
Weinstein made a rather obvious objection an email to a plan to exclude people from campus based on the race:
“There is a huge difference between a group or coalition deciding to voluntarily absent themselves from a shared space in order to highlight their vital and under appreciated roles … and a group or coalition encouraging another group to go away . . . I would encourage others to put phenotype aside and reject this new formulation … On a college campus, one’s right to speak—or to be—must never be based on skin color.”
That position led to Weinstein being surrounded outside of his office where he tried to have a dialogue and even instructed the students about the “difference between debate and dialectic.” He noted that “Debate means you are trying to win, dialectic means you are using disagreement to discover what is true. I am not interested in debate. I am only interested in dialectic, which does mean I listen to you, and you listen to me.”
That did not go over well with a student objecting to his saying “racist sh-t.” Another said “We don’t care what terms you want to speak on. This is not about you. We are not speaking on terms—on terms of white privilege. This is not a discussion. You have lost that one.”
Anger grew when Weinstein denied that black students have been targeted by faculty. He insisted that “I do not believe that anybody on our faculty, with intent, specially targets students of color.”
Students proceeded to protest with chants “Hey hey! Ho ho! Bret Weinstein has got to go!”
Just as a reminder, this is all because Weinstein voiced his view that excluding whites from campus was wrong.
The college issued a statement praising the “intense and useful conversation with a group of students.” I am less positive about the scene below or the underlying dispute. Weinstein is correct that the proposed exclusion of students and faculty based on their race is deeply troubling and wrong. The response from the students was insulting, uncivil, and abusive. I would have hoped for a stronger statement in support of this faculty member in his right to express his views and a categorical rejection of the demand for the termination of Weinstein.
What do you think?
