Evergreen State College, Bret Weinstein & Heather Heying 3 part documentary

[PencilsInSpace]

This has been touched on in other threads but I thought it deserved its own now part 3 of Mike Nayna's documentary is up.

It's only tangentially related to feminism but postmodernist cultural theory and queer theory are the background to the transagenda (see for example No Outsiders) as well as the 'sex work' movement, 'sex positive' movement, surrogacy, transhumanism etc.

These videos show what happens when a group of students steeped in those theories decide to put them into practice. It's ugly as fuck. It looks like the start of the Chinese cultural revolution.

In a few years these dreadful spoilt children will have gained influential roles in campaigning non-profit organisations and will be advising various levels of government (cf. Jess Bradley).

Bret Weinstein's final words in part 3 are chilling.

3 x half hour episodes -

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

I think though that the movement that saw these professors that embraced things like poststructuralism and queer theory enter the universities was earlier, in the 70's. Which might make their students the parents of the kids that are there now.

What I find so sad is that annoying as they are, these kids can barely cope with life. The ones I see are really struggling with both the work, and their lives. I feel like that must be connected to their behaviour.

What gets me, is that in the areas where there really is obvious inequality for trans people, such as the HIV rate in black, trans identifying males in the USA, none of the big TRA voices seem to give a rats arse.

I agree, and for all the "sex work is work" empowerfulising narrative, something that might really help these marginalised people be less vulnerable to violence and HIV is helping them to get out of prostitution.

I've watched all three of these now, and am completely floored. I knew the story, but actually seeing it is something else. Even without the commentary by the professor, i would be shocking.

I will say, I have always been really confused and skeptical about the link Jordan Peterson makes between this stuff and Marxism, because it seems obvious to me that it comes out of post-structuralism. But looking at this, it's maybe a little clearer to me why someone would think that, what is going on here reminds me of nothing so much as the kind of cleansing and rhetoric that went on in the Russian or Chinese revolution.

"*Latest figures estimate 44% - it’s fucking heartbreaking."

That would be a huge figure if it was true, given there are an extimated 1 million transgender people in the US.
However the second link says that an estimated 9.2% of transgender people were HIV infected, and that 44% of that 9.2% were black people, which in itself is a large number, but probably down to the number involved in sex work.

ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304727?journalCode=ajph

"What I find so sad is that annoying as they are, these kids can barely cope with life. The ones I see are really struggling with both the work, and their lives. I feel like that must be connected to their behaviour."

Possibly down to an inordinate amount of time which they spend on SJW issues, rather than real World problems, resulting in them living in a bubble, constantly craving peer affirmation.

Betty,

my first instinct is to describe it not as a misguided benevolent relationship, but as a parasitical one, fetishising and then attempting to consume working class people and alternative subcultures, entirely for their own benefit.

I think that's how it has ended up; my question is how it started.

What was the mechanism? Because it's clear there was a shift. 90s students at London universities didn't co-opt themselves into local area groups and interfere.

So what changed? What gave these students the belief that such behaviour was okay? That it was their place/right to interfere in projects and groups that weren't about them?

What made me think that something maybe went wrong in independent schools was a documentary I saw a few years ago about Harrow. I remember watching this exchange between a teacher and pupil that seemed very much as though the school had tried to respond to criticisms about elitism by installing a sense of social justice in their pupils. And I wonder if it's that sort of thing that's spawned this beast in the UK: they accidentally created the belief that one "performs privilege" by advocating for social justice, in the same way as, say, one might "perform privilege" by shopping at Waitrose.

It's all so bloody colonial. That's what gets me. And it comes with this whopping side order of patronising neo-orientalism that appears to apply to all the "locals" be they working class, black, white, gay, lesbian, asian etc.

Indeed, I'd probably argue that most of the concerns on FWR are about this process of colonisation: the colonisation of womanhood, of women's spaces, of women's language, of women's realities.

It is an imperial project we face. If we see it as such, maybe it will give us some ideas on how to resist.

StopThePlanet

"Institutional racism is pervasive throughout almost every organization in the US. If you live here and you don't see it you're walking around with your eyes and mind's eye closed. Racism is part of every single thing (even if far removed) that has been developed or built in the US."

The moment Larry Elder changed Dave Rubin's mind forever (Systemic Racism)

childrenofstones I nearly posted that video in reply as well but chickened out.
Of course racism exists, but the postmodern narrative around systemic racism has to be questioned. I rabbit-holed to this video after watching the Evergreen videos. It ties in with the students vague calls of widespread racism in the most liberal arts college in the USA, which seems unlikely. But identity and grievence studies have been feeding these narratives for years now.

Hence why the trans narrative is bought by so many.
Uncomfortable theories I know, but they need discussion.

I’m so glad that Larry Elder video was posted. The “institutional racism” argument is so lazy. I too rabbit-holed to that video after Evergreen along with links to plenty of other videos of people of colour who absolutely do not feel that the US is a terrible, oppressive and “institutionally racist” country. Thomas Sowell, the brilliant black economist who grew up in the projects in Harlem, absolutely despises this argument, as does Candace Owens who has been absolutely ripped to shreds by large parts of the media who have basically accused her of betraying her race. Apparently her lived experience isn’t considered valid when it flies in the face of the “institutional racism” narrative.

I find that video really, really interesting. I have some questions about his suggestions at the end about the welfare state, but even there, I don't think he's totally far out.

But a lot of the things he's said have occured to me as questions, and I've seen some of those statistics before, and I think they do raise questions as well. What does it mean, concretely, when people are talking about institutional racism? My experience has been that anyone who asks the questions gets filleted very quickly, as a bigot, as walking around with their eyes closed, as being too privileged to know how things really are. It's very much like the kinds of accusations being made against the faculty in the Evergreen video, the expectation is, you back down from those questions unless you are an out and out racist. But surely, if systematic and institutional racism are real, we should be able to talk about them and their concrete manifestations, and surely it would be helpful to do so?

I do not see how it is possible to have a democracy under those kinds of conditions.

The other element of this that I find really upsetting is that I think it's a fast path to significant and serious racism, and I'm inclined to think that inasmuch as white nationalism and things like anti-semitism have had a resurgence, it might have been caused in large part by this type of thinking.

Just caught up with part 3 and I found it to be a chilling watch. (I'd seen parts 1 and 2 few weeks back.) Especially the conclusion by Bret Weinstein. At times I had to stop watching because of the very strong sense of menace.

They're operating as a mob and feeding each other's grievance and anger. Real world violence is just waiting for the right trigger. I dread to think what will happen when one of these mobs do end up getting hold of someone they perceive as the enemy, as The Other.

I do have some reservations about Bret Weinstein and wouldn't hold him up, uncritically, as a hero, but he has done us a great service in standing up to what went on and in working with the makers of the videos.

Apparently her lived experience isn’t considered valid when it flies in the face of the “institutional racism” narrative.

I think this is a big problem in a lot of social justice movements. I've seen it in the First Nations community and black community here, and I've experienced it myself at times from feminist groups. I think it speaks to "lived experience" being a totally inadequate basis for any kind of broad movement or policy discussion. It doesn't even offer the sum experience of the particular group it claims to be representing.

I do not see how it is possible to have a democracy under those kinds of conditions.

The other element of this that I find really upsetting is that I think it's a fast path to significant and serious racism, and I'm inclined to think that inasmuch as white nationalism and things like anti-semitism have had a resurgence, it might have been caused in large part by this type of thinking.

Having watched that video I think things are moving even further away from the Right in the US ever giving up their guns.

That was a chilling watch.

Interestingly Goldsmiths had direct action against it

www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/20/students-occupy-goldsmiths-in-protest-at-institutional-racism

Funny that, cos I imagined it would be the least racist, almost like Evergreen.

It seems that when the SJW mobs attack someone for an offence, the more they're not guilty of the offence, the harder it is for them to defend themselves.

What was the mechanism? Because it's clear there was a shift. 90s students at London universities didn't co-opt themselves into local area groups and interfere.

So what changed? What gave these students the belief that such behaviour was okay? That it was their place/right to interfere in projects and groups that weren't about them?

I've just been having a trawl through Goldsmiths' policies and have come across this from May 2016: Goldsmiths and Lewisham Council commit to working together to drive local economy, education and creativity:

The university and council have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to boost links between the two south London organisations.

The move will increase Goldsmiths’ involvement with communities and sees Goldsmiths recognised as the council’s preferred higher education partner. As part of the MoU students at Goldsmiths will be encouraged to engage more widely in local communities through voluntary schemes and by working with local assemblies.

I believe institutional racism (and sexism) can be a thing, but it has to be proved through careful and far-reaching inquiry (like the Macpherson Inquiry) because as I said earlier, you can’t fix a problem without the material evidence that the problem exists.

Places like Goldsmiths and Evergreen the kinds of places where well meaning people instigate affirmative action to correct non-existent (or existing but small) problems, leading to resentment.

People who were previously left leaning/liberal/centrist are now being called fascists for asking questions.

It makes you wonder if the right is really on the rise, or if it just looks that way, because even someone like Bret Weinstein can be demonised as a white supremacist?

(Totally agree that Weinstein is a flawed character - but only in the way lots of self important university faculty can be! I’d rather be in a seminar with Weinstein than Rachel McKinnon!)

(Totally agree that Weinstein is a flawed character - but only in the way lots of self important university faculty can be!

Something I've notices - some of the people who seem to be most effectively standing against the decline of the university are self-important or even assholes. The nice ones who want to work with people and such don't seem to be able to even clearly see what is going on or come up with a response.

You’re right, Goose - maybe the armour of self-importance is necessary equipment for the battle?

The Goldsmiths thing is interesting. The banners are still up (or they were when I went past on Thursday).

Goldsmiths participates in the Realising Opportunities programme. This is a scheme to encourage more socially, economically and educationally disadvantaged students to go to reseach intensive universities. Students at participating schools can, if they meet the criteria, sign up for an additional support programme in 6th form. If they complete the programme their UCAS application will be given additional consideration by participating universities and most universities will give them an alternative offer worth up to two A level grades lower.

They also do a lot of outreach work with, among other orgs, Linking London and Aim Higher South London.

More on Goldsmiths' 'memorandum of understanding' with Lewisham Council from their Access and Participation Plan:

We work closely with Lewisham Council through a number of functions to target and deliver our activity. A broad ranging and actively delivered ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ is in place, which ensures maximum cooperation across all areas of Goldsmiths and Lewisham Council. Specific ways we support Lewisham through our outreach work include focusing the bulk of our work on borough state schools and colleges, prioritising local students within our various projects, collaborating with their 14-19, Cultural & Community Development, Adult Learning, Virtual School and School Improvement teams and providing event spaces free of charge for their Designated Teacher for Children in Care Conference, Lewisham Inclusion Conference, Lewisham Teacher Conference, Lewisham Curriculum Summit and Post-16 Options event.

Lewisham council's demographic overview states that 46% of Lewisham residents are from a BAME background and 76% of the schools population.

Trust For London's poverty profile for Lewisham shows that:

44% of pupils in Lewisham did not achieve A*- C grades in English and maths. This is worse than any other London borough.

42% of 19 year olds in Lewisham do not have Level 3 qualifications, compared with an average of 34% across Outer London boroughs.

Lewisham is among the worst four boroughs for educational outcomes: 42% of 19 year olds do not have level 3 qualifications (A level equivalent), the third highest percentage in London.

So Lewisham has a fuckton of BAME kids underchieving at shit schools and Goldsmiths are focusing their outreach work on these children.

This is brilliant.

Returning to the article about the Goldsmiths protest:

In 2017-18, figures for Goldsmiths show 71.6% of BAME undergraduates received either a first class or upper second degree, compared to 89.7% of white undergraduates in the same year.

Last month the university appointed Dr Nicola Rollock as Goldsmiths’ academic lead to address discrepancies in the experience and outcomes of BAME students compared to their white peers. Protesters argue, however, she has not been given enough time or resources to address the scale of the problem.

In the context of everything above, those figures don't look too bad to me.

Something I've notices - some of the people who seem to be most effectively standing against the decline of the university are self-important or even assholes. The nice ones who want to work with people and such don't seem to be able to even clearly see what is going on or come up with a response.

It looks like quite a few of us have noticed this. The lesson I take from it is to welcome helpful contributions but to beware of elevating people to heroic status. And yes, simply for the state of my mental health, I’d also much rather be in a seminar with Weinstein than McKinnon.

is good.

The "Race Debate" in America Today | Glenn Loury & John McWhorter at Harvard [The Glenn Show] - discussing affirmative action and reparations.

What's the flaw in Bret Weinstein's character? Afaik he was a left-leaning professor who found himself at the centre of the maelstrom. Does he have a past I don't know about?

freespeecher a flirt, self important, got tenure via his wife's great reputation, unorganised, are the main complaints from various students (via evergreen Reddit). Who can say, his online student reviews are fine, so *shrug.