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.