academic freedom Education Intelligent Design Science

Evergreen biology prof Bret Weinstein’s shocking testimony at You Tube:

Spread the love

Here is his report. If his testimony is accurate (and we expect it is), American taxpayers are funding the equivalent of a prison riot:

No wonder Weinstein is suing.

So where are the science organizations that should be supporting him? Communing with their shoes?

Added: Note: Crash course for sci nerds: How political correctness morphed into a monster. Don’t look at me. Look at yourselves. You let this happen.

Take note that the new approach to intellectual freedom does not permit anyone to just mind their own business. Even silence can be violence. Bari Weiss quotes social psychologist Jonathan Haidt at the Wall Street Journal:

“People older than 30 think that ‘violence’ generally involves some sort of physical threat or harm. But as students are using the word today, ‘violence’ is words that have a negative effect on members of the sacred victim groups. And so even silence can be violence.” It follows that if offensive speech is “violence,” then actual violence can be a form of self-defence.”

Indeed, self-defense is often the precise justification for the riots: self-defense against a perceived threatening atmosphere.

The student censors and rioters are generally at peace with themselves, as befits those who follow faithfully in their teachers’ footsteps. More.

Either do something or suck it up. Don’t think you will live in peace if no one else does.

Like we have been saying for some time, the guns are facing the wrong way. The enemy isn’t people who seek learned disputes about the nature of life, the universe, or reality. It is roaming thugs, educated chock full of ignorant grievance and self-importance and – more important – the profs who egg them on. And they now control at least one system in which a scientist hopes to work. If they win, they’ll soon control a lot more systems.

See also: Academic freedom: Evergreen biologist files suit


Nature: Stuck with a battle it dare not fight, even for the soul of science. Excuse me guys but, as in so many looming strategic disasters, the guns are facing the wrong way.

16 Replies to “Evergreen biology prof Bret Weinstein’s shocking testimony at You Tube:

  1. 1
    ET says:

    I can’t wait for those protestors to graduate and become part of the working class. /sarcasm

  2. 2
    News says:

    ET at 1: What class? You’d be much better off hoping that machines can do it all. At least the machines probably won’t attack you.

  3. 3
    ET says:

    They will make great US Postal Service-people

  4. 4

    I have found that most a/mats – the leftist types, anyway – have very little understanding of history. They seriously believe in a utopic future if only they could be in control and rid the world of opposing views, especially religion. Even a cursory review of history reveals otherwise. Oh well, they will have to learn the hard way.

  5. 5
    News says:

    Truth Will Set You Free at 4, I don’t mind the a/mats learning the hard way. But students come to a college in good faith, thinking they will get an education that helps them, maybe even in STEM (= real jobs) vs. govt. make-work (= soc sci). Then the ongoing post-modern progressive meltdown hits the prof – and everybody they could turn to seems to be communing with their shoes. That’s not right.

  6. 6
    Seversky says:

    Truth Will Set You Free @ 4

    I have found that most a/mats – the leftist types, anyway – have very little understanding of history. They seriously believe in a utopic future if only they could be in control and rid the world of opposing views, especially religion. Even a cursory review of history reveals otherwise. Oh well, they will have to learn the hard way

    I have found that most Christian types, particularly of the more evangelical bent, seem to have little understanding of what the historical events recounted in the Old Testament actually show.

    Speaking as an a/mat I have no expectation of some utopian future, certainly not in the near-term and especially not if power is vested in one group, whether religious or secular. It eventually aggregates around a few individuals and becomes just one more data-point in support of the principle that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Also, we have no hope of anything better in some afterlife since we don’t believe in one. We could be taken out by the impact of a comet or asteroid just as easily as the dinosaurs and there would be no God to save us.

  7. 7
    ET says:

    If the dinosaurs got taken out by an impact from a comet or asteroid we would find fossils of dinosaurs in and above the KT boundary and yet we don’t. So much for that hypothesis.

    Atheistic materialists don’t have an explanation for anything- the universe, our solar system and life on earth. All you have is faith- blind and ignorant faith at that.

  8. 8
    rvb8 says:


    I did a simple Wiki check on this KT Boundary.

    Perhaps you should read it too?

  9. 9
    News says:

    Really, people, this is not about the dinosaurs. They had different problems from ours.

    This is about the universities sinking into tribal politics and the silence of so many institutions in the face of the decline.

    At one time, the university was where we went in order to get away from tribalism (and its attendant grievance-entitlement approach to history).

    Tribalism empowers and enriches the tribal elders but for the average tribe member, it is a serious obstacle to human development. That’s because all of our virtues come from being members of the tribe and all of our shortcomings are someone else’s fault. So we feel good about doing poorly.

    Is there an institution better suited to development and discussion of ideas than a university? I hope so because we are going to need it.

    Alternatively, it would be more practical to just take back the institutions that were developed for the purpose of universality. And tell those who want something else that they are free to go somewhere else.

  10. 10
    john_a_designer says:

    Apparently those on the secular progressive left define tolerance as being able to tolerate everyone except those people with whom you disagree. However, that is exactly opposite of the way tolerance has been historically or “classically” defined. But if you are a moral and epistemological relativist you can define terms any way you want, even if they don’t make any sense at all.

  11. 11
    RodW says:

    On a positive note Weinstein is suing the crap out of Evergreen state. I’m tempted to say I hope they go bankrupt but then mostly innocent students would be hurt.

  12. 12
    News says:

    RodW: A few cases of exemplary damages might indeed propel these problems to the top of the ‘crats’ In Trays. With any luck, they will see that their interests lie in calling off the war on the life of the mind.

    Let’s be quite clear about this. They started it. Weinstein didn’t.

    How be this: If they started the war, the rest of us will finish it.

  13. 13
    john_a_designer says:

    Following up from my comment above, here’s a pertinent quote by Charles Murray, from an article by Denyse O’Leary of “News,” which illustrates the way the meaning of the term tolerance has shifted.
    “The German-born Herbert Marcuse was a brilliant and controversial philosopher whose writing became almost a sacred text for new-left intellectuals of the 1960s and 1970s. Nowadays, his best-known work is the essay “Repressive Tolerance.” There he sets out the argument that the downshouters are putting into practice.

    For Marcuse, the fact that liberal democracies made tolerance an absolute virtue posed a problem. If society includes two groups, one powerful and one weak, then tolerating the ideas of both will mean that the voice and influence of the strong will always be greater. To treat the arguments of both sides with equal respect “mainly serves the protection and preservation of a repressive society.” That is why, for Marcuse, tolerance is antithetical to genuine democracy and thus “repressive.” … That is why tolerance, unless it discriminates, will always be repressive.

    Marcuse is quite clear that the academy must also swallow the tough medicine he prescribes: “Here, too, in the education of those who are not yet maturely integrated, in the mind of the young, the ground for liberating tolerance is still to be created.” Today’s campus downshouters, whether they have read Marcuse or not, have plainly undertaken his project.”

    However, it appears that the vast majority of activists on the secular-progressive left continue to use the term “tolerant” even though it has lost all its meaning. If tolerance does not mean respecting the rights of those you disagree with ideologically, does it really mean anything? Apparently for the left, which fond of redefining words so they are “politically correct”, it still has some propaganda value– some dishonest, disingenuous propaganda value. Of course if they were honest they would have to describe themselves as intolerant. But apparently, emotively (which from their POV is all that is important) that doesn’t come across quite right.

  14. 14
    drc466 says:

    As an FYI, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro provided testimony in front of Congress discussing the exact “silence is violence” leftist justification for shutting down free speech, that News references above (easily found at multiple sites by Googling). Worth a look if you’ve interest, IMHO.

  15. 15
    RodW says:


    I’d like the think that “we” could do something about it but at the time the campus seemed completely isolated from the outside world.

  16. 16
    jstanley01 says:

    Prof Jordan B. Peterson of the University of Toronto on how the higher education scam is starting to implode:

    There’s a couple of problems with the degrees. Everyone has one, that’s the first one… The second is that the match between the degree and the workplace has become less and less self-evident… And employers are waking up to this very rapidly. They already know that for most complex positions, they have to train their people. Now they’re thinking, ‘Why do I have to bother with the degree if it isn’t bringing anything of value?'”

Leave a Reply