Last week, activist students at Columbia University barged into a Sexuality and Gender Law class to protest the professor, a vice president and Title IX administrator who is insufficiently committed to the cause, according to the protesters.If you want to watch the video, I'll put it at the bottom, but here's what annoyed me in Soave's post:
The incident was captured on video. Led by junior Amelia Roskin-Frazee, who is suing Columbia for failing to properly investigate her sexual assault accusations under Title IX, the students entered Goldberg's small discussion class and began to talk over her.
I don't want to see students punished for expressing their opinions, but a class meeting to which they were not invited is certainly the wrong time and place to do so. If students felt free to barge into classrooms and lecture halls and rant at professors they don't like, the most basic function of the university would be compromised."New low"? New low? Many of psychologists and other people who research IQ have been suffering this kind of thing so long that I can't call them to witness because they've died of old age.
Just as it was wrong to shut down an ACLU attorney attempting to advise students on their First Amendment rights, it is also wrong to disturb the operations of a random class. In fact, it's something of a new low for the campus anti-speech movement.
Eysenck’s thoughts on IQ and genetics were also hugely unpopular. He argued that general intelligence (a broad measure of mental capacity) had a genetic basis, which is associated with a wide variety of life outcomes, including socioeconomic difference. When coupled with the race-IQ controversy, all of this was explosive stuff and Eysenck was regularly criticised for his views and even, on one occasion, physically attacked. In 1973, a female protester punched him in the face at a London School of Economics event.Richard J. Herrnstein:
Which was why one day in the early 1970s [Herrnstein] found himself hidden under a sink in the University of Iowa faculty lounge (“having a very pleasant chat with a graduate student”) while radical demonstrators bayed for his blood. He was eventually rescued by armed guards. This was the flower-child generation's response to Herrnstein's September 1971 cover story [PDF, 18 pp.]in Atlantic Magazine discussing intelligence and its social implications. For a year every class he gave at Harvard was disrupted. The Harvard administration waffled.E. O Wilson:
In 1979, when Professor Wilson was scheduled to speak at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. As he sat at a table near the lectern, a young man from the audience grabbed the microphone and harangued the assembled scholars. A young woman then poured a pitcher of water over Professor Wilson’s head and demonstrators chanted, “Wilson, you’re all wet,” and “Racist Wilson, you can’t hide. We charge you with genocide.”Much the same thing happened to Arthur Jensen and Phil Rushton, who had to conduct classes at his university by videotape.
You can watch the video of the Gender Studies professor being confronted below, but remember what we noted when Juan Williams was fired for incorrect thinking about Muslims on airplanes:
Human Events says that Juan Williams was “visibly shaken” by his PC firing. It's obvious that this has never happened to him before, because he was immune. It happens to us all the time.