reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Adam Gillette from Accuracy Media confronts Tamara Nowitzky about DEI work at the university, alleging that the department was still engaging in DEI in defiance of state law and that only wording had been changed. Gillette asks if this is true. Nowitzky repeatedly responds, I can't comment, to questions about compliance with the law and whether the department has subverted it by altering language. Gillette presses further, presenting a video in which Nowitzky allegedly said she had to change the words because people are dumb. He asks if she said that, and whether the department is complying with the law or subverting it by changing words. Nowitzky again declines to comment, saying, I can't comment, and does not provide direct answers to whether there were thoughts or criticisms about taxpayers who oppose funding DEI, potential loss of state or federal funds, or a message to legislators who passed a law banning DEI at universities. Gillette notes that Nowitzky had commented extensively in the video, and asks for clarification about whether she misspoke or if the statements are accurate. Nowitzky responds with fragmented phrases: “I can't come,” followed by partial words from Gillette’s prompt, and then, “Most of your progressive. Of your faculty faculty,” seemingly offering insufficient, disconnected remarks. Gillette continues to seek any thoughts on whether a predominantly progressive faculty fosters a welcoming environment for students who don’t share those values, but Nowitzky again says, I can't comment. Gillette indicates that investigators spoke with several staffers and found that the psychology department and other departments had changed wording but were continuing the same DEI work. He asks Nowitzky for comments on these findings. Nowitzky states that the university is “fully compliant with House Bill four and all federal laws and policies and procedures with respect to that issue.” He acknowledges this while also noting concerns raised by Tamara Nowitzky in the psychology department about the claim that they “just changed the words because people are dumb.” In closing, Gillette mentions the recorded comments and complaints alleging that the university continued DEI work in defiance of state law, despite the purported word changes. The exchange ends with Nowitzky reiterating the university’s position of compliance and presenting the conflicting claim from a department member about altering wording, rather than altering the underlying DEI work.

I want to have you address the question that was shouted about the starving children in Gaza. "Israel has a right to defend itself." "It's genocide." "You believe in genocide?" "I am so disappointed." "I am so disappointed in how you represent us." "I don't think you you're the right fit for us anymore." "You just don't relate to most of the places anymore and you gotta know when to step down." "I think it's time." The speaker critiques the leadership and calls for stepping down. They express disappointment with how they are represented. They state that the person is no longer a good fit.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight, despite your attempts to prevent it. In just 60 seconds, I want to address a concerning issue. I believe that by imposing certain ideologies on impressionable children, such as the idea that boys can be girls and vice versa, you are endangering their safety, privacy, and the truth itself. Education must be grounded in truth to be valuable, and I see your actions as harmful. It seems you silence opposing views because you lack a valid argument. However, we will not be silenced. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to further discussions.

Questioning whether the speaker was kicked out of CPAC, the exchange goes: "And you were kicked out of CPAC. Right?" The reply: "I wasn't kicked out. Or you were disinvited? What what let's there was some kind of drama on Twitter." The other party says: "Don't think so. Tell me everything. There's no drama." The speaker then clarifies: "I, you know, like I said, I came out here I came out here to CPAC last year, had a great time. You know, met my hero, Ben Shapiro. I met my mentor and friend, Casa Dillon. And and so I just came out again this year."

The speaker confronts the event organizers about their discriminatory practices. They point out that the event was advertised as open to the public, but it is actually only free for the Muslim community. They question why Jews and Christians are not welcome. The speaker argues that this is against the law and accuses the organizers of discrimination. They mention that the event's Facebook page states it is free for everyone, further highlighting the inconsistency. The speaker criticizes the organizers for wanting acceptance in Western countries while excluding others from their events. The conversation becomes heated as the speaker demands answers.

Trans students on this campus feel victimized by your presence. You mentioned this man's transition, but earlier you dismissed their concerns. Life's tough, get a helmet. I can't handle this, next question.

And I was being attacked too. By the way, it was a huge effort by people, some of whom I know and have helped and like Seth Dillon, the Babylon Bee, for example. Seth Dillon was out there demanding that Charlie Kirk take me off the roster, pull me off stage because I had said things that BB didn't like or that he didn't like or whatever. Shocking that someone whose whole persona is wrapped up in the idea that we all get to speak and if you don't like it, make a more compelling case. That that person and many others like him were advocating for me getting pulled off the stage because they don't like what I'm saying. This is a trend and one that we should be really concerned about. The trend is really simple. People with power don't want to hear disagreement.

I saw a report about being asked to leave an event, but I don't understand why. I asked why I had to leave, and they said it's because it's private property. I don't get it. I asked if they worked for Nikki's campaign, but they didn't answer. I received an email and a text asking me to sign up for the event, so I don't understand what the problem is. I asked nicely, but they didn't have any answers for me. It felt like they were being anti-woman.

I would like to reclaim my time and address the chairman. It seems that Hunter is afraid of what I have to say. It's unfortunate that I burst their bubble.

Hello. What's the educational benefit of talking about things that won't help someone on the SAT? She clearly doesn't care. She needs to put down her sign. I'm being a gentleman here. You're putting me out for asking you to abide by the rules. A board member held up a sign, but the audience couldn't hold up signs. This is tyranny, and we're dealing with a corrupt government system.

Speaker 0: Audience, someone from the left comes up to the mic, let's treat them with respect. Let's not interrupt or scowl or boo them. Show the left the respect that we don't get on these college campuses. With that, let's do some

Speaker 0: Hey Navarro, caught any good fish lately? What's the point of discussing this? Will it help someone's SAT score? Time for a shot. She doesn't care. That's a sign. She should stop talking. Percent. This gentleman is bothering me. Yeah, why? We're just asking you to follow the rules. A board member held up a sign, but the audience couldn't. This is tyranny, dealing with a corrupt government.

Speaker 0, who identifies as Ray Gallagher: Class of '97. I made it halfway through 1995, but for some reason, I was too ill behaved to even make it through Heather Ridge. I identify as Ray Gallagher, and I'm gonna go by Ray Gallagher for the rest of the speech. So you guys had six kids raped, and the first thing you thought to do was to start to ban free speech and require driver's licenses in order to stop citizens from calling you out on your bull. Well, it's not gonna work. Speaker 1: Mister Porter, I'm Speaker 0: gonna stop. I'm gonna stop Speaker 1: you right there. Speaker 0: I'm sorry. There is nothing disruptive about the content of my free speech. Do you wanna talk about Cohen versus California? Did you stop my time? You did. Speaker 1: It is stopped. Speaker 0: I'm gonna continue. No. It didn't stop. It's still counting. I'm looking at it. It's two minutes. Speaker 1: I'm gonna give you one more chance, and then I'm gonna ask you to sit down. Speaker 0: For what? Speaker 1: To abide by our new policy. Speaker 0: You can't ban specific words. My my particular view of your policies, the fact you got all these kids raped by a transgender person and then you keep pushing transgender stuff on children, is that your policy is completely out of line with America. Now this is a transgender flag, and I would like to show you demonstrably what America and the voters think about the transgender ideology being pushed on children. So that right there is what America thinks of your transgender policy four four three. Most people don't support this garbage. Literally support chopping off appendages of children and giving them puberty blockers that make them sterile. You're a monster, all of you, the ones that vote for it support this stuff. The board is out of line. The board's policies are out of line. You guys don't know what you're doing. You're pissing everybody off.

I just got kicked out of Target for wearing a hat, and I was told to go back to my country. This made me question where freedom of speech and the right to wear what I want are. People can dye their hair or get tattoos without issue, but my hat seems to provoke a reaction. Everyone should want their country to thrive, regardless of political views. If people are so concerned about freedom, why aren't they practicing it? It feels contradictory to advocate for freedom while restricting it based on differing opinions. Can anyone explain this?

Turning Point tried to silence me and its opposition, and here is the full story. Yesterday, Turning Point held an event at my school, George Washington University, featuring Erica Kurt and Caroline Levitt. GW students were promised a Q&A at the end of the event. When people started lining up for the Q&A, I got in line and soon learned that at least three out of four of the people in front of me were part of the event themselves. These people were planted there by Turning Point and designated the first few spots in the Q&A. Soon after the Q&A started, a Turning Point worker came up to me and told me that the Q&A would end after the person in front of me in line. Essentially, Turning Point was going to end their Q&A before any actual students could ask questions. Keep in mind that this event up to this point was two hours of nonstop conservative rhetoric despite half of the audience being GW students that didn't agree with the administration. So an organization that claims to believe in freedom of speech and healthy disagreement was going to refuse to let half of their audience have their voices heard. But the crowd did not let that happen. After they ended the Q&A, the crowd erupted to let my question be heard, to at least have one student's opinion heard. And they didn't even give me a mic for half of my question. I had to shout at the top of my lungs for the only two minutes of the two hour show where someone could voice the concerns of millions of American people. And while, yes, I understand that they are running out of time for the event, my question is why in an event that was supposed to uplift GW students' voices did we designate the first three spots of the Q&A to people planted there by Turning Point themselves?

The speaker was asked if they believed students protesting were motivated by anti-Semitism or horror at the Gaza slaughter. The speaker dismissed the idea of students being driven by horror and refused to continue the conversation if it was being recorded.

I will not call on you if you yell, and you're wasting time because Dr. Fauci has to leave soon. I'm not engaging in a back-and-forth. It's not your turn. Don't look at me; it's your first question. You should call on people across the room. She has a valid question about the origin of COVID. I hear the question, but we're not proceeding as you wish. This is disrespectful. I'm done with this. Simon, I'm finished with you right now. Go ahead.

Speaker 0: Hey Navarro, caught any good fish lately? What's the point of discussing this? Will it help someone's SAT score? Time for a shot. She doesn't care. That's a sign. She should stop talking. Percent. This gentleman is bothering me. Uh-huh. Why? We're asking you to follow the rules. A board member held up a sign, but the audience couldn't. This is tyranny, dealing with a corrupt government.

We were kicked out for wearing Trump gear—hats and shirts—before we could vote. We were told to remove them first. It seems unfair since there were others wearing Harris shirts without any issues. Why is Trump gear such a problem?

Charlie Kirk recounts an UNC lecture where protesters called him a racist and 'fascist' and 'These people shouldn't be allowed to live.' Asked, 'What did they say that's hateful and racist?', he says they couldn't articulate anything he believes and that it was 'open ended insults, and it's things that are completely fake and false.' He explains, 'if anyone disagrees, they're allowed to come to the front of the line and ask any question they want to whatsoever.' He laments that administrators didn't encourage dialogue, calling campuses 'almost islands of totalitarianism' and noting 'the left is wrong' while 'the left think that we as conservatives are bad.' He emphasizes TPUSA is 'diverse' and 'representing all students of all different backgrounds' though protesters 'know nothing of that' and 'they've never met me.'

A University of Georgia student recounts asking JD Vance a question at a Turning Point event. He opened by raising a concern: if there are compromised government officials in the files, how can the public trust that this administration will hold anyone accountable when its own justice department is blocking the investigation? He says he sat in front and intended to ask about a formal investigation, and when Q&A was announced, he rushed to the mic. He describes five people already at the mic wearing TP USA lanyards. He asserts he was the first non-TP USA attendee in line and that, while waiting, a woman in a blue top circulated questions and asked attendees, particularly those not in TP USA, what topic they planned to ask about. He claims it appeared questions were being screened by topic, and he indicated he would ask about foreign policy. After several inquiries about his topic, the process continued. He says the last person before him was allowed to proceed, but the blue-clad woman then placed someone else in front of him because her topic was deemed “better.” He recalls pushing back slightly and, when JD Vance agreed to take one more question, he finally delivered his question. Another moderator briefly interrupted to allow one more question, and the student thanks the vice president as well as JD Vance for allowing free speech at UGA. He notes that, although the organizers advocate for freedom of speech and noncensorship, his experience suggested otherwise, and he describes this as his experience of how the event was managed. He closes by thanking the organizers.

And I was being attacked too. There was a huge effort by people, some of whom I know and have helped and like Seth Dillon, the Babylon Bee, for example. Seth Dillon was out there demanding that Charlie Kirk take me off the roster, pull me off stage because I had said things that BB didn't like or that he didn't like or whatever. Shocking that someone whose whole persona is wrapped up in the idea that we all get to speak and if you don't like it, make a more compelling case. That that person and many others like him were advocating for me getting pulled off the stage because they don't like what I'm saying. This is a trend and one that we should be really concerned about.

We just got kicked out of a Kamala rally in Tampa. We’re both local voters and had invites, but as soon as we entered, staffers swarmed us and called the cops. We weren’t causing any trouble. This is supposed to be a party that values free speech and diversity, yet they couldn’t tolerate our presence. The event was barely half full, and they clearly needed more attendees. It’s ironic that they claim to support openness while acting like this. The staffers seemed nervous and took photos of us instead of engaging. That was our brief experience at the Kamala event today.

Speaker 0: The speech opens with a critique of denouncing and a reference to the red guard/ c ultural revolution, questioning why nobody denounces others the way that era was denounced. The speaker recalls that the entire point of Charlie Kirk’s public life was to have actual debate, and asserts that Charlie “died for it.” The last several months of Charlie’s life were devoted, in part, to arguing about this event and this speech, which he asked the speaker to deliver earlier this year, this summer. The speaker notes that Charlie faced immense pressure from people who fund Turning Point who wanted him to remove the speaker from the roster. This has all become public, and the speaker describes the situation as sad, stating that Charlie stood firm in his often stated and deeply held belief that people should be able to debate. The speaker emphasizes that if someone has something valid to say and is telling the truth, they ought to be able to explain it calmly and in detail to people who don’t agree with them, and that they shouldn’t immediately resort to “shut up racist.” The speaker adds that “shut up racist” is the number one reason they voted for Donald Trump. They declare that if they were a racist or a bigot, they would simply say so, noting that it’s America and one is allowed to be whatever kind of person they want. They insist they are not a racist and have always opposed-bigoted views, but criticize the style of debate that prevents the other side from talking or being heard by immediately going to motive, asking why the question is asked, and stating they detect “a certain evil in your soul” in the question. They say that listening to such a question implicates the listeners too, and that someday they may be asked to denounce that person; they assert that friendship is not a reason to defend someone and that love is no defense. The speaker reflects that they thought that phase had ended and that they are not going to engage in those rules. They affirm that if someone doesn’t like what they think, that’s fine as long as they get to express it. That remains their view.

I attended a TPUSA faith event expecting to learn about politics from a biblical perspective, but the experience did not meet those expectations. The speaker began by calling out Candace Owens as evil and antisemitic, stating that “what she's doing is evil,” which made me want to leave immediately. I stayed only because, upon entering, security checked me five times and armed men were stationed in front of me, with one armed man on stage. Inside the church, the speaker spoke repeatedly about Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, framing them as evil and antisemitic. He indirectly urged support for Israel by saying “Jesus was a Jew” and that “we wouldn’t have Christianity without Judaism,” among other claims. I disagree with the framing that Christians should support “this evil doing because these people are Jewish,” which I found to be wrong. The speaker also seemed to echo comments about Camille Owens and Charlie Cook, noting that Cook had started to question Israel in the weeks before his passing, and that Camille Owens was his best friend. The preaching itself did not feel like preaching; it was characterized by name-calling and a focus on the left, with terms like “left idiots” and “freaks.” I questioned whether this approach aligned with biblical teaching, recalling that Jesus “ate with sinners” and “prostitutes,” and worried that spreading hate through the stage and by the audience—especially teenagers—was shaping a future generation of Christians toward division. The event left me uneasy about the message being delivered, as it centered on denigrating those with political disagreements rather than focusing on shared faith. The speaker labeled the left as inferior and spent the majority of the time criticizing liberals, rather than addressing important Christian issues. By the end, I felt I hadn’t learned anything substantive. The discussion emphasized partisan conflict and broad generalizations about the left, rather than focusing on constructive biblical or political principles. In addition to the ideological focus, I noted the security environment with armed guards and an armed figure on stage, which contributed to an overall sense of unease. The speaker’s emphasis on opposing the left and on contentious topics like men in women’s sports and bathrooms framed as political talking points, rather than pressing concerns central to Christian discourse.