Last week saw the beginning of a surprisingly well-documented takeover of The Evergreen State College by an angry mob of students. After interrupting a faculty member in the middle of teaching and shouting him down with accusations of sending racist emails, the students effectively shut down the campus by taking the president of the college hostage and insisting that he and his fellow administrators respond to a wide-ranging list of demands. Students occupied the administration building, chanted various slogans ("Hey, hey! Ho, ho! These racist teachers have got to go!" was a popular refrain), and corralled various college employees into a series of meetings, some of which consisted of little more than students shouting at and humiliating those employees. They even had to physically escort the president, Dr. George Bridges, just to go to the bathroom.
If that sounds far-fetched, it's actually more bizarre than you probably think. Granted, the students accomplished this without weapons or throwing punches. Whether the students threatened actual violence is somewhat unclear. However, the terms of the takeover were quite evident: Listen to our grievances and do what we say or be branded as bigots.
The most shocking thing of all to me is that the college administration, namely Dr. Bridges, completely capitulated to the mob, even directing the campus police to stand down while the students called the shots. In meeting after meeting (again, video documented) he takes heaps of profanity-laden abuse without rebuke, affirms every complaint without critical inquiry, and basically gives total legitimacy to the entire proceedings.
Here's the thing. After watching and listening to hours of video on YouTube, I have no idea as an outside observer whether any of the students' complaints have any real merit. The students of the occupying coalition, predominantly led by black and brown-skinned students, say they don't feel safe on campus. They say they are frustrated that blatantly racist employees have not gotten fired from their jobs. Some say, quite generally, that the entire institution of Evergreen is racist.
To refute one's feelings of safety is not an easy thing to do, and it would be wrong simply to dismiss the expression of those feelings. After all, even if a person only has the perception of being unsafe, that perception is still a real lived experienced. I doubt there is any college administrator who would feel comfortable knowing that a group of students lives under a constant burden of fear.
Unfortunately, it is hard to take these grievances seriously when you examine the very incident that set these recent student actions into motion. I mentioned that the campus takeover began when students confronted a professor, an evolutionary biologist named Bret Weinstein, about a series of supposedly racist emails. I use the word "supposedly" because I've read these emails myself and can personally say with absolute conviction that there was nothing racist in the contents of his messages.
The subject of those emails was his response to a campus-wide event called the Day of Absence / Day of Presence. It is an annual event at Evergreen that reportedly dates back more than three decades. What would happen during past events is that students, staff, and faculty of color who chose to participate would voluntarily absent themselves from the campus for a day in order to raise awareness of the vital—perhaps overlooked—contributions they bring to the community. The format of that event changed in 2017 when it was decided by event organizers to effectively switch roles. White community members were asked to leave the campus, and the community members of color were invited to stay.
Weinstein's crime was to publicly voice his concerns over the new format of the event, arguing that the philosophical implications of voluntary absence versus coercive dismissal are quite different. Basically, he argued, no member of the campus community should be asked to leave or be silenced based on their skin color.
At worst Weinstein could be accused of grandstanding. After all, he could have simply kept his opinions to himself and refused to participate without making a fuss about his reasons. Alternatively, you could disagree with his choice of language when he essentially characterizes the new format of the Day of Absence as an "act of oppression."
But therein lies the rub, does it not? Isn't it an academic's job to inquire and to engage in an ongoing dialogue that leads to shared enlightenment? Isn't the free exchange and testing of ideas a central (if not the central) function of academia? Isn't that what's at stake here?
What we've learned from the postmodern movement and its many offshoots that have spread across college campuses is that white supremacy is considered the norm. Any coalition that subscribes to these ideologies will routinely say that people from marginalized groups have had their voices suppressed for far too long and deserve to be given the floor. If a white person is attending a meeting where intersectionality is taken as fact, they very well might be told that they are expected to listen and not to speak, not to counter or question the ideas and expressions of the people of marginalized identities. To challenge the views of the oppressed is not merely insensitive, it's considered an act of violence and an attempt to prop up the racist systems that pervade society. People are coerced into silence.
Let's be clear. This kind of behavior is not healthy for anyone. It breeds paranoia. It is anti-enlightening. Coalitions based on a hierarchy of historical oppression will always be in danger of devouring their own members. People need to respect one another based on the content of their character, not on their immutable characteristics.
What is the result of this type of thinking run rampant? The Evergreen fiasco is just one example, and to describe it simply as a student takeover would be inaccurate. The students are supported by a contingency of faculty members who for years have advanced these ideologies in the classroom. At least some of the students, I assume, truly believe they are fighting for a noble cause, that they are actively working to counter violence.
Again, that's not how it appears to an outside observer like myself. It looks to me like they are trying to shut down ideas with which they disagree, to denounce any views that do not conform to their particular narrative of how the world works.
If there are issues of campus safety at Evergreen, I sincerely hope they are improved upon. If there are problems with police brutality or racial profiling, I hope they are rooted out. And in any places where there is an unequal distribution of opportunity, I do hope there are fair methods by which to identify and correct those gaps.
But it is a huge problem when a group like the one at Evergreen is incapable of differentiating between its legitimate grievances and its baseless accusations. When a decent man like Bret Weinstein (a self-described progressive, no less) gets caught in the crosshairs of an angry mob, it casts a huge cloud of suspicion over the entire movement. He didn't deserve to be targeted, but now he'll have to go through the rest of his professional career with the stigma of racism potentially hanging over him. Where's the justice in that?
As much as I empathize with Dr. Bridges for the difficult hand he's been dealt, he has proven himself unfit to lead the college. Not only has his unwavering capitulation to mob behavior likely demoralized a huge portion of the college faculty and administration, it's tarnished the public reputation of the entire school. A college president has many people to answer to—the students of the college not the least among them. But there is a right way to do that and a wrong way to do that. Negotiating under threat of violence or even hinted violence (also known as intimidation) belongs firmly in the latter category.
In this clip the students have already occupied the president's office for more than an hour (I believe). It's been pure anger and chaos. Dr. Bridges has continuously thanked the students and reaffirmed his agreement to not leave the room until he has responded to the group's list of demands. But he also needs to get to work, so he politely asks the students for some space to work. There's a woman at 0:41 mark who tells him (in a very condescending tone) that students of color have to work in threatening environments every day, so get to work! At 1:26 Dr. Bridges finally resorts to the one thing that might connect with the students by claiming, exasperatedly: "I have claustrophobia!"
Not a shred of sympathy from the students. Instead, they mock and ridicule. Everything, it seems, is a double standard.
We have the right to insult you. | You must never raise your voice to us.
We demand protection from all that oppresses us. | We reject any of your own claims of oppression.
These students are clearly angry. They have a right to speak, and they deserve to be heard. But they also deserve to be held to the same rules and standards of behavior as their peers. We have to find a way to communicate in a manner that strives for mutual benefit and understanding. This is not how we get there.
If that sounds far-fetched, it's actually more bizarre than you probably think. Granted, the students accomplished this without weapons or throwing punches. Whether the students threatened actual violence is somewhat unclear. However, the terms of the takeover were quite evident: Listen to our grievances and do what we say or be branded as bigots.
The most shocking thing of all to me is that the college administration, namely Dr. Bridges, completely capitulated to the mob, even directing the campus police to stand down while the students called the shots. In meeting after meeting (again, video documented) he takes heaps of profanity-laden abuse without rebuke, affirms every complaint without critical inquiry, and basically gives total legitimacy to the entire proceedings.
Here's the thing. After watching and listening to hours of video on YouTube, I have no idea as an outside observer whether any of the students' complaints have any real merit. The students of the occupying coalition, predominantly led by black and brown-skinned students, say they don't feel safe on campus. They say they are frustrated that blatantly racist employees have not gotten fired from their jobs. Some say, quite generally, that the entire institution of Evergreen is racist.
To refute one's feelings of safety is not an easy thing to do, and it would be wrong simply to dismiss the expression of those feelings. After all, even if a person only has the perception of being unsafe, that perception is still a real lived experienced. I doubt there is any college administrator who would feel comfortable knowing that a group of students lives under a constant burden of fear.
Unfortunately, it is hard to take these grievances seriously when you examine the very incident that set these recent student actions into motion. I mentioned that the campus takeover began when students confronted a professor, an evolutionary biologist named Bret Weinstein, about a series of supposedly racist emails. I use the word "supposedly" because I've read these emails myself and can personally say with absolute conviction that there was nothing racist in the contents of his messages.
The subject of those emails was his response to a campus-wide event called the Day of Absence / Day of Presence. It is an annual event at Evergreen that reportedly dates back more than three decades. What would happen during past events is that students, staff, and faculty of color who chose to participate would voluntarily absent themselves from the campus for a day in order to raise awareness of the vital—perhaps overlooked—contributions they bring to the community. The format of that event changed in 2017 when it was decided by event organizers to effectively switch roles. White community members were asked to leave the campus, and the community members of color were invited to stay.
Weinstein's crime was to publicly voice his concerns over the new format of the event, arguing that the philosophical implications of voluntary absence versus coercive dismissal are quite different. Basically, he argued, no member of the campus community should be asked to leave or be silenced based on their skin color.
At worst Weinstein could be accused of grandstanding. After all, he could have simply kept his opinions to himself and refused to participate without making a fuss about his reasons. Alternatively, you could disagree with his choice of language when he essentially characterizes the new format of the Day of Absence as an "act of oppression."
But therein lies the rub, does it not? Isn't it an academic's job to inquire and to engage in an ongoing dialogue that leads to shared enlightenment? Isn't the free exchange and testing of ideas a central (if not the central) function of academia? Isn't that what's at stake here?
What we've learned from the postmodern movement and its many offshoots that have spread across college campuses is that white supremacy is considered the norm. Any coalition that subscribes to these ideologies will routinely say that people from marginalized groups have had their voices suppressed for far too long and deserve to be given the floor. If a white person is attending a meeting where intersectionality is taken as fact, they very well might be told that they are expected to listen and not to speak, not to counter or question the ideas and expressions of the people of marginalized identities. To challenge the views of the oppressed is not merely insensitive, it's considered an act of violence and an attempt to prop up the racist systems that pervade society. People are coerced into silence.
Let's be clear. This kind of behavior is not healthy for anyone. It breeds paranoia. It is anti-enlightening. Coalitions based on a hierarchy of historical oppression will always be in danger of devouring their own members. People need to respect one another based on the content of their character, not on their immutable characteristics.
What is the result of this type of thinking run rampant? The Evergreen fiasco is just one example, and to describe it simply as a student takeover would be inaccurate. The students are supported by a contingency of faculty members who for years have advanced these ideologies in the classroom. At least some of the students, I assume, truly believe they are fighting for a noble cause, that they are actively working to counter violence.
Again, that's not how it appears to an outside observer like myself. It looks to me like they are trying to shut down ideas with which they disagree, to denounce any views that do not conform to their particular narrative of how the world works.
If there are issues of campus safety at Evergreen, I sincerely hope they are improved upon. If there are problems with police brutality or racial profiling, I hope they are rooted out. And in any places where there is an unequal distribution of opportunity, I do hope there are fair methods by which to identify and correct those gaps.
But it is a huge problem when a group like the one at Evergreen is incapable of differentiating between its legitimate grievances and its baseless accusations. When a decent man like Bret Weinstein (a self-described progressive, no less) gets caught in the crosshairs of an angry mob, it casts a huge cloud of suspicion over the entire movement. He didn't deserve to be targeted, but now he'll have to go through the rest of his professional career with the stigma of racism potentially hanging over him. Where's the justice in that?
As much as I empathize with Dr. Bridges for the difficult hand he's been dealt, he has proven himself unfit to lead the college. Not only has his unwavering capitulation to mob behavior likely demoralized a huge portion of the college faculty and administration, it's tarnished the public reputation of the entire school. A college president has many people to answer to—the students of the college not the least among them. But there is a right way to do that and a wrong way to do that. Negotiating under threat of violence or even hinted violence (also known as intimidation) belongs firmly in the latter category.
APPENDIX I
Let's take a look at just a few brief clips from last week and see what we can see. For a huge playlist of videos from the campus, I steer you toward this channel.
Here's a video in which an Evergreen faculty member publicly castigates her fellow teachers (begins at 6:15), telling them they need to go attend an impromptu meeting (which you can watch here) where the student mob will end up doing pretty much the same thing to the entire college staff.
I think the most jaw-dropping part of the video happens at about the 11:00 mark. There is a professor who is asking for assurances from the students who are guarding the building that she will be allowed to leave early for a family obligation (keep in mind there is only one entrance/exit to this large meeting room). Listen to what the red-haired student minion tells this clearly nervous woman (11:40).
First time I watched this, I couldn't believe what I was hearing (neither, I'm sure, could the poor woman). I quote: "Ya'all can leave and no harm will be done to you. I can guarantee that. But by leaving it's sort of showing the school that you don't care about the black and brown lives here. And that's harmful to the environment here. And I don't think that's OK. If you want to leave, go ahead. But you should not under any circumstances leave this environment. It is ya'alls job to stand up for the students. It's ya'alls job to be here and represent the students. And by representing the students I mean all of them, including the black and brown students. And I think it is irresponsible for you guys to leave. But if you do choose to leave, no harm will be done to you."
Did you ever see that episode of The Simpsons where the town of Springfield is being taken over by a wacky cult, the Movementarians? The new inductees are invited to watch a free informational movie about the religion and repeatedly told: "You're free to leave at any time, but would you mind telling us why?"
I'd like to think that if I were in that woman's position I would have the guts to tell that student straight to her face: "You do not dictate the terms of my personal safety. You cannot dictate or manipulate the bearings of my conscience. I do not abide by your intimidation tactics. And I am not setting foot in that room based purely on what you have just said."
Where is a single adult, Bret Weinstein aside, who will stand up to this nonsense?
Here's a video in which an Evergreen faculty member publicly castigates her fellow teachers (begins at 6:15), telling them they need to go attend an impromptu meeting (which you can watch here) where the student mob will end up doing pretty much the same thing to the entire college staff.
I think the most jaw-dropping part of the video happens at about the 11:00 mark. There is a professor who is asking for assurances from the students who are guarding the building that she will be allowed to leave early for a family obligation (keep in mind there is only one entrance/exit to this large meeting room). Listen to what the red-haired student minion tells this clearly nervous woman (11:40).
First time I watched this, I couldn't believe what I was hearing (neither, I'm sure, could the poor woman). I quote: "Ya'all can leave and no harm will be done to you. I can guarantee that. But by leaving it's sort of showing the school that you don't care about the black and brown lives here. And that's harmful to the environment here. And I don't think that's OK. If you want to leave, go ahead. But you should not under any circumstances leave this environment. It is ya'alls job to stand up for the students. It's ya'alls job to be here and represent the students. And by representing the students I mean all of them, including the black and brown students. And I think it is irresponsible for you guys to leave. But if you do choose to leave, no harm will be done to you."
Did you ever see that episode of The Simpsons where the town of Springfield is being taken over by a wacky cult, the Movementarians? The new inductees are invited to watch a free informational movie about the religion and repeatedly told: "You're free to leave at any time, but would you mind telling us why?"
I'd like to think that if I were in that woman's position I would have the guts to tell that student straight to her face: "You do not dictate the terms of my personal safety. You cannot dictate or manipulate the bearings of my conscience. I do not abide by your intimidation tactics. And I am not setting foot in that room based purely on what you have just said."
Where is a single adult, Bret Weinstein aside, who will stand up to this nonsense?
APPENDIX II
There are too many examples to choose from of Dr. George Bridges being steamrolled by the insults of the student mob. This example, however, is a particularly illustrative moment.In this clip the students have already occupied the president's office for more than an hour (I believe). It's been pure anger and chaos. Dr. Bridges has continuously thanked the students and reaffirmed his agreement to not leave the room until he has responded to the group's list of demands. But he also needs to get to work, so he politely asks the students for some space to work. There's a woman at 0:41 mark who tells him (in a very condescending tone) that students of color have to work in threatening environments every day, so get to work! At 1:26 Dr. Bridges finally resorts to the one thing that might connect with the students by claiming, exasperatedly: "I have claustrophobia!"
Not a shred of sympathy from the students. Instead, they mock and ridicule. Everything, it seems, is a double standard.
We have the right to insult you. | You must never raise your voice to us.
We demand protection from all that oppresses us. | We reject any of your own claims of oppression.
These students are clearly angry. They have a right to speak, and they deserve to be heard. But they also deserve to be held to the same rules and standards of behavior as their peers. We have to find a way to communicate in a manner that strives for mutual benefit and understanding. This is not how we get there.