Remember our wonderful brother Benjamin couldn’t afford these costumes without Patreon supporters like you 🍻

She sounds like a woman suffering from jealousy.

Bret stepped off a sinking ship and now Nancy is flailing in the water~~~~~~~

I don’t think folks at Evergreen know the definition of “listen”. The protesters kept shouting at Bret to listen. He was listening. What they really wanted was for him to change his mind and agree with them. That’s not the same thing as listening.

As a college biology professor in LA I've witnessed the strangle hold the social "science" department has on the university and its agenda. It is because Brett is an evolutionary biologist that makes it that much more important for him to speak out because the social sciences have turned into an indoctrination factory turning out uneducated duped young adults equipped with rhetoric and philosophy not based on any evidence. The real sciences are the only place on campuses now where logic and reasoning still exist. This woman clearly has some issues she needs to sort out. She could have left the college but she remains and complains about someone who was able to turn a situation that could have destroyed his career into something fruitful. We need more scientists speaking out about the insanity taking place in Academia. It's seeping into the Sciences as well. Because everyone's terrified of losing their jobs. At this point I feel like people who still work at Evergreen are complicit in what's taking place. If she wants the attention and accolades that Brett has received for standing up then she should grow a backbone.

Sour grapes have always added bitterness to the whine..

Wow, she used a lot of words to write: "I'm jealous!"

I keep saying, it is easier to make an accusation than an argument.

Looks like according to Rate my professor, that about a third of her reviews complained that she was extremely rude to students that opposed her viewpoints. She would frequently interrupt students and shut down speech she didn't approve of. She also was reported to be one to show "favorites" preferential treatment.

If professors aren't "public intellectuals" at a public college/ university, then who is?

WOW she sounds so bitter that he is doing well and she is still at that POS school.

She's toeing the Evergreen line so she can keep her job because she realizes that she's otherwise unemployable.

I'm tired of good people like Bret having to suffer hatchet jobs from weasels.

Perhaps it is guilt infused with a sense of her own missed opportunity.

Unsubstantiated hit piece....motivated by jealousy?

~7:30 did that student really just refer to logic and reason as "White forms of knowledge"? Evergreen College LMAO

Does the thought never occur to this woman that, perhaps, not all academic disciplines DESERVE equal respect? People and ideas that deserve respect generally don't have to make a big fuss to get it.

He probably read the scarlet letter in high-school, LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE!

There's a tactic that I learned a long time ago. Let those who oppose you keep talking until they paint themselves into a corner. Then smile, and summarize. Thanks for the summaries, Ben. I'm smiling.

There are strict rules at Zen monasteries, because it counter balances the structure-less letting-go of identity that happens in meditation. Evergreen and lib arts in general have fostered a very free, open, exploratory, and independent learning environment, but seems to have not provided the academic scaffolding which keeps cognition clear, healthy, and grounded.

Professor very angry that Bret, having been depersoned, continues to person. Tries depersoning take two.

Seems kind of obvious she is a hostage in her own environment. Never believe the "confessions" that hostages are motivated to record. Very sad.

That's what writing an article triggered looks like. She should figure out exactly what's driving her malice. My guess would be jealousy of the success he earned by refusing to sellout.

She is jumping on the hate train because she is worried she is going to lose her job... I think. She knows the ramifications of what happened and Bret not "shutting up" and is trying to change the mind of enough kids so she can last another year. Just a thought.

As some other commentators have already mentioned, there seems a thread of jealousy running through her critique. Also, a lot of the same complaints she levels against Brett I've seen leveled against Jordan Peterson.. And if Brett (as well as Jordan) have had the ability (if not courage) to seize the moment and build an intellectual edifice from the personal attacks both have endured, well then more power to them!

4:39 The problem isn't not knowing where to draw the line, but where some have drawn it. The biggest problem with Evergreen's philosophy is that it's completely swallowed the idea that "harm" [DING!] from someone else's freedom is solely determined by those claiming to be harmed without any question about whether the claim has any merit or what the intent of the "freedom" was. If you only let the "victims" define what is harmful, how do you stop them from abusing such a system? This is the real problem: the freedom they abuse to lay the blame on everyone else but themselves. In other words, the "harm" THEY are doing.

"Evergreen is better off without him" I sincerely doubt that.

All subjective language and no objective language makes me question reality. 👍

Best hat EEEEEEEEEVER!!

I think she's trying to show that she's drunk the KoolAid because she doesn't want to be downsized.

Thank you for another great critique. A great teaching method: Tell anyone you don't agree with, "Just shut up!"

This is going to be good. . . I can already tell and I've just clicked play. Edit: Indeed, this is every bit as fallacious as I thought it would be. "Lacks curiosity"??? Bret has an almost-feline devotion to curiosity, and like the proverbial cat, it's his fearless curiosity that killed his job at Evergreen. If anyone has a lack of intellectual curiosity, it's this Nancy writer. She's just parroting the Evergreen rhetoric without so much as pondering whether there's any actual merit there. Creepy. But not surprising. You chose a perfect hat for this!

This is the kind of article that used to be published in the Nazi and Stalin (possibly also Mao) eras to justify the incarceration and execution of actual or potential non-conformists.

"He did not think carefully about challenges to his points of view." That's just proposing a reason for him not accepting your argument, that doesn't involve your argument being shitty.

The “The Scarlet Letter” is a work of fiction that I read back in high school, Bret may have read this book already or he found that it didn’t meet his standards for a class, such as assigning “Game of Thrones” as a historical fact of life in the Middle Ages

I love that you’ve witnessed her teaching others the proper way to form and back up an argument, and can see that she has placed those methods aside for her op-ed’s sake. There have to be pressures that she’s feeling behind the scenes causing this conundrum.

It is clear that Nancy Koppelman is not a science graduate. She is a liberal arts professor. She criticises Bret Weinstein as if he was a colleague who taught History and American Studies and, of course, he was not. Weinstein was a Science professor. Much of Koppelman’s criticism is invalid and completely out of context with the subject matter that Weinsein was a professor of at Evergreen - evolutionary biology. It is evident that Koppelman’s postmodern approach to the situation at Evergreen that effectively spat out Weinstein is likely to belong to the same ideology that caused the fracas in the first place. One of the failings of postmodernists is that they cannot accept the hierarchy of competence where their knowledge and experience is simply mediocre or perhaps even nonexistent alongside those who are true experts. In her article, she creates a straw man of Weinstein as a professor of liberal arts. Yet, Koppelman is not an expert in science and never will be. She cannot accept her position in the hierarchy of competence alongside Weinstein as having been a science professor. That's why she wants him to shut up.

how many _cats_ does she have?

Keep talking! You are completely correct about the "shut up" thing. This woman must have poisoned herself just writing that.

Perhaps she’s doing a bit of damage control. She is still there and was reasonably nice to Bret at the time. That place is hyper politicised so she might be under duress and thought throwing Bret under the bus would be a good move.

Brett hasn’t even been talking about Evergreen at all and loved Evergreen and hates what’s happening to it. All someone has to do is listen to him.

Koppelman's opinions about Weinstein just don't add up. A quick search on Rate My Professor says it all, Weinstein 4.7/5 with 62 students ranking him, 100% saying they'd take him again, 19 called him Inspirational, his wife Heather also got amazing reviews, Prof Nancy Koppelman, not so much, 3.6/5 from 19 students, nobody said if they'd take her class again although 1 student did call her inspirational. The success of Bret as a teacher is also demonstrated by the fact that his classes were popular and full. Having heard numerous hours of interesting in depth conversations between Bret and others I can't agree with Nancy on her accusations as I'v certainly heard Bret admit what he doesn't know, listen to others points of view, put forward reasonable suggestions about why something may be or wondering if certain things are connected without claiming certainty or expertise. Koppelman's essay is a hit piece which in my opinion does more to damage her own reputation than Bret's. Evergreen is suffering from publicly displaying an intolerant authoritarian and racist environment which seems very connected to the changes made since Pres Bridges took over. Folks were rightly appalled that the administration would not only allow, but reward and encourage militant students n staff to bully and harass anyone who didn't support their claims and demands. There has been so much dishonesty by the protesters and the institution about what has gone on and why even when there is film and documentation showing they are not being honest. It has cost Evergreen and unfortunately devalued students qualifications. Evergreen can't start to repair the damage done to it's reputation and finances until people start being open and honest about what really happened and why. I hope Benjamin Boyce's large body of work helps people do that, it's the most comprehensive source available for what happened and why, although of course there is much that could be added. Good on you Ben, and time for some honest reflection Nancy.

She jelly? Yes. She worried abouts her employment insecurity? Yes. I have to agree with Ben, Liberal Arts isn't about telling people with opposing ideas to shut up - that just seems to be one of Evergreen's continuing M and P's. That Prof; what a wind bag...

That was painful to listen to. It was just good old fashion character assassination and scapegoating (as you said), and a long litany of vague accusations about personality characteristics. What little specifics are offered, such as that the didn't bother to read students' work, seem extremely doubtful and in any case can't be verified. And "shut up?" C'mom sister.

Nancy Koppelman's history of fickle, 'Came clear when Bret pulled out his pickle: His internet fame, Put her pretense to shame; Her slaps were just after the tickle!

Jealously, can you say jealousy? I thought you could.

Section Deleted? I’m intrigued!

Enrollment is down. Staff is being laid off. Maybe she wants to portray herself as a team player in case she is one of them. Her photo does not look like she is retirement age.

Benjamin, You. Are. Fabulous. and please don’t ever shut up.

So they still haven't taken any responsibility over there, 'cause pure intentions? C O O L I have been so much happier since leaving the state. It's actually amazing how miserable the general population is at TESC compared to where I am now. Still enjoying your ongoing autopsy coverage though.

This sounds very much like a report that a jealous neighbor/disgruntled work colleague/outcast family member would submit to the Stasi in an effort to create a non-person. This lady would do well in a totalitarian state where such factless bitter accusations are expected. She sounds jealous of the notoriety and respect that Brett has garnered (can't speak for financial benefits) since his ignominious ejection from his safe haven by an angry mob.

I’ve seen Bret and Bret plus Heather in several different videos, but Naima Lowe seems to have dropped off the face of the earth. Please tell me, she’s dropped off the face of the earth, right? Please?

When did biology become a liberal art? Jordan Peterson has received similar "criticism" from academics. It really smacks of pure jealousy on behalf of those that these new public intellectuals have left far, far behind.

It took me far too long to see the wordplay in the thumbnail. Thank you for the giggle.

Is enrollment even further down than forecasted?

When your soul has been sold there is nothing left. This woman cashed in all that was left. I hope she realizes her only option now is to goose step with everyone else. It is quite sad. Her article clearly shows she knows what will happen to her if she misses a beat.

I love the thing you always do with the cats in the end of each segment. Very funny.

6:42 "stop demanding everybody use logic and reason..." Holy shit. More and more when I encounter such stuff, I hear the main themes of Dawn of the Dead in my head. Makes the mindlessness more tolerable if I can view it as a zombie assault.

Since you have the initial letter she wrote after the event, you should post it to the comments section under her piece and title it as a counter-point opinion

"Stop demanding the use of logic and reason"? Wow yup that's sad.

Besides fear of ostracism and the desire to fit in with her peers, another motivation perhaps is envy and resentment towards Bret's success.

His continued condemnation of Evergreen? I don't see him talking much about it lately, but in truth his continued existence and the niche he's carved out for himself in the public discourse serve as a kind of very visible mark of shame for Evergreen, which just won't scrub off. Honestly though I can't imagine how that could be construed as anything but positive for Liberal arts education in this country. Evergreen proved that it was in dire need of serious institutional reform in this debacle and continues to be in denial. If the whole academic community and a decent segment of the larger population are on hand to watch it burn, then maybe a few administrations will see the light and save themselves from a similar fate.

ever green is a fascinating story and I appreciate you documenting it. this woman has to side against brett to protect her job.

As a historian I wonder if she has thought about the difference between now and in the mid to late Twentieth century. In terms of who has called for and didn't call for limits on speech.

I presume that the timing of Nancy's tirade is in response to the recently posted audio of the J.B. Peterson/Sam Harris discussion in Vancouver B.C. that Bret Weinstein moderated. He made a reference in that first discussion to the failure of Academia as yet another institution which has historically furthered the project of human progress; but at this particular point in time has failed in that purpose. 1) It is in the nature of Professors to profess. That is their function. They are not called Supressors or Doctors of Silence. Their job is to profess within their area of specialization. For Bret Weinstein, that is the Biological Sciences. It is perfectly natural for a professor in the physical sciences to profess the virtue, the benefits, and the empirical superiority of the hard sciences. It is neither necessary, nor particularly beneficial for a professor of Biological Sciences to spend his time reading Virginia Woolf. In fact it would be a waste of resources and time for him or her to attempt to become a scholar of Virginia Woolf. The core value of a professor is IN their area of core competency. That is where they actually have something of value to impart to their student's. Ironically, it is in the social science of Economics that the primacy of specialization was exposited as THE wellspring of our material prosperity. This was a key point of Hayek. An Historian should be aware of this much more acutely than a physical scientist. And yet, somehow, Nancy is not conscious of it. She is in fact, apparently quite unconscious of her own implicit bias. That should be surprising, but seems to be a pattern of peripheral blindness. The basic premise of the interdisciplinary model of education at TESC is NOT about Biologists pretending to be Historians or Sociologists or Poets. Quite the contrary. The model is based upon the virtue of specialization. Team teaching by professors from disparate areas of specialization all working together to present a panoply of perspectives on a thematic principle as defined in a "program of study" is NOT about facilitating the homogenization of the professors; rather it is about re-integrating a range of disciplines for the benefit of the students in order to provide a broad and syncretic experience; one in which the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. 2) There is an inherent friction between the hard sciences and the soft sciences. It is not reasonable for a professor of the soft sciences to expect a professor of the hard sciences to regard these two kinds of knowledge as equal in veracity. The hard sciences are obsessively focused on measureable, quantifiable, concretized emperical knowledge. The social sciences are not, nor are they of particular predictive value. The social sciences are instead more suggestive, rather than predictive. This point was also driven home by Hayek. 3) The hard sciences are predominantly filled with men. And, they are largely filled with men who fall somewhere on the autism spectrum. For a social scientist to comment that the physical sciences are full of people who lack social skills and emotional sensitivity is simply a statement of the obvious. It is highly likely that a professor in the physical sciences (which are dominated by men, and men on the autism spectrum in particular) would be viewed as self referential and socially awkward. But, how can we explain a social scientist being ignorant and uncaring about their own reactivity to the social and emotional deficits of their autism spectrum team mates? Just who is being obtuse and insensitive here? 4) The hat must die a particularly prolonged and painful death. Might I suggest kerosene and a match, set adrift on the outdoing tide on a timber raft or boat on Elliot Bay? The cats would be amused. 5) It strikes me that Nancy likes to hear the sound of her own thoughts. Perhaps she is jealous. It is certainly unbecoming in any case. It is as if she expected Dr. Weinstein to simply disappear, or cease to be; perhaps to die. How unkind, ungenerous, and how ahistorical of her. Martyrs do not simply disappear; and that is whar Dr. Weinstein and his partner are, martyrs to a modern day inquisition. This is an ancient and powerful archetype of which any historian worth his or her salt would be well aware. 6) The liberal arts are not all of equal gravitas or import. Some of the seven sisters have always been regarded as "weaker" than the others. If Nancy takes umbrage at being perceived in that way, then perhaps she ought to have pursued a different area of specialization. She worked alongside Bret Weinstein for a decade of her life. I wonder if she ever raised any of her concerns (or "feels" as we understand them) with Dr. Weinstein directly; or has she nursed her resentement for all these years in bitter silence? 7) Unsurprisingly, the entirety of Nancy's tirade brings to mind Lysistrata. Is it possible that the essential sexual basis of this dichotomy eludes her? Can an Historian possibly be that obtuse, that self referential, that hermetically sealed and psychologically unconscious? It defies credibility. 8) The two weaker sisters were always regarded as music and dance. Nancy would be much more persuasive if she appealed to these sisters, if she invoked a call and response, a chorus or refrain; rather than asking for the physical scientists to SFTU. Interdisciplinary teamwork, like marriage is a dance, a song, a call and refrain; a yin and yang if you will... a synergy which is more than the sum of it;s parts. STFU is a lyric that poisons the well. As the call and refrain in Handel's Messiah elucidates, "Wann kommst du mein heill?, Ich komme dein teil. Wann komst du? Ich komme; Wann komst du? Ich komme..." There is no place for STFU in a call and response. 9) Does one demand that the rooster STFU every morning at sunrise? That wouldn't be very productive. It would, in fact, be insane to expect the rooster to act in a manner which is not in accord with his essential nature. And this is really the heart of the matter. Cock a doodle doo!

"stop demanding that everybody use logic and reason and white forms of knowledge," dude.

The people at the hat store are like "This guy again?"

Envy. Pure and simple. Post-hoc rationale for jealousy.

She's a poor writer and her thinking is muddled by political correctness. Weinstein is an admirable fellow and capable of teaching at the highest levels.

Seems like she is just jealous. Also, she talks about a liberal arts college delivering the kind of education people need to know how to use their freedom. Translation: Liberal arts colleges deliver indoctrination.

You haven't been in feed for some reason. It's good to see you my friend.

Law suit ! Defamation of character.

Benjamin! I love when you go off like this. It suits you well!!

It's interesting to hear that this woman was someone who taught you how to make a strong argument. I think what is likely nagging you about this essay, beyond its objective weakness, is that it appears she doesn't believe in any of what she taught you about this. If I were in your shoes, that's what would be causing me pain while reading it, a sense of betrayal. What I hear as you're reading it is it's all about her asserting herself, "I know, because this is what I sense about him. My sense is of a finer sort than his," except rather than be explicit about that, she states what she feels about Bret as facts, "He didn't read what I gave him," "He isn't curious," "He denies the validity of all other fields," etc. She isn't interested in using evidence (she clearly demonstrates that). She is interested in distancing herself from him, and elevating herself above him in her own mind, and the minds of others who would intuitively agree with her, because the college now is all about whether you're part of the tribe: Are you in, or are you out? That's the evidence that matters to her career, and perhaps to her personally.

Okay I'm calling BS. I don't believe she's ever read Nathaniel Hawthorne, especially not "The Scarlet Letter". She's not sufficiently socially aware to have read that book. Perhaps she skimmed the Cliff Notes. 😂

"He used the word 'exile.' 'Harumph,' I say!"

8:15 going around campus with baseball bats

"How can I use my vague association with someone famous to get some attention for myself? Hmmm..."

Her accusation that he doesn't care about public institutions is so unfounded. In all the interviews I've seen with him it is obvious that he really wanted Evergreen to work, he thought it was worth saving, it greatly pained him to leave, and he wants other institutions to change their ways before it's too late for them.

I'm impressed she put Joe Rogan correctly to the left, and in an article that was published; not the right, as people inexplicably do.

I am looking into my crystal ball and seeing 10 years from now, urban explorers recording the sad shell of the defunct and abandoned Evergreen College.

After watching the footage at Evergreen, I really struggle to see how Bret could have reasoned with the mob. And I really struggle to see how she could possibly defend the administration when the actively kept the campus security from doing their job, putting the safety of students and faculty in danger.

At least for once she didnt lable Rogan and Rubin as alt right etc.

Have enjoyed many of your videos. Thanks man

Thanks for the entertainment and Information. Much appreciated.

I want to thank you for so diligently looking into all things Evergreen for those of us that are interested, and for so consistently and clearly laying it all out for us. Also, you have gorgeous cats.

Benjamin A Boyce: "EVERGREEN... The College Where You Need to Shut Up!" Koppleman's acrimonious essay is extremely telling. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Love the hat... and the cats. Thanx.😼

I think she tried to escape Evergreen with a similar settlement, of which she was envious, and was denied...

one of your best!! keep going Benjamin!

great reading and analysis, thank you

It's interesting how often the subject of money (i.e. settlements) comes up.

I don't know where to do this so that you see it, but you are doing something truly worthwhile and deserve more praise than one person can rightly give. Benjamin, you are exposing truth in a way that is rarely done in our world and I thank you. The best thing that can come of this situation is that people see it and are able to understand and learn so that we may not make these mistakes again, and that is what you are presenting. Here's hoping that people are smart enough to head this off before it spreads. Thanks Ben, you really are doing the world a great service and I applaud you.

Why would a History professor be partnered with a Biology professor? He does a science. He deals in facts. He is not there to listen to students. They don't know the subject. They are their to listen to him and are paying good money to do it.

Hey Benjamin. What can I say. Is this a woman who possibly was shunned by Professor Weinstein ? Just asking A very strong feeling of someone’s envy and anger. Wow. Thanks Benjamin. Always informative. As I said to you before. I’ve been fortunate to have several dialogues with Bret and he has been extremely polite to me (a stranger) thanks. Steve

Nice touch. Remember kids, you can't take a joker to court.

As per usual excellent evaluation and clarity brought to an important topic.

We thank you for the gift of that orig viral vid. No longer on an island, Evergreed!

Honestly, this just sounds like a jealous coworker who is trying to bring him down a peg. Resentful and childish.

Where did you get that hat ? Where did you that that tile ? Isn't it a lovely one, and just the proper style !

"Benjamin,"HATS BECOME YOU!" "As usual, BRILLIANT UNPACKING of individuals who seem to be living within a "STRAIT JACKET",,,,gosh, really SAD & LIMITED mindsets!" "THANKS BENJAMIN!"