Vivek Ramaswamy

Rank 12 of 47
|
Score 103
2/16/2025, 3:02:12 PM
X
In reply to:
Libs of TikTok
@libsoftiktok
·
182d
@VivekGRamaswamy Thanks for sharing. Glad to hear this teacher’s behavior doesn’t represent the whole school and administration. I hope they find the teacher who sent this email and fire them. This is unhinged mental behavior and doesn’t belong anywhere near children or education.
Vivek Ramaswamy
@VivekGRamaswamy
·
182d
Glad to hear from friends in Cuyahoga Falls that Walsh Jesuit High School sent a letter to parents distancing itself from this toxic email. As a graduate of a different Jesuit high school in Ohio myself, I can say with certainty that email doesn’t represent the views of most. In…
Libs of TikTok
@libsoftiktok
·
183d
HOLY SHLIT. An anonymous staff member at (@WalshJesuit) wrote us a completely unhinged email after we reached out for comment about a teacher's homework assignment.

This staff member accused us of being a "white supremacist, racist, xenophobic, platform” and their school is "the…

The statement is part of a public discourse involving a controversial email and the response to it. The conversation touches on issues of education, political ideology, and appropriate behavior in educational settings.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement calls for the firing of a teacher, which could be seen as harmful, but it is framed as a response to perceived inappropriate behavior. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects privacy by not naming the teacher but calls for their firing, which could be seen as a violation of dignity. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, as it labels the behavior as 'unhinged' without seeking dialogue. [-1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in constructive criticism, as it calls for firing rather than discussing the issue. [-1]