Marianne Williamson

Rank 21 of 47
|
Score 57
5/30/2025, 1:01:31 PM
X
In reply to:
NandoTheRando
@NandoElRando
·
45d
@marwilliamson @DeAngelisCorey It dilutes academic achievement, hiring, adminission and the quality of graduates by filtering everything decision through identity politics and equity over equality, accountability and excellence.

Other than that, right, so what?
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
45d
@NandoElRando @DeAngelisCorey So what?!?!
NandoTheRando
@NandoElRando
·
45d
@DeAngelisCorey @marwilliamson This is every university. I worked at several over the last 25 years. They just change the language but keep their DEI/ESG/identity politics religion. You can see the outcomes in HR policies, hirings and the continued emphasis on “equity” re-termed.
Corey A. DeAngelis, school choice evangelist
@DeAngelisCorey
·
45d
@marwilliamson Discuss whatever you want. Don't force taxpayers to fund racist indoctrination.
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
45d
@DeAngelisCorey So you think it’s basically OK for the government to tell people what they can and cannot discuss, and you think you’re doing the work of ethical journalism by “exposing” a fellow citizen for saying she’s going to talk about whatever she wants to talk about because this is a free
Corey A. DeAngelis, school choice evangelist
@DeAngelisCorey
·
46d
BREAKING: Undercover journalists caught an administrator at UNC bragging about pushing DEI despite it being banned.

She says staff just "FINESSE" the language.

They do "work that is COVERT."

The university provost RAN AWAY when confronted.

I have the video.
Buckle up 👇🧵

The statement is part of a broader conversation about government intervention, academic policies, and identity politics, which are public issues. The tone is confrontational, suggesting a disagreement with perceived government overreach and authoritarianism.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but uses strong language that could be seen as confrontational.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but the tone is accusatory.
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it is more focused on criticizing the opposing view. [-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 engages in dialogue but does so in a confrontational manner, which may not be constructive. [-1]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds free speech by challenging government intervention, but the tone could be more responsible and respectful. [+1]