The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

[Love Mountain]

And now you're grasping at straws, nice. Google day of absence. Evergreen actually did it, it made the news in america, you've most certainly heard of it. Several others also tried to do it but got shut down from above. Now there's talks of 2023.

The point is that things like this should not even exist as an idea on campus. The fact that the "progressive" ideas made students willing to exclude other students because they are the wrong colour du jour makes said ideas perverse and toxic. Everything else is just extra on the turdburger.

I did and I don't even see what's so hysterical about it. It's a very small liberal arts college with 2,000 students. As far as I can tell the Day of Absence itself was a proposal, and I can't even tell who started the proposal, college students or the administration, though it is likely to be the former.

Furthermore, the whole idea behind it was as described,

"The conflict stems from the college’s Day of Absence, a tradition in which black people leave the campus to show what the place would be like without them. This year, organizers suggested the reverse: that white people who wanted to participate would leave while nonwhites stayed, and both groups would attend workshops to, as the email announcement put it, “explore issues of race, equity, allyship, inclusion and privilege.”

Quite frankly, I don't see anything terribly racist or awful about the idea itself. I think the implementation of their idea leaves a lot of things to be desired, but the only thing that makes it inappropriate is the student protest that scared the teacher.

[sumskilz]

It's a very small liberal arts college with 2,000 students.

I thought you were wrong about this. I'm pretty familiar with Evergreen and I recalled it being about twice that for the main Olympia campus alone, so I looked it up:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Apparently, undergraduate enrollment has dropped by almost 60% over the course of roughly the last decade. I suppose most of that is due to declining interest in expensive useless degrees, although anecdotally I know a few self-described "progressives" who were put off by the radical politics on campus, particularly cases of the wrong kind of students being victimized (which were allegedly ignored by the administration) and the tossing of menstrual blood on people.

Back in the day, it used to be more like this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It was a simpler time.

[alhoon]

It halved within 5 years.
Good. Useless unis that mainly teach people reasons to be angry should fail.

[sumskilz]

It halved within 5 years.
Good. Useless unis that mainly teach people reasons to be angry should fail.

Yeah, I noticed that the enrollment decline really started to accelerate around the time the politics became particularly racialist. In addition to the leftist ideologues, a lot of the student body seemed to be the slackass offspring of upper middle class parents who sent them there so at least they would be doing something besides smoking weed. The college has a 98% acceptance rate and no grades, so it’s near impossible to flunk out of, but I’m guessing that has become less appealing from the parents’ perspective.

I found this amusing:

Evergreen State College's presidential search committee identified three well-qualified candidates as finalists: one the provost at a liberal arts college in Wisconsin, another a retired Navy vice admiral with national security experience and the third the leader of a five-campus community college in Arizona.

Shortly after interviews with students, employees and the search advisory committee, all three finalists dropped out.

“To our surprise, one by one, they politely indicated to our executive search consultant that they were no longer interested,” said Karen Fraser, chair of the college’s Board of Trustees.

[alhoon]

Wait, the article calls it... public! Are taxpayers paying for that crap? That Uni seems to be offering effectively a Trump University tier education and a degree with about as much use.

[sumskilz]

Wait, the article calls it... public! Are taxpayers paying for that crap? That Uni seems to be offering effectively a Trump University tier education and a degree with about as much use.

Yeah, a significant portion of its budget is taxpayer funded, plus the vast majority of the students receive taxpayer funded grants and/or student loans, and I suspect few are in a position to repay the latter after the fact.

The state has also been kind enough to fund the necessary security on campus:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Sir Adrian]

I did and I don't even see what's so hysterical about it. It's a very small liberal arts college with 2,000 students. As far as I can tell the Day of Absence itself was a proposal, and I can't even tell who started the proposal, college students or the administration, though it is likely to be the former.

Furthermore, the whole idea behind it was as described,

"The conflict stems from the college’s Day of Absence, a tradition in which black people leave the campus to show what the place would be like without them. This year, organizers suggested the reverse: that white people who wanted to participate would leave while nonwhites stayed, and both groups would attend workshops to, as the email announcement put it, “explore issues of race, equity, allyship, inclusion and privilege.”

Quite frankly, I don't see anything terribly racist or awful about the idea itself. I think the implementation of their idea leaves a lot of things to be desired, but the only thing that makes it inappropriate is the student protest that scared the teacher.

The original idea was let's give black people a day off if they want to and was twisted into let's deny all white people access to the campus and you don't see anything racist? You don't think that denying people their right to an education, even for a day, just because of their skin color is racist? Omfg

[Lord Thesaurian]

The original idea was let's give black people a day off if they want to and was twisted into let's deny all white people access to the campus and you don't see anything racist? You don't think that denying people their right to an education, even for a day, just because of their skin color is racist? Omfg

Well, as Infidel pointed out, the liberal establishment is quite adept at defending their garbage ideas by simultaneously claiming they aren’t happening/absurd and are wonderful/necessary. Gaslighting, you might say. It’s not a position to be engaged, but merely a rhetorical tactic to be acknowledged for what it is.

[chilon]

Demanding extensive proof of something that has become commonplace is demonstrative of the extent to which the liberal establishment is able to curate information through its dominance of US institutions. Anti-white and occasionally anti-Asian student activities and “BIPOC only” spaces reminiscent of segregation have been around for awhile now at US colleges. This includes explicitly barring white students from classes or other activities. To list just a handful of examples:

Northeastern University/Boston College

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://campusreform.org/article?id=18679

UC Berkley

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

University of Florida

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.yaf.org/news/u-florida-d...ual-town-hall/

University of Kentucky

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.yaf.org/news/university-...ability-space/

UC Davis

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.yaf.org/news/yaf-uncover...e-at-uc-davis/

University of Denver

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.yaf.org/news/university-...tion-caucuses/

University of Buffalo

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.yaf.org/news/university-...ning-sessions/

The trend led US Senators to request that the DoJ look into the matter. It’s unclear what, if any action was taken.

https://www.cotton.senate.gov/imo/me...l%20Rights.pdf

Here’s a paper featured in the journal Research in Higher Education, discussing the trend, its implications for a de facto return to “separate but equal” segregation under the guise of “anti-racism,” and several more examples, including what happened at Evergreen.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1263825.pdf

None of these come remotely close to supporting the original assertion which was "California has officially rolled back anti-discrimination and anti-segregation laws just so they can institute policies that discriminate against white people in the name of anti-racism. There are colleges that have mandated no-white days, meaning you're not allowed to be on campus if you are white on those days. Certain states are trying to institute racial quotas in everything."

So far, there has been no evidence presented to support this claim. It's pretty clear that the original claim is just unfounded hyperbole.

None of these are colleges mandating anything like asserted by Sir Adrian. In almost every case, they are simply student groups doing things well within their rights as student groups. Even the Berkeley incident has nothing to do with the University of California and as the commentator mentions, the protest by a handful of students is probably even in violation of UC policies. I tend to agree with everything he said in that video.

[sumskilz]

None of these come remotely close to supporting the original assertion which was "California has officially rolled back anti-discrimination and anti-segregation laws just so they can institute policies that discriminate against white people in the name of anti-racism. There are colleges that have mandated no-white days, meaning you're not allowed to be on campus if you are white on those days. Certain states are trying to institute racial quotas in everything."

His first sentence was referring to this:

Proposition 209 (also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative or CCRI) is a California ballot proposition which, upon approval in November 1996, amended the state constitution to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Modeled on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Civil Rights Initiative was authored by two California academics, Glynn Custred and Tom Wood. It was the first electoral test of affirmative action policies in North America. It passed with 55% in favor to 45% opposed...

Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 5
On December 3, 2012, California State Senator Edward Hernandez introduced California Senate Constitutional Amendment No.5 (SCA-5) in the State Senate. This initiative proposed an amendment to the state constitution to remove provisions of California Proposition 209 related to public post-secondary education, to permit state universities to consider applicants' race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin in admission decisions. If passed by both the State Senate and State Assembly, SCA-5 would have been presented to California voters in the November 2014 election. SCA-5 was passed by the California State Senate on January 30, 2014. On February 24, 2014, Gene D. Block, chancellor of UCLA, sent an open letter to all students and faculty expressing his strong opposition to Proposition 209.[2] Following resistance from various citizen groups, including Asian American groups, Senator Hernandez withdrew his measure from consideration.[3]

Proposition 16
The legislation that later became Proposition 16 was first introduced as California Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 5 (ACA 5). It was introduced by Assembly members Shirley Weber, Mike Gipson, and Miguel Santiago on January 18, 2019.[4] ACA 5 is a proposed constitutional amendment that repeals the provisions enacted by Proposition 209. In June 2020, the California State Legislature passed ACA 5 with more than a two-thirds vote in each house, allowing the proposal to become a qualified ballot measure and later Proposition 16. Proposition 16 was rejected by voters in the November 2020 election, meaning that Prop 209 remains in the California Constitution.

[Lord Thesaurian]

None of these come remotely close to supporting the original assertion which was "California has officially rolled back anti-discrimination and anti-segregation laws just so they can institute policies that discriminate against white people in the name of anti-racism. There are colleges that have mandated no-white days, meaning you're not allowed to be on campus if you are white on those days. Certain states are trying to institute racial quotas in everything."

In fact, none of these are colleges mandating anything and in almost every case, they are simply student groups doing things well within their rights as student groups. Even the Berkeley incident has nothing to do with the University of California and as the commentator mentions, the protest by a handful of students is probably even in violation of UC policies. I tend to agree with everything he said in that video, btw.

So far, there has been no evidence presented of this claim or that it's anything but a single isolated incident by what's well known as the most radical leftist university in the country (the tiny liberal arts school Evergreen).

Dismissing the evidence with low effort gainsaying is simply another iteration of what I mentioned in my last post. As for Prop 16, the leftist effort to formally legalize racial discrimination in California, feel free to Google that. Old news at this point. It passed the legislature and was only later defeated by the voters. I’ve no interest in parsing the difference between a university policy instituted from the top vs official student activities undertaken with the de facto support of the administration, especially since racially segregated school events and policies were cited. If you agree with everything said in the video, you wouldn’t be trying to minimize or deny them or their prevalence.

[chilon]

Dismissing the evidence with low effort gainsaying is simply another iteration of what I mentioned in my last post. As for Prop 16, the leftist effort to formally legalize racial discrimination in California, feel free to Google that. Old news at this point. It passed the legislature and was only later defeated by the voters. I’ve no interest in parsing the difference between a university policy instituted from the top vs official student activities undertaken with the de facto support of the administration, especially since racially segregated school events and policies were cited. If you agree with everything said in the video, you wouldn’t be trying to minimize or deny them or their prevalence.

You're moving the goalposts. It's a fact that none of what you posted supports the original claim that colleges are mandating days where whites are prohibited by the university from being on campus. A student run debate group for BIPOC students or a social justice affinity training session over Zoom is quite a far cry from a university mandating days where white students are prohibited.

There was a single incident at a single small liberal arts school in Washington, Evergreen, that most liberals and progressive didn't even support.

And allowing for affirmative action for college admissions is not "legalized racial discrimination", you've missed the point with that law but that's another issue.

[Lord Thesaurian]

You're moving the goalposts. It's a fact that none of what you posted supports the original claim that colleges are mandating days where whites are prohibited by the university from being on campus. A student run debate group for BIPOC students or a social justice affinity training session over Zoom is quite a far cry from a university mandating days where white students are prohibited.

There was a single incident at a single small liberal arts school in Washington, Evergreen, that most liberals and progressive didn't even support.

And allowing for affirmative action for college admissions is not "legalized racial discrimination", you've missed the point with that law but that's another issue.

No. You tried to move the goalposts by arguing barring white students from classes or activities doesn’t count since it was undertaken by students and not by official university policy, which is a moot point anyway since examples of racially segregated university events and policies were cited.

[chilon]

No. You tried to move the goalposts by arguing barring white students from classes or activities doesn’t count since it was undertaken by students and not by official university policy, which is a moot point anyway since examples of racially segregated university events and policies were cited.

You tried moving the goalposts. Adrian claimed that there are colleges mandating days where no white are allowed on campus. When people challenged that claim some people brought up Evergreen which was a single example and then you came in with a handful of different incidents that were nowhere near what Adrian initially claimed. I simply pointed out that none of your links support Adrian's initial claims.

[Love Mountain]

The original idea was let's give black people a day off if they want to and was twisted into let's deny all white people access to the campus and you don't see anything racist?

It's a reversal. So logically, it's just a "let's give white people a day off if they want to". What is so racist about it? There's nothing in the news article that says "deny all white people access to the campus".

You see the text that specifically says asked?

"Evergreen landed in the national spotlight last year when the public liberal arts college in Olympia, Washington, asked white students and faculty to leave campus for the "Day of Absence." A professor sent an email in protest, calling the event "a show of force, and an act of oppression." It ended up on Twitter, the New York Post reported, sparking protests by Evergreen students on campus, videos of which appeared online."

You don't think that denying people their right to an education, even for a day, just because of their skin color is racist? Omfg

Who would be denied education? By that token, the original Day of Absence, also denied black people education. Except it didn't, because the original Day of Absence was simply a play to make a point of African Americans disappearing to demonstrate the contributions African Americans make to people's lives.

Moreover, this is quite clearly, a student-organized event.

"The schedule includes an open mic, a dance, yoga, a film screening and a discussion of intergenerational and interracial solidarity. A description of the event says, "The mission of this event is to bring POC [people of color] together in order to create a reclamation of space and move forward into the future. In reaction to institution's consistent disregard for our safety, we are operating independently of the college. This is a day for us, by us."

[Cope]

It's a reversal. So logically, it's just a "let's give white people a day off if they want to". What is so racist about it? There's nothing in the news article that says "deny all white people access to the campus".

You see the text that specifically says asked?

"Evergreen landed in the national spotlight last year when the public liberal arts college in Olympia, Washington, asked white students and faculty to leave campus for the "Day of Absence." A professor sent an email in protest, calling the event "a show of force, and an act of oppression." It ended up on Twitter, the New York Post reported, sparking protests by Evergreen students on campus, videos of which appeared online."

Who would be denied education? By that token, the original Day of Absence, also denied black people education. Except it didn't, because the original Day of Absence was simply a play to make a point of African Americans disappearing to demonstrate the contributions African Americans make to people's lives.

Moreover, this is quite clearly, a student-organized event.

"The schedule includes an open mic, a dance, yoga, a film screening and a discussion of intergenerational and interracial solidarity. A description of the event says, "The mission of this event is to bring POC [people of color] together in order to create a reclamation of space and move forward into the future. In reaction to institution's consistent disregard for our safety, we are operating independently of the college. This is a day for us, by us."

Weinstein explained the difference:

“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,” he wrote, “and a group or coalition encouraging another group to go away.” The first instance, he argued, “is a forceful call to consciousness.” The second “is a show of force, and an act of oppression in and of itself.” In other words, what purported to be a request for white students and professors to leave campus was something more than that. It was an act of moral bullying — to stay on campus as a white person would mean to be tarred as a racist.

The reaction to his dissent proved Weinstein's point. For daring to object, he was subject to harassment, slander (inc. false accusations of racism) and threats of violence severe enough to force him off campus. Clearly this wasn't the behaviour of people merely "asking" or "inviting" others to participate in an initiative.

[Sir Adrian]

It's a reversal. So logically, it's just a "let's give white people a day off if they want to". What is so racist about it? There's nothing in the news article that says "deny all white people access to the campus".

It's not if they want to, it's enforced upon them. "Don't be here or else". Also giving benefits to people based on their skin color is intrinsically racist. Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

[Love Mountain]

It's not if they want to, it's enforced upon them. "Don't be here or else". Also giving benefits to people based on their skin color is intrinsically racist. Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

You are not giving any evidence for this. Nowhere does it say that people would be forced to leave the campus had this student initiative been given a go-ahead.

[Lord Thesaurian]

You tried moving the goalposts. Adrian claimed that there are colleges mandating days where no white are allowed on campus. When people challenged that claim some people brought up Evergreen which was a single example and then you came in with a handful of different incidents that were nowhere near what Adrian initially claimed. I simply pointed out that none of your links support Adrian's initial claims.

The state of California has officially rolled back anti-discrimination and anti-segregation laws just so they can institute policies that discriminate against white people in the name of anti-racism. There are colleges that have mandated no-white days, meaning you're not allowed to be on campus if you are white on those days. Certain states are trying to institute racial quotas in everything.

I would say these policies pervasiveness is not overstated.

His conclusion is entirely correct and refers to an ongoing discussion. Your focus on the semantics of his description of a single event is also irrelevant given the reference is valid and was even mentioned in an academic journal as an example of de facto re-segregation on college campuses, which I cited alongside several other examples. Yours and other denials also reinforce the broader observation that the imposition of leftist race essentialism across the country is indefensible, even as it is celebrated by the liberal establishment. “It doesn’t count because it was student-led, because it wasn’t required by official policy, because black people,” are deflections, not an argument. Harassment, slander and threats of violence means the “request” is a mandate for all intents and purposes.

You have no argument, but seem compelled to object with these inane denials. Why? The honest thing for anyone supportive of the ideology behind these policies, which has become orthodoxy among the liberal establishment, is to admit these are the direct and inevitable consequences of its imposition. As John McWhorter described it: “the fact that if you think a little, the tenets cancel one another out, is considered trivial. That they serve their true purpose of revealing people [who object] as bigots is paramount.” Weinstein found that out the hard way.

[Muizer]

It's a reversal.

An opportunity for white people to demonstrate what life would be like without their contribution to society? I've no problem acknowledging that, from what I've heard so far anyway, this was a pretty stupid idea. Of course, that's hardly a novel thing for student activism. Most grow up and out of it. Problem these days is even some marginal uni's student committee can raise an invisible army on social media and kick up nation wide storm if it goes viral.