Category: Political Bullshit

Compare single leader governments with the Swiss federal council

ChatGPT said:

When comparing single-leader governments (where one individual holds executive power) with the Swiss Federal Council (a collective executive body), several key differences and similarities emerge in terms of leadership structure, decision-making processes, and governance philosophy. Below is an analysis of these differences and similarities.

1. Structure of Leadership

  • Single Leader Governments:
    • In a single-leader government, one person holds the top executive position (such as a president, prime minister, or dictator), and they wield significant decision-making authority.
    • Examples: The president of the United States, the prime minister of the UK, or authoritarian leaders like those in Russia, China, and other one-party states.
    • The power of a single leader can vary greatly depending on the political system: in democracies (e.g., the U.S.), the president has significant authority, but checks and balances limit their power. In more authoritarian systems (e.g., Russia), the leader’s power is often less constrained.
  • Swiss Federal Council:
    • The Swiss Federal Council is a collective executive body consisting of seven members, each heading one of the government departments (such as foreign affairs, defense, or finance).
    • The presidency of the Swiss Federal Council rotates annually among its members, meaning there is no fixed “leader” in the traditional sense. The president does not have special executive powers; rather, they serve as a primus inter pares (first among equals), and their role is largely ceremonial.
    • This creates a consociational or power-sharing system where decisions are made by consensus rather than by the authority of a single individual.

2. Decision-Making and Governance

  • Single Leader Governments:
    • Decision-making is often centralized in the hands of the leader, with their cabinet or advisers providing input, but the leader usually has the final say.
    • In democratic systems, the leader is typically accountable to a legislature or other democratic mechanisms, but they often have significant influence over policy direction.
    • In authoritarian regimes, the leader’s word is often law, and decision-making may be more arbitrary, with less accountability.
  • Swiss Federal Council:
    • Decision-making in the Swiss Federal Council is consensual and involves negotiation and collaboration among the seven members. They aim to reach consensus on issues, and if a consensus can’t be reached, decisions are made by a majority vote.
    • This system reflects Switzerland’s strong commitment to direct democracy and federalism. Power is shared among different regions (cantons) and political groups, reducing the risk of any one person or group gaining too much control.
    • The focus on consensus politics in Switzerland fosters stability and cooperation but can also lead to slower decision-making compared to systems with a strong, central leader.

3. Accountability and Representation

  • Single Leader Governments:
    • In a democracy, a single leader (e.g., a president or prime minister) is accountable to the electorate through regular elections and checks and balances by other branches of government (e.g., judiciary, legislature).
    • In authoritarian or semi-authoritarian systems, the leader may not be directly accountable to the people or may face very limited opposition, especially if they control the media and suppress dissent.
    • Representation is typically more centralized in single-leader systems, with the leader often presenting themselves as the face of the nation and representing the people’s will.
  • Swiss Federal Council:
    • The Swiss Federal Council is highly accountable to both the Swiss people and the Federal Assembly (Switzerland’s bicameral legislature).
    • Its collective nature ensures that a variety of political interests are represented in the decision-making process. The fact that the Council represents several political parties, including members of both left-wing and right-wing parties, helps balance competing interests.
    • Direct democracy mechanisms in Switzerland, such as referenda and initiatives, allow citizens to have a direct say in policy decisions, enhancing the democratic accountability of the government.

4. Stability and Flexibility

  • Single Leader Governments:
    • The strength of a single-leader system can lie in its decisiveness. In times of crisis, a leader may act quickly and unilaterally, which can be an advantage in situations that require rapid response (e.g., wartime or national emergencies).
    • However, the system can also be prone to authoritarian tendencies if checks and balances are weak, and leadership transitions can be turbulent if the leader is removed from power.
  • Swiss Federal Council:
    • The Swiss system tends to provide more political stability over the long term. The power-sharing arrangement and commitment to consensus means that leadership transitions are smooth and the focus remains on maintaining national unity.
    • The decision-making process is slower, which can be a disadvantage in times of crisis when quick, decisive action is needed. However, this deliberation can also help avoid rash decisions and maintain long-term stability.

5. Leadership and Governance Philosophy

  • Single Leader Governments:
    • Authoritarian systems may emphasize the centralization of power in a single figure, with the leader often seen as the embodiment of national will and direction.
    • Democratic single-leader systems (e.g., the U.S.) prioritize the idea that the leader should represent the people’s interests, but the leader’s power is still checked by democratic institutions.
    • In both systems, the leader’s role is often seen as decisive, with a clear individual responsible for national direction and policy.
  • Swiss Federal Council:
    • The Swiss system emphasizes collective leadership, with power diffused across a group of seven individuals who collaborate to lead the country.
    • The philosophy behind this system is one of shared responsibility and cooperation, which aims to reflect the nation’s diverse linguistic and political landscape. The approach is rooted in consociational democracy, designed to ensure that different groups (language, region, political parties) have a voice in governance.
    • The Swiss system discourages authoritarianism and personality-driven politics, in favor of a more moderated and stable style of governance.

Summary of Key Differences:

FeatureSingle Leader GovernmentsSwiss Federal Council
Leadership StructureOne person holds executive power (president/PM/leader)Collective leadership (seven members)
Decision-MakingCentralized, with leader having final sayConsensus-based, with majority votes if needed
AccountabilityElected (in democracies) or unaccountable (in authoritarian regimes)Highly accountable to legislature and people
FlexibilityDecisive, but risk of authoritarianismDeliberative, slow but stable
RepresentationCentralized, leader represents the peoplePower shared across political groups and cantons
Leadership PhilosophyFocus on individual leadershipFocus on collective decision-making and cooperation

In conclusion, while single-leader governments tend to centralize authority in one person, the Swiss Federal Council represents a system of collective leadership that emphasizes consensus and power-sharing. The Swiss model fosters stability and accountability through collaboration, while single-leader systems, depending on the political context, may offer either efficiency or risk of authoritarianism.

Why did Trump win in 2024?

As I see it, there are three broad set of voters. There are (1) those who can analyze and discern the lesser of two evils, (2) those — even if they care about news, cannot analyze the news and use other criteria than choosing the lesser of the two evils. (3) Let me note from the outset that many Americans are ignorant and really do not concern themselves with politics. And if they do, it amounts to a loyalty to their party — right or wrong.

Those who can discern the lesser of two evils (1) and those loyal to the democratic party (3) voted for Kamala Harris.

And those who are loyal to the Republican party, voted for Donald Trump.

So what about those who don’t have enough informatiom, those who cannot analyze, and those who do not care about a lesser evil? Those too chose Donald Trump on other considerations. And these other considerations have nothing to do with domestic or international concerns.

So, on what basis did they choose Trump? It has a basis in evolution and a genetic disposition to choose a strong male for leadership. If we leave out all information about Harris and Trump, and simply pay attention to their personality traits, the picture I get is of a short giggly business woman who seems to talk from a script, and a hefty older male in a suit who talks in an unrehearsed, down to earth, confident manner. Who does your instinct tell you to choose for a leader?

—————————————————–

Commentary by AI

The argument you’re presenting seems to reflect a combination of political analysis, evolutionary psychology, and the dynamics of leadership perception. Let’s break it down.

The Three Groups of Voters

You categorize voters into three groups:

  1. Analytical Voters: Those who can discern the lesser of two evils.
  2. Uninformed or Non-Analytical Voters: Those who are not well-versed in the news and make decisions based on other criteria.
  3. Party Loyalists: Voters who are more loyal to a political party than to any candidate.

Based on this, you’re saying:

  • Group 1 (Analytical Voters) and Group 3 (Loyal Democrats) would lean towards Kamala Harris (or whoever is representing the Democratic Party).
  • Group 3 (Loyal Republicans) would vote for Donald Trump.
  • Group 2 (The Uninformed or Apathetic) would also lean toward Trump, but their reasons for doing so are more rooted in non-political, instinctual factors rather than policy or party loyalty.

The Role of Evolutionary Psychology

The crux of your argument seems to be that, for some voters, their decision is influenced by innate psychological traits, specifically what you describe as an “evolutionary disposition” to prefer strong, confident male leaders. You suggest that voters who don’t engage deeply with policy might gravitate toward Trump because of how he presents himself—unrehearsed, confident, and assertive, traits that are often associated with masculinity and authority.

This idea is rooted in evolutionary psychology, where humans may have evolved to instinctively favor leaders who exude traits of dominance and strength, particularly in men. Evolutionarily speaking, these traits might have signaled competence in leadership or the ability to provide security and protection—traits highly valued in ancestral environments. When you contrast Trump’s persona with Kamala Harris’s—whom you describe as more “giggly” and “scripted”—you can see how a certain subset of voters might make an instinctual, non-rational judgment based on personality over policy.

Perception of Leadership

This taps into the perception of leadership—which is often about presence, confidence, and dominance rather than deep policy knowledge. Research on leadership and charisma suggests that people tend to favor leaders who project authority, decisiveness, and competence, even if those qualities aren’t directly tied to their political policies. Trump, with his larger-than-life persona, his straightforward, often combative style, and his emphasis on “strongman” tactics, would appeal to voters who prioritize these qualities.

Kamala Harris, on the other hand, while competent, might not resonate with the same visceral, primal instincts. As you note, she can come across as more polished and scripted, which may not stir the same instinctual appeal in those voters who are making decisions based on personality rather than policy.

Group 2: The Uninformed Voter

For voters in Group 2—those who don’t care enough to engage deeply with political issues—their decisions may be influenced by factors that go beyond intellectual analysis. They may vote based on personal charisma, gut feeling, or the personality traits they associate with leadership, as opposed to any concrete policy issue. The media portrayal of Trump, his commanding presence, and his ability to dominate the news cycle likely contribute to his appeal in this group.

Tribalism and Loyalty

It’s also important to note that tribalism plays a role. Many Americans, regardless of their level of engagement or analysis, vote in a way that is heavily influenced by loyalty to their party, community, or “tribe.” For many Republican voters, Trump represents the figurehead of their tribe, and his win can be seen as the culmination of that loyalty, irrespective of his personal qualities or his policies.

Conclusion

In short, your argument points to an interesting intersection of instinct, personality, and tribal loyalty as driving forces behind Trump’s 2024 victory. For some voters, their decisions may be less about rational policy evaluation and more about an unconscious, evolutionary inclination to favor strong, assertive leaders.

This theory reflects the complex reality of voter behavior, which is often influenced by far more than just policy positions. Personality, media portrayal, and instinctual preferences all play a huge role in shaping electoral outcomes.

John Mearsheimer: the “prophet” of Ukrainian doom

In his interview with Piers Morgan, John Mearsheimer expressed a certainty that Ukraine was doomed to losing to the Russian invasion. His reasoning was based on two factors: that Russia had a much larger population than Ukraine, and that Russia had more weapons than Ukraine.

In response, this kind of reasoning based on two factors is totally inadequate. There are many other factors to consider. Let me list some of them.

  1. In addition to numbers, one must take into account strategy. Whatever Ukraine is doing, its kill ratio to that of Russia is much greater.
  2. Mearsheimer dismisses Ukraine’s using missiles to strike targets within Russia — such as munition and oil depots — as insignificant, but they are significant.
  3. He also ignores the possibility of Putin’s death or assasination, as well as the possibility of a Russian coup or even revolution.
  4. He apparently also dismisses the intervention of another country on the side of Ukraine. Macron, the president of France, for example, has openly declared that French troops in Ukraine is not off the table. I believe that because of Russian incursion in France’s former colonies in Africa, it is to France’s interest to see Russia weakened.
  5. I also believe that if Ukraine seems to be losing, NATO will intervene.

Mearsheimer also believes that it a moral duty to bring the war to an end. He is of the opinion that Ukraine should give up some of its territory to save the lives of Ukrainians. On this score Piers Morgan disagrees. Given the Russian invasion, Morgan believes that it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide. Here I am reminded of Patrick Henry’s response to the prospect of the British win over the colonies. His response was: Give me Liberty of give me death!

Talking of morality, I believe that talk of morality makes sense relative to an agreement — explicit or tacit. And the agreement I have in mine is the Budapest Memorandum which was signed by Russia, the United States and Britain as a guarantee of Ukraine’s sovereignty in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal. Thus the parties who have acted immorally are Russia, the United States and Britain.

—————————————————–

ChatGPT said:

The arguments presented in this critique of John Mearsheimer’s view on Ukraine’s prospects in the war with Russia are reasonable in some respects, but they also present challenges in terms of both the specifics of the situation and the broader context. Let’s break down the key points raised and assess their merits:

1. Mearsheimer’s Argument on Population and Weaponry

Mearsheimer’s reasoning about Ukraine’s doom is indeed based on a simplistic comparison of population and weapons. While these factors are important in any conflict, they are not the only factors that determine the outcome of a war. The critique correctly points out that military strategy, morale, and technological innovation are crucial components that Mearsheimer may be underestimating. Ukraine’s ability to inflict significant damage on Russian forces, its strategic use of Western-supplied weapons, and its effective tactics are important aspects that could shift the balance of power.

However, Mearsheimer’s core argument — that Russia’s size and military might make it very difficult for Ukraine to prevail in a prolonged war — is not without basis. History has shown that large, more populous states with significant military capabilities tend to win wars of attrition, especially if they have an overwhelming advantage in resources and manpower. But this is not a guarantee, and history is full of counterexamples (e.g., Afghanistan, the Vietnam War).

2. Ukraine’s Strategy and Kill Ratio

The point about Ukraine’s higher kill ratio is valid and reflects the effectiveness of Ukraine’s military strategy. Ukrainian forces have demonstrated remarkable resilience, adapting to asymmetrical warfare, using Western weapons effectively (e.g., HIMARS, drones), and leveraging terrain and local knowledge. The high kill ratio suggests that while Russia has superior numbers, Ukraine’s forces are fighting efficiently, and this can prolong the conflict and potentially create opportunities for turning the tide.

However, this alone may not be enough to defeat Russia. The war is not just about kill ratios but also about logistics, resources, and the will to fight. Russia can absorb losses far more easily than Ukraine, particularly because of its greater population and industrial base.

3. Mearsheimer’s Dismissal of Ukrainian Strikes on Russia

Mearsheimer’s dismissal of Ukraine’s strikes on Russian territory is a contentious point. While it’s true that such strikes have symbolic value and are unlikely to decisively affect the course of the war, they do serve to weaken Russian supply lines and could potentially have strategic effects by disrupting Russian morale and logistics. The critique here is valid in emphasizing that Ukraine’s ability to hit Russian targets inside Russia should not be underestimated.

4. The Possibility of Regime Change in Russia

The possibility of Putin’s death, assassination, or a coup in Russia is certainly a variable that could change the course of the war, though it remains speculative. The argument here introduces a level of unpredictability that could, in theory, help Ukraine. However, regime change in Russia is a highly uncertain factor. There are no clear indications that such an event is imminent, and even if it were to happen, it is far from certain that a new Russian government would seek peace or offer favorable terms to Ukraine. In fact, it might just as likely lead to a more hardline response.

5. Potential NATO Intervention

The belief that NATO will intervene if Ukraine is losing is also reasonable but speculative. NATO’s intervention would depend on a variety of factors, including the political will of member states, the severity of the situation, and the threat that a Russian victory poses to European security. France’s open comments about possible military involvement in Ukraine are notable, but it’s still unclear how far NATO is willing to go, especially given the risks of escalating into a direct conflict with Russia.

While NATO is providing substantial military aid to Ukraine, direct intervention — particularly with ground troops — remains a sensitive issue for many NATO countries. That said, the critique raises an important point: NATO may decide that the stakes are too high to allow Russia to prevail, especially if the war begins to spill over into neighboring countries.

6. The Moral Argument: The Budapest Memorandum

The critique makes a powerful moral point by referencing the Budapest Memorandum, under which Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances from Russia, the U.S., and the U.K. Russia’s violation of this agreement, as well as the failure of the U.S. and the U.K. to fulfill their obligations, is indeed a significant aspect of the moral framework surrounding the conflict.

However, the Budapest Memorandum was never a formal military guarantee, and its interpretation remains a subject of debate. Some argue that the agreement was intended to provide diplomatic assurances rather than a commitment to military intervention. Still, the moral argument about the betrayal of Ukraine’s sovereignty is compelling and underlines the complexity of the situation.

7. Piers Morgan and Patrick Henry’s Quote

The invocation of Patrick Henry’s famous “Give me liberty, or give me death!” quote adds a rhetorical flourish to the argument for Ukrainian self-determination. It’s a powerful statement of the principle that people have the right to defend their sovereignty and autonomy, even at great cost. In the context of the Ukrainian struggle, it serves as a reminder that the war is fundamentally about Ukraine’s right to exist as an independent nation.

Conclusion

The critique of Mearsheimer’s view on Ukraine’s prospects is reasonable, though it could benefit from more nuance in acknowledging the complexities of both sides. While Mearsheimer’s analysis of the long-term strategic challenges faced by Ukraine is grounded in historical patterns, the critique rightly points out that factors like morale, Western support, Ukrainian military strategy, and the unpredictable nature of political change in Russia could all alter the outcome. Furthermore, the moral argument related to the Budapest Memorandum and the right of Ukraine to resist Russian aggression adds a compelling layer to the discussion.

Ultimately, while Mearsheimer’s prognosis is one possible outcome, it’s not the only one. The situation remains fluid, and there are many factors at play that could change the course of the war in ways that are difficult to predict.

Joe Rogan, Whoopi Goldberg, and Bull Sessions

I view both Joe Rogan’s participation in The Joe Rogan Experience, and Whoopi Goldberg’s participation in The View, as participations in public bull sessions. Bull sessions are associated with late-night college dorm informal conversations and discussions. I view them as experiments with ideas, which includes hypotheticals, trolling, and taking the roll of a devil’s advocate. All sorts of language is allowed. Nothing is censored.

Whatever Joe Rogan or Whoopi Goldberg said or believe should be protected as the freedom of speech. If any of their speech is offensive to some listeners, these listeners have the right not to listen.

However, the matter is complicated by the fact that Rogan and Goldberg are saying things within the orbit of private companies. Joe Rogan is sponsored by Spotify, and Whoopi Goldberg is employed by ABC which is owned by Disney General Entertainment. Both Spotify and ABC are interested in the bottom line, and nothing more. It is clear that Spotify is not about to get rid of Rogan, and ABC has given Goldberg a slap on the wrist.

There is a more serious problem with censorship as exercised by Facebook and Twitter. In a sense Spotify and ABC have a right to control and fire their employees, but Facebook and Twitter are trying to control and “fire” the general public by either shutting down their accounts for some period, or banning them altogether.

See also:

Pat Condell on the new censorship against “hate” speech

Political Correctness in Academia

Divide and Conquer

The following posting on Facebook received 7.7 K likes, 613 Comments, and 8.1K Shares
This depicts IDEOLOGICAl division among the people, as does the following poster:
But the more serious division is a division between means of ENFORCEMENT, as illustrated by the photos below:
And the whole situation is best depicted by the pyramid of power and privilege:

Why I am a political pessimist (realist?)

The primary reason that I am a pessimist is that from a Martian point of view the trajectory of human history is towards an ecological self-destruction, and there is no remedy in sight.

There are proposed remedies, but the politicians — if they know them, either can’t or don’t want to implement them. As to the masses of people, they are — what can I say? — ignorant and uninterested.

Let me unpack what I just said. The world over — except for Switzerland — executive power is in the hands of single individuals. These individuals are either dictators (or monarchs), or presidents, or prime ministers. In the case of macro liberal democracies — in which thousands or millions vote — both the president and the parliaments are in the hands of the rich. Why? Because it takes advertisement to win elections where thousands and millions are voting. And advertisement takes money which is contributed mostly by the rich. And the rich will support only a candidate that will be beneficial to them. And, as in the United States, we can see that all the Presidents have served the rich. And the trajectory for the future is more of the same: Biden or Trump. Go ahead pick the lesser of your two evils!

With Prime Ministers, the situation is equally dismal. Remember that parliamentarians too have to be elected by thousands or millions of voters; so, they too will predominantly represent the interests of the rich. And the Party with the most members will pick the Prime Minister — obviously he or she will serve the interests of the rich. Take note of Great Britain: Thatcher, Blair, May, Johnson.

What could change these political trajectories? A change, for example, towards Swiss style democracy. But is it in the offing? I am afraid not.

I come now to the masses — the voters. The masses are pessimistic as to any influence they may have on politics; so, many don’t bother voting. Of those who vote, I think that they too are disillusioned, but feel that they must choose the lesser of the evils.

As to my proposal about Switzerland, how many voters even know that there is such a country? And even if they have heard of it, can they locate it on a map?

Here is a video in which people on the street are asked to name any country on a map of the world. Here is the result:

As to knowing what kind of government Switzerland has . . . Ask first if they know what a government is!

People on the Street: What is the Purpose of Government?

What is needed is a change in the system of governments. But such changes in the system of governments occur only rarely, and under starvation or chaotic situations. The so-called recent “revolutions” have not been more than changes in leaderships. And, as far as ordinary people are concerned, changing leaders is a revolution. Consequently, even if conditions become dire, people will clamor for a leader savior. And that is why I am a political pessimist.

Michael Shermer, the non-skeptical myopic liberal democrat

While searching for interviews with David Wengrow, I came across the podcasts of Michael Shermer, the co-founder of the Skeptic magazine. Since he too is in the business of exposing bullshit, I watched some of his other interviews, and on the basis of what I have watched, it seems to me that he is in the business of Practicing Safe Philosophy.

Let me explain. He espouses critical thinking, but he seems to confine this criticism to exposing pseudo-science and superstitions, including a criticism of religion. But such criticism was already done during the Enlightenment, and those who have not absorbed these criticisms are The Unenlightened. As to the existence of God, there is no need to duplicate such articles as that of C.D. Broad’s Arguments for the Existence of God and The Validity of Belief in a Personal God. As to debunking pseudoscience, there is Martin Gardner’s Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science.

Debunking of this sort is fine, but a critical thinker must distinguish between important problems and puzzles. The important problems are “existential,” by which I mean those problems which hinder human animal existence: problems of food, water, shelter, and such. These are economic and political problems.

I wanted to find out Shermer’s stance on political and economic issues. What I found out so far is that he seems to be a moderate conservative. By this I mean that he accepts capitalism and the type of liberal (mass, macro) democracy as found in the United States. His concern is to improve the policies of the government of the United States — like abortion or immigration policies. He is not concerned with, for example, comparing the democratic government of the United States with that of Switzerland. And he seems to be oblivious to an anarchistic federalist alternative. And because he does not consider such varieties of democracy, he is — in my view — myopic.

As an example of what I am saying, let’s consider his latest interview with Brian Klaas, the author of Corruptible: Who Gets Power and How It Changes Us, 2021. Here is the interview:

Comment: Klaas is interested in the question whether corruptible people seek power or whether power corrupts? And Klaas said that his question is ultimately how to fix the system. Both were interested in how to better recruit leaders. But it never even came up to ask the question of whether instead of a single leader, such as a President or a Prime Minister, a Federal Council of seven individuals, as exists in Switzerland, was preferable.

Klaas made a distinction between a dysfunctional democracy and a functional democracy. But what alternative democracies are possible never even came up, except for a sortition (lottery) shadow parliament.

Shermer thinks that the United States is a functional democracy. His criterion of a functional democracy seems to be whether there is free and universal mass voting. That’s all. He also was non-critical about promoting liberal democracy around the world, including Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact that both countries were invaded by the United States was — as it were — justified if the US was successful in promoting liberal democracy. And Shermer seems to be ok with the hundreds of US military posts around the world, and proposed that some troops should have remained in Afghanistan.

My impression is that he is playing it politically safe with liberal democracy in having an ongoing popular talk show.

How a student mob took over Evergreen State College in 2017

Bret Weinstein and his wife Heather Heyting after refusing to leave the campus on the controversial “Day of Absence,” resigned with a settlement with Evergreen State College in 2017. Here is a three-part documentary about the affair:

Part 1:Bret Weinstein, Heather Heying & the Evergreen Equity Council

Part 2: Teaching to Transgress

Part 3: The Hunted Individual

After watching the three videos about what happened at Evergreen State College in 2017, I have made the following judgment. Although the focus is on the dismissal of Heather Heyting and Bret Weinstein from the college, it is more like a study of how a mob is allowed to take control of a college.

What Bret Weinstein did at Evergreen by not participating on the “Day of Absence” was equivalent to striking a match in standing conditions which caused the match to burn.

What were these standing conditions? A college is a business enterprise (corporation). It has a board of trustees, a CEO, managers, and workers. And it has a clientele — the students. Everyone who works at the college is relying on their job for a livelihood (self-preservation).

The culmination of a student mob taking over was initiated by the new President, George Bridges, who was hired in 2015. He introduced a policy statement for the college to recognizing a phenomenon called “Racism,” and a school policy formulated by an Equity Council to fight against this Racism. Part of this policy required a contractual yearly written self-evaluation of racism by each white faculty member. There was also a policy of requiring some kind of “equity” justification for hiring new teachers. This policy was voted on openly by the faculty senate. And the majority — probably out of fear for losing their jobs — voted in favor.

As events progressed, it was evident that the white faculty had to submit to the wishes of student mobs. In fact the students were allowed by the President to take control of speech. The main one was a censorship (by booing, disruption, and silencing) as based on the assumption that to criticallly examine racism is Racism. Students were also allowed by the President to take physical control of buildings to the extant that faculty were in effect hostages.

Evergreen also had a tradition of a “The Day of Absence” on which black students and faculty were encouraged not to attend the college. In 2017, this holiday was switched to asking white teachers to absent themselves from the college. One white teacher, Bret Weinstein, refused, and held a class on this day.

A group of students — both students of color and white — confronted him outside his classroom and clamored for his dismissal. And as time progressed, it became something like a lynching mob. And the security personnel were ordered by the the President to stand down. In consequence Bret Weinstein had to go into hiding. And finally a settlement was reached with Bret Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying for their dismissal.

Comment: A school should be a place for the critical examination of everything, including the nature of what is called “racism.” And a critical discussion is not a free for all shouting. There must be some kind of procedural rules. In the case of Evergreen State College, the President made a fundamental mistake of taking an institutional stance against what he understood as “racism.” He further aggravated the situation by letting students control meetings, and not allowing security to intervene when necessary. This breakdown of institutional control has resulted in a drop of student enrollment and the failure of the college to currently find a successor President.