@vuk I watched it. On balance, I agree with Tony L. It's a clearly partial account of what happened and has no more claim to be definitive than the HuffPo article you were so quick to dismiss. My overall impression is that this is a highly unconventional college that tried to do something different about racism. Some people dug their heels in and it got out of hand. I don't think it's possible to draw broad conclusions about free speech, threats to Western civilization, etc. on this basis. It would be interesting to know how the college is getting on now.
Anyway, I jotted down some thoughts while I was watching so here they are in raw form...
Part 1:
Weinstein comments how most peope at the Canoe Meeting were swept along on a wave of shared delusion. Only he, and a few other brave free-thinkers were immune. Sounds arrogant. How does he know this?
Part 2:
"Asking a black student for evidence of claims of racism is itself racist". Ambiguous - there is some force in this if it means scepticism and doubt about claims of racism should not be one's first reaction. Racism can be subtle, yet pervasive and it can be hard to pinpoint (any single incident might sound insignificant and easily dismissed - it's the accretion of multiple small incidents that does the damage, but this is hard to communicate).
The idea that there should be no place for Weinstein to defend himself against charges of racism - I disagree with this.
The list of what student protestors want looks quite reasonable (note that only six students wanted specific individuals removed).
Would be good to see some of the texts mentioned. For example, here's the equity plan that started this:
https://evergreen.edu/sites/default/files/equity/documents/FINAL 2016-17 Strategic Equity Plan -- FOR CAMPUS-1.pdf, Where is Weinstein's email? What, specifically, did he object to?
I'm not a post-modernist. I'm a scientific realist, but other interpretations of science are available (e.g. the interpretation of quantum mechanics has been dominated by non-realism - "shut up and calculate"). This addresses
@Tony L's point about the Sokal hoax and its spin-offs. It's not the knock-down argument against cultural studies it's usually presented as - all academic journals rely on good faith from authors; if a physicist were determined to get some bogus science past an editor I'm sure he or she could, and I'm equally sure that physics journals publish a fair amount of relatively low-grade work.
Key question about halfway through part 2 - should Weinstein be sanctioned (even dismissed) for not buying in to the equity plan in its entirety? Tough. If his refusal to buy in is an expression of underlying racist attitudes that can be independently evidenced, then yes, of course. Otherwise, we're in the realm of what organisations do about people who don't follow their rules, which is more fluid.
Part 3:
The protestors take the retirement cake ("it's full-on Lord of the Flies")! No comment.
Weinstein refers to "virtue-signalling". Now there's a tell.
Monologue to camera around 11:00. Maybe the first time a black student is presented speaking calmly. Mixed feeling - I agree with stuff about needing to be heard but not sure about his insistence that the college is there to serve the students (influence of neoliberal ideas on education is evident). Eloquent and heartfelt speech though.
Weinstein's closing statement is self-aggrandising. It turns a local disagreement about diversity that escalated rather dramatically into a fundamental threat to civilization.