Vice On the Controversy at Evergreen


Deep progressives and allies don't go race baiting on fake racist news channels. Weinstein is not a victim, and his rights are not being oppressed.
What a strange expectation that we're somehow to go through some contorted suspension of logic to agree that excluding a race for a day is not inherently racist itself.
Aren't these kids the most charming little Maoists you've ever seen?
I'm a hardcore leftist and these kids are full of shit. Nothing deep about it.
Well, it's sad they couldn't get into UW, but I don't see why they have to be so cranky all the time.
I agree that going on Fox News was a bad choice by Weinstein. It was like throwing gasoline on an already racing fire. But as a black woman, I am frustrated and disheartened by the complete lack of insight and self-awareness on the part of the protesting students. Their self-righteous behavior in the video is hard to watch. They seem incapable of acknowledging that in this case, they lit the first match.

It's sometimes difficult for me to differentiate between the alt right and alt left, because the minds of the people involved are similarly locked into some kind of intractable rigidity. Free speech is a two way street. Allowing other people's right to it preserves my own. How do they not get that? There are limits to free speech, as specified in our laws, but not letting someone speak because you don't like what they have to say is not covered by them.

In this era of trump it's absolutely imperative to fight for what we feel is right, to advocate for justice and equality for all, especially marginalized and targeted groups of people. But that kind of behavior and approach from the students in the video, or on any college campus, is spectacularly unhelpful and ineffective in fighting for any cause.
I don't think those kids know what the word racism means.
Breaks my heart, the young women attending Evergreen (afraid to give her real name) who says she's scared about expressing a nuanced opinion for fear of reprisals. These activists have done a great job of painting anyone who's not precisely on board as a right wing monster deserving of attack. Can't blame her for keeping her head down but in the end this does far more harm than good, forcing slightly, and I mean very slightly, more moderate POV's underground, maybe for good - maybe she learns fuck politics and stands aside enough that the real bad guys keep getting to run shit. Maybe most of her generation does. It's an utter disservice that the structures at Evergreen are complicit in forcing her silence.

And note that BW has expressed (just once, and in passing) that as a Jewish man he gets scared when he's told by political groups where he should and shouldn't be. Given this, and by precisely the same rhetoric this movement extols as defacto, they're obviously aggressing toward BW. His fearful feelings are easily defensible as real (6 million killed in genocide within living people's lifetimes after all - that's no petty concern), and by not recognizing and accommodating BW's anxieties these activists are, by their own logic, the same as the people who committed that genocide. By their own logic, they ARE Nazis. They can't tell him any different without also admitting that he's also not so bad. So they'll instead shout bumper stickers and alternately feel outraged for the plight of others and loog-it-me proud of their precious and rare virtue.

But of course BW is a grown up, and in my book a minor hero for not slap-fighting back by simply mirroring their twaddle-jitsu. Rather he's dug in at let's have a dialogue wherein ideas compete and are challenged. BW privileges a Rabbinic discursive mode, and I'd wager that he's gonna keep his heels in around those principles. It's a beautiful, tough tendency of thought, to never accept being told (literally) to shut the fuck up and go away. If these wailing children think they're going to budge the thousands of years of oppression that likely play a part in underwriting his refusal to do so, they're wildly naïve.

Finally, it seems to me that the flawed first principle justifying all of the righteous venom the protestors express is that they, and only they, actually care about other people. They are uniquely high-empathy allies; they rest of us, even and especially those who just slightly differ, are categorically assigned to the worst possible moral status. These protestors seem to really believe this, which reveals absolutely stunning arrogance and a really scary ideological slavishness.
I wonder if the reporter has a bias. Per Wiki:

"Michael C. Moynihan is an American journalist and the cultural news editor for The Daily Beast/Newsweek and the managing editor of Vice magazine. He was previously a senior editor of the libertarian magazine Reason and a resident fellow of the free-market think tank, Timbro in Sweden..."

"Moynihan announced his participation in the protest movement "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" which began in May 2010.[17] The movement grew in response to censorship by Comedy Central of an episode of South Park which depicted the Prophet Muhammad.[17] Moynihan stated he would post his own contributions in addition to submissions from other individuals to the website of Reason on the protest movement's scheduled date of May 20, 2010.[17] He encouraged his readers to send him their drawings.[18] Moynihan stated he planned to select some of his favorite depictions of Muhammad from the protest movement, and then add them to the website.[18][19]"

"Moynihan spoke at the Oslo Freedom Forum in May 2014.[54] He has also appeared on Fox News with John Stossel, discussing his Daily Beast column accusing then-presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' alleged support for food rationing and bread lines in the Soviet Union.[55][56] Until the show's cancellation in April 2017, Moynihan appeared on Red Eye on Fox News periodically [57]"

You know, Dan, between this fraud and the white supremacist Andrew Sullivan, you seem to be pushing a good number of conservative fucks onto your readers. And in this case, you are pushing a one-sided half-baked and hardly journalistic narrative that is doubling down on the alt-right narrative that is causing death threats against students.

Maybe your readers and your advertisers have an opinion about that.
god those students are utterly insufferable.

side note: I thought this was about race. What's with the "Bret is a white cis dude" and "black trans femmes are going to get killed"? Why are they throwing in gender identity references? It's like they think they'll sound more sympathetic if they reference as many forms of oppression as possible - but in fact, it just makes them sound like they don't know how to articulate a coherent argument and are just throwing the kitchen sink at the problem. It's deeply unimpressive.
oh, and I should have added: I agree that Weinstein shouldn't have gone on Fox News. That was a bad call.
Where are all the comments? It says there are 11 comments, but they're not to be found.

This happened on another article yesterday.

Any idea what gives, and how to fix it?
Oh, there they are. Do we have to post now to see comments?
I'm so confused
Apparently my previous comment was too snarky for The Stranger, so let me try this again.

These young people are ridiculous. Their my-way-or-the-highway attitude and general vulgarity shows that they have very little experience in the real world, and absolutely no powers of persuasion or debate.

Is that acceptable to say?
Spunkbutter, I had the same thing happen, on two different browsers. I thought that I had been reported or something.
@2 the school's day of absence tradition each year for many years has been voluntary absence of POC and only white people on campus. This year, the students wanted to flip the tradition and make it for POC to stay and white people to be the ones absent. Voluntarily, of course. This teacher's pushback against letting the students flip tradition made him unpopular; going on fox news made him hated.
@5 lol yeah they're cranky students and this has been blown way out of proportion to the point everyone looks like an idiot. Pick your battles, little ones.
Oh jeez.
These kids need much more homework. They have far too much time.
GermanSausage, that's pretty extreme. You think that appearing on a Fox television network is valid grounds for firing a tenured* professor? Because that is the action being demanded by the Evergreen protestors.

[*Evergreen's tenure system is unusual, admittedly, but their system has the same intent and effect.]
@16: Doesn't negate what I said at all. The absence tradition is inherently a divisive and destructive exercise that goes against acceptance and understanding.
Speaking as a life-long liberal, the left wing has clearly lost its mojo and is on the short bus to Wackyland. The left used to emphasize our common humanity and interests. It used to plead for treating people equally and not separating each other by superficial qualities like race, gender, ethnic background, sexuality, etc. Now separatism seems like its primary obsession. And the left used to pride itself on scaring the normals by speaking the outrageous. Now intellectual conformity and intimidation has become the rage.

Since I'm old and white my main goal in life is to drink enough so that I can become a Swiss-cheese brain and enjoy my declining years as an avid Fox news viewer. That would be sweet.
Speaking as a life-long liberal, the left wing has clearly lost its mojo and is on the short bus to Wackyland. The left used to emphasize our common humanity and interests. It used to plead for treating people equally and not separating each other by superficial qualities like race, gender, ethnic background, sexuality, etc. Now separatism seems like its primary obsession. And the left used to pride itself on scaring the normals by speaking the outrageous. Now intellectual conformity and intimidation has become the rage.

Since I'm old and white my main goal in life is to binge drink enough so that I can become a Swiss-cheese brain and enjoy my declining years as an avid Fox news viewer. Truly that would be sweet.
Thanks, Dan, for providing some rational coverage of this story.

God forbid your own newspaper should do the same.
Folks, you are missing one little bit of data:

Weinstein sought but was ignored by other media

He did not receive any invite to any other media

so Fox & WSJ were all that was left

and btw Fox invited BW.

Think about it Call-in has he been on CNN or MSNBC? Or NPR? Or KUOW?
Folks, you are missing one little bit of data:

Weinstein sought but was ignored by other media

He did not receive any invite to any other media

so Fox & WSJ were all that was left

and btw Fox invited BW.

Think about it:
has he been on CNN or MSNBC? Or NPR? Or KUOW?
I went to TESCin the 90s. The first thing I do with a Time Machine is go back in time and slap my 20-year-old self in the face. I very much worry that I would've been one of those clueless little shits in the video. After the slap I'd go check out dinosaurs. But slap my stupid face first for sure.
honeybunny dear, it's not just about picking your battles (which is very wise advice) but knowing what is actually a battle. Like the kerfuffle over the professor at Seattle U that caused so much drama, this faculty person is not an enemy. Maybe not as "enlightened" as these young people might yearn for, but not an enemy.
@8: I concur.
The main reason for this wingnut obsession with finding ways to needle "liberal" (read: decent) colleges is that right wingers had to give up on taking their ball and going home. They set up Bob Jones University, Liberty U, all that shit. Those for-profit university scams were supposed to prove capitalism is the best system to educate people. But but those sorry excuses for schools haven't given anyone a decent education. It burns. It sucks to be them.

Whining about lib weirdos running amok on campus is just their way of telling us they're hurting. Sad.
Vice didn't do a good job here. In Weinstein's initial email, he also talked about how he would welcome a dialogue on race but from an evolutionary/biological standpoint--a position that has historically done one or a combination of several things: 1. Argue for the alleged inferiority of POC based on "biological features." 2. Argue for the supremacy of whiteness based on "biological features." 3. Ignores the fact that historical trauma and structural racism exist, etc. THAT POSITION is what everyone was losing their minds about because it's a fundamental indication that, while he may be a good scientist, he is not a good thinker in matters of history or structural racism, etc.
If BW is totally out to lunch scientifically, then discuss and debate with him in public.
Don't act like assholes.

Furthermore you have no idea what BW was going to say, so cool your jets.
So we've moved beyond the right wing acting like total assholes to the left engaged in the same behavior.

My question for the students involved in this childish behavior is this: when you sit in front of someone from human resources during a job interview and they show you video of your behavior how will that help you land that decent paying job? I've got news for you. In the real world you are going to work with and work for people who you may not agree with politically. Is this how you respond to those people? If so enjoy the world of being underemployed or simply unemployable.

luminoushumidity dear, aren't you (and by extension, the Undergraduate Rage Conglomerate) making some pretty broad assumptions? One would hardly expect a tenured biology professor to show up a debate with an armful of old eugenics books and nazi propaganda. And if he did, he'd be sealing his own fate.

Perhaps what he was going for was to prove to those who don't know (and obviously there's a lot out there) that race has nothing to do with biology. But now we'll never know because the perpetually offended have got something new to be offended about.
Life is damned messy--when hormone-addled, especially so. Jesus' example of going into the wilderness for those years should be followed by all in late youth.
@33: It's been my experience that those who are perpetually offended actually like it that way.
How can they speak to a professor like that? Where is the respect?

I wouldn't have imagined speaking to a professor like that, whether I agreed with them or not.

Does the Undergraduate Rage Conglomerate have office space at the PC police station, or do they use different headquarters?

I think it's pretty standard for undergrads to learn that race is socially constructed in humanities and social science classes, so while they may not going into the actual biological details, it's not like the professor's offer was going to be particularly illuminating if, as you speculate, he was simply going show that race has nothing to do with biology. When I read that several weeks ago, I thought there was something skeezy about it, too, and @30 explains it well.

Having tenure does let professors say all sorts of horrible things. Obviously he wasn't going to literally bring in an "armful of old eugenics books and nazi propaganda," as you put it, but those ideas get repackaged. After all, we are accepting white supremacists and Nazi sympathizers in government. Megyn Kelly, racist, is still going to have a job tomorrow after her interview of Alex Jones airs. Do you really think a tenured professor can't get away with racist stuff if it's sugarcoated to seem "reasonable"?
#38: i could do without the psychic mind reading and judgment of intent. I think our society would be a lot better for it. Basically you're sitting here telling here telling us what the professor thinks and how he wishes to package it. Trying to associate the professor with the Trump era is pure sophistry. I honestly think that this kind if judgment is a serious failure of character.
#30 starts from a position that the professor actually has and then associates it with a series of dubious arguments the professor has never made. This is a pretty sketchy argument we have here.
This kind of unreasoning fanaticism is an affront to the very idea of a university. What an ignorant, contemptible hoard. In the first minute of the tape, you see a professor who is willing to debate his position and answer questions, and arrayed against him, a group of bullying young Philistines so inebriated on their own sense of moral superiority that they deem the idea of reasoned debate beneath them. This is not an institution of higher learning; it's an indoctrination camp. Worse. A church. It should be shuttered.

I think the point is that he never even had the chance to "get away with that" (or, you know, not) in something approaching reasoned discourse.

@30 makes a good case, but it's still complete speculation.

Sounds like these kids are fighting an argument that hasn't even been presented yet, which is *at best* an Appeal to Probability, a formal fallacy of the highest order.

And if they're going to argue that logic, and thus the concept of fallacious logic, is just another trick to keep non-Dead White Guys down, then the so-called Left is farther gone than i could've imagined.
I agree.

Once people become angry, it's almost impossible to have a fact based discussion with them.
Take the Constitutional "3/5 of a person" compromise.
People often become angry and upset when they find out that slaves were only counted as 3/5th of a person for determining the population of a state in the US constitution.
If they actually looked a little deeper at the issue, they would realize that the right thing to do would have been to not count slaves at all, because counting them -even as 3/5th of a person- benefited the slave owners by giving them extra seats in Congress; while giving no benefit to the enslaved.
Remember, the slave owners wanted the slaves to be counted as "whole people", even though they considered them to be property, because it would give them more representatives in the Congress and therefore more political power.

I have heard many highly educated people get sidetracked by the "insult" of the 3/5th compromise and completely miss the fact that counting the enslaved served to empower the oppressors.

The students have allowed their emotions to "trump" logic.
We have all seen what happens when we allow emotions to "trump" facts and logic.
I am not happy w/ Thurston County's dems getting hijacked by these kids and people simpatico with them, focusing on punishing insufficiently left dems rather than protecting what left there is and working against the rightwing elements that we can work against.

But BW was tonedeaf in proposing to present an evolutionary perspective on race (he couched it in terms of looking past phenotype, meaning it's not a stretch to expect him to say there is no genetic basis to race, which is true) on a matter of socioeconomic inequality. Regardless of the lack of biological basis to race, nonwhite people suffer disproportionately in a system that still needs remediation. And he was going to talk over that.

The reaction to him was overblown, and his response was overblown (going on fox news and fleeing the state. There are no good guys here as far as I can see.
Dear SLOG tech people,

Please figure out what is wrong with the comment section and fix it.
Thank you.
The Vice piece certainly didn't do a good job. It's not clear if Dan is endorsing it by posting it here. There's a backlash against POC organizing and there are more than enough white males who see themselves as progressives and allies and who feel the need to proclaim that all I'd this is going a little too far for comfort now. Maybe Dan feels the same way but doesn't want to say it out loud? What's on your mind Dan?
@30: As someone who actually has a background in evolutionary biology, fuck off.
Just because the language of evolution has been historically used to justify racism doesn't mean that it's somehow inherently racist or suspect to look at race from an evolutionary perspective. Indeed, if you want any sort of answer to the question "is race real?" there is no other option.
HW3 dear, believe it or not there are quite a few people out there who don't know that there is no genetic basis to race. They've been told all their lives that non-whites are inferior. Granted, those types are unlikely to be following the political intrigue of an oddball little college in the PNW (unless they are students there who are not part of the Anger Brigade), but that is the basic tenant of the City's RSJI program and probably should be the start of any discussion on race.

As for the white males who are uncomfortable with this, maybe part of the discomfort is that these students have no direction, no arguments, nothing but emotion, resentment, and fifty cent words. That only gets one so far in life.

But it will all blow over. In five years there will be a whole other student population who will be worked up about something different. In my day, it was Apartheid divestiture, ten years before that it was the war in Viet Nam.

Based on what you just said it's not very reassuring… People in Seattle now are really getting pretty stupid and I think it's because of the social justice warrior no I don't think they will grow out of it, that's my fear... as an example little smarty-pants who think they know what other people are going to say

Weinstein is attempting to address social and cultural studies within the lens of evolutionary biology. That is a very, very delicate operation when confronting race, ethnicity, institutional racism, and the explanation of historical outcomes. He is too proud of his own scientific certainty to acknowledge complexity on the social side, and his critique of post-modernism/post-colonialism is laughable.

After watching his complete dick move on Fox and his bro-centric, tone-deaf self-defense on Joe Rogan, I question whether he is self-conscious enough to see what work his patronizing stance is doing in this controversy.

Students are young. They have spent most of their lives and the business end of racial/ethnic bullshit, and when it comes to a head it isn't pretty. Cool-headed, 'rational' dialogue has resulted in fuck-all, largely. Weinstein's sanctimonious rhetoric doesn't persuade me, rather it is a confirmation of my initial thoughts about this situation.
If you take just one snippet of video where some young people are yelling and basing that on the dismissal of all of the complaints then you are saying that you need young people and poc to have a particular decorum around talking about race for you to take them seriously. I was present at hours of discussion with Evergreen's president George Bridges was in dialogue with students and faculty, all of which were live streamed and polite and none used in any media representation. The majority of faculty and, including George, side with the majority of students. And all of these commenters complaining about one group of people telling others to leave campus when this has been an event that goes on EVERY YEAR since the late 70's needs to think about the fact that every year except for this one it has been the students of color and not the white ones that leave campus. So if its racist one way for one year then wouldn't it be racist the other years? Except that it's also not a demand to leave campus, it is an invitation for a few people-200 max, to go off campus and participate in workshops. The vast majority of students stay on campus and everything happens as normal. This whole "I'm a progressive but that clip of young people yelling makes me wanna be a moderate" is so fucking privileged-and the people espousing it are purposely buying into a fake perception of the day of absence at evergreen being spread by Bret. He has to make his tantrum that he mass messaged to all of the staff seem grounded in a reality. He just doesn't want to deal with race. He feels beyond it. Which is convenient for him.
@51 amen.

I believe a lot of the initial reactions to this are based around identifying with Bret Weinstein and not wanting to be called out for anyone misstep. Which while being a possibly scary experience you really see what is in someone deep down by how they react by having to own to their words. If you slink off to Fox News and lie about what is going on at Evergreen-saying the police are barricaded in their offices and other nonsense-then there you are and it is obvious for those who want to see it.

Most people who disagree seem to have a problem that it is young people: "little smarty pants", etc. Someones age isn't a factor in being wrong or not.
@47: Thank you.
Catalina, that's possible. I didn't say that he was absolutely going to come representing eugenics, but this man didn't make this offer when POC had left campus, voluntarily, in years prior during these times vs this year when white people were voluntarily asked to leave. And considering that most of the work and discussions done in these type of events--discussions about the pervasiveness of historical and structural inequalities, etc.--are generally meant to help people understand things like the problematic nature of privilege, etc., and HE showed up with "if people want to talk about race from a "scientific/evolutionary lens," it just comes across as douchey.
"And considering that most of the work and discussions done in these type of events--discussions about the pervasiveness of historical and structural inequalities, etc.--are generally meant to help people understand things like the problematic nature of privilege, etc., "

In my experience those types of events are mostly ham-handed, preaching to the choir, bloviation fests with a self-selected audience.

The city's mandatory RSJI training consists of viewing "Race: The Power of an Illusion" and then having a group discussion. That sounds dreadful - mandatory viewings of a PBS program and then discussion with strangers - but it really is effective. It's a wonderful program, which lays out the facts without a bunch of histrionics. I've taken it a few times because I enjoyed it so much, and each time I've seen people (of all races) who come in, sit in the back with their arms crossed scowling at everyone, but by the time the discussion starts they are engaged and talkative - and the moderators are great. There really are breakthroughs made. That helps establish the concept of RSJI, and then the city provides toolkits to use when working on projects to make sure the needs of everyone are at least considered.

But that's the sort of non-screamy, non-histrionical approach to dealing with race - the kind that might actually accomplish something.
@1: Nothing Prof. Weinstein said in that interview was race baiting. It is good
evidence of one thing, though, which is that deep progressives and right wing
hacks can agree on one thing: trying to censor and threaten a professor that
disagrees with racist, anti-education tactics is wrong.

@9: Nothing too bad there, outside of the incorrect statements about Bernie.
Draw Mohammed Day is just supporting free speech in the face of threats of
violence. People were killed for depicting Mohammed irreverently.

@30: You're projecting the ideas of others onto Prof. Weinstein, in what I have
to assume is a dishonest attempt to discredit him. Discussing race in the
context of evolution, especially by a professor at Evergreen, is not some
racist dog whistle or attempt to argue the inferiority of races. It's not hard,
at all, to break down the past racist arguments with modern evidence, and
that's almost definitely where he was going with it, given the language he

@38: And students of evolutionary biology, when they learn of race, hear
largely the same thing, but in the context of hard scientific evidence and
rational skepticism. Unfortunately, it seems you're prejudging them, despite
having no apparent experience in or knowledge of this context. Your argument
seems to amount to saying that biology has nothing to contribute to the
discussion (it does) and then cast asperions. You should reconsider who you try
to vilify, especially when you aren't even familiar with the topic. You'll turn
allies into enemies based on your prejudice alone.

@50: You are also projecting onto him (putting words in his mouth) regarding
the 'complexitiy on the social side', and in fact, he used many of the terms
used only in the humanities, so you're speaking in the face of contrary
evidence. Don't infantilize the students of Evergreen. They're adults and they
can handle basic discourse.

So far as I can tell, you all don't know the basics of biology, nor are you
willing to even listen to a sympathetic leftist biologist who was in all
likelihood going to give scientific arguments against racism, all because you
want to find an enemy where none exists. You also seem to inflate the
importance of social sciences to the point that you find the ingress of hard
science into the topic to be an intrinsic threat.

Be humble and at least try to listen to one another.
@51: Thank you for your perspective. Prof. Weinstein raised authentic concerns in his email, however - any attempt at shaming others into not attending class, particularly based on race, is over the line and not a productive show of solidarity. If he was mistaken about that being the de facto outcome, that's a reasonable thing to discuss or argue about, but that was clearly not the response he received. Instead, he was mobbed and protested by frankly ignorant students who wanted nothing more than to scream at him and project their concept of oppression onto him. That group was not going after a discussion, they wanted a one-sided discussion to force him to either agree with everything they said or to attack him publically - and they eventually called for his resignation.

These are not acceptable behaviors, they're intimidating censors, and have no place on a college campus. You would do your campus a great service if you pushed your fellow students to have actual discussions, not these witch hunts. Actual oppressors are out there trying to take away our rights, we don't need phantoms.

Among other things, I will never recommend that prospective students attend Evergreen so long as your current president remains there, because your college does not defend the free exchange of ideas.
@54: Prof. Weinstein made a specific point about this year's event, which is that his impression was that it was isolating others rather than unifying the central group. Agree or disagree with that, but there is no need to pretend that his motivation was racist. There is no evidence for it and it's just prejudicial thinking.

Prof. Weinstein offered to share his expertise, as an ally, and to organize a workshop to that effect. That's a lot of donated time, in good faith, yet you call it "douchey". You would be helping yourself to take a step back and stop prejudging people as your enemies.
That video made me cringe...

Catalina and Shiraka's comments were my favorites and I thank you both for taking the time to chime in with your insightful opinions. Cheerth!
Yikes, these kids are horrible. I wonder if they'll ever grow enough to be embarrassed by this, or if the controversy escalating to this level freezes them in that moment -- you've just bought in too completely, and ever backing down or reassessing becomes impossible, even years later.

It's a luxury to even worry about, drowning as we are in an endless series of national crisis grown from right-wing crazy, but I do worry about the Trump of the left these morons will eventually generate.
@56 Watch the Rogan interview. Weinstein enjoys fantastic student reviews, he is well-spoken, and is able to adroitly negotiate argumentation.

His suggestion that the academy is a 'soft-target' for the fight for equity (as opposed to the intransigence of mass incarceration and American policing, for instance) is interesting, but ignores the fact that students are working to change the conditions where they live and work.

He went on Fox and he spoke with Rogan without the presence of a counterpoint; completely sympathetic, safe settings that performs a kind of politicized messaging (for White folks, primarily) that he disdains from a subset of 'black students' - whom he depicts as irrational and acting without cause.

He is at once demanding that we collectively adhere to norms where an open and critical dialogue is possible, yet he seeks the safe media space that feigns incredulity when it is suggested that 'White Privilege' is an actual thing, that justice might necessitate some sort of meaningful material and legal recompense, and that 'science' has in its history, for people of color, almost entirely been concerned with legitimizing racial inequity.

I am not infantilizing Evergreen students. Most of them come to campus already in that position, having never had to confront any uncomfortable dialogue regarding race and privilege. Weinstein ran into a buzzsaw that in its intensity may be uncalled for, but his actions after the fact say a lot.
It seems like the tech-savvy, at-risk youth fixed the comments glitch....
Well, that was certainly terrifying. Just how far into surreal are we going to be taking this twisted "social justice" train. Once again in history the best intentions in a very small group soon leads young inexperienced teens and young adults into the faddish, feather-headed version - the beatniks to the Beats, for instance - and the put on a play without realizing it.

I suspect it won't be long before the add more violence to the mix. A modern day Weather Underground followed by the even more inept and unschooled neo-SLA. Then the public opinion, even among their peers, will turn. We can get a few years back in reality maybe, so we can take care of some problems. Watching these folks, Trump doesn't seem like such an anomaly.
@63: That interview is 2.5 hours long, I'll pass for now and think about it later. So I can't really discuss your characterizations of his performance, but your editorialization is specious.

First, going on a podcast without a debate opponent isn't exactly hypocritical, Joe can set up whatever show he wants and no one has the expectation that it's a formal debate show by a long shot. And the issue here is students acting as overreacting censors with no interest in discussion, to the point of demanding professors' job. How does that compare to talking with someone on a podcast, exactly? Where is the hypocrisy?

Second, we're talking about modern science at Evergreen, not science pre-genetics. Your wariness of the scary word 'science' is unfounded and out of date by about four generations. There is nothing inherently untrustworthy or racist about discussing science and race, you are entirely projecting here.

Finally, you truly are infantilizing them - right after your denial, you tried to justify, again, why they are incapable of having a normal human discussion. These people are adults. They can vote. We can expect them to understand the fundamentals of free speech and discourse as part of the common knowledge acquired in high school civics (U.S. history, government...).

Treat them like adults. The loudest of them are simply acting as a mob with an out of control persecution complex. They're being idiots, counterproductive, and dangerous (again, demanding his job). Criticize them. Don't defend their thin skins and mob mentality, those are both awful qualities, and again, they're adults.