cam not because he is not. It sounds like you did not bother to listen to his words, instead, taking the words of liberal talk show hosts. His only assertion is that IQ is linked to genetics and environment. This is a fact you can not disprove.

      • And for the record, my knowledge of Mr. Murray’s background is not based on a website. I’ve read and discussed his work for years, in particular, “The Bell Curve,” which with his co-writer – whose name I cannot recall – latched on to anything that would further their “KINIST” agenda.
        Are you also a part of his group? I cannot believe that a student – a Christian student – would be so quick to defend his work.

  18. Many people are asserting that Dr. Murray is a White Nationalist and a racist. No one has provided any proof of this and some, in fact, have become angry when asked for proof of this.

    • Who? Where? Not me. I don’t need to get angry about it. I just won’t get involved in conversation with someone who is obviously a shill.
      The setting up of this discussion, enticing Christian students to come here and express their feelings about the school they’re attending, all because of the way the administration handled you, is irresponsible, unprofessional and is 180 degrees from the principles you claim to embrace in your latest book. As a social scientist, you’re more aware than most on how easy it is to create waves of dissension in groups. And you’ve succeeded, if only on a small scale. You should be proud. A situation calling for Grace and prayer for better understanding has turned into a royal “bitching” session, and you’re in the center of it, acting like some overage hippie, screaming for a revolt.
      People who ‘see’ this for what it is, recognize that the school was in error on a number of levels.
      People who ‘see’, also recognize when an outsider is using the flaws of others to bring attention to his cause. So, yes I won’t engage in a discussion of the books and philosophy of the writers of the “Bell Curve.”
      I’ll just pray that the students here will stop and ‘see’, then go and take this discussion to a forum that will allow for a healthy conversation that will eventually heal this situation instead of inflaming it.

      • You are seriously confused. I have nothing to do with Dr. Murray and my only contact with him is reading some of his writings. I am an Alumni of APU and still have some contact with the university. I am asking you to back up your assertions about Dr. Murray. You seem to think there is something wrong with coming to this page and discussing whether or not it was a good idea to cancel this engagement, yet here you are doing the same and criticizing others for doing the same. There is a name for that kind of behavior. It is called being hypocrite.

        • Whatever you say hon. I’m not offended. If you are an “Alumni” then you are acting as bizarre as the letter that started this whole discussion. And the fact that you continue to try and bait me is not so attractive, either. A doctor? Of what? And where does your Christianity fit into this? You’re claiming I’m all over the board, but not so. I just choose not to engage with you, and you’re taking it personally.
          Doctor of what? You just don’t appear to be one, and I question your Christianity too. But feel free to continue. I’m sure you’ll find someone who’ll help you come to terms with rejection.

        • DrJennySue, Thanks for your thoughtful comments, but the person on the other end is not willing to have a conversation.

          Based on these comments, I’m afraid I must agree with President Wallace. He has correctly concluded that a significant fraction of his faculty and students are neither intellectually nor emotionally capable of dealing with a talk by Dr. Murray.

          One of the best ways in which President Wallace could help his community develop Christian character would be to have a campus-wide discussion of these comments. They do not reflect well on ASU.

          Perhaps one thing to discuss is how Christians should respond to the fact that some people are brighter than others (regardless of whether this is race-linked or not). Our economic system, although it’s better adapted to our fallen state than any of the others, rewards brightness – and bright people have always been able to take advantage of less bright people. Christians know that God values all of us equally, because Jesus died for each of us. How can we serve others in such a way as to counter the effects of the world system?

          I think the answer is to do what we can to help more people to be good. Goodness is better than brightness. And the way to goodness is the Gospel. Isn’t this what ASU should be about?

  19. The President of the University was right in uninviting Mr. Murray. He should never have been invited to speak and a school of higher learning in the first place. However, their President should have been more direct and honest in his reason for uninviting him. “We looked at your record, saw what a depressing, self-serving and unctuous classist you are, and decided our students don’t need your kind of ignorance, or dishonesty. Please sell it someplace else. Thank you”.
    Look up Charles Murray’s very depressing book, The Bell Curve. I don’t recommend it as a scholarly read. It presents a lot of fatuous, half-baked arguments backed up with “statistics” the authors seemed to have created out of whole cloth or taken grossly out of context, that implies that there is a vast “underclass” of people who “through no fault of their own” (he loves saying that in interviews) are afflicted with low IQs, and implies, without coming and saying it, that they need to be kept separate from positions of importance, and that people of high IQ (i.e., those that Murray considers intelligent), should be the ones to decide that. And wouldn’t you know? Murray includes himself in the latter group.
    It’s a great argument of you’re on the one inside Murray’s intellectual pyramid scheme, but not so great to be on the outside of it, branded forever as low IQ (through no fault of your own). And the scariest part? Murray’s standards for making this determination between the two classes of human beings that he creates, appear to be little more than arbitrary IQ tests and the empowerment of him and those like him to decide, based on their own opinion, who is smart and who is relegated for life to the bottom of his artificially created Bell Curve.
    Murray is not a good role model to be speaking at this or any institution, except perhaps for David Duke University.
    If you wouldn’t want David Duke or Fred Phelps speaking at your college, you shouldn’t want Murray, either. He’s just a subtler, more cloying and more unctuous version of them.
    I keep reading arguments from students about being more “open-minded” about allowing him to speak.
    Being open-minded is a two-way street. Inviting a closed-minded person to speak at an open-minded University is a mistake. It doesn’t raise the bar or the debate. It lowers it, and gives them credibility that they don’t deserve to have….

    • Jon, I’m sure Dr. Murray would be happy to consider any scientific refutations of his book you would care to provide him. Instead, you take the “Shut up, he explained” approach. You are the one without credibility.

    • You may not realize it, but it’s undisputed that there are vast numbers of people with low IQ’s. IQ is designed that way. An IQ of 100 is average, and we can’t have everybody with above-average IQ. Thus, 50% of people have IQ’s below 100. The score of 85 is set so that 16% of people have lower scores. If there are 300 million people in America, that means 48 million people with low IQ’s. That’s just mathematics, no theory or opinion needed.

    • Jon Davidson – Best comment yet. However, that said…as much as I disagree with some of Murray’s positions, as a person of color in the APU community I would have and still would go listen to him speak. I hope APU is earnest in creating a future time for Mr. Murray to come to campus and add space for civil dialogue. Says much about his character though, doesn’t it – Murray’s petty open letter – slamming libel, yet engaging in it just the same, e.g. “I also understand from another faculty member that he and the provost were afraid of “hurting our faculty and students of color.”

  20. I am a professor at APU. I don’t know what happened, and I haven’t read your work thoroughly. I came across your open letter to APU students on Facebook. After reading Jon Wallace’s comments, to me they seem to be quite appropriate. You have the right to share whatever opinions you choose; if there are concerns at our school about the response to your opinions, APU administrators have the right to say they would prefer to postpone your talk. I am sorry that you’ve taken such offense. However, the method and tone of your response suggests to me that perhaps it was a good idea to postpone your visit . . .

    • While I agree that Dr. Murray seems to have taken a bit too much offense to this episode, it should be remembered that conservative speakers, unlike their liberal counterparts, are all too frequently prevented from speaking at college campuses, or are ill treated when they actually do appear. Perhaps Dr. Murray has reached a point of losing patience with such treatment. That being said, this does not even approach the level of offense taken by many who have claimed to be APU students. I am more than sorry, I am saddened that so many people today have a hair-trigger “I’m offended” response to anything that does not comport with their ideology or emotions. Most of those posting here have not read any of Dr. Murray’s work, and I am surprised that given your background in economics and social issues that you “haven’t read [Dr. Murray's] work thoroughly.” Similar to my earlier suggestion that students be assigned “Losing Ground” and the Moynihan White Paper, I would suggest that you read (or re-read) “Losing Ground” yourself. It was (and in many respects still is) a seminal work in the field, and should be read by all who legislate on social welfare policy, implement such policies, or teach about this, economics, or related fields. I include those of my fellow Catholics who never cease to equate social justice with government programs.

      Good reading.

  21. Dr Shrier

    As an instructor , missions volunteer and fellow Christian I am appalled at the vicious ad hominem attacks and frequent non sequitor fallacies that appear in the comments posted here against Dr Murray (by some APU students?) and not disavowed by leaders such as yourself. You’re absolutely correct that APU had the right to cancel Murray’s speaking engagement. But now a scholar’s good name is being smeared and what is even more distressing is the gratuitous and self-righteous rants bereft of any evidence of that unique Biblical model that is the true hallmark of the Christian faith. Instead of taking the high road and the opportunity to condemn this vacuous and hostile environment much of which is innuendo and some perverse guilt by association you seem to feel that Murray’s dismissal in a last minute email is quite appropriate and apparently not primarily a politically correct decision. The Christian Church (not faith) here represented by APU is losing all credibility and sense of proportion while feelings are still being hurt on the basis of hearsay long after Dr Murray has left the fray. Wow! Allen Bloom was right on the money in his famous treatise The Closing of the American Mind. And that work was not primarily directed at Christian Universities. Hopefully, some good will come of all this hypersensitivity and misrepresentation. Dr Murray did after all consent to come in good faith. And I would further suggest that he who is without sin can surely cast the first stone….oh wait, they have already been thrown. Nevermind.

    Christ came to bring Peace

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>