Minneapolis Will Fire ‘White Teachers’ First (2 Viewers)

[tonysmiles]

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

Thanks for the info.

Where I worked the person with the least seniority across the company had to be on pins and needles when it came to RIF's (Reduction In Force). I was working as a System Admin managing the companies Voice and Email Platform and they did a RIF and a cabling guy lost his position and he moved into our group and my coworker who was relatively new was let go because the cable guy had seniority. UNREAL stupidest policy I have ever seen. After that I left the company for greener pastures.

 

[djmich]

I don’t know what it means when people say that the goal should be to “get past race.” What does that look like?

I think anyone can disagree with the possibility for this to be the case...but it would seem obvious to me that it means people treat each other based on their character and abilities and that their skin tone is not part of that equation.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I don’t know what it means when people say that the goal should be to “get past race.” What does that look like?

I think it looks like getting rid of all affirmative action and diversity programs and pretending that racism is no longer an issue in our society.

I will be the first person to tell somebody if they are relying on race, gender, or identity to be hired for there position did they really earn that position.

Why are companies afraid to hire the best person for the job. Why not make the hiring process anonymous in this advanced technical age. Applicant is given a number all pertinent information that can reveal gender, race, or identity be suppressed from hiring process. Interviews are conducted with voice technology where everybody's voice sounds the same and then you make the hire based on qualifications and merit and see who filled the position.

If not then I will always question the ability of that hire.

If only it were that easy to determine and score what person is "best" for the job.

Ie where I work managing a restaurant. WTF makes the "best" manager? There is 7-8 of us, and we all have our +s and -s. Who we would hire on and be the "best" for the job depends on the dynamic of the rest of the crew. Sometimes we just need somebody who 100% has night availability. Sometimes we need somebody who maybe isn't the fastest at a position, but works better with people and can help with the training program. Where I am going is with our kitchen crew, it would be a huge asset to have somebody fluent in Spanish apply. That doesn't mean they need to be a different race, or we are just hiring Mexican managers or anything like that, but I could see a scenario where a bilingual Mexican applicant was in a pipeline as well as a white non-bilingual applicant and we go with the the first one. Not because of any diversity push or to fill some quota, but it would be the best hire for the time. I could also see that white applicant thinking it was because of that.

Race, gender, orientation, whatever should never be 100% of the reason you hire or fire somebody. However, I think posters in here are being quite unrealistic if they think that it shouldn't ever be part of the equation. OR if you did hire a minority group, not jumping to the conclusion that it was done solely because they are in that minority group.

 

[John123]

I don’t know what it means when people say that the goal should be to “get past race.” What does that look like?

I think anyone can disagree with the possibility for this to be the case...but it would seem obvious to me that it means people treat each other based on their character and abilities and that their skin tone is not part of that equation.

This. Obviously when I look at a black person I see a person of a different skin color than myself. That doesn't change one thing in how I judge or treat that person. A person is a person. Only when everyone looks at other people that way will racism cease. And that goes in all directions, not just how white people treat black people.

 

[dgreen]

I don’t know what it means when people say that the goal should be to “get past race.” What does that look like?

I think anyone can disagree with the possibility for this to be the case...but it would seem obvious to me that it means people treat each other based on their character and abilities and that their skin tone is not part of that equation.

Maybe. But, I don't think I hear "get past race" in response to a lot of racist actions. I mostly hear "get past race" from people in response to race being discussed as a possible problem. In other words, if a person of race A acts in a racist manner towards person of race B, I don't usually hear person C say that person A needs to "get past race". However, if person C were to initiate a discussion about the racists actions of person A, person D might come in and say "get past race", saying that person C should stop talking about it. I think some have the idea that race problems go away if we stop talking about it and pointing it out. We should all "get past race". But, when some members of society aren't doing that, what should the other members of society do? Should they "get past race" and ignore those who aren't or should they talk about race?

Now, it does appear "get past race" was used in this thread as you described it. I'm mostly saying that's not how I typically hear that phrase used.

 

[FairWarning]

I think the research is actually kinda inconclusive but, just for a thought experiment, imagine that it was established to a high degree of certainty that minority students achieve greater success when they have at least some teachers that are the same race that they are. Maybe it’s about cultural connections, or being a role model, or whatever. But for the purposes of this question please assume that it’s true.

Would that make a difference to any of the people saying “it shouldn’t be based on race, it should be based on who is the most effective teacher”? It seems to me that it’s possible that in some circumstances race and effectiveness aren’t completely unrelated.

I think of it the same way as studies that showed teams of white people produced more effective results in the workplace...the outcome is not an excuse for discriminatory racial hiring.

Not all workplaces are the same though. Teaching is not the same as computer programming, is not the same as firefighter, etc.. What I mean by that is there are some non-quantifiable things that go into teaching that other people touched on above - role models, comfort level of students, etc. IMO those things should be at least considered in situations like this.

I don’t know what it means when people say that the goal should be to “get past race.” What does that look like?

I think it looks like getting rid of all affirmative action and diversity programs and pretending that racism is no longer an issue in our society.

We should dump them

 

[KarmaPolice]

I don’t know what it means when people say that the goal should be to “get past race.” What does that look like?

I think anyone can disagree with the possibility for this to be the case...but it would seem obvious to me that it means people treat each other based on their character and abilities and that their skin tone is not part of that equation.

This. Obviously when I look at a black person I see a person of a different skin color than myself. That doesn't change one thing in how I judge or treat that person. A person is a person. Only when everyone looks at other people that way will racism cease. And that goes in all directions, not just how white people treat black people

I think the research is actually kinda inconclusive but, just for a thought experiment, imagine that it was established to a high degree of certainty that minority students achieve greater success when they have at least some teachers that are the same race that they are. Maybe it’s about cultural connections, or being a role model, or whatever. But for the purposes of this question please assume that it’s true.

Would that make a difference to any of the people saying “it shouldn’t be based on race, it should be based on who is the most effective teacher”? It seems to me that it’s possible that in some circumstances race and effectiveness aren’t completely unrelated.

I think of it the same way as studies that showed teams of white people produced more effective results in the workplace...the outcome is not an excuse for discriminatory racial hiring.

Not all workplaces are the same though. Teaching is not the same as computer programming, is not the same as firefighter, etc.. What I mean by that is there are some non-quantifiable things that go into teaching that other people touched on above - role models, comfort level of students, etc. IMO those things should be at least considered in situations like this.

I don’t know what it means when people say that the goal should be to “get past race.” What does that look like?

I think it looks like getting rid of all affirmative action and diversity programs and pretending that racism is no longer an issue in our society.

We should dump them

I think businesses should be able to decide what is best for themselves within reason.
No, there shouldn't be a country wide push for all businesses to look like X, but there also shouldn't be the backlash we see if a company decides that what they want is one of said programs. IMO.

 

[FairWarning]

I don’t know what it means when people say that the goal should be to “get past race.” What does that look like?

I think anyone can disagree with the possibility for this to be the case...but it would seem obvious to me that it means people treat each other based on their character and abilities and that their skin tone is not part of that equation.

This. Obviously when I look at a black person I see a person of a different skin color than myself. That doesn't change one thing in how I judge or treat that person. A person is a person. Only when everyone looks at other people that way will racism cease. And that goes in all directions, not just how white people treat black people

I think the research is actually kinda inconclusive but, just for a thought experiment, imagine that it was established to a high degree of certainty that minority students achieve greater success when they have at least some teachers that are the same race that they are. Maybe it’s about cultural connections, or being a role model, or whatever. But for the purposes of this question please assume that it’s true.

Would that make a difference to any of the people saying “it shouldn’t be based on race, it should be based on who is the most effective teacher”? It seems to me that it’s possible that in some circumstances race and effectiveness aren’t completely unrelated.

I think of it the same way as studies that showed teams of white people produced more effective results in the workplace...the outcome is not an excuse for discriminatory racial hiring.

Not all workplaces are the same though. Teaching is not the same as computer programming, is not the same as firefighter, etc.. What I mean by that is there are some non-quantifiable things that go into teaching that other people touched on above - role models, comfort level of students, etc. IMO those things should be at least considered in situations like this.

I don’t know what it means when people say that the goal should be to “get past race.” What does that look like?

I think it looks like getting rid of all affirmative action and diversity programs and pretending that racism is no longer an issue in our society.

We should dump them

I think businesses should be able to decide what is best for themselves within reason.
No, there shouldn't be a country wide push for all businesses to look like X, but there also shouldn't be the backlash we see if a company decides that what they want is one of said programs. IMO.

I agree, and your example was a good one.

 

[John123]

I think businesses should be able to decide what is best for themselves within reason.
No, there shouldn't be a country wide push for all businesses to look like X, but there also shouldn't be the backlash we see if a company decides that what they want is one of said programs. IMO.

This isn't a business. It's a government entity.

 

[timschochet]

Anyhow it’s a stupid idea. It’s perfectly fine to hire people with diversity in mind, but not so fine to fire people with diversity in mind. But it’s not racism either, because the intent is still to increase diversity, and not to discriminate against anyone. When it comes to racism, intent is everything.

I just hope you'll remember this the next time a cop shoots a black person who was acting in a threatening manner.

I will and I have. I tend to be very sympathetic to police in those situations. But I’m also empathetic to how black people respond (much more than I am to the actual victim) given the long history of police racism against blacks.

In this situation there is no history of racism towards white people (there is pretty much none in history, period) so I don’t feel any empathy towards those who are whining about it.

NO RACISM towards white people you must not know your history Tim. Personally a stupid comment to make. When Italians arrived to this country I have heard stories of my father (immigrated here from Italy) and his friends being harassed by the police, one time they were told to cross the street because they were not allowed to walk on that side of the street by the Cops. The Irish people also harassed Italians in the city they settled in.

Did you not hear about the New Orleans lynching of 11 innocent Italians over the death of the New Orleans Police Chief and how Theodore Roosevelt said it was a "Good Thing"

Theodore Roosevelt, then a new appointee by President Benjamin Harrison to the United States Civil Service Commission, suggested the lynching was “a rather good thing.” He would be elected president three years later. The New York Times, writing about the event in a March 1891 editorial, referred to “Sneaking and cowardly Sicilians, the descendants of bandits and assassins.”

Last time I checked my Italian skin is white. Racism towards white people will always exist in various ways.

A Rather Good Thing

I am aware of this, and bigotry against the Irish, and anti-Semitism, and anti-Polish and all the rest. My point, which I suspect most people understood, was that there hasn’t been racism against white people for being white. Ethnic bigotry is not the same as racism; the latter has to do with skin color.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I think businesses should be able to decide what is best for themselves within reason.
No, there shouldn't be a country wide push for all businesses to look like X, but there also shouldn't be the backlash we see if a company decides that what they want is one of said programs. IMO.

This isn't a business. It's a government entity.

Similar concept. There would be reasons to have diversity in settings like this, and it's way harder to qualify best people for teaching vs computer programming.

 

[John123]

Similar concept. There would be reasons to have diversity in settings like this, and it's way harder to qualify best people for teaching vs computer programming.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Fortunately, we have a court system that will light a match to this contract. The sooner the better.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Similar concept. There would be reasons to have diversity in settings like this, and it's way harder to qualify best people for teaching vs computer programming.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Fortunately, we have a court system that will light a match to this contract. The sooner the better.

I am so surprised.
I can agree with you guys that this specific case might not hold up. What I am pushing back on is posts like yours and others where there seems to be some magical checklist of what would make a "best" candidate for jobs, or other factors can and should always be ignored.

 

[djmich]

I don’t know what it means when people say that the goal should be to “get past race.” What does that look like?

I think anyone can disagree with the possibility for this to be the case...but it would seem obvious to me that it means people treat each other based on their character and abilities and that their skin tone is not part of that equation.

Maybe. But, I don't think I hear "get past race" in response to a lot of racist actions. I mostly hear "get past race" from people in response to race being discussed as a possible problem. In other words, if a person of race A acts in a racist manner towards person of race B, I don't usually hear person C say that person A needs to "get past race". However, if person C were to initiate a discussion about the racists actions of person A, person D might come in and say "get past race", saying that person C should stop talking about it. I think some have the idea that race problems go away if we stop talking about it and pointing it out. We should all "get past race". But, when some members of society aren't doing that, what should the other members of society do? Should they "get past race" and ignore those who aren't or should they talk about race?

Now, it does appear "get past race" was used in this thread as you described it. I'm mostly saying that's not how I typically hear that phrase used.

Yah I mean there are racists and there will be racists, but I don't think they should cloud "the goal" which is what fatguy asked. Having a goal or me personally and other people advocating that goal doesn't mean that other people don't have the same goals or might use it in a different context.

The bigger question is if people believe that's an admiral goal any longer, I'm not so sure.

 

[djmich]

I think that hiring managers using race as an influencer in hiring or firing can have some benefits and also downsides. I do think there are some corner cases like potentially some school scenarios where even the benefit can outweigh the cost. Overall I think written policy that is unnuanced around racial quotas or "this color out first" are non-starters.

In aggregate I think having the benefits of diversity in mind as part of the hiring process is acceptable (morally, not necessarily legally) but in aggregate is more good than bad. In particular I think morally applying verdicts to individuals or small groups based on broad based historical perspective and racial "rights" is not something to me is fair and the way we should move forward. The color of one teachers skin vs another is in no way indicative of their history and the set of assumptions that need to be applied to conclude "we should give preference to the person with more melanin." The fact that they are both there with comparable educational backgrounds and qualifications is evidence of that.

 

[FairWarning]

Similar concept. There would be reasons to have diversity in settings like this, and it's way harder to qualify best people for teaching vs computer programming.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Fortunately, we have a court system that will light a match to this contract. The sooner the better.

I am so surprised.
I can agree with you guys that this specific case might not hold up. What I am pushing back on is posts like yours and others where there seems to be some magical checklist of what would make a "best" candidate for jobs, or other factors can and should always be ignored.

The closest scenario to your restaurant to the schools is this - let’s say your Spanish speaking kitchen staff left and you replaced them with a German speaking staff (a worker is a worker). The manager has been there a few years and been pretty good. Do you replace the manager for a potentially cheaper one?

 

[KarmaPolice]

Similar concept. There would be reasons to have diversity in settings like this, and it's way harder to qualify best people for teaching vs computer programming.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Fortunately, we have a court system that will light a match to this contract. The sooner the better.

I am so surprised.
I can agree with you guys that this specific case might not hold up. What I am pushing back on is posts like yours and others where there seems to be some magical checklist of what would make a "best" candidate for jobs, or other factors can and should always be ignored.

The closest scenario to your restaurant to the schools is this - let’s say your Spanish speaking kitchen staff left and you replaced them with a German speaking staff (a worker is a worker). The manager has been there a few years and been pretty good. Do you replace the manager for a potentially cheaper one?

I've never worked anywhere that would replace someone in that fashion. That said, places I work at are ripe with turnover, so it would be a similar scenario- keep our eyes open for a bilingual manager candidate, and until then Google Translate it is (how I attempt to communicate with the current staff).

 

[FairWarning]

Similar concept. There would be reasons to have diversity in settings like this, and it's way harder to qualify best people for teaching vs computer programming.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Fortunately, we have a court system that will light a match to this contract. The sooner the better.

I am so surprised.
I can agree with you guys that this specific case might not hold up. What I am pushing back on is posts like yours and others where there seems to be some magical checklist of what would make a "best" candidate for jobs, or other factors can and should always be ignored.

The closest scenario to your restaurant to the schools is this - let’s say your Spanish speaking kitchen staff left and you replaced them with a German speaking staff (a worker is a worker). The manager has been there a few years and been pretty good. Do you replace the manager for a potentially cheaper one?

I've never worked anywhere that would replace someone in that fashion. That said, places I work at are ripe with turnover, so it would be a similar scenario- keep our eyes open for a bilingual manager candidate, and until then Google Translate it is (how I attempt to communicate with the current staff).

Yeah, I should have made it a union shop. In a free market, management does have the right basically to do whatever.

 

[MAC_32]

I think businesses should be able to decide what is best for themselves within reason.
No, there shouldn't be a country wide push for all businesses to look like X, but there also shouldn't be the backlash we see if a company decides that what they want is one of said programs. IMO.

This isn't a business. It's a government entity.

Similar concept. There would be reasons to have diversity in settings like this, and it's way harder to qualify best people for teaching vs computer programming.

It really isn't. What makes it challenging is the public demanding administration's define criteria. An unintended consequence of this is that admin then identifying criteria the public may be able to understand, but doesn't necessarily indicate the strength or weakness of an educator.

To be clear, I'm not saying that's the case here - I didn't know about this story until today. This is just why I don't put much stock in these arguments one way or the other. I don't think the public should be involved at all in this process. Their involvement is a barrier to success.

 

[Summer Wheat]

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.

Wrong again. If you watched the news last night that area never had enough minorities applying. So now they want to keep the few they have regardless of seniority. It will just be one Dem replacing another in the classroom in case of a layoff.

There won`t be any layoffs because they said they don`t have enough teachers right now who want to teach in those areas.

 

[Shutout]

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?

If you have children who are being taught by a teacher and you don't know the difference between a good teacher and a bad teacher then your children are in trouble. People (And school administration) KNOW what a good and bad teacher is.

 

[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?

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?

If you have children who are being taught by a teacher and you don't know the difference between a good teacher and a bad teacher then your children are in trouble. People (And school administration) KNOW what a good and bad teacher is.

This

 

[FairWarning]

If Minneapolis wanted to let teachers go, they would have no problem finding a job.

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?

If you have children who are being taught by a teacher and you don't know the difference between a good teacher and a bad teacher then your children are in trouble. People (And school administration) KNOW what a good and bad teacher is.

No doubt, but many times teachers only hear from a parent when the student is doing poorly. They blame the teacher when it could be a home issue. The parents don’t like to take responsibility for that. It’s definitely not a one size fits all scenario.

 

[Shutout]

If Minneapolis wanted to let teachers go, they would have no problem finding a job.

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?

If you have children who are being taught by a teacher and you don't know the difference between a good teacher and a bad teacher then your children are in trouble. People (And school administration) KNOW what a good and bad teacher is.

No doubt, but many times teachers only hear from a parent when the student is doing poorly. They blame the teacher when it could be a home issue. The parents don’t like to take responsibility for that. It’s definitely not a one size fits all scenario.

At the end of the day, the school admin knows the work the teacher is doing (or not). The vast majority of the time, they also are pretty clued in to whether outside factors are creeping in or not. Its just hard to work in a school system and NOT have a sense of the competency of your peers and supervisors, employees, etc. If someone is in a position of making as important a decision as to fire someone, they would be no less that negligent to not have that info at their disposal in making such an important decision.

 

[Da Guru]

Lawyers love this. They could get hundreds of billing hours in the future.

They are already licking their chops for the first case of wrongful termination.
the first teacher let go because of race should be thankful as they will make much more than a teacher's salary.

Civil Rights Act: The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, created in 1957 by the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, works to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all persons in the United States. The Division enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), disability, religion, familial status, national origin, and citizenship status.

 

[RCon]

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.

As opposed to the excuse making that you're doing? If you think that argument of "Well, racism is only one component of the requirement" then I'm here to tell you that you're still not winning that one. You don't get to excuse-away racism.

Race should never be a qualification for anything. Neither should your membership in a underrepresented group, whatever that is. It's a racist to begin with and it's racist to end with. There's no getting around it. If you support this policy then you support racism.

I asked you guys to replace the word "white" with "black" and to let me know how that sounds. Did you do that?

I guess I'm just baffled by this nonsense response. I only posted a second source that sheds some additional light on the OP's story which was a limited and provacative account of what happened. Its not rocket science here - the union and district had a labor dispute that they resolved by negotiation. The article gives some reasons for why the district and union reached this agreement. Are you offended by having some additional information that might temper your manufactured outrage?

So they negotiated racism? Is that your argument? That's it's okay as long as it' negotiated? WTH?

C'mon, man, that's still not a position you want to defend. Did you replace the words "white" with the word "black" and see how that sounds? Did you?

Does the word "black" appear in the final CBA? Legit question, as I haven't read it.

 

[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.

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.

As opposed to the excuse making that you're doing? If you think that argument of "Well, racism is only one component of the requirement" then I'm here to tell you that you're still not winning that one. You don't get to excuse-away racism.

Race should never be a qualification for anything. Neither should your membership in a underrepresented group, whatever that is. It's a racist to begin with and it's racist to end with. There's no getting around it. If you support this policy then you support racism.

I asked you guys to replace the word "white" with "black" and to let me know how that sounds. Did you do that?

I guess I'm just baffled by this nonsense response. I only posted a second source that sheds some additional light on the OP's story which was a limited and provacative account of what happened. Its not rocket science here - the union and district had a labor dispute that they resolved by negotiation. The article gives some reasons for why the district and union reached this agreement. Are you offended by having some additional information that might temper your manufactured outrage?

So they negotiated racism? Is that your argument? That's it's okay as long as it' negotiated? WTH?

C'mon, man, that's still not a position you want to defend. Did you replace the words "white" with the word "black" and see how that sounds? Did you?

Does the word "black" appear in the final CBA? Legit question, as I haven't read it.

I haven’t either.

 

[Da Guru]

As I stated earlier, lawyers already involved.





James Dickey, senior trial attorney at the Upper Midwest Law Center in Minneapolis, told the Washington Times: “The school district and the union should be on notice that what they’ve done is illegal and is going to be struck down.”

The center “fights to limit governmental, special interest and public union overreach.”

Hans Bader, a former Education Department attorney, said that race-based layoffs violate the US Constitution and also the Civil Rights Act, citing a 1996 case in which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that school districts “can’t consider race as a tie-breaker.”

According to an op-ed by Bader, a 1986 Supreme Court decision found a “school district can’t lay off white teachers to remedy past societal discrimination against blacks.”

 

[glvsav37]

They hope it helps foster a teaching staff that better mirrors the demographics of the pupils they work with, more than 60% of them students of color. Currently, about 16% of the district's tenured teachers and 27% of its probationary teachers are people of color.

So whats the number? Whats the zone where we have enough minority teachers to white teachers? What about individual schools within the district? Are we placing the white teachers in individual schools with higher white to students of color ratios? My district has 15+ elementary, 2 Jr High and 2 High schools. THe demographics are much different depending on which side of the district you live on.

What happens when demographics change? If I was a white teacher, I would never apply to that district if the demographics showed an increase in POC population. It would be career suicide.

My wife is a teacher, she has seen a massive shift in Spanish-speaking students in her classroom (and school) year over year. With this type of contract, she should be worried that a teacher of latin descent would be replacing her over a situation she had no control over (recent latin migration to her district) to better even out the student to teacher race makeup.

 

[the moops]

If I was a white teacher, I would never apply to that district if the demographics showed an increase in POC population. It would be career suicide.

No it wouldn't. There is a severe lack of teachers all over the country. Especially in urban minority districts. There is way too much of an overreaction to something that is likely to be struck down by a court and not play out at all.

 

[glvsav37]

No it wouldn't. There is a severe lack of teachers all over the country. Especially in urban minority districts. There is way too much of an overreaction to something that is likely to be struck down by a court and not play out at all.

while I basically agree with you....there are short-signed instances like this that are playing out all over the country. Yes, there is a severe teacher shortage, and the 2 reasons why is pay and uncertainty over their long term career ability.

Here, they had a push to tie "teacher performance" to standardized testing scores. Those teachers with low testing scores would be subject to "increased intervention programs" and ultimately dismissed if scores did not improve.

major problem is that there has been some studies that say standardized testing is unfair to minorities, and the teachers in those already depressed areas would be losing more teachers than their mostly white counterpart districts. As a good teacher looking for long-term career success, the more affluent districts become your target b/c at least they could afford tutoring and ensure more 2-parent households. Meanwhile, the underserved districts that need stability the most would scare off good teachers.

 

[MAC_32]

No it wouldn't. There is a severe lack of teachers all over the country. Especially in urban minority districts. There is way too much of an overreaction to something that is likely to be struck down by a court and not play out at all.

while I basically agree with you....there are short-signed instances like this that are playing out all over the country. Yes, there is a severe teacher shortage, and the 2 reasons why is pay and uncertainty over their long term career ability.

Here, they had a push to tie "teacher performance" to standardized testing scores. Those teachers with low testing scores would be subject to "increased intervention programs" and ultimately dismissed if scores did not improve.

major problem is that there has been some studies that say standardized testing is unfair to minorities, and the teachers in those already depressed areas would be losing more teachers than their mostly white counterpart districts. As a good teacher looking for long-term career success, the more affluent districts become your target b/c at least they could afford tutoring and ensure more 2-parent households. Meanwhile, the underserved districts that need stability the most would scare off good teachers.

What you're describing has been going on for decades, but there are more reasons than just that to explain the shortage - out politics and entitled parents have created a toxic environment.

 

[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?

How do you not?

what is their job. to right the wrongs of the past or teach children? if you think it's right the wrongs of the past, welcome to Detroit under Coleman Young. that's your solution?

 

[BladeRunner]

They hope it helps foster a teaching staff that better mirrors the demographics of the pupils they work with, more than 60% of them students of color. Currently, about 16% of the district's tenured teachers and 27% of its probationary teachers are people of color.

So whats the number? Whats the zone where we have enough minority teachers to white teachers? What about individual schools within the district? Are we placing the white teachers in individual schools with higher white to students of color ratios? My district has 15+ elementary, 2 Jr High and 2 High schools. THe demographics are much different depending on which side of the district you live on.

What happens when demographics change? If I was a white teacher, I would never apply to that district if the demographics showed an increase in POC population. It would be career suicide.

My wife is a teacher, she has seen a massive shift in Spanish-speaking students in her classroom (and school) year over year. With this type of contract, she should be worried that a teacher of latin descent would be replacing her over a situation she had no control over (recent latin migration to her district) to better even out the student to teacher race makeup.

Where is that line? Well let me tell - it's wherever it needs to be to gain money and power.

This is the problem that they're hoping people don't figure out. You see, THAT line right now is dynamic depending upon the whims of the person claiming inequality. We had a good example of this in one of the NFL discussion threads where X% of coaches must match Y% of players. Some of us argued why the coaching pool had to match the players. Why not the front office? Or the guys that fill the soda machines?

Or why doesn't the player pool match the total population percentages instead? Why? Because if that were the case then a lot of black players would lose their jobs. But, hey, equality, right?

IF we were to do this (and I don't advocate we do), then there is only one line and that HAS to be at the national population percentage level. Otherwise, that line is going to keep changing day by day, whim by whim, fake outrage after fake outrage.

It's plainly obvious to me that this is a money and power thing. I can tell because the "equality" people aren't arguing for brick layers, ditch diggers and sewage workers to be equal. They only want the C-Level Suite and Executive level or higher.

 

[ekbeats]

Yes this really happened.

 

[Yenrub]

Yes this really happened.

The video is from two years ago. What does that video have to do with the teachers in Minnesota?

It also seems staged.

BLM has a CEO?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Anyhow it’s a stupid idea. It’s perfectly fine to hire people with diversity in mind, but not so fine to fire people with diversity in mind. But it’s not racism either, because the intent is still to increase diversity, and not to discriminate against anyone. When it comes to racism, intent is everything.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It doesn't matter what your intent is. if it looks like racism, Walks Like racism and smells like racism it's racism

Right, remember that in his constant trolling over the years, Tim has reminded us 1,391 times that you often don't need proof when it comes to racism: smart people like him just can sense when it is there. So, if you become a smart guy like him, you don't need proof! You can start scream racism whenever you want with zero proof, and then smugly denounce anyone who tries to do the same thing. It's solid shtick, if nothing else.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

No it wouldn't. There is a severe lack of teachers all over the country. Especially in urban minority districts. There is way too much of an overreaction to something that is likely to be struck down by a court and not play out at all.

while I basically agree with you....there are short-signed instances like this that are playing out all over the country. Yes, there is a severe teacher shortage, and the 2 reasons why is pay and uncertainty over their long term career ability.

Here, they had a push to tie "teacher performance" to standardized testing scores. Those teachers with low testing scores would be subject to "increased intervention programs" and ultimately dismissed if scores did not improve.

major problem is that there has been some studies that say standardized testing is unfair to minorities, and the teachers in those already depressed areas would be losing more teachers than their mostly white counterpart districts. As a good teacher looking for long-term career success, the more affluent districts become your target b/c at least they could afford tutoring and ensure more 2-parent households. Meanwhile, the underserved districts that need stability the most would scare off good teachers.

What you're describing has been going on for decades, but there are more reasons than just that to explain the shortage - out politics and entitled parents have created a toxic environment.

It would be interesting to have a thread on this topic. Seems like a really complex issue that varies significantly by school district. The district my kids are in (north suburb of Chicago) doesn't seem to have any shortage of applicants for job openings. Generally the teachers seem to be very good at their jobs.

On the flip side, I did a ton of volunteer work (hands on + on the board) of a non-profit that dealt with Chicago public school teachers. Man, that district is a trainwreck (big shock I'm sure). What was most discouraging though......I'd conservatively say that about 30-50% of the teachers I interacted with were an embarrassment to the profession. My sense was that Chicago simply couldn't attract and hire more competent teachers.

Anyway, back to the article it's a really complex issue. There is absolutely research suggesting that kids perform better academically when they have interaction with at least a subset of teachers who "look like them." So there is some value in ensuring that "minority districts" have a meaningful share of "minority teachers." Without studying the Minneapolis policy in depth, I'm willing to take the leap that this was the intent of the policy.

Then again, coming from the city that most aggressively tried to defund the police, only to see a massive surge in crime and decimation of the downtown business district.....it's also reasonable to be a bit skeptical about the true intent of the policy. No matter what, just like the phrase "defund the police" this seems like an approach that could go way off the rails due to the overly simplistic way it appears to have been approached.

 

[glvsav37]

Anyway, back to the article it's a really complex issue. There is absolutely research suggesting that kids perform better academically when they have interaction with at least a subset of teachers who "look like them." So there is some value in ensuring that "minority districts" have a meaningful share of "minority teachers." Without studying the Minneapolis policy in depth, I'm willing to take the leap that this was the intent of the policy.

well said, and to the above part of your post, the same has been said in regards to the importance of male teachers in elementary grades as they can often provide a male role model for students being raise only by a mother.

 

[FairWarning]

Sista just keeping it real about teaching - https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1561482373182566400?s=21&t=rxAUNHdzLP93KLMBi3hb-A

 

[HippieJuice]

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!

Great post, what a backwards approach that only compounds the problem.

What's funny is all the supposed liberals running in here and defending the use of racism.

This would be startling if it wasn't for the fact that most of them in the last decade don't want free speech either.

 

[HippieJuice]

Newbie (first post) here with a summary of what I just read.

Person posts thread promoting moral outrage over "racism" against white people being fired because of their skin color citing a right wing blog as the news source.

Supporters jump in and detest hiring practices should be outcome driven and not race driven. It's noted these people didn't care about the previous hundred years of race driven hiring practices until it affected white people. But moral outrage anyway!

Someone informed notes that the model is about "outcomes" and to protect the better teachers for the students and that original source was unfairly explaining the details.

This promotes more outrage from the posters who were wrong. I don't think they still took the time to see why and read the article.

-
"It can be a national model, and schools in other states are looking to emulate what we did," said Edward Barlow, a band teacher at Anwatin Middle School and a member of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers executive board. "Even though it doesn't do everything that we wanted it to do, it's still a huge move forward for the retention of teachers of color."

Having a teacher of color can boost academic performance, graduation rates and even attendance for students of color, according to a report by The Learning Policy Institute, a national education research nonprofit.

But last-in, first-out policies are designed to protect more senior teachers, a higher percentage of whom are white.

For Minneapolis, that has meant even when the district is successful in recruiting teachers of color, "they could be the first to go," said Candra Bennett, interim senior human resources officer for the district. "That's completely counter-productive."

-

This prompted more cries or racism from people who don't understand racism. Racism isn't just about skin color. In conversations about racism people are talking about the power dynamic wielded by the majority race using their power to discriminate against the minority race. HIstorically actions and policies like redlining and discrimination in hiring.

As an example we can point to the white people in Minneapolis that used their majority to hire and fire black teachers. What isn't racism is the minority using sensible policy to protect minority teachers that are better for the students.

As an overview for future posts if I make any is that I see the Republican Party funded by large corporations and extremely wealthy people to get favorable tax breaks and regulations that allow them pollute or engage in commerce that are often largely unbeneficial to America's population and future. To gain support amongst the masses they use "moral outrage" to engage authoritarian followers. These are typically people who are tribal, want a strong leader, and are don't much care about the facts. They see the world in black and white and a zero sum game often supporting "harming" the opposition.

It's up to the rest of us to make sure we out vote them and save the country.