SIO48: What’s Really Going On at Evergreen College?

Due to popular demand, I’ve decided to embark on a fact-finding mission regarding the Brett Weinstein/Evergreen College fiasco. It took an incredible amount of digging to find anything beyond the same few talking points that have exploded across conservative media in the past few weeks, but the deeper story is a little more complicated and worthy of our attention. As usual, the easy way out is to filter the facts so they comport to a narrative we want, but I do my best to investigate the facts from a neutral standpoint.

What I found might surprise you! Here are links:

Tucker Carlson InterviewEmail Exchange; Cooper Point Journal 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; Weinstein View on Equity PolicyDemographics of Professors; Detainment of Black Students; President Letter on Trigger Warnings; President Response to Demands; Letter from 50 FacultyProfessor Solidarity with StudentsProf Setting Record Straight.

Leave Thomas a voicemail! (916) 750-4746, remember short and to the point!

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/seriouspod

Follow us on Twitter: @seriouspod

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/seriouspod

For comments, email thomas@seriouspod.com

Questions, Suggestions, Episode ideas? email: haeley@seriouspod.com



Direct Download

43 Replies to “SIO48: What’s Really Going On at Evergreen College?”

  1. 27:00 – first disagreement with your assessment – if you prioritize diversity you necessarily will lower the quality of teaching simply because “quality” of the staff becomes secondary. And it doesn’t matter if you put your prioritization towards hiring whites, blacks, asians, etc… the moment you start putting priority on characteristics that have nothing to do with quality of teaching, you risk lowering the skill of the people hired. I don’t think he means anything in regards of PoC in general being able to teach. It just means that you inevitably will lower the quality when quality is not the main criteria for hiring.

    1. Amen. I saw it happen live and in person for multiple decades. When we hired diesel mechanics based on their cupcake decorating acumen, we got fancier cupcakes and marginal diesel maintenance. Who’d a thunk?

    2. I think your objection makes a few assumptions that may not hold up to scrutiny.

      Firstly, are we able to determine each candidate’s “quality” of teaching to such an extent that we can validly, reliably, and empirically tell the 248th best teacher from the 251st best teacher? Assuming the candidates are screened for basic competency, the variance between candidates in a given group may not be something we can accurately access, nor something that would yield demonstrable results in the classroom.

      Further still, if you could quantify “teaching quality” in some generalized way, you still may not be finding the best candidate for your particular needs, in the particular context of your institution.

      Very much like the argument for community policing, there may be contextual reasons that hiring someone that a particular population can more easily identify with (or theoretically, someone who would be more challenging) could enhance the learning process both directly and indirectly. As such, it’s possible that a “very good” individual professor can have a net beneficial effect (e.g., increasing diversity, normalizing POC in authoritative roles, countering institutional bias that disenfranchises students of color, etc.), and that this benefit could outweigh the individual benefit of another candidate, even if that candidate is an “exceptional” teacher.

      Also, while I don’t think you necessarily made this assumption (I don’t want to misrepresent your comment), it’s worth noting that the status quo is not purely a merit-based system in which the best candidates are considered only on their teaching ability. As we live in a society that benefits white people in myriad and unnoticed ways, hiring standards and subjective assessments of “teaching quality” are institutionally biased to favor white applicants. The notion that failing to overtly consider race protects your decisions from perpetuating racial bias ignores how racial bias operates. More directly to your objection, it can also lead to less qualified white candidates being given preference over more qualified applicants of color, meaning that despite the primary standard for hiring being an assessment of “teaching quality,” the best teachers might not be hired.

      1. We can pick as many nits as we want, but the experiment is over. We know where forty years of our current social engineering practice leads. It leads to Post Truth Trumpistan.

          1. Of course PC culture didn’t actively install Trump as president on purpose, but the PC/affirmative-action social engineering policies of the last three or four decades didn’t prevent the Trump administration, either, did they? If you’re instituting corrective social policy and you wind up with Trump, you’ve failed, haven’t you? I was required to attend probably two or three dozen “sexual harassment awareness” training sessions in my career, but what do we get for all of our trying to make the workplace safe and comfortable for people of all genders? We get a president who brags about sexually assaulting women. Does sexual harassment even matter anymore? I guess it does if you’re the harassee, but does society care? Before you answer, remember who they elected president this last time.

            The working-class-cum-under-class hates social engineering with a passion that was successfully focused on and embodied in Hillary Clinton by Limbaugh and his ilk as early as 1992. The point is that I knew (and still know) that there is a large (hovering around 50%) group in this country that would eat Drāno before they would vote for Hillary Clinton or a Hillary clone. And those are ordinary working folks with mortgages and kids in college. That’s in addition to the tea-bagger alt-right crowd who find Trump’s ineptitude and indiscretions endearing. I’ve seen it with my own eyes and now we’ve all experienced it together as the horror that continues to be the 2016 Presidential election.

            The reason I would lay our failure at the feet of the PC/SJW crowd is because they forced their agenda on working class America for decades and never bothered to look at what was happening underneath the surface. I call them social engineers, but they have been poor engineers, indeed. They’ve been building with beach sand all these years and never bothered to check the foundation, so they didn’t know that their policies were being accepted under duress by people who were just waiting for their chance to lash back. And, as lousy engineers, they didn’t see this coming in the early nineties when right-wing talk radio really started to take off. An astute social engineer might have seen a class of people developing who were willing to say out loud that they despised liberal government policies. They couldn’t say so at work without risking their raise or their promotion or even their job, but they could eat their lunch in their truck in the parking lot and listen to Rush and seethe. Of course there will be opposition to any government policy, but the main thing the social engineers missed is the size of this disenfranchised group. That’s at least partly because this group is predominantly white male. In the eyes of a PC/SJW, there is no such thing as a disenfranchised white male. In the eyes of a white male, especially one who’s lost a job to outsourcing, there sure as shit is. In their eyes the PC/SJW government is focused on creating safe spaces for minuscule minorities while “real” people are losing real jobs to China and Mexico and automation.

            Can you put yourself in the shoes of a Hillary-hating Republican or a rabid alt-righter and divine what would make them vote for a progressive candidate? I haven’t been able to. Why should they? By voting for Trump they stuck a sharp stick in the eye of the regressive left and now they’re on top; they dominate all three branches of the federal government. I was telling an old friend just a week or two ago that the progressive left needs to figure out how to include white males (and their pissed off wives) who consider themselves “disenfranchised.” She said that affirmative action was intended to be punitive to white males and that she thought it hadn’t gone far enough. She’s retired now, but guess what she did for a living. She worked in the HR office of Los Alamos National Laboratories. Even as the Trump juggernaut threatens to undo everything the progressive left thought they had accomplished, she’ still feeding it. That’s why we lost the 2020 presidential election.

            Asking a PC/SJW what their plan is for winning back the White House in 2020 is like asking a Republican what they plan to do about health care. The crickets are deafening.

            Embrace the Void, ya’all!

      2. Excellent comment. I was going to try to say something to the same effect but I think you’ve covered it quite well! I suppose the only other point I’d add would be that in a profession that has FAR more applicants than open positions, it is likely there is an excess of qualified candidates for any given position, and using demographics as a way to break ties wouldn’t result in any loss of quality.

        1. That’s a bogus assumption, Thomas. If Los Alamos Labs needs a PhD Metallurgist, the fact that there are 300,000 unemployed people in New Mexico doesn’t automatically mean there’s a surfeit of qualified applicants. There may be precisely zero qualified applicants. That’s an extreme case, but in any case, an oversupply of applicants does not logically prove an adequate supply of qualified candidates.

          1. What the hell are you talking about PhD Metallurgists? Does Evergreen have those? I’m specifically talking about professors. There are way more applicants than teaching positions. Of course I’m not referring to ALL positions, that would be idiotic.

    3. ” the moment you start putting priority on characteristics that have nothing to do with quality of teaching, you risk lowering the skill of the people hired. ”

      This is exactly true! It’s also why diversity initiatives are needed.

      The problem with your assessment is that you’re assuming that without diversity initiatives, decisions to hire are based on merit and not on irrelevant characteristics like race. But they are – right? Undeniably people are disproportionately and unfairly hired based on being white.

      This means that our current system is letting in more unqualified candidates and passing over qualified candidates (i.e. black people who are better qualified). If you’re concerned about quality of teaching then you should be critical of systems where lesser qualified people are hired on the basis of their race – i.e. our current system. Diversity initiatives mute that effect by allowing some of the qualified non-white people get through.

    4. That’s only true if we start from the premise that diversity has nothing to do with quality of instruction. I’ll go ahead and say that I used to believe that, but I no longer do. An all-male or all-white staff could teach just as well as a diverse faculty in theory, but they have significant disadvantages to struggle against. We know this because that way was normal practice for a long time already.

  2. This episode felt like apologetics to me, basically just going out of your way to present the protesters in the most sympathetic light possible, while castigating Weinstein. No mention of police telling Weinstein that it’s not safe for him to be on campus (Unless I missed it, in which case apologies), or of students making caricatures depicting the campus police in KKK uniforms. You’re aggressive in your criticism of Weinstein for sending an e-mail and appearing on talk shows, while extremely timid in criticizing the people telling the college president how to hold his hands, or that he’s not allowed to go to the bathroom, essentially holding him hostage.

    I’d also question the way you accuse a Jew of “whitesplaining”. While Weinstein does have light skin, I’d think the reason why whitesplaining is seen as bad is because it’s someone who doesn’t belong to a historically oppressed group telling a historically oppressed group how to behave. This does not apply to Weinstein, who has also been an outspoken critic of racism throughout his career, if he is to be believed. I think you also used the word mansplaining, and I’m not at all sure how that is relevant here.

    As for your point about the reverse “day of absence” being totally voluntary, Weinstein said in one of his interviews (Not sure which rn), that “allies” were asked to absent themselves. While it’s obviously not mandatory (How would it even be enforced?), you should consider what the social consequences are of not participating and thus branding yourself as “not an ally” on a campus such as Evergreen. There’s now people going around with baseball bats, for god’s sake. Of course it’s not mandatory, but there’s extreme social pressure to cave in to whatever these extreme protesters demand, or else you’ll be branded a racist or white supremacist, which is exactly what happened to Weinstein.

    I suspect your timidness is a result of not wanting to criticize people who say they represent PoC and LGBT students, at least not too harshly. I would say these protesters only claim to represent these groups as a whole as a bullying tactic. “You’re either with us or you’re against minorities”, basically. In one of the videos, you can hear a presumably black, brown or LGBT student go against the protesters and shouting “I am not oppressed!”, to which the protesters react with shock and condescension. I would say these protesters don’t represent any race, gender or sexuality. They only represent their own rotten ideology, and are claiming to represent all PoC and LGBT students as a means to gain power through social pressure.

    I also totally agree with Peter’s comment. I thought the same thing while listening, but he already summed it up.

    1. I just wanted to respond to a point you made about Weinstein being a member of a historically oppressed group, and as such, being unable to “white-splain” (i.e., use his privilege to talk over others).

      I think I see where you’re coming from, but I’m not sure it’s as much of a dichotomy as you seem to be suggesting. With an intersectional perspective, identity becomes a more nuanced thing wherein people occupy multiple mainstream and marginalized identities at the same time.

      For example, a cisgender, homosexual, black male from an upper-class neighborhood with a physical disability would belong to multiple mainstream groups (i.e., cisgender, male, wealthy) and multiple marginalized groups (i.e., homosexual, black, having a physical disability). This person is both privileged and disenfranchised. This person can act in a way that exploits their privileged position (e.g., speaks over women at work) despite also being acted upon in ways that exploit their lack of privilege (e.g., passed over for a promotion because their boss feels more trusting of a white employee).

      As it concerns Weinstein, to the extent that someone who presents as white is explaining racism to people with more direct experience, who are more likely directly disenfranchised due to their skin color, I think the use of “white-splaining” is justified.

      Additionally, it’s great that he’s been an outspoken critic of racism throughout his career, but that doesn’t mean that he can’t do/say racist shit (i.e., things that perpetuate racial inequality) regardless of his personal beliefs or intentions.

  3. I’d like to quibble with you about whether whites were “demanded ” or forced from campus. I think the implication that he and others are making is that the request for white people to absent themselves from campus for the day ,for anti-racism reasons, necessarily implies that those who stay are racist themselves or at least not fully down with the cause. Whereas the inverse, black students attending school on the previous years day of absence, would have no such implications.

    1. I can’t imagine it would come as a real shock to students of color that some white students aren’t interested in attending optional racial justice activities.

    2. “the request for white people to absent themselves from campus for the day ,for anti-racism reasons, necessarily implies that those who stay are racist themselves or at least not fully down with the cause. ”

      But then why would they only set aside 200 spaces for white people?

      Do you think they were planning on calling 3000-4000 people racist when they didn’t try to attend an event with a max limit of 200 people?

      Or do you think it’s more likely that they didn’t expect many people to want to take part and so have only set aside a couple of spaces for willing volunteers?

      1. I don’ think they expected all the white students to attend the seminars, just to not be on campus that day. It’s not to hard to imagine that it would take only a little social pressure to get college students to skip for a day.

        1. It’s the same thing – the request to “leave campus” is a request to take part in activities off campus.

          The event isn’t about staying at home. In the email exchange links Thomas gave above the officials even say they only expected around 200 people to take part because that’s the kind of numbers got for previous years.

  4. Given that he is white, I wonder how Weinstein could have ever expressed his disagreement without it being subject to the ‘power dynamics’ associated with his skin color and sex.

    Was he supposed to just acquiesce to almost everything like bridges?

    1. “Given that he is white, I wonder how Weinstein could have ever expressed his disagreement without it being subject to the ‘power dynamics’ associated with his skin color and sex.”

      He could have tried using respect.

  5. I thought you were trying to get the facts right. It wasn’t a white student who called the campus police about the two black students. It was a non-black person of color. You say you are neutral, but you are selectively changing FACTS to support your position.

    1. Could you toss up a link for this? I will certainly correct it if I got it wrong. I tried to present the students’ grievances as theirs, and I tried to say “allegedly.” I don’t actually agree with all of them. But you’re not denying the white power posters or other incidents, and the point was just to show that racial tensions had been building long before this event. The media painted it as “Man writes respectful email and black people bring bats to school” which ignores SO much backstory and obviously is meant to alarm people.

  6. how is Brett Weinstein supposed to voice his opposition such that he isn’t exploiting the inherent power dynamics related to his white maleness?

    1. I think that the power dynamic is a context in which these conversations happen. It’s not a blanket barrier that should prevent anyone from participating in any discussion, but it is an additional factor that affects the power and meaning of our actions, and people with more mainstream/privileged identities have a responsibility to be aware of how those factors affect conversations.

      As was mentioned in the episode, Weinstein’s behavior wasn’t just to “voice his opinion,” but to “respond all” to an e-mail, dismiss other people’s experiences and ideas, and present his understanding of the issue (i.e., racial justice) as well as everyone else’s actions (i.e., organizing this activity) as if his opinion were more valid, more complete, and/or more informed. In and of itself, these are not terrible things to do, but given the social contexts (e.g., race, gender, age, etc.) and his position of authority as a professor, they become problematic.

      As Thomas noted in the episode, there’s a real sense of Weinstein inserting himself into the conversation at an inopportune time of his choosing (i.e., not during the planning session), feeling free to assert control (i.e., dismissing and invalidating others), and making no attempt to convey that he had at least considered how his identity might be keeping him from seeing the whole picture.

      I like your question though, because I think there are concrete answers (assuming it wasn’t rhetorical).

      There are a lot of articles, guides, and blog-posts about intersectionality and being a good ally, and I’m sure you’ll be able to find one that addresses this issue better than I can. That said, from what I’ve seen, the general themes seem to be acknowledging privilege/racism exists, listening to people who are more directly affected, actively making space for marginalized people to speak, not making everything about you, and educating yourself on racial justice rather than asserting your opinions or demanding others educate you.

      So, yeah, Weinstein could have chosen a better time to raise his concerns (e.g., planning sessions), a better medium (e.g., a private e-mail with organizers), or even contacted the school’s administration, if he felt there was a pressing concern about racial discrimination.

      Alternatively, if he felt it was important to send the mass e-mail, he could have composed a less dismissive one (e.g., acknowledged his identity, validated the organizers’ perspective, not equated asking white people to participate in an off-campus activity with the segregation and racial inequality experienced by people of color in society, not implied that because he’s a biology professor he understands racial justice and civil rights better than people with more direct, lived experience, educate himself on what the event actually entailed, etc.).

      Further still, it has to be reiterated that the way he’s engaged the media is super fucked up and irresponsible. Again, there’s nothing inherently wrong about going on a cable news show and expressing your views, however, if you’re in a position of authority and/or privilege, and you know that the people you’re talking about aren’t going to have the same kind of access to present their side, I think there’s a responsibility to, at the very least, not let false information be conveyed by the host.

  7. Thank you for this. I had the exact problem you are talking about. It is really weird that the students have absolutely no voice in mainstream media. Is it because most of them are black? That is a depressing thought.

    And then there is this stream of racist codes tucked inside most of these “leftist” reviews. Calling a few teenage black students “thugs” has just been just one example of this “reviewing”. When you see someone goes around a campus drawing “Pepe the frog” graffiti and praised by the so-called alt-right media, one should guess that this campus had a problem with racism.

    And thank you for saying the most obvious thing everyone is ignoring: ” THIS WAS A PROTEST, for God’s sake!” They did not go to his class to have a “conversation” with him. They went there to protest what they thought was reprehensible behavior on his part. I think they should have protested silently. They made a big mistake protesting disruptively (for which they payed dearly). But Weisntein should have just stuck to his teaching and ignored them instead of coming out, waving at them, filming them and trying to lecture them about the difference between dialectic and debate! At some point in the video, one of his students shouts at the protesters to shut up and listen to the professor to “learn” something!

    1. This is apparently a letter written by some students:

      http://freepdfhosting.com/840d72d60d.pdf

      And here’s a video made by an Evergreen student:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoslJvJEnfg

      Neither of them support the protesters. Almost as if the protesters don’t represent the entirety of the “students” whose voice isn’t being heard in the mainstream media, according to you.

      Do you really think it would be a good idea to have one of those people wielding baseball bats go on Tucker Carlson, or some other mainstream outlet? What about that one student who said “Whiteness is the most violent system to ever breathe”? Or the professor Naima Lowe, who is on video cussing and yelling at other professors? They would just embarrass themselves, and probably make matters worse.

  8. Weinstein was very respectful in both the tone and content of his email.

    He’s explained that he replied all on the email to staff, faculty, and said that a few students holding staff positions on campus were probably also on that list.

    He specifically notes a lack of adequate time for discussion in the larger meetings.

    The idea that he’s ‘injecting himself into the situation’ by simply voicing his disagreement seems like a poorly framed conclusion one comes to when they’re trying to… For the facts into their narrative? Lol. It’s at leads reading into things too much and attempting some serious mind reading to suggest that anything in dudes email was racist, and that includes the very basic and simple point about focusing on diversity over quality of teacher.

    Fuck the intersectional guide on being a ‘good ally’ if you weren’t being sarcastic there. I’ll continue to treat people according to their character and not their skin color.

    Please quote where Weinstein was disrespectful? It seems to me he’s been nothing but.

    1. You may have noticed the Weinstein lied, which is pretty disrespectful. Rather than bring up the issue to faculty or just the people who planned the event this way this year, he sent out an email to everyone where he lied about what was going on. That’s not something adults do, especially ones who are supposed to be professional. He didn’t have to lie, and he didn’t have to bring up his concerns in front of everyone like someone bringing up a family argument in the middle of a crowded restaurant.

      It’s like if I said your comment that I’m responding to was the same as excusing the Holocaust in an email I sent to you and everyone you worked with. It would be a lie and it would be going around spreading a disagreement far beyond where anyone would reasonably expect it to go, dragging in people who don’t need to be a part of this discussion.

      If Weinstein didn’t want the whole campus in an uproar, perhaps he shouldn’t have sent everyone an email.

  9. I have literally not doubt that Carlson has tried to get one of the students to come on the show and explain their batshittery, lol.

    ‘Oh so a guy running from the cops after tearing down some posters punched someone who happened to be grand once? Was it professor Weinstein, and is that why you all are attacking him like so? *makes that tucker face*’

    Absolutely unbelievable that this was supposed to be the ‘skeptic’ point of view.

    Eli’s habit of framing conversations disingenuously while claiming to be the standard of objectivity is rubbing off on Thomas.

  10. The students don’t want to defend their ideas on a larger platform because- shocker- they know they would look ridiculous.

    Seek out and let is ten to the larger ideas behind community policing.

    It’s a complete fucking joke.

    ‘Community rapid response teams’ wear uniforms, have weapons, and have an oversight committee. It’s almost like they’re normal police, lol.

    But I know I know… It cost more to keep someone in jail than it does to send them to Harvard…

  11. Thomas, you claimed that Bret Weinstein misrepresented the Day of Absence event. I read the emails, and I agree with Weinstein. Participation is nominally voluntary, but “encouraging” (Weinstein’s word used in the email) white members to be absent from the campus is a forceful act, as the whites who choose to defy the “encouragement” can be singled out and shamed as racists. That is what is accomplished by reversing the tradition. It is a power play, a way to control the behavior of others. This interpretation is backed up by the stated theme of the Day of Absence: “Revolution is not a one-time event; your silence will not protect you.” If whites are silent, then they reveal themselves as targets of the activists, even if the silence is nominally permissible. And, of course the interpretation was backed up by the behavior of the students immediately afterward.

    1. I’m genuinely surprised by the number of commenters whose interpretation of this (and broader advocacy efforts) is that people of color who engage in civil rights activism are out to get white people, as if they just need to trick white people into doing or saying something racist-ish, and then comes the… honestly, I don’t know. Persecution? Violent revolution? PC death panels?

      1. Yeah it’s pretty unreal. This seems to be a really common criticism so maybe I’ll try to address it. But it sure looks snowflakey to say “oh sure the email SAID voluntary but we all know what that means!” Again, held 200 people for a 5k campus. I was an RA, most students don’t participate in programs and that’s just how it is. There’s no expectation that everyone do it.

        1. Thomas, students are not targets of activists nearly as much as college professors. The activists put the college professors under a microscope, not the students.

        2. You guys have yet to respond to the criticism of asking all white people who are allied not to attend school, thereby defining them as non-allies of POC.

          You repeatedly respond that they made room for 200 white people off campus.

          But that’s not a response to asking white people not to show up on campus. Even if the organizers had prepared an infinite amount of spots off campus for white people, the fact that white people were asked not to attend the school they are students at because of their color, even for 1 day, problematic, to use your nomenclature.

          The first time you dodged this argument it came off as odd. It’s now past obfuscation and squarely into intellectual dishonesty.

          Please respond to criticism of asking students not to attend their college campus diversity day because of their color, without citing accomodations off campus.

      2. Weinstein himself rejects these claims in one of his interviews by explicitly stating that the implication was he would not be seen as an “ally”.
        Yeah, he went on to FoxNews and other right-wing media denigrating a bunch of teenage kids (they are legally adults, I know) to prove what a great ally he is for colored people.

        Another thing is how easily allegations of violence is thrown around where there is almost no evidence of it happening in the original video and even in other videos. The administration telling the campus police to stand down is NOT EQUAL with students rampaging through the campus!!

        It is such a shame that these basic and glaringly obvious facts have to be uttered.

      3. I don’t hunk anyone thinks they’re purely ‘out to get white people’ (although as an aside, the ‘hyperbolic example’ of a black person shooting white cops because they are white, has totally happened multiple times)

        It’s that the game of conversation seems rigged… As I’ve said a couple times above, how could he have phrased things such that his opinion on the matter doesn’t also pollute the convo with the dynamics of white male supremacy?

        You said he should ‘be respectful’ but, outside of a very uncharitable interpretation of his words, nothing he said is disrespectful in the least.

        If you’re starting your episode out by assuming someone’s motives are rogue because they’re on fox, you’re probably not giving things the objective, ‘skeptical’ perspective you think you are

        The Sam Harris subreddit reacts appropriately to this episode.

        To know who is tripping, all you have to do is watch the initial video that blew up, listen to people asking this guy ridiculous questions, and then hear the same people say they don’t want to hear his answers, lol

        It’s so basic.

        I mean, to somehow determine that the president of the college looks better than everyone else? What a joke.

      4. Why on Earth would anybody be afraid of racism? Well, if it’s of no concern with no consequences, then why do people seem to want to protest it so much?

  12. ‘They’re walking around campus with bats’

    ‘Don’t tell people who have been shut out of the conversation how to conduct their activism’

    Ffs

  13. is the story that the guy who was running from the cops just happened to punch a transsexual or did the suspect literally seek out someone who was transsexual in the middle of a police chase?

  14. It has been repeated over and over again. It was absurd to ask ALL the white people to leave the campus. And even if it was possible, what would be the result? What were colored people going to do from 9AM to 6PM on that day when they had the campus “all to themselves”?

    Oh I know. Their evil plan is to tell whites to stay out of campus until 8PM next year and then the next year, they will demand whites to absent themselves for two full days! See what is happening here people? If it goes on like this, in about 100 years or so, white people will not even be allowed on campus! The college will just take their money and give it to the colored people. See how evil those colored people are? Join the RESISTANCE!

    And I think It is the height of irony that someone like Rubin who accuses colored people of participating in “oppression Olympics”, suddenly empathizes so deeply with Weinstein and his claims of being “oppressed”. I understand. Skepticism, not passing rushed judgements, carefully analyzing and evaluating all evidence, etc. is good for us emotional and irrational masses, but these science-loving fair-minded atheist skeptic leaders don’t need it that much anymore. They can be bigots for the greater good!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *