Posted on Aug 15, 2022
Minneapolis teachers union agreement stipulates white teachers be laid off first, regardless of...
1.54K
38
37
7
7
0
Why would the teacher's union agree to this kind of blatant racism? Are their heads that far in the sand that they're blind to such obvious bigotry?
Minneapolis teachers union agreement stipulates white teachers be laid off first, regardless of...
Posted from foxnews.com
Racism
Unions
Teacher
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
4
4
0
OMG!!! This is blatant racism...can't wait for the lawsuits on this one.
(4)
(0)
2
2
0
So, yes, this is bad optics.
No, I do not expect it to hold up in court.
No, I do not think it is an optimal solution.
BUT.....
There is an important aspect not being being discussed: History.
If you have historically discriminated against a group - ANY group - and have only recently started to fix it, this policy not only makes sense, it is actually fair.
Whaaaaaaat? Lemme esplain.....
If all of the people who have seniority got their jobs in the first place due to discriminatory practices, then when it is time to cut back, you will ONLY be cutting back on the "fair" hires. This not only perpetuates the discrimination, it re-inforces it. This allows a school district to have the VENEER of fairness, but not the practice thereof.
As LTC Trent Klug was nice enough to post the data (response to SPC Kevin Ford above), I won't rehash it. But whether by intent or by coincidence, both Minneapolis and Saint Paul school districts have a history of hiring predominantly white teachers. There can be any number of reasons for this, only a couple of which are sinister. But any recent attempt to "fix" this would be undone by firing the recent hires, and exempting those with seniority.
Personally, I think that cutbacks should be performance based, with seniority being a tie-breaker. But they didn't ask me.
No, I do not expect it to hold up in court.
No, I do not think it is an optimal solution.
BUT.....
There is an important aspect not being being discussed: History.
If you have historically discriminated against a group - ANY group - and have only recently started to fix it, this policy not only makes sense, it is actually fair.
Whaaaaaaat? Lemme esplain.....
If all of the people who have seniority got their jobs in the first place due to discriminatory practices, then when it is time to cut back, you will ONLY be cutting back on the "fair" hires. This not only perpetuates the discrimination, it re-inforces it. This allows a school district to have the VENEER of fairness, but not the practice thereof.
As LTC Trent Klug was nice enough to post the data (response to SPC Kevin Ford above), I won't rehash it. But whether by intent or by coincidence, both Minneapolis and Saint Paul school districts have a history of hiring predominantly white teachers. There can be any number of reasons for this, only a couple of which are sinister. But any recent attempt to "fix" this would be undone by firing the recent hires, and exempting those with seniority.
Personally, I think that cutbacks should be performance based, with seniority being a tie-breaker. But they didn't ask me.
(2)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
SFC Casey O'Mally - You're making this more difficult that it has to be.
You're saying discrimination is bad. Unless we're discriminating against white people, then it's okay. That's blatant racism, no matter how good it makes you feel inside.
Forcing me to hire someone into my business (I'm a small business owner) based on their skin color and not whether or not they can do the job, just because I don't have enough "non-white" employees is not going to help my business. I alienate my current employees when it becomes obvious that the new hire can't do what's expected of him and now when I fire the new guy, who I had to hire on the basis of his skin color, because he's not able to do his job, no I'm subject to discrimination lawsuits. (and yes it happens and it has happened).
Forcing unqualified candidates into your pipe is not a workable solution. It's just one that makes you feel better about how you're justifying it.
Asians are kept out of college because they're smarter than the average bear. Blacks are put into college even though they're not passing the entrance exams.
Is that because of skin color or is that because of the cultural difference and the importance placed on education?
And if you wanna go with the gender gap, you need to look at the hundreds of other factors that determine who gets to be CEO, not just whether or not they're packing junk. Are men more likely than women to put in the time that's required to excel at their occupations? Are men more likely than women to sacrifice family life in return to a higher paying job? Are men more likely than women to choose a career path that's fraught with the perils of the corporate ladder?
Saying there are less female CEO than men solely because of gender discrimination is utter BS.
You're saying discrimination is bad. Unless we're discriminating against white people, then it's okay. That's blatant racism, no matter how good it makes you feel inside.
Forcing me to hire someone into my business (I'm a small business owner) based on their skin color and not whether or not they can do the job, just because I don't have enough "non-white" employees is not going to help my business. I alienate my current employees when it becomes obvious that the new hire can't do what's expected of him and now when I fire the new guy, who I had to hire on the basis of his skin color, because he's not able to do his job, no I'm subject to discrimination lawsuits. (and yes it happens and it has happened).
Forcing unqualified candidates into your pipe is not a workable solution. It's just one that makes you feel better about how you're justifying it.
Asians are kept out of college because they're smarter than the average bear. Blacks are put into college even though they're not passing the entrance exams.
Is that because of skin color or is that because of the cultural difference and the importance placed on education?
And if you wanna go with the gender gap, you need to look at the hundreds of other factors that determine who gets to be CEO, not just whether or not they're packing junk. Are men more likely than women to put in the time that's required to excel at their occupations? Are men more likely than women to sacrifice family life in return to a higher paying job? Are men more likely than women to choose a career path that's fraught with the perils of the corporate ladder?
Saying there are less female CEO than men solely because of gender discrimination is utter BS.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
Sgt (Join to see)
Nope.
I am not saying discrimination is good or bad. On the contrary, my position is that, like ALMOST EVERYTHING involving human interaction, it exists on a gradated scale. We are HARD WIRED to discriminate. In caveman days, it is how kept safe. If you looked like me, you were part of my tribe. If you didn't, you could not be trusted. It still has benefits today. If I see a group of black teens all sporting a red handkerchief and more than a couple suspicious bulges in their pants, I am going the other way. That is discrimination, yet very few, if any, would fault me for it.
You run a SMALL BUSINESS. How many C-suite offices do you have? How many VPs? How many senior management positions?
Huh. I guess you probably don't actually have a pipeline to address then, do you? It's almost like what I was discussing didn't apply to you until you made it personal.
I also didn't saying forcing UNQUALIFIED candidates. Qualification is important. We just need to make sure that the required qualifications actually fit the job requirements. Credit scores, "culture" "fit" or "cultural fit", degree (in most jobs, not all), where the degree is from (for those that actually DO need a degree), years of experience (for entry level or low level managers), are not QUALIFICATIONS. But they are routinely and consistently used in hiring decisions.
As an example, I was looking at a USA jobs posting for an entry level clerical job. From the posting, the job required basic knowledge of MS Office Suite, organizational skills, and customer service skills. It was, from everything that could be seen, a front office secretary job for a public facing installation support office. The job requirements included FOUR YEARS of clerical experience. Secretary is an entry level job. But they wanted 4 years of experience. That isn't "qualification" that is "intentionally exclusive."
As for all of the misogynistic BS you posted, there are any number of women who are/were willing to do everything males did - and even DID make those sacrifices. And still hit the glass ceiling. As many women as men? Close, if not there. You seem to assume that all men - or at least most of them - are willing to make those sacrifices. I know I am not. Nor are the overwhelming majority of men I know.
Additionally, a large portion of the reason men are willing to make those sacrifices is because that is how SOCIETY is set up. A man who leaves the kid at home with the wife, or *gasp* a nanny!, is just doing what men do. A man who is off to work before the kid wakes, home from work after the kid is asleep, and plays catch with the kid for a grand total of 30 minutes every weekend is a "good father" who is just making sure there is food on the table. A woman who does the same is a "horrible mother" who doesn't care about her children. A man who stays home to take care of the kids is "lazy" while a woman who does the same is either "sacrificing" her career or is just a "good homemaker." A father who can't make ends meet is a "deadbeat" who should get another job. A mother who can't make ends meet is an "unfortunate soul"... and where the hell is her man who should be taking care of the bills?
So, yes, gender discrimination has a lot to do with it. Inside and outside the board room. I never said solely because of. But you just highlight the problem with letting the market solve the problems. There will ALWAYS be an excuse to avoid equality.
Nope.
I am not saying discrimination is good or bad. On the contrary, my position is that, like ALMOST EVERYTHING involving human interaction, it exists on a gradated scale. We are HARD WIRED to discriminate. In caveman days, it is how kept safe. If you looked like me, you were part of my tribe. If you didn't, you could not be trusted. It still has benefits today. If I see a group of black teens all sporting a red handkerchief and more than a couple suspicious bulges in their pants, I am going the other way. That is discrimination, yet very few, if any, would fault me for it.
You run a SMALL BUSINESS. How many C-suite offices do you have? How many VPs? How many senior management positions?
Huh. I guess you probably don't actually have a pipeline to address then, do you? It's almost like what I was discussing didn't apply to you until you made it personal.
I also didn't saying forcing UNQUALIFIED candidates. Qualification is important. We just need to make sure that the required qualifications actually fit the job requirements. Credit scores, "culture" "fit" or "cultural fit", degree (in most jobs, not all), where the degree is from (for those that actually DO need a degree), years of experience (for entry level or low level managers), are not QUALIFICATIONS. But they are routinely and consistently used in hiring decisions.
As an example, I was looking at a USA jobs posting for an entry level clerical job. From the posting, the job required basic knowledge of MS Office Suite, organizational skills, and customer service skills. It was, from everything that could be seen, a front office secretary job for a public facing installation support office. The job requirements included FOUR YEARS of clerical experience. Secretary is an entry level job. But they wanted 4 years of experience. That isn't "qualification" that is "intentionally exclusive."
As for all of the misogynistic BS you posted, there are any number of women who are/were willing to do everything males did - and even DID make those sacrifices. And still hit the glass ceiling. As many women as men? Close, if not there. You seem to assume that all men - or at least most of them - are willing to make those sacrifices. I know I am not. Nor are the overwhelming majority of men I know.
Additionally, a large portion of the reason men are willing to make those sacrifices is because that is how SOCIETY is set up. A man who leaves the kid at home with the wife, or *gasp* a nanny!, is just doing what men do. A man who is off to work before the kid wakes, home from work after the kid is asleep, and plays catch with the kid for a grand total of 30 minutes every weekend is a "good father" who is just making sure there is food on the table. A woman who does the same is a "horrible mother" who doesn't care about her children. A man who stays home to take care of the kids is "lazy" while a woman who does the same is either "sacrificing" her career or is just a "good homemaker." A father who can't make ends meet is a "deadbeat" who should get another job. A mother who can't make ends meet is an "unfortunate soul"... and where the hell is her man who should be taking care of the bills?
So, yes, gender discrimination has a lot to do with it. Inside and outside the board room. I never said solely because of. But you just highlight the problem with letting the market solve the problems. There will ALWAYS be an excuse to avoid equality.
(0)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
SFC Casey O'Mally - This isn't the caveman days, Casey. The vast majority of people are past tribalism. Except those that think people need separate facilities and events for POCs so they feel more comfortable. That's tribalism masquerading as "making up for past discrimination."
My business employs 15 people. And you're promoted on your commitment to the company and how well you perform your job. I don't give a damn about your race or your gender. You get no special privileges here because you're a "minority." If you work hard, you're rewarded. As it goes with most small businesses which make up the majority of employers.
You can look at things like credit score as excluding minorities and think it has to do with racism. An employer looks at it a different way. If you have a decent credit report, it means to an employer that you're a responsible person able to handle important matters and it weighs in on whether or not you can be trusted in dealing with company funds. Experience is very helpful because that means that I don't have to spend extra time and money paying someone to train you to do a job when I could more easily hire someone that's experienced in it already.
Those are qualifications no matter how much you disagree with them.
And I didn't say all men or no women. I was speaking in generalities. Men, in general, or more likely to do those things. Women, in general, are more agreeable and are less likely to put the time in required to excel to the level of being CEO of a large company.
It's the same as looking at the teaching career field. There are far more female kindergarten teachers than there are males. Is that because male teachers are discriminated against or simply that most men don't go into that field?
There are more men working in off-shore oil drilling than women. Is that because of discrimination or because most women choose that field?
If you're upset about women feel about family life and how men feel, you're crying up the wrong tree here. Call it misogynistic or old fashioned male chauvinism all you want, it doesn't change the fact that it works itself out that way in almost every civilization past and present.
There will always be excuses on why you think it's discrimination and there will always be excuses on why you can't succeed.
My business employs 15 people. And you're promoted on your commitment to the company and how well you perform your job. I don't give a damn about your race or your gender. You get no special privileges here because you're a "minority." If you work hard, you're rewarded. As it goes with most small businesses which make up the majority of employers.
You can look at things like credit score as excluding minorities and think it has to do with racism. An employer looks at it a different way. If you have a decent credit report, it means to an employer that you're a responsible person able to handle important matters and it weighs in on whether or not you can be trusted in dealing with company funds. Experience is very helpful because that means that I don't have to spend extra time and money paying someone to train you to do a job when I could more easily hire someone that's experienced in it already.
Those are qualifications no matter how much you disagree with them.
And I didn't say all men or no women. I was speaking in generalities. Men, in general, or more likely to do those things. Women, in general, are more agreeable and are less likely to put the time in required to excel to the level of being CEO of a large company.
It's the same as looking at the teaching career field. There are far more female kindergarten teachers than there are males. Is that because male teachers are discriminated against or simply that most men don't go into that field?
There are more men working in off-shore oil drilling than women. Is that because of discrimination or because most women choose that field?
If you're upset about women feel about family life and how men feel, you're crying up the wrong tree here. Call it misogynistic or old fashioned male chauvinism all you want, it doesn't change the fact that it works itself out that way in almost every civilization past and present.
There will always be excuses on why you think it's discrimination and there will always be excuses on why you can't succeed.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
Sgt (Join to see) Wrong. The vast majority of people THINK they are past tribalism. They SAY they are past tribalism. But research shows differently. Implicit bias is real. And ALMOST everyone has it.
Those things simply are NOT qualifications. Having a poor credit score and no experience does not mean you cannot do the job. It is not a QUALIFICATION. It is a "nice to have," a "bonus," something to set you above and apart. But you were talking about forcing unqualified people into jobs. A poor credit score doesn't fit that bill.
I wasn't discussing how men or women feel about things, I was discussing how SOCIETY views things. And when society enforces those gender roles, then YES, the roles males and females take ARE due to sexism.
Those things simply are NOT qualifications. Having a poor credit score and no experience does not mean you cannot do the job. It is not a QUALIFICATION. It is a "nice to have," a "bonus," something to set you above and apart. But you were talking about forcing unqualified people into jobs. A poor credit score doesn't fit that bill.
I wasn't discussing how men or women feel about things, I was discussing how SOCIETY views things. And when society enforces those gender roles, then YES, the roles males and females take ARE due to sexism.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Meh, it doesn't say white. It says underrepresented and that could be protecting white teachers if they are underrepresented in a district.
(2)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
SPC Kevin Ford - You have no evidence to support your supposition that the vast majority of older teachers are white because of racial discrimination.
How many white applied for the jobs and how many non-whites? How many whites in the school district go into the education field versus how many non-whites? How many whites teach science & math versus how many non-whites?
When you stop making it about race, race becomes unimportant, which is supposed to be the goal. You're perpetuating racism, not making it go away.
How many white applied for the jobs and how many non-whites? How many whites in the school district go into the education field versus how many non-whites? How many whites teach science & math versus how many non-whites?
When you stop making it about race, race becomes unimportant, which is supposed to be the goal. You're perpetuating racism, not making it go away.
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
Sgt (Join to see) - All your questions beg the question on why those things happened. Why do more white people apply for jobs that require education? Well we can take a step back and look at the education system. Then we can take a step back and look at the economics that cause that. We spent hundreds of years ensuring that people of color had inferior economic positions and we know for a fact that was based on racial policies. Where they attempted to build wealth, we wiped it away like we did in Tulsa, Chicago, DC, Knoxville, etc.
Now that we've been called on our BS and the damage has been done, we want to go to a race neutral system (we being the royal US we). One were poor people do not have nearly the opportunities as those with means but hey it's not race based, right? All under the context of a system that we spent hundreds of years openly making sure most black people were poor so we can now turn a blind eye to the situation we created and claim it's all just economics?
Heck, over the last 50 years we've made social mobility very difficult, just to you know, lock everyone in.
Now that we've been called on our BS and the damage has been done, we want to go to a race neutral system (we being the royal US we). One were poor people do not have nearly the opportunities as those with means but hey it's not race based, right? All under the context of a system that we spent hundreds of years openly making sure most black people were poor so we can now turn a blind eye to the situation we created and claim it's all just economics?
Heck, over the last 50 years we've made social mobility very difficult, just to you know, lock everyone in.
(1)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
SPC Kevin Ford - Why do those things happen? Could be the culture and how one raises their children, having nothing to do with discrimination.
Social mobility has never been easier in the US, no matter what color your skin is. Racism is a poor excuse to use.
Social mobility has never been easier in the US, no matter what color your skin is. Racism is a poor excuse to use.
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
Sgt (Join to see) - Such culture is not tied to race, but to poverty. The question that we need to ask ourselves is, have we done anything as a nation based on race to ensure that one race is primarily in poverty? The answer is yes. The history on that is crystal clear.
As far as social mobility, the data on that seems clear as well. We have removed much capability in that area too, Pretty much starting right after the civil rights act.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/social-mobility-upwards-decline-usa-us-america-economics/
As far as social mobility, the data on that seems clear as well. We have removed much capability in that area too, Pretty much starting right after the civil rights act.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/social-mobility-upwards-decline-usa-us-america-economics/
Is the American Dream over? Here's what the data says
How likely are Americans to out-earn their parents?
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google