Evergreen University Students have hissy fit when professor refuse to play along

[repoman]

This professor is pretty cool. Towards the end of the interview he called Hitler rational. Damn straight.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This professor is pretty cool. Towards the end of the interview he called Hitler rational. Damn straight.

Where did he say this. He also says that he is a Bernie Sanders supporter (I must admit I didn't note where this occurs). I only saw the short interviews for him.

However I found this here

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/when-the-left-turns-on-its-own.html?_r=0
When the Left Turns on Its Own
Bret Weinstein is a biology professor at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., who supported Bernie Sanders, admiringly retweets Glenn Greenwald and was an outspoken supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

And further (his side of the dispute)

You could be forgiven for thinking that Mr. Weinstein, who identifies himself as “deeply progressive,” is just the kind of teacher that students at one of the most left-wing colleges in the country would admire. Instead, he has become a victim of an increasingly widespread campaign by leftist students against anyone who dares challenge ideological orthodoxy on campus.

This professor’s crime? He had the gall to challenge a day of racial segregation.

A bit of background: The “Day of Absence” is an Evergreen tradition that stretches back to the 1970s. As Mr. Weinstein explained on Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, “in previous years students and faculty of color organized a day on which they met off campus — a symbolic act based on the Douglas Turner Ward play in which all the black residents of a Southern town fail to show up one morning.” This year, the script was flipped: “White students, staff and faculty will be invited to leave campus for the day’s activities,” reported the student newspaper on the change.

The decision was made after students of color “voiced concern over feeling as if they are unwelcome on campus, following the 2016 election.”

Mr. Weinstein thought this was wrong. The biology professor said as much in a letter to Rashida Love, the school’s Director of First Peoples Multicultural Advising Services.

“There is a huge difference between a group or coalition deciding to voluntarily absent themselves from a shared space in order to highlight their vital and under-appreciated roles,” he wrote, “and a group or coalition encouraging another group to go away.”

The first instance, he argued, “is a forceful call to consciousness.” The second “is a show of force, and an act of oppression in and of itself.” In other words, what purported to be a request for white students and professors to leave campus was something more than that. It was an act of moral bullying — to stay on campus as a white person would mean to be tarred as a racist.

 

[laughing dog]

That interview is way too long to watch. If Weinstein really called Hitler "rational", then there may just be a larger backstory to this situation than just some "hissy fit" over his refusal to play along with stay away from campus day.

 

[Starr]

That interview is way too long to watch. If Weinstein really called Hitler "rational", then there may just be a larger backstory to this situation than just some "hissy fit" over his refusal to play along with stay away from campus day.

Given his name is Weinstein, you might want to seriously consider that even if he did say "Hitler was rational" at some point in the interview, you are already missing whatever context that was said in. Such context, from a Jew, is probably not approving of Hitler....

Of course you are correct that it is too long to watch, so I can't tell you if he actually said that, or what the context was either.

 

[Starr]

That interview is way too long to watch. If Weinstein really called Hitler "rational", then there may just be a larger backstory to this situation than just some "hissy fit" over his refusal to play along with stay away from campus day.

Given his name is Weinstein, you might want to seriously consider that even if he did say "Hitler was rational" at some point in the interview, you are already missing whatever context that was said in. Such context, from a Jew, is probably not approving of Hitler....

Of course you are correct that it is too long to watch, so I can't tell you if he actually said that, or what the context was either.

Since when can't you edit posts here?

Anyway, I actually went ahead and listened to the portion of the podcast mentioned. Here is the context: He is talking about a paper he wrote as an undergrad about the Holocaust. At the time it was pretty common for people to believe that Hitler was insane. His paper was about how Hitler wasn't insane. Hitler was a monster, but a rational monster.

Honestly, I don't agree with his reasoning, as it reeks of group selectionist thinking. Basically the argument goes that Hitler's behavior in enacting the Holocaust was very rational if the goal was to maximize the spread of German genes (after all you are removing competition from other groups).

But regardless of whether his argument was good or bad, it was certainly not expressing anything but disdain for Hitler. If you want to hear it in his own words, just go to timestamp 1:29:35 in the video.

 

[untermensche]

Honestly, I don't agree with his reasoning, as it reeks of group selectionist thinking. Basically the argument goes that Hitler's behavior in enacting the Holocaust was very rational if the goal was to maximize the spread of German genes (after all you are removing competition from other groups).

But regardless of whether his argument was good or bad, it was certainly not expressing anything but disdain for Hitler. If you want to hear it in his own words, just go to timestamp 1:29:35 in the video.

Hitler's plan was not much different than the plan the US had to take over the West.

Hitler had a lot more people to deal with, that's all.

 

[repoman]

Yep

 

[fast]

Honestly, I don't agree with his reasoning, as it reeks of group selectionist thinking.

What does that mean?

 

[Starr]

Honestly, I don't agree with his reasoning, as it reeks of group selectionist thinking.

What does that mean?

Group selection is the idea that natural selection doesn't (just) act upon individuals, but groups. Basically if you ever hear someone make an argument that some trait evolved "for the good of the species", you are talking to a group selectionist.

Perhaps I made it sound like it is unscientific claptrap by saying it "reeked" of it. It isn't, it just happens to be a view of the mechanisms of evolution that I strongly disagree with.

 

[repoman]

What does that mean?

Group selection is the idea that natural selection doesn't (just) act upon individuals, but groups. Basically if you ever hear someone make an argument that some trait evolved "for the good of the species", you are talking to a group selectionist.

Perhaps I made it sound like it is unscientific claptrap by saying it "reeked" of it. It isn't, it just happens to be a view of the mechanisms of evolution that I strongly disagree with.

Any of our human/hominid/chimpanzee-like ancestors that participated in group slaughter had a reproductive advantage. Most of the time the groups killing other groups were very small by modern standards - less than 80 individuals each.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Group selection is the idea that natural selection doesn't (just) act upon individuals, but groups. Basically if you ever hear someone make an argument that some trait evolved "for the good of the species", you are talking to a group selectionist.

Perhaps I made it sound like it is unscientific claptrap by saying it "reeked" of it. It isn't, it just happens to be a view of the mechanisms of evolution that I strongly disagree with.

Any of our human/hominid/chimpanzee-like ancestors that participated in group slaughter had a reproductive advantage. Most of the time the groups killing other groups were very small by modern standards - less than 80 individuals each.

Our nearest relative also acts like us.

 

[repoman]

A live feed

 

[dismal]

So, just a bit of an update on how things are working out at old Evergreen State:

Plummeting enrollment prompts $6M budget cut at Evergreen State

Evergreen State College has announced that it is planning to cut $5.9 million from its budget in an effort to offset a rapidly declining enrollment rate.

The cuts were outlined by President George Bridges in a May 8 memo to the Board of Trustees, and are accompanied by plans to raise various student fees by hundreds of dollars, The Olympian reported last week.

"The most likely explanation, indeed, the only viable explanation to my mind, is that the impact of last year's events are playing out in the enrollment numbers."

The announcement comes nearly a year after the college was rattled by riots following former professor Bret Weinstein’s decision to question the school’s “day of absence,” which involved asking white students to leave the grounds for a day of off-campus programming while students of color participated in on-campus workshops.

...

According to a report released by an “Independent External Review Panel” in April, the college is expecting a decline in applications for the Fall 2018 semester of up to 20 percent, compounding the 4.5 percent decrease in Fall 2017, compared to Fall 2016.

“Further declines in applications (possibly by as much as 20%) and enrollments are expected for the Fall of 2018 based on current year-to-year data,” the report noted. “This condition, and the revenue shortfall it will create, will present Evergreen with significant financial challenges that will not be short-lived.”

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10910

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So, just a bit of an update on how things are working out at old Evergreen State:

Plummeting enrollment prompts $6M budget cut at Evergreen State

Evergreen State College has announced that it is planning to cut $5.9 million from its budget in an effort to offset a rapidly declining enrollment rate.

The cuts were outlined by President George Bridges in a May 8 memo to the Board of Trustees, and are accompanied by plans to raise various student fees by hundreds of dollars, The Olympian reported last week.

"The most likely explanation, indeed, the only viable explanation to my mind, is that the impact of last year's events are playing out in the enrollment numbers."

The announcement comes nearly a year after the college was rattled by riots following former professor Bret Weinstein’s decision to question the school’s “day of absence,” which involved asking white students to leave the grounds for a day of off-campus programming while students of color participated in on-campus workshops.

...

According to a report released by an “Independent External Review Panel” in April, the college is expecting a decline in applications for the Fall 2018 semester of up to 20 percent, compounding the 4.5 percent decrease in Fall 2017, compared to Fall 2016.

“Further declines in applications (possibly by as much as 20%) and enrollments are expected for the Fall of 2018 based on current year-to-year data,” the report noted. “This condition, and the revenue shortfall it will create, will present Evergreen with significant financial challenges that will not be short-lived.”

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10910

Score for Heterodox Academy? https://heterodoxacademy.org/

Jon Haidt is awesome.

 

[steve_bank]

Old news up here. From local reporting, an extreme progressive school, anti free market capitalism

Political Correctness and suppression of general free speech in the extreme.

 

[dismal]

Old news up here. From local reporting, an extreme progressive school, anti free market capitalism

Political Correctness and suppression of general free speech in the extreme.

Well, perhaps if they'd studied markets a little more they'd have learned that bad things happen when you alienate the people you depend on for revenue.