T Nation

I Hope my Kids have Professors Like This: Freedom and Dissent

Oh, there’s no way I’d allow a child to apply to Evergreen State. Straight up nuts. If you haven’t seen any of the footage of the faculty and administration there, it’s chilling to watch. I’m not talking about the students.

Brief article below for people following who don’t know about some of the more recent events.

At this point, I wouldn’t pay undergrad tuition at Berkeley either. As it is, we have a kid at one of the more illiberal schools. It’s been wonderful on some levels (small classes, mentors, friends), but not so good in terms of political climate and tolerance. If we were doing it over again, we’d encourage a different school. Honestly.

There are lots of choices, and factors that go into buying an education. In no special order, but I’m thinking of class size, quality of faculty, potential for mentor relationships, quality of program for your major, reputation of school as a whole, social networks and employment for grads, social and cultural factors, peers, student life, cost $$$…). About reputation of the school, we sometimes wonder if this will begin to work in reverse, as in “we don’t want to hire graduates from that school because they are more likely to be caught up in the authoritarian and illiberal aspects of the SJW movement.” Most companies aren’t looking for workers who can organize a protest or find things to complain about or sue over. If conservatives get a bad taste in their mouth when they hear the names of some of these schools, they may choose to recruit elsewhere.

When I see The Onion doing this kind of thing, I’m really encouraged.

1 Like

You are a noble soul, sir. Saving any mind from that circus is a profoundly good deed.

1 Like

How attending a Poetry Slam at Swathmore really changed this Trump Supporter’s views. @SkyzykS, do you know this guy? I think he’s from your neck of the woods. :wink:

3 Likes

I’m still laughing, but when I stop I’ll respond properly.

1 Like

I wanted to answer that, without getting super political in the Off Topic section.

First wave. Think end of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Elizabeth Stanton, Sojourner Truth. Women’s suffrage. Basic rights of equality for women. Some of the earlier writers like philosopher John Stuart Mill (who I love), and Jane Austen (who I love) set the stage, but there were many earlier influences.

Second wave. Think 1960s to 1990s.
The era of the Equal Rights Amendment. National Organization for Women formed. Protests of the Miss America Pageant as promoting objectification of women. Abortion rights and the Pill give women more control over reproduction. Expansion of dual income families. Focus on pay male and female pay gaps. Some of this wave got tied into, or sometimes eclipsed by all the other things going on in our country during that time, including the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War.

Third Wave. Think mid-1990s to present.
Note: It’s hard for me to try to be objective here because I don’t have a lot of use for the Third wave.

Post-modernist deconstruction of gender roles. Often sees ideas of sex and gender as too simplistic, or rejects them altogether. Celebration of ambiguity, and blurring gender lines. This is simplistic, but there’s some joining with LGBT agenda issues like the idea that there are no meaningful differences between males and females, but there are 52 distinct genders. Intersectional Feminism, which is a topic in itself. I have lots of problems with it.

Some young third wave feminists embracing symbols of female sexuality like high heels and make-up that the second wave feminists often rejected, while claiming derogatory names like “bitch”, “cunt”, and “slut” as symbols of female empowerment. The Slut Walk would fall under that category, and we had Kim Kardashian defending her nude selfies as a form of female empowerment, as a third wave feminist. Sure.

The idea that America is still every bit a patriarchy, but that the misogyny has only become more subtle, so we now become victimized and offended by smaller infractions and micro-aggressions.

We have long had more female graduates at every degree level, BS, MS, PhD, but the work won’t be done until we’re equally represented in STEM fields, and have equal numbers of women in every top level position, despite the fact that women continue to choose helping professions and humanities at higher rates. The controversial idea that we now have a campus rape culture where one-quarter of women are sexually assaulted. That’s a total garbage statistic, but third wave feminists love it and continue to quote it.

My opinion here. In it’s extremes, third wave feminists believe that male and females are in a zero sum war for power. Any differences between the sexes are seen as evidence of discrimination, rather than looking to other influences. For me, there’s a lack of respect for female choices like stepping away from work to raise kids, sex differences in major choice, a preference for part-time or flexible work.

There was a Pew poll in 2013 where mothers in the US were asked about their “ideal” working arrangement. Sixty-one percent said they would prefer to work part-time or not at all. IMO third wave feminists are out of touch with that reality, or interpret it as internalized female misogyny or of women wanting the wrong things.

About the zero sum war, men are our fathers, husbands, brothers and sons, so for families to flourish, we’re all better if both men and women are flourishing. In many ways, I think Third Wave feminists are a step backward from that. I don’t relate to it at all. Really.

For some humor. I like this quote. “No one will ever win the battle of the sexes. There’s too much fraternizing with the enemy.” - Henry Kissinger :wink:

References - The Four Waves of Feminism by Martha Rampton,
and Christina Hoff Sommers, many articles. She’s a feminist who has a lot of problems with Third Wave ideas, and I generally agree with her. She’s not Conservative in any sense really, except she rejects a lot of the ideology of the third wave.

3 Likes

THAT was enlightening- thx.

Women can, and usually do as they please, so my response to feminists is simply “equal us and you’ll be treated equally by us.”

Until then, it’s just a bunch of silliness IMO. My wife chose to stay home with OUR children when it was feasible but went right to work when it was necessary.

Personally, I view that time when women started working outside the home as when the American family started a decline in values. Before then, a man could earn enough to support the family, then the pool of employees increased and dragged it down to where now it almost requires a dual income family to get ahead, sometimes just to survive.

Then there’s that LBGT BS that I detest. Ideals have shifted but haven’t disappeared thank God. It seems a ton of people are only concerned about being discriminated against, or offended, or both simultaneously.

I wish the whiners would just STFU and weren’t on the airwaves really.

And in the digital age it’s way too easy for our children to get involved with the crazy movements. If I had it to do over, my kids wouldn’t have had other than network TV OR internet access until they moved out. It’s a full time job in itself to monitor that activity, and almost impossible if both parents work.

I mean hell, how many kids have been lured into something via the net? Or learned about things from premium cable chsnnels? My wife and I constantly stumble across bad stuff while doing a search for something good, and sometimes simply from a typo.

But it’s just whatever. We deal with what’s in our face today, try to make good choices, and try to plan what we can for the future.

These frickin movements like feminists, LBGT, and <insert “stereotyped group here>” are seemingly endless. And they can all sleep well at night because us honorable men are standing guard.

Sorry

But,
Viva La Barbell

Stay strong & stay safe. Those who lose wars didn’t train enough to fight one during a time of peace…

1 Like

Now that was a grade A performance. Expressing those ideas while wearing a carhardt jacket and reading with bifocals… just priceless.

“It’s all the guys on the line talk about.” :rofl:

If an easily-triggered, hair-dyed, safe-space, everything-is-rape third wave feminist spent a day in a factory, she’d need to leave by 8:30 on a stretcher. #triggered so hard.

I just read the wiki page on intersectionality. Wow, thanks for that btw. That has to be the weakest mindset I’ve ever encountered. “How am I oppressed? Let me count the ways.”

It occurred to me as I was reading that ironically intersectionality is itself a “power hierarchy”. The more grievance groups you belong to the more you must understand oppression.

Old school feminism was about empowerment… This is not empowering.

2 Likes

Sooo funny. Glad that made you guys laugh a little bit.

Oh for sure. The Soviet’s used the concept of “class guilt” to round up and kill people in the Ukraine. Class guilt is very similar to white privilege. And the newest one is “cognitive privilege,” meaning smart people through no real action on their part are born with an advantage/ privilege. Love that one. As if we don’t all know that it’s an advantage to be smarter. Sure. You just didn’t realize that you should feel guilty, and be resented for it. It’s all about idenity politics and dividing people into victims and oppressors. Let’s talk about how Mao delt with that, and what happened to all the engineers and physicians under Mao’s regime. Those people had “cognitive privilege.” There’s nothing new under the sun. This isn’t harmless, not one bit. It’s all the old ideologies.

@Basement_Gainz, you were talking about looking up Intersectional Feminism. I’ve put this clip up before in an old thread we had about Mizzou, but it was before your time on PWI.

This is really very good. Trouble is, it gets very hard to decide who is really disadvantaged and oppressed, and who is going to decide that. You might be a kid from the trailer park, and your dad committed suicide when you were six, and your mom’s an alcoholic, but you’re white, and male so you’re privileged, and the feminists want to tear down patriarchy, so that’s too bad for you. By tearing down patriarchy, it’s really about tearing down anybody with dominance so… it starts to look a lot like Totalitarianism very quickly where we look for the groups who are to blame for any economic or class differences.

Also, for people trying to understand what Postmodern Feminism is up to. If you haven’t been to college in awhile, or don’t have college age children, you’re unlikely to know what the fuss is about. They don’t believe in any absolute truth. Everything is a social construct. And they certainly don’t believe in listening to anyone who disagrees.

Really, it’s deeper than this, and a lot more insidious, but this gives you a bit of an idea.

Gad Saad

Dawkins

1 Like

Thanks for the vids. I find it incredible that the ‘post modernist’ school of thought took hold anywhere. That doesn’t strike me as scholarship in any sense of the word.

Ever notice how The Factual Feminist and @anon71262119 are never in the same place at the same time? Coincidence? You’re outed puff.

I liked her points on intersectionality basically encouraging oppressive behavior. My biggest problem with modern 3rd wave feminism is that it trivializes actual violence.

While they’re worried about clapping, body positive, men sitting on a bus and pay gaps (that don’t account for job title or hours worked) they are failing to address the plight of women who are actually abused here and abroad. Consensual sex that you regret later is not rape.

They are strangely silent on:

Human trafficking/sex trade (whole world)

FGM (Middle east)

Forced abortions and sterilization (China)

Forced marriage/second class citizenship and acid attacks (ME and India)

3 Likes

Continuing the tangent.

Appreciated your thoughts. Not Sommers, but that was very funny!!

I wanted to come back to this when I had a bit more time.

To clarify, I’m not talking about more moderate, reasonable Dems like my Dad, I’m talking about the far left intellectuals.

There’s a self-focused, looking inward to the third wave that we didn’t see in previous waves. You noticed that victim status and oppression is centered around the self or personal identity, rather than looking outward at solving global problems like sex trafficking or FGM. I agree. They’re far more interested in complaining about being called “sweetheart,” or “darlin’” by an man from an earlier generation, as opposed to being outraged about harms like women having acid thrown in their faces, or having one’s clitoris removed.

We can’t assume to find logic or reason with these ideologies. Really. It’s not like we don’t ever experience sexism. But for third wave feminists, being female seems to be the most important part of their identity since it allows them to define themselves as being members of an oppressed group. As things have dramatically improved, they needed to move to softer targets, or use dubious stats, to maintain their victim status.

Re: The alliance of the progressive left with Islam. Western Civilization is the enemy of both radical Islam and the far left. They particularly despise the Enlightenment, which seems ironic to me because it brought unprecedented equality, justice, open-mindedness, freedom, and opportunity to the West. But notice how they constantly accuse the West as being NONE of those things. We’re all mired in discrimination and oppression. I assume that’s why third wavers are A LOT more concerned with tearing down patriarchy at home, than with standing up for poor women who are the victims of sex trafficking in the third world.

Postmodernists deconstruct, and tear down. They often do that by using rhetoric that accuses the democratic West of being the opposite of everything it values highly. You value freedom? What a joke, oppressed groups here aren’t really free. You value opportunity? The victimized groups have none. You value fairness and rule of law? You’re a hypocrite there too, because everything is unfair and discriminatory for the oppressed groups. Where then do we find a greater abundance of all of those qualities then, if not in the US and Europe? Facts do not matter to postmodernists. Talking about progress detracts from the message that things are still really, really bad for women. It’s fueled by something different than reason.

Judeo-Christian traditions are seen as reinforcing patriarchy, so they’re bad. Capitalist economic systems are seen as vehicles for the privileged to become stronger and to trod on the poor, so bad. Whiteness is bad. Masculinity is toxic. The enemy is the democratic and economically freer West, old white men. Our college students can go through college and hear all about how the founders and Enlightenment philosophers, and Shakespeare were all bigots, etc… And not her anything about how Marxist ideologies resulted in millions of deaths. Wonder why that is?

We know there are literally thousands of schools in places like Pakistan who are teaching a version of Islam that involves anti-Western militancy, funded by the Wahabi (Saudis), and yet we act like there’s no danger, and that it’s only extremists. Why would the radical left care about anti-Western sentiment? “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” It’s certainly not all Muslims by any stretch, but it’s not a few guys hiding in caves either.

You can’t say too much about any of the radical aspects without being labeled an Islamaphobe or racist, or alt-right so these supposed deeply compassionate women actually suppress speaking out against atrocities like FGM. The real motives are very telling, when they have problems even empowering the reformers and often villify women who are equivalent to the first wave feminists of Middle Eastern countries. They often label them as extremists and hateful for speaking out against FGM, or talking about the atrocities against women, sometimes hiding behind concerns about “cultural sensitivity.” There was a case in Canada recently where a judge gave a very light sentence, citing “cultural differences,” to an Iranian immigrant who was convicted of repeatedly beating and raping his wife.

Quotes about Linda Sarsour.
There are comments on her Twitter feed of the anti-Zionist sort: “Nothing is creepier than Zionism,” she wrote in 2012. And, oddly, given her status as a major feminist organizer, there are more than a few that seem to make common cause with anti-feminists, like this from 2015: “You’ll know when you’re living under Shariah law if suddenly all your loans and credit cards become interest-free. Sound nice, doesn’t it?” She has dismissed the anti-Islamist feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the most crude and cruel terms, insisting she is “not a real woman” and confessing that she wishes she could take away Ms. Ali’s vagina — this about a woman who suffered genital mutilation as a girl in Somalia.

2 Likes

@Basement_Gainz - I apologize for the long block of text. Sometimes restating or elaborating your points, but I think it’s important for people to understand what we’re up against and to call it what it is.

Back on track. You have to wonder if this kind of thing is just giving the White Supremacists ammunition, emboldening them. Again, they focus on white privilege. I think the left is going to find out that a lot of their diversity training has been counter productive, focusing on identity groups instead of unity and the things we all have in common.

1 Like

The fact that this point falls on deaf ears among the left is stunning to me. If we continue to fragment society by every available racial, social, gender, religious and other identity then we are left with a zero sum game that leads to civil strife if not civil war. That said, there is a side of me that is not convinced it’s missed so much as an intentional and methodical destruction of democracy.

1 Like

They published their playbook long ago. You just have to know your enemy. These are not community organizers, they are Marxist street agitators executing their plan as written. Read Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’ if you want to see the full plan. Some excerpts:

“The organizers first job is to create the issues or problems, and organizations must be based on many issues. The organizer must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.”

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”

“The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”

“One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.”

1 Like

Watching the current crucifixion of anyone who dares argues that perhaps Antifa shares some blame in Charlottesville is further evidence that what you describe may be accurate. I’ve had to walk away from former classmates from law school who seem hell bent on destroying the First Amendment. I could call them stupid, and they weren’t exactly the class stars, but it’s not stupidity so much as virtue signaling if not an outright push for totalitarianism.

3 Likes

I’m with you. If the nazi, alt right-whatevers had been allowed to march around all weekend they would have crawled back into their mom’s basements on Monday and it would have been done.

How many were there, a thousand? This was the biggest white supremacist rally in a generation, which brought in people from every state east of the Mississippi, and the most they could get together was a thousand. Pathetic.

If the left had let them have their moment that young woman would still be alive, and another dozen people wouldn’t be suffering from injuries the rest of their lives. If you don’t let people speak the next step is violence.

1 Like

My grandfather died fighting real Nazis and his aunt and uncle were murdered by them. I hate the Klan, neonazis and anyone ease with a racist agenda, but fighting in the streets in today’s world is neither necessary or productive. And yes, this was one of the biggest racist rallies we have seen in years. My general attitude is that assholes and racists will always be with us because stupid and angry people will always be with us, but I’m watching a large scale and popular violent anti-democracy group do its best to shut down any opposing views. The Antifa are openly condoned by many left-leaning well educated people who should know better. I expect uneducated people to be unbalanced in their views, shrill of voice, and illogical in argument, but not privileged people who should know better, and who have the power actually shut down free speech and punish those with whom they disagree. I really don’t wish to be ruled by any totalitarian group be they from the left or right, and no matter what their justification for violence.

1 Like

Moving this conversation over here, since this thread is more to topic and people on The Stupid Thread want some comedic relief. Bolt, I read the Heterodox article I linked to before I read the WSJ piece you put up. Thanks.

It’s still true. From the Brooking’s Insitute in 2013. This is true regardless of race.

  1. At least finish high school.
  2. Get a full-time job.
  3. Wait until age 21 to get married and have children.

I’ll add a 4th, which is stay married if you have kids.

It’s also true of Black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean, who tend to do so well. They tend to do these things. Have children later, marry and stay married if they have kids, and have higher educational attainment than many other ethnic groups. They tend to move above the median income within a decade, and that’s true in the US, the UK, and Canada. Also, if growing up Black in America is truly so “corrosive” because of Jim Crow and the legacy of Slavery, then it’s very hard to say that the experiences of these groups are “irrelevant.” Surely there’s something we can learn here, since the immigrants from Africa and the Carribean have generally experienced generational poverty. Jim Crow era laws kept people from acquiring wealth through the accumulation of property, but so did growing up in a mud hut in Africa where you call a trashcan with a metal grate over the top a stove.

From Brookings -
“Our research shows that of American adults who followed these three simple rules, only about 2 percent are in poverty and nearly 75 percent have joined the middle class (defined as earning around $55,000 or more per year). There are surely influences other than these principles at play, but following them guides a young adult away from poverty and toward the middle class.”

Unfortunately, talking about social or cultural factors has become very perilous because of… wait for it… Identity Politics. Unequal group outcomes must be blamed on the moral failings of others, generally those in the dominant group. Attempts to discuss any unequal group outcomes by pointing out differences in social or cultural factors is now considered a “conservative stance.” Notice how much has changed, since Brookings did this article in 2013.

As we saw with the outrage at the Wax essay, pointing to social or behavior factors will be attacked as failing to acknowledge white privilege and as a racist position. Taking one or two lines from her essay out of context and using them to make broad generalizations is not a mistake. (You want to go back to the racism of the 1950s?) We can no longer talk about any biological differences between the genders, nor can we say that certain cultural practices are less desirable than any other cultural practices. It’s unacceptable because it does not place the blame for any unequal outcomes on either institutional racism, implicit racism, sexism, misogyny, or the unequal and unfair foundations of Western society.

Did you notice that Klick, the colleague who both signed the condemnation letter for Wax, and wrote the response to Hadit’s summary at Heterodox, says “I don’t think Wax is a racist…” Nice of him to say so. Really. Nice of him to clarify that fact. Although he did sign the “condemnation letter.” Also, nice of him to change his words to “criticize” instead of “condemn.”

In contrast, the language of the students at Penn is here. "We call for the University of Pennsylvania administration — Penn President Gutmann and the deans of each school — as well as faculty to directly confront Wax and Alexander’s op-ed as racist and white supremacist discourse and to push for an investigation into Wax’s advocacy for white supremacy.

Bolt, the cases of Erika and Nicholas Christakis, or Bret Weinstein, are more sympathetic for me than Wax, probably because they are much, much more tactful, NOT that writing a pointed, or provocative essay, or voicing unpopular opinions in an essay should be reasons to call for someone to be fired, or labeled a White Supremacist and Racist! Erika and Nick Christakis, and Weinstein have been unjustly labeled as racists and bigots. They are not.

I know less about Amy Wax, but based on her Op Ed, there’s absolutely no way any reasonable person could justify the response of the mostly anthropology students, calling her a racist and a white supremacist.

She’s certainly not the first person to say that some cultural or behavioral norms are less likely to lead to affluence, or are more likely to lead to poverty. Ha! Thomas Sowell does a whole speech about how cultures aren’t equal. Don’t even get me started on cultural appropriation. The reason we’re NOT using Roman Numerals is because some cultural ideas are superior. There’s no way to avoid it. We adopt superior ideas from other cultures all the time.

An event at Ryerson University in Canada was recently cancelled after university students there put up a FB page entitled “No Fascists in Our City!” to protest the event. The page’s header image depicted a swastika with the red circle, and a slash through it. Yep. When they do that with your name, you’re being called a Nazi. At least two of the four speakers are Jewish professors, and at least one of them is Jewish and has a mixed-race family, including Black siblings. The topic was, The Stifling of Free Speech on University Campuses. The Irony.

One of the professors who was planning to speak at the Ryerson event was Gad Saad. This is a really very nice clip of him defending the recent incident of offended people calling for Professor Bruce Gilley to be fired. Have a listen, if you have the time.

7:45 minutes.

@anon50325502

Re: The idea that the anthro students at Penn were outraged by the lack of empirial data in an Op Ed? Oh man! LOL! Have you seen some of the things that pass as peer reviewed research articles in some of those fields? Believe me, that’s not the problem. And nobody calls you a racist for not citing some evidence, they just eviscerate your ideas in a counter-essay. See Gad Saad above.

Enjoy!

Sleeping Around, With, and Through Time
An Autoethnographic Rendering of a Good Night’s Slumber
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1077800416672698

“A Super Wild Story”: Shared Human–Pigeon Lives and the Questions They Beg
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1077800417725353

2 Likes

Speaking of Heads Exploding. An update on Bret Weinstein and the Evergreen scandal. Unreal. Professor Naima Lowe is mentioned in the article. If you want to see footage of some IP extremism, you can find footage of her on Youtube screaming profanities at her colleagues, and also preaching Critical Race Theory and “all whites are racists.” I’m sure she’s otherwise a really nice lady.

Text in the event of paywall -

Biology professor Bret Weinstein has settled his lawsuit against Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash. Mr. Weinstein became a pariah last spring when he criticized an officially sanctioned “Day of Absence” during which white people were asked to stay away from campus. He and his wife, anthropology professor Heather Heying, alleged that Evergreen “has permitted, cultivated, and perpetuated a racially hostile and retaliatory work environment.” They claimed administrators failed to protect them from “repeated provocative and corrosive verbal and written hostility based on race, as well as threats of physical violence.”

Last week the university announced it would pay $500,000 to settle the couple’s complaint. Evergreen said in a statement that the college “strongly rejects” the lawsuit’s allegations, denies the Day of Absence was discriminatory, and asserts: “The college took reasonable and appropriate steps to engage with protesters, de-escalate conflict, and keep the campus safe.”

A different story emerges from hundreds of pages of Evergreen correspondence, which I obtained through Washington state’s Public Records Act. The emails show that some students and faculty were quick to levy accusations of racism with neither evidence nor consideration of the reputational harm they could cause. The emails also reveal Mr. Weinstein and Ms. Heying were not the only ones concerned about a hostile and dangerous campus.

Consider a February exchange, in which Mr. Weinstein—a progressive who is skeptical of identity politics—faulted what he called Evergreen administrators’ “reckless, top-down reorganization around new structures and principles.”

Within minutes, a student named Mike Penhallegon fired back an email denouncing Mr. Weinstein and his “racist colleagues.”

Another student, Steve Coffman, responded by asking for proof of racism within the science faculty. Mr. Coffman cited Christopher Hitchens’s variation of Occam’s razor: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

Jacqueline McClenny, an office assistant for the First Peoples Multicultural Advising Services—a campus office that helped organize the Day of Absence—observed that because Hitchens’s razor is an “Englishman’s popularization of a Latin proverb,” it “would seem to itself be the product of at least two traditionally hierarchical, imperialist societies with an interest in disposing of inconvenient questions.”

Media professor Naima Lowe urged one of Mr. Weinstein’s defenders to read about how calls for civility are “often used to silence and/or dismiss concerns about racism.” She also said that the “white people making changes in their white supremacist attitudes and behaviors” were those “who do not immediately balk and become defensive,” instead acknowledging that “white supremacy is literally ingrained in everything.” In other words, merely defending oneself against the accusation of “white supremacy” is evidence of guilt.

The implications of such a mind-set became clear later last spring, when hundreds of students protested Mr. Weinstein’s opposition to the Day of Absence. To them, the existence of dissent was sufficient to prove the college condoned racism. Mr. Weinstein was not their only target.

After a mob occupied the library, the college’s facilities engineer, Richard Davis, wrote in an email that he believed “the students are testing how much lawlessness will be tolerated,” and “they have not found a boundary yet.” He described how two students stalked him and screamed at him, adding that he was disturbed by the lack of police. “Many of us are stating that as long as the students are not violent, their behavior is acceptable,” Mr. Davis continued. “Apparently, violence in this context is bloodshed.” (Mr. Davis retired in June.)

The protests were “loud and at times intimidating,” wrote John Hurley, Evergreen’s vice president for finance and administration. “Unfortunately some members of our community were stopped as they tried to leave campus and that was scary and others felt barricaded in their office.”

Nancy Koppelman, an American studies and humanities professor, described being “followed by white students who yelled and cursed at me, accused me of not caring about black and brown bodies, and claimed that if I did care I would follow their orders.” Ms. Koppelman, who is 5-foot-1, said the students towered over her, and “the only thing they would accept was my obedience.” She reported that the encounter so unnerved her that she was left physically shaking.

Ms. Koppelman wrote that she was worried about “features of the current protest strategy that violate the social contract, and possibly the law.” Tolerating such tactics, she argued, “may create a working environment which is too hostile for some of us to continue our employment at the college.” Her email concluded: “I have not decided whether or how to share these thoughts more widely. If I do, I will very likely be tagged as ‘a racist’ by some of my colleagues and the students they teach.”

As for Mr. Weinstein and Ms. Heying, there’s no doubt the environment at Evergreen was too hostile for them to continue their employment. The college declared in its statement: “They have agreed to resign from their faculty positions at Evergreen, effective today.”

Ms. Melchior is an editorial page writer at the Journal.

Appeared in the September 22, 2017, print edition.