Did you actually read or hear the evidence or are you just dismissing it entirely based on the source? So what if they did identify "enemies" - that could be sa

Did you actually read or hear the evidence or are you just dismissing it entirely based on the source? So what if they did identify "enemies" - that could be said of anything that is worth arguing over, and frankly identifying a problem here is automatically going to identify "enemies" who cause those problems. Even if they started with a conclusion (which is just another way of saying they speculated like we all do), the evidence is absolutely damning. Let's say you don't believe the testimony of the professors that put their personal reputation and career on the line by challenging other deans, professors, and departments over racially discriminatory hiring practices. The University of Washington's own investigation found the hiring process was racially discriminatory and violating their own policy. It was so clearly racist that they made a public post about it (https://www.washington.edu/news/2023/10/31/university-takes-action-after-faculty-hiring-process-inappropriately-used-race-as-a-factor/ https://www.washington.edu/news/2023/10/31/university-takes-...) and literally barred the department from conducting its own hiring for faculty positions. It doesn't matter to me what group finds something like this. Discrimination is discrimination. I'm glad people are now pushing further to prove that this history of discrimination involved higher up people like the board of regents.