I've read a couple articles on this whole situation and the only conclusion I can make with any certainty is that Weinstein was more in the right than the students harassing him. Given the background of how the univeristy is set up and deals with equity, I can see how his problem with the reversed day of absence may or may not make sense, and to me what it comes down to is whether there really was a coercive force that might have threatened the success and reputations of anyone who ignored the request to stay off-campus. If this scenario had gone no further than his original email, I would have thought that Weinstein probably had the wrong take on a harmless situation, but given how horribly many students reacted, his apprehension about what was going on seems totally justified.
Concerning appearing on Tucker Carlson's show, my original impression was that as much as he deserves to get his side of the story out, there surely must have been some better options of where to do it, and even if there were not it still seemed selfish to enable the bigoted right by giving them ammo against 'PC culture' and such, but it occurs to me to ask whether it actually would have been better had he not gone on the show. If he hadn't, then Tucker and the right surely would have still picked this story up, but instead of an interview format of Tucker asking (biased, loaded) questions and Bret giving his measured responses, it would have just been a monologue by Tucker making his own selective observations and conclusions to frame things even more to his liking. I don't know much about Weinstein or what kind of person he is, and he may have not have thought out his decision to appear at all, but it's also possible that he stopped to consider whether it would do more harm than good and concluded for these reasons that it actually wouldn't, so I'm not sure if I can blame him for it.
