His hat shows his "patriarchy" and "privilege". Neck-beard Benjamin wears a hat, Hitler wears a hat. Benjamin's a Nazi. His cats have been caught doing the Hitler salute too.
As a college biology professor in LA I've witnessed the strangle hold the social "science" department has on the university and its agenda. It is because Brett is an evolutionary biologist that makes it that much more important for him to speak out because the social sciences have turned into an indoctrination factory turning out uneducated duped young adults equipped with rhetoric and philosophy not based on any evidence. The real sciences are the only place on campuses now where logic and reasoning still exist. This woman clearly has some issues she needs to sort out. She could have left the college but she remains and complains about someone who was able to turn a situation that could have destroyed his career into something fruitful. We need more scientists speaking out about the insanity taking place in Academia. It's seeping into the Sciences as well. Because everyone's terrified of losing their jobs. At this point I feel like people who still work at Evergreen are complicit in what's taking place. If she wants the attention and accolades that Brett has received for standing up then she should grow a backbone.
This isn't really a fair or accurate description of the social sciences. Most of this stuff is coming out of the humanities, as is the case here. The social sciences, such as economics and political science and sociology are very much empirically grounded still. Little of the PoMo nonsense has made its way into the social sciences. And social sciences are "real sciences."
And in fact, the book the Weinstein assigned based on this video, Guns and Steel, is written by a social scientists. Namely, political geographer Jared Diamond.
Alan Tasbler based on my experiences in Academia it is specifically sociology that is at the helm of this movement to indoctrinate its students with critical race Theory and other "theories" that may have a certain level of empiricism but not at the same level requisite for other Sciences like chemistry physics and biology. I think certain fields of study can utilize science without actually being a science. Engineering is not a science however engineer's can utilize science. Art utilizes chemistry. Sociology typically uses inductive reasoning which is fine for general preliminary inquiry to find trends or patterns but is also inherently problematic in that making broad generalizations from very small observations can lead to false conclusions. The theories that are talked about in sociology are not true scientific theories like heliocentric theory, evolution, etc based on deductive reasoning using hypothesis based inquiry. Many sociological hypotheses are set up only to determine whether it's true not if it's falsifiable which is a main part of what the other Sciences are required to do.
Alan Tasbler perhaps not all of social science but sociology is definitely the culprit here. And while not all sociologists are part of the problem, some definitely do good work, they are definitely outnumbered by the unethical nut jobs who are effectively spreading certain philosophical ideals as science that lack any grounding in real science.
I don’t think folks at Evergreen know the definition of “listen”. The protesters kept shouting at Bret to listen. He was listening. What they really wanted was for him to change his mind and agree with them. That’s not the same thing as listening.
If I can read a little into Koppleman’s essay, I wonder if she is doing a more polite version of the same thing when accusing Weinstein of not listening to other professors. You aren't obligated to listen to an endless rehash of the same points. That's just trying to use social pressure and exhaustion to get your way. They state their points. You state your points and your rebuttal of their points. They state their same points more loudly and aggressively. The conversation is over. What more can be said or learned at that point?
R Nicole, no, no, no. "Listening" means "hearing plus power." Or maybe it was "hearing minus power." I've got it! Listening is hearing times 6.02 x 10^23 times prejudice times STFU. Actually, it's the square root of that.
R Nicole it reminds me of my kids when they were little. I'd tell them No about something and they'd ask Why and I'd explain my reason. Then they'd keep asking Why (because they didn't like my answer) and ultimately end up in their room.
Make Evergreen a Black Liberal Arts College, eliminate biology along with ANY hard science... Hand out full Scholarships to any Black Student with an average SAT score... Triple tuition on Whites who want the Privilege of Attending.... POC and their Whites Dhimmis will be happy.
Looks like according to Rate my professor, that about a third of her reviews complained that she was extremely rude to students that opposed her viewpoints. She would frequently interrupt students and shut down speech she didn't approve of. She also was reported to be one to show "favorites" preferential treatment.
Sure did, and what makes it worse is the underline thinking that's being displayed there. That by labeling something as white this, or white that, makes it instantly illegitimate. This down right demonization of white people in every and anyway possible is what is being "taught" in our schools today.
Thomas Sidoti I’d believe it. I’ve heard a South African college student insist that “white” science shouldn’t be taught, including gravity, as that was invented by a white scientist named Einstein.
Sorba Baric: Yup, was that the same girl who was recorded saying that "white science" needs to take a back seat to the knowledge of their Zulu elders. Then not even 10 seconds later she sat down and instantly started scrolling through whiteys magic box they call a smart phone?
LIBERTYSINCURSION Yes! And the lack of understanding that Einstein didn’t “invent” gravity. He described gravity. She has no self-perspective, or understanding of people, or history, or science. . That was mind boggling to hear.
LIBERTYSINCURSION I wonder if she also wants to include the dismembering of and using parts of people with albinism to gain powers , in the curriculum. That’s also a belief and practice in parts of Africa
Yes I agree, but it does look like she was at least open minded in her outlook previously and has now succumbed to the pressures of 'hive mind'. At bottom, one has to suspect, she is jealous and resentful that Bret got out because he wouldn't 'shut up' and now has a new life because he wouldn't 'shut up', she did know when to 'shut up' and so is still stuck there still having to deal with the 'Maoists'. She has to engage in public denouncement of the Other, to both justify her own situation of ongoing sacrifice to and for Evergreen as a college and living ideology and to vent her frustration at the 'death spiral' of the institution. Interesting that its just Bret and not Heather she denounces.
There are strict rules at Zen monasteries, because it counter balances the structure-less letting-go of identity that happens in meditation. Evergreen and lib arts in general have fostered a very free, open, exploratory, and independent learning environment, but seems to have not provided the academic scaffolding which keeps cognition clear, healthy, and grounded.
That's what writing an article triggered looks like. She should figure out exactly what's driving her malice. My guess would be jealousy of the success he earned by refusing to sellout.
As some other commentators have already mentioned, there seems a thread of jealousy running through her critique. Also, a lot of the same complaints she levels against Brett I've seen leveled against Jordan Peterson.. And if Brett (as well as Jordan) have had the ability (if not courage) to seize the moment and build an intellectual edifice from the personal attacks both have endured, well then more power to them!
Donald Fox, amen. I think that the thing SJWs most hate Jordan Peterson (and now Bret Weinstein) for is the fact that, not only weren't they destroyed by SJW lunacy, but they actually were turned into heros, people with massive followings, exactly what the SJWs want for themselves. JP has joked that his one unique contribution is that he "figured out how to monetize social justice warriors." It makes them crazy. Strike that. CraziER.
Does the thought never occur to this woman that, perhaps, not all academic disciplines DESERVE equal respect? People and ideas that deserve respect generally don't have to make a big fuss to get it.
4:39 The problem isn't not knowing where to draw the line, but where some have drawn it. The biggest problem with Evergreen's philosophy is that it's completely swallowed the idea that "harm" [DING!] from someone else's freedom is solely determined by those claiming to be harmed without any question about whether the claim has any merit or what the intent of the "freedom" was. If you only let the "victims" define what is harmful, how do you stop them from abusing such a system? This is the real problem: the freedom they abuse to lay the blame on everyone else but themselves. In other words, the "harm" THEY are doing.
There's a tactic that I learned a long time ago. Let those who oppose you keep talking until they paint themselves into a corner. Then smile, and summarize. Thanks for the summaries, Ben. I'm smiling.
Perhaps she’s doing a bit of damage control. She is still there and was reasonably nice to Bret at the time. That place is hyper politicised so she might be under duress and thought throwing Bret under the bus would be a good move.
Big Pete I am thinking this also. Most likely the pressure is on her and she finally caved in and is going along with the mob. It is hard to be on the outside of the group or she has started to notice she is being pushed out and this is her way back in.
“You have to know when to shut up”...maybe that’s what she is telling herself, because now she regrets supporting him. Maybe she’s feeling the pressure and doesn’t have the courage to cut loose like he did.
Bret is also a bit of an exceptional talent, and Nancy may not want to acknowledge this but he really deserves the attention he's getting -- not merely off the back of the Evergreen debacle, but on the strength of his views in their own right. Not everyone could do what he's done.
She is jumping on the hate train because she is worried she is going to lose her job... I think. She knows the ramifications of what happened and Bret not "shutting up" and is trying to change the mind of enough kids so she can last another year. Just a thought.
This is going to be good. . . I can already tell and I've just clicked play. Edit: Indeed, this is every bit as fallacious as I thought it would be. "Lacks curiosity"??? Bret has an almost-feline devotion to curiosity, and like the proverbial cat, it's his fearless curiosity that killed his job at Evergreen. If anyone has a lack of intellectual curiosity, it's this Nancy writer. She's just parroting the Evergreen rhetoric without so much as pondering whether there's any actual merit there. Creepy. But not surprising. You chose a perfect hat for this!
Zxy atiywarili Bret was to Evergreen what our boi Zach is to Comics. SJWs are tottalitarians zealots bent on "shutting people out". Only they can talk: "we need to start a conversation", etc. This is a carbon copy of what's happening in Comics. Even the success Bred is having outside Academia is terrifying the Gate keepers because it challanges their power and supply an alternative. Ya boi Bret 😎
This is the kind of article that used to be published in the Nazi and Stalin (possibly also Mao) eras to justify the incarceration and execution of actual or potential non-conformists.
That was painful to listen to. It was just good old fashion character assassination and scapegoating (as you said), and a long litany of vague accusations about personality characteristics. What little specifics are offered, such as that the didn't bother to read students' work, seem extremely doubtful and in any case can't be verified. And "shut up?" C'mom sister.
btw, this is from her "Rate My Professor" page, which I found somewhat ironic given her assessment of Brett W. as failing to listen to other points of view: "n my limited experience with Nancy she refused to listen to other viewpoints in seminar, telling students they were flat wrong for disagreeing with her, and was very rude to me when I asked her if I could in some way restructure the class to fit my needs. I understand she doesn't need to accommodate me, but she showed me no respect. "
Or this : "Personally, I found Nancy to be unnecessarily straight-forward. She would not hesitate to interupt someone during seminar or call people out to speak, even if they were clearly uncomfortable. She also seemed to ***'target' certain students to constantly question their reasoning and continually belittle.*** [emphasis added]. Is this a classic case of projection?
Or this: "Nancy was very into what she was teaching, but can be hard to get along with. She can be very rude. ***She does not apply the same rules to herself that she applies to others.*** **She is intolerant.*** Her writing skills are good. ***She has trouble accepting criticism and will look to blame others for her own errors. "*** Curiousor and curiousor.
GordieGii, I agree since she initially supported Bret, she was probably near the top of the downsize list, so she is hoping this hit piece will help mitigate that. Though as a woman she does have more armor vs downsizing than a straight white male.
Yeah, but if they are going to let go 20% of the professors and only 10% are male then that particular armor isn't going to be all that effective. Better if she were a POC, aboriginal or at least a strong ally.
The “The Scarlet Letter” is a work of fiction that I read back in high school, Bret may have read this book already or he found that it didn’t meet his standards for a class, such as assigning “Game of Thrones” as a historical fact of life in the Middle Ages
KillerBebe I thought the same thing. Most of us have read the book in high school. To assume he had not read it before is a serious reach. I would be dying of embarrassment if I was her.
It was probably a team-taught class with four professors. Each of the professors would make assignments for the students and other professors to read, etc. She is claiming that he didn't read. One would have to get Weinstein's input on if this is true and if so, why or why not
6:42 "stop demanding everybody use logic and reason..." Holy shit. More and more when I encounter such stuff, I hear the main themes of Dawn of the Dead in my head. Makes the mindlessness more tolerable if I can view it as a zombie assault.
I love that you’ve witnessed her teaching others the proper way to form and back up an argument, and can see that she has placed those methods aside for her op-ed’s sake. There have to be pressures that she’s feeling behind the scenes causing this conundrum.
"He did not think carefully about challenges to his points of view." That's just proposing a reason for him not accepting your argument, that doesn't involve your argument being shitty.
Koppelman's opinions about Weinstein just don't add up. A quick search on Rate My Professor says it all, Weinstein 4.7/5 with 62 students ranking him, 100% saying they'd take him again, 19 called him Inspirational, his wife Heather also got amazing reviews, Prof Nancy Koppelman, not so much, 3.6/5 from 19 students, nobody said if they'd take her class again although 1 student did call her inspirational. The success of Bret as a teacher is also demonstrated by the fact that his classes were popular and full. Having heard numerous hours of interesting in depth conversations between Bret and others I can't agree with Nancy on her accusations as I'v certainly heard Bret admit what he doesn't know, listen to others points of view, put forward reasonable suggestions about why something may be or wondering if certain things are connected without claiming certainty or expertise. Koppelman's essay is a hit piece which in my opinion does more to damage her own reputation than Bret's. Evergreen is suffering from publicly displaying an intolerant authoritarian and racist environment which seems very connected to the changes made since Pres Bridges took over. Folks were rightly appalled that the administration would not only allow, but reward and encourage militant students n staff to bully and harass anyone who didn't support their claims and demands. There has been so much dishonesty by the protesters and the institution about what has gone on and why even when there is film and documentation showing they are not being honest. It has cost Evergreen and unfortunately devalued students qualifications. Evergreen can't start to repair the damage done to it's reputation and finances until people start being open and honest about what really happened and why. I hope Benjamin Boyce's large body of work helps people do that, it's the most comprehensive source available for what happened and why, although of course there is much that could be added. Good on you Ben, and time for some honest reflection Nancy.
So they still haven't taken any responsibility over there, 'cause pure intentions? C O O L I have been so much happier since leaving the state. It's actually amazing how miserable the general population is at TESC compared to where I am now. Still enjoying your ongoing autopsy coverage though.
Upon reflection this makes it seem as though I am sitting here from a safe distance cheering on as things fall apart... truly not the case. It's a damn shame. But we must keep learning.
Point Curation, unless by "better off" she means "closer to the utopian ideal of higher education that will surely come about as soon as we drive out all dissension."
When did biology become a liberal art? Jordan Peterson has received similar "criticism" from academics. It really smacks of pure jealousy on behalf of those that these new public intellectuals have left far, far behind.
Ever since biology was a topic of study in higher education. Even know what a "liberal arts" education means? Ever since Antiquity, the liberal arts has being understood to be composed of both the scientific "arts" and the humanities. The natural sciences are part of a liberal arts education. The point of a liberal arts education has always being to build a well-rounded, educated citizen. It's why universities make people in the sciences take humanities courses and people in the humanities take science courses. A liberal arts education is contrasted with a technical or vocational school education, which is geared towards a specific skill rather than a well-rounded education.
Nancy Koppelman's history of fickle, 'Came clear when Bret pulled out his pickle: His internet fame, Put her pretense to shame; Her slaps were just after the tickle!
It is clear that Nancy Koppelman is not a science graduate. She is a liberal arts professor. She criticises Bret Weinstein as if he was a colleague who taught History and American Studies and, of course, he was not. Weinstein was a Science professor. Much of Koppelman’s criticism is invalid and completely out of context with the subject matter that Weinsein was a professor of at Evergreen - evolutionary biology. It is evident that Koppelman’s postmodern approach to the situation at Evergreen that effectively spat out Weinstein is likely to belong to the same ideology that caused the fracas in the first place. One of the failings of postmodernists is that they cannot accept the hierarchy of competence where their knowledge and experience is simply mediocre or perhaps even nonexistent alongside those who are true experts. In her article, she creates a straw man of Weinstein as a professor of liberal arts. Yet, Koppelman is not an expert in science and never will be. She cannot accept her position in the hierarchy of competence alongside Weinstein as having been a science professor. That's why she wants him to shut up.
She jelly? Yes. She worried abouts her employment insecurity? Yes. I have to agree with Ben, Liberal Arts isn't about telling people with opposing ideas to shut up - that just seems to be one of Evergreen's continuing M and P's. That Prof; what a wind bag...
When your soul has been sold there is nothing left. This woman cashed in all that was left. I hope she realizes her only option now is to goose step with everyone else. It is quite sad. Her article clearly shows she knows what will happen to her if she misses a beat.
I presume that the timing of Nancy's tirade is in response to the recently posted audio of the J.B. Peterson/Sam Harris discussion in Vancouver B.C. that Bret Weinstein moderated. He made a reference in that first discussion to the failure of Academia as yet another institution which has historically furthered the project of human progress; but at this particular point in time has failed in that purpose. 1) It is in the nature of Professors to profess. That is their function. They are not called Supressors or Doctors of Silence. Their job is to profess within their area of specialization. For Bret Weinstein, that is the Biological Sciences. It is perfectly natural for a professor in the physical sciences to profess the virtue, the benefits, and the empirical superiority of the hard sciences. It is neither necessary, nor particularly beneficial for a professor of Biological Sciences to spend his time reading Virginia Woolf. In fact it would be a waste of resources and time for him or her to attempt to become a scholar of Virginia Woolf. The core value of a professor is IN their area of core competency. That is where they actually have something of value to impart to their student's. Ironically, it is in the social science of Economics that the primacy of specialization was exposited as THE wellspring of our material prosperity. This was a key point of Hayek. An Historian should be aware of this much more acutely than a physical scientist. And yet, somehow, Nancy is not conscious of it. She is in fact, apparently quite unconscious of her own implicit bias. That should be surprising, but seems to be a pattern of peripheral blindness. The basic premise of the interdisciplinary model of education at TESC is NOT about Biologists pretending to be Historians or Sociologists or Poets. Quite the contrary. The model is based upon the virtue of specialization. Team teaching by professors from disparate areas of specialization all working together to present a panoply of perspectives on a thematic principle as defined in a "program of study" is NOT about facilitating the homogenization of the professors; rather it is about re-integrating a range of disciplines for the benefit of the students in order to provide a broad and syncretic experience; one in which the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. 2) There is an inherent friction between the hard sciences and the soft sciences. It is not reasonable for a professor of the soft sciences to expect a professor of the hard sciences to regard these two kinds of knowledge as equal in veracity. The hard sciences are obsessively focused on measureable, quantifiable, concretized emperical knowledge. The social sciences are not, nor are they of particular predictive value. The social sciences are instead more suggestive, rather than predictive. This point was also driven home by Hayek. 3) The hard sciences are predominantly filled with men. And, they are largely filled with men who fall somewhere on the autism spectrum. For a social scientist to comment that the physical sciences are full of people who lack social skills and emotional sensitivity is simply a statement of the obvious. It is highly likely that a professor in the physical sciences (which are dominated by men, and men on the autism spectrum in particular) would be viewed as self referential and socially awkward. But, how can we explain a social scientist being ignorant and uncaring about their own reactivity to the social and emotional deficits of their autism spectrum team mates? Just who is being obtuse and insensitive here? 4) The hat must die a particularly prolonged and painful death. Might I suggest kerosene and a match, set adrift on the outdoing tide on a timber raft or boat on Elliot Bay? The cats would be amused. 5) It strikes me that Nancy likes to hear the sound of her own thoughts. Perhaps she is jealous. It is certainly unbecoming in any case. It is as if she expected Dr. Weinstein to simply disappear, or cease to be; perhaps to die. How unkind, ungenerous, and how ahistorical of her. Martyrs do not simply disappear; and that is whar Dr. Weinstein and his partner are, martyrs to a modern day inquisition. This is an ancient and powerful archetype of which any historian worth his or her salt would be well aware. 6) The liberal arts are not all of equal gravitas or import. Some of the seven sisters have always been regarded as "weaker" than the others. If Nancy takes umbrage at being perceived in that way, then perhaps she ought to have pursued a different area of specialization. She worked alongside Bret Weinstein for a decade of her life. I wonder if she ever raised any of her concerns (or "feels" as we understand them) with Dr. Weinstein directly; or has she nursed her resentement for all these years in bitter silence? 7) Unsurprisingly, the entirety of Nancy's tirade brings to mind Lysistrata. Is it possible that the essential sexual basis of this dichotomy eludes her? Can an Historian possibly be that obtuse, that self referential, that hermetically sealed and psychologically unconscious? It defies credibility. 8) The two weaker sisters were always regarded as music and dance. Nancy would be much more persuasive if she appealed to these sisters, if she invoked a call and response, a chorus or refrain; rather than asking for the physical scientists to SFTU. Interdisciplinary teamwork, like marriage is a dance, a song, a call and refrain; a yin and yang if you will... a synergy which is more than the sum of it;s parts. STFU is a lyric that poisons the well. As the call and refrain in Handel's Messiah elucidates, "Wann kommst du mein heill?, Ich komme dein teil. Wann komst du? Ich komme; Wann komst du? Ich komme..." There is no place for STFU in a call and response. 9) Does one demand that the rooster STFU every morning at sunrise? That wouldn't be very productive. It would, in fact, be insane to expect the rooster to act in a manner which is not in accord with his essential nature. And this is really the heart of the matter. Cock a doodle doo!
I believe that both this post and the video are unnecessarily scathing about Koppleman's position. It's definitely not charitably interpreted, and the most obtuse strawmaning is displayed. It is entirely possible to consider this as just as true and arguably far more plausible: - she has decided to write this as her own perspective as someone who had some close familiarity with Weinstein. She's not writing an essay about some other object. Therefore, while it's true that she could have included links to supporting evidence for some of her claims (in particular his critiques of accademia and so on, to clarify what she meant), the rote repetition of "evidence" throughout the video when she is sharing her own experience is rather trite. - Koppleman has shown that she stands up for her principles, she demonstrated integrity, in standing up against the TESC mob when it was going against Bret. In my book this means that she has earned the right to be taken seriously, and that we can read her take at face value in terms of the experience that she relates. This is especially compelling when you see from her original email that her view is that the accademic standards at Evergreen had been in dire straits for a long time, that teachers were not taking student work seriously, and that it's that faculty cuture that is the bed that TESC made in which it ended up having to lie. She obviously says that she never exonerated Bret from that criticism, and that he was part of this problem, as she sees it. Also, I don't think that the consistent string of AWESOME ratings by students is any proof to the contrary, you could almost argue au contraire, given the TESC student culture that has become apparent since. And this is precisely the point of the single lone BAD rating that he got that you showed. If you look at Koppelman's ratings, they indeed show a professor that is more focused on reading and hard work, whereas Bret is more "inspirational" and "hilarious". It's not right or wrong, it's just that her perspective also matters. - for the same reason, we can also refrain from taking her "know when to shut up" comments as the worst possible statement that can ever be made. Have you never, really, met someone, however smart and interesting they are, who you sometimes think that if they shut up right there at this moment to let some tension release and give other people a chance to simmer back down, that would improve the situation? Maybe that's what she means. Maybe she was regularly at meetings where Bret monopolized the floor and kept berating people over and over again without consideration for the need for people to express their alternative views or take a breath. Maybe her view that he was aggravating people and making the overall situation worse has some merit, coming from someone who obviously has integrity and principles? This is not to say that Bret was morally wrong for doing that, but maybe she's right that he did not navigate these situations in the most productive manner in a liberal arts college? If these were mostly closed faculty meetings where she noticed this, maybe she won't cite specifics because she doesn't want to out people that she thinks she can better manage in private? And she could be arguably the most legitimate person to genuinely resent Bret's choice to go public on FOX precisely because she felt that stuff needed to be fixed at Evergreen, and that this public firestorm basically killed any chance of de-escalation and problem-solving? In fact, the results seem to bear this out, given the doubling-down of TESC on its so-called equity agenda. It's hard to argue that what Bret did improved the situation at Evergreen... I'm not saying she's right in that assesment, maybe the situation was unsalvageable anyway and Bret made the right call, but *we don't know.* All we know is that Bret went public, and in this whole thing, in the end, let's face it, he's the only one coming out on top, in better shape than he was before and certainly than the people he ended up leaving behind. Again, I'm not saying that I think this is wrong, I'm just saying that I can see that Koppleman, as someone who elected to stand firm and who believes that you can only fix this from the inside, could understandably develop a view that Bret just decided to defuse the situation by setting off the detonator that would bring the thing to critical mass and walk away (gfycat.com/fr/gifs/detail/BetterDelayedAngelwingmussel). And I'm saying that her credentials of being the only person to stand up for Bret *on principle* should afford her this kind of benevolent reading rather than strawmanning and ridicule.
vfwh, I do not care to join you in your speculative pilgrim's progress through the destruction of TESC. Her letter is public. His position is public. The whole series of events was captured on cellphone cameras and broadcast on social media as it was unfolding. I reject out of hand the notion that Bret is somehow responsible for the change of the mission statement to focus primarily on social justice. And, I reject your argument that Bret s somehow responsible for the President's decision to turn up the heat on his social justice enforcement agenda on campus in the aftermath of the whole preposterous whitey go home day on campus. It seems to me that what we are seeing is an exposition of groupthink, and a revisioning or reframing of history in order to maintain the illusion that TESC is a liberal arts institution. In fact, it ceased to be that the moment the mission statement was changed! The most charitable interpretation of Koppelman's rant is delayed Stockholm syndrome. The more realistic interpretation is that Koppelman is seeking to salvage her own position within what has become an identitarian ghetto. Pecking order is paramount in an island run by the lord of the flies. One's position within the hierarchical structure is the primary determinant of one's quality of life in a cult. Did Bret Weinstein, by virtue of his asperger's like behavior, single handedly turn a liberal arts college into a cult of identity? Where is Monty Python when we need him? I do not appreciate the strawmanning comment. Ridiculous premises, expounded through ridiculous prose speak for themselves. Koppelman's letter is public. Everything is public. TESC is a public institution. She is a public employee. The liberal arts have withstood the glare of blazing daylight since the time of Socrates. Your argument is reminiscent of that made for the death by poison of Socrates. Perhaps you would like for Bret Weinstein to have drunk the hemlock and died quietly. That is what Koppelman is also arguing; although she is too unconscious to realize it. I fundamentally reject Koppelman's conception of the role of a professor in a public college; and particularly within the context of TESC's model of team teaching. I really don't care how she feels. I am a graduate of TESC, when it was a liberal arts college. The destruction of my alma matter at the hands of opportunists and idiots is a topic on which I am entitled to form and share my considered opinion. Everyone has "credentials". But, not everyone demonstrates credibility, veracity, honesty, integrity, logic, or reason. The core of the problem at TESC is encoded in the very heart of the institution. In the mission statement. The only way to change this is to restore the mission statement to it's previous language. Otherwise, you will always get these kind of events occurring; just as HAL in 2001 A Space Odyssey ejected a crewman into the vacuum of space due to a programming error; TESC jettisoned three professors. That programming error remains in force. Koppelman has to live with that knowledge. Weinstein did not write the mission statement. No institution can serve two masters simultaneously. The liberal arts cannot exist within the context of a radical identitarian regime. The former is about liberty or freedom. The latter is about slavery, theft, control and manipulation. TESC does not exist in a vacuum, neither do it's professors. We know much more about how political institutions function than you care to admit. We know a great deal about how cults function too. And, the cult of identitarianism is seeking to subsume all competing value structures. It is a fundamentally dangerous and toxic ideology with broad social impact. Bret went public on the process of conversion occurring in Academia. That was a public service. This movement is not limited to one campus. To argue that Bret Weinstein is now in a better financial or professional position than he was as a professor at TESC is delusional and unhinged. Koppelman has made that insinuation, and so have you. Do the math.
vfwh “Have you never ,really , however smart and interesting they are, , who you sometimes think that if shut up right there at this moment to let other people simmer back down, that would improve the situation ?”... I have now.
And, the cult of identitarianism is seeking to subsume all competing value structures. It is a fundamentally dangerous and toxic ideology with broad social impact" This comment has so many important ideas. Hope it will be published where more people will see it. I'm watching this "toxic ideology" consume my community, the state and the world.
This sounds very much like a report that a jealous neighbor/disgruntled work colleague/outcast family member would submit to the Stasi in an effort to create a non-person. This lady would do well in a totalitarian state where such factless bitter accusations are expected. She sounds jealous of the notoriety and respect that Brett has garnered (can't speak for financial benefits) since his ignominious ejection from his safe haven by an angry mob.
Michael W, that's not how religions/cults deal with contradictory evidence. When they predict Armageddon on a certain day, for example, and that day comes and goes without a hiccup, they never say, "I guess we were wrong." There's always an explanation about how they failed to account for some key variable in an otherwise sound model, usually followed by a new doomsday prediction. The basic model will NEVER be questioned.
Enrollment is down. Staff is being laid off. Maybe she wants to portray herself as a team player in case she is one of them. Her photo does not look like she is retirement age.
I’ve seen Bret and Bret plus Heather in several different videos, but Naima Lowe seems to have dropped off the face of the earth. Please tell me, she’s dropped off the face of the earth, right? Please?
Michael Parsons, actually he gave a FANTASTIC talk about the Evergreen insurgency. It's on his UA-cam channel. It's called "How the Magic Trick Is Done." I think it's THE best analysis I've heard of both the Evergreen insanity and the social "justice" movement as a whole.
Yes, "How the Magic Trick is Done" certainly clarified a lot of the attacks SJWs do from #METOO to destroying careers with decades old tweets, to mass flaggings and charges of racism. They all depend on altering the definition; lowering the bar for the accusation, but then insisting on the most severe punishment justified by the old definition. So you are racist by their new definition that includes microaggressions and "words are violence", but you should be ostracized as if you are a grand wizard of the KKK; or you are guilty of "sexual misconduct" by the new definition that includes anything a self-styled "victim" says; a touch, a kiss, an unwelcome complement; but then you should be punished in accordance with a definition of "sexual misconduct" that treats it as a synonym for rape.
Since you have the initial letter she wrote after the event, you should post it to the comments section under her piece and title it as a counter-point opinion
His continued condemnation of Evergreen? I don't see him talking much about it lately, but in truth his continued existence and the niche he's carved out for himself in the public discourse serve as a kind of very visible mark of shame for Evergreen, which just won't scrub off. Honestly though I can't imagine how that could be construed as anything but positive for Liberal arts education in this country. Evergreen proved that it was in dire need of serious institutional reform in this debacle and continues to be in denial. If the whole academic community and a decent segment of the larger population are on hand to watch it burn, then maybe a few administrations will see the light and save themselves from a similar fate.
Deride The Tide, I agree. When Weinstein was talking specifically about Evergreen, he seemed to be genuinely agonizing over the direction it was going precisely because he was committed to its alternative methods of education. He liked its original stated mission of making education accessible to "non-traditional" students, and was concerned that it was becoming just an SJW indoctrination center.
As a historian I wonder if she has thought about the difference between now and in the mid to late Twentieth century. In terms of who has called for and didn't call for limits on speech.
Okay I'm calling BS. I don't believe she's ever read Nathaniel Hawthorne, especially not "The Scarlet Letter". She's not sufficiently socially aware to have read that book. Perhaps she skimmed the Cliff Notes. 😂
She did a good job as an educator and she's a good person at heart, I think. She loves the idea of students writing a draft and then re-writing, and re-writing again for the goal of perfection and even got the school to implement a mandatory self evaluation for students to write about their entire academic career in order to graduate. She loves work. Class clowns beware. Something she said she believes in that I often think about is how she thinks different periods of history shouldn't be compared and judged between one another when you consider how humanity advances and other factors where different cultures had less access to certain resources. Obviously I don't have her exact quote on that idea, and it was almost 8 years ago when I had her.
She's a poor writer and her thinking is muddled by political correctness. Weinstein is an admirable fellow and capable of teaching at the highest levels.
Seems like she is just jealous. Also, she talks about a liberal arts college delivering the kind of education people need to know how to use their freedom. Translation: Liberal arts colleges deliver indoctrination.
I'm so late to this but, the sound clip of the "student" (kindergartener) demand they stopped using logic and reason, and "white" forms of knowledge...what...what is happening!!
I am looking into my crystal ball and seeing 10 years from now, urban explorers recording the sad shell of the defunct and abandoned Evergreen College.
Benjamin A Boyce: "EVERGREEN... The College Where You Need to Shut Up!" Koppleman's acrimonious essay is extremely telling. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Love the hat... and the cats. Thanx.😼
I was a Liberal Arts student as well and I loved it. But Koppeman's article is so trite--few to no citations, poor logic, and the overwhelming sense (for me as a reader) that she is envious of Weinstein's success. What a turnaround from her initial support of him. Her refrain, "Shut up" really is so immature. It's not the engagement she claims to support. And she's been teaching for over 20 years. I think about the tone of her piece and its weak arguments. Seriously, if this piece qualifies as thoughtful discourse and writing at Evergreen from an experienced history professor, I would not want to study history there. She is too wedded to her particular views about interpreting to "engage" in any meaningful sense with other perspectives. What a detriment that would be to her students. A loss for them and the larger community.
Hey Benjamin. What can I say. Is this a woman who possibly was shunned by Professor Weinstein ? Just asking A very strong feeling of someone’s envy and anger. Wow. Thanks Benjamin. Always informative. As I said to you before. I’ve been fortunate to have several dialogues with Bret and he has been extremely polite to me (a stranger) thanks. Steve
More likely it's an expression of the desperation being felt by the college at large. If she doesn't "choose sides" then she will likely be one of the first chosen for the inevitable culling that's coming since she tacitly supported Brett at the offset. The economic effects of low enrollment will require a trimming of the fat so there is sure to be a subset of faculty that's scrambling to "prove themselves."
I want to thank you for so diligently looking into all things Evergreen for those of us that are interested, and for so consistently and clearly laying it all out for us. Also, you have gorgeous cats.
Why would a History professor be partnered with a Biology professor? He does a science. He deals in facts. He is not there to listen to students. They don't know the subject. They are their to listen to him and are paying good money to do it.
It's interesting to hear that this woman was someone who taught you how to make a strong argument. I think what is likely nagging you about this essay, beyond its objective weakness, is that it appears she doesn't believe in any of what she taught you about this. If I were in your shoes, that's what would be causing me pain while reading it, a sense of betrayal. What I hear as you're reading it is it's all about her asserting herself, "I know, because this is what I sense about him. My sense is of a finer sort than his," except rather than be explicit about that, she states what she feels about Bret as facts, "He didn't read what I gave him," "He isn't curious," "He denies the validity of all other fields," etc. She isn't interested in using evidence (she clearly demonstrates that). She is interested in distancing herself from him, and elevating herself above him in her own mind, and the minds of others who would intuitively agree with her, because the college now is all about whether you're part of the tribe: Are you in, or are you out? That's the evidence that matters to her career, and perhaps to her personally.
I'd take it the other way, that she believes in what she taught, but doesn't believe in what she has to say now enough to use her skills to defend it. Also possible that she would have added examples and citations, but could not find any; her memory of events being far different than how events actually unfolded. Either way, she's intellectually compromised.
I thought about the possibility that she didn't really believe in what she was saying after writing my comment. Since I'm a bad liar, I find it difficult to relate to people like that. I see from some of the other comments that people think she's jealous of Weinstein. Yes, he's gotten more public exposure than she has, but he's basically been unemployed since he was forced out of Evergreen. As I indicated, I picked up on the idea that she was doing this to extend her academic career, to declare to everyone who might have doubts about her loyalty that she was with the tribe. That's what you have to do now if you're on a career track. I wouldn't be able to countenance believing in, and teaching one thing, and then doing something else professionally. I agree, she's intellectually compromised. Weinstein's future is uncertain, but he's better off where he is.
After watching the footage at Evergreen, I really struggle to see how Bret could have reasoned with the mob. And I really struggle to see how she could possibly defend the administration when the actively kept the campus security from doing their job, putting the safety of students and faculty in danger.
I don't know where to do this so that you see it, but you are doing something truly worthwhile and deserve more praise than one person can rightly give. Benjamin, you are exposing truth in a way that is rarely done in our world and I thank you. The best thing that can come of this situation is that people see it and are able to understand and learn so that we may not make these mistakes again, and that is what you are presenting. Here's hoping that people are smart enough to head this off before it spreads. Thanks Ben, you really are doing the world a great service and I applaud you.
Thank you very much T S. I’m humbled to be thought so high of. And it be fair I am imperfect and just a dude with a bug in his bum for a particular story. 🤜🍻🤛
One of the faculty's duties is to help students learn to communicate well? See any number of videos from Evergreen and you will see the students have not learned to communicate well. They communicate about as well as thugs and barbarians. The faculty seems to have failed that duty, but is it the faculty's fault? Or the students for not wanting to learn? Higher up?
Her accusation that he doesn't care about public institutions is so unfounded. In all the interviews I've seen with him it is obvious that he really wanted Evergreen to work, he thought it was worth saving, it greatly pained him to leave, and he wants other institutions to change their ways before it's too late for them.
It's a real tricky thing "Psychologizing". One the one hand there is a high degree of error and the target will almost always react extremely negatively (possibly more so if you are actually correct). On the other hand, most activity in our brains is sub-conscious and not immediately available for our conscious awareness. We would all be fools to pretend otherwise and accuracy at identifying the significant influences of individuals and groups (both conscious and sub-conscious) is an incredibly powerful tool.
"Benjamin,"HATS BECOME YOU!" "As usual, BRILLIANT UNPACKING of individuals who seem to be living within a "STRAIT JACKET",,,,gosh, really SAD & LIMITED mindsets!" "THANKS BENJAMIN!"
Remember our wonderful brother Benjamin couldn’t afford these costumes without Patreon supporters like you 🍻
I only listen, I don't watch. Don't waste money on my account.
I have a feeling he owned these costumes for years.
For what reason?
That is still to be determined.
He doesn;t deserve anything for just reading an article that I can read on my own.
His hat shows his "patriarchy" and "privilege". Neck-beard Benjamin wears a hat, Hitler wears a hat. Benjamin's a Nazi. His cats have been caught doing the Hitler salute too.
45 acp 45 long colt they don't make a 45 magnum that I know of or unless its a custom loaded round for a revolver or custom lever action maybe
As a college biology professor in LA I've witnessed the strangle hold the social "science" department has on the university and its agenda. It is because Brett is an evolutionary biologist that makes it that much more important for him to speak out because the social sciences have turned into an indoctrination factory turning out uneducated duped young adults equipped with rhetoric and philosophy not based on any evidence. The real sciences are the only place on campuses now where logic and reasoning still exist. This woman clearly has some issues she needs to sort out. She could have left the college but she remains and complains about someone who was able to turn a situation that could have destroyed his career into something fruitful. We need more scientists speaking out about the insanity taking place in Academia. It's seeping into the Sciences as well. Because everyone's terrified of losing their jobs. At this point I feel like people who still work at Evergreen are complicit in what's taking place. If she wants the attention and accolades that Brett has received for standing up then she should grow a backbone.
This isn't really a fair or accurate description of the social sciences. Most of this stuff is coming out of the humanities, as is the case here. The social sciences, such as economics and political science and sociology are very much empirically grounded still. Little of the PoMo nonsense has made its way into the social sciences. And social sciences are "real sciences."
And in fact, the book the Weinstein assigned based on this video, Guns and Steel, is written by a social scientists. Namely, political geographer Jared Diamond.
Alan Tasbler based on my experiences in Academia it is specifically sociology that is at the helm of this movement to indoctrinate its students with critical race Theory and other "theories" that may have a certain level of empiricism but not at the same level requisite for other Sciences like chemistry physics and biology. I think certain fields of study can utilize science without actually being a science. Engineering is not a science however engineer's can utilize science. Art utilizes chemistry. Sociology typically uses inductive reasoning which is fine for general preliminary inquiry to find trends or patterns but is also inherently problematic in that making broad generalizations from very small observations can lead to false conclusions. The theories that are talked about in sociology are not true scientific theories like heliocentric theory, evolution, etc based on deductive reasoning using hypothesis based inquiry. Many sociological hypotheses are set up only to determine whether it's true not if it's falsifiable which is a main part of what the other Sciences are required to do.
Alan Tasbler perhaps not all of social science but sociology is definitely the culprit here. And while not all sociologists are part of the problem, some definitely do good work, they are definitely outnumbered by the unethical nut jobs who are effectively spreading certain philosophical ideals as science that lack any grounding in real science.
Chris Social and sciences together form an oxymoron producing ready-made fifth column comrades.
She sounds like a woman suffering from jealousy.
Exactly.
Yep
*envy
yeah, I thought I detected a bit of the ol' green-eyed monster myself
Professional envy and a bit of saying what she's expected to say to fit in. This can be seen as exculpation for having supported Bret.
I don’t think folks at Evergreen know the definition of “listen”. The protesters kept shouting at Bret to listen. He was listening. What they really wanted was for him to change his mind and agree with them. That’s not the same thing as listening.
If I can read a little into Koppleman’s essay, I wonder if she is doing a more polite version of the same thing when accusing Weinstein of not listening to other professors. You aren't obligated to listen to an endless rehash of the same points. That's just trying to use social pressure and exhaustion to get your way.
They state their points. You state your points and your rebuttal of their points. They state their same points more loudly and aggressively. The conversation is over. What more can be said or learned at that point?
R Nicole, no, no, no. "Listening" means "hearing plus power." Or maybe it was "hearing minus power." I've got it! Listening is hearing times 6.02 x 10^23 times prejudice times STFU. Actually, it's the square root of that.
m.ua-cam.com/video/7CLxf8NIDjc/v-deo.html
R Nicole it reminds me of my kids when they were little. I'd tell them No about something and they'd ask Why and I'd explain my reason. Then they'd keep asking Why (because they didn't like my answer) and ultimately end up in their room.
Make Evergreen a Black Liberal Arts College, eliminate biology along with ANY hard science... Hand out full Scholarships to any Black Student with an average SAT score... Triple tuition on Whites who want the Privilege of Attending.... POC and their Whites Dhimmis will be happy.
Sour grapes have always added bitterness to the whine..
To wring tannins from melanins:
The craft of this, our whinery.
This is a bit long to be a drunk post. Either that or "I am Negative Nancy, and I am an alcoholic. "
@@notamouse5630 Hi, Negative Nancy 😁
Looks like according to Rate my professor, that about a third of her reviews complained that she was extremely rude to students that opposed her viewpoints. She would frequently interrupt students and shut down speech she didn't approve of. She also was reported to be one to show "favorites" preferential treatment.
I am shocked, shocked, I say!
Imagine my surprise.
Thanks for looking it up. How perfect.
Doh! Busted!
Bret stepped off a sinking ship and now Nancy is flailing in the water~~~~~~~
They burned their bridges. They are like Adolph at the bunker. So many paper victories...
Wow, she used a lot of words to write: "I'm jealous!"
*envious
WOW she sounds so bitter that he is doing well and she is still at that POS school.
Bingo.
If he had only "shut up", he might still be working at that WONDERFUL institution, what a life! Lol...
Perhaps it is guilt infused with a sense of her own missed opportunity.
8:56 "I grock"
Heimdall's Gate sorry?
Sorry meant that for main chat he referred to a Heinlein novel
@@bigpete4227 grock is a word used in "stranger in a strange land" it sorta means deep understanding ... Sorta
Leftism is a syndrome. ; )
~7:30 did that student really just refer to logic and reason as "White forms of knowledge"? Evergreen College LMAO
Sure did, and what makes it worse is the underline thinking that's being displayed there. That by labeling something as white this, or white that, makes it instantly illegitimate. This down right demonization of white people in every and anyway possible is what is being "taught" in our schools today.
Thomas Sidoti I’d believe it. I’ve heard a South African college student insist that “white” science shouldn’t be taught, including gravity, as that was invented by a white scientist named Einstein.
Sorba Baric: Yup, was that the same girl who was recorded saying that "white science" needs to take a back seat to the knowledge of their Zulu elders. Then not even 10 seconds later she sat down and instantly started scrolling through whiteys magic box they call a smart phone?
LIBERTYSINCURSION Yes! And the lack of understanding that Einstein didn’t “invent” gravity. He described gravity. She has no self-perspective, or understanding of people, or history, or science. . That was mind boggling to hear.
LIBERTYSINCURSION I wonder if she also wants to include the dismembering of and using parts of people with albinism to gain powers , in the curriculum. That’s also a belief and practice in parts of Africa
I keep saying, it is easier to make an accusation than an argument.
Unsubstantiated hit piece....motivated by jealousy?
Ian Burns ....motivated by committed ideology.
Yes I agree, but it does look like she was at least open minded in her outlook previously and has now succumbed to the pressures of 'hive mind'. At bottom, one has to suspect, she is jealous and resentful that Bret got out because he wouldn't 'shut up' and now has a new life because he wouldn't 'shut up', she did know when to 'shut up' and so is still stuck there still having to deal with the 'Maoists'. She has to engage in public denouncement of the Other, to both justify her own situation of ongoing sacrifice to and for Evergreen as a college and living ideology and to vent her frustration at the 'death spiral' of the institution. Interesting that its just Bret and not Heather she denounces.
Yup this woman sounds like one of those people who Cant Understand Normal Thinking.
She's toeing the Evergreen line so she can keep her job because she realizes that she's otherwise unemployable.
Could be
There are strict rules at Zen monasteries, because it counter balances the structure-less letting-go of identity that happens in meditation. Evergreen and lib arts in general have fostered a very free, open, exploratory, and independent learning environment, but seems to have not provided the academic scaffolding which keeps cognition clear, healthy, and grounded.
He probably read the scarlet letter in high-school, LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE!
Sappy-Seaman, or junior high/middle school.
Hester Prynne was a thot.
I hear that it was even made into a movie or two.
@@annarboriter Well, not one true to the book that I am aware of.
That's what writing an article triggered looks like. She should figure out exactly what's driving her malice. My guess would be jealousy of the success he earned by refusing to sellout.
I try not to think too much at the implications of what you're saying: jealousy (along with pettiness) as engines of History.
Seems kind of obvious she is a hostage in her own environment. Never believe the "confessions" that hostages are motivated to record. Very sad.
As some other commentators have already mentioned, there seems a thread of jealousy running through her critique. Also, a lot of the same complaints she levels against Brett I've seen leveled against Jordan Peterson.. And if Brett (as well as Jordan) have had the ability (if not courage) to seize the moment and build an intellectual edifice from the personal attacks both have endured, well then more power to them!
Donald Fox, amen. I think that the thing SJWs most hate Jordan Peterson (and now Bret Weinstein) for is the fact that, not only weren't they destroyed by SJW lunacy, but they actually were turned into heros, people with massive followings, exactly what the SJWs want for themselves. JP has joked that his one unique contribution is that he "figured out how to monetize social justice warriors." It makes them crazy. Strike that. CraziER.
Does the thought never occur to this woman that, perhaps, not all academic disciplines DESERVE equal respect? People and ideas that deserve respect generally don't have to make a big fuss to get it.
I'm tired of good people like Bret having to suffer hatchet jobs from weasels.
If professors aren't "public intellectuals" at a public college/ university, then who is?
4:39 The problem isn't not knowing where to draw the line, but where some have drawn it. The biggest problem with Evergreen's philosophy is that it's completely swallowed the idea that "harm" [DING!] from someone else's freedom is solely determined by those claiming to be harmed without any question about whether the claim has any merit or what the intent of the "freedom" was. If you only let the "victims" define what is harmful, how do you stop them from abusing such a system? This is the real problem: the freedom they abuse to lay the blame on everyone else but themselves. In other words, the "harm" THEY are doing.
Reuben Kim, Ding!
There's a tactic that I learned a long time ago. Let those who oppose you keep talking until they paint themselves into a corner. Then smile, and summarize. Thanks for the summaries, Ben. I'm smiling.
Perhaps she’s doing a bit of damage control.
She is still there and was reasonably nice to Bret at the time. That place is hyper politicised so she might be under duress and thought throwing Bret under the bus would be a good move.
Ah! You said that at the end. Should’ve waited.
Big Pete I am thinking this also. Most likely the pressure is on her and she finally caved in and is going along with the mob. It is hard to be on the outside of the group or she has started to notice she is being pushed out and this is her way back in.
KillerBebe gotta do what you gotta do I suppose.
Plus she is unlikely to bump into Bret again.
“You have to know when to shut up”...maybe that’s what she is telling herself, because now she regrets supporting him. Maybe she’s feeling the pressure and doesn’t have the courage to cut loose like he did.
Bret is also a bit of an exceptional talent, and Nancy may not want to acknowledge this but he really deserves the attention he's getting -- not merely off the back of the Evergreen debacle, but on the strength of his views in their own right. Not everyone could do what he's done.
She is jumping on the hate train because she is worried she is going to lose her job... I think. She knows the ramifications of what happened and Bret not "shutting up" and is trying to change the mind of enough kids so she can last another year. Just a thought.
This is going to be good. . . I can already tell and I've just clicked play.
Edit: Indeed, this is every bit as fallacious as I thought it would be. "Lacks curiosity"??? Bret has an almost-feline devotion to curiosity, and like the proverbial cat, it's his fearless curiosity that killed his job at Evergreen.
If anyone has a lack of intellectual curiosity, it's this Nancy writer. She's just parroting the Evergreen rhetoric without so much as pondering whether there's any actual merit there.
Creepy. But not surprising. You chose a perfect hat for this!
zxy atiywariii, very well said.
Zxy atiywarili Bret was to Evergreen what our boi Zach is to Comics.
SJWs are tottalitarians zealots bent on "shutting people out".
Only they can talk: "we need to start a conversation", etc.
This is a carbon copy of what's happening in Comics. Even the success Bred is having outside Academia is terrifying the Gate keepers because it challanges their power and supply an alternative.
Ya boi Bret
😎
This is the kind of article that used to be published in the Nazi and Stalin (possibly also Mao) eras to justify the incarceration and execution of actual or potential non-conformists.
That was painful to listen to. It was just good old fashion character assassination and scapegoating (as you said), and a long litany of vague accusations about personality characteristics. What little specifics are offered, such as that the didn't bother to read students' work, seem extremely doubtful and in any case can't be verified. And "shut up?" C'mom sister.
Also, postmodernism really is shite. and I have read much of the cannon, as painful as it was.
btw, this is from her "Rate My Professor" page, which I found somewhat ironic given her assessment of Brett W. as failing to listen to other points of view:
"n my limited experience with Nancy she refused to listen to other viewpoints in seminar, telling students they were flat wrong for disagreeing with her, and was very rude to me when I asked her if I could in some way restructure the class to fit my needs. I understand she doesn't need to accommodate me, but she showed me no respect. "
Or this :
"Personally, I found Nancy to be unnecessarily straight-forward. She would not hesitate to interupt someone during seminar or call people out to speak, even if they were clearly uncomfortable. She also seemed to ***'target' certain students to constantly question their reasoning and continually belittle.*** [emphasis added].
Is this a classic case of projection?
Aye. I didn’t want to do unto her...
Or this:
"Nancy was very into what she was teaching, but can be hard to get along with. She can be very rude. ***She does not apply the same rules to herself that she applies to others.*** **She is intolerant.*** Her writing skills are good. ***She has trouble accepting criticism and will look to blame others for her own errors. "***
Curiousor and curiousor.
All subjective language and no objective language makes me question reality. 👍
I think she's trying to show that she's drunk the KoolAid because she doesn't want to be downsized.
GordieGii, I agree since she initially supported Bret, she was probably near the top of the downsize list, so she is hoping this hit piece will help mitigate that. Though as a woman she does have more armor vs downsizing than a straight white male.
Yeah, but if they are going to let go 20% of the professors and only 10% are male then that particular armor isn't going to be all that effective. Better if she were a POC, aboriginal or at least a strong ally.
The “The Scarlet Letter” is a work of fiction that I read back in high school, Bret may have read this book already or he found that it didn’t meet his standards for a class, such as assigning “Game of Thrones” as a historical fact of life in the Middle Ages
KillerBebe I thought the same thing. Most of us have read the book in high school. To assume he had not read it before is a serious reach. I would be dying of embarrassment if I was her.
It was probably a team-taught class with four professors. Each of the professors would make assignments for the students and other professors to read, etc. She is claiming that he didn't read. One would have to get Weinstein's input on if this is true and if so, why or why not
"stop demanding that everybody use logic and reason and white forms of knowledge," dude.
Professor very angry that Bret, having been depersoned, continues to person. Tries depersoning take two.
6:42 "stop demanding everybody use logic and reason..." Holy shit. More and more when I encounter such stuff,
I hear the main themes of Dawn of the Dead in my head. Makes the mindlessness more tolerable if I can view it as a zombie assault.
I love that you’ve witnessed her teaching others the proper way to form and back up an argument, and can see that she has placed those methods aside for her op-ed’s sake. There have to be pressures that she’s feeling behind the scenes causing this conundrum.
"He did not think carefully about challenges to his points of view." That's just proposing a reason for him not accepting your argument, that doesn't involve your argument being shitty.
"Stop demanding the use of logic and reason"? Wow yup that's sad.
Thank you for another great critique. A great teaching method: Tell anyone you don't agree with, "Just shut up!"
Koppelman's opinions about Weinstein just don't add up. A quick search on Rate My Professor says it all, Weinstein 4.7/5 with 62 students ranking him, 100% saying they'd take him again, 19 called him Inspirational, his wife Heather also got amazing reviews, Prof Nancy Koppelman, not so much, 3.6/5 from 19 students, nobody said if they'd take her class again although 1 student did call her inspirational. The success of Bret as a teacher is also demonstrated by the fact that his classes were popular and full. Having heard numerous hours of interesting in depth conversations between Bret and others I can't agree with Nancy on her accusations as I'v certainly heard Bret admit what he doesn't know, listen to others points of view, put forward reasonable suggestions about why something may be or wondering if certain things are connected without claiming certainty or expertise. Koppelman's essay is a hit piece which in my opinion does more to damage her own reputation than Bret's. Evergreen is suffering from publicly displaying an intolerant authoritarian and racist environment which seems very connected to the changes made since Pres Bridges took over. Folks were rightly appalled that the administration would not only allow, but reward and encourage militant students n staff to bully and harass anyone who didn't support their claims and demands. There has been so much dishonesty by the protesters and the institution about what has gone on and why even when there is film and documentation showing they are not being honest. It has cost Evergreen and unfortunately devalued students qualifications. Evergreen can't start to repair the damage done to it's reputation and finances until people start being open and honest about what really happened and why. I hope Benjamin Boyce's large body of work helps people do that, it's the most comprehensive source available for what happened and why, although of course there is much that could be added. Good on you Ben, and time for some honest reflection Nancy.
Benjamin is the Tycho Brahe of Evergreen insanity, just waiting for his Johannes Kepler.
So they still haven't taken any responsibility over there, 'cause pure intentions?
C O O L
I have been so much happier since leaving the state. It's actually amazing how miserable the general population is at TESC compared to where I am now. Still enjoying your ongoing autopsy coverage though.
Upon reflection this makes it seem as though I am sitting here from a safe distance cheering on as things fall apart... truly not the case. It's a damn shame. But we must keep learning.
"Evergreen is better off without him"
I sincerely doubt that.
The reverse, however, IS true.
Point Curation, unless by "better off" she means "closer to the utopian ideal of higher education that will surely come about as soon as we drive out all dissension."
Best hat EEEEEEEEEVER!!
Dont know how he does it but the hat works.
When did biology become a liberal art? Jordan Peterson has received similar "criticism" from academics. It really smacks of pure jealousy on behalf of those that these new public intellectuals have left far, far behind.
Ever since biology was a topic of study in higher education. Even know what a "liberal arts" education means?
Ever since Antiquity, the liberal arts has being understood to be composed of both the scientific "arts" and the humanities. The natural sciences are part of a liberal arts education. The point of a liberal arts education has always being to build a well-rounded, educated citizen. It's why universities make people in the sciences take humanities courses and people in the humanities take science courses. A liberal arts education is contrasted with a technical or vocational school education, which is geared towards a specific skill rather than a well-rounded education.
how many _cats_ does she have?
Alive?
Nine. They always have nine. I'm not making this up.
@@zoompt-lm5xw lol
Nancy Koppelman's history of fickle,
'Came clear when Bret pulled out his pickle:
His internet fame,
Put her pretense to shame;
Her slaps were just after the tickle!
TheBibo Sez 10 out of 10
It is clear that Nancy Koppelman is not a science graduate. She is a liberal arts professor. She criticises Bret Weinstein as if he was a colleague who taught History and American Studies and, of course, he was not. Weinstein was a Science professor. Much of Koppelman’s criticism is invalid and completely out of context with the subject matter that Weinsein was a professor of at Evergreen - evolutionary biology. It is evident that Koppelman’s postmodern approach to the situation at Evergreen that effectively spat out Weinstein is likely to belong to the same ideology that caused the fracas in the first place.
One of the failings of postmodernists is that they cannot accept the hierarchy of competence where their knowledge and experience is simply mediocre or perhaps even nonexistent alongside those who are true experts. In her article, she creates a straw man of Weinstein as a professor of liberal arts. Yet, Koppelman is not an expert in science and never will be. She cannot accept her position in the hierarchy of competence alongside Weinstein as having been a science professor. That's why she wants him to shut up.
She jelly? Yes. She worried abouts her employment insecurity? Yes. I have to agree with Ben, Liberal Arts isn't about telling people with opposing ideas to shut up - that just seems to be one of Evergreen's continuing M and P's. That Prof; what a wind bag...
When your soul has been sold there is nothing left. This woman cashed in all that was left. I hope she realizes her only option now is to goose step with everyone else. It is quite sad. Her article clearly shows she knows what will happen to her if she misses a beat.
Heimdall's Gate, it's almost like her letter was a long way to say, "We have always been at war with Eastasia."
I presume that the timing of Nancy's tirade is in response to the recently posted audio of the J.B. Peterson/Sam Harris discussion in Vancouver B.C. that Bret Weinstein moderated. He made a reference in that first discussion to the failure of Academia as yet another institution which has historically furthered the project of human progress; but at this particular point in time has failed in that purpose.
1) It is in the nature of Professors to profess. That is their function. They are not called Supressors or Doctors of Silence. Their job is to profess within their area of specialization. For Bret Weinstein, that is the Biological Sciences. It is perfectly natural for a professor in the physical sciences to profess the virtue, the benefits, and the empirical superiority of the hard sciences. It is neither necessary, nor particularly beneficial for a professor of Biological Sciences to spend his time reading Virginia Woolf. In fact it would be a waste of resources and time for him or her to attempt to become a scholar of Virginia Woolf. The core value of a professor is IN their area of core competency. That is where they actually have something of value to impart to their student's. Ironically, it is in the social science of Economics that the primacy of specialization was exposited as THE wellspring of our material prosperity. This was a key point of Hayek. An Historian should be aware of this much more acutely than a physical scientist. And yet, somehow, Nancy is not conscious of it. She is in fact, apparently quite unconscious of her own implicit bias. That should be surprising, but seems to be a pattern of peripheral blindness.
The basic premise of the interdisciplinary model of education at TESC is NOT about Biologists pretending to be Historians or Sociologists or Poets. Quite the contrary. The model is based upon the virtue of specialization. Team teaching by professors from disparate areas of specialization all working together to present a panoply of perspectives on a thematic principle as defined in a "program of study" is NOT about facilitating the homogenization of the professors; rather it is about re-integrating a range of disciplines for the benefit of the students in order to provide a broad and syncretic experience; one in which the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.
2) There is an inherent friction between the hard sciences and the soft sciences. It is not reasonable for a professor of the soft sciences to expect a professor of the hard sciences to regard these two kinds of knowledge as equal in veracity. The hard sciences are obsessively focused on measureable, quantifiable, concretized emperical knowledge. The social sciences are not, nor are they of particular predictive value. The social sciences are instead more suggestive, rather than predictive. This point was also driven home by Hayek.
3) The hard sciences are predominantly filled with men. And, they are largely filled with men who fall somewhere on the autism spectrum. For a social scientist to comment that the physical sciences are full of people who lack social skills and emotional sensitivity is simply a statement of the obvious. It is highly likely that a professor in the physical sciences (which are dominated by men, and men on the autism spectrum in particular) would be viewed as self referential and socially awkward. But, how can we explain a social scientist being ignorant and uncaring about their own reactivity to the social and emotional deficits of their autism spectrum team mates? Just who is being obtuse and insensitive here?
4) The hat must die a particularly prolonged and painful death. Might I suggest kerosene and a match, set adrift on the outdoing tide on a timber raft or boat on Elliot Bay? The cats would be amused.
5) It strikes me that Nancy likes to hear the sound of her own thoughts. Perhaps she is jealous. It is certainly unbecoming in any case. It is as if she expected Dr. Weinstein to simply disappear, or cease to be; perhaps to die. How unkind, ungenerous, and how ahistorical of her. Martyrs do not simply disappear; and that is whar Dr. Weinstein and his partner are, martyrs to a modern day inquisition. This is an ancient and powerful archetype of which any historian worth his or her salt would be well aware.
6) The liberal arts are not all of equal gravitas or import. Some of the seven sisters have always been regarded as "weaker" than the others. If Nancy takes umbrage at being perceived in that way, then perhaps she ought to have pursued a different area of specialization. She worked alongside Bret Weinstein for a decade of her life. I wonder if she ever raised any of her concerns (or "feels" as we understand them) with Dr. Weinstein directly; or has she nursed her resentement for all these years in bitter silence?
7) Unsurprisingly, the entirety of Nancy's tirade brings to mind Lysistrata. Is it possible that the essential sexual basis of this dichotomy eludes her? Can an Historian possibly be that obtuse, that self referential, that hermetically sealed and psychologically unconscious? It defies credibility.
8) The two weaker sisters were always regarded as music and dance. Nancy would be much more persuasive if she appealed to these sisters, if she invoked a call and response, a chorus or refrain; rather than asking for the physical scientists to SFTU. Interdisciplinary teamwork, like marriage is a dance, a song, a call and refrain; a yin and yang if you will... a synergy which is more than the sum of it;s parts. STFU is a lyric that poisons the well. As the call and refrain in Handel's Messiah elucidates, "Wann kommst du mein heill?, Ich komme dein teil. Wann komst du? Ich komme; Wann komst du? Ich komme..." There is no place for STFU in a call and response.
9) Does one demand that the rooster STFU every morning at sunrise? That wouldn't be very productive. It would, in fact, be insane to expect the rooster to act in a manner which is not in accord with his essential nature. And this is really the heart of the matter. Cock a doodle doo!
I believe that both this post and the video are unnecessarily scathing about Koppleman's position. It's definitely not charitably interpreted, and the most obtuse strawmaning is displayed.
It is entirely possible to consider this as just as true and arguably far more plausible:
- she has decided to write this as her own perspective as someone who had some close familiarity with Weinstein. She's not writing an essay about some other object. Therefore, while it's true that she could have included links to supporting evidence for some of her claims (in particular his critiques of accademia and so on, to clarify what she meant), the rote repetition of "evidence" throughout the video when she is sharing her own experience is rather trite.
- Koppleman has shown that she stands up for her principles, she demonstrated integrity, in standing up against the TESC mob when it was going against Bret. In my book this means that she has earned the right to be taken seriously, and that we can read her take at face value in terms of the experience that she relates.
This is especially compelling when you see from her original email that her view is that the accademic standards at Evergreen had been in dire straits for a long time, that teachers were not taking student work seriously, and that it's that faculty cuture that is the bed that TESC made in which it ended up having to lie. She obviously says that she never exonerated Bret from that criticism, and that he was part of this problem, as she sees it. Also, I don't think that the consistent string of AWESOME ratings by students is any proof to the contrary, you could almost argue au contraire, given the TESC student culture that has become apparent since. And this is precisely the point of the single lone BAD rating that he got that you showed. If you look at Koppelman's ratings, they indeed show a professor that is more focused on reading and hard work, whereas Bret is more "inspirational" and "hilarious". It's not right or wrong, it's just that her perspective also matters.
- for the same reason, we can also refrain from taking her "know when to shut up" comments as the worst possible statement that can ever be made. Have you never, really, met someone, however smart and interesting they are, who you sometimes think that if they shut up right there at this moment to let some tension release and give other people a chance to simmer back down, that would improve the situation? Maybe that's what she means.
Maybe she was regularly at meetings where Bret monopolized the floor and kept berating people over and over again without consideration for the need for people to express their alternative views or take a breath. Maybe her view that he was aggravating people and making the overall situation worse has some merit, coming from someone who obviously has integrity and principles?
This is not to say that Bret was morally wrong for doing that, but maybe she's right that he did not navigate these situations in the most productive manner in a liberal arts college? If these were mostly closed faculty meetings where she noticed this, maybe she won't cite specifics because she doesn't want to out people that she thinks she can better manage in private? And she could be arguably the most legitimate person to genuinely resent Bret's choice to go public on FOX precisely because she felt that stuff needed to be fixed at Evergreen, and that this public firestorm basically killed any chance of de-escalation and problem-solving? In fact, the results seem to bear this out, given the doubling-down of TESC on its so-called equity agenda. It's hard to argue that what Bret did improved the situation at Evergreen...
I'm not saying she's right in that assesment, maybe the situation was unsalvageable anyway and Bret made the right call, but *we don't know.* All we know is that Bret went public, and in this whole thing, in the end, let's face it, he's the only one coming out on top, in better shape than he was before and certainly than the people he ended up leaving behind.
Again, I'm not saying that I think this is wrong, I'm just saying that I can see that Koppleman, as someone who elected to stand firm and who believes that you can only fix this from the inside, could understandably develop a view that Bret just decided to defuse the situation by setting off the detonator that would bring the thing to critical mass and walk away (gfycat.com/fr/gifs/detail/BetterDelayedAngelwingmussel).
And I'm saying that her credentials of being the only person to stand up for Bret *on principle* should afford her this kind of benevolent reading rather than strawmanning and ridicule.
vfwh, I do not care to join you in your speculative pilgrim's progress through the destruction of TESC. Her letter is public. His position is public. The whole series of events was captured on cellphone cameras and broadcast on social media as it was unfolding.
I reject out of hand the notion that Bret is somehow responsible for the change of the mission statement to focus primarily on social justice. And, I reject your argument that Bret s somehow responsible for the President's decision to turn up the heat on his social justice enforcement agenda on campus in the aftermath of the whole preposterous whitey go home day on campus.
It seems to me that what we are seeing is an exposition of groupthink, and a revisioning or reframing of history in order to maintain the illusion that TESC is a liberal arts institution. In fact, it ceased to be that the moment the mission statement was changed!
The most charitable interpretation of Koppelman's rant is delayed Stockholm syndrome. The more realistic interpretation is that Koppelman is seeking to salvage her own position within what has become an identitarian ghetto. Pecking order is paramount in an island run by the lord of the flies. One's position within the hierarchical structure is the primary determinant of one's quality of life in a cult. Did Bret Weinstein, by virtue of his asperger's like behavior, single handedly turn a liberal arts college into a cult of identity? Where is Monty Python when we need him?
I do not appreciate the strawmanning comment. Ridiculous premises, expounded through ridiculous prose speak for themselves. Koppelman's letter is public. Everything is public. TESC is a public institution. She is a public employee. The liberal arts have withstood the glare of blazing daylight since the time of Socrates. Your argument is reminiscent of that made for the death by poison of Socrates. Perhaps you would like for Bret Weinstein to have drunk the hemlock and died quietly. That is what Koppelman is also arguing; although she is too unconscious to realize it.
I fundamentally reject Koppelman's conception of the role of a professor in a public college; and particularly within the context of TESC's model of team teaching. I really don't care how she feels. I am a graduate of TESC, when it was a liberal arts college. The destruction of my alma matter at the hands of opportunists and idiots is a topic on which I am entitled to form and share my considered opinion. Everyone has "credentials". But, not everyone demonstrates credibility, veracity, honesty, integrity, logic, or reason.
The core of the problem at TESC is encoded in the very heart of the institution. In the mission statement. The only way to change this is to restore the mission statement to it's previous language. Otherwise, you will always get these kind of events occurring; just as HAL in 2001 A Space Odyssey ejected a crewman into the vacuum of space due to a programming error; TESC jettisoned three professors. That programming error remains in force. Koppelman has to live with that knowledge. Weinstein did not write the mission statement.
No institution can serve two masters simultaneously. The liberal arts cannot exist within the context of a radical identitarian regime. The former is about liberty or freedom. The latter is about slavery, theft, control and manipulation.
TESC does not exist in a vacuum, neither do it's professors. We know much more about how political institutions function than you care to admit. We know a great deal about how cults function too. And, the cult of identitarianism is seeking to subsume all competing value structures. It is a fundamentally dangerous and toxic ideology with broad social impact. Bret went public on the process of conversion occurring in Academia. That was a public service. This movement is not limited to one campus.
To argue that Bret Weinstein is now in a better financial or professional position than he was as a professor at TESC is delusional and unhinged. Koppelman has made that insinuation, and so have you. Do the math.
vfwh “Have you never ,really , however smart and interesting they are, , who you sometimes think that if shut up right there at this moment to let other people simmer back down, that would improve the situation ?”...
I have now.
Also, that is THE WORST SENTENCE STRUCTURE I HAVE EVER SEEN.
And, the cult of identitarianism is seeking to subsume all competing value structures. It is a fundamentally dangerous and toxic ideology with broad social impact"
This comment has so many important ideas. Hope it will be published where more people will see it. I'm watching this "toxic ideology" consume my community, the state and the world.
Keep talking! You are completely correct about the "shut up" thing. This woman must have poisoned herself just writing that.
Section Deleted? I’m intrigued!
Gotta let that one sit for the time being.
Benjamin A Boyce let the sunshine in and disinfect. Can you give us a hint?
This sounds very much like a report that a jealous neighbor/disgruntled work colleague/outcast family member would submit to the Stasi in an effort to create a non-person.
This lady would do well in a totalitarian state where such factless bitter accusations are expected. She sounds jealous of the notoriety and respect that Brett has garnered (can't speak for financial benefits) since his ignominious ejection from his safe haven by an angry mob.
Is enrollment even further down than forecasted?
Yep. No hard data tho. Yet.
Lets hope so. That place needs to go back to the squirrels of higher intelligence.
You would think it would be a wake up call.
Michael W, that's not how religions/cults deal with contradictory evidence. When they predict Armageddon on a certain day, for example, and that day comes and goes without a hiccup, they never say, "I guess we were wrong." There's always an explanation about how they failed to account for some key variable in an otherwise sound model, usually followed by a new doomsday prediction. The basic model will NEVER be questioned.
It took me far too long to see the wordplay in the thumbnail.
Thank you for the giggle.
Enrollment is down. Staff is being laid off. Maybe she wants to portray herself as a team player in case she is one of them. Her photo does not look like she is retirement age.
I’ve seen Bret and Bret plus Heather in several different videos, but Naima Lowe seems to have dropped off the face of the earth. Please tell me, she’s dropped off the face of the earth, right? Please?
Brett hasn’t even been talking about Evergreen at all and loved Evergreen and hates what’s happening to it. All someone has to do is listen to him.
Michael Parsons, actually he gave a FANTASTIC talk about the Evergreen insurgency. It's on his UA-cam channel. It's called "How the Magic Trick Is Done." I think it's THE best analysis I've heard of both the Evergreen insanity and the social "justice" movement as a whole.
Yes, "How the Magic Trick is Done" certainly clarified a lot of the attacks SJWs do from #METOO to destroying careers with decades old tweets, to mass flaggings and charges of racism. They all depend on altering the definition; lowering the bar for the accusation, but then insisting on the most severe punishment justified by the old definition. So you are racist by their new definition that includes microaggressions and "words are violence", but you should be ostracized as if you are a grand wizard of the KKK; or you are guilty of "sexual misconduct" by the new definition that includes anything a self-styled "victim" says; a touch, a kiss, an unwelcome complement; but then you should be punished in accordance with a definition of "sexual misconduct" that treats it as a synonym for rape.
condew, I'm glad you liked the talk. Everybody else, he made A LOT of other insightful points besides what condew reported on.
Besides fear of ostracism and the desire to fit in with her peers, another motivation perhaps is envy and resentment towards Bret's success.
Benjamin, You. Are. Fabulous. and please don’t ever shut up.
Since you have the initial letter she wrote after the event, you should post it to the comments section under her piece and title it as a counter-point opinion
Jealously, can you say jealousy? I thought you could.
His continued condemnation of Evergreen? I don't see him talking much about it lately, but in truth his continued existence and the niche he's carved out for himself in the public discourse serve as a kind of very visible mark of shame for Evergreen, which just won't scrub off. Honestly though I can't imagine how that could be construed as anything but positive for Liberal arts education in this country. Evergreen proved that it was in dire need of serious institutional reform in this debacle and continues to be in denial. If the whole academic community and a decent segment of the larger population are on hand to watch it burn, then maybe a few administrations will see the light and save themselves from a similar fate.
Deride The Tide, I agree. When Weinstein was talking specifically about Evergreen, he seemed to be genuinely agonizing over the direction it was going precisely because he was committed to its alternative methods of education. He liked its original stated mission of making education accessible to "non-traditional" students, and was concerned that it was becoming just an SJW indoctrination center.
As a historian I wonder if she has thought about the difference between now and in the mid to late Twentieth century. In terms of who has called for and didn't call for limits on speech.
ever green is a fascinating story and I appreciate you documenting it. this woman has to side against brett to protect her job.
You haven't been in feed for some reason. It's good to see you my friend.
I missed your lionist visage! UA-cam has issues, but I’m glad you came back!
Benjamin! I love when you go off like this. It suits you well!!
Okay I'm calling BS. I don't believe she's ever read Nathaniel Hawthorne, especially not "The Scarlet Letter". She's not sufficiently socially aware to have read that book. Perhaps she skimmed the Cliff Notes. 😂
I had her as a professor. She loves The Scarlet Letter. It's her favorite book.
I found it pretentious in the extreme.
ZoomingRainbowHoover. What was she like?
She did a good job as an educator and she's a good person at heart, I think. She loves the idea of students writing a draft and then re-writing, and re-writing again for the goal of perfection and even got the school to implement a mandatory self evaluation for students to write about their entire academic career in order to graduate. She loves work. Class clowns beware.
Something she said she believes in that I often think about is how she thinks different periods of history shouldn't be compared and judged between one another when you consider how humanity advances and other factors where different cultures had less access to certain resources. Obviously I don't have her exact quote on that idea, and it was almost 8 years ago when I had her.
I'm impressed she put Joe Rogan correctly to the left, and in an article that was published; not the right, as people inexplicably do.
Envy. Pure and simple. Post-hoc rationale for jealousy.
She's a poor writer and her thinking is muddled by political correctness. Weinstein is an admirable fellow and capable of teaching at the highest levels.
Kevin Hornbuckle, nice, succinct summary.
I love the thing you always do with the cats in the end of each segment. Very funny.
The people at the hat store are like "This guy again?"
"How can I use my vague association with someone famous to get some attention for myself? Hmmm..."
I’m not sure your not talking about me 🤔
Seems like she is just jealous. Also, she talks about a liberal arts college delivering the kind of education people need to know how to use their freedom. Translation: Liberal arts colleges deliver indoctrination.
I'm so late to this but, the sound clip of the "student" (kindergartener) demand they stopped using logic and reason, and "white" forms of knowledge...what...what is happening!!
"He used the word 'exile.' 'Harumph,' I say!"
I am looking into my crystal ball and seeing 10 years from now, urban explorers recording the sad shell of the defunct and abandoned Evergreen College.
Benjamin A Boyce:
"EVERGREEN... The College Where You Need to Shut Up!"
Koppleman's acrimonious essay is extremely telling. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Love the hat... and the cats. Thanx.😼
I was a Liberal Arts student as well and I loved it. But Koppeman's article is so trite--few to no citations, poor logic, and the overwhelming sense (for me as a reader) that she is envious of Weinstein's success. What a turnaround from her initial support of him. Her refrain, "Shut up" really is so immature. It's not the engagement she claims to support. And she's been teaching for over 20 years. I think about the tone of her piece and its weak arguments.
Seriously, if this piece qualifies as thoughtful discourse and writing at Evergreen from an experienced history professor, I would not want to study history there. She is too wedded to her particular views about interpreting to "engage" in any meaningful sense with other perspectives. What a detriment that would be to her students. A loss for them and the larger community.
Law suit ! Defamation of character.
Concentrated resentment from an "aspiring creative writer".
by B.A.Boyce. 2018.
Hey Benjamin. What can I say. Is this a woman who possibly was shunned by Professor Weinstein ? Just asking A very strong feeling of someone’s envy and anger. Wow. Thanks Benjamin. Always informative. As I said to you before. I’ve been fortunate to have several dialogues with Bret and he has been extremely polite to me (a stranger) thanks. Steve
More likely it's an expression of the desperation being felt by the college at large. If she doesn't "choose sides" then she will likely be one of the first chosen for the inevitable culling that's coming since she tacitly supported Brett at the offset. The economic effects of low enrollment will require a trimming of the fat so there is sure to be a subset of faculty that's scrambling to "prove themselves."
Stephen Jones. They talk together, so it doesn't sound like it.
I want to thank you for so diligently looking into all things Evergreen for those of us that are interested, and for so consistently and clearly laying it all out for us.
Also, you have gorgeous cats.
Thank you Jamie 😏
Why would a History professor be partnered with a Biology professor? He does a science. He deals in facts. He is not there to listen to students. They don't know the subject. They are their to listen to him and are paying good money to do it.
It's interesting to hear that this woman was someone who taught you how to make a strong argument. I think what is likely nagging you about this essay, beyond its objective weakness, is that it appears she doesn't believe in any of what she taught you about this. If I were in your shoes, that's what would be causing me pain while reading it, a sense of betrayal. What I hear as you're reading it is it's all about her asserting herself, "I know, because this is what I sense about him. My sense is of a finer sort than his," except rather than be explicit about that, she states what she feels about Bret as facts, "He didn't read what I gave him," "He isn't curious," "He denies the validity of all other fields," etc. She isn't interested in using evidence (she clearly demonstrates that). She is interested in distancing herself from him, and elevating herself above him in her own mind, and the minds of others who would intuitively agree with her, because the college now is all about whether you're part of the tribe: Are you in, or are you out? That's the evidence that matters to her career, and perhaps to her personally.
I'd take it the other way, that she believes in what she taught, but doesn't believe in what she has to say now enough to use her skills to defend it. Also possible that she would have added examples and citations, but could not find any; her memory of events being far different than how events actually unfolded. Either way, she's intellectually compromised.
I thought about the possibility that she didn't really believe in what she was saying after writing my comment. Since I'm a bad liar, I find it difficult to relate to people like that. I see from some of the other comments that people think she's jealous of Weinstein. Yes, he's gotten more public exposure than she has, but he's basically been unemployed since he was forced out of Evergreen. As I indicated, I picked up on the idea that she was doing this to extend her academic career, to declare to everyone who might have doubts about her loyalty that she was with the tribe. That's what you have to do now if you're on a career track. I wouldn't be able to countenance believing in, and teaching one thing, and then doing something else professionally. I agree, she's intellectually compromised. Weinstein's future is uncertain, but he's better off where he is.
After watching the footage at Evergreen, I really struggle to see how Bret could have reasoned with the mob. And I really struggle to see how she could possibly defend the administration when the actively kept the campus security from doing their job, putting the safety of students and faculty in danger.
I don't know where to do this so that you see it, but you are doing something truly worthwhile and deserve more praise than one person can rightly give. Benjamin, you are exposing truth in a way that is rarely done in our world and I thank you. The best thing that can come of this situation is that people see it and are able to understand and learn so that we may not make these mistakes again, and that is what you are presenting. Here's hoping that people are smart enough to head this off before it spreads. Thanks Ben, you really are doing the world a great service and I applaud you.
Thank you very much T S. I’m humbled to be thought so high of. And it be fair I am imperfect and just a dude with a bug in his bum for a particular story. 🤜🍻🤛
8:15 going around campus with baseball bats
It's interesting how often the subject of money (i.e. settlements) comes up.
At least for once she didnt lable Rogan and Rubin as alt right etc.
One of the faculty's duties is to help students learn to communicate well? See any number of videos from Evergreen and you will see the students have not learned to communicate well. They communicate about as well as thugs and barbarians. The faculty seems to have failed that duty, but is it the faculty's fault? Or the students for not wanting to learn? Higher up?
Her accusation that he doesn't care about public institutions is so unfounded. In all the interviews I've seen with him it is obvious that he really wanted Evergreen to work, he thought it was worth saving, it greatly pained him to leave, and he wants other institutions to change their ways before it's too late for them.
I know this gets thrown around a lot, but this has some crazy 1984 vibes, where history just isn't relevant and the truth keeps changing.
I think she tried to escape Evergreen with a similar settlement, of which she was envious, and was denied...
Liberal arts professors embrace complexity. Now that’s some funny shit
It's a real tricky thing "Psychologizing". One the one hand there is a high degree of error and the target will almost always react extremely negatively (possibly more so if you are actually correct). On the other hand, most activity in our brains is sub-conscious and not immediately available for our conscious awareness. We would all be fools to pretend otherwise and accuracy at identifying the significant influences of individuals and groups (both conscious and sub-conscious) is an incredibly powerful tool.
"Benjamin,"HATS BECOME YOU!" "As usual, BRILLIANT UNPACKING of individuals who seem to be
living within a "STRAIT JACKET",,,,gosh, really SAD & LIMITED mindsets!" "THANKS BENJAMIN!"
We thank you for the gift of that orig viral vid. No longer on an island, Evergreed!
Great comment on her Medium article Mr. Boyce! For some reason can't seem to add any more comments...