Evergreen State professors and staff sign “statement of solidarity” with the entitled and racist students

About 55 Evergreen State College faculty and 23 College Staff have signed a “statement of solidarity” with the student protestors, which you can find here. (That’s more than a quarter of the faculty).

I reproduce the statement in its entirety (indented). It is an implicit criticism of biology professor Bret Weinstein as a racist, which he is not. He is being punished and ostracized for writing an email refusing to leave campus at the “request” of students of color on Evegreen’s “Day of Departure.” If you want to see the email that got Weinstein demonized, go here. The bolding is mine, and my comments are flush left.

[For distribution to the All Staff & Faculty DL, Greener Commons, and the Cooper Point Journal, with the expectation that it is a public document.]

June 2, 2017

As Evergreen faculty members:

We acknowledge that all of us who have power within the institution share responsibility for the racist actions of others. Furthermore, those of us who are white bear a particularly large share of that responsibility.

What are the racist actions and who committed them? Is it Weinstein? If not, who else? And why do the white faculty and staff bear the lion’s share of his actions? This reminds me of the “confessions” during the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

We acknowledge that we have a great deal of work to do in order to honor and live up to the demands made by student leaders during last week’s protests. (http://cooperpointjournal.com/2017/05/27/complete-list-of-student-demands).

We acknowledge that students of color and others who are underrepresented and underserved have been voicing their demands to us for some time (through the Students of Color Focus Groups of 2014, through their participation in authoring the Strategic Equity Plan from November, in Cooper Point Journal coverage, for example) and we have not yet truly listened and acted.

We acknowledge students’ right to protest, and affirm President Bridges’ recent decision not to use the misguided language of the current Student Conduct Code to punish the protestors.

“Misguided language”? Those students cursed and terrorized Weinstein and the college President, though we don’t know if any of them were involved in the threats that forced Weinstein off campus and made him and his family hid in an undisclosed location.

We vehemently reject the claim that students have been violent simply because they have been loud and emphatic. There is a difference between exercising the right to freely voice an opinion and inciting violence—and that difference has nothing to do with volume or forcefulness. We support the demands made by students and honor the positive institutional change they have already achieved through their protests.

They’ve also been racist in their demands that white faculty and staff leave campus, an act that Weinstein called “a show of force, and an act of oppression in and of itself.”

Our most urgent demands (below) center on the safety of those individuals who are currently most at risk. At the same time, we acknowledge that in the weeks and months to come our attention will need to turn to the larger structural issues students have identified.

You’d think that the individuals most “at risk” are Bret Weinstein and his family, who not only can’t be on campus because of the threats (his wife is also on the biology faculty), but have had to leave their home and go into hiding because of threats. But NOOOO . .  the individuals at risk are the students! For the “urgent demands” have nothing to do with Weinstein’s safety:

In solidarity with students, we commit ourselves to:

* Participating actively and self-critically in the annual mandatory trainings specified in the Memorandum of Understanding recently signed by the UFE and management bargaining teams.

* Holding each other accountable when we act in racist ways against our colleagues or our students, according to shared language and understanding developed in the trainings.

* Holding President Bridges accountable to the promises he made at the all-campus forum on May 26, 2017, and to the process of ongoing dialogue with student leaders.

I wonder if that includes the gumbo Bridge promised the students at his Humiliation Session (see 2:04 at this video).

* Actively supporting the Strategic Plan put forward by the Equity and Inclusion Council, including providing substantive support to the Vice President & Vice Provost of Equity and Inclusion tasked with implementing and extending their work.

I omit the names of the signers (see the document linked to above), but I am guessing that the faculty are almost all humanities professors and that there are few or no science professors. The College Fix (I can’t verify their assertion) says that “The statement is being circulated by Julie Russo, whose expertise is “media studies, gender & women’s studies, sexuality and queer studies,” and Elizabeth Williamson, whose expertise is English literature and theater studies, according to a Friday listserv email from Russo obtained by The College Fix.

Now there’s another “solidarity statement“, mentioned by the right-wing College Fix, one that explicitly calls for punishment of Weinstein, but it differs a bit from the one above, adding this:

* Demonstrate accountability by pursuing a disciplinary investigation against Bret Weinstein according to guidelines in the Social Contract and Faculty Handbook. Weinstein has endangered faculty, staff, and students, making them targets of white supremacist backlash by promulgating misinformation in public emails, on national television, in news outlets, and on social media.

Right now I’m investigating the situation and veracity of the second statement. Regardless, if either version is true, it is a shameful capitulation of the Evergreen faculty (and some staff) to the complaints of entitled students. Those students may indeed have grievances, but I have heard nothing tangible so far. As as far as I’m concerned, Evergreen State is a toxic cesspool of regressive leftism. No sane parent would send their student there—not if they wanted them to have a peaceful but rewarding college experience in which they hear and weigh diverse viewpoints.

h/t: BJ


  1. alexandra Moffat
    Posted June 3, 2017 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    They have gone so far “left” that they are right wing fascists in behavior. Crazed – it must be mob think – similar to the extremes of the French Revolution, tho admittedly not as extreme

    • Shaokang
      Posted June 3, 2017 at 12:43 pm | Permalink


    • Posted June 3, 2017 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

      So glad you mentioned the French Revolution. I thought I was the only one who noticed similarities with the ideological madness and collective fanaticism that guided the Reign of Terror. Even the name of that dreaded Committee of Public Safety has contemporary resonance because of “safe spaces” and Human Rights Tribunals. Study what happened during 1793-4 between Danton, Robespierre, and the Jacobins eating their own and you’ll discover astounding parallels with what’s going on today in the universities. No one could be pure enough to satiate the revolutionaries. Those who were once considered paragons of ideological purity were eventually condemned, as is happening with today’s authoritarian/academic left.

      When Thomas Paine–an ardent opposer of the death penalty–spoke up in the National Assembly to vote against executing Louis XVI, he was denounced by Marat and subsequently imprisoned for treason; he narrowly escaped the guillotine. This is Paine we’re talking about: the great humanist, anti-monarchist, and darling of France who inspired the revolutionaries with the Rights of Man. Yet even he had to be purged.

      • Zach
        Posted June 3, 2017 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

        Yes, history is repeating itself, except as farce. The French revolutionaries were fighting against the forces of monarchy and Catholic theocracy.

        What are these students fighting against? Micro-agressions? The most diffuse and de-fanged instances of racism the U.S. has ever seen? If not for the threat of a good man losing the job he loves, the whole thing would be laughable.

        • somer
          Posted June 3, 2017 at 8:10 pm | Permalink


        • Ray
          Posted June 3, 2017 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

          Well spoken and thoughtfully written unlike some of the racist PC snowflakes like “Foxer” spewing off here.

          • Posted June 4, 2017 at 5:55 am | Permalink

            Please refrain from name-calling of other commenters as per the Roolz, no matter how much you disagree with them. Thanks.

      • David Duncan
        Posted June 3, 2017 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

        Repeated in the mid 1930s-early 1940s by Comrade Stalin and his acomplices. No one was too revered to end up in the Lubyanka, no charge was too absurd to be proposed and believed.

        I think the solution to all this is to withdraw federal and state funds from universities and colleges. I have no objection to funding STEM, but feminist studies can make their own way. Let the unemployable get real jobs.

        • Richard
          Posted June 3, 2017 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

          …whose expertise is “media studies, gender & women’s studies, sexuality and queer studies”

          Be reasonable, how is that ever going to get anyone a real job? If these people had to make their own way in the real world they would all starve.

          I suppose that some academic posts must be considered a form of welfare. If only the recipients would just take the money and keep quiet.

          • barn owl
            Posted June 3, 2017 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

            Agreed. Admittedly I’m biased because my background and degrees are in STEM fields, and I continue to work in biomedical research and education, but IMO it’s not doing these young people any favors to drench them in pomo grievance studies as part of their university education. I would argue that in fact it’s a form of oppression, and insures maintenance of the status quo, because they’ll be woefully underqualified and unprepared for professional school (medicine, law, dentistry, etc.), or for any sort of sustainable, rewarding career. I’d be willing to bet that the student population of UW medical school doesn’t include a lot of Evergreen grads, for example.

  2. Randall Schenck
    Posted June 3, 2017 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    Cesspool is a correct definition of this school. My advice to the Weinstein’s is to get the hell out of there and don’t look back. There is nothing there that seems to be worth saving.

    • barn owl
      Posted June 3, 2017 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

      Related to the cesspool description, and the advice to get the hell out of there, this is a blog post from a former TESC student:


      Of course one could dismiss it as the rant of a disgruntled person, but there are some descriptions very similar to those I heard about TESC when I lived in the Pacific NW in the 1980s. I thought it was interesting that the author describes a TESC-peculiar brand of “Christianity” into which faculty are inducted.

      • ariel
        Posted June 3, 2017 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

        What does the T at TESC stand for? I get that ESC is Evergreen State College, can’t understand what the T stands for!

        • ariel
          Posted June 3, 2017 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

          Wow, I guess it’s “The”. I feel stupid!

          • barn owl
            Posted June 3, 2017 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

            I think it’s a little strange to have the “T” in the abbreviation, but it seems to be one of the ways in which locals refer to Evergreen.

        • Starr
          Posted June 3, 2017 at 1:08 pm | Permalink


          It’s full name is “The Evergreen State College”.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted June 3, 2017 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

          The Buckeyes of The Ohio State University are famous for being very particular about the definite article in their school name. But even they don’t put a “T” in the abbreviation OSU. 🙂

      • Randy schenck
        Posted June 3, 2017 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

        Wow, that sounds really bad. Christianity and communism in the same institution. A great waste of money as well.

        • Craw
          Posted June 3, 2017 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

          Judging from the letter of support and the video I saw of a FACULTY member berating a couple for being white and giving orders it’s a plausible picture

          So, crypto-religious, Maoist, racist, infantile, with low standards and non transferable credits. How is it not irresponsible of the state to allow this to function? How is it not a waste of the $24m the legislature spends on the place?

          And on stolen land! 🙈

      • nicky
        Posted June 3, 2017 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

        Even of only half of it were true, it appears a hellhole best avoided.

    • Adam M.
      Posted June 3, 2017 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

      I agree that’s probably best for him. But of course it would be taken as (further) proof of his racism and the students’ righteousness, and encourage further hounding of professors. And, of course, even if all their demands are met, the students will never be placated…

    • Posted June 3, 2017 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

      If I were Bret Weinstein, I would hire a high-profile lawyer and sue the bejesus out of this hellhole place for failing to provide him with a safe workplace.

      • BJ
        Posted June 3, 2017 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

        The sad thing is that he really loves the school and teaching there, so that won’t happen. If you listen to the first hour of his interview on Joe Rogan’s podcast (it can be found on Youtube and is the latest episode, #970), he talks about how much he loves the school.

        If I were him, I would do what you say. And I would go to the local authorities and try to charge these students with harassment, as they’ve apparently doxxed all his current students (because they haven’t supported the protesters, knowing the professor well enough to know he is no racist and everything the protesters say about him is BS) circulated a list among themselves with even their pictures and home addresses on it. Weinstein said one student was followed through the woods, and several others have had protesters show up at their private homes.

        • Craw
          Posted June 3, 2017 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

          I think he should sue too, and not just because of self interest or self protection. Lawsuits are one of our social mechanisms for stopping pestiferous activities.

      • Posted June 3, 2017 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

        If he has to quit for his own safety it is constructive dismissal.

        He should sue now, before they defund the college and close it down.

      • Posted June 3, 2017 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

        I see the reasoning, but I dont known how that would work. Sueing your employer is hard enough, but here there was not much an employer could have done to have protected him in the rapidly escalating situation.
        Personally, I think this good man will have to leave. He has won the higher ground, but he will have to leave this toxic environment anyway.

        • Craw
          Posted June 3, 2017 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

          Not much they could do? How about
          – not tell the cops to stand down
          – tell the thugs no
          – explicitly support him in word and deed
          – enforce the code of conduct and the law

        • Denise
          Posted June 3, 2017 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

          Not much that could be done? Are you thinking through the implications of what you’re saying?

        • Posted June 3, 2017 at 10:45 pm | Permalink

          When you are threatened in your workplace, and the campus police tell you “Sorry, nothing we can do”, you’ve got a good case.

  3. Darrin Carter
    Posted June 3, 2017 at 12:41 pm | Permalink


  4. rickflick
    Posted June 3, 2017 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Good grief! When will it end? Sigh.

  5. dabertini
    Posted June 3, 2017 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    After all that he went through at Penn, after all he has contributed to academia, this is the thanks Bret Weinstein gets? This is beyond deplorable!

  6. Adam M.
    Posted June 3, 2017 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

    I’d like to know what percentage of white people in America had any significant fraction of their ancestors involved in American slavery. In the 150+ years since emancipation, many white immigrants (who had nothing to do with it) came to the country. In addition, many whites spoke against slavery at the time and then fought to end it.

    Even if blaming people for the actions of their distant ancestors was reasonable, I’d bet that many whites today would be blameless. To the girl in the video you linked to who shouts “Your ancestors enslaved my ancestors!”, how does she know? Maybe his ancestors fought to free the slaves.

    • Craw
      Posted June 3, 2017 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

      Plus of course there have been millions upon millions of white slaves and serfs. At the time of the African slave trade there was also a slave trade in the Ottoman Empire, mostly of white slaves. Plus Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Assyrians, … There have been slaves of every background, lots of them, over a long time.

      • BJ
        Posted June 3, 2017 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

        The word slave comes from “Slav,” as Slavic people were, at one time, the most common type of slave.

        • nicky
          Posted June 3, 2017 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

          Curiously, in Arabic the word for black African and slave is identical: ‘Abeed’.

      • Harrison
        Posted June 3, 2017 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

        For the aggrieved anti-racist of modern times, history starts with colonialism.

    • Posted June 3, 2017 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

      The Christians have a word for you being responsible for what your ancestors did. They call it original sin. OK, that’s two words.

      It’s bullshit when Christians use it, it’s bullshit when a student uses it.

    • BJ
      Posted June 3, 2017 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

      Just about every white person of Italian, Irish, or Slavic descent probably had their ancestors immigrate here after slavery, and even if not, certainly weren’t of social or monetary status to own slaves. Hell, they were treated to the same type of racial discrimination black people were when they arrived in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Jews are still discriminated against.

      But none of this matters because white people are the one and only group that is perceived as a monolith to regressives.

      Not to mention the idea of punishing a person for what someone related to them did is barbaric and inhumane.

      • John K
        Posted June 3, 2017 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

        “Just about every white person of Italian, Irish, or Slavic descent probably had their ancestors immigrate here after slavery, and even if not, certainly weren’t of social or monetary status to own slaves. Hell, they were treated to the same type of racial discrimination black people were when they arrived in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Jews are still discriminated against.”

        Every single word of that paragraph is pure fake news. As an American of Old Stock descent, I personally prefer the Blacks to the style of whining adopted by the Irish, Italians, and Jews. At least Blacks can claim to actually be worse off than White people.

        • BJ
          Posted June 4, 2017 at 8:54 am | Permalink

          Well, you didn’t rebut a single point I made, just made an assertion, so I’ll wait until you do that to give an answer, as right now you’ve given nothing to answer. I do have a question though: you think everything I said in that paragraph is untrue? Why? How?

          • John K
            Posted June 4, 2017 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

            I’m under no particular obligation to refute your delusional assertions, which YOU didn’t provide any evidence for. I’ll address your first point you made, where you claim that “just about every white person of Italian, Irish, or Slavic descent probably had their ancestors immigrate here after slavery.” You must be unaware of the Irish potato famine and the over a million Irish immigrants to America it caused. There were plenty of Irish in America at the time of the Civil War, here’s what some of them did:


            You can, of course, continue to make false claims, the truth is never much an obstacle when identity is concerned. But don’t expect that if the rising tide of color comes for you, you can say “muh regressive Left” and have us old-stock Americans, right-wing bigots, come to defend you. We are finally starting to learn the lesson about defending people who won’t defend us, see the election of Donald Trump. I’m rooting for the Blacks here. (Metaphorically) burn it down.

            • Craw
              Posted June 4, 2017 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

              Did you notice that BJ said their immigration came AFTER a background that included slavery or a like condition, so that a fact about post immigration conditions or behavior is not a response to his assertion?

              • BJ
                Posted June 4, 2017 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

                And that those who came before slavery was abolished had neither the social nor economic status to engage in slavery, and almost none of them even lived in slavery regions…

    • somer
      Posted June 3, 2017 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

      The rage is understandable but completely counterproductive and inaccurate – Africa had its own (far less horrific) slave system and all the enslaved were captured by other Africans or Berber/Arab Muslims from the north prior to sale. The Atlantic slave trade was perhaps particularly horrific but again, as you say at least half the US actually fought against it – and many, perhaps most American whites today came after the slave era. And if the hatred is against jews then thats another form of racism.

    • David Harper
      Posted June 4, 2017 at 1:19 am | Permalink

      A couple of years ago, the BBC broadcast a documentary presented by historian David Olusoga which looked at the payments made to former British slave-owners following the abolition of slavery in the British empire. Around 50,000 individuals applied to the British government for compensation for the loss of income now that their former slaves had been freed. It was a fascinating piece of history, but the figure of 50,000 was repeatedly emphasised without putting it into perspective: the population of Britain at the time was around 20 million, so for every name on the list of former slave-owners, there were around 400 other Britons who didn’t own slaves. Most of them would have been the working poor, living lives of back-breaking toil for meagre reward, with no political power and, whilst free in a strict legal sense, having little freedom to choose their employer in reality.

  7. Merilee
    Posted June 3, 2017 at 1:16 pm | Permalink


  8. Craw
    Posted June 3, 2017 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    Close it. The first step is to pass that bill privatizing and defunding it.

  9. dd
    Posted June 3, 2017 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    The signatories don’t give academic affiliation, so I wonder if many, most?, are not in the humanities.

    Are the humanities butt-hurt because they aren’t as prestigious as the sciences….darn that Enlightenment!

    More to the point, Isn’t this a tactical error for the signatories since it will draw more attention?

    The New York Times only paid any appreciable attention to it via an op-ed days after Bret Weinstein appeared on Tucker Carlson and wrote editorial for Wall Street Journal.

    Other than that, the Times has really stayed away from this event, maybe because it makes certain people look really, really bad which the Times does not like to portray as such.

    • Saul Sorrell-Till
      Posted June 4, 2017 at 7:25 am | Permalink

      One of the most striking features of the behaviour of the illiberal left over the last year has been its incredible tactical stupidity. No-one, absolutely no-one, who was actually interested in instigating political change in a frightening new world would behave as they have.
      Their complete lack of interest in coming across as reasonable, decent human beings strongly suggests to me that they a.) don’t really care about politics and are just play-acting at it, and b.) don’t feel half as ‘threatened’ or ‘unsafe’ as they make out.
      This is not how people who want to change the world for the better behave.

      Another feature of the videos you see involving these students is how much they enjoy themselves. They keep saying they’re under constant stress, and are in fear of their lives, but when they’re angry, they’re not angry in any kind of proportionate way – it’s more like they’re having an exorcism, and the adrenaline in them when they start shouting is almost visible – and when they’re filming some neutered administrator who’s pleading with them for dialogue all you can hear from the crowd is laughter and enjoyment at seeing someone humiliated, at seeing someone dance when they pull his or her string.

  10. Mark Reaume
    Posted June 3, 2017 at 1:40 pm | Permalink


    Also. Dr. Weinstein was on Joe Rogan ‘s podcast yesterday.

    • Posted June 3, 2017 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

      Worth a listen if you have 2.5 hours to spare. (really)


      • fizziks
        Posted June 4, 2017 at 9:53 am | Permalink

        Wow it is all additionally sad because from that podcast Weinstein is -extremely- dedicated to Evergreen and the unique teaching model there.

  11. Heather Hastie
    Posted June 3, 2017 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    I notice that they demand one of the campus police is fired AND suspended without pay while there’s an investigation. So much for innocent until proven guilty.

    The students themselves not only don’t think they should have to adhere to the Student Code of Conduct, but that there should be different standards based on things like colour. Unbelievable.

    There is a double standard throughout in the way these students treat others plus demand others are treated, and the way they expect to be treated themselves.

    Further, I do not see how or why white people as individuals bear a greater share of any guilt. We must all take responsibility for our own behaviour. As a group those in power, whatever their background, should do their best to ensure things like equity and fairness for all.

    But individual white people being held responsible for the actions of others is wrong. It’s from that sort of mentality that things like persecuting Jews for centuries for killing Jesus came.

    • DrBrydon
      Posted June 3, 2017 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

      Collective and inherited guilt is implicit in their arguments. It makes it easier than having to deal with opponents on an individual basis, similarly to their collective victimization, which eliminates the need to show any individual harm. I am afraid that it is, indeed, the old, old story.

    • BJ
      Posted June 3, 2017 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

      It’s also the same concept used in Muslim theocracies for “honor killings.”

  12. Kevin F
    Posted June 3, 2017 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    I thought I’d go ahead and do the dirty work for you and go through the faculty listings at Evergreen. Of 56 faculty signatures, I count 45 from the humanities. However, there was one retiree and another with no listing so that 45 is only out 54, leaving 9 from the natural sciences. I count 11 alone from languages, more than the natural sciences combined!

  13. DrBrydon
    Posted June 3, 2017 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    A fine example of revolutionary self-criticism.

    We vehemently reject the claim that students have been violent simply because they have been loud and emphatic.

    I have not seen that claim. My oppression is that the concern is the threatened violence rather than general unruliness. Threatened violence not being protected by the First Amendment, unlike Weinstein’s utterances.

  14. W.Benson
    Posted June 3, 2017 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    The ancestors of everyone have held slaves, killed people and eaten human flesh, as have they been slaves. If there is collective guilt, it falls on the shoulders of all.

  15. BJ
    Posted June 3, 2017 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    Professor Weinstein was on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast last night. It’s very illuminating to listen to the first hour of his interview, especially starting at around 33 minutes, where he starts to describe that the situation is continually deteriorating there. The students basically held the President hostage in his office to have a “dialogue.” When he needed to use the bathroom, they refused to let him urinate in private; he had to be escorted by two of the student protesters.

    Additionally, Weinstein was called early in the morning Wednesday by campus police and told not to come in that day. When he asked why, they said it was because a group of students was searching “car to car” for someone, and the police thought it was him for whom they were searching. The worst part? The President had told campus police to “stand down,” which meant they couldn’t protect him or any other of his students harassed by the protesters (being told to stand down, they said, meant they had to stay in the campus police building and not interfere with the students’ activities in any way). They told him that if the students were indeed searching for him, the campus police could not protect him because the President of the school explicitly told them not to do so.

    • DrBrydon
      Posted June 3, 2017 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

      Yes, I saw earlier about that ‘stand down’ order. I am not sure what authority the president of a school has to order school police not to do their job. It seems wrong all the way around.

    • Carey
      Posted June 3, 2017 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

      It will be interesting to hear what the president of TESU will have to say in his defense when some sane member of the board of trustees or legislature demands his firing . Probably that it would be racist to punish oppressed minority students trying to bring about social justice. After all, the end justifies the means.

  16. Carey
    Posted June 3, 2017 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    I feel sympathy for the students at TESU who are working hard to get a real education. After this incident, the university is likely to lose public funding. Its reputation will surely suffer. If I were a student there, I’d transfer ASAP.

    • somer
      Posted June 3, 2017 at 8:30 pm | Permalink


  17. Posted June 3, 2017 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    Just spelling out the obvious, is it not the very epitome of racism, as well as moral blackmail and the denial of freedom of thought, to say that anyone with a specified degree of pigmentation should for that reason feel in some particular way over some particular issue?

  18. prinzler
    Posted June 3, 2017 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    Is it not the utmost irony that the letter claims that

    “There is a difference between exercising the right to freely voice an opinion and inciting violence”

    when that is precisely the opposite of what they claim with regard to Weinstein?

    A double standard could not be more double. Let’s hope this doesn’t become standard.

    • prinzler
      Posted June 3, 2017 at 4:07 pm | Permalink


  19. Jimbo
    Posted June 3, 2017 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    In the video were numerous students who tried to defend Bret Weinstein and I’m sure many more liked him as their professor. They dare not speak out against the snowflakes’ and the administration for fear of punishment by the school. That’s a second tragedy. I say let the black students have the school. Allow two students to hold seats on the board of trustees since they seem to know how best to manage Evergreen’s future. White teachers and students, just leave. Problem solved! Imagine how smoothly everything would work.

    • Posted June 3, 2017 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

      Many of his students have spoken out and as a result have had to endure a campaign of intimidation.


      • Jimbo
        Posted June 3, 2017 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

        Such an injustice and my sympathy is with Weinstein and these students. (Apologies for commenting with incomplete knowledge of the facts.)

    • Posted June 3, 2017 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

      “I say let the black students have the school…”

      This is the kind of divisive rhetoric that is becoming increasingly common in this website. It wasn’t like this when I first came across this place. Sad!

      • Jimbo
        Posted June 3, 2017 at 10:31 pm | Permalink

        The divisiveness is not coming from me. I was using some snark (and irony) to prove a point: that the demands of these misguided students, when taken to their logical end, result in self-segregation. I don’t want that and am pretty certain that no one on this site does either. We seek inclusion and plurality and most of all, free speech and expression. I listened to most of the Rogan podcast and heard Weinstein specify that this movement is being driven by a segment of students of color that I suppose no one should actually specify.

        You shouldn’t judge the merits of this site by the comments of a few contributors.

      • Posted June 4, 2017 at 5:59 am | Permalink

        Well, then I suggest you leave this website if it doesn’t meet your standards.

  20. Posted June 3, 2017 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    I just expended my morning doing a survey of the fields /subjects taught by the signees. As expected, most are from the humanities. The few from more ‘solid’ fields, however, also inject quite radical po-mo and SJW content into their curriculum. Botany must address colonization; geology, undocumented immigrants; biology, “Feminist Epistemologies”; geography, marxism; Health sciences, yoga, chinese medicine, and applied kinesiology;

    The Spanish, French, and German language instructors seem to only be offering courses on feminism or indigenous cultures. Perhaps Evergreen takes a Waldorfian approach to acquiring language skills.

    A writing workshop will focus on the “occupation of Palestine and Gaza”.

    In blithe disregard for cliché, yes, there is an art course on basket-weaving.

    The only way ‘Greenies’ are exposed to the works of Shakespeare is through the lens of “Gender, Race, and Power”, and “systematic oppression.”

    With Weinstein safely off campus, I say we nuke the entire site from orbit.

    • Denise
      Posted June 3, 2017 at 7:37 pm | Permalink


    • KiwiInOz
      Posted June 4, 2017 at 4:46 am | Permalink

      It’s the only way to be sure.

  21. Posted June 3, 2017 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    “They’ve also been racist in their demands that white faculty and staff leave campus, an act that Weinstein called “a show of force, and an act of oppression in and of itself.”

    Sorry. I don’t see it. Even Weinstein himself uses the word “encourage” in his widely disseminated email. On the designated day, he went to campus as he had declared beforehand without experiencing any problem.

    I don’t understand how a request for any group to leave the campus “voluntarily” can be construed as oppression.

    He says it is okay if people of color leave, but asking white people to leave is oppression in itself. I honestly don’t understand his reasoning here.

    • Denise
      Posted June 3, 2017 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

      You don’t see the difference between people choosing to leave themselves and demanding that other people leave? I say demand rather than ask because if it was merely about asking then we would not be talking about it now.

      Yes, he went to campus that day without experiencing any problem. Would you care to say something about what happened subsequently?

      • Posted June 3, 2017 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

        First of all, I am commenting on a specific subject (the email and the request/demand). So, no, I am not going to digress to other subjects in this thread. I am trying to understand Weinstein’s logic in his email here, not analyze the whole affair.

        Again, I don’t see anything wrong with a demand or a request as long as there is no compulsion involved. The change in plan seems like an organizational detail on the face of it.

        I have some sympathy with Weinstein because the change in plans could have led to some inconvenience for him. But I don’t see how it is an act of “oppression”.

        • Denise
          Posted June 3, 2017 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

          The school had to be shut down and he was in fear for his physical safety. “Inconvenience” is an inappropriate word. How can you say there was no compulsion involved?

          • Posted June 3, 2017 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

            Yes, but those events happened more than one month after the email and the designated day. I am talking about his logic in that email. He surely couldn’t see the future when he was writing those words.

            I am interested to understand what he thought when he described a change of plans as “an act of oppression”. He was of course within his rights not to accept the tradition, or its changed format. He also had every right to protest, which he did. But I don’t find his argument in this email too convincing on the face of it.

            • Craw
              Posted June 3, 2017 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

              Would a sign on a lunch counter “Blacks not welcome” be “an act of oppression in and of itself”? How about a similar sign on every restaurant in a town?

              • Posted June 3, 2017 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

                Of course not. But do you see such a sign in this case? Where? Who said anybody would be “unwelcome” to come to the campus?

                Like I have repeated multiple times, on the face of it, the change in the tradition seems an organizational one. To claim that the aforementioned change in a long-standing tradition had ulterior motives needs more evidence than that.

            • BJ
              Posted June 3, 2017 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

              What he thought was that telling a specific group of people to leave a place based solely on their skin color is racist, regardless of whether it’s whites telling blacks or the other way around.

              The way most people think.

              • Ray
                Posted June 3, 2017 at 11:36 pm | Permalink

                EXACTLY.I think “Foxer” needs a dose of commonsense.

        • scottoest
          Posted June 3, 2017 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

          They demanded he (and others) do something. He said “no, and here’s why”. Then everything went all funhouse mirror.

        • Craw
          Posted June 3, 2017 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

          So a lunch counter with the sign “Blacks not welcome” is fine then?

          And to deny that there is an implicit threat of violence is disingenuous in view of the threats we have heard and the behavior we have seen. You did notice that the cops, the fricking cops, told Weinstein they could not guarantee his safety? Or his students?

        • Jim Smith
          Posted June 3, 2017 at 11:11 pm | Permalink

          Wow. The mafia suggests – suggests – that you might need some protection for your business. A suggestion mind you. It’s only a suggestion. Not even a request. A suggestion.

          I suggest you are not very bright.

          • mikeyc
            Posted June 4, 2017 at 12:24 am | Permalink

            The first bit is on point and you made a good analogy, one I hope foxer thinks about.

            That last bit was uncalled for.

            • Jim Smith
              Posted June 4, 2017 at 2:22 am | Permalink

              Thought about it. But, he’s a dolt. Thx the ‘request’ is reasonable. Damn. The problem with the south was they did not put up signs ‘requesting’ black use separate washrooms, fountains and store and buses. Which would have been reasonable.

              He does not have the ability to see about a million things wrong with it. About a $100 million dollars in lawsuits wrong with it. About a $100 million dollars in free advertising and propaganda for the alt-right. The dolt sees the short-game. Like nothing past 6 inches in front of his nose.

              He is a moron.

              God what an idiot.

          • Posted June 4, 2017 at 5:50 am | Permalink

            Another example of incivility on your part.

        • Posted June 4, 2017 at 5:59 am | Permalink

          It was not a request: everyone interpreted it as a demand, and white people who showed up at the welcome ceremony were asked to leave. White staff had to go to human resources to see if they were to show up that day or get paid. AND, look what happened to Weinstein. It is certainly oppression.

    • eric
      Posted June 3, 2017 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

      I sort of agree. I didn’t take any offense at the original request. Were I a teacher, I would’ve interpreted it at worst as a misguided attempt to do good.

      It’s the total bats**t craziness that the students engaged in an a result of the Prof publicly saying “no” that is the problem.

      • Posted June 3, 2017 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

        What happened to him was not right. No one should be forced to go into hiding over an email or a discussion about how to hold a tradition or a ceremony. That is absolutely unacceptable.

        But it should not prevent us from pointing out that Weinstein’s own reasoning may have problems and inconsistencies.

    • Ray
      Posted June 3, 2017 at 11:34 pm | Permalink

      Oh grow up!

    • Posted June 4, 2017 at 1:28 am | Permalink

      Maybe I need to elaborate more on this. Weinstein’d email was written a month BEFORE the protests.

      Put yourselves in the shoes of someone reading that email one month ago and tell me how he is being oppressed here.

      He says “encouraging” white people to leave the campus is an act of oppression in and of itself.

      Actually, the person in charge of the day replied to this email telling him that there was no compulsion and everything was voluntary.

      We cannot simply interpret the email’s logic and merit in the light of later events unless we believe Weinstein could foresee the future and wrote accordingly!

      • Saul Sorrell-Till
        Posted June 4, 2017 at 8:21 am | Permalink

        Do you seriously think that the climate a month ago was so different from how it is now that Weinstein would have considered the ‘request’ to leave back then completely harmless? That a month ago it was all sweetness and light, and the people ‘requesting’ that all white people leave the campus were simply suggesting it as a good idea that might be worth thinking about? And that there was no atmosphere at all back then, and no reason to think that anyone would mind if Weinstein didn’t leave? And it was actually Weinstein’s letter that made the students behave like bullying pre-teens?

        If you genuinely believe that, and your posts imply you do, then I have a large bridge from the inner London area that is for sale – 8 million former users, good condition, some assembly required, P&P not included but delivery costs negligible – just send me three million quid and it’s yours.

      • BJ
        Posted June 4, 2017 at 9:01 am | Permalink

        You still haven’t answered the question of whether “requesting” that people leave a place because they were born with a specific skin color is racist, or if it’s somehow not racist simply because it’s black people doing it to white people.

        You also haven’t answered how there was no implicit threat of violence based on all the subsequent and even concurrent events. You just keep using semantic arguments that nobody will by because they do not hold any water.

      • Posted June 4, 2017 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

        I posted another comment adding more clarification to the original comment, but for some reason, the comment is awaiting moderation.

    • Posted June 4, 2017 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

      Some more clarifications:

      1- My comment was about the email itself not the ensuing events. I think we should be able to condemn a wrong committed against a person without accepting their ideology or arguments wholesale. Also, if we want to be fair, we should condemn those who doxxed the protesters on racist channels exposing them to real physical danger (and, to repeat the obvious, an act of oppression!) To his credit, Weinstein has condemned such actions.

      2- it is a matter of facts that the change of plans was a forced one or not, not opinions. Evergreen’s website clearly says everything is voluntary.

      And this is part of the email the organizer of the event wrote in response to this claim:

      “The idea that any collegiate body could or would force all white people off of a college campus is not only false but statistically absurd. Event organizers secured a space off-campus with a 200-person occupant limit. Evergreen has a white student population of approximately 2800, roughly 70% of the student population, and several hundred white faculty and staff. This year more than 90% of white Evergreen students, staff, and faculty stayed on campus for Day of Absence, and several hundred of them eagerly participated in our Day of Presence programming two days after being invited to attend Day of Absence off-campus.”


      3- Finally, if asking white people to leave is oppression, then asking people of color to leave is also oppression. But Weinstein had never objected to the latter during his time at Evergreen. Why Weinstein thinks the old format is okay but changing the location each group attends constitutes oppression?

      • BJ
        Posted June 4, 2017 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

        “3- Finally, if asking white people to leave is oppression, then asking people of color to leave is also oppression. But Weinstein had never objected to the latter during his time at Evergreen. Why Weinstein thinks the old format is okay but changing the location each group attends constitutes oppression?”

        Wait, what? The day of absence in previous years was organized by the same people. They decided to be absent to protest what they see as systemic racism, and it’s their right to do that. What they didn’t do, what is not their right, and what you still refuse to address the racism of, was decide to tell other people that they shouldn’t show up to school because of their skin color. Nobody ever did that…until this year, which you still haven’t condemned or “clarified” whether or not you think it’s racist. You just keep beating around the bush and avoiding the points everyone is making: that it sure seems like a demand based on the subsequent behavior of students harassing and doxxing those who disagreed with the idea, that it’s racist to tell people not to come to school because of their skin color, and that the climate of the school one month ago was somehow completely the opposite of what it suddenly is now, according to your opinion of the events.

  22. Posted June 3, 2017 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

    Who would hire their graduates? My goodness…one of the most important lessons a young student should learn is that they don’t know as much as they thought they knew. The college is really doing these “students” a huge disservice.

  23. redpony
    Posted June 3, 2017 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

    This reminds one of the theological debates before the First Council of Nicaea. As I understand it from listening to the Weinstein interviews, you have the “Equity of Opportunity” faction (Weinstein) and the “Equity of Outcomes” faction (Bridges). I think this is a much better framing than “reverse racism” which only muddies the waters. For example, Day of Absence where Black students leave campus highlights the lack of opportunity; Day of Absence where only Black students are on campus illustrates a desirable outcome. I’m reading into this a bit, but I think it is fair to give the benefit of the doubt and to say that “reverse racism” was not an operational intent. Now whether or not it is problematic despite that is another story. Apparently this has been brewing for a while.

    Of course, these philosophical differences have near life or death significance in the hothouse of this milieu. The signing of this denunciation is merely a digging in of the heels and showing who is boss. I find this so interesting as it is a kind of back-stabbing court intrigue (rather than reasoned debate) in the name of social justice. The irony appears lost on them.

    It is also pretty clear that what we have here is pure mission creep – from education to social injustice remediation. I don’t mean to be unkind, but listening to the protestors struggle to form arguments and, being unable to, resort to expletives and shutting down debate indicates that the school is failing in its primary mission, likely because they have been sidetracked by a secondary mission that is not only very difficult but beyond their ability to effect.

    As for the language of the document: it is so self-referential as to be indecipherable – of course, unless you already know what it means. This could also be said to be the modus operandi and what makes the behavior we have witnessed appear so bizarre, dysfunctional, and cult-like. So much unsaid but so much assumed.

    By appearing on “Alt-Right media” (Tucker Carlson) the administration is also blaming Weinstein for encouraging the death threats that were received by the college. According to this esoteric dogma, appearing on Fox makes Weinstein guilty by association for any racism or violence subsequently directed at the campus/students. Apparently they never heard of YouTube, where most people probably found the disturbing videos of the student protests.

    • Carey Haug
      Posted June 4, 2017 at 7:15 am | Permalink

      Your comment reminds me of an excellent essay by Jonathan Haidt on how the academy must choose its telos, either knowledge or social justice. I vote for knowledge.

      • Posted June 5, 2017 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

        In my view this is a false dichotomy: one furthers justice by producing knowledge (amongst other things). Of course, the pomos don’t produce any or at least disdain the possibility and hence would by accident at best.

    • steve
      Posted June 5, 2017 at 5:47 am | Permalink

      “I don’t mean to be unkind, but listening to the protestors struggle to form arguments”

      How about struggle to even read. Watch the Youtube videos and you will see one where a student is struggling to pronounce simple words that she is reading.

  24. Posted June 3, 2017 at 10:54 pm | Permalink

    I think we should give in to the protestors’ demands in one case: abolish the university police department. There’s absolutely no reason for a university to have it’s own police force, separate from the city or county it’s contained in. Weinstein would be safe had it not been for the decision of the university administration to order the police to stand down.

  25. Ray
    Posted June 3, 2017 at 11:16 pm | Permalink

    This is absolutely sickening.What kind of urban left leaning intolerant PC morons buys into this stupidity.Essentially this is all about a bunch of entitled politically correct RACIST snowflakes shoving their beliefs upon others and trying to stifle the opinions of others they do not agree with.Would love to see these professors and students see the inside of an ISIS prison cell.Total intolerant evil scum.Being a Washington RN for many years I was thinking about sending my kids to Evergreen.Now no way would I even let my kids even think about it.

  26. Ray
    Posted June 3, 2017 at 11:21 pm | Permalink

    “Foxer” please get a clue.What a bunch of nonsense.

  27. J Cook
    Posted June 3, 2017 at 11:51 pm | Permalink

    Faculty/staff have their heads where the sun don’t shine. You are absolutely correct Jerry, it is a reminder of the Cultural Revolution. Whiskey,Tango, Foxtrot.

    • Tom
      Posted June 4, 2017 at 4:55 am | Permalink

      Quite right, hilarious crackpottery that may bring the whole teaching profession into disrepute.
      Plain old cowardly APPEASEMENT.
      It’s a pity these students have failed to get proper guidance from their tutors.

  28. rrr5703
    Posted June 4, 2017 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    I highly recommend listening to Weinstein’s interview on the Joe Rogan podcast. He is quite good…

  29. Posted June 5, 2017 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    “We vehemently reject the claim that students have been violent simply because they have been loud and emphatic.”

    I’m getting lost now. I thought speech was violence, literally, in a figuratively sort of … something.

%d bloggers like this: