A Timeline of the Everygreen College Debacle

The following is my attempt to create a timeline of the Evergreen College debacle.


I. Timeline of events

September 21
Two Students Protest/Disrupt Convocation
Two student protesters, AR Rushet and Lawrence Walker, interrupted the invited speaker at a school event referred to as convocation, holding a sign that said “Evergreen cashes diversity checks but doesn’t care about blacks”.(5) An interview in the student newspaper doesn't shed much light on exactly what it was they were protesting. Though there's nothing of substance, there is a lot of talk about their feelings, such as they feel that people of color are treated "like trophies that are super disposable," and that they are "fundamentally unsupported."(10)  You can read more about the incident here(9) and if you really want to get deep, you can read the disorienting interview with the two students here(10). 

November 18
Bret Weinstein Sends Email Criticizing The Strategic Equity Plan
Prof. Bret Weinstein sent an email via faculty email exchange criticizing the Equity Council's Strategic Equity Plan. 

Essentially, the Strategic Equity Plan shifted the college "from a diversity agenda" to an "equity agenda" by, among other things, requiring an "equity justification" for every faculty hire.(7) Weinstein's email criticized the plan in part saying "From what I have read, I do not believe this proposal will function to the net benefit of Evergreen’s students of color, in the present, or in the future"(5) Though I haven't been able to find a copy of the actual email, Weinstein later elaborated on the issue in his article in The Wall Street Journal which you can read here.

January 11

Students Protest/Disrupt the New Police Chief's Swearing In Ceremony
A group of students, including the two students that disrupted the convocation on September 21, brought noisemakers to the swearing in ceremony of Evergreen State College Chief of Police Stacy Brown, took the microphone from Wendy Endress, V. P. of Student Affairs, and chanted “Fuck cops” and "Death to Pigs".(5)(12) Though this is referred to as a protest, it seems the only thing being protested is the fact that cops exist and that the college has a police force.

When it became clear the "protesters" weren't going to quiet down or surrender the microphone, instead of taking action to deal with the disruption, the school's president George Bridges, chief of police Stacy Brown and other members of the administration simply left the reception, effectively canceling the event.(12)  The college later issued code of conduct violations against AR Rushet and Lawrence Walker.(11)

Benjamin Boyce obtained a short video from someone at the event who recorded the incident on their cell phone which you an watch here.

March 15
Weinstein Sends Email Regarding Day of Absence
Every year Evergreen State College has held a "Day of Absence" when students, staff and faculty of color are invited to meet off campus and participate in discussions on race and other social issues. The idea is to leave the campus without it's minority members so those remaining can "reflect on the meaning of their community without these essential members."(1) The following day there is a "Day of Presence," held on campus with similar activities where all are allowed to participate.

This year it was decided that the event would be changed so that on the "Day of Absence," white members of the college were "invited" to leave the campus and minority members were to remain. According to the student newspaper, the "decision was reached through discussion with POC Greeners who voiced concern over feeling as if they are unwelcome on campus, following the 2016 election."(27)

On March 15, Prof. Bret Weinstein responded to a faculty wide email regarding the upcoming 'Day of Absence', protesting the change in the event. You can read Weinstein's email here. This led to a bit of back and forth from various faculty members and Weinstein. You can read the entire series of emails here.

May 10
Student Sends Facebook Post In An Effort To Make Class Mostly Brown/Black 
Student Jamil A. Bee left a post in a Facebook group for students graduating in 2020 requesting PoC (people of color) to take a Media Works class in an effort to make it a mostly brown/black class. Here is an image of the original post. Trying to point out the hypocritical bigotry of the post, another student, Kai-Avé Douvia, posts a copy of Jamil's message except changing "PoC" and "black/brown" with "white". This sparked a huge uproar in the comments section. Allegedly, these comments have since been deleted.(1)(2)(3)

May 14
Confrontation at the Greenery & Police Question Timeko and Jamil
The back and forth culminated in a confrontation on May 14th at the Greenery cafeteria between Douvia and a group of students. I can't tell from accounts if Jamil was present but it seems the argument primarily involved Douvia and another student named Timeko Williams Jr. Some accounts state that threats were made toward Douvia while other say no threats were made. Regardless Douvia reported to police that threats were made against him.(1)(2)(3)

Later that night, a residential director went to Jamil and Williams rooms and told them they had been requested at Police Services.(1) It looks as if they either arrived at the police station with a large entourage or the group showed up shortly after, as a couple of Facebook videos on Jamil's page show a large group of students waiting around the station. After being questioned the two were released a few hours later with no charges filed but in the eyes of the protesters, as indicated in a press release about a week later, this action by the police of investigating a potentially criminal complaint filed with them, was actually an example of harassing institutional racism.(4)

May 15
Students Take Over Discussion with Candidate
Student protesters took over a scheduled conversation with a candidate for Vice President/Vice Provost of Equity and Inclusion to "talk about recent events and the history of racism and administrative stagnancy on campus."(5)

May 19
Boycott of President's 'Conversation about Race'

On May 18 Wendy Endress, Vice President of Student Affairs,  sends an email regarding the heated Facebook messages, Douvia's report to the police for alleged threats made against him, and police questioning of Williams and Bee. There are allegations that the email Endress sent includes false information about the students who were detained but based on the letter I read here, which is asserted to be the email in question, I'm not sure what the uproar is all about.(5)(13)

Some students called for a boycott of the event in a ridiculous press release you can read here.(14)

May 23
Students Confront Weinstein
In the morning of May 23, a group of about fifty protesters disrupt Bret Weinstein’s class. Though Weinstein tried to have a sensible discussion the mob hurled obscenities at the professor, labeling him a racist and demanding his resignation.

The campus police were called, and they in turn called the County Sheriff’s office for backup.(5) When police arrived, student protesters blocked their way which they say was to protect students of color but looked to me to be nothing more than an attempt to keep them from reaching Weinstein. The students claim that police Officer Timothy O'Dell was inappropriately aggressive when he physically tried to push his way through the students. I didn't see any indication of this in the videos but am curious as to why the protesters that blocked police from getting through weren't arrested as this seems to be a clear example of obstruction.

Video1
Video2
Video3

Meeting Held By President George Bridges
After confronting Weinstein, the mob confronted George Bridges, the President of the University, and demanded a meeting with him that afternoon. The mob relentlessly harassed, and belittled Bridges and other members of the administration using bigoted and vulgar language.

Video1
Video2

Bridges agrees to a meeting which takes place at 4:pm. He kowtows to the students for a bit, then the students begin questioning him, describing their deluded worldviews and making demands. They become more aggressive as the meeting goes on. Eventually it becomes nothing more than a platform for the students to abuse the administrators.

Video1
Video2

May 24
Students Barricade Library, Occupy Building & Meet with Administrators
About 200 students gathered for a rally on the campus' central Red Square (appropriately named) then marched to president Bridges' office on the third floor of the library chanting "Hey-hey, ho-ho, these racist teachers have got to go". Students literally blocked entrances with furniture to keep the police out which you can see on this video at 4:05. Again protesters hysterically abused administrators, intimidated faculty, and made slanderous accusations of racism.

Students presented Bridges with a list of demands, requesting that they be addressed by 5 p.m. Friday.(4)(5)

Video1 
Video2 
Video3
Video4
Video5
Video6
Video7

On another part of the campus, protesters interrupted a faculty meeting that was being held to honor professors who were recently nominated for emeritus status. Standing at the front of the room the protesters scolded the professors for sitting there "eating cake and chewing" instead of supporting the student. 

Video1

Weinstein Told It's Unsafe For Him To Be On Campus
Weinstein stated "Police told me protesters stopped cars yesterday, demanding information about occupants...They believe I was being sought."(25) "“I have been told by the Chief of Police it’s not safe for me to be on campus.” An administrator confirmed the police department advised Weinstein it “might be best to stay off campus for a day or so.”(26)

May 26
George Bridges Addresses Demands
Bridges set a meeting in the Longhouse at 5 p.m. to address the demands made by students. Here's a video of the unbelievable address and further student insanity.

Weinstein Makes Media Appearances
On May 26, Bret Weinstein appears on Tucker Carlson show. Over the next several weeks he appears on various news shows, podcast and YouTube shows including:
May 30 - The Rubin Report
May 30 - The Wall Street Journal
June 2 - Joe Rogan Experience

May 27

Student's Demands Published
Student demands are published in the Cooperpoint Journal.(15)

May 31
Lawmakers Propose Defunding Evergreen
Campus Reform reports that a bill to privatize Evergreen, spearheaded by Republican State Representative Matt Manweller, will be introduced alongside a letter to the state Human Rights Commission requesting an investigation into potential civil rights violations on campus surrounding the incident. Manweller and his colleagues are also discussing the possibility of revoking $24,000,000 in annual funding to Evergreen State College.(20)

June 1
Threat of Violence Closes Campus
On Thursday, June 1st, someone called 911 and told the dispatcher, “Yes, I am on my way to Evergreen now with a .44 Magnum. … I am going to execute as many people on that campus as I can get a hold of. You have that, what’s going on here, you communist scumbag?” The school was immediately shut down as Law Enforcement searched the campus. The campus remained closed on Friday and reopened on Saturday.(16)

June 2 
Faculty Sign Statement of Solidarity with Protesters
More than 50 Evergreen professors signed a statement affirming faculty solidarity with students. It's first two sentences establishes the ridiculous ideology of it's drafters, "We acknowledge that all of us who have power within the institution share responsibility for the racist actions of others. Furthermore, those of us who are white bear a particularly large share of that responsibility." At one point the document specifically demands Weinstein be punished by calling for the administration to "Demonstrate accountability by pursuing a disciplinary investigation against Bret Weinstein according to guidelines in the Social Contract and Faculty Handbook. Weinstein has endangered faculty, staff, and students, making them targets of white supremacist backlash by promulgating misinformation in public emails, on national television, in news outlets, and on social media."

As of 06/19/17, the original Google Docs link to the statement of solidarity shows that it has been removed but I've found copy on scribd here.(17)

June 4
Vigilantes Patrol Campus with Bats
The College Fix reports that a group of vigilantes took to patrolling the campus armed with bats and other weapons. The paper obtained a copy of an email from Vice President for Student Affairs Wendy Endress addressed to "colleagues" which included a message sent to students Sunday by Sharon Goodman, director of Evergreen’s Residential and Dining Service, or RAD, asking the “community patrol” to lay down its weapons. (21)

June 5
Campus Again Closed Due To Threat Investigation
The campus was again closed on Monday June 5 “while law enforcement officials review new external threat information received over the weekend.”(16) 

Campus Graffiti & Vandalism
A later report indicates the closure was actually due to the continued investigation of the original threat, problems with the bat carrying vigilantes and incidents of graffiti and broken windows, which amounted to about $10,000 in damages.(23)

I've collected all the images I could find of graffiti painted throughout the campus here. (Note: I don't know when the graffiti was actually painted.)


June 15
Patriot Prayer Demonstrators Clash With Anarchist Counter Protesters
About 50 or 60 conservative protesters from the group Patriot Prayer marched onto the campus. They were met about 120 masked "anarchists" and students. One arrest was made.(19)

June 16
Graduation Moved Off-Campus
For security reasons, the 2017 graduation ceremony was moved off-campus and relocated to Cheney Stadium.(18)

Vice News Report
Vice News released a video report on the Evergreen protest, which include interviews with some of these students mocking 'free speech'.(24)

June 20
Bridges Testifies In Front of Washington Senate Law and Justice Committee
Bridges spoke at a work session of the Senate Law and Justice Committee regarding the student protests and campus safety. The session also featured testimony from police chief Stacy Brown, Professor Mike Paros, Washington State Patrol chief John Batiste, Thurston County chief Deputy Sheriff Dave Pearsall and Rep. Matt Manweller.(22)

Video1 (entire session)
Video2
Video3
Video4
Video5
Video6
Video7
Video8

July 3
Robert Kerekes of Morris Plains, New Jersey was arrested for the telephone threats made on June 1.(28) 


July 12
First Public Board Of Trustees Meeting Since The Unrest
The board listened to short public comments including comments from Bret Weinstein. 

Video1 (entire meeting)


Originally Posted 06/19/17
Last Updated 10/02/17

(1)The Cooperpoint Journal: Students Questioned About Alleged Harassment
(2)Liberty Hangout: I am a Leftist But an Alien Among My Leftist Peers
(3)Evergreen State College Drama: Some Background
(4)The Olympian: Students allege racism, protest administrators at The Evergreen State College
(5)The Cooperpoint Journal: A Year of Events
(6)The Evergreen State College: The Equity Council
(7)The Evergreen State College Equity and Inclusion Council 2016-2017 Strategic Equity Plan
(8)The Wall Street Journal: The Campus Mob Came for Me-and You, Professor, Could Be Next
(9)The Cooperpoint Journal: Confrontation at Convocation
(10)The Cooperpoint Journal: Complete Interview with Lawrence Walker III and AR Rushet
(11)The Cooperpoint Journal: POC Talk Student Conduct Code Violations Used Against Direct Action
(12)The Cooperpoint Journal: Evergreen "Welcomes" New Chief of Police
(13)Alleged email sent by Wendy Endress on May 18th
(14)Call to boycott the "Talk with the President" event on May 19th.
(15)The Cooperpoint Journal: Students Demand Change
(16)Washington Post: Evergreen State College closes again after threat and protests over race
(17)Faculty statement of solidarity with students
(18)KIRO7: Security tight at graduation ceremony for The Evergreen State College
(19)King5: 1 arrested during clashing protests at Evergreen State College
(20)Campus Reform: Lawmakers propose defunding Evergreen State amid protests
(21)The College Fix: Evergreen official asks student vigilantes to stop patrolling campus armed with bats, batons
(22)The News Tribune: Evergreen president wants more money for campus police
(23)The Washington Post: Evergreen State College reopens after violent threat and property damage on campus
(24)Vice News: Evergreen State College Controversy
(25)The Washington Times: Students Berate Professor Who Refused To Participate In No Whites 'Day Of Absence'.
(26)King 5 News: Professor told he's not safe on campus after college protests
(27)The Cooperpoint Journal: Day of Absence Changes Form
(28)Daily Record: Morris Plains man arrested for phone threats to college.

Kentucky: Neither straights or gays can marry the same sex so ban is not discriminatory

It's been reported that the administration of Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear has filed a brief with the US Supreme Court defending it's ban on gay marriage. In it they argue

"Kentucky’s marriage laws treat homosexuals and heterosexuals the same and are facially neutral. Men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are free to marry persons of the opposite sex under Kentucky law, and men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, cannot marry persons of the same sex under Kentucky law,"

I'll be a bit more generous than some of the news outlets that reported on this by noting that the brief is  42 pages so there may or may not be other more rational arguments presented (I didn't take the time to read it). Regardless, it is hard to believe that the argument above could possibly be presented as a serious justification for upholding it's ban on gay marriage.

Imagine a law which states that it is now illegal to practice Christianity and then arguing that it doesn't discriminate against those who are Christian because it also applies to Muslims, Buddhist, and atheist. This sort of specious legal reasoning really drives me crazy. I can't imagine that the Supreme Court will give it any credence.


HuffPo: Kentucky: Our Same-Sex Marriage Ban Isn't Anti-Gay Because It Applies To Straight People, Too

Christin Milloy's Infant Gender Assignment Nonsense

I've read some pretty silly articles from Slate before but this one still has me shaking my head in disbelief. A couple months ago the rag published an article by Christin Scarlet Milloy titled Don't Let the Doctor Do This to Your Newborn.

The article begins with a fictitious scenario in which a mother is lying in bed holding her baby, recovering from labor. The doctor comes in to perform some mysterious but standard "treatment." The mother asks what the treatment is and if it's necessary. The doctor replies vaguely that it will help the child to be recognized and get along with the other children who've received the same treatment but warns that for 1 or 2 percent, there are terrible negative side effects which include depression, social ostracism, difficulty finding or keeping a job and suicide.

You might be thinking to yourself, how horrible. Thank goodness parents of newborns don't actually have to face such a scary situation. But according to Milloy, the imaginary treatment described above is real. "Obstetricians, doctors, and midwives commit this procedure on infants every single day, in every single country. In reality, this treatment is performed almost universally without even asking for the parents' consent, making this practice all the more insidious. It's called infant gender assignment: When the doctor holds your child up to the harsh light of the delivery room, looks between its legs, and declares his opinion: It's a boy or a girl, based on nothing more than a cursory assessment of your offspring's genitals."

Milloy continues the crazy narrative with explanations on how, beginning with the doctors gender assignment of your baby, the child's life is "instantly and brutally reduced from such infinite potentials down to one concrete set of expectations and stereotypes, and any behavioral deviation from that will be severely punished—both intentionally through bigotry, and unintentionally through ignorance. That doctor (and the power structure behind him) plays a pivotal role in imposing those limits on helpless infants, without their consent, and without your informed consent as a parent. This issue deserves serious consideration by every parent, because no matter what gender identity your child ultimately adopts, infant gender assignment has effects that will last through their whole life."

And just to drive home the point that Milloy is actually criticizing the doctors declaration of a baby's sex and isn't just using the gender assignment thing as some sort of metaphorical critique, I present this quote. "Infant gender assignment is a wilful decision, and as a maturing society we need to judge whether it might be a wrong action. Why must we force this on kids at birth? What is achieved, besides reinforcing tradition? What could be the harm in letting a child wait to declare for themself who they are, once they're old enough (which is generally believed to happen around age 2 or 3)? Clearly, most children will still turn out like we'd expect, but it's unlikely the extra freedom would harm them. On the other hand, we do know the massive harm caused to some children by the removal of that freedom...Think carefully. Infant gender assignment might just be Russian roulette with your baby's life."

If this article was written anywhere else, I probably would of had to do some research to verify that it wasn't satire. But this isn't satire and as easy as it would be to simply say "this is bat shit crazy" and move on, I feel it deserves some sort of reasoned response.

First, instead of clearly writing what she is arguing for, Milloy instead chooses to heavily saturate the article with rhetorical ploys meant to emotionally persuade the reader. Some of the examples I've already quoted above include calling the doctor's declaration of sex an "insidious" act and comparing it to playing "Russian roulette with your baby's life". Yea, that's right. Milloy seems to believe that a doctor stating "it's a boy" or "it's a girl" is analogically comparable to putting a bullet into a revolver, spinning the cylinder, putting it to the child's head and pulling the trigger.

Milloy uses a similar maneuver at the beginning of the article with his carefully constructed story. She presents a mother facing a somewhat authoritarian doctor ominously wanting to perform a treatment on the new born which may result in long-term negative side effects. It is then revealed to the reader that the hypothetical treatment is actually real and occurs ever day in the form of infant gender assignment. The problem with this, of course, is that a doctor stating the sex of a child is not a treatment. It is, well, just a statement of what is observed. The word treatment implies the use of medical intervention against some sort of illness or injury. That term obviously doesn't apply here.

This leads me to my next point. When a doctor states the babies sex, he or she is simply stating the child's biological gender. It's hilarious how Milloy describes this as an insidious treatment performed without parental consent based on nothing more than a doctors opinion. I'm guessing that for all of human history, whenever a child was born, one of the first things the doctor, midwife or parents have done is to look between the child's legs to see if it was a boy or a girl. But according to Milloy, this very act is to "instantly and brutally" reduce a child "from such infinite potentials down to one concrete set of expectations and stereotypes, and any behavioral deviation from that will be severely punished."

Generally speaking, looking at a child's genitalia is a good way to determine biological sex. It should be noted though that there are exceptions to this rule. Intersex is the term typically used to describe individuals with a congenital anomaly of the reproductive and sexual system. It seems there are some disagreements as to what should be included in the term intersex and there hasn't been a lot of work done to collect statistical information. According to a 2000 study by Anne Fausto-Sterling, up to 1.7% of babies are born intersex. This statistic includes a wide range of major and minor disorders, some of which are apparent at birth (ambiguous external genitalia) and some which are not (external organs appear male or female but there are internal or chromosomal differences). A second often used statistic is that approximately 1 in 2000 babies are born with ambiguous external genitalia. I found this stat used in a lot of different places but could only find one article which cited it to a 1998 paper by Kenneth Kipnis and Milton Diamond called Pediatric Ethics and Surgical Assignment of Sex. Anyway, taking these two statistics together it seems we can conclude that just over 1% of babies born may have some sort of major or minor intersex condition which would not be obvious at birth.

So after eliminating the rhetorical ploys, what are we left with? It is still not entirely clear what Milloy's argument is. It seems as if she is saying something like:

Transgender and intersexed individuals experience higher rates of psychological distress and suicide. These problems are caused (or mostly caused) by being assigned the wrong gender at birth by a doctor. Therefore doctors shouldn't be allowed to declare the sex of a baby.

Again, there's a great deal of vagueness in Milloy's article which makes it difficult to restate her argument with complete confidence. This is apparent if you read through the comment section of the article where typically the few people that tried to defend her believed she was talking about infant gender re-assignment (when a baby is born with ambiguous genitalia and a doctor performs surgery on the child to make them look more like their assigned gender).

Anyway, the first premise, that transgenders and intersexed individuals experience higher rates of psychological distress and suicide, can be verified as true through available statistical information.

The second premise, that these problems are caused (mostly caused) by being assigned the wrong gender at birth, is where things go terribly wrong. I think it's more than a little naive to believe that the distress experienced by transgender people would all but go away if a transgendered child was given the ability to declare their own sex at a young age.

To demonstrate, lets do a little thought experiment. Imagine Milloy's world comes to pass and doctors cannot "assign" a child's sex at birth. A child is born, the sex has not been declared by the doctor and the parents even raise it completely gender neutral. At the age of three, the child, who is biologically a boy, declares that it believes it is a girl and the parents then allow her to wear dresses, play with dolls and do whatever other things little girls like to do. Now according to Milloy, the child has been spared the trauma of being assigned the wrong gender and therefore shouldn't experience the sort of psychological distress transgenders often do. Of course, this completely overlooks the elephant in the room. Namely that the child is still transgendered; identifying as a girl but having the biology of a boy. As such, she will still face prejudice from society at large and still have to deal with the confusion of having the body of a boy yet identifying as a girl. As such, I think it would be a safe assumption to believe that as a group transgenders would still have exceptionally high rates of psychological issues.

Though it's not addressed in the article, I think it can be assumed that Milloy is wanting more than just the banning of doctors declaring the babies sex. That alone would really change nothing. It seems that what Milloy really wants is for parents to also have to raise the child in a gender neutral way until the baby can decide for its self.

So how is all this to be carried out? Would there be laws making it illegal for doctors to declare the sex of the child? What would they put down for medical records? Would there be laws which forced parents to raise their child in a gender neutral way? If so, how would this be enforced?

Most importantly, how would raising children in a completely gender neutral environment effect those that do not have intersex issues? The truth is, we really don't know. While some so called experts say that it would allow a child to develop free of limiting gender norms, others believe that it can only cause confusion at a point in life when clarity is needed.

In the end I think it's plain to see that this is at best an ill-conceived idea on Milloy's part. But it does raise the interesting question of how we've gotten to the point that it could be taken seriously enough to be published in a major online news magazine.


Slate: Don’t Let the Doctor Do This to Your Newborn

Is it racist to not want to judge by race?

Last month the Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision, upheld a Michigan Constitutional amendment banning the use of race as a factor in college admissions. It was a controversial decision which sparked a great deal of debate among both opponents and supporters of affirmative action.

One of these debates occurred on Fox News Sunday between Jennifer Gratz and Shanta Driver. I had seen the two present their views before and both pretty much stuck to their normal scripts, at least until the very end when Driver dropped a bombshell by saying "this is a racist decision that takes us back to an era of states rights where white majorities can disenfranchise minority communities and now prevent us from getting higher education."

So, if I understand correctly, Driver believes that the members of the Supreme Court who voted to allow the amendment to stand are essentially being racist because they are not in favor of discriminating on the basis of race.

You might think that perhaps Ms. Driver let her emotions get the better of her during the interview and that she doesn't really think that it was a "racist decision"...except that there is a very long quote of her responding to the decision on BAMN (By All Means Necessary) which starts by saying "Today's Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on affirmative action in Michigan is a racist decision."

Jennifer Gratz gave what I thought was a perfect response to Driver's cheap tactics saying "I think it is unbelievable that someone would sit here today and say prohibiting racial discrimination is a racist decision, I think that that tells us where the level of discourse is today. Look, good people can disagree. But we can’t have name-calling and baiting like this.” Couldn't have said it better.

Consumer Product Safety Commission Demon Regulatory Overlords vs Craig Zucker

I just finished reading an interesting article in Reason magazine chronicling the demise of Buckyballs at the hands of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the followup lawsuit against the products creator Craig Zucker. For those who aren't familiar with the story, here is a quick rundown. Buckyballs were a popular desk toy comprised of a number of small, powerful magnets about the size of the pellets used in bb guns. The product was a big hit with sales reaching $10 million in 2009.

In July of 2012, Maxfield & Oberton, the company which produced Buckyballs, received notice of an administrative complaint filed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to stop the production and sale of Buckyball magnets due to several incidents of injury to children that had swallowed them. The complaint states that the magenetic forces could pinch or trap the intestinal walls causing long-term health consequences, including the potential for inflammation, ulceration or perforation of the intestines. At the time of the complaint, CSPC indicated that approximately 22 children had been injured by the product but no fatalities were reported. It is important to understand that the product isn't marketed toward children. This was overtly expressed through the five prominent warning labels which came with each little package of the product. Also, as pointed out by Eli Federman of the Huffinton Post, banning the product was statiscally ridiculous. If there was 1 incident of Buckeyballs out of 100,000 sets sold requiring emergency medical treatment then that would mean dogs, tennis, & skateboarding were 129 times, 1228 times and 890 times respectively more risky.

Due to the ability of government regulators to make life difficult for business people, it isn't often that they openly resist such demands but that is exactly what Zucker did. He went to the public with the snarky "Save Our Balls" campaign in an attempt to win over support to stop the CPSC from shutting down his business. Some of those ads included cartoonish pictures of members of the CPSC as telephone psychics.

 

These ads were a response to the CPSC's predetermined decision to shut down buckyballs even though they were supposed to be given time to propose a corrective action plan first. On their Buckyballs webpage, they provide the following timeline of events:

• July 10th: We were requested by the Commission to propose a Corrective Action Plan to make our products safer, with a deadline of July 24th.

• July 24th, 4pm: We submitted a comprehensive Corrective Action Plan with numerous suggestions concerning the safety of our products and further educating consumers and retailers. Then we waited for feedback…

• July 25th, 11am: CPSC filed an Administrative Complaint and ran to the media. In the hours between 4pm and 11am, the staff allegedly “fully” reviewed and rejected our CAP, the Commissioners voted, their lawyers drafted and then filed a lawsuit.

• Here’s where it gets just plain spooky…Through a Freedom of Information request, we’ve discovered this document showing that the vote to sue our company was presented to the Commissioners on July 23rd, a day before our Corrective Action Plan was to be submitted. The vote to put us out of business was due before July 25th, giving the Commissioners or staff little or no time to actually consider our Corrective Action Plan submitted at 4 p.m. on the 24th. The vote was requested before they even received our plan. 

• So, how to explain this overlap of such a crucial timeline? How could the CPSC say they considered our Corrective Action Plan when they may never have actually read it? We can only conclude one thing: Miss Inez & the Consumer Product Psychic Safety Commission can see into the future!

Unfortunately, with lost sales due to the CPSC shutting down their retail chain and mounting legal expenses, Zucker decided to close the company in December of 2012.

Now here is where it gets really outrageous. A few months after the company was dissolved, the CPSC decided to make the unprecedented move to include Zucker and his business partner as parties to the complaint thus making them personally liable for the cost of the recall. The agency initially estimated the cost at around $57 million though a spokesperson later said it would probably be less. 

According to Reason, "The case has drawn widespread attention in legal circles because it's the first time the Commission has attempted to hold a former officer personally responsible for the actions of a defunct corporation." Could you imagine what effect this would have on business and entrepreneurship if this became the norm? No one would ever want to develop new products out of fear that they would be held personally liable for a unpredictable future complaint by the CPSC.

So is this the start of the CPSC's new method of regulating producers or is there another explanation. Zucker thinks there is. He believes that the CPSC is using its power to carry out a personal vendetta against him by being the first company in 11 years to defy their orders. I'm guessing those funny ads they put out really pissed them off too.

Reason. The Feds vs. Craig Zucker: Are Regulators Carrying Out a Personal Vendetta Against the Creator of Buckyballs?

Huff Post: Banning Buckyball Magnets Is Statistically Ridiculous
Buckyballs

Wall Street Journal: Irrational War on Buckyballs

Parent Arrested At School Meeting

This short video of a Towson, Maryland father being arrested at a school meeting has caused quite a stir in the blogosphere. Robert Small was arrested and charged with second degree assault on a police officer and disturbing a school operation after raising questions about the implementation of common-core education standards.

There are really a few different issues worthy of discussion which the video helps to shine a bright light on: the common core standards, the controlled somewhat manipulative manner in which these forums are conducted and of course, the legitimacy of the charges against Mr. Small.

The charges levied against Mr. Small is the issue which I found the most egregious. The meeting was supposed to be a question and answer forum used to convey information about the new standards to the public but rather than allowing the audience to directly speak, questions were to be written in advance and some would be selected to be answered. It seems that Mr. Small became frustrated after the first hour of the hour and a half long meeting was more of a pep rally for the new standards, so he decided to stand-up and raise his concerns. The video depicts what took place at that point.

It is true that Mr. Small did not follow the pre-arranged format of the meeting and did not immediately comply with the officers instructions to leave. This validates the charge of disturbing a school operation though as I insinuated above, the format of submitting questions in advance allows for the forum leaders to avoid any difficult questions thus censoring any opposition.

It is the charge of second degree assault against a police officer which I find to be disturbing (a charge which carries a fine of $2,500 and up to 10 years in prison). According to this story from The Baltimore Sun the police report "said Small had attempted to push the officer away when he first confronted him." I watched the video closely and didn't see anything remotely close to that. Unless I'm missing something, this seems like another example of a police officer creating charges where the facts of the situation clearly do not support it. Isn't this a simple case of false arrest? And yet, according to this Baltimore Sun story, the state's attorney's office believes that the officer clearly "acted appropriately and did have probable cause to make an arrest on both charges." Really? If that is true than there is something wrong with the law. Mr. Small did not initiate contact with the officer yet somehow it is appropriate to charge him with such a serious crime.?

Thankfully, the all so generous state's attorney's office has decided to drop the charges against Mr. Small. I wonder, if there hadn't been a video recording of the event he would be so lucky?

When lunch boxes attack!

Just watched this nanny of the month from Reason TV

With that kind of ego and desire to control the actions of other people, principal Carmona should really consider a career in politics. But maybe I have it all wrong. Perhaps the kids were studying Orwell's 1984 and Carmona just wanted to let them experience a little bit of it.