NYT: When the Left Turns on Its Own

[TradeTheBeal!]

Come gather patriots and walk upon the path of enlightenment with the Joe Rogan podcast!

[Destino]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

They are upset because that's what has been happening to African Americans and minorities for years, and he got upset that this year they were going to do the opposite and said it was a bad idea.  Realistically, the (white) administration has been "inviting" minorities to leave the campus for years and he's been silent on it.  (This event has been voluntary for everybody historically and maybe once upon a time it was organized by minority students/groups, but somewhere along the line the administration took it over.)

There is a major difference in choosing to leave and insisting that others must leave.  It is not a small difference. 

 

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

He also has objected to some change in hiring policy related to equality

Heaven forbid.  Any details here or is it a sin to disagree with hiring policy relating to equality in general? 

 

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

They are then further upset in that they don't think they get listened to easily without protesting, which then gets him even more attention (time on Fox News and an editorial in the WSJ), which then further upsets them, especially in the context that they feel that those appearances (he referred to them as a mob, which has generally negative connotations) and entities in general further the bias against them (i.e. Fox News is biased against minorities) exacerbating their already lack of a voice and feeding the unfair bias against them.

A group of people shouting angrily at you should be described as a mob.  The negative connotations are accurate from the perspective of the person being shouted at.  They are not in the right when demanding that he leave, nor are you right in implying that his refusal to stay silent somehow constitutes wrong doing on his part because it "further upsets them." 

[PF Chang]

There's a difference between:

 

1. minority students voluntarily leaving campus to demonstrate what the school is missing without them and

 

2. insisting that whites leave, and if you don't you'll be harassed and threatened. 

In some circles, we're at a point where people can say they have PTSD from hearing an opposing opinion and nobody blinks an eye. Infantilization is an accurate description of what's happening.

 

As someone who leans left on most issues I don't know why we have to be in denial about this. I think it falls under the Great PC Umbrella and is the kind of thing that ensures that reasonable conservatives will never vote D. 

 

 

[Zguy28]

9 hours ago, Destino said:

Strange to see leftist movements turn threatening in their for demands ideological purity and adherence.  That's unheard of and I'm sure this story must have it all wrong.  They're just trying to make the world a better place, which simply requires cooperation.  See it's all friendly. 

 

Have they set up a way for campus residents to let them know which students and professors are expressing unwelcome ideas?  It's important to keep track of such things.      

 

If for no other reason than for the situational awareness of the central committee of the Party.

 

And I am joking obviously. I think there is merit to both Zoony's overall point, but also to Peter's rebuttal and reasoning.

[grego]

6 minutes ago, Destino said:

 

 

Heaven forbid.  Any details here or is it a sin to disagree with hiring policy relating to equality in general? 

 

 

he talks about that at the 21.5 minute mark. 

[Zguy28]

14 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

There's a difference between:

 

1. minority students voluntarily leaving campus to demonstrate what the school is missing without them and

 

2. insisting that whites leave, and if you don't you'll be harassed and threatened. 

In some circles, we're at a point where people can say they have PTSD from hearing an opposing opinion and nobody blinks an eye. Infantilization is an accurate description of what's happening.

 

As someone who leans left on most issues I don't know why we have to be in denial about this. I think it falls under the Great PC Umbrella and is the kind of thing that ensures that reasonable conservatives will never vote D. 

 

 

Do you think is linked to a general lack of discipline from the previous generations in their parenting? Because it seems like a lot of these "reactions" from younger folks on campuses are amazingly similar to a child that is starved of personal attention, but given everything it asks for instead. Any good parent knows that's a recipe for a spoiled child who rages and screams when somebody says NO.

[grego]

Just now, Zguy28 said:

Do you think is linked to a general lack of discipline from the previous generations in their parenting?

 

something like that. ive mentioned this before, so im sure its annoying at this point to many a poster, but jonathan haidt and the 'coddling of the american mind' is an interesting read. you can hear him talking about how and why we got to this situation in various youtube clips. good stuff. 

[codeorama]

5 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

Do you think is linked to a general lack of discipline from the previous generations in their parenting? Because it seems like a lot of these "reactions" from younger folks on campuses are amazingly similar to a child that is starved of personal attention, but given everything it asks for instead. Any good parent knows that's a recipe for a spoiled child who rages and screams when somebody says NO.

 

I know a lot of people will parrot that kids today are no different from the past...  I beg to differ.  

Parenting is a huge problem.  Many (not all or most, but many) kids today are in for a rude awakening when they get out on their own.  Kids are way more rude an less responsible.  IN each year that I teach, it becomes worse. This year has been by far, the worst year.  

I could make this a huge rant, but the short version is that in a few years, I'm not sure what the world will be like. My son is in the 5th grade and he tells me horror stories each day.  Very sad.

[Zguy28]

5 minutes ago, codeorama said:

 

I know a lot of people will parrot that kids today are no different from the past...  I beg to differ.  

Parenting is a huge problem.  Many (not all or most, but many) kids today are in for a rude awakening when they get out on their own.  Kids are way more rude an less responsible.  IN each year that I teach, it becomes worse. This year has been by far, the worst year.  

I could make this a huge rant, but the short version is that in a few years, I'm not sure what the world will be like. My son is in the 5th grade and he tells me horror stories each day.  Very sad.

My neighbor retired as a high school math teacher for similar reasons as you cite. Discipline/time investment from parents has largely been replaced with "here is your new toy" so you'll be quiet.

[codeorama]

18 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

My neighbor retired as a high school math teacher for similar reasons as you cite. Discipline/time investment from parents has largely been replaced with "here is your new toy" so you'll be quiet.

 

There is so little respect. Sadly, many parents are trying but just can't control their kids. They are working 3 jobs because no one will hire them for a full time job to avoid giving them health insurance. It's a sad state. They are doing what they can to provide but in the process leave their kids unsupervised. What's the solution?  I don't know. 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, grego said:

Peter - trying to follow what you said and catch up on this thing. I wasn't aware that he was silent about the day without POCs on campus before (where did you hear that, btw?) but even if he was, I would imagine, given his apparent liberal leanings, that if he was silent, that there could be a number of reasons why. 

 

But I don't know why that would detract from his point - from the article.... 

 

"“There is a huge difference between a group or coalition deciding to voluntarily absent themselves from a shared space in order to highlight their vital and under-appreciated roles,” he wrote, “and a group or coalition encouraging another group to go away.” The first instance, he argued, “is a forceful call to consciousness.” The second “is a show of force, and an act of oppression in and of itself.” In other words, what purported to be a request for white students and professors to leave campus was something more than that. It was an act of moral bullying — to stay on campus as a white person would mean to be tarred as a racist."

 

I think he makes an excellent, logical point, no? 

 

(just started listening to the rogan podcast and weinstein talks about that same point about 2 and a half minutes in, coincidentally.)

 

1.  I'm assuming he's been silent because he's not claiming that he wasn't.  If he has a history of complaining about minorities being asked to leave on the day of absence, I'm assuming in his editorial or other comments he would have mentioned it.  I could be wrong.

 

2.  I'd agree with him, but the problem is that isn't what is happening and isn't what has happening for years.  What is happening is the (white) administration is inviting (voluntarily) minorities to leave campus.  Maybe at one point in time that was happening, but it isn't now.  He's created a straw man, which is not the students' experience, to argue against.

 

The Montgomery bus boycott was a powerful thing.  If the Montgomery city government had gotten together and said we want African Americans to all walk and not use the bus today so that they have time to be alone and can use the time they are walking to think about and discuss their experiences, then you might have the same result (no African Americans on the city buses), but the context takes on a very different meaning to the point that the same result (i.e. no African Americans on the city buses) has a very different effect.

 

There's a difference between voluntarily leaving campus as a method to empower yourself and being told you can voluntarily leave campus by an administration that you think is hostile to you so that you can discuss your concerns.

 

1 hour ago, Destino said:

There is a major difference in choosing to leave and insisting that others must leave.  It is not a small difference. 

 

Heaven forbid.  Any details here or is it a sin to disagree with hiring policy relating to equality in general? 

 

A group of people shouting angrily at you should be described as a mob.  The negative connotations are accurate from the perspective of the person being shouted at.  They are not in the right when demanding that he leave, nor are you right in implying that his refusal to stay silent somehow constitutes wrong doing on his part because it "further upsets them." 

 

1.  Whites were invited to leave voluntarily.  The same thing that has been happening on that campus for years to minorities without anybody complaining.  

 

2.  I didn't look into the details, but I'm also not lining up to tar and feather the students.

 

3.  Is there something in between?  Can he go on Fox News and discuss his situation, but also mention the bias of Fox News in the conversation?  Could he not being silent, but also doing things that help the students have a voice?  Maybe he could have given some of his space in the WSJ to a student?

 

Maybe there is a level of complexity here that prevents the situation from being black and white.

[PeterMP]

And let's be clear.  We celebrate the idea of things like the Montgomery bus boycott, but the objective was to harm the (white) city administration because African Americans felt it was hostile to them.

[grego]

7 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

 

2.  I'd agree with him, but the problem is that isn't what is happening and isn't what has happening for years.  What is happening is the (white) administration is inviting (voluntarily) minorities to leave campus.  Maybe at one point in time that was happening, but it isn't now.  He's created a straw man, which is not the students' experience, to argue against.

 

 

i want to make sure i'm not missing some information here- the way i read it, for years, POCs voluntarily didnt show up to campus as a sort of protest. the administration somehow got involved and took over this annual event officially. this year, the administration wanted to flip the script- instead of POCs not showing up to campus, white people would be asked to not show up while POCs showed up for diversity events.

 

http://www.theolympian.com/news/local/article154249574.html

 

are you saying thats not what happened? or that it happened but theres no problem with it?

[PeterMP]

8 minutes ago, grego said:

 

i want to make sure i'm not missing some information here- the way i read it, for years, POCs voluntarily didnt show up to campus as a sort of protest. the administration somehow got involved and took over this annual event officially. this year, the administration wanted to flip the script- instead of POCs not showing up to campus, white people would be asked to not show up while POCs showed up for diversity events.

 

http://www.theolympian.com/news/local/article154249574.html

 

are you saying thats not what happened? or that it happened but theres no problem with it?

 

I suspect the administration took over the event slowly, and I suspect originally, it was done in away that was supported by POCs as they could be absent, but not face any negative consequences (e.g. professors would have to make accommodations for students missing work like they likely to do for athletes and other school sanctioned activities).

 

I suspect the idea of flipping the script initially came from POCs, but the administration appears to have signed off without issue.

 

I'm saying from the perspective of POCs, it has been fine if they were the group that left for years, but if they ask another group to leave, then it is an issue.

 

If you have one group being asked to leave due to race, you should have an issue of any group being asked to leave due to race.  It does not appear if he was upset that a group was being asked to leave due to race before this year when it was his race that was being asked to leave.

 

**EDIT**
 

"On Wednesday, Republican state Rep. Matt Manweller introduced a bill to privatize the college and called for an investigation to see if the college has violated civil rights. The Eastern Washington lawmaker was particularly upset about the Day of Absence event.

“I think that when a public university sends a message either directly or indirectly that you’re not welcome on campus based on your skin color, you have crossed the line,” he said."

 

I agree with this statement.  But wasn't that statement true last year when POCs were invited to voluntarily leave campus?

 

http://www.theolympian.com/news/local/article154249574.html

[NoCalMike]

I always have mixed feelings about stories like these, because I feel they are a bit misrepresented by all sides when covered in the media.

 

First of all, a lot of the times when reported, the media is acting like the entire campus, or even an entire group (in this case minority students) are revolting and protesting the professor.  In fact, it is a very small group of 50 students, while the entire rest of the campus,(including students of all races) are either troubled by this or overall just ignoring it and going about their daily day.

Secondly, this sounds more about the campus staff and administration not knowing how to properly deal with a very small group of unruly students.

 

This has nothing to do with "the left" or "leftists" as I can pretty much guarantee that 99.9% of the "leftists" on campus have absolutely nothing to do with this disruption, but you will find these stories pop up on right wing publications all the time framing it as if it's a much bigger portion of the student body taking part.

[grego]

Just now, PeterMP said:

 

I suspect the administration took over the event slowly, and I suspect originally, it was done in away that was supported by POCs as they could be absent, but not face any negative consequences (e.g. professors would have to make accommodations for students missing work like they likely to do for athletes and other school sanctioned activities).

 

I suspect the idea of flipping the script initially came from POCs, but the administration appears to have signed off without issue.

 

I'm saying from the perspective of POCs, it has been fine if they were the group that left for years, but if they ask another group to leave, then it is an issue.

 

If you have one group being asked to leave due to race, you should have an issue of any group being asked to leave due to race

 

agree with that

Quote

.  It does not appear if he was upset that a group was being asked to leave due to race before this year when it was his race that was being asked to leave.

 

i think you misunderstood- nobody was asked to leave in the past. a group of POCs just decided they wouldnt show up. now is the first year someone is being asked to leave, which is why hes speaking out. 

[PeterMP]

11 minutes ago, grego said:

 

agree with that

 

i think you misunderstood- nobody was asked to leave in the past. a group of POCs just decided they wouldnt show up. now is the first year someone is being asked to leave, which is why hes speaking out. 

 

I think you are wrong.  This looks this has been an administration sanctioned event for years where the POC activities have been off campus and the white activities have been on campus.

 

From your link:

 

"Traditionally, students of color leave campus for the day to demonstrate their contributions, while white students have discussions about diversity. This year it had been suggested that white students who choose to do so could leave campus for the day and talk about race issues, and minority students stay on campus for diversity events."

 

Nobody was just deciding to not show up.  This is an "event" organized by the universities administration where the POCs are off campus and white "events" are on campus.

 

Here's the University's page of the event from 2011.

 

http://evergreen.edu/news/archives/2011/04/dayofabsence

 

"For coalition & community-building the campus celebrates the Day of Absence by meeting in two different groups: An off-campus educational retreat which all of EvergreenÂ’s students, staff and faculty of color are invited to attend and, on campus our white allies offer a full day of programming around anti-oppression work from a different perspective."

 

The University sponsoring an off campus education retreat for people of color, while the white activities are on campus is an implicit invitation of people of color to not come to campus.

[Kilmer17]

I think for years POC voluntarily left campus, originally following the script from a play in which black people didnt show up one day as a way of making white people see their importance.

 

This year, the administration wanted WHITE students to leave, to also show white people what it would mean to not be part of the school day.

 

I can see why the professor thinks it's BS.  I can also see how the tow things are similar enough that others called him out for it.

[grego]

2 hours ago, Hersh said:

"Look, 50 students protested a professor. See how intolerant the left is!!!!! I knew it. Those stupid dumb, snowflake liberals and their dumb safe spaces are so intolerant and judgmental. They should all STFU and **** off.

 

I'll bet they come in here to try and set me straight since they are so pretentious. ****ing liberals."

 

 

 

well, that escalated quickly

 

the faculty are demanding an investigation into the professor who spoke out against the reverse 'no poc on campus' day. (signatures all clumped together at the bottom)

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/350202690/Evergreen-State-College-faculty-and-staff-call-for-punishment-of-Biology-Prof-Bret-Weinstein#from_embed

 

[For distribution to the All Staff & Faculty DL, Greener Commons, and the

Cooper Point Journal 

, withthe expectation that it is a public document.] June 2, 2017 As Evergreen faculty members: We acknowledge that all of us who have power within the institution share responsibility for theracist actions of others. Furthermore, those of us who are white bear a particularly large share of thatresponsibility. We acknowledge that we have a great deal of work to do in order to honor and live up to thedemands made by student leaders during last week’s protests.(http://cooperpointjournal.com/2017/05/27/complete-list-of-student-demands). We acknowledge that students of color and others who are underrepresented and underserved havebeen voicing their demands to us for some time (through the Students of Color Focus Groups of2014, through their participation in authoring the Strategic Equity Plan from November, in

CooperPoint Journal 

 

coverage, for example) and we have not yet truly listened and acted. We acknowledge students’ right to protest, and affirm President Bridges’ recent decision not to usethe misguided language of the current Student Conduct Code to punish the protestors. We vehemently reject the claim that students have been violent simply because they have been loudand emphatic. There is a difference between exercising the right to freely voice an opinion andinciting violence—and that difference has nothing to do with volume or forcefulness. We supportthe demands made by students and honor the positive institutional change they have alreadyachieved through their protests.Our most urgent demands (below) center on the safety of those individuals who are currently mostat risk. At the same time, we acknowledge that in the weeks and months to come our attention willneed to turn to the larger structural issues students have identified.

In solidarity with students, we commit ourselves to:

* Participating actively and self-critically in the annual mandatory trainings specified in theMemorandum of Understanding recently signed by the UFE and management bargaining teams.* Holding each other accountable when we act in racist ways against our colleagues or our students,according to shared language and understanding developed in the trainings.* Holding President Bridges accountable to the promises he made at the all-campus forum on May26, 2017, and to the process of ongoing dialogue with student leaders.* Actively supporting the Strategic Plan put forward by the Equity and Inclusion Council, includingproviding substantive support to the Vice President & Vice Provost of Equity and Inclusion tasked with implementing and extending their work.

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 thatare demonizing Evergreen and Day of Absence specifically.

* Take seriously the threats made to individual community members and use all availableinstitutional resources to protect them.

* Demonstrate accountability by pursuing a disciplinary investigation against Bret Weinsteinaccording to guidelines in the Social Contract and Faculty Handbook. Weinstein has endangeredfaculty, staff, and students, making them targets of white supremacist backlash by promulgatingmisinformation in public emails, on national television, in news outlets, and on social media. We are angry and frustrated and concerned. We also believe, however, that if the College can mustera meaningful collective response to recent events, this can be a powerful lever for growth in studentnumbers, success, and equity–and for future institutional change. We urge the administration not tolead with fear, or a desire to suppress students’ voices. We urge them to let the energy and clarity ofthose voices carry us forward.In solidarity, the undersigned faculty,  Alice Nelson Allen Olson Anne de Marcken Anne Fischel Anthony ZaragozaBen KamenCarolyn ProutyCatalina OcampoCheri Lucas-JenningsChuck PailthorpCynthia KennedyEirik SteinhoffElizabeth WilliamsonEmily LardnerErin GeniaGilda Sheppard Janys M. Murphy Jay W. Stansell Jean Mandeberg Jeanne Hahn Jeff Glassman Judith Gabriele Julia Zay Julie Levin RussoKaren GaulKathleen EamonLarry MosquedaLaurie Meeker

 

 

Leslie FlemmerLin NelsonLisa SweetLiza RognasLucia HarrisonLynarra FeatherlyMichi ThackerPaul McCrearyPaul PrzybylowiczPauline YuPeter BohmerRon J. SmithRuth HayesSandra YannoneSarah PedersenSavvina ChowdhurySeyta SelterShaw OshaSonja WiedenhauptSteven FlustySunshine Campbell Ted Whitesell Tom Womeldorff Vauhn Foster-GrahlerZoltan GrossmanStaff in solidarity, Alexis Cariello Andrea Martin Angela SpojaDorothea CollinsEmmie FormanGrace Fisher Jadon Berry Jaynina Smith-PrinceKaile AdneyMarianne HoepliMichelle PopeRiley RexRip HeminwayStefanie BrennanSteve Bakker

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PeterMP]

6 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I think for years POC voluntarily left campus, originally following the script from a play in which black people didnt show up one day as a way of making white people see their importance.

 

This year, the administration wanted WHITE students to leave, to also show white people what it would mean to not be part of the school day.

 

I can see why the professor thinks it's BS.  I can also see how the tow things are similar enough that others called him out for it.

 

The University was organizing off campus activities for POCs, and on campus activities for whites.

 

For years now the administration has been organizing off campus activities for POCs and on campus activities for whites.

 

Nobody was forced to attend either.  They were voluntary.  What is wrong with flipping the script?

[TradeTheBeal!]

Maybe Ann Coulter could visit the campus and help them get this straightened out?  Think she has the time in her busy schedule?

[twa]

The Jewish Prof is endangering us by ratting us out to the White Supremacists is just so 2017 ish. 

 

Carry on 

[grego]

Just now, PeterMP said:

 

I think you are wrong.  This looks this has been an administration sanctioned event for years where the POC activities have been off campus and the white activities have been on campus.

 

From your link:

 

"Traditionally, students of color leave campus for the day to demonstrate their contributions, while white students have discussions about diversity. This year it had been suggested that white students who choose to do so could leave campus for the day and talk about race issues, and minority students stay on campus for diversity events."

 

Nobody was just deciding to not show up.  This is an "event" organized by the universities administration where the POCs are off campus and white "events" are on campus.

 

 

i think the problem is in the wording- nobody was asked to leave in the past,- they chose not to show up to make as statement, much like the 'day without a woman' this year or the bus boycott,

 

this year, a group is specifically being asked to leave (voluntarily, of course) one group is asking another group to not show up, that is.

[PeterMP]

Just now, grego said:

 

 

i think the problem is in the wording- nobody was asked to leave in the past,- they chose not to show up to make as statement, much like the 'day without a woman' this year or the bus boycott,

 

this year, a group is specifically being asked to leave (voluntarily, of course)

 

How is planning activities for minorities somewhere else and planning activities for whites on campus not asking minorities to leave campus?

 

The activities on campus were advertised by the University as being for whites.

[grego]

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

How is planning activities for minorities somewhere else and planning activities for whites on campus not asking minorities to leave campus?

 

The activities on campus were advertised by the University as being for whites.

 

the professor is saying its been a voluntary form of protest -

"“There is a huge difference between a group or coalition deciding to voluntarily absent themselves from a shared space in order to highlight their vital and under-appreciated roles,” he wrote, “and a group or coalition encouraging another group to go away.” The first instance, he argued, “is a forceful call to consciousness.” The second “is a show of force, and an act of oppression in and of itself.”

 

you said it was voluntary 

Quote

Nobody was forced to attend either.  They were voluntary.  What is wrong with flipping the script?