Media coverage has called attention to social justice racism and abuse, and the perpetrators aren’t happy.
By now you hopefully are familiar with the plight of Evergreen State College professor Bret Weinstein. You can follow our prior coverage at the Evergreen State College Tag.
The short version of the story is that for the sin of objecting to a racist proposal that white students and faculty leave campus for a day, Weinstein has been subjected to well-documented harassment, threats and abuse by a coalition of “social justice” students and faculty on campus. The administration further enabled the attacks on Weinstein through cowardly capitulation to student demands.
I addressed the distressing racist aspect of the “social justice” agenda at Evergreen in The Campus Inquisition at Evergreen State College:
Students are being steeped in an ideology and attitude in which racism in the name of social justice is accepted. That’s a dangerous situation for the nation.
If you read our coverage, you will see how Weinstein, with the help of his brother Eric, desperately tried to call attention to his situation, initially through Twitter. That garnered coverage, but not from major liberal media. Weinstein’s appearance of Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News was the event that catapulted the goings on at Evergreen to national attention.
But still, outlets like the NY Times didn’t deem what was happening to Weinstein as news that was fit to print. Until recently.
On June 16, 2017, The Times ran a news story and an Op-Ed, each of which present Weinstein as the villain, and his tormentors as the victims. The thrust of this coverage is that Weinstein should have just kept his mouth shut and suffered in silence.
The Times news article title gives away the story line as do the opening two paragraphs, A Campus Argument Goes Viral. Now the College Is Under Siege.
It started with a suggestion that white students and professors leave campus for a day, a twist on a tradition of black students voluntarily doing the same.
Get it? The problem is that the professor (Weinstein) objected. The story continues to focus on that aspect, questioning why Weinstein went public to conservative and “right” media:
After the dispute gained national exposure — amplified by the professor’s appearance on Fox News, his op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, and right-leaning websites’ heaping derision on their newest college target — the professor, Bret Weinstein, said he had to stay away from campus for his own safety and move his family into hiding….
“There is a tradition of trying to work things out,” said Ruth Hayes, a professor of animation. Referring to Professor Weinstein, she echoed the feelings of a number of her colleagues: “That he took this public I just feel like is a breach of trust.” …
The Times article goes on to note that the campus has received threats as a result of the publicity, though neither the Times nor any other news outlet has reported the identity of who made the threats — were they real or the types of hoaxes we’ve seen dozens of times?
The Times also sets up two faculty members as victims.
On the other side, Naima Lowe, a media professor who has opposed him, and Rashida Love, the director of Evergreen’s First Peoples Multicultural Advising Services, who sent the email announcing the format of the Day of Absence, have also made themselves scarce, after being mercilessly ridiculed online.
Weinstein noted on Twitter the absurdity, particularly as to Lowe:
Here’s the image attachment to the tweet, showing what appears to be a Tweet from Lowe’s account threatening Weinstein’s wife (who also is a faculty member):
Lowe, presented as victim by The Times, is the profane faculty member in this viral video (language warning):
The Times article notes that Weinstein declined to be interviewed by The Times’ reporter. Can you blame him?
The Times also published an Op-Ed by rising Evergreen senior Jacqueline Littleton, which like the news coverage, faults Weinstein for obtaining media coverage of his plight, The Media Brought the Alt-Right to My Campus
….But the media saw in Mr. Weinstein a self-proclaimed progressive who appeared to be vilified simply for voicing a dissenting opinion. Evergreen students were accused of violence and of trying to enforce a divisive political correctness.The fallout from that coverage hit our campus like a hailstorm. It may not have been his intention, but Mr. Weinstein’s many interviews effectively became a call to arms for internet trolls and the alt-right. Online vigilantes from 4chan, Reddit and other forums swarmed to unearth Evergreen students’ contact information. They have harassed us with hundreds of phone calls, anonymous texts and terrifyingly specific threats of violence that show they know where we live and work….
Bret Weinstein’s interview with Tucker Carlson aired on the same day students met with President Bridges. We were surprised to hear Mr. Weinstein’s claims, which seemed far removed from what we had witnessed, and saddened to see how almost overnight his version of events became the entire narrative.
Mr. Weinstein’s story about Evergreen’s regressive campus culture fit neatly into many misconceptions about the “new left,” so it seemed to go unquestioned. However, for many students, staff and faculty at Evergreen, the harassment that came after the negative coverage of the protesters was a shocking and bitter twist. It is not lost on us that students of color are the ones who have been disproportionately targeted.
Again, the claim is that Weinstein should have just kept silent, and that calling attention to his plight is the real problem.
The President of Evergreen, George Bridges, gained infamy for his subservient response to student intimidation:
President Bridges has an Op-Ed in The Seattle Times that makes less direct, but unmistakable, accusations that Weinstein should have kept quiet:
Although activism on campus was only part of the story, it was distorted, amplified and endlessly repeated via social media and cable news. As we took steps to de-escalate conflict on campus, Twitter feeds blew up with misinformation.
This small liberal arts college was then hit with a tsunami of hateful harassment targeted at staff, students and faculty. Anxiety rose, and there were confrontations on campus. Threats to Evergreen from outside the college compelled us to suspend classes twice on advice from law enforcement.
We all know that once an issue is raised, there can be internet reactions beyond anyone’s control.
So what should Weinstein have done? Remained isolated, and cut off from support, while being tormented and threatened?
This video produced by VICE effectively captures the insanity that has surrounded Weinstein as he struggled to cope (language warning):
The problem is not that Prof. Bret Weinstein called attention to the racism in the name of social justice that has infected a progressive college.
The problem is the racism in the name of social justice that has infected a progressive college.DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.