• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Evergreen State College Protests

It is easy to criticize this from your bubble of white privilege.

Whatever. :roll:

Walk a mile in a person of color's shoes for a day and then try and tell them they're being a bunch of spoiled brats.

Strawman much? I didn't call POC spoiled brats, I called these students spoiled brats, because they are. And not all of these students are POC anyways.


I already understand the intention behind the protest, thank you. It's still beyond ridiculous.
 
From what I understand Day of Absence has been a long standing tradition of the school it was based on a play from 1968 where black actors would where white face to celebrate diversity etc...
it turns out there is a huge campus event. For some reason this year the people went stupid and demanded that white people leave which is the complete opposite of what the event is supposed to be.

The 'complete opposite' in that originally the day involved black people leaving:
Day of Absence & Day of Presence | The Evergreen State College
In the play, a town wakes up to find all of its African American citizens have disappeared, leaving those left to reflect on the meaning of their community without these essential members. The Day of Absence, as it was originally known, began in the 1970s when Faculty member Maxine Mimms, inspired by the play, approached administrator Stone Thomas about the idea of joining with other faculty and staff of color in spending a work day away from campus as a grassroots collective action.​

Perhaps the ongoing tradition of holding off-campus events tailored towards (though not exclusive to) specific groups is stupid? Maybe, maybe not. But with that tradition in place, is there any particular reason why the off-campus events should forever remain tailored towards people of colour? What makes it so "stupid" to suggest a reversal of the tradition?

According to the student newspaper:
Protests on Evergreen Campus Students Challenge Racism and Anti-Blackness | Cooper Point Journal
Weinstein had been the focus of student attention for months after he sent an email that called the reversal of the day of absence “a show of force and an act of oppression in and of itself”. For this year’s event, as opposed to previous years, a small amount of white students, 200, were invited to hold caucus and workshop off campus and PoC were invited to be present on the campus they often don’t feel welcome on for their own workshops. Weinstein opposed this change, saying he would not support the reversal and that “you may assume I will be on campus on the day of absence” and encouraged others to do the same. Weinstein, and evolutionary biologist, then offered to have “a discussion of race on campus through a scientific/evolutionary lens.”​
 
The 'complete opposite' in that originally the day involved black people leaving:
Day of Absence & Day of Presence | The Evergreen State College
In the play, a town wakes up to find all of its African American citizens have disappeared, leaving those left to reflect on the meaning of their community without these essential members. The Day of Absence, as it was originally known, began in the 1970s when Faculty member Maxine Mimms, inspired by the play, approached administrator Stone Thomas about the idea of joining with other faculty and staff of color in spending a work day away from campus as a grassroots collective action.​

Perhaps the ongoing tradition of holding off-campus events tailored towards (though not exclusive to) specific groups is stupid? Maybe, maybe not. But with that tradition in place, is there any particular reason why the off-campus events should forever remain tailored towards people of colour? What makes it so "stupid" to suggest a reversal of the tradition?

According to the student newspaper:
Protests on Evergreen Campus Students Challenge Racism and Anti-Blackness | Cooper Point Journal
Weinstein had been the focus of student attention for months after he sent an email that called the reversal of the day of absence “a show of force and an act of oppression in and of itself”. For this year’s event, as opposed to previous years, a small amount of white students, 200, were invited to hold caucus and workshop off campus and PoC were invited to be present on the campus they often don’t feel welcome on for their own workshops. Weinstein opposed this change, saying he would not support the reversal and that “you may assume I will be on campus on the day of absence” and encouraged others to do the same. Weinstein, and evolutionary biologist, then offered to have “a discussion of race on campus through a scientific/evolutionary lens.”​

1. leaving was purely voluntary no one had to do it. they chose to do it.
2. what they wanted wasn't voluntary.

given your slant we know why you don't get why these kids are in the wrong.
sorry they cannot deny access to an institution being paid for by other people.

if they choose to go to class then they have every right to do so.
nothing these student can do can legally stop them.
 
1. leaving was purely voluntary no one had to do it. they chose to do it.
2. what they wanted wasn't voluntary.

And your evidence for that would be...? Because it feels like something you want to be true? As I quoted from the college's own student newspaper, "a small amount of white students, 200, were invited to hold caucus and workshop off campus." For reasons best known to its staff the Washington Times apparently chose to hype that up more than a little, but does not contradict it: "[Weinstein's] email took issue with a “Day of Absence & Day of Presence” demonstration, for which white students, faculty and staff were asked to leave campus for one day." To me it doesn't seem like a particularly good idea either way, but since they have their tradition I really don't see why you think it is so "stupid" for them to try a little role reversal one year. And the very fact that Weinstein decided not to participate in that shows that it was voluntary, for crying out loud! :roll:

given your slant we know why you don't get why these kids are in the wrong.
sorry they cannot deny access to an institution being paid for by other people.

if they choose to go to class then they have every right to do so.
nothing these student can do can legally stop them.

You obviously believe that this is some kind of partisan political issue. Perhaps one day you will deign to share with us how you reached that conclusion.

For my part I don't particularly feel compelled to take some kind of 'stance' on it. Why would I? Why would anyone? As far as I can tell no-one has been killed. No-one has been physically harmed. No property has been damaged. Apparently on the 14th, on the basis of allegations about their interactions earlier in the day, a couple of black students were woken up after 11pm and taken for questioning by campus police 'til 2am and denied access to toilet facilities during that time, though it was found they'd done nothing wrong. Apparently both Mr. Weinstein and some students of colour have said that they've been victims of harassment or threats.

Is that stuff worthy of local news? Maybe. But worthy of Fox news? (Apparently Mr. Weinstein seems to think so :lol: ) Or a major political issue? I'm just not seeing it.


It seems that at least once a month we've got a thread on this forum about some 'terrible' incident at a college causing fits of poutrage amongst certain of our members. There have been two threads about this particular incident already, that I've seen. What's driving this obsession? There are over 2400 four-year colleges in the United States, with some 13 million students, so frankly I'm amazed that those with this 'college kids do something dumb' obsession can't manage two or three posts a day!

From all the complaining we see from some people about America's "liberal education system," I guess I can understand the political angle in that. Maybe that is why certain media outlets choose to hype these things up? Maybe that is why you believe that disagreements between and amongst faculty and students at this particular college is somehow a partisan 'issue.'
 
Last edited:
The only thing I've ever heard about Evergreen University is that if you want to be able to use LOTS of drugs all the time, that's the place to go.

That explains these morons that TG just posted about.
 
And your evidence for that would be...? Because it feels like something you want to be true? As I quoted from the college's own student newspaper, "a small amount of white students, 200, were invited to hold caucus and workshop off campus." For reasons best known to its staff the Washington Times apparently chose to hype that up more than a little, but does not contradict it: "[Weinstein's] email took issue with a “Day of Absence & Day of Presence” demonstration, for which white students, faculty and staff were asked to leave campus for one day." To me it doesn't seem like a particularly good idea either way, but since they have their tradition I really don't see why you think it is so "stupid" for them to try a little role reversal one year. And the very fact that Weinstein decided not to participate in that shows that it was voluntary, for crying out loud! :roll:

Nope the way they reacted to the professor saying that he should be fired for refusing to leave. Yep asked to leave that doesn't sound voluntary to me.
for something that is voluntary reversal isn't needed is it? nope. you just figured out your own argument.


You obviously believe that this is some kind of partisan political issue. Perhaps one day you will deign to share with us how you reached that conclusion.

They made it one by calling for a teacher to be fired because he said that he wasn't leaving school and would be there and they verbally they assaulted him
in the hall way. maybe you can actually see that what these kids were doing is dangerous.

For my part I don't particularly feel compelled to take some kind of 'stance' on it. Why would I? Why would anyone? As far as I can tell no-one has been killed. No-one has been physically harmed. No property has been damaged. Apparently on the 14th, on the basis of allegations about their interactions earlier in the day, a couple of black students were woken up after 11pm and taken for questioning by campus police 'til 2am and denied access to toilet facilities during that time, though it was found they'd done nothing wrong. Apparently both Mr. Weinstein and some students of colour have said that they've been victims of harassment or threats.

evidently you do feel you need to take a stance because you seem to be defending their behavior.

Is that stuff worthy of local news? Maybe. But worthy of Fox news? (Apparently Mr. Weinstein seems to think so :lol: ) Or a major political issue? I'm just not seeing it.

Not the first time college kids have called for a professor to be fired for presenting an opposing view point.

It seems that at least once a month we've got a thread on this forum about some 'terrible' incident at a college causing fits of poutrage amongst certain of our members. There have been two threads about this particular incident already, that I've seen. What's driving this obsession? There are over 2400 four-year colleges in the United States, with some 13 million students, so frankly I'm amazed that those with this 'college kids do something dumb' obsession can't manage two or three posts a day!

that colleges are not longer colleges and they are breeding and fostering this type of stupidity? that these are going to be soon adults in the real world and in the real world
if they act like that their boss is going to tell them to take a hike your fired.

these little tantrums might seem cute in college but in the real world they are acting like 3 year olds.

From all the complaining we see from some people about America's "liberal education system," I guess I can understand the political angle in that. Maybe that is why certain media outlets choose to hype these things up? Maybe that is why you believe that disagreements between and amongst faculty and students at this particular college is somehow a partisan 'issue.'

since when is trying to stamp out freedoms a partisan issue?
 
Nope the way they reacted to the professor saying that he should be fired for refusing to leave. Yep asked to leave that doesn't sound voluntary to me.

Was he fired for declining to accept the invitation? No. His participation was voluntary. I'm having a hard time understanding why you find this so difficult to understand.

According to the student newspaper (which, again, I quoted and linked above - maybe you could try reading sometime?), the controversy around Bret Weinstein on this particular matter is not simply because he declined to participate in the scheduled events, but because he publicly described them as "a show of force and an act of oppression in and of itself" and actively encouraged others to protest and boycott the event with him. That came after earlier events in which the 28-member Evergreen Equity Council (three of whom are students) proposed a 2016-17 Strategic Equity Plan, and in a nearly unanimous vote Weinstein was among the only people to oppose its full implementation. In emails to other faculty members, Weinstein 'explained' the overwhelming support for those measures by accusing their proponents of using "campaigns of intimidation":
“The vote on that resolution was nearly unanimous. If you doubt fear played a role in that decision, consider this: following the vote, several converted faculty members told me in confidence that although they agreed with my objections, they could not bring themselves to vote accordingly. Several others told me that they had avoided the meeting altogether because, though they were strongly opposed to the measure, they did not feel they could afford to vote that way in public.”​

And now, according to the Washington Times, Weinstein has even gone on Fox News to make allegations against students of the college. Even still there's nothing he's done that would warrant firing, in my opinion and from what little I can see, except perhaps that national airing of the college's dirty laundry. But if he's had a habit of accusing opponents of using intimidation purely because he doesn't like the democratic results, it's difficult to try to paint him as a passive innocent victim in all this. So I suppose the only alternative - for those who have already dismissed his critics' complaints out of hand, on the basis of some students' rudeness - is to paint him as some kind of heroic martyr standing up against 'reverse racism' or somesuch? And that's despite incomplete (or as we've seen, sometimes outright misleading) information on what he was even opposing!

They made it one by calling for a teacher to be fired because he said that he wasn't leaving school and would be there and they verbally they assaulted him
in the hall way. maybe you can actually see that what these kids were doing is dangerous.


evidently you do feel you need to take a stance because you seem to be defending their behavior.

Defending them? By correcting some falsehoods which have been implied by the Washington Times and in this thread? By pointing out that for all the hysteria on display here - multiple threads on an international general political discussion board - there've been no deaths, no physical harm, no economic consequences, no political consequences, not even property damage for Chrissake? I wouldn't have bothered at all, except that this kind of thing seems to be a regular feature of the forum and I can't help wondering why that is; what purpose do certain media outlets have in hyping up these relatively trivial incidents?

Maybe you should start a chant of your own: "If you're not for us you're against us!" :lol:


Once again, unlike some folk I don't feel any particular compulsion to take some big 'stance' on it. The information from the Washington Times and the student newspaper are both clearly slanted towards different angles; the former hostile towards the protestors and the college President who "submitted" to some of their complaints, the latter partial towards them. I haven't been able to find a full copy of Weinstein's emails or other relevant documentation, and I rather suspect that you haven't even tried to look.

I don't believe that any objective person could come to any but the most narrow and tentative conclusions here (such as the rudeness of some students in those videos), whereas you have obviously built it up in your mind to the level of a major national political issue, somehow. That kind of hyper-sensitivity to the least little thing you don't approve of and instant pigeonholing of anyone who doesn't immediately and completely agree with you is exactly the kind of attitude we're seeing from some of the kids in those videos.
 
Last edited:
Is it too much to ask for people of color to have just one day without feeling marginalized by non-physical racial violence? White people get that every day on a college campus, but PoC can't even have it for a single day?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with people of color, or any group for that matter, to decide for themselves to not show up on campus on a day of their choosing as a means of protest or as a show of solidarity. I personally think it's silly because it accomplishes nothing, but it's their choice and to each his own. At Evergreen, that event has been a tradition spanning 5 decades and I can respect that.

This year however, the students of color changed that event in such a way that I not only can't respect it, but it fly's in the face of racial equality and goes against everything this country stands for. A group of people (black and minority students) choosing themselves not to show up on campus one day a year is one thing, but in effect demanding that another group of people (white students) not show up on campus, is quite another. Telling people of a certain skin color they aren't welcome on campus, is not only a violation of their basic rights as Americans, it's an act of racism pure and simple. Applying racism as a means to protest racism is an oxymoron of epic proportions.

It's idiotic, it's wrong and it shouldn't be condoned on any level by anyone.

.
 
And now for the close:

The Evergreen State College professor at the center of campus protests this spring will receive $500,000 in a settlement that was announced Friday.

Bret Weinstein and his wife, Heather Heying, resigned from their faculty positions effective Friday. The couple filed a $3.85 million tort claim in July alleging the college failed to “protect its employees from repeated provocative and corrosive verbal and written hostility based on race, as well as threats of physical violence,” according to the claim.
.
.
.
In an email to faculty and staff sent Friday about 6:40 p.m., Evergreen officials wrote that the college will pay $450,000 to the couple and $50,000 toward the couple’s attorney fees.

“In making this agreement, the college admits no liability, and rejects the allegations made in the tort claim. The educational activities of Day of Absence/Day of Presence were not discriminatory. The college took reasonable and appropriate steps to engage with protesters during spring quarter, de-escalate conflict, and keep the campus safe,” according to the email.
theolympian.com/news/local/article173710596.html
 
Back
Top Bottom