Minneapolis Will Fire ‘White Teachers’ First (1 Viewer)

[chet]

Ridiculous and racist.

 

[Max Power]

I'd love for someone to break down the phrase of "disproportionately white".

 

[BladeRunner]

You know how you can tell if something you say or promote is racist? Simply switch the terms "white" with "black" and see if that sounds racist. If it does, IT'S FRICKIN' RACIST!!!!

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Joe Biden's America!

 

[The General]

In theory I can see an argument for addressing hiring issues from the past. I wouldn't support going this route though and it sounds like it is against the law as well.

 

[timschochet]

I’m sure this will show up on Hannity tonight, or Tucker- it’s the usual angry white BS.
These school districts have been discriminating against minorities for decades, just like the rest of America. But conservatives never complained about it; they only complain when the shoes on the other foot.

 

[BladeRunner]

I’m sure this will show up on Hannity tonight, or Tucker- it’s the usual angry white BS.
These school districts have been discriminating against minorities for decades, just like the rest of America. But conservatives never complained about it; they only complain when the shoes on the other foot.

As usual, the absurd take from Tim.

Fighting racism with more racism isn't a logical or proper solution. That kind of makes you racist if you support this. Like I said earlier, switch the terms "white" with "black" and see what happens. If it sounds racist when you do that - IT'S FRIGGING RACIST!

 

[FairWarning]

In theory I can see an argument for addressing hiring issues from the past. I wouldn't support going this route though and it sounds like it is against the law as well.

Why would their teachers union agree to this?

 

[timschochet]

I’m sure this will show up on Hannity tonight, or Tucker- it’s the usual angry white BS.
These school districts have been discriminating against minorities for decades, just like the rest of America. But conservatives never complained about it; they only complain when the shoes on the other foot.

As usual, the absurd take from Tim.

Fighting racism with more racism isn't a logical or proper solution. That kind of makes you racist if you support this. Like I said earlier, switch the terms "white" with "black" and see what happens. If it sounds racist when you do that - IT'S FRIGGING RACIST!

Actually, in this instance I agree with you. I don’t always- I think affirmative action is good in many instances. But the outrage over this is so over the top, hypocritical, and ugly given any realistic accounting of the history involved.

 

[FairWarning]

I’m sure this will show up on Hannity tonight, or Tucker- it’s the usual angry white BS.
These school districts have been discriminating against minorities for decades, just like the rest of America. But conservatives never complained about it; they only complain when the shoes on the other foot.

As usual, the absurd take from Tim.

Fighting racism with more racism isn't a logical or proper solution. That kind of makes you racist if you support this. Like I said earlier, switch the terms "white" with "black" and see what happens. If it sounds racist when you do that - IT'S FRIGGING RACIST!

Actually, in this instance I agree with you. I don’t always- I think affirmative action is good in many instances. But the outrage over this is so over the top, hypocritical, and ugly given any realistic accounting of the history involved.

So we should go back to laying off the newest members? I agree.

 

[the moops]

So we should go back to laying off the newest members? I agree.

This was never a good policy.

 

[chet]

So we should go back to laying off the newest members? I agree.

This was never a good policy.

And firing the white teachers first is preferable?

 

[the moops]

So we should go back to laying off the newest members? I agree.

This was never a good policy.

And firing the white teachers first is preferable?

I don't think firing any teachers in preferable. But if it comes down to having to lay off some teachers in a historically poor minority district, there should be a system in place that weighs myriad factors. One of those factors should be underrepresented minority teachers, IMO.

 

[FairWarning]

So we should go back to laying off the newest members? I agree.

This was never a good policy.

And firing the white teachers first is preferable?

I don't think firing any teachers in preferable. But if it comes down to having to lay off some teachers in a historically poor minority district, there should be a system in place that weighs myriad factors. One of those factors should be underrepresented minority teachers, IMO.

If a neighborhood changes, why would a union agree to let higher paid teachers go?

 

[timschochet]

So we should go back to laying off the newest members? I agree.

This was never a good policy.

And firing the white teachers first is preferable?

I don't think firing any teachers in preferable. But if it comes down to having to lay off some teachers in a historically poor minority district, there should be a system in place that weighs myriad factors. One of those factors should be underrepresented minority teachers, IMO.

This. It doesn’t have to be one way or the other. all of it should be considered.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

How about we keep the teachers that, oh I don’t know, are good teachers? Experienced?

I’m sure all the liberals in favor of getting rid of the white teachers first because of their skin color would be fine if THEIR children have lousy teachers that were kept because of skin color instead of keeping the best teachers. Right?

 

[the moops]

How about we keep the teachers that, oh I don’t know, are good teachers? Experienced?

I’m sure all the liberals in favor of getting rid of the white teachers first because of their skin color would be fine if THEIR children have lousy teachers that were kept because of skin color instead of keeping the best teachers. Right?

Experienced teachers have no concern here. This sort of policy really only affects very new teachers. New teachers are always the one to go.

 

[massraider]

How about we keep the teachers that, oh I don’t know, are good teachers? Experienced?

I’m sure all the liberals in favor of getting rid of the white teachers first because of their skin color would be fine if THEIR children have lousy teachers that were kept because of skin color instead of keeping the best teachers. Right?

I also am outraged by this imaginary scenario

 

[Witz]

Absolutely horrible idea and shocked it even made it past the discussion phase.

 

[FairWarning]

How about we keep the teachers that, oh I don’t know, are good teachers? Experienced?

I’m sure all the liberals in favor of getting rid of the white teachers first because of their skin color would be fine if THEIR children have lousy teachers that were kept because of skin color instead of keeping the best teachers. Right?

It is hard to grade what a good teacher is vs a bad one. Is a good teacher suddenly bad because this year’s class is harder to manage, so they test poorly?

 

[(HULK)]

In theory I can see an argument for addressing hiring issues from the past. I wouldn't support going this route though and it sounds like it is against the law as well.

I have yet to encounter a 2nd wrong that rights the first wrong.

 

[(HULK)]

So we should go back to laying off the newest members? I agree.

This was never a good policy.

And firing the white teachers first is preferable?

I don't think firing any teachers in preferable. But if it comes down to having to lay off some teachers in a historically poor minority district, there should be a system in place that weighs myriad factors. One of those factors should be underrepresented minority teachers, IMO.

I do not think ethnicity should be a factor in who gets a job or who keeps a job. How is this ANY different than a preference for keeping white teachers? It isn't.

This is trying to correct a past wrong with a new wrong. That doesn't work.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

How about we keep the teachers that, oh I don’t know, are good teachers? Experienced?

I’m sure all the liberals in favor of getting rid of the white teachers first because of their skin color would be fine if THEIR children have lousy teachers that were kept because of skin color instead of keeping the best teachers. Right?

I also am outraged by this imaginary scenario

Hilarious!

 

[John123]

These school districts have been discriminating against minorities for decades, just like the rest of America. But conservatives never complained about it; they only complain when the shoes on the other foot.

You paint with a broad brush, and I'm not sure I agree with you. But what I do know is I don't have to. Assuming there has been discrimination against minorities for decades, if it was wrong then it's wrong now. Just because we're reversing races doesn't make it any less wrong.

 

[quick-hands]

I’m sure this will show up on Hannity tonight, or Tucker- it’s the usual angry white BS.
These school districts have been discriminating against minorities for decades, just like the rest of America. But conservatives never complained about it; they only complain when the shoes on the other foot.

how do you know this?

 

[BladeRunner]

So we should go back to laying off the newest members? I agree.

This was never a good policy.

And firing the white teachers first is preferable?

I don't think firing any teachers in preferable. But if it comes down to having to lay off some teachers in a historically poor minority district, there should be a system in place that weighs myriad factors. One of those factors should be underrepresented minority teachers, IMO.

The one and only factor should be competency, not skin color. WTF is wrong with you guys?

 

[FairWarning]

I’m sure this will show up on Hannity tonight, or Tucker- it’s the usual angry white BS.
These school districts have been discriminating against minorities for decades, just like the rest of America. But conservatives never complained about it; they only complain when the shoes on the other foot.

how do you know this?

A lot of Team Blue are laser focused on Fox every night. Personally I recommend Verlander vs Caese in Chicago tonight

 

[T J]

I’m sure this will show up on Hannity tonight, or Tucker- it’s the usual angry white BS.
These school districts have been discriminating against minorities for decades, just like the rest of America. But conservatives never complained about it; they only complain when the shoes on the other foot.

Angry white BS? Dude.

 

[jon_mx]

Tim complaining about people criticizing liberal media in one breath:
So sick of hearing that the media is unfair to conservatives. It’s the biggest whine out there. It’s almost always untrue, and it’s almost always made by people who have lived their entire lives with the benefits of white male privilege but now see themselves as victims. It’s just pathetic.

Tim complaining about conservative media in the next breath:

I’m sure this will show up on Hannity tonight, or Tucker- it’s the usual angry white BS.
These school districts have been discriminating against minorities for decades, just like the rest of America. But conservatives never complained about it; they only complain when the shoes on the other foot.

Media ON MY SIDE is pure, good, truthful and above criticism. Media on other side is evil, always lies, and deserves slandering and dismissing

 

[FairWarning]

I always wondered why I didn’t have a black teacher in my all white school. Does that make my school as progressive as Minneapolis?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

So we should go back to laying off the newest members? I agree.

This was never a good policy.

And firing the white teachers first is preferable?

I don't think firing any teachers in preferable. But if it comes down to having to lay off some teachers in a historically poor minority district, there should be a system in place that weighs myriad factors. One of those factors should be underrepresented minority teachers, IMO.

The one and only factor should be competency, not skin color. WTF is wrong with you guys?

The typical process with unions is layoffs are based 100% on seniority. That also produces perverse results as the most senior employees are not always the most competent and the youngest/newest employees are often the people you want to keep.

I read about this new policy a couple months ago. It is considered somewhat "groundbreaking" because it may be the first teacher CBA that rejects absolute adherence to seniority as the sole factor in these decisions. As you can imagine, its not just a "we fire whites first" policy as is stated here. There are a half-dozen or so factors that give preference in layoff decisions, such as protecting teachers at certain underserved districts, poverty areas, etc. Race is not one of the named factors, but there are references in the polity to things like "members of populations underrepresented among licensed teachers in the District." This is a reference to the fact the District students are 60% poc whereas tenured teachers are 16%. Here's a Star Tribune article on it: New Minneapolis teacher contract language disrupts seniority to protect educators of color

 

[the moops]

The typical process with unions is layoffs are based 100% on seniority. That also produces perverse results as the most senior employees are not always the most competent and the youngest/newest employees are often the people you want to keep.

Oh I know. I was laid off many years ago as a 2nd year teacher. Now, I may have also been incompetent, but the only reason why it was me, and not the 60 year old gym teacher who only showed up for work 2 days a week and pretty sure he was drunk, was because of seniority. It's a stupid system

 

[The Big Donkey]

seems racist. i remember my good teachers, didn't sit at my desk thinking skin color.

 

[chet]

I’m sure this will show up on Hannity tonight, or Tucker- it’s the usual angry white BS.
These school districts have been discriminating against minorities for decades, just like the rest of America. But conservatives never complained about it; they only complain when the shoes on the other foot.

how do you know this?

Because that's the standard answer for the woke left who describe any minority group as victims of racism and anyone who questions their opinions as racist.

 

[squistion]

In theory I can see an argument for addressing hiring issues from the past. I wouldn't support going this route though and it sounds like it is against the law as well.

I can see this on some level too. If going by seniority results in letting go a disproportionate number of minority teachers (because they more recent hires than their white counterparts) that doesn't seem right either as it rewards the discriminatory hiring practices of that past.

Not sure what the solution is, but seems a good as any. Not sure it can withstand a court challenge either.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

This system as described by @CletiusMaximus seems better to me than a purely seniority-based one.

 

[BladeRunner]

So we should go back to laying off the newest members? I agree.

This was never a good policy.

And firing the white teachers first is preferable?

I don't think firing any teachers in preferable. But if it comes down to having to lay off some teachers in a historically poor minority district, there should be a system in place that weighs myriad factors. One of those factors should be underrepresented minority teachers, IMO.

The one and only factor should be competency, not skin color. WTF is wrong with you guys?

The typical process with unions is layoffs are based 100% on seniority. That also produces perverse results as the most senior employees are not always the most competent and the youngest/newest employees are often the people you want to keep.

I read about this new policy a couple months ago. It is considered somewhat "groundbreaking" because it may be the first teacher CBA that rejects absolute adherence to seniority as the sole factor in these decisions. As you can imagine, its not just a "we fire whites first" policy as is stated here. There are a half-dozen or so factors that give preference in layoff decisions, such as protecting teachers at certain underserved districts, poverty areas, etc. Race is not one of the named factors, but there are references in the polity to things like "members of populations underrepresented among licensed teachers in the District." This is a reference to the fact the District students are 60% poc whereas tenured teachers are 16%. Here's a Star Tribune article on it: New Minneapolis teacher contract language disrupts seniority to protect educators of color

Since when did "racism" become groundbreaking?
Race and skin color should have ZERO to do with anything, at all, ever. If you guys want equality so much then stop using inequality (i.e. racism) in your solutions.

I don't give two s###s if someone if from an "under-represented group". Stop whining about it. The only questions we should be asking are if they are qualified to do the job and are they competent?

If you want to go full equality, then if person X is from "underrepresented group" that represents 13% of the population of the US, then they get 13% of the jobs. Let's take this to the next level.

 

[BladeRunner]

This system as described by @CletiusMaximus seems better to me than a purely seniority-based one.

My beef isn't with doing away with seniority, it's the racism that I want to eliminate.

 

[John123]

So we should go back to laying off the newest members? I agree.

This was never a good policy.

And firing the white teachers first is preferable?

I don't think firing any teachers in preferable. But if it comes down to having to lay off some teachers in a historically poor minority district, there should be a system in place that weighs myriad factors. One of those factors should be underrepresented minority teachers, IMO.

The one and only factor should be competency, not skin color. WTF is wrong with you guys?

The typical process with unions is layoffs are based 100% on seniority. That also produces perverse results as the most senior employees are not always the most competent and the youngest/newest employees are often the people you want to keep.

I read about this new policy a couple months ago. It is considered somewhat "groundbreaking" because it may be the first teacher CBA that rejects absolute adherence to seniority as the sole factor in these decisions. As you can imagine, its not just a "we fire whites first" policy as is stated here. There are a half-dozen or so factors that give preference in layoff decisions, such as protecting teachers at certain underserved districts, poverty areas, etc. Race is not one of the named factors, but there are references in the polity to things like "members of populations underrepresented among licensed teachers in the District." This is a reference to the fact the District students are 60% poc whereas tenured teachers are 16%. Here's a Star Tribune article on it: New Minneapolis teacher contract language disrupts seniority to protect educators of color

1) The problem with having to keep senior people over younger/newer employees is an issue with unions, so getting rid of the union would be the better course of action to remedy this issue.

2) The people you should want to keep should be the best teachers, not the people who look the most like the kids they're teaching. So racial makeup should never be part of the decision making regarding who you keep versus layoff.

 

[John123]

This system as described by @CletiusMaximus seems better to me than a purely seniority-based one.

Cletius pulled the classic liberal move. He goes "look, young good teachers get laid off because the union requires you to lay off the least senior people. Instead of identifying the union/CBA as the problem he starts pulling out racial makeup stats and suggests that due to the seniority problem they should be able to have racist policies. But the two things have nothing to do with each other.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

This system as described by @CletiusMaximus seems better to me than a purely seniority-based one.

Cletius pulled the classic liberal move. He goes "look, young good teachers get laid off because the union requires you to lay off the least senior people. Instead of identifying the union/CBA as the problem he starts pulling out racial makeup stats and suggests that due to the seniority problem they should be able to have racist policies. But the two things have nothing to do with each other.

It seems very relevant to me that the system for firing teachers in Minneapolis is better than the systems in most other school districts. That context really completely changes everything about this thread.

It’s fine to also compare the Minneapolis system to some hypothetical system you would prefer, but I think Cletius’s contribution was a good one.

 

[FairWarning]

The typical process with unions is layoffs are based 100% on seniority. That also produces perverse results as the most senior employees are not always the most competent and the youngest/newest employees are often the people you want to keep.

Oh I know. I was laid off many years ago as a 2nd year teacher. Now, I may have also been incompetent, but the only reason why it was me, and not the 60 year old gym teacher who only showed up for work 2 days a week and pretty sure he was drunk, was because of seniority. It's a stupid system

Ours like to imbibe on the job also.

 

[John123]

It seems very relevant to me that the system for firing teachers in Minneapolis is better than the systems in most other school districts. That context really completely changes everything about this thread.

Well we'll disagree on whether this system is better than the systems in most other school districts. ANY system that uses criteria not based on competency/ability and what is best for the students is deeply flawed IMO. Include racism in that system and it's even worse.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

This system as described by @CletiusMaximus seems better to me than a purely seniority-based one.

Cletius pulled the classic liberal move. He goes "look, young good teachers get laid off because the union requires you to lay off the least senior people. Instead of identifying the union/CBA as the problem he starts pulling out racial makeup stats and suggests that due to the seniority problem they should be able to have racist policies. But the two things have nothing to do with each other.

I'm just summarizing what was in a different report from the Star Tribune back in June. Its a local paper that offers a somewhat different viewpoint with some additional data points as opposed to the OP's report that the District "will fire white teachers first" which is a headline obviously intended to provoke the reaction we're seeing here. We all understand this is a negotiated CBA.

​

 

[squistion]

So we should go back to laying off the newest members? I agree.

This was never a good policy.

And firing the white teachers first is preferable?

I don't think firing any teachers in preferable. But if it comes down to having to lay off some teachers in a historically poor minority district, there should be a system in place that weighs myriad factors. One of those factors should be underrepresented minority teachers, IMO.

The one and only factor should be competency, not skin color. WTF is wrong with you guys?

The typical process with unions is layoffs are based 100% on seniority. That also produces perverse results as the most senior employees are not always the most competent and the youngest/newest employees are often the people you want to keep.

I read about this new policy a couple months ago. It is considered somewhat "groundbreaking" because it may be the first teacher CBA that rejects absolute adherence to seniority as the sole factor in these decisions. As you can imagine, its not just a "we fire whites first" policy as is stated here. There are a half-dozen or so factors that give preference in layoff decisions, such as protecting teachers at certain underserved districts, poverty areas, etc. Race is not one of the named factors, but there are references in the polity to things like "members of populations underrepresented among licensed teachers in the District." This is a reference to the fact the District students are 60% poc whereas tenured teachers are 16%. Here's a Star Tribune article on it: New Minneapolis teacher contract language disrupts seniority to protect educators of color

As you can imagine, its not just a "we fire whites first" policy as is stated here.

Thanks, I suspected that the thread title was inaccurate and misleading.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

So we should go back to laying off the newest members? I agree.

This was never a good policy.

And firing the white teachers first is preferable?

I don't think firing any teachers in preferable. But if it comes down to having to lay off some teachers in a historically poor minority district, there should be a system in place that weighs myriad factors. One of those factors should be underrepresented minority teachers, IMO.

The one and only factor should be competency, not skin color. WTF is wrong with you guys?

The typical process with unions is layoffs are based 100% on seniority. That also produces perverse results as the most senior employees are not always the most competent and the youngest/newest employees are often the people you want to keep.

I read about this new policy a couple months ago. It is considered somewhat "groundbreaking" because it may be the first teacher CBA that rejects absolute adherence to seniority as the sole factor in these decisions. As you can imagine, its not just a "we fire whites first" policy as is stated here. There are a half-dozen or so factors that give preference in layoff decisions, such as protecting teachers at certain underserved districts, poverty areas, etc. Race is not one of the named factors, but there are references in the polity to things like "members of populations underrepresented among licensed teachers in the District." This is a reference to the fact the District students are 60% poc whereas tenured teachers are 16%. Here's a Star Tribune article on it: New Minneapolis teacher contract language disrupts seniority to protect educators of color

Since when did "racism" become groundbreaking?
Race and skin color should have ZERO to do with anything, at all, ever. If you guys want equality so much then stop using inequality (i.e. racism) in your solutions.

I don't give two s###s if someone if from an "under-represented group". Stop whining about it. The only questions we should be asking are if they are qualified to do the job and are they competent?

If you want to go full equality, then if person X is from "underrepresented group" that represents 13% of the population of the US, then they get 13% of the jobs. Let's take this to the next level.

Who is whining here? OP's post was intended to provoke the exact Pavlov response you're giving him.

 

[timschochet]

I’m sure this will show up on Hannity tonight, or Tucker- it’s the usual angry white BS.
These school districts have been discriminating against minorities for decades, just like the rest of America. But conservatives never complained about it; they only complain when the shoes on the other foot.

how do you know this?

Because that's the standard answer for the woke left who describe any minority group as victims of racism and anyone who questions their opinions as racist.

I wish you wouldn’t put words in my mouth. I never called you or anyone else racist. It is not racist to question any of my opinions on this issue. But obviously I think you’re wrong.

 

[timschochet]

I’m sure this will show up on Hannity tonight, or Tucker- it’s the usual angry white BS.
These school districts have been discriminating against minorities for decades, just like the rest of America. But conservatives never complained about it; they only complain when the shoes on the other foot.

how do you know this?

How do you not?

 

[-fish-]

This should make great replacement theory people like Tucker Carlson happy. Retaining underrepresented persons means that soon white people get fired last.

 

[The General]

Oh I know. I was laid off many years ago as a 2nd year teacher. Now, I may have also been incompetent, but the only reason why it was me, and not the 60 year old gym teacher who only showed up for work 2 days a week and pretty sure he was drunk, was because of seniority. It's a stupid system

Completely off topic but my gym teacher in elementary school I am sure was also drunk and an older guy. This dude also invented the best games (his mash-up of kickball and dodgeball should have it's own pro league) and his was definitely my favorite class.