YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Bret Weinstein Testifies to Congress on The Evergreen State College riots, Free Speech & Safe Spaces

Bret Weinstein Testifies to Congress on The Evergreen State College riots, Free Speech & Safe Spaces — Transcript

by Bret Weinstein · 2,691 words · 401 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00mr. chairman distinguished members of
0:01the committee thank you for the
0:02invitation
0:03to address you tomorrow is the one-year
0:06anniversary of the day fifty evergreen
0:08students students that I had never met
0:10disrupted my class accusing me of racism
0:13and demanding my resignation I tried to
0:15reason with them I felt no fear because
0:18I knew that whatever my failings might
0:20be bigotry was not among them at that
0:22moment I felt sure I could reach them I
0:24also felt a moral obligation to try that
0:27racism squanders human potential and
0:29erodes human dignity offends me I am
0:32also well-versed in the evolutionary
0:33logic that makes racism durable I should
0:36have had no trouble establishing common
0:38ground their response surprised me it
0:41would take months for me to fully
0:42understand what had happened the
0:44protestors had no apparent interest in
0:46the very dialogue they seemed to invite
0:48I was even more surprised by the
0:50protesters fervor and shouting down my
0:52actual students some of whom had known
0:55me for years the cruelty and derision
0:57reserved for students of color who spoke
0:59in my defense was particularly troubling
1:01if not discussion what did they want I
1:04was one of evergreens most popular
1:06professor's I had evergreens version of
1:08tenure did they really think they could
1:10force my resignation based on a
1:11meritless accusation they did think that
1:14and they were right what I had not
1:17counted on was their alliance with
1:18evergreens new president though the
1:20protestors openly humiliated him the
1:22president of the college partnered with
1:24the mob in private handing them
1:26concession after concession we know this
1:29because the rioters filmed everything
1:31and proudly uploaded it in one
1:33particularly telling video the president
1:35calmly discusses with the leaders of the
1:37protest a demand to target stem faculty
1:39based on the empty assertion that
1:40scientists are particularly prone to
1:42bias in that same video the President
1:45speaks of his plan for those who resist
1:47a new order bring him in train him and
1:50if it doesn't take sanction them he
1:53invites his partners to hold him to it
1:55on the second day of unrest the police
1:57chief called me rioters were stopping
1:59traffic and searching for someone car to
2:01car the chief believed they were
2:03searching for me she was worried for my
2:05safety and helpless to protect me as the
2:07president had ordered her force to stand
2:09down what would have transpired if the
2:12rioters had found me
2:13I still don't know and Isis try I
2:15strongly suspect they don't either the
2:17protests of my class did not emerge out
2:19of the blue in May of 2017 one year
2:22earlier I stood up and spoke in
2:23opposition to a dangerous proposal one
2:26that threatened to establish a racial
2:27hierarchy amongst faculty to those who
2:30have not faced something similar this
2:32likely sounds hyperbolic but one can now
2:34advance such policies and almost
2:36certainly succeed in passing them if
2:38they are properly draped and weaponized
2:39terminology equity for example has taken
2:42on special properties if a person
2:44opposes an equity proposal those
2:46advancing the proposal are secure in
2:48asserting that the person is motivated
2:50by opposition to racial equity itself in
2:53other words they are racist
2:54my opposition to that first equity
2:57proposal was voiced to my colleagues
2:59with no students present demands for my
3:01resignation one year later in May of
3:032017 were not the result of organic
3:05student confusion they were payback for
3:08violating a de facto code of faculty
3:10conduct in which one's right to speak is
3:13now dictated by adherence to an
3:14ascendant orthodoxy in which one's race
3:16gender and sexual orientation are
3:18paramount the students were on a mission
3:21they were unwitting tools of a witting
3:23movement this committee should take my
3:26tail as cautionary is there a free
3:28speech crisis on college campuses one
3:31can certainly make that argument but
3:32that portrayal is at least as misleading
3:34as it is informative what is occurring
3:36on college campuses is about power and
3:38control
3:39speech is impeded as a last resort used
3:42when people or groups fail to
3:44self-censor in response to a threat of
3:46crippling stigma and the destruction of
3:48their capacity to earn these tools are
3:51being used to unhook the values that
3:53bind us together as a nation equal
3:54protection under the law the presumption
3:57of innocence a free marketplace of ideas
3:59the concept that people should be judged
4:01by the content of their character rather
4:03than the color of their skin yes even
4:06that core tenant of the civil rights
4:07movement is being dismantled
4:09am i alleging a conspiracy no what I
4:12have seen functions much more like a
4:13cult in which the purpose is only
4:16understood by the leaders and the rest
4:17have been seduced into a carefully
4:19architected fiction most of the people
4:21involved in this movement earnestly
4:23believe that they are acting nobly
4:25to end oppression only the leaders
4:27understand that the true goal is to turn
4:29the tables of oppression something is
4:32seriously and dangerously amiss at this
4:34moment in history the center does not
4:36hold partisan polarization and political
4:39corruption have rendered government
4:41ineffective predatory and often cruelly
4:43indifferent to the suffering of American
4:45citizens tribalism is the natural result
4:48evergreens public meltdown placed me in
4:51the eye of the storm and cast me into
4:53the spotlight as a member of the
4:54intellectual dark web I find myself at
4:56the vanguard of an emerging
4:58non-ideological non partisan movement
5:00along with the heterodox Academy and the
5:02foundation for individual rights in
5:04education we are fighting to restore
5:06civility and respect for competing
5:08perspectives the electorate is starved
5:11for honest debate and for the good
5:13governance that follows from it my
5:15advice to this body is to put the nation
5:17and its core values ahead of
5:18partisanship and join us in the center
5:20to end this cultish power grab and
5:22return us to a forward path as a nation
5:24I look forward to your questions what
5:27has been the reaction to what happened
5:29to you both on campus and off campus
5:32have any change has been made the campus
5:36has doubled down on every foolish idea
5:38it was pursuing and has gotten itself
5:41into very serious financial trouble for
5:44lack of students which I should tell you
5:46I warned my colleagues that if they
5:48pursued this false equity proposal that
5:51that would be the result so a rather
5:54predictable disaster is occurring on
5:56campus I do want to push back a little
5:59bit though on the assessment that it is
6:02the left because really it isn't one
6:05left there is an ascendant orthodoxy on
6:08the left that is very troubling
6:10it is quite broad but I think not very
6:14deep then there's a concentrated mirror
6:18image of that on the far right and both
6:20of these things are to be feared the
6:24problem though is when you speak out on
6:27a college campus from a perspective on
6:29the left that does not fit this
6:31orthodoxy you are immediately
6:32categorized as on the right which makes
6:35it look that the left is monolithic and
6:37all shares this opinion that
6:39it's not the case dr. Weinstein what
6:41happened in your classroom which I've
6:42seen videos of was was that was your
6:45classroom that day a safe space for a
6:48free speech zone or neither thank you
6:52for asking me that question
6:53Frese a safe space it looked like it was
6:57safe to me well I believe in something
7:01that could be called a safe space but
7:03what safe space means to me as an
7:05educator is a space safe enough to take
7:08risks which is roughly the opposite
7:10meaning of what is being invoked on
7:12college campuses the answer to your
7:14question is that a free-speech zone
7:16cannot coexist with a safe space because
7:19a safe space by definition according to
7:21this orthodoxy is a place where you are
7:23free from being offended so it cannot it
7:26is mutually exclusive but if you would
7:28allow me to I feel that there's a safe
7:30space could you say this sentence could
7:34you say Donald Trump is President of the
7:37United States could you say that in a
7:39safe space on college campuses today
7:41well it depends which version of safe
7:43space you mean if you mean a safe space
7:45the way it is used in common parlance on
7:47college campuses today then the question
7:50of whether or not you can say it is
7:52contingent on whether or not somebody
7:54will be offended by that observation
7:55think about that
7:56you can't even state a fact a fact
8:00provable all right I saw his tweet this
8:02morning it's provable he's the president
8:04right mr. chairman oh you cannot do that
8:07this shows the absurdity of what is
8:10going on on campuses and you have lived
8:12it in a physical way doctor Stanger has
8:15lived it in a physical way this is what
8:17is scary
8:18dr. Stanger's raising her head at mr.
8:20Weinstein you have the floor so you'd
8:21have to yield time to her but you don't
8:23have to okay I think this is important
8:26enough to warrant a minute or two we are
8:28continuing in this hearing to run up
8:31against the bluntness of the tool that
8:33we have at our disposal for discussing
8:35the issue at hand so there is importance
8:39to what takes place on a college campus
8:40free expression is an a a key feature of
8:44what takes place on college campuses
8:46that make civilization function but the
8:48application of the First Amendment to
8:50that free expression is
8:52almost arbitrary does it matter more
8:55that something takes place at Evergreen
8:57which happens to be public than if it
8:59takes place at Harvard which happens to
9:01be private do those distinctions even
9:04make any sense when fully 80% of the
9:08funding that drives Evergreen is private
9:10tuition money and I don't know what
9:11fraction but a very large fraction of
9:13what drives Harvard is NIH and NSF money
9:16so these distinctions are arbitrary and
9:20what we should be protecting is the
9:22ability to exchange ideas in a way that
9:24actually allows education it is also
9:28true that when people self-censor
9:30because they're afraid of stigma they
9:31may never get around to the place where
9:33somebody blocks their speech and so
9:35there may be no technical violation but
9:37nonetheless the effect is exactly the
9:39same there is also a problem in the
9:42sense that the conflict is really
9:44between members of the audience one
9:46section of the audience is deciding what
9:48other members of the audience can listen
9:50to the person's speech view is inhibited
9:52is almost beside the point it's a
9:54question of whether you can choose what
9:56you want to entertain as a concept and
9:58then when this jumps the fence and
10:00leaves the college campuses and moves
10:02into the outer world we're gonna run
10:04into an even bigger problem where the
10:06tech sector is now the de-facto
10:08governance apparatus for the new public
10:11square and it's private so the First
10:13Amendment doesn't apply take the example
10:14of Harvard which you talked about dr.
10:16Weinstein whether it's DoD funds whether
10:18it's NIH funds or whether it's Pell
10:20grant funding there are so many federal
10:22dollars that underpin the way Harvard
10:25functions and and their budget on an
10:27annual basis and the fact that the
10:28university can penalize students because
10:31they join an outside organization zero
10:33affiliation with Harvard they're not
10:35allowed to be sports captain's they're
10:36not allowed to be considered for
10:38fellowships and I think that is a
10:40significant overstep of the university's
10:43role I wanted to give other panelists an
10:45opportunity to respond dr. Weinstein
10:46well the first thing to say is I'm not a
10:48legal expert but I would certainly
10:50support the idea that leverage generated
10:52by the funding that is given by the
10:54federal government would morally it
10:56would morally be justified to use that
10:58to make sure that college campuses
11:00protect the free expression but I would
11:03also point out that this is not just a
11:05matter
11:05abstract ideas presented by speakers on
11:08campus this is now extending into the
11:10classroom and it's a question of what
11:13one can properly teach in a biology
11:15class for example which may well not be
11:17politically correct but it's nonetheless
11:19necessary for students to understand the
11:22organism that they're studying so
11:24ultimately this is going to manifest in
11:27our competitiveness as a nation if we
11:30decide that there are certain things
11:31that are true in science that can't be
11:33stated in a college classroom then our
11:35students will be under educated relative
11:37to any nation that can solve that
11:38problem so this is really a critical
11:40issue and the use of those funds to to
11:44keep the the campus square open is
11:48entirely valid in my opinion what can we
11:50do so we're not having these ridiculous
11:53PC controversies for the rest of our
11:55lives so we can really try to work out
11:56some good ground rules
11:58yes dr. Weinstein so there's a natural
12:01tension between the duty of a college or
12:05university to curate the content so that
12:07the students are encountering things
12:09that enrich them and it's duty to guard
12:12freedom of expression and and I think we
12:15just could be honest about the fact that
12:16that tension exists I mean peer review
12:19does shut down viewpoints that aren't
12:21deemed of a high quality and that we
12:24don't commonly take that to be an
12:25infringement of free speech as to your
12:29question about the effect of something
12:31like the University of Chicago letter I
12:33must say that there's a paradox here for
12:36those who espouse a libertarian economic
12:38perspective which is the Chicago letter
12:41would seem to protect freedom of
12:42expression better than any other campus
12:44on in the nation that I'm aware of that
12:48presumably will give students who go
12:50there a competitive edge because they
12:52will have been exposed to challenging
12:54ideas and will have sharpened their
12:56toolkit in response and so why is that
12:59letter not spreading why are college
13:02campuses not falling all over themselves
13:04to embrace this in order to collect
13:06those students who are looking for a
13:08college campus that will expose them to
13:10the highest quality material available
13:13so I don't know the answer to that
13:14question but I do find it interesting
13:16that Chicago was able to articulate
13:18these things and survive it and
13:19their colleges have not embraced the
13:21same principles we really don't prepare
13:25most college faculty to be good
13:29instructors in essence and had dawned on
13:32me until I had the good fortune for most
13:33of having it had dawned on me until he
13:35said that there's you sure absolutely
13:37dr. Weinstein would what can you suggest
13:39well let me add something to that he's
13:42are quite right that we don't train
13:43people to teach and we also never spell
13:47out that the the job of an educator is
13:51to teach you how to think not what to
13:52think a fact if somebody at the front of
13:54the room happens to have a perspective
13:56that they hold dear shouldn't mean that
13:58they are attempting to transmit it to
14:00students wholesale they should give them
14:02the tools to evaluate for themselves
14:04unfortunately what we are seeing is the
14:08result of the politicization of of the
14:12Commons effectively and I that that's
14:15the result of two things which is that
14:17people do not feel well represented by
14:20the governance apparatus and of the fact
14:23that they feel a threat of austerity
14:28which is causing them to be tribal so if
14:32you really want to address this problem
14:33people have to understand that they have
14:35more to gain by being patriotic together
14:39than by fighting each other for scraps
14:42and I can't see a way around this the
14:45First Amendment is simply not sufficient
14:47to protect the free exchange of ideas in
14:49the private sector it's not sufficient
14:51to protect it on college campuses that
14:53don't happen to be public and it's
14:54actually not especially useful on public
14:57campuses where it doesn't deal with
14:58issues like censorship our
15:00self-censorship

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Bret Weinstein Testifies to Congress on The Evergreen State College riots, Free Speech & Safe Spaces by Bret Weinstein, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 2,691 words across 401 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.