Bret Weinstein, a biology professor at Evergreen State College, is no racist. Not only is he not a racist, but he is clearly a believer in social justice. Just not quite enough to be on the cutting edge. For that, he is now in fear for his safety.
“I have been told by the Chief of Police it’s not safe for me to be on campus,” said Weinstein, who held his Thursday class in a downtown Olympia park.
An administrator confirmed the police department advised Weinstein it “might be best to stay off campus for a day or so.”
What did he do to deserve such hatred? He objected to racism, but not enough.
The fury was particularly generated by this line:
On a college campus, one’s right to speak—or to be—must never be based on skin color.
If one was to read that line as defending the rights of student of color to speak, and to be, on a college campus, this might be unobjectionable. But that’s not how it was interpreted, given the context of the planned protest. Rather, it was the call for the exclusion of white students and faculty from campus as proof of their dedication to ending racism by ceding the campus to students of color.
There is no challenge, no question, no position that can be asserted that sufficiently embraces the latest craze of social justice. And so, social justice continues to spiral out of control, devouring its own when they aren’t SJW-y enough. Heretics cannot be tolerated.
The students of Evergreen State College have demanded Weinstein’s head, or some other part of the biology prof’s anatomy, on a platter. He must be fired. He must be harmed. He must be burned at the stake for being so racist.
His heresy, ironically, was that he distinguished between protest that would serve to enhance the value of minority students to the campus community as opposed to devaluing non-minority students.
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 … and a group or coalition encouraging another group to go away.
Is this a fair critique, a sound distinction? It doesn’t matter. One isn’t permitted to question Rashida Love’s methods. After all, Love is the director of the First Peoples Multicultural Advising Services, and Weinstein is merely a professor of biology. What right does he have to erase her lived experiences?
Confronted by the mob of students, Weinstein sought to engage in reason, for which he was repaid with the virtues of social justice.
“I do not believe that anybody on our faculty, with intent, specially targets students of color,” he replied—sparking shrieking outrage from the student protesters.
The professor tried to reason with the students, claiming discussion can bring positive change. “Listen to me … Yes, I know, history could pivot in the direction of the values that you are standing here for,” prompting a student to interrupt him, saying “Yeah, resign.”
“I’m not resigning,” the professor fired back.
As his brother, who twitted about this incident, noted, “the Left eats its own.” The notion of racial equality isn’t the issue, but the orthodoxy of the methods of achieving it has morphed into insufferable authoritarianism. It sailed past the concept of equality into the concept of racial favoritism, and it did so with the help of duly woke academics like Weinstein, for whom the bastardized Herzberg theory would likely represent horrifying and exhausting racism.
Now, Weinstein might be more open to seeing the error of his ways, as there is no line to be drawn, no limit to be allowed, to the downward spiral of social justice correctness. The problem with jumping blindly into an emotional vortex is that there is no way to get out.
While one might well appreciate that Bret Weinstein will not succumb to the infantile insanity of the SJWs he helped to empower, the question now is whether he can continue to fulfill his function as pedagogue when the students despise him as not sufficiently unracist. He may be brilliant in teaching bio, and be otherwise as good and obedient an ally to the cause as any other prof, but after the angry hordes march upon the ivory tower with torches lit, is there any going back?
It’s regrettable that this happened to Weinstein, whose only crime was to question the efficacy of a scheme to exclude white students from campus (and, of course, any student who failed to voluntarily absent himself from campus would immediately be branded a white supremacist). But the question remains whether Weinstein, or any professor who supported the methods of social justice, regrets their participation in a downward spiral doomed to authoritarianism, not to mention eating its own?