reSee.it - Related Video Feed

A speaker stated that it is negligent for the council to allow disinformation to be spread without correction. The speaker claimed that one of the speakers at the meeting spread misinformation and disinformation. They wanted it on the record that statements made by speakers are not necessarily factual.

Our universities have failed to provide public access to information and foster balanced debate during the past 3 years. Decisions and policies related to COVID-19 have threatened society, economy, politics, and health. Rights were suspended, businesses destroyed, and medical access restricted. Non-compliance was criminalized, and opposition was suppressed. Instead of offering balanced information and forums for debate, universities silenced faculty who questioned or criticized. Translation (if needed): Our universities have not shared information and encouraged fair discussions about COVID-19 decisions and policies, leading to negative impacts on society.

There's a concerning trend of slut-shaming directed at Vice President Kamala Harris, which will likely be echoed in schools. As I prepare to return to a public school setting, I'm aware that students may express disrespectful views about women, including using derogatory terms. School staff and administration need to be prepared for this behavior, including hate speech like the n-word and derogatory comments about women. If someone claims Kamala Harris "slept her way to the top," challenge them by asking who created a system that would force women to trade sex for success. It's clear that such a system is designed by men in power, not women.

Some demographics face racism, bias, and misogyny. How do we level the playing field for everyone? Creating equal outcomes is like playing God. People are different - some tall, some short. Not everyone can play in the NBA. DEI programs shouldn't try to alter nature for equal outcomes. This approach failed in Marxism.

The speaker asserts that misinformation and lies are already being spread, and warns of foreign interference. Drawing on experience from the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election, the speaker claims Black people were specifically targeted with misinformation. The speaker urges listeners not to let them take their voice.

I am disappointed in how Turning Point is handling freedom of speech, especially in relation to Charlie Kirk’s approach, which I used to respect for valuing freedom of speech and engaging with people you disagree with. In this event, the people who went before me in the Q&A were part of the event themselves and were designated those spots in line for the Q&A. At least three out of four of them, and possibly the fourth, were designated spots for people who know they support the administration. They also knew the time was limited. They end the Q&A before the first person who opposes the administration, and possibly before the first person who isn’t part of the event themselves. This is in addition to the 20 other people behind me in line who also wanted to ask a question but didn’t have time. I don’t blame them for ending the Q&A because they were running out of time; Caroline Levitt is nine months pregnant now, so I understand the timing. But if you have limited time, why are you not allowing the actual students to speak first? The concern is that spots were designated to attendees who are aligned with the administration, reducing opportunities for dissenting or non-aligned voices, and that this occurred in a setting where there is limited time for questions.

We strongly oppose the conservatives' resistance to evidence-based programs that save lives. We must not revert to the failed ideology of the past. The consequences could be dire.

I raised concerns about investing NIH resources to re-examine the link between the measles vaccine and autism, given the extensive existing research and limited resources. It's impossible to prove a negative, and re-plowing already examined ground distracts from addressing unknown causes or solutions to the chronic disease crisis. We risk children dying from preventable diseases if we keep pretending this link is an issue. I agree that we need to address the rise in autism. While I believe the literature shows no connection between the MMR vaccine and autism, distrust in medicine exists post-pandemic. Providing good data is key to addressing concerns, but I'm unsure what constitutes "good data" when it already exists. The focus should be on pressing childhood health problems like diabetes and obesity, which should be the priorities of the NIH director.

Ansel from the community asks Frances Widdowson about a press release regarding unmarked graves at Kamloops Indian Residential School. Council members dismiss her question due to her controversial past and refuse to engage in discussion. Widdowson persists, questioning if spreading misinformation is acceptable. The council avoids answering and moves to adjourn the meeting.

Do we know the origins of the individuals we're discussing? They're being treated as lawful US citizens, which they are not. I’m cutting this off because we have no reason to investigate or treat people differently based on appearance. Who said that? I did, and Tiffany mentioned it too. There’s no need to discuss this further. Concerns raised by individuals are valid, but we need to move on. I’m asking everyone to leave. I need a motion to adjourn. I motion. Second? All in favor? Good to know. Good to know. I don’t want to hear the truth. This car.

We will overcome this pandemic through vaccination. Some people are hesitant, and we will continue to try to convince them. There are also a small but vocal group of extremists who oppose vaccination. They reject science and often hold misogynistic and racist views. As leaders, we must decide whether to tolerate these individuals or focus on the majority who have done their part and gotten vaccinated. We want to return to the activities we love, and these individuals will not block us.

Let's discuss the lie of DEI and, more importantly, the myth of meritocracy. We've been saying for centuries that meritocracy doesn't exist within a system of white supremacy. Under the lie of white supremacy and its systems of whiteness, these racist systems in place since the founding of the country, true meritocracy is impossible. Consider the president-elect, the chosen cabinet members, and the incoming administration. These appointments weren't earned; they exemplify white privilege and white supremacy hires. These individuals literally bought their positions in the White House with their wealth.

Speaker 0 outlines a controversial "Solution" regarding vaccine refusers. He states, "Every study published in the last five years, when you look at vaccine refusers, I'm not talking about, well, hesitance, most of them we can talk into coming to terms, but refusers." He then adds a stark claim, "We'll just get rid of all the whites in The United States because it is the most diverse city in the entire United States." He closes with, "There are seven Asian languages spoken the solution." The remarks distinguish "refusers" from general hesitancy and present the speaker's call for removal of a racial group as part of a "solution," while noting the multilingual diversity of a city.

The speaker asserts that misinformation and lies are already being spread, and warns of foreign interference. Drawing on experience from the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election, the speaker claims Black people were specifically targeted with misinformation. The speaker urges listeners not to let them take their voice.

Kamala Harris seems to have a lot of free time as she can read something on Twitter and immediately make a big deal out of it. However, this issue she is addressing is completely made up. I have reviewed the standards and even read the statements from the African American scholars who wrote them. Everyone involved agrees that this is a fabricated issue. It's absurd that this is considered her best moment.

I'm here to discuss woke schools that fail to educate children. I question the notion of race and the concept of slavery being bad. I have a book from the school library that contains explicit content, violence, and celebrates mass killings. I'll read some passages to show its inappropriateness. The book mentions Moses' son's foreskin being cut off, beating slaves, and the Lord's regret for creating humans. Should children be exposed to such sexual violence and genocide? We should ban this book and focus on science, math, and increasing administrators' pay. Thank you.

The comments made by Mr. Perez are unacceptable. While some students admire him as a teacher, he must uphold a higher standard. Accusing students, particularly in a predominantly Hispanic school, of having political views based on their family backgrounds is deeply offensive. His statement implies that students' fathers, who may support Trump, do so out of a desire to be white, which is a racist notion. This behavior is shameful, and I trust that appropriate actions will be taken. Thank you.

I ask if you intend to substitute your judgment for that of professional scientists. I won’t substitute my judgment for science. The New York Times reported on fraudulent studies by NIH regarding amyloid plaques and Alzheimer's. Are the scientists who disagree with you considered bad? The corrupt ones, like those behind the fraudulent amyloid studies. Do you have a medical degree? No. Your failed presidential campaign has raised money. How much from HHS's issues? Zero. I want to enter emails about your fundraising into the record. Without objection. You previously stated that Black people should not follow the same vaccine schedule as whites. Can you explain? Studies show Black individuals may have stronger reactions to certain antigens, suggesting they need fewer. That’s dangerous. Your views could mislead parents. Do you think science is dangerous? These are peer-reviewed studies. I yield.

The speaker claims the person in charge is surrounded by people who know nothing about education and want to focus on bureaucracy and cutting funds. They state that education should be about children, broadband access in schools, pedagogy research, and the Department of Education's civil rights department, which prevents segregation, referencing Ruby Bridges. The speaker believes we are returning to a time where segregation is possible. They acknowledge that curriculums are decided locally, but that the person in charge is "muddying the waters."

The Democratic party’s problem isn’t its messaging; it’s the message itself. People dislike the message, not the delivery. The Department of Education’s effectiveness is questionable; reading and math scores are lower now than in 1977 when it was created. A Michigan teachers’ union contract allows teachers to be caught drunk four times before facing consequences, and selling drugs once before firing. The NFL’s “End Racism” end zone messages are pointless virtue signaling. These messages don't deter racism and may even antagonize racists. Instead of focusing on race and gender, addressing real issues is key. Virtue signaling, in fact, perpetuates racism.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the politicization of science and changes at the NIH. Over the last fifteen to twenty years, the NIH incorporated what Speaker 1 characterizes as political agendas rather than scientific agendas into its portfolio, with DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) being the most prominent example. A chunk of NIH funding went to projects focused on achieving social objectives rather than the health mission. Every NIH employee allegedly had to write a loyalty oath to DEI principles and was evaluated on devotion to the cause. Researchers inside and outside the NIH could access funds, with outside researchers more easily securing money if they promised to conduct DEI research, according to Speaker 1. Much of that research allegedly lacked a real scientific basis and was not science. Speaker 1 provides an example of projects they worked to deprioritize: a project asking whether structural racism is the root reason why African Americans have worse hypertension outcomes. The problem, they say, is that there is no way to test the hypothesis because, if structural racism is the cause, there is no workable control group to test the idea as true. They assert that such research did not translate into better health for anybody, including minority populations. They describe these projects as political agendas that do not belong in a science agency. The stated mission is to improve the health of everybody, including minority populations, but only if projects are clearly scientific, well defined, and have a real chance of improving health. Speaker 0 asks for clarification, summarizing that there were ideological or political projects receiving NIH funding. Speaker 1 confirms and adds another practice: when a good science project ended the year with leftover funds, program officers would approach researchers with leftover money and offer a “diversity supplement”—an add-on tied to DEI that was not actual science—to obtain extra funding. This, they claim, was a waste of taxpayer money with no real health benefit. They say they have since gotten rid of all of that.

Speaker 0 claimed that white people make up 10% of the world's population, and that in California, the white population decreased by 71% in 73 years, which "kinda sounds like genocide." He questioned why violent crime and murder rates by race are not available from Sacramento. Speaker 1 interrupted, calling the statements racist and inappropriate for public discourse, and ended the call. Speaker 1 stated that racist tropes and stereotypes have no place in civic discourse.

Speaker: Jared Cooney Horvath I am a former teacher turned cognitive neuroscientist who focuses on human learning, and I do not receive funding from big tech. A sobering fact our generation faces is that our kids are less cognitively capable than we were at their age. Every generation has outperformed their parents, and that is what we want: sharper kids. The reason for this largely has been school. Each generation spends more time in school, and we use school to develop our cognition until Gen Z. Gen Z is the first generation of modern history to underperform us on basically every cognitive measure we have, from basic attention to memory to literacy to numeracy to executive functioning to even general IQ, even though they go to more school than we did. So why? What happened around 2010 that decoupled schooling from cognitive development? It can't be school. Schools basically look the same. It can't be biology. This hasn't enough time to change. The answer appears to be the tools we are using within schools to drive that learning. Across 80 countries, as Jean was just saying, if you look at the data, once countries adopt digital technology widely in schools, performance goes down significantly to the point where kids who use computers about five hours per day in school for learning purposes will score over two thirds of a standard deviation less than kids who rarely or never touch tech at school, and that's across 80 countries. Bring it home to The US. Let's go to The US. We have our NAEP. That's our big data. Take any state. Here's a fun experiment you can try. Take any state NAEP data. Compare that to when that state adopted one to one technology widely, and watch what happens. The NAEP data will plateau and then start to drop. And, of course, this is all correlative. What we really want is causation. To get causation, what you need is academic research, and you need mechanisms, explanations for why we're seeing what we're seeing. Luckily, we have academic research stretching back to 1962 that shows the exact same story for sixty years. When tech enters education, learning goes down. In fact, because what do kids do on computers? They skim. So rather than determining what do we want our children to do and gearing education towards that, we are redefining education to better suit the tool. That's not progress. As we go through our discussion today, there will be a lot of talk about smartphones and social media, rightly so. But I’m the voice here to remind you that even in schools, it doesn't matter what the size of the screen is. If it's a phone, if it's a laptop, if it's desktop, and it doesn't matter who bought it. Is it school sanctioned? Does it have the word education stamped on it? It doesn't matter. All of these things are also gonna hurt learning, which in turn are gonna hurt our kids' cognitive development right at the time when we need our kids to be sharper than we are.

Trump's comments were offensive, baseless, and lacked evidence. They were race-baiting and appealed to the worst in us. We need to stand up against an administration that is too male, too pale, and too stale. We won't stay silent.