See here:
Still not sure if it’s a parody or serious, maybe some of the alums can clarify.
The real story here is that a student group decided a day without whites was a good idea and the administration agreed.
By the way, if anyone is interested, here’s a great interview with the teacher at the center of this controversy. The fact that students and faculty have leveled claims of racism against him is further evidence that, for the Left, it’s not about truth and discourse, it’s about forced agreement.
I guess my question is, even if the bread video is real, so what? Some crunchy granola types want to have lunch together. Are you complaining about people being intolerant, bullying assholes or high-as-fuck communal peacemongers? Make up your mind.
I’m definitely bothered more by the former than the latter. I was just explaining to LHoD what the “bread video” was.
Damn, I was willing to read an interview, but watch a 90-minute news show? Nope. Pull out some choice quotes if it’s worth it.
Your first quote misrepresents the story. The holiday, again, is traditionally celebrated by less than 5% of the faculty and student body. This year was about the same–except that instead of that 5% comprising mostly nonwhite students, this year it comprised mostly white students. It was a voluntary event, where white people could go elsewhere to discuss issues of race. There’s nothing awful about folks dividing up by race to discuss issues of race on rare occasions, any more than there’s something wrong with a men’s group meeting to discuss issues of gender.
If this really bothers you that much, I do hope you’ve devoted a shitload of time to opposing discriminatory policing practices and judicial practices and punishment-in-schools and other issues that are far more significant than asking for a single day in a year in which white people would volunteer to meet off-campus to talk about issues of race.
For real. We see some teenagers talking openly about their social/spiritual group. Anyone here think that a bunch of teenagers talking about Fellowship of Christian Athletes, or their sorority, would sound better? The contempt for these teenagers from a bunch of grown-ass adults is repulsive.
Except those who chose not to volunteer were bombarded by an angry mob of students and hurled accusations of racism. The president was essentially held hostage as the student mob demanded that campus police be barred at the door. I sincerely hope the implications of such behavior are not lost on you. Pretending this was all some exercise in voluntary political speech is the height of delusion.
Well, it was you who spoke of nuance. I suppose I thought the figure at the center of the controversy might provide some of that for your edification.
I stated in post #79 that the Olympian article you linked to which attempted to explain the ‘nuanced’ and allegedly benign nature of events pertaining to the Day of Absence is in fact grossly misrepresenting the true story itself. And rather badly. It’s so ludicrously presented and full of holes that anyone employing even a shred of critical thinking ability could see through it instantly. Since it was you who posted it I’m wondering if you would care to comment?
Here’s a nice drink of well water! Down the hatch, its dissolving the glass…
it’s not that I didn’t read your post. It’s that I found nothing in it worth responding to.
This is why I keep saying nuance is being lost. There are multiple issues here:
-The original idea
-The professor’s response
-The students’ response to the professor
-Several others, but let’s focus on the first and third.
The original idea was that the Day of Presence be a voluntary activity by both black and white students. Pretending that wasn’t the original idea scales new delusional heights.
The students’ response to the professor was, as I’ve said repeatedly, inappropriate and over-the-top.
As for the administration? I believe they should post copies of the code of ethics, and explain that infractions will be taken with an appropriate level of seriousness; that threatening community members is a severe violation; that disrupting classes is a severe violation. They should then let the protest run its course, and afterwards impose sanctions up to expulsion and, where appropriate, referral for criminal charges on those students who violate the code.
Now, some people will consider it bullshit and misrepresentative and something something onions on belts something, no doubt. But this statement looks exactly right to me.
Ok, I’m calling it bullshit and misrepresentative. A professor has been threatened and intimidated by an out-of-control mob for expressing a mild and reasonable opinion that dissented from a “progressive” groupthink party line. He and his wife have been forced to leave the campus and their home.
Now read that second paragraph about “freedom of speech” carefully. The first sentence - free speech, blah blah, all good so far. But the logical next sentence should be - this institution will not tolerate mob intimidation designed to suppress the free exchange of ideas, we support Professor Weinstein’s right to express his views, etc. etc. - something that should be self evident to any liberal.
But instead, where does that paragraph go?
What the hell does that mean in the context of free speech? That reads to me as though the administration is accusing Professor Weinstein of intimidating the mob. This is utterly perverse doublethink.
And what do you make of this? Signed by around 50 faculty members.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zwPLnekTcjlmwO_0IyS7qF33sa40ufi2zAMEP-MU3IE/mobilebasic
Some excerpts, my bold:
What **Riemann **said - the board of trustees’ statement makes it sound like a condemnation of the professor, or, at least, a false equivalency that both the students or professor are equally at fault.
It also said, “A small percentage of Evergreen’s community members” - rather than students - as if to imply that the professor falls into the category of troublemaker.
Seriously? You think they’re after Weinstein? I think you’re 100% wrong here.
Incidentally, the threats of mass murder of leftists continue. Surely that eclipses the yelling the teenagers have done in terms of seriousness and threat to free speech, yes?
As for this, I think it’s got two terrible calls in it.
First, it applauds the president for not enforcing the student conduct code. I think it should be enforced.
Second, it calls for disciplinary action against the professor. I haven’t watched the interviews, but unless there are specific false things he’s said that have contributed to an unsafe environment on campus (don’t forget, threats of mass murder are closing campus down), I think it’s a lousy thing to do.
I see a couple of my old professor on that list. I’m saddened to see their names there, but not surprised.
External threats are a matter for the police. (And, of course, it’s utterly preposterous to suggest that Weinstein is responsible for provoking those threats. All he has done is calmly explain what happened - certainly something that merits some publicity.)
The atrocious behavior of that mob of students is a matter for the college. They have clearly failed in their responsibility to instil in their ignorant students the fundamental values of a free and liberal society. They should be disciplining the students involved and standing by a professor who did absolutely nothing wrong. I see no sign of that happening. All of the statements from the administration seem to be pandering to the “demands” of students who formed a mob to indimidate a professor who did nothing but express mild dissent to their views in an email.
As I said, I’ve seen some misrepresentation by him, and some whininess. I’m not in his corner in this, any more than my backing the Klan’s right to march means I’m in the Klan’s ideological corner. But he’s been super-active giving interviews and writing editorials over the last week, and I haven’t seen everything he said. If he’s said things that are blatantly untrue, he should be held accountable for those words.
That’s a big if; please don’t think I’m assuming he has.
Keep in mind that the protestors are a tiny minority, around 1%, of the student population. The percentage of the protestors who have actually threatened anyone is much smaller.
If you’re finding yourself entirely on one side or the other in this situation, you might want to re-examine your partisan motivations.
My only “partisan motivations” are my support for liberal values and the free exchange of ideas in a civilized society. Over 50 faculty signed that misguided statement that I posted above, and are pandering to this deranged mob of out-of-control students who seek to silence anyone with a dissenting opinion. And that’s no exaggeration, nor does it depend upon hearsay - there is ample direct evidence of their behavior on video. It doesn’t seem to me that only a tiny minority of the community at this college have lost their way.
The official statement specifically addresses student conduct, the reading of it as hostile toward Weinstein seems disingenuous to me.
The statement signed by 50 faculty members, however, is bugfuck insane.