reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The discussion centers on whether school policy penalizes students for misusing pronouns and whether such penalties amount to harassment or suspension. The first speaker raises the core question: “For clarification, is this the policy that's used if a student misuses a pronoun they are suspended? An intentional. Yeah. That's part of the definition, bullying.” They illustrate the concern with a hypothetical: if a student’s parents raise their child to respond to a female with she pronouns, but that student says “I want to be something else,” will their child be suspended for that? The implication is that misusing or resisting pronoun usage could trigger disciplinary action under the policy. The chain of reasoning then states: “Oh yeah that would be harassment.” The speaker expresses disbelief upon learning that students might be suspended “because they are using the wrong pronoun,” stating they were aghast and did not realize that such suspensions occur. The subsequent line shows a pushback from another participant: “Should be disagree with you saying that's incorrect.” This introduces a contest over whether suspending for pronoun usage is correct, but the rebuttal immediately pivots to a claim about biological facts: “Well, one is biologically facts.” The conversation asserts: “It's actually XX chromosomes, XY chromosomes. Those are facts. We can't change those. It doesn't matter what our opinion is. We can't change those things.” The speaker emphasizes that these chromosomal facts are immutable. From there, the speaker clarifies their main question: “Those are immutable facts. And I'm wondering, are we what I'm asking, my question is, are we suspending students for immutable facts? That's what I'm asking. Not for making it as genuine.” In sum, the exchange presents a concern that disciplinary actions related to pronoun use might target individuals based on disagreements about gender identity and pronouns, and it juxtaposes this with a claim about immutable biological facts (XX and XY chromosomes) as a basis for questioning whether suspensions are being applied to immutable facts rather than to conduct. The dialogue frames a tension between policy definitions of harassment and a set of assertions about biological determinism, seeking to determine whether suspensions are being imposed for immutable factual claims rather than for misbehavior.

We passed a law clarifying teachers can't be fired for not informing parents if a student identifies as trans or gay. Teachers still have the right to inform parents, especially regarding health and safety. The law protects teachers who choose not to "snitch" on students. Some believe teachers should be penalized, even terminated, for withholding information from parents. But we feel teachers shouldn't be policing student conversations. There are instances where teachers affirm a student's transition without parental knowledge. While this issue is politically charged, principles matter, even if unpopular. We both hold deeply unpopular beliefs. It's important to be aware of the Democratic Party's brand challenges on these issues.

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.

"Hi. Good evening. I'm a parent in the Davis Unified School District, and I'm here today to talk about the policies you have for the locker rooms in the junior high schools." "Right now, we require our students to undress for PE class." "depending on a child's transgender identity that they can pick which bathroom they want." "So we have right now at this school district, we have children self identifying into into different bathrooms just based off of No. Their You cannot." "I have my bathing suit on." "Excuse me. This this is allowed." "We're gonna recess. I'm gonna finish my comments." "So you are violating my first amendment right." "I am putting on my You are disrupt."

A concerned parent testified about alleged issues at Petaluma High School. They stated that their child brought home homework from Petaluma High School that was "inappropriate and extremely suggestive" from the English class. The parent said the book currently read in class includes themes of "sex and hiding underage sex from your parents, gender confusion and body dysmorphia." They asserted this is not an isolated incident, claiming that Ms. Lashon has assigned on more than one occasion material that centers on sexuality, gender, and politicized themes that do not belong in an English class of minors. They described a clear pattern and suggested it appears intentional. The parent said they brought these concerns to Principal Napoli, who allegedly told them that the board had approved these materials and that Napoli did not know these materials were being taught in a class their daughter attends. The parent expressed concern that consent was not sought, noting they signed their daughter out of sexual education, yet stated the material has been implemented in her other classes. They claimed that when addressing the school, they were told they were the only parent complaining and that they were effectively the problem, and they also reported emailing a board member without receiving a response. The parent argued this represents a break of trust, noting that parents trust the district with their children daily. They stated the teacher has also introduced other politicized ideologies, which they believe do not belong in school, particularly in English class. They cited land acknowledgments, saying their daughter came home confused about being told they are on stolen land and being guilted for living there and being who they are. The parent urged the board to examine the materials and the printed quotes they delivered to Principal Napoli. They claimed they were made to feel like the problem when raising these concerns and asked the board to disclose what material is being taught, especially if there are sexual themes, insisting it is not the district’s decision to implement that content in students’ classrooms.

I'm Ally Benjamin, the director of public relations. We're covering a story about Les Beard, a physics teacher at Mariner High School, who discussed gender diversity in class. A student and parents recorded his comments, raising questions about whether it's appropriate for a physics teacher to teach biology. I can't comment on personnel matters or potential consequences for Mr. Beard. While I understand your concerns, I can only provide the statement I already gave you. You can reach out to other staff members for further comments, but I must protect the privacy of personnel matters. This situation is indeed extraordinary, and I appreciate your reporting on it. Please contact me if you need anything else. Thank you.

Mayor Craig Schubert addresses the board, expressing concern about educators distributing inappropriate material in classrooms. He mentions speaking to a judge who confirmed this issue. The mayor presents the board with a choice: resign from the board of education or face charges.

A speaker visited the school for two days to ensure that staff could provide information to students about their gender. They emphasized the importance of adults guiding students in sexual education, including topics like masturbation and anal sex. The speaker mentioned a bill that was passed for children as young as five years old. The speaker acknowledged that discussing these topics might be uncomfortable for some, but believed it was necessary. They mentioned critical race theory and pointed out that the principal and mayor of the school were black.

Teacher Darren's pronouns are z, zer, zer, zerz, and zerself, and they identify as gender neutral, neither female nor male. Students should refer to them as Teacher Darren, without "mister" or "missus." While Teacher Darren can be pretty or handsome, they are not a lady. A student questioned why they have to learn this, and Teacher Darren responded that the world is changing. A student stated that not the whole world is like this, and Teacher Darren suggested starting in the classroom. Another student asked if they could use "she, her" pronouns when talking to their parents about Teacher Darren, but Teacher Darren said no, and suggested the student educate their parents. A student stated that their parents might get angry and confront Teacher Darren, but Teacher Darren dismissed this concern, stating that these are their pronouns and that's the way the world is working. Another student asked if this was part of the curriculum, but the response was cut off.

Nicole Solis, a mother from Rhode Island, shares her experience of being sued by the teachers union for simply wanting to know her kindergartner's curriculum. When she asked to see the curriculum, she was told to submit a public records request as it wasn't available online. She also inquired about gender theory, but the school refused to answer her questions directly. Instead, they insisted on communicating only through public requests. Nicole submitted 100 public records requests, and as a result, the school board held a meeting to discuss suing her. They attacked her character, accused her of causing chaos, and even made her feel unsafe. The NEA, the largest teachers union in the country, eventually filed a lawsuit against her. Nicole hopes her story will prevent other parents from facing similar situations. She is still in litigation after almost two years, without receiving the answers she sought.

Mayor Craig Schubert addresses the board, expressing concern about educators distributing inappropriate content in classrooms. He mentions speaking to a judge who confirmed this issue. The mayor presents the board with a choice: resign from the board of education or face charges.

Ally Benjamin, the director of public relations, discusses a situation involving Les Beard, a physics teacher at Mariner High School, who was recorded discussing gender in class. The reporter inquires if it's standard for physics teachers to teach biology and seeks a statement regarding potential consequences for Beard. Benjamin states she cannot comment on personnel matters and suggests contacting the principal for further information. The reporter expresses frustration at being redirected and emphasizes the parents' concerns about the content taught in class. Benjamin acknowledges the extraordinary nature of the situation and reiterates her inability to provide additional details. The conversation concludes with Benjamin offering to assist further if needed.

There's concern about teaching a biased version of history. But, despite state standards and other influences, we prioritize doing what's right for the kids in our district. For example, we avoid explicitly stating that we teach Next Generation Science Standards to avoid scrutiny, but we still cover the material. Essentially, we navigate the requirements carefully. They can't fully control what we teach. At the end of the day, we do what's right by closing the door and teaching the correct information. That's our approach.

Hey, I'm Adam Gillette with Accuracy and Media. I heard you were coaching a parent on how to break laws regarding biological boys and girls in sports. Is that true? No response. Is there someone else we should talk to? You can check with security downstairs. We're fine waiting here to possibly speak with her further. No? Okay, great.

Speaker 0 tells Speaker 1 that their opinion was not inclusive and goes against the school's policy. Speaker 1 argues that there are only two genders, but Speaker 0 disagrees and says that the school recognizes more than two genders. Speaker 1 feels that their opinion is being silenced and complains about being kicked out of class. Speaker 0 suggests making an official complaint, but Speaker 1 declines. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 expressing frustration and Speaker 0 allowing them to stay in the classroom.

Three siblings, aged 9, 11, and 14, were expelled from the Rudolf Steiner School in Berlin’s Dahlem neighborhood, with their doors permanently closed to them. The oldest child had already attended this Waldorf school for eight years. The dismissal occurred abruptly at the end of February, in the middle of the school year. The families say the school did not have grounds to claim any misbehavior by the children. According to Christoph Schröter, the parents learned of the termination with a sense of shock. They told the children quickly about the situation, explaining that they would not be able to attend the school for a long time, and then not at all, to avoid deceiving the children about the reality they were facing. The sequence began at a September parents’ evening with a new biology teacher. What started as a routine meeting turned into a discussion about gendered language and gender identities. Schröter recalls that the teacher introduced herself in a way that was highly gendered, which prompted Schröter to ask whether this was a personal choice or a school-wide policy by the faculty council. Schröter stated that there are two genders, while the teacher presented her private view and argued for more than two genders and full inclusion. A brief conversation with drastic consequences followed. In the dialogue, the teacher reportedly said it would be completely acceptable for children to identify sexually as dogs, as puppies. This claim triggered alarms for Schröter and his wife, who then sought a response from the school about its stance. According to Schröter, the school presented a document at a later meeting: a new code of conduct that all parents would have to sign. The parents refused to sign. The school then terminated the contracts on the grounds of “destroyed trust” or a loss of trust in the relationship. The document allegedly stated that the school “welcomes diversity” with regard to different genders and sexual identities, and that Frau Weber, the biology teacher, had asserted that there are more than two genders and that it is very important that everyone is included. The family emphasizes that the school’s unilateral termination was not their intention, and Schröter admits this outcome was not anticipated, defending that it was never their aim to sever ties with the school. In summary, the expulsions followed a dispute over gender policy at a September parents’ meeting, a contested stance by the biology teacher on gender diversity, and a subsequently imposed, unsigned code of conduct that the parents refused to sign, leading to the abrupt dismissal of the three children.

Ally Benjamin, the director of public relations, discusses a situation involving Les Beard, a physics teacher at Mariner High School, who was recorded discussing gender in class. A reporter inquires about the school's policy on teachers discussing biology. Ally expresses difficulty in providing a timely response due to the late hour but agrees to send a statement. The reporter seeks clarification on potential consequences for Beard, but Ally states she cannot comment on personnel matters. The conversation highlights the challenges of communication between the reporter and the school district, with both parties emphasizing their roles. Ally acknowledges the extraordinary nature of the situation and expresses willingness to assist further.

A Surrey teacher faces online harassment for her classroom posters. The harasser accuses her of pushing personal beliefs on students. The teacher denies indoctrination and emphasizes empowering students. This trend of targeting educators is increasing, causing stress and fear among teachers. The teacher hopes to turn this experience into a learning opportunity.

Erica Donald, chair of the America First Policy Institute Center for Education Opportunity, discusses a Florida teacher under investigation for using a student's preferred pronouns without parental consent. Donald asserts the teacher broke Florida law and violated parents' rights to be the primary decision-makers for their children. She claims parents are being kept in the dark about their children's school activities and emotional health. Donald welcomes the investigation and commends the Brevard County superintendent and school board for upholding the law. She alleges that groups like Equality Florida were distributing forms to teachers, encouraging them to hide information about students' gender identity from their parents. Donald believes this coordinated effort necessitated the passage of legislation protecting parents' rights to know about their children's emotional well-being, as gender identity issues may indicate deeper concerns.

The speaker expresses concern about explicit content being taught in the school system. They mention graphic pictures of genitals being handed out and instructions on how to engage in sexual activities. The speaker argues that this violates their freedom of speech and takes away their time. They emphasize that this is happening in middle schools and question why such material is being taught. The speaker addresses Reverend Gates, who interrupts and ends the conversation.

A music teacher allegedly stripped naked and danced for elementary school students. The incident was recorded. A spokesperson for the school district addressed news outlets, stating that the teacher stripped down, bent over, and showed everything on video. He described the video as showing cellulite and pubic hair. News outlets tried to bleep the description, but he made sure to say it. The speaker emphasized the importance of parents knowing their children's teachers, as this incident shows that anything is possible. The school district provided a picture of the teacher's badge to confirm her employment.

The speaker discusses the issue of parents not being informed if their children are transitioning at school. They compare this issue, affecting about 1% of the population, to climate change, which impacts everyone. They emphasize that this is a significant and distracting issue. The speaker believes that these kids just want to live their lives. The conversation then transitions to a debate about something related to Reagan.

A constituent shared a disturbing worksheet from their 10-year-old daughter's school, which required her to discuss her father's erections and ejaculation. The parent found this inappropriate and has complained to the school, only to be told it was part of the curriculum. They expressed concern about the impact on young children, stating that their daughter still plays with dolls and writes to the tooth fairy. The situation raises serious questions about what is being taught in primary schools and how to protect children from such content.

A teacher allegedly dedicated three days a week to LGBTQ curriculum for eight-year-olds. The speaker questions whether all students are excelling in core subjects to justify this time allocation. The speaker believes sexuality and nudity are inappropriate topics for this age group. The teacher allegedly disregarded a parent's concerns and sought ways to continue the lessons behind the parent's back. The speaker asserts that all children matter and objects to these subjects being taught to eight-year-olds.