By The Craig Bushon Show Media Team
In today’s hypersensitive culture, truth and debate has become a casualty of fear. Say something uncomfortable, even if it’s backed by data, and the mob demands silence, not discussion. Charles Murray knows this all too well. For decades, he’s been branded a pariah for daring to link intelligence, race, and public policy. But it’s time to ask: are we rejecting him because he’s wrong or because he’s politically inconvenient?
Murray’s critics love to shout “racist” and “eugenicist,” but few bother to actually engage with his data. At the heart of his work lies a simple yet powerful claim: intelligence matters. Not just for academic tests, but for predicting success, stability, and yes, failure. That’s not hate. That’s a measurable fact.
Let’s be clear: no serious thinker believes IQ tells the whole story. But ignoring its impact entirely? That’s ideological blindness. Cognitive ability influences job performance, income, health outcomes, even crime statistics. Pretending otherwise is like trying to fix a leaky boat without acknowledging the hole.
Murray’s work doesn’t diminish anyone’s humanity. It exposes the limits of one size fits all policy. If cognitive differences exist, and they do, then pretending everyone will thrive under the same conditions is not equality. It’s cruelty disguised as compassion.
Murray’s earlier book, Losing Ground, warned that government welfare, rather than lifting people out of poverty, often traps them in it. He was mocked at the time. But decades later, the data is catching up. Multi generational poverty and rising social dysfunction aren’t just coincidences, they’re the legacy of programs built on the false assumption that all people respond the same way to incentives.
When government incentivizes dependence instead of personal responsibility, it doesn’t just waste money, it erodes dignity. That’s not a conservative slogan. It’s a truth millions of Americans live every day.
Here’s the third rail: race and IQ. The moment it’s mentioned, the debate shuts down. Murray didn’t say what people accuse him of saying. He didn’t claim one race is superior. He argued that differences in average IQ exist among groups and that genetics may play a part. That’s not a conclusion. It’s a hypothesis, drawn from data, and offered for discussion.
Scientific progress requires confronting taboo questions, not banning them. If Murray’s wrong, prove it with better data. If he’s right, even a little, then policy must reflect that reality, not pretend it away for comfort’s sake.
What’s more dangerous than controversial ideas? A culture that refuses to let them be heard.
We live in a time when conversation itself has become a battleground. Instead of confronting difficult topics head on, tech platforms, universities, and media institutions increasingly default to censorship. Not to protect the public from harm, but to shield ideology from challenge.
Consider the facts:
Amazon blocked a documentary by Black conservative scholar Shelby Steele, What Killed Michael Brown?, for simply questioning the dominant media narrative on race and police brutality. It was only restored after public backlash, not because Amazon embraced free thought, but because the censorship was too obvious to ignore.
Twitter (now X) shadow banned Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford physician and co author of the Great Barrington Declaration. His crime? Advocating a scientifically grounded alternative to lockdowns during COVID 19. Not misinformation, just dissent.
At Middlebury College in 2017, Charles Murray was physically attacked by protesters who didn’t want his ideas discussed, even in a controlled, academic setting. His liberal co host ended up in the hospital. That’s not protest. That’s intellectual terrorism.
YouTube routinely demonetizes or deletes videos on topics ranging from transgender ideology to crime statistics, not because they are inaccurate, but because they challenge mainstream narratives. The result? Millions of Americans turn to underground sources that lack transparency or credibility, fueling distrust and division.
A 2017 Heterodox Academy study found that 58 percent of college faculty identify as far left, while only 4 percent identify as conservative. How can real debate happen when entire disciplines are echo chambers? The academy, once the engine of free inquiry, is now often the front line of ideological policing.
This is not a partisan issue. It’s a foundational one. When people are punished for asking the wrong questions or citing the wrong data, we don’t just lose debates, we lose our cultural capacity for reason.
Censorship doesn’t defeat bad ideas. It conceals them, distorting the public square and driving people into unmoderated spaces where conspiracy thrives and truth dies. The goal should be open discourse, not forced silence.
We don’t have to agree with Charles Murray, Jordan Peterson, Bret Weinstein, or any other dissident intellectual. But we must defend their right to speak and our right to hear them. Because a society that censors what can be said will soon forget how to think.
Disclaimer:
This op-ed reflects the views and opinions of The Craig Bushon Show Media Team. It is intended to foster open discussion, challenge dominant narratives, and encourage independent thought. While grounded in factual examples, this editorial does not constitute an endorsement of any individual’s full body of work. Readers are encouraged to review source material and form their own conclusions.
