The disruption continues at Evergreen State University, much of it deriving from biology professor Bret Weinstein’s reasonable email in response to messages “urging” white faculty, staff, and students to leave campus on the “Day of Absence.” As the police were told to “stand down” by the University President, and could not protect Weinstein on campus, he and his family have not only had to stay off campus, but have moved to another place in view of the threats they received. I urge you again to read Weinstein’s email to see how mild and reasonable a declined response to a “request” for white people to leave campus can trigger hatred and violence, and repeated call by students that Weinstein be fired.
It also triggered some if the faculty and staff. 58 members of the Evergreen faculty, nearly all humanities professors (just 7 were in the sciences and math, 4 of those being non tenure-track adjunct faculty) signed a letter of solidarity with the students that, according to Inside Higher Ed, is apparently the one being circulated. 28 staff also signed the statement. It includes this outlandish call for a 1984-style “investigation” of Weinstein (my emphasis):
In solidarity with students, we call for the Evergreen administration to:
* Center student perspectives in a persistent media approach to counter the alt-right narratives that are demonizing Evergreen and Day of Absence specifically.
* Take seriously the threats made to individual community members and use all available institutional resources to protect them.
* 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.
If you’ve seen Weinstein’s public appearances (Fox News, Joe Rogan, etc.), you’ll know he’s done no such thing. To punish him and not the students who held President George Bridges hostage, even requiring Bridges to be accompanied by thugs when he had to use the bathroom, is unconscionable.
Many people have said, defending the thuggish and entitled students at Evergreen State, that there was no “requirement” for white people to leave campus. Yes, that’s true: nobody said “all white people must leave campus.” But the messages were sufficiently strong, and the likely consequences at Evergreen so clear (viz., what happened to Weinstein), that it was clearly coercive. One person at the College wrote me:
As some members of the campus community have noted, by citing the emails of others, while there was never a requirement for white people to leave campus on Day of Absence, there was strong pressure to do so, as well as appreciation for those who supported that interpretation.
Grania also commented on the “no requirement” excuse:
The claim from Evergreen that “no-one was forced” is going to remain their mantra. However, it fools nobody: there are plenty of ways to coerce people into doing something against their will without marching them out at gunpoint. Simply asking people to volunteer to do something is coercive enough. If it is truly voluntary then they don’t need to be asked to volunteer. Adding that if they don’t volunteer, then they are a racist is a threat of ostracization. So, threatening, coercive, manipulative. But no guns were used.
Evergreen knows they have lost control of the narrative, and all their statements now are for the benefit of those remaining on the Evergreen campus. It’s a sort of revisionist history to try and convince themselves that events that got terribly out of hand are not in fact what they appear to be.
In the meantime, the Seattle Times reports that, in view of threats and unrest, classes were canceled again today at Evergreen, and I got one report from campus about incidents that won’t appear either in the news or on the Evergreen State website:
Graffiti reading “fuck racist faculty” and “No Evergreen PD” [Police Department] has been written several places around campus. Rocks were thrown through the windows of both the Natural History Museum, and the Scientific Computing Labs today.
(There are also pictures of students on campus with baseball bats, and reports that some of them were roaming around campus with bats, acting like vigilantes.)
The damage to labs and the Museum implies that, as I mentioned before, these disruptions constitute in part a “culture war” between the sciences and the po-mo humanities that seem to infest the campus.
Three other items. First, Evergreen State has decided to hide its faculty directory, even to those on campus who have their own sign-in access to it. Now why is that? Here’s what I got when I searched Bret Weinstein’s faculty page:
I got the same thing when I looked at the Evergreen State “faculty directory page”:
Meanwhile, the university’s Board of Trustees has issued a statement that sounds good, but it doesn’t mention Weinstein and, as the former statement issued by President Bridges, is sufficiently ambiguous to justify the college doing nothing except placating the protestors. It gives lip service to free speech, and says that those who violate it will be disciplined, but that could be interpreted by some to include Weinstein!):
Freedom of speech, civil discourse and open debate has been a cornerstone of our country’s history — and Evergreen’s history. In difficult times, these pillars become even more significant. Intellectual inquiry, freedom of expression, tolerance and inclusiveness are core tenets of Evergreen’s philosophy and approach to education. Anyone who prevents Evergreen from delivering a positive and productive learning environment for all students has, and will continue to be held accountable for their actions and face appropriate consequences.
Does anybody want to bet that a single student at Evergreen will face sanctions or punishment? I’ll bet one reader $50 that no student will be punished for their actions up to today. Email me if you’re on!
The Trustees then insist that Evergreen is no different from many other colleges experiencing “conflict,” and praise the cowardly president for his “unmatched leadership.” If you’ve seen the videos of Bridges being bullied by the students, you’ll know that that characterization is ridiculous: the man is an invertebrate and an arrant coward. (By the way, these videos, most taken by the thuggish students themselves, are starting to disappear from YouTube: a sure sign that the students realize that they don’t look very oppressed and certainly not heroic. It’s all part of the changing narrative from both the students and the College itself.) The Trustees’ statement continues:
Evergreen is not alone in colleges currently experiencing conflict, but because of our longstanding commitment to open and respectful debate it is imperative that the campus dialogue reflects these values. The tumultuous events of the last week have revealed the need to delve further into issues of diversity and equity at Evergreen. Going forward, the college will take a measured approach, which is crucial to ensure that we respond appropriately, rather than reactively.
As trustees, we will continue to work to encourage civil discourse, ensuring that all voices are heard and conversations are productive — in an environment where all teachers can teach and all students can learn. This has always been a part of the education at Evergreen.
We remain passionate about Evergreen’s vision, mission and values, including social justice, diversity and serving the public interest. President Bridges’ unmatched leadership and experience, combined with the college’s outstanding faculty and staff, provide an extraordinary education that serves both our students and the state of Washington. As trustees, in close collaboration with President Bridges, we will continue to ensure that we do so in the months, years and decades ahead.
Contact: Zach Powers, powersz@evergreen.edu, (360) 867-6644
Communications and Public Relations Manager
The Evergreen State College
I will be contacting Mr. Powers with some questions.
Finally, the conservative magazine Commentary, in a piece called “Clean House at Evergreen State,” thinks that the school needs to be put into receivership and its president fired:
But what students and faculty seem to be complaining about, quite apart from the threats, is that the College has been brought into bad repute because Weinstein—the spoilsport—drew attention to what’s going on over there. It is, of course, humiliating to have the distasteful things you say and do make national news. But last I checked, at colleges and universities, we are not supposed to be obsessed with punishing the leakers.
As for President Bridges, in spite of his ode to free speech, he says, just before the 1:19 mark of this video that Weinstein is being “held accountable” for his actions, though he would not go into detail about a “personnel matter.”
An academic department as dysfunctional as Evergreen State College would be a good candidate for being put under receivership. Evergreen, at the very least, needs new leadership. President Bridges should step down. If he does not, Evergreen’s Board of Trustees should fire him.
Fat chance of that! The Trustees seem to have as little backbone as President Bridges. My guess is that no student will be punished, that Bridges will stay, that Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying (also a tenured biology professor who’s been accused of racism) will eventually leave because of their unconscionable demonization (a pity, because both of them were rated as terrific teachers), and that Evergreen State’s reputation has taken a permanent hit. That hit will be the only upside to the dismaying events of the past two weeks.
According to RCW 28B.40.820 (Revised Code of Washington) the governor appoints the trustees. This problem can be addressed (if not fixed) by putting in place some sensible people.
The Governor’s name is Jay Inslee and it is said he has nation-wide political aspirations, so he may be thinking it’s time to start on his wider political base.
http://www.governor.wa.gov/contact/contact/send-gov-inslee-e-message
I suspect that Evergreen’s reputation won’t be the only thing to “take a hit”. If there’s any hope left for humanity, its enrollment numbers will take a hit too – because what parent in their right mind would want to send their children off to join this cult?
This isn’t purely theoretical – the University of Missouri has seen a steep drop in enrollment in the last couple of years, since the disastrous student protests on that campus. (Google “University of Missouri drop in enrollment for numerous articles about this.) It could happen at Evergreen too.
When you consider that Evergreen has a 99% acceptance rate (yes, really), a significant drop in applications will translate directly into a significant drop in enrollment. I suspect the college might suffer some financial difficulties as a result of this – and they’d be much deserved.
Also relevant: a state lawmaker has introduced a bill to cut Evergreen’s funding:
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/article153704644.html
According to the article:
> His bill has little chance of passing [but] Manweller [the politician] called the moves a “figurative shot across the bow” to school administration and protesters “that says, ‘Hey, the people that are funding you are watching and they’re not happy.’”
There may be hope for us yet.
The fact is, ideologically driven schools from either side should not receive funding from the people. It is very clear in this case that this is a school fully in the throes of one ideology. I no more want to see it funded by taxpayer money than I want to see, say, Liberty University funded by it.
Are there any public schools in the US with a “conservative” agenda? Serious question. I do not know.
Evergreen is not the only public school with a “liberal” (in this case, regressive liberal) basis.
I honestly don’t know. I mean, probably in Utah, where Mormonism is a very powerful force. But, even then, a place like Brigham Young is a private university. I don’t know of any state universities that are “conservative,” I just know that I wanted to put a disclaimer in that, if there are any, they shouldn’t receive public funding, either. Any university that has a goal of indoctrination with any specific political ideology — rather than promoting critical thinking about and discussion of all ideology generally — shouldn’t be paid for by the taxpayers, especially considering that the vast majority wouldn’t agree with what their money is being used to teach.
How would the degree of ideological drive be determined for a given university? I see absolutely no way this wouldn’t be used to cut funding to “normal” universities. After all, sensible humanist values promoting critical thinking and discussion are also part of a hated ideology for large parts of the country. Just letting enrollment numbers drop naturally might be the best solution.
You’re right, it might be unfeasible.
Please don’t refer to these underage fascists as “liberal”. They could not be further from liberal.
ALL of the students at Evergreen are fascists, George? Careful with that brush.
Where did he say that?
He was commenting on my post. I referred to the entire school as liberal.
But he said “these underage fascists.” I think it’s pretty clear he’s referring to the people in the post, as in the protesters and rabblerousers.
Saying that the school is liberal, fascist, or whatever, doesn’t necessarily mean that all or even most of its student and faculty are such. Rather, it means that the “liberal” ones are active, powerful, loud and get their way. The sensible part – we do not even know whether it is minority or majority – is powerless and silent, or silenced.
They are authoritarian left. Cultural marxists. Nothing to do with classic liberalism. These are the assholes who took over feminism and went on from there. “Feminism is the belief that men and women are equal” is their cover line, and then it is on to the white man and the free market are the source of all evil in the world. The hijab is not evil, cause the white man did not stick it on the women’s head for example, that was done by a brown guy, so not evil.
The fact that most university faculties are liberal is not in itself problematic. Reality does, in fact, have a liberal bias. The problem is when fake liberals over-run a campus as in this and far too many other cases. When Ideology trumps evidence, and speaking the truth is demonized, you no longer have a University, you have a cult.
No, it is a problem when departments that deal specifically in things like ideology, politics, and philosophy are, say, 90-95% liberal or even further left. That’s an enormous lack of intellectual diversity.
Interestingly enough, the fact-based departments like science and math have a significantly less (though still significant) left-to-right slate of academics.
Neither Evergreen’s faculty nor its curriculum is liberal. Marxism, radical feminism, alternative healing, critical theory, postmodernism, etc. pervade and dominate every aspect of that cesspool.
“Reality does, in fact, have a liberal bias”
What on earth is that supposed to mean?
“Reality has a liberal bias”.
Of course this is not true in a literal sense (reality doesn’t care one way or the other), but there are two ways in which this pun can be interpreted as being true.
1. Environmental problems, which are denied by rightwingers, do actually exist.
2. Liberal solution to societal problems tend to work. For example: universal health insurance, social security, flat income distribution, humane prison regime, strict environmental laws, et cetera.
Hi Dick, I agree with the points you listed but there are also non-scientific ideas from the left, such as
– gender is a social construct
– blank slate vs genetics and IQ
– silly pseudo-scientific new age ideas (Deepak Chopra)
Also regarding the environment, I believe it was a huge strategic mistake to focus on global warming. The narrative should have been pollution (coal, oceans, air etc) which is more measurable and objective and tackling pollution effectively would have reduced carbon emmissions anyway.
It was also a huge mistake to make up blatant lies and exaggerations in the documentary that gave the public its first significant exposure to the story of global warming and was carried by the media for years as such (An Inconvenient Truth…The inconvenient truth was that most of the documentary’s data and analysis was untrue or greatly exaggerated). It really made people more skeptical about the idea as a whole than they should have been.
BJ: Sorry, but that statement about AIT is patently false.
The contents of AIT are 99% correct, as was confirmed by (among others) the scientists of realclimate.org. And this was also the assessment of the judge who presided over the infamous lawsuit about AIT.
By extreme nitpicking the deniers were able to find a few very small things that were then endlessly repeated in the denialosphere. That is all there is to it.
Eric: sure there are some loony ideas on the left – but I was just explaining why the phrase “reality has a liberal bias” does in fact have some truth to it. 😉
Although my mind is not totally made up about this, I tend to disagree with the claim that the exact form of the message (global warming, climate change, etc) had much of an influence on the policy outcome in the US. The GOP hates everything that has to do with “environment” anyway, and they would blocked all of Obama’s legislation no matter what. If Obama had signed a directive that the Sun would rise tomorrow the GOP would have opposed it.
That said, I think that Obame should have spoken much more about global warming/climate change than he did.
Almost universally, schoolld that are “stae Collegess” are the rump of teh ducationla suystem and donot attract the caliber of students you woild wamt to have in the Stae university.
I notice over the last twenty or so years more and more private (and public?) colleges announce/pronounce themselves no longer “colleges” but “universities.”
Almost universally, schoolld that are “stae Collegess” are the rump of teh ducationla suystem and donot attract the caliber of students you woild wamt to have in the State university.
“Almost universally”? This is not true. Many state colleges are academically top notch.
Yeah, that was not an accurate claim at all. I mean, the number one graduate school in the country for Library Sciences is UNC Chapel Hill (or, at least it was a few years ago, when someone I know went there. I don’t know the current rankings), which is also a very good state school. Even among undergraduate universities, there are many, many state schools that are ranked very highly.
I believe he is distinguishing between state COLLEGES and state UNIVERSITIES, which have different accreditation in some states. The U in UNC does not stand for college. (Nor does the C 🙂 )
What’s the difference between a state college and a state university? (I’m British, we use those two words differently from you guys.)
In the US Universities are generally comprised of more than one college. (Letters & Science, Engineering, etc.) And Universities generally offer graduate courses beyond the BA/BS degrees.
While that may well be how people normally think of the difference, in reality the difference is often purely semantic. Case in point, some years ago a college near the University where I was attending Gradual School* changed it’s name from Eastern Connecticut State College to Eastern Connecticut State University. There were no changes to the school itself – just the name changed.
*sic – twenty quatloos to anyone who gets the derivation.
Hence the word “generally”. 😉
And if that weren’t confusing enough, you’ve got Penn State University located in State College, PA.
I’ve heard the derivation, but I cannot think of it right now. A kid in a movie saying something cute is all I remember. Could cheat by looking it up, but I won’t.
“And if that weren’t confusing enough, you’ve got Penn State University located in State College, PA.”
If I correctly recall, Texas A&M University is located at College Station.
I’m guessing that was a Stansian stab at irony — either that, or he’s a product of one of the “stae Collegess” he so disparages.
Not sure if Mr. Stans is an ironist, or simply another numb-thumbed texter. If the latter, he should upgrade his autocorrect.
If Evergreen is a money making outfit I can understand why it would want to bend over backwards to please its customers.
As a state university, Evergreen isn’t one of the burgeoning for-profit schools like DeVry or Full Sail (or, ugh, Trump “University”). But public schools, like their private counterparts, all keep a keen eye on the bottom line, which is why they offer such posh amenities (lavish gyms, plush theaters, gourmet food plans, etc.) in their unstinting efforts to lure well-heeled students.
sub
It will be interesting to see if the anti-science struggle continues and expands.
Interesting because Silicon Valley loves science and are big-time social liberals.
In terms of the newspaper of record, New York Times of course, apart from op-ed, there has been almost 0 attention paid to Evergreen by its news section.
Wonder if it will report on it, and what has to happen for it to do so. And how will it play journalistic “catch up” given its reporting tardiness?
The longer this continues, the more disgusting it becomes.
The incident at Evergreen State is political gold for the right wing and a grotesque embarrassment for mainstream liberals. I had not heard of this school before the incident and I suspect that 90% of the American populace had not either. Now the right wing can use the “protestors” as exemplars of so-called liberals everywhere and suddenly become the protector of free speech. Actual liberals need to speak out forcefully in condemning what the ignorant students have done as well as distancing themselves from that part of the faculty that seems to believe that every absurdity that comes out of the mouth of the protestors must be some profound insight into the “oppression” that they are suffering. If real liberals refuse to do this, they will concede the narrative to the right wing and once again screw themselves, a talent they excel at.
—Actual liberals need to speak out forcefully in condemning what the ignorant students have done as well as distancing themselves from that part of the faculty..—
Agreed. Of course, the right-wing is going to argue that the reason these things are happening, is that far too many people in current academia are intellectual fellow-travelers with these students.
If the “actual liberals” in these places aren’t numerous enough to speak out, or worse yet too afraid to do so, that is unfortunately the PR equivalent of an admission that the right-wing is right about the current state of affairs in colleges like this.
Harvard just rescinded their admissions to ten students for posting offensive memes in a private Facebook group chat. I would be scared if I was a student on campus these days.
Nothing on Facebook is private, anything posted on Facebook is the property of Facebook.
The “private group” was a spin off of an official Harvard facebook page for new students.
One meme was about the hanging of a Mexican child and calling it “pinata time.”
The school gave the students a chance to explain the photos and memes they posted. People are responsible for their actions.
So, is it right or not to hold people responsible for abusive behavior?
“abusive” behavior? who did they “abuse”? No, I don’t think it’s right to hold students responsible for offensive internet postings. Death threats and harassment, fine. But they were clearly fucking around, offensive or not, and they certainly weren’t “abusing” anyone.
A meme “about” something ugly? Need I point out you are part of an online discussion “about” hanging Mexican children and calling it “pinata time”?
Paul’s point seems pertinent here too. How can it be “official” when it is actually *owned by and part of facebook*?
So, you’ll have to do better than waving the bloody shirt of a sick joke.
I don’t know if it constitutes speaking out, but the comments at the NY Times for Frank Bruni’s column on this over the weekend seemed to be almost entirely disgusted with the school. I think that’s a gauge of mainstream liberal opinion and reflects how much this regressive ideology is a campus phenomenon. The kids are learning this at college from their profs abetted by the administration.
This is not a “Culture War”. The “Culture War” narrative (Right Wing), and its twin, the “Science Wars” narratives (Left Wing) assume two factions: a progressive one, and a conservative one. This is not true, but a pernicious idea that gained traction recently again. This time from the Far Right.
Science, or free speech, are not right wing. Not when recently the Alt Right wants to claim it as their own (that truther/conspiracy/Trump faction!), nor was it right wing twenty years ago, when Andrew Ross declared science as an obsolete realist project that was left in the dust by so-called “Left Academia” and postmodernism.
There is no “Culture War”, but I was in favour of a “Science Wars II” proper, which only ironically shares the name but is about scrutinizing and increasing pressure on postmodernism. I’m glad it’s happening to a degree.
Aside of my criticism, excellent post as usual.
Yes, the situation is broken and trust apparently destroyed and cannot be repaired anymore. It is also a common effect that the group rationalizes to themselves why they were right to treat the ostracized person badly. This involves to strawmen what the other person has allegedly done to make the response seem adequate, which then becomes their own revisionist history.
sub
Another point about the “voluntary” claim. If a professor absents himself his students are involuntarily deprived of something they are entitled to.
I recently finished Timothy Snyder’s book, On Tyranny. Snyder’s book has twenty lessons and the first is, “Do not obey in advance.” I see what Bret Weinstein did as a way of following this rule. Sam Harris recently interviewed Snyder, who said that following the first rule was critical because once tyranny gains momentum it is hard to stop. Snyder’s book is mostly a response to Trump, but I think it applies to the worst ideas on the Right and the Left, and I think it also applies to a college campus, which nearly runs like a little State of its own. I can understand why someone would say that is overstating it, but I don’t think so. Weinstein is the only one who resisted as far as I know. One of the points that Snyder wants to make and encourage is that small actions matter, erasing the swastika off the window, painting over the n-word on a bathroom stall, or intervening when a lunatic threatens young women on a bus because they are Muslim. But, another problem, that I think applies to Evergreen, is that it seems that some people are becoming confused about what constitutes a threat. The crazy thing is, you can’t even have a rational conversation about what a threat is! I could put Snyder’s book in the hands of Evergreen students and many of them would apply the “Do not obey in advance” rule by refusing to go to Weinstein’s biology class, listen to his lecture, or do his assigned homework. And if you think that sounds ridiculous, go check some of the videos that Jerry posted. One where students demand that the president inform their professors that they will be excused from all class assignments and exams because the students are too busy protecting themselves from the “racial violence” on campus. And oh yeah, they would like potluck for dinner please, and f-you, and make it gumbo. It happened. What is a threat? Who needs protection? I think campuses are getting confused. And, I see a disturbing pattern developing on campuses like Evergreen, Berkley, and Middlebury, where people are threatened or assaulted, and the police are absent or asked to stand down, and where crimes go unreported. The people who are screaming the loudest for safe spaces are creating the most dangerous campuses. Universities cannot allow threats, assaults, and vandalism to go unpunished. I think about that professor, the one who advised the Evergreen president, that it was important to listen to the message over the way the students were saying it…see past the f-you’s, insults, threats, shouting, jeering…there is an important message in there, somewhere. I can see the same women explaining away the broken glass in the Evergreen museums and labs as acts of self-defense.
Good comment, though consider breaking up the text into a few chunks, for ease of reading.
The important rule with so-called “SJW” is to never apologize, precisely because their outrage is always disproportional and this would validate their behaviour. It is important how one arrives at a solution in other areas, and it is important in this regard, too.
Suppose Weinstein was wrong (I don’t believe he was). Suppose his mail was totally misguided (I don’t believe it was). Would the behaviour of everyone else be an adequate response? How wrong must Weinstein be, in order to make the response not only less wrong, but push it far enough into adequate? It is impossible even to conceive, and thus, there cannot be an apology.
“The important rule with so-called “SJW” is to never apologize, precisely because their outrage is always disproportional . . . .”
They appear to have something in common with Trump.
The nonsense pulled by these kids at Evergreen State is inexcusable. But I hesitate to join in any of the calls for the governor or state legislature or another arm of state government to step in, given the experience with the backlash to the Berkeley Free Speech Movement involving Clark Kerr, the California Board of Regents, Ronald Reagan, and J. Edgar Hoover.
But now it is the students and (much of) the faculty who are on the side opposed to free speech and the state government which would be in the position to step in and defend it. Roles have completely reversed.
I’m certainly aware of that. What I’m leery of is having the political branches intervene in matters academic. I think it sets a bad precedent, and history shows it generally births mischief.
I can certainly understand that, but this is not merely academic matters. Many of these students have committed crimes that warrant criminal investigation. I think it is wrong to for these people to escape legal consequences for criminal actions because they are students and the events took place on a campus. It seems very analogous to the RCC getting away with taking care of criminal behavior by its clergy internally.
To clarify, I’m only talking about specific instances of possibly criminal behavior by students (or anyone). I agree with you regarding all of the other issues at the school.
I agree Evergreen should be shut down(and hey if it’s on stolen land, razed). Some arrangement has to be made for the relatively sane students who are not part of this maoist uprising and are victims of it. But they will surely be better served by something else.
(Some weeks ago I commented here that too many people go to university. This seems like a good example. )
“Stolen land”? What?
One of the protesters’ demands was that every college event begin with a statement to college stands on stolen land. The president agreed and has starting making that statement.
If it’s stolen they should give it back.
Precisely. Without those edifices, presumably monuments to white power, genocide, and theft left standing.
Okaaay…..but from whom was it stolen?
Oh wait. Before you respond. Bet dollars to donuts the Evergreen fascists meant it is on land stolen from Native Americans.
Am I right?
I’ve no idea who it is stolen from but if the students believe the land is stolen and continue to occupy it they are accessories after the fact.
They can’t even claim ignorance.
I’m quite sure you are. I always find the whole “this country stole this land from these people” thing kind of crazy because in most instances, while it was a colonial power coming in and (often viciously) stealing the land, the person doing the analysis only goes back that far. They never go into the history before it, where the people who were previously there stole the land from another tribe by conquering them, and on and on down through history. It’s just reductive.
They only go back so far South too. The US is populated by evil Europeans who stole the land from the Native Americans but south of the border the continent is occupied by people who absolutely did not carry out genocide at all, and the peace loving decendants of Spanish immigrants live side by side in blissful harmony with the Aztecs.
Look, we both know why. It’s because white people = bad and first world western nations = bad. That’s the narrative, and history must conform to it.
So if a better-armed neighbor comes by and lays claim to your backyard for themself, you’ll eschew the reductive and chalk it off to the long arc of history?
Yes, Ken, that’s totally what I said.
I’m just trying to get a fix on the broad historical parameters on when it’s ok steal someone’s land and when it’s not ok, BJ. Now that we know is was ok to steal from the Indians, but not from you, maybe we can narrow it down a bit further and find the sweet spot. 🙂
“I’m just trying to get a fix on the broad historical parameters on when it’s ok steal someone’s land and when it’s not ok”
As long as people know a bit of human history before 1492. We ALL have violent ancestors.
Yes.
As Mr Kukec has discerned, I am mocking the students, who really did make that demand.
The interesting thing, considering that the students have no notion of “returning” the land is why do they can they make the demand? And my theory, which is mine, is this: It is another thing they can insist their interlocutor apologize for. It is a power play. It may not be a *conscience and delibrate* power play, but it is one nonetheless and it is from it’s being one that they derive emotional rewards from deploying it.
Ah yes. Thought so. It should have been obvious.
I’m confident your theory is correct but I think it is a quite deliberate power play.
It’s a joke related to something Bridges said: that the school sits on stolen land and he promises to open every address in the future with an admission that the school sits on stolen land.
Well even there he’s wrong. The land TESC sits upon was acquired in a treaty between several area tribes and the US goverment in 1854 – the Treaty of Medicine Creek. Nine or ten Native American tribes, including the Squaxin, agreed to the land sale.
It was not stolen.
“George Bridges Statement in Response to Student Demands
Delivered in the Longhouse on Friday, May 26
I’m George Bridges, I use he/him pronouns.
I begin our time together today by acknowledging the indigenous people of the Medicine Creek Treaty, whose land was stolen and on which the college stands. I would like to acknowledge the Squaxin people who are the traditional custodians of this land and pay respect to elders past and present of the Squaxin Island Tribe. I extend that respect to other Native people present.
In response to Native Student Alliance requests, we commit to opening every event with this acknowledgement.”
(It goes on.)
http://www.cooperpointjournal.com/2017/05/27/george-bridges-statement-in-response-to-student-demands-delivered-in-the-longhouse-on-friday-may-26/
Can we assume your call to raze an institution of higher learning in a comment that references Maoism to be ironic, given the treatment of universities during the Cultural Revolution?
Higher learning? From what I read about this institution, it is devoted to other activities.
What’s the alternative then, complete deregulation and no oversight?
Did you support it when the Obama administration started to move toward denying students loans for, and removing accreditation from, the worst of the for-profit scam colleges? I sure did. Did that have shades of Maoism too, or was it just pragmatic, good government oversight.
From what I have seen, Evergreen State has a lot of the same problems as some of those places. With a 98% acceptance rate, classes like ‘Molecular Genetics: A Palestinian Latinx Feminist Perspective,’ and an attitude that some days people should just not go to class for political reasons – not to mention no grades, no major tracks, and no required courses – I would question how much actual -higher learning- is really happening there. At the very least there should be an investigation as to whether our state (it’s a state school) and federal (they get student loans and research grants) tax dollars are being spent appropriately, and if they are not, corrective action, perhaps resulting in defunding thus shuttering the institution if it can’t be reformed, is appropriate. If that is Maoism then we are all Maoists.
“Molecular Genetics: A Palestinian Latinx Feminist Perspective”
Seriously?
What on earth is a “Palestinian Latinx”?
Do you have a link?
Haha, no that’s one I made up, but there are equivalently absurd classes that actually exist. Somebody here posted some of them.
BTW “Latinx” is real. It is the new way to signal Latino/a without admitting that the Spanish language has gramatical gender.
My God, cannot tell what is real and what is made up anymore!
I tried to explain some of the Gender madness in the English academic world to a German colleague and he had this condescending expression as if I believe reptilian humanoids were responsible for 9/11
We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.
“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.”
I know nothing more of this than your characterization of it here. That being said I know enough about the Fox, Rogan, Rubin audiences to know that his appearance on those shows, characterizing the situation as you have, is more than enough to cause a “white supremacist backlash”. As far as his “promulgating misinformation”, I suspect from the students, and apparently much of the faculties perspective he’s doing just that.
I can’t tell if your comment is intended to be ironic but if not the logical conclusion of what you seem to be arguing that any fact must be concealed if it could any way conceivably be misused by white supremacists.
That’s stupid. The truth is the truth, real events are real events, and they should be reported.
In this particular case, I’m sure Weinstein would have loved to have gone on CNN or NPR or in the NYTimes but unfortunately all of those chose to ignore this very significant story* for the better part of a week. The fact that in this case only FOX news and podcasters were interested in spreading the facts of this highly significant story should give us all pause.
*two liberal biology professor couple and their kids violently forced off of campus and out of town by threatening regressive mob
“I can’t tell if your comment is intended to be ironic but if not the logical conclusion of what you seem to be arguing that any fact must be concealed if it could any way conceivably be misused by white supremacists.”
I think what I’m saying is there are certain “news” outlets where you choose to appear where you know, or should know that you are appealing to a certain audience, and where the questions you are going to get are going to at best be softballs, and at worst intentionally trying to elicit responses that will appeal to a certain demographic. In other words that fact he went on Fox is because he knew they would be supportive. I think simply appearing there says something about his politics, or biases regarding social justice.
It may well say something about his politics, but honestly, only if you didn’t know anything at all about him and were inclined to guilt by association fallacies. It takes only a few minutes on the Googles to see Weinstein would most definitely not be thought one of FOX new’s regular viewers.
One other thing. You said; “…there are certain “news” outlets where you choose to appear…”.
How many “news” outlets that you might consider to be on the political left covered this story? What choices did Weinstein have?
Actually, there may be a much simpler explanation. It is very possible that he spoke to those venues because they are the ones who asked him. Simple as that.
The more serious question to me is why he (presumably) hasn’t been interviewed by venues that you and I are more inclined to favor. (Assuming that to be the case.)
“It is very possible that he spoke to those venues because they are the ones who asked him.”
I’m fairly certain that’s why he spoke with them, but he under no obligation to do so. He must realize he’s being used as a pawn to make the left look bad? I have no problem with PCC bringing attention to these issues on his site, they are worth bringing some attention to, but I’d find it problematic if he went on Fox news to do so.
But you continue to refuse to address whether he, in your mind, is simply supposed to not get the truth of what happened out there if conservative outlets are the only ones willing to talk about the regressive censorship sweeping the nation, or if in that case he should simply keep his mouth shut so as to not give any ammunition to the people “on the wrong side.” What is the answer, in your mind, to that question?
Additionally, should any other outlet give him an interview, do you honestly not think Fox News and every other conservative outlet would run clips from that interview and get the story out on their channels as well, basically doing exactly the same thing that happens whether he gives his interview to Fox News or some other, left-leaning outlet?
“But you continue to refuse to address whether he, in your mind, is simply supposed to not get the truth of what happened out there if conservative outlets are the only ones willing to talk about the regressive censorship sweeping the nation”
I can assure you the right is having no problem getting their negative messages about the left (where they paint this as the norm rather than the fringe) to their audience, they don’t need useful idiots like Weinstein’s help.
So, yes or no? Is he supposed to suffer in silence because no left-leaning network or outlet will talk about this issue? Is everyone affected by it supposed to do the same?
By the way, the way to not give the right ammunition is to stop your side from pulling crap like this by forcefully speaking out against it, not covering it up and keeping the public in the dark because the people you see as the bad guys can use it against you.
You think Weinstein is the useful idiot here? Read this article: https://heatst.com/culture-wars/rise-of-chalkman-one-evergreen-state-college-student-refuses-to-cave-to-the-mob/
A student was harassed, physically assaulted, and repeatedly threatened by the mob now freely roaming campus carrying baseball bats, all because he covered up their anti-Weinstein graffiti with his own message of support. Yet we have 58 professors and the President of the campus supporting this mob. We have left-leaning outlets supporting them with their silence, making them complicit in this continuing behavior by making it seem like our side finds it acceptable because we all know it has been building for years.
Berkeley. Middlebury. Evergreen. You think we should just keep this all silent, but what we should do is forcefully speak out against it, as should any left-leaning outlets, to ensure that these people know that “our side” doesn’t find this crap acceptable. That’s how you stop giving the right ammunition: by stopping the behavior that is the ammunition. Stop giving them the bullets.
“So, yes or no? Is he supposed to suffer in silence because no left-leaning network or outlet will talk about this issue?”
And how exactly is it beneficial to reasonable liberals for him to preach to the choir on right wing media about those terrible bleeding heart left wing commie pinko’s? All he’s doing in that context once again is being useful idiot telling them exactly what they want to hear. It’s certainly not going to change the minds of those students, or faculty that support them. It fact appearing on Fox is the definition of counterproductive.
In my opinion, the big problem with your position, Mike, is that it elevates a concern for fighting right wing propaganda above a concern for left wing totalitarian behavior.
Yes, Faux News is an ugly and dangerous operation. So what? This is not the place/time for that conversation. It is a diversionary tactic that attempts to change the subject from what is happening on college campuses by left-wing totalitarians to something else. It is a rather unsavory attempt to change Weinstein, an actual victim, into a “useful idiot”.
Frankly I don’t see your argument as any different from what is daily fare on the right. Mirror image diversion.
Mike,
Useful idiot? Jesus Christ. You are way off base here Mike. I generally value your point of view but I think your prejudices are getting the best of you on this one.
OK, Mike, you clearly aren’t interested in addressing any of the points I make and only want to look at this from the most tribalistic of perspectives. I’m done.
Come on, Mike. What makes the left look bad is the conduct of people like the students and pomo faculty at Evergreen.
What he is under no obligation to do is to participate in a “protect the left from itself” media coverup.
If he was on Fox News telling the truth then it is not “problematic”.
(Note: I have no fondness for Faux News. But I have less fondness for being silent about this kind of event because “the right can use it”.)
“Come on, Mike. What makes the left look bad is the conduct of people like the students and pomo faculty at Evergreen.
What he is under no obligation to do is to participate in a “protect the left from itself” media coverup.”
Exactly. As I said, if people like Mike want to stop giving the right ammunition, the answer isn’t to show up every time we start talking about this stuff and say we shouldn’t, or try to half-heartedly defend the behavior or defend not talking about it. The way forward is to speak out forcefully and get left-leaning outlets to speak out forcefully, to demonstrate the message that *this crap is not OK with us.*
“they don’t need useful idiots like Weinstein’s help.”
Mike, your statement has a sour taste of tribalism.
“Mike, your statement has a sour taste of tribalism.”
Yes because god forbid my opinion is more nuanced than “the bad behavior by a small portion of the left is more important, and worthy of our concern than the right which currently has all the power to do actual harm”.
Your position is less nuanced, not more, than the others being posted. You refuse to address the many points other people make (including the “if you want to not give ammo to the right, how about addressing the behavior and making clear it’s not OK) and just keep calling Weinstein a “useful idiot,” refusing to address whether the many people affected by the years-long wave of regressive censorship on campuses should just suffer in silence if what you perceive as the “right people” (read: left people) won’t talk to them. There is no nuance to be found here.
“how about addressing the behavior and making clear it’s not OK”
It’s addressed all the time on this site, it’s addressed to the exclusion of most anything else on Rubin, Rogan, and Fox. Is there no point at which, in your mind, it’s too much, and only benefits the right whose motivations are clearly not supporting free speech, but demonizing the left.
“it’s addressed to the exclusion of most anything else on Rubin, Rogan, and Fox.”
Obviously if you were the “minister of truth” none of this would have been in the news.
You made it abundantly clear on this thread that you do not want the events at Evergreen to be known because it is poor PR for the left.
Does it not upset you that Evergreen has become overtly racist and that there is a “Lord of the Flies” like mentality on the campus?
You also did not answer my previous question; what kind of “liberal” are you?
Do you regard yourself as a radical leftist or a traditional leftist?
“You made it abundantly clear on this thread that you do not want the events at Evergreen to be known because it is poor PR for the left.”
No, my point is it’s getting way too much attention considering we’re talking about a failing college with a 98% acceptance rate located in the Sjwistan. What is happening there is not indicative of a problem as significant at the attention it garners implies.
“right whose motivations are clearly not supporting free speech”
Mike, look at the positive side, you and the right have something in common – hurah for humanity.
“In this particular case, I’m sure Weinstein would have loved to have gone on CNN or NPR or in the NYTimes but unfortunately all of those chose to ignore this very significant story* for the better part of a week.”
I think that says a lot about your biases. Most people don’t consider the tantrums of some kids at a college most of us had never heard of in our lives a “significant story”. It requires a particular initial mindset to see it as one.
It’s a story when it’s part of a wave of groups of students from one particular ideology continually repressing free speech and exchange of ideas on college campuses across the nation. Surely you would not deny this….?
It’s also a story when it becomes so violent that you have the protesters posing with baseball bats for pictures, harassing and doxxing students of a professor they don’t like, and everything else that has happened. And again, it’s part of a larger story, one that channels like CNN and MSNBC and outlets not on the right have refused to respond to for years now. If the conservative outlets are the only ones willing to put the truth of what’s happening on college campuses across America (and Canada, and the UK), then so be it.
I would say you have to be a certain type of person with a certain type of bias to see this as something not worth reporting on at all.
It is similar to Ayan Hirsi Ali, who initially could get no “left-wing” place to give voice to her own story about FGM and etc, so took up a place at (god forbid)a “right-wing” institute or whatever is its proper term.
Having been blocked by the “left” she was now mocked by the left for being “right-wing”.
That is the situation that is being repeated here and why Prof Coyne (I think) often points out something like; “….. and of course such and such was only reported on X – right-wing news outlet.”
“Tantrums of some kids?” Sorry, but you’re misinformed. The most significant part of this story is the tantrums of some -adults-, namely the faculty who have targeted Weinstein. You need to listen to Weinstein’s interview with someone, anyone.
This is why objectivity matters.
Whatever batshit crazy ideas are bubbling up into their undeveloped brains straight from their digestive tract has no bearing on whether Weinstein has done anything wrong.
“Whatever batshit crazy ideas are bubbling up into their undeveloped brains straight from their digestive tract has no bearing on whether Weinstein has done anything wrong.”
Let’s say my neighbor who is black calls me a honky, and the next week I appear on Fox news where I’m used as a useful idiot to promote their agenda that black people are the real problem where racism is concerned. Would it be a batshit crazy idea for my neighbors to see me as a racist?
What? How is this story, especially within the wider framework of the regressive suppression of speech for years on college campuses, in any way analagous to your idea of a story about a single, isolated interaction in which one insult is used between two individuals? This is absurd excuse-making for the idea of not reporting these stories every time they happen.
I’m seeing a lot of fellow lefties (for lack of a better word) playing stupid about all of this. Are people so obsessed with not giving the “other side” “ammo against the left” that they are unwilling to admit and call out their side of the political aisle when the POLITICAL IDEOLOGY is the reason for assault, free speech suppression and harassment?
This makes me sick
Yes. Yes they are.
yes
I see what you’re saying, Mike. In politics it is something akin to “optics”; how a message is relayed is sometimes as important as the message itself. I do believe you are stretching the idea to far.
But I’ve a couple of questions for you. Given the scenario you outlined above, would you consider your neighbor a racist for his slur against you? Do you think the Evergreen students would think he is a racist?
“Given the scenario you outlined above, would you consider your neighbor a racist for his slur against you? Do you think the Evergreen students would think he is a racist?”
Depends on how you define racism, and specific circumstances. Racism in my opinion, like any form of bigotry, has an “irrational hatred” aspect to it. Given the historic, and current oppression of blacks in this country is it necessarily always irrational for blacks to have a problem with white people? As far as the Evergreen students I suspect there are differing opinions. I have no idea what percentage of the students have been involved in this Weinstein incident, I suspect it’s a vocal minority.
Thank you Mike.
I would consider your neighbor to be racist as it is irrational and bigoted. You wouldn’t, apparently.
Of course I specifically meant the Evergreen students involved in threatening Weinstein and his student. I agree that there is no reason to suspect the majority of students at TESC to be among them. So I’ll ask again; do you think the students who demanded whites leave campus would consider your neighbor racist?
I reject the notion the blacks are “oppressed” here. Again you’re stretching a definition. There is no doubt that they face racism throughout their lives and that needs to be addressed. But they are not oppressed.
“I reject the notion the blacks are “oppressed” here.”
What would be required to qualify as oppression in your opinion?
I live in Alabama where due to historic racism the majority of business are white owned, and where the majority of hiring is done by whites. As a result blacks are less likely to be hired when all is otherwise equal. They are not rented to or sold houses in white neighborhoods. I could go on, but I’d like to know if you think that qualifies?
That being said I suspect those student who are involved in this situation agree with me where oppression is concerned, and so likely share my opinion.
Reply to Mike Paps (the reply button fails in these threads after a while and I can’t reply directly to your comment).
Mike, I’m not going to get into a game of word definitions with you. To you the degree of racism black people face today amounts to oppression. To me, though the racism is real enough, it doesn’t amount to oppression. The problem for me is that the word is used by some as a cudgel to beat and silence those who disagree (if there is oppression there must be oppressors). Because it is a useful weapon it is often used but it has lost much of its real meaning.
That doesn’t mean I don’t take your point – from the perspective of the young black man turned down for a job he is qualified for, over and over again, or when the police automatically think he is up to no good just for being black, etc, etc it does look like oppression. But there are still older Americans who remember what oppression really looks like.
“is it necessarily always irrational for blacks to have a problem with white people?”
No it is not always irrational; because “always”.
However, In THIS instance it is irrational, as Weinstein is a SUPPORTer of “the day without black people” or whatever it is called, but does not support this ONE instance of it, for logical well stated reasons.
“Let’s say my neighbor who is black calls me a honky, and the next week I appear on Fox news where I’m used as a useful idiot to promote their agenda that black people are the real problem where racism is concerned. Would it be a batshit crazy idea for my neighbors to see me as a racist?”
The shark has been jumped.
Weinstein didn’t need to go on Fox to fuel anything; you can be sure that every last one of these incidents gets widely reported in right wing land, even ones we don’t hear about.
Besides which, the fact that the right wing can make use of something isn’t sufficient reason to suppress talking about it. Batshit crazy regressives make liberalism look bad. For people to see a calm, articulate, reasonable person like Weinstein representing liberals is a good thing.
“I know enough about the Fox, Rogan, Rubin audiences to know that his appearance on those shows, characterizing the situation as you have, is more than enough to cause a “white supremacist backlash”.”
Firstly, I do not think Fox and Rubin viewers are in the same category.
Secondly, the incident at Evergreen should be discussed\judged independently of any subsequent media events.
“Firstly, I do not think Fox and Rubin viewers are in the same category.
Secondly, the incident at Evergreen should be discussed\judged independently of any subsequent media events.”
No they aren’t the same in the sense that Fox has a full blown right wing audience, but in terms of preaching to the choir they certainly are. That being said I think Rubin in some ways is worse because he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. His demonization of the left seems more credible coming from someone who claims to a liberal. Again let me make clear I think this stuff is BS, and we should be discussing it, but based on the coverage Rubin, and Fox give it you would think regressives represent mainstream liberals rather than being, in it’s most extreme form, a mostly college age fringe group.
I wanted to add if my mainstream liberal friends, and relatives heard about the events at Evergreen, which they likely haven’t. They would find it just as ridiculous as most of readers of this site do. And would either wonder why it’s getting as much attention as it is, or assume it’s getting the attention it is because it’s good propaganda for the right to use against the left.
Don’t you think there is a problem when your mainstream liberal friends and family remain in the dark about this extremely important story? That failure of journalism and echo chamber bubbling should bother you more than whatever Dave Rubin is up to.
Mike,
You sound like a Catholic who is upset about relevations about child abuse because it puts the Church in a bad light.
Perhaps I am not a liberal – what do you regard as liberal principles?
To me the most important principles are truth, freedom of ideas and equality of opportunity and NOT equality of outcome.
I think you would agree that my definition is at odds with the current culture at the universities and much of the liberal media.
I get the impression you have different liberal principles (or priorities)
“college age”:
Not including the president and trustees and teachers?
Perhaps they should try being a bit more specific.
(This was meant to be a reply to Mike Paps’ comment.)
Just heard a blurb about the Evergreen situation on NPR, as part of their coverage of massive pro-Trump and anti-free speech protests in Oregon. Their summary of Dr. Weinstein was a bit innacurate, imo, but they did convey that the students were radicalized.
I suspect another couple parts of his anatomy are missing as well.
He may have mislaid a few marbles too.
‘Many people have said, defending the thuggish and entitled students at Evergreen State, that there was no “requirement” for white people to leave campus.’
Indeed. But just to spell it out, if there was no “requirement”, why was Weinstein offending by declaring his intention to stayt?
“First, Evergreen State has decided to hide its faculty directory, even to those on campus who have their own sign-in access to it. Now why is that?”
SASQ: From Wapo, “Last week, someone called the county 911 line and told the dispatch officer, “Yes, I am on my way to Evergreen now with a .44 Magnum. … I am going to execute as many people on that campus as I can get a hold of. You have that, what’s going on here, you communist scumbag?””
I think one might consider the possibility that this call was made by one of the students or a sympathizer, disguising themselves as a right-winger.
Definitely possible. On Joe Rogan’s podcast they briefly discussed how the call was made by someone who obviously didn’t know anything about firearms. He claimed to have a certain clip which wouldn’t go with the gun he claimed to have. Something like that. Not the kind of thing you would expect a stereotypical right wing gun clinger not to know.
Especially a possibility since the call was apparently a hoax — no-one showed up with a 44.
I think the call was made by Bridges, so he could finally take a whiz.
In 1969, the president of Notre Dame took this approach: (What a difference)
February 17, 1969 – a time when one university president acted with authority:
. . . Now comes my duty of stating, clearly and unequivocally, what happens if. I’ll try to make it as simple as possible to avoid misunderstanding by anyone. Anyone or any group that substitutes force for rational persuasion, be it violent or non-violent, will be given fifteen minutes of meditation to cease and desist. They will be told that they are, by their actions, going counter to the overwhelming conviction of this community as to what is proper here.
If they do not within that time period cease and desist, they will be asked for their identity cards. Those who produce these will be suspended from this community as not understanding what this community is. Those who do not have or will not produce identity cards will be assumed not to be members of the community and will be charged with trespassing and disturbing the peace on private property and treated accordingly by the law.
After notification of suspension, or trespass in the case of non-community members, if there is not within five minutes a movement to cease and desist, students will be notified of expulsion from this community and the law will deal with them as non-students. There seems to be a current myth that university members are not responsible to the law, and that somehow the law is the enemy, particularly those whom society has constituted to uphold and enforce the law.
(Rev.) Theodore M. Hesburgh, C.S.C.
President, Notre Dame
What about substituting arguments-from-jebus-said-so for rational persuasion?
Am reminded of another college president with a backbone of cast iron, S.I. Hayakawa of San Francisco State College (now University).
Looks like there is a state legislator (R) that is introducing a legislation to privatize Evergreen.
http://mattmanweller.houserepublicans.wa.gov/2017/06/02/manweller-introduces-legislation-to-privatize-evergreen
I’m not sure how much support there is to pass such a thing, maybe someone in the know could provide their input.
It’s DOA. There is almost no support in the legislature for this (rightly so – it’s punishing the majority of TESC students for the actions of a few). The guy is grandstanding.
This is not the first time TESC has been the target of legislators trying to de-fund it, though this is likely the most egregious affront the school has made. These attempts come and go.
I liked your suggestion to lobby the state governor to remove members of the current board and appoint a better board – assuming the governor has powers to remove as well as appoint.
In the bacteriophage world, a well-known meeting has been held biannually at Evergreen since 1975. It’s coming up again in August. It’ll be interesting to see if it’ll be affected by this, or the shield of summertime will protect it.
I’d like to see a feminist or racial discourse of bacteriophages.
They’ll find a way. Wasn’t there a post here a year or so back in re. someone exercised about the gender politics of icebergs. Or maybe it was volcanoes.
Volcanoes are gender neutral – phallic vagina
Here are two ‘biology’ courses taught at lunatic U:
““Reproduction: Gender, Race, and Power.” The course will provide students with “an overview of human reproduction,” but will pay “attention to gender and race as vectors of power that affect how reproduction is discussed, legislated, and experienced in the United States.””
““Feminist Epistemologies: Critical Approaches to Biology and Psychology.” Professors allegedly built the course to help students discover how “knowledge is generated from a feminist theoretical perspective.”
To achieve its stated goal, students read “feminist philosophy of science, sociological studies on science and how it operates in society, research on women scientists, and critical deconstructions of sociobiology and the related field of evolutionary psychology.””
This nonsense is right out of science departments in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. It is not science. It is ideology. Extremists can’t tell the difference.
With respect to Evergreen’s president’s statement that charges of discrimination will be investigated, the foundation for individual rights in education (FIRE) wrote, “an investigation (particularly a prolonged investigation) into protected speech when protected speech is all that is at issue is itself a free speech violation.” and cited a previous essay at their site “The Chilling Effect of Investigations,” written by Adam Steinbaugh. IMO this applies more clearly to the call by members of the faculty who called for a disciplinary investigation into Professor Weinstein’s comments.