House Committee: Hearing on Free Speech - IDW Member, Bret Weinstein, Testifies

and of course, there is another side to the Evergreen story that is far less incendiary.  

The Real Free Speech Story at Evergreen


terp said:

Has anyone cracked down on political enemies like Obama's IRS?

 Just going to let that one sit there, right?


ml1 said:
and of course, there is another side to the Evergreen story that is far less incendiary.  
The Real Free Speech Story at Evergreen

 That article is very questionable.  I think I first learned of this event when I heard Brett Weinstein on Joe Rogan's podcast.  Rogan asked him about this.  Weinstein said that he went to CNN, MSNBC, etc and nobody wanted to talk to him.  So, he ended up on the Tucker Carlson show because well Tucker was willing to speak to him.  This is a recurring theme BTW.  It seems that many on the left do not want people they disagree with to even have a platform.  The Bari Weiss IDW article in the NY Times criticizes Rogan and Dave Rubin for not having "gatekeepers".  

Furthermore, the reason that Weinstein was freaked out was the Sheriff told him not to go to campus because she could not protect him.  In the interview, he stated that he was told students were stopping cars arriving campus to see if he was there.  He held class off campus and I believe 20 of his students attended there.

That is a very slanted article that tries to take the view away from the intimidating tactics the students used.  

 


ml1 said:
if the NYT was going to bury that story they would not have printed anything about it.  At this point there's actually a pretty strong argument that the Evergreen story has received far more ongoing coverage than it warrants.

 My understanding is that is incorrect.  The Opinion page is run separately and has their own discretion on what to print.  Eric Weintein(Brett's Brother) has made the point that the NY Times front page is perhaps the most powerful Op Ed page in the world.  The featured stories there are the ones that are read or at least have their headlines seen. 


DaveSchmidt said:


terp said:

Has anyone cracked down on political enemies like Obama's IRS?
However one chooses to describe it, the keyword-flagging program dated to 2004. The answer is, yes, Bush’s IRS.

 Amazing they were able to complete that report what with all the IRS hard drive issues ;-)  


terp said:


ml1 said:
and of course, there is another side to the Evergreen story that is far less incendiary.  
The Real Free Speech Story at Evergreen
 That article is very questionable.  I think I first learned of this event when I heard Brett Weinstein on Joe Rogan's podcast.  Rogan asked him about this.  Weinstein said that he went to CNN, MSNBC, etc and nobody wanted to talk to him.  So, he ended up on the Tucker Carlson show because well Tucker was willing to speak to him.  This is a recurring theme BTW.  It seems that many on the left do not want people they disagree with to even have a platform.  The Bari Weiss IDW article in the NY Times criticizes Rogan and Dave Rubin for not having "gatekeepers".  
Furthermore, the reason that Weinstein was freaked out was the Sheriff told him not to go to campus because she could not protect him.  In the interview, he stated that he was told students were stopping cars arriving campus to see if he was there.  He held class off campus and I believe 20 of his students attended there.
That is a very slanted article that tries to take the view away from the intimidating tactics the students used.  
 

there was another side of the story put out last year as well.  A lot of the stuff in these articles is objective fact about timelines and other information that has been reported incorrectly.  and some of those facts change the narrative to varying degrees. 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/evergreen-state-college-another-side_us_598cd293e4b090964295e8fc



ml1 said:
and of course, there is another side to the Evergreen story that is far less incendiary.  
The Real Free Speech Story at Evergreen

 The story that you have linked to is a smear (where Brett Weinstein ("BW") is accused of being a racist).  Please read BW's letter to Rashida Love, TESC Diversity Officer (I believe) regarding the proposed 2017 Day of Absence.  See http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1259154-evergreen-state-college-racism-protests

After reading BW's email letter (see link above) and thenplease let all of us know whether you believe BW's objections are of a nature that would lead you to describe BW as a racist.


that article does not call Weinstein a racist 


terp said:


ml1 said:
and of course, there is another side to the Evergreen story that is far less incendiary.  
The Real Free Speech Story at Evergreen
..
That is a very slanted article that tries to take the view away from the intimidating tactics the students used.  
 

 And you know this because you were an eyewitness to the events right?

See, this is your problem - you read an article that is extremely detailed and dispositive, and you just assume it's slanted because it doesn't agree with what you want.



A video of one of the initial exchanges between Evergreen students and Weinstein after he sent the aforementioned email.  No doubt, there are other videos out there somewhere so I make no claim that this one tells the entire story.


From the Walters article terp excerpted (way?) above:  "Women are supposed to support, not condemn, offer succor not dismissal."

Oh cripes, i'm REALLY behind the times.  I thought this was supposed to be everyone's goal.  who knew.


ml1 said:


drummerboy said:
oy. again?
 yes. they need to keep bringing up the same 4 or 5 incidents to make this seem like a "crisis."

 This thread has been going on for a week, and the same incident is still being used as the main argument.  Proving Mr. Ml1's point.


nohero said:


ml1 said:

drummerboy said:
oy. again?
 yes. they need to keep bringing up the same 4 or 5 incidents to make this seem like a "crisis."
 This thread has been going on for a week, and the same incident is still being used as the main argument.  Proving Mr. Ml1's point.

 The point of the thread is focus on The Evergreen State College incidents of 2017.  The fact we aree still discussing this one incident proves that there are many facets to this incident.  In many of these types of incidents, the victims are cowed into silence (hence, there is no free speech to be violated - instead free expression is self censored by many of those with children, mortgages, and other responsibilities).


Have you read Bret Weinstein's email to Rashida Love regarding his objections to the proposal to reformulate the "Day of Absence"?  BW email link:http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/article153826039.html


Here is a link to campus free speech incidents:  http://freespeechproject.georgetown.domains/


IMHO, ml1 is disingenuous regarding numbers and percentages.  When I previously pointed out that Jonathan Haidt (a NYU psychology prof) believes that there are serious campus free speech issues, ml1 responded (not verbatim) that Haidt was only one professor.  When I pointed out that Haidt has established the Heterodox Academy (which specifically deals with campus free speech issues) and has over 1000 academic members (such as professors and doctoral students).  ml1's retort (not verbatim) is how many are full professors?  Next, ml1 argument was something along the lines of (not verbatim) out of millions of college students and thousands of academics seems like very few incidents.  If similar analysis was employed to compare number of firearms to the number of mass shootings then most would be outraged.  For these reasons, I continue believe that there are serious issues regarding campus free speech.

PS In the the USSR, Stalin worked his horrors by forcing individuals to denounce others in order to show loyalty and save themselves.  Similarly, Bret Weinstein was denounced for a fairly innocuous email regarding objections to changing the format of the Day of Absence.  Such denunciations (without basis in fact) are a cancer and go hand-in-hand with limiting free speech.


RealityForAll said:
PS In the the USSR, Stalin worked his horrors by forcing individuals to denounce others in order to show loyalty and save themselves.  Similarly, Bret Weinstein was denounced for a fairly innocuous email regarding objections to changing the format of the Day of Absence.  Such denunciations (without basis in fact) are a cancer and go hand-in-hand with limiting free speech.

 Great work, comrade.


dave23 said:


RealityForAll said:
PS In the the USSR, Stalin worked his horrors by forcing individuals to denounce others in order to show loyalty and save themselves.  Similarly, Bret Weinstein was denounced for a fairly innocuous email regarding objections to changing the format of the Day of Absence.  Such denunciations (without basis in fact) are a cancer and go hand-in-hand with limiting free speech.
 Great work, comrade.

 

Hao gongzuo de tongzhi.


Khoroshiy tovarishch po rabote.


Bon travail camarade.


actually the Seattle Times article makes it clear that Weinstein was being denounced for more than one email. He was known as a staunch opponent of diversity initiatives before that email (something he admits). That's his right. But at a college with issues around diversity, in a town with strife between police and minorities, that's going to meet a lot of opposition. And it's not opposition to his speech. It's opposition to his actions. 

And there hasn't been anything disingenuous in my replies. They have been very straightforward. If anything it's the professor who has been consistently disingenuous about why he has been opposed by the students   


Also, I think you may want to reconsider the use of the word "disingenuous." I'm not sure it means what you think it means. 


RealityForAll said:
IMHO, ml1 is disingenuous regarding numbers and percentages.  

 

ml1 said:
Also, I think you may want to reconsider the use of the word "disingenuous." I'm not sure it means what you think it means. 

I think he knows what it means.  He just can't explain that his allegation is correct.


the numbers are what they are. They are miniscule in the big picture. It's up to those who think it's a real problem to explain why a few dozen incidents in our great big country represent a trend. And I have yet to see anyone cite real data that indicates there is a growing free speech impingement on our college campuses. No one had evidence of how big it is, but more importantly no evidence that it is getting any worse.  For all we know, despite these incidents, speech on campus may well be freer than it has been in generations past. 

It's a cliché but it needs to be repeated. Anecdotes do not equal data. 


     Yes, Evergreen was but one of a handful of cases in higher education concerning Free Speech.  Does that make it meaningless?   Not to me.

     Numbers and statistics are an interesting phenomenon.  I don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that if told about something which occurs approximately .00004% of the time, many of us might take the position that something so rare hardly rises to being a "crisis"...is it even worthy of our concern?  Yet, that is the approximate percent of arrests (nation wide) that resulted in the killing of an African-American by police in 2016. Of course, that doesn't address other forms of differential or discriminatory treatment by police that many of us believe occur.  Surely, individual cases such as that of Philandro Castile, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray, or Walter Scott should not be dismissed simply because they are among a few incidents which, even collectively, may constitute little more than a statistical blip.  We need to study these tragic situations, learn from them, and  use what is learned to make a difference.  

     I certainly don't consider the Evergreen case to be de facto proof of a speech crisis in higher education any more than does the killing of a single African-America constitute definitive proof of nation-wide police bias and racism.  But, these cases might be reflective of either and for that reason,we need to acknowledge and examine those cases to learn if they are harbingers of something more endemic as many believe to be the case.  So too, do we need to look at incidents such as that at Evergreen.   Does it reflect - or not - something that is happening in higher education on a national level?  Might that be compromised speech or might that be racism...or both?   Just my point of view....


Norman_Bates said:
     Yes, Evergreen was but one of a handful of cases in higher education concerning Free Speech.  Does that make it meaningless?   Not to me.
     Numbers and statistics are an interesting phenomenon.  I don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that if told about something which occurs approximately .00004% of the time, many of us might take the position that something so rare hardly rises to being a "crisis"...is it even worthy of our concern?  Yet, that is the approximate percent of arrests (nation wide) that resulted in the killing of an African-American by police in 2016. Of course, that doesn't address other forms of differential or discriminatory treatment by police that many of us believe occur.  Surely, individual cases such as that of Philandro Castile, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray, or Walter Scott should not be dismissed simply because they are among a few incidents which, even collectively, may constitute little more than a statistical blip.  We need to study these tragic situations, learn from them, and  use what is learned to make a difference.  
     I certainly don't consider the Evergreen case to be de facto proof of a speech crisis in higher education any more than does the killing of a single African-America constitute definitive proof of nation-wide police bias and racism.  But, these cases might be reflective of either and for that reason,we need to acknowledge and examine those cases to learn if they are harbingers of something more endemic as many believe to be the case.  So too, do we need to look at incidents such as that at Evergreen.   Does it reflect - or not - something that is happening in higher education on a national level?  Might that be compromised speech or might that be racism...or both?   Just my point of view....

 seems to me that is a very cherry picked metric. Many people killed are done so before an official arrest is even recorded.


drummerboy said:

 seems to me that is a very cherry picked metric. Many people killed are done so before an official arrest is even recorded.


 Agreed. And incorporating those non-arrests into the equation actually would increase the overall number of police contacts and, thus, statistically lower the percentage of killings resulting from interactions.  But...that really isn’t the central point of the metaphor. Whether it’s 5, 10, or 15 cases may be insignificant statistically but those cases each have importance and may reflect underlying dynamics that need to be examined.  Similarly, is Evergreen a “blip” or a canary in the coal mine?  Worth discussing to better understand. That’s all I am suggesting and I believe others may agree.


Norman_Bates said:
Similarly, is Evergreen a “blip” or a canary in the coal mine?  Worth discussing to better understand. That’s all I am suggesting and I believe others may agree.

Like the PEN America report, and maybe like you, I see it as a cause for awareness and vigilance, but not a call for national action or furor.

Speaking of my favorite report ...

RealityForAll said:
Have you read Bret Weinstein's email to Rashida Love regarding his objections to the proposal to reformulate the "Day of Absence"? 

I have, and everything else you’ve linked to. Any thoughts about what PEN America had to say?


DaveSchmidt said:

Norman_Bates said:
Similarly, is Evergreen a “blip” or a canary in the coal mine?  Worth discussing to better understand. That’s all I am suggesting and I believe others may agree.
Like the PEN America report, and maybe like you, I see it as a cause for awareness and vigilance, but not a call for national action or furor.

That's where I stand on this too. These incidents shouldn't be ignored. They also don't warrant ten op-eds each, telling us that this is now emblematic of the entire "left" within academia either. 

 


ml1 said:


DaveSchmidt said:

Norman_Bates said:
Similarly, is Evergreen a “blip” or a canary in the coal mine?  Worth discussing to better understand. That’s all I am suggesting and I believe others may agree.
Like the PEN America report, and maybe like you, I see it as a cause for awareness and vigilance, but not a call for national action or furor.
That's where I stand on this too. These incidents shouldn't be ignored. They also don't warrant ten op-eds each, telling us that this is now emblematic of the entire "left" within academia either. 

I am there with you.  I suppose we all are susceptible to the temptation to exaggerate the significance of something that fits our point of view or to downplay or pronounce as an anomaly something that doesn’t.


Norman_Bates said:
Numbers and statistics are an interesting phenomenon.  I don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that if told about something which occurs approximately .00004% of the time, many of us might take the position that something so rare hardly rises to being a "crisis"...is it even worthy of our concern?  Yet, that is the approximate percent of arrests (nation wide) that resulted in the killing of an African-American by police in 2016. Of course, that doesn't address other forms of differential or discriminatory treatment by police that many of us believe occur.  

An event that occurs .00004% of the time that ends in murder is, (to me, anyway) more significant than an event that occurs .00004% of the time that ends in rude behavior toward a professor. I think 99.9% of the population would feel this way and few people with an IQ higher than a turtle's wouldn't dismiss something based on a random, meaningless percentage.

Call me a relativist, I guess. 


dave23 said:


Norman_Bates said:
Numbers and statistics are an interesting phenomenon.  I don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that if told about something which occurs approximately .00004% of the time, many of us might take the position that something so rare hardly rises to being a "crisis"...is it even worthy of our concern?  Yet, that is the approximate percent of arrests (nation wide) that resulted in the killing of an African-American by police in 2016. Of course, that doesn't address other forms of differential or discriminatory treatment by police that many of us believe occur.  
An event that occurs .00004% of the time that ends in murder is, (to me, anyway) more significant than an event that occurs .00004% of the time that ends in rude behavior toward a professor. I think 99.9% of the population would feel this way and few people with an IQ higher than a turtle's wouldn't dismiss something based on a random, meaningless percentage.
Call me a relativist, I guess. 

 Totally agree.  Mere numbers are not de facto proof of importance or insignificance.


DaveSchmidt said:

RealityForAll said:
Have you read Bret Weinstein's email to Rashida Love regarding his objections to the proposal to reformulate the "Day of Absence"? 
I have, and everything else you’ve linked to. Any thoughts about what PEN America had to say?

Fair enough. The link to the Vox article stands as your response. (Not for nothing, but if that article were a Zagat review of the PEN America report, it’d read: An “impressively thorough” study that, while it “exhaustively details dozens of cases,” also “shows a great deal of sympathy for the concerns of minority groups” and adds “further nuance,” despite critics who “would be missing the point.” It presents an argument that “cannot be made enough,” written by a group that “rightly draws the line.”)


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.