Ousted Levi’s President Joins Tucker to Discuss Turning Down $ 1 Million Severance Package That Was Offered by the Company in Exchange for Her Silence (VIDEO)


Some people just can’t be bought off, and the former president of Levi’s is apparently one of those people.

Jennifer Sey was ousted from her position by the San Francisco-based jean-maker over her consistent pushback against school closures throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. After years of attempting to manage her dissent, which saw the company bribe Sey with a promotion to CEO in exchange for her silence, she decided to publicly walk away from her position earlier this week.

In a last-ditch effort, Levi’s offered to pay Sey a whopping $ 1 million severance package – all she needed to do to receive it was shut up and comply, but, thankfully, that too wasn’t enough to buy her off.

Levi’s President Publicly Quits Over Company’s Attempt to Silence Her Views on COVID Restrictions

TRENDING: CDC Casually Admits Covid Nose Swabs Ended Up in a Lab for Genomic Sequencing Analysis

On Thursday, Sey joined Tucker Carlson to discuss the “tempting,” but not-so-difficult decision to decline the massive payout from Levi’s, saying that taking the money would have been an “unacceptable and gross… violation of everything” that she stands for. for.

During the segment, Tucker introduced Sey as, of course, “brave” but also pointed out that “anyone who turns down a million bucks to be quiet is deeply principled.”

When asked why she made the decision to leave her prominent position, Sey explained – plain and simple – the corporate overlords are primarily focused on silencing dissent, so she quit in order to “be free.”

“Well, for me, this whole thing [Covid-19 public health measures] has culminated [into] really being about the silencing of dissent and really not being able to hold a viewpoint that is outside whatever the mainstream narrative is – the ‘orthodoxy.’ I was very outspoken that closed schools were harming children – in my city, San Francisco, and in cities across the country – and that seemed like a very sensible position to me. It seems folks agree with that now, but it was unacceptable and I have to be able to say that.

I don’t think schools would be open if parents like me weren’t saying that all along. So it’s a broader issue in the culture – it’s not a Levi’s issue, it’s not specific to Levi’s – the silencing of dissent is [a widespread issue]. ”

Once Sey is finished with her answer, Tucker follows up, and as he points out again, turning down that amount of money is no small feat.

“You must really mean [what you say]”He asks.

“I do really mean it,” Sey responds as she explains what led her to take a stand against the silencing of opposing viewpoints:

“It goes against everything in my entire being, and it’s not to say it [the severance package] wasn’t tempting – I am human, and that’s alot of security for my family – but I had persisted for two years, continuing to speak out on this subject because I care about kids. To agree to remain silent at the last minute – because of money – just felt so unacceptable, and just gross to me, and in violation of everything I said I stood for. ”

Although the issue goes way further than Levi’s, Sey is then asked directly about why the company has such a strong interest in silencing dissent.

Sey calls their activity “particularly egregious,” especially considering the brand’s marketing strategy that centers around ‘rugged individualism.’

Sey continued:

“Well, I will say that I find it particularly egregious from Levi’s, which is this brand about ‘rugged individualism’ and using your voice. I had led a whole campaign that we called ‘use your voice’ – it wasn’t partisan, it was really meant to inspire others to speak up [and] not on a particular subject. While you say this view is mainstream now, you have to remember I was doing this in March 2020 – it absolutely was not mainstream.

It was considered unacceptable, it was racist. You know, you were a granny killer [and] you were the worst possible kind of person in the world [if] you would advocate for this. None of those things were fact-based, so it caused a lot of upheaval and noise on social media. Employees were complaining and it became very difficult to manage.

Watch:

America needs more people like this to step up and embolden less-fortunate individuals to take stands of their own against this un-American oppression.





Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.