Sounds to me that the original meaning of ‘Day of Absence’ has been torn from its foundation. Have there been any authentic actions and collaborative efforts to achieve the objectives of today’s protesters? Is this how they mean to create the nurturing campus environment they crave? Like someone said earlier, the video of the “forum” with the President of the college speaks for itself. So vile as to be nearly comical. So much misdirected anger as to be pointless.
@HarvestMoon1, come on. There is ample video evidence of what happened when the professor did not do as he was “invited”. Why was he asked to leave campus for a few days by the police (assuming that is true)? How else can you possibly interpret these things other than as a concerted and ham handed effort to enforce compliance? Or are you prepared to argue that he “was asking for it” because he publicly stated that he would “decline the invitation” to self segregate.
@Ohiodad51 I am arguing that the program never required anyone to leave campus. That was in response to @mamalion’s comment in #13 that last year the students of color were invited to be absent and this year whites were invited to do the same.
My point is that the program never mandated anyone be absent in previous years so this year deviated and was inappropriate.
@HarvestMoon1 got it, that I understand. I guess I misinterpreted your language “and then that somehow became a mandate.”
Well as it turned out it certainly wasn’t an “invitation” in any sense of the word. Weinstein declined to participate and was chased off campus.
I can’t tell if this was serious but those are both owned by Rupert Murdoch, not really a different viewpoint.
I think the point I took away is that in previous years groups volunteered to be absent or proclaimed themselves to be absent and this year one group asked another group to be absent…big difference in my mind…big difference.
And when one professor politely declined and explained why (in a very rational, non-confrontational manner from what I can tell), the requesting group decided to protest and demand that he be fired. I’d say that’s as big of a difference as that between freedom and tyranny.
We do have a few people on CC who are obsessed with the idea that colleges and universities are mostly interested in indoctrinating students into radical left-wing views, and start a thread whenever they see something that supports that view.
I feel like there is something missing from this story. What are these students angry about?
I don’t see any reporting where the student protestors are asked what they are protesting.
I’m finding the local media to be doing a better job of explaining what’s going on.
http://www.theolympian.com/news/local/education/article152491379.html
http://www.theolympian.com/news/local/article153150894.html
The right-wing media seems to be hyping what’s going on at the school. The left-wing media is barely covering it.
@simba9 “The right-wing media seems to be hyping what’s going on at the school. The left-wing media is barely covering it.”
I agree, and I think that is too bad. I am liberal, and I think think this deserves discussion and clarity. Some of the changes seem fine, but one stands out to me as over the top.
“Adoption of a new policy where every official event at the college will start with an acknowledgment that Evergreen State is on land stolen from Native Americans.”
For me that is a bridge too far.
Was that piece of land stolen? Who stole it? Did the University steal it? Why not add that Native Americans it was stolen from took it from other Native Americans? Maybe add something about the oppression of blacks, latinos, and women on this land?
I think the administration is on a path to being defunded by the state. Maybe they can get by on its endowment?
Like it or not, there are things occuring on a variety of campuses that are inherently political. This is one example among far too many. I do not know how one can have a true and comprehensive discussion about universities in general without at least touching on what has unarguably become a trend over the last several years. Some of us find this trend troubling, other less so. But to ignore it seems to me to do a disservice to the board and community. Certainly a rational actor deciding on whether to apply to Evergreen (or Mizzou, Yale, Middlebury, etc.) is better off having this information than not. It seems to me that is one of the prime functions of this board.
And let me step back and once again bemoan the idea that something can be safely ignored if it is on Fox or in the WSJ (or the NYT and CBS if you prefer) because that platform does not fit within what appears to be an ever narrowing field of political acceptablity, This is a terrible trend, and only furthers the splintering of our society. It is also completely immaterial here. There is video. The event occured. No one involved is denying it. While the decision to report (or not) on the event may tell us something about the agenda of various media, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter at hand.
It’s Evergreen. Idiocy like this is going to happen there from time to time. For anyone who wants to take the students’ side, I ask you read the professor’s letter and find me one thing to be concerned about. What’s astonishing to me is how their president’s reacted to all this–the guy defines “gutless wonder.” All he needed to do to make this go away was tell them, “Be mad at me if you want. Be mad at Bret if you want. Be mad and be angry as I am through giving a damn about your anger. I’m going home for dinner and anyone who prevents me from doing so will get arrested. Enjoy the rest of your day and don’t vandalize anything.”
Evergreen is the public equivalent of some place like Marlboro or Oberlin with way less qualified students (it’s essentially an open enrollment school). Oddly, they seem to do quite well with vets and returning students in general (just a hunch; they don’t really overlap with those making noise right now).
Years ago I posted something to an internet group I was a member of and the source was the National Enquirer. They laughed and laughed. It was the John Edwards story and proved to be entirely true, baby and all.
I have a friend who has a Pultizer Prize. She told me never to dismiss sources like the Enquirer, People magazine, local reporters because they often have the facts correct.
And as a counterpoint to this ridiculous and unfounded claim, see: Denison, Ursinus, Clark, Whitman, Beloit, Hillsdale, Juniata, Hope, Allegheny, Lynchburg, Ohio Wesleyan, Wooster, Southwestern and St. Olaf. None of which are “over the top left wing” but are all still CTCL.
ESC’s completely open curriculum (see http://evergreen.edu/registration/degrees ) may be attractive to those who just need a BA degree as a credential. It also offers part-time, evening, and weekend study (see http://evergreen.edu/eveningweekend ) that may be attractive to non-traditional students who have more job and family commitments.
Of course, veterans and other non-traditional students may be left-leaning, although they may be less hotheaded than younger traditional students.
As a counterpoint to this claim, see the following about St. Olaf:
Finally someone realizes how difficult it is to be a white evangelical in the US. How she suffers so, poor thing. All the money and the blond hair is such a burden and so limiting :-(. I hope she has the fortitude to rise above despite her poor circumstance.
How do we know she is evangelical and rich? She only describes herself as a “conservative.”