Image 01 Image 03

Evergreen Student: ‘I’ve been told I’m not allowed to speak because I’m white’

Evergreen Student: ‘I’ve been told I’m not allowed to speak because I’m white’

“This behavior has actually been encouraged”

The Trustees of Evergreen State College heard testimony from students and faculty this week, due to the campus protests of the spring which cast a national spotlight on the school.

Protests began in May when progressive Professor Bret Weinstein objected to an event which would have barred white people from campus for a day.

One student named MacKenzie came forward and offered a statement which should concern administrators and trustees alike.

Here’s part of what she said, via John Sexton of Hot Air:

“If you offer any sort of alternative viewpoint, which I do have, and you’re kind of the enemy,” MacKenzie said. She continued, “I don’t agree with the behavior that has been shown on the campus and unlike what Anne Fischel [a previous speaker] has said, I think it’s important to focus on the way this was handled.”

“This behavior has actually been encouraged and because of this I feel like people are becoming more violent and the campus is becoming more of an unsafe place,” she said. “I have been to several meetings to speak. I’ve been told several times that I’m not allowed to speak because I’m white,” she said.

“This school seems to focus so much on race that it is actually becoming more racist in a different sort of way. And because I say that—because I choose not to focus on race I have actually been labeled a racist and a white supremacist. If anyone took the time to actually know me, it’s not true at all.”

Watch the video by Badger Pundit:

Professor Bret Weinstein, who actually had to be removed from campus at one point due to concerns about his safety, also made a powerful statement. Weinstein framed his testimony by asking the trustees if they were aware how bad the situation really was.

Here’s part of what he said, via My Northwest:

Do you know that the college descended into literal anarchy. For days the campus was not under control of the state, it was under the control of protesters. There were assaults, there were batteries, there was pressure not to report crimes to the police. People were, by the legal definition I believe, kidnapped and imprisoned. That included faculty members and administrators. Others were hunted on the campus.

Lawless bands roamed the campus unimpeded. Police were physically and intentionally blocked by protestors. Police were cruelly, systematically and personally taunted. They were humiliated and forced to stand down by the president. Students that held different opinions were, by the protestors own analysis, stalked, harassed … their names, pictures, addresses, and phone numbers were distributed online …

Do you know that although the code of conduct is supposed to protect all of us, that Dr. Bridges decided to selectively suspend it, giving some students license to threaten others.

Watch the video:

It’s great that the school’s trustees are listening to people in this forum but they probably should have intervened much sooner. The damage to Evergreen’s standing has been done.

Follow Mike LaChance on Twitter @MikeLaChance33.

Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


There was a time when college students learned how to make coherent arguments. But it is so much easier to teach them to make people who disagree with htem to just shut up. Who wants to go to the trouble of having to actually make their case?

Of course, the new rules only apply to one side of the political spectrum.

    Rickhess in reply to topcat69. | July 15, 2017 at 8:10 pm

    Unfortunately that time has passed. It’s time for those of you who want a “Real” education to take over from the horrendous leftists. If it comes to physical violence, so be it. We cannot let the fascists, the leftists, the socialists to run this country, including our centers of higher education.l

IF you make it incandescently lawless, they will leave…

Eventually, the authorities will have to come in and clean house. Anarchy can’t survive once it’s out in the open.

    Whitewall in reply to Ragspierre. | July 14, 2017 at 9:16 am

    “Progressives” rarely look good on camera.

    C. Lashown in reply to Ragspierre. | July 14, 2017 at 9:36 am

    re: “…the authorities will have to come in and clean house. Anarchy can’t survive once it’s out in the open.”

    That’s true only if we assume the authorities themselves are not part of the anarchist movement. These anarchist rioters were only the ‘field troops’ of the socialist progressives – incarcerate one and four will take their place.

      Ragspierre in reply to C. Lashown. | July 14, 2017 at 9:47 am

      This is true only up to a point.

      If the civil society perceives anarchy, eventually you “chunk up” to a level of authority that will come in to deal with it. Otherwise, you invite…warmly…vigilantism to come in and fill the vacuum. Ergo, if the campus cops are ineffective, the next level up will be called on, and so on until it’s dealt with.

      Ragspierre in reply to C. Lashown. | July 14, 2017 at 9:57 am

      “…incarcerate one and four will take their place.”

      No. They really, really will NOT.

      But assume they DO; deal with them as well. Briskly.

        They are snowflakes and exist because of their initial numbers intimidate people. As in Berkeley, they will run when actually confronted. Unfortunately there have been few consequences due to progressive mayors and college administrators. Those conservative with deep pockets need to assist in law suits to show that people’s civil rights have been violated. Some effort needs to be publicly taken before the deplorables, like me, decide we need to do something to up hold the rule of law since law enforcement will not.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 14, 2017 at 10:12 am

        As Glenn Reynolds often observes, “We have laws to protect criminals from the rest of us”.

        Nobody would like us when we’re angry…

        DaveGinOly in reply to Ragspierre. | July 14, 2017 at 3:28 pm

        Agreed. Look at what has happened at Mizzou.

Do you know that the college descended into literal anarchy.

I would say – …the college descended into liberal anarchy.

“I’ve been told several times that I’m not allowed to speak because I’m black,” she said.

Brings the racism into better focus, doesn’t it?

Poor MacKenzie will probably be expelled for offering her racist, white supremacist views…

    Old0311 in reply to HamiltonNJ. | July 14, 2017 at 9:07 am

    That red dress must mean she is a Grand Lizard or some other high klan officer. No doubt her parents are stock holders in International Harvester, the racist company that made black people obsolete.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to HamiltonNJ. | July 14, 2017 at 11:01 am

    I fear for this young ladies safety, you know the death threats will begin soon.

Wrathchilde | July 14, 2017 at 9:27 am

Racism is racism. It makes no distinction as you the affected person’s color, nationality, etc.

You can’t speak because you’re white is functionally the same as no coloreds allowed.

The truth is often a bitter pill to swallow.

    Ragspierre in reply to Wrathchilde. | July 14, 2017 at 9:52 am

    I’ve been amused/bemused for decades by the term “reverse racism”.

    There’s just racism. Just like there’s “pregnant”. There is no “reverse pregnant”.

    Every skin-color person can…and many ARE…grindingly racist haters. It’s never OK, though a lot of people will assure you it is, and a certain skin tone gives you a “king’s X”.

      healthguyfsu in reply to Ragspierre. | July 14, 2017 at 12:05 pm

      I think the term reverse racism or something similar has a place in the dictionary.

      When used, it had been typically been to describe blacks that thought all whites are racist and thus blacks must also adopt a racist position.

      This practice is clearly still happening today in minority communities…thus the term, or something like it, could have a space in the language.

      More generically, ‘reverse’ racism describes a defensive form of racism whereby one assumes, likely in ignorance, that members of another group are all vitriolic racists and thus adopts the opposing position of similar magnitude against that group.

      Of course, this pattern devolves into a downward spiral of lousy discourse and everyone loses. Thus, why the term might prove useful in order to identify and hopefully break the spiral.

      Mannie in reply to Ragspierre. | July 15, 2017 at 9:36 am

      One of the first things I learned in my extensive international travels, is that, not only did we not invent racism, we’re not even very good at it.

      It is an inherent trait of mankind. We are, at heart, tribal animals. We all try to accommodate it in one way or another, by suppressing it, by encouraging it, by pretending it’s not there, but it is always there.

        JoeThePimpernel in reply to Mannie. | July 15, 2017 at 2:45 pm

        One side has decided they have a right to abuse the other, and that the other has no right to respond in kind.
        How long do you think that’s going to last?

The amazing 1969 prophecy that racial preferences would cause the exact grievances of protesters today

“The immediate damage to the standards of Yale Law School needs no elaboration. But beyond this, it seems to me the admission policy adopted by the Law School faculty will serve to perpetuate the very ideas and prejudices it is designed to combat. If in a given class the great majority of the black students are at the bottom of the class, this factor is bound to instill, unconsciously at least, some sense of intellectual superiority among the white students and some sense of intellectual inferiority among the black students. Such a pairing in the same school of the brightest white students in the country with black students of mediocre academic qualifications is social experiment with loaded dice and a stacked deck. The faculty can talk around the clock about disadvantaged background, and it can excuse inferior performance because of poverty, environment, inadequate cultural tradition, lack of educational opportunity, etc. The fact remains that black and white students will be exposed to each other under circumstances in which demonstrated intellectual superiority rests with the whites.

No one can be expected to accept an inferior status willingly. The black students, unable to compete on even terms in the study of law, inevitably will seek other means to achieve recognition and self-expression. This is likely to take two forms. First, agitation to change the environment from one in which they are unable to compete to one in which they can. Demands will be made for elimination of competition, reduction in standards of performance, adoption of courses of study which do not require intensive legal analysis, and recognition for academic credit of sociological activities which have only an indirect relationship to legal training. Second, it seems probable that this group will seek personal satisfaction and public recognition by aggressive conduct, which, although ostensibly directed at external injustices and problems, will in fact be primarily motivated by the psychological needs of the members of the group to overcome feelings of inferiority caused by lack of success in their studies. Since the common denominator of the group of students with lower qualifications is one of race this aggressive expression will undoubtedly take the form of racial demands–the employment of faculty on the basis of race, a marking system based on race, the establishment of a black curriculum and a black law journal, an increase in black financial aid, and a rule against expulsion of black students who fail to satisfy minimum academic standards.”

thalesofmiletus | July 14, 2017 at 10:10 am

Since the 60’s, faculties have sewn the wind, now they reap the whirlwind. No sympathy here.


The logical and actual implications of [class] diversity schemes should be obvious.

… is actually becoming more racist in a different sort of way.

Looks to me like the same old way.

    DaveGinOly in reply to tom swift. | July 14, 2017 at 3:36 pm

    You must excuse her. As a youngster, especially as a youngster being educated at Evergreen, her perspective is limited.

I wait with baited breath for the new admission numbers for Evergreen State’s Fall 2017 class.

Mizzou, frankly, wasn’t nearly as bad and they are suffering the backlash. I saw one top rated high school football prospect vocally “X” it off his list of prospective schools.

Evergreen never had the stature of Mizzou, so I expect bad things. Just looking at the reported numbers from previous years, almost 50% of Freshmen left Evergreen after the 1st year. If those folks just ‘don’t show up’, the school will be history.

    C. Lashown in reply to Neo. | July 14, 2017 at 4:05 pm

    Evergreen has been an educational pesthole for decades, at least since the time of Governor Dixie Lee Ray (1977-81).

      Ragspierre in reply to C. Lashown. | July 14, 2017 at 9:47 pm

      Dr. Ray wrote one of the very best books on enviro-fascism I ever read, and it was a LOOOOOONG time ago.

      “Trashing The Plant”. See if you can find a copy anywhere and get it.

inspectorudy | July 14, 2017 at 2:24 pm

Why would this white snowflake still attend this ridiculous college? Why would her parents agree to pay for the garbage she is being subjected to. Are they not involved with her life? If this were the conscripted military I would be very sympathetic but this by choice. As General Honoree said, “You can’t fix stupid”!