Dismissive condescension. Objectively questioning a dubious legal solution is now “white fragility”?. I don’t know what the solution is as I have no clue what all the factors are up there. But a blatant civil rights violation couldn’t have been their first or only choice, could it. Maybe take some money and create programs at local colleges to train minority/BIPOC teachers and offer them jobs when older white teachers retired would work to effectuate change. Plus possibly a mandatory retirement age with a livable pension. There has to be a better solution than just “fire white people”.
Isn't it 'dismissive condescension' to say the union that signed off on this had questionable motives or did it in bad faith? If you dont know the solution, then why dismiss people who all fairly agreed to do something (that may in fact inconvenience them at some point)? Seems like "fire white people" is one way to spin it that reinforces the idea that someone said about fragility. The supporters of the policy definitely didn't spin it that way or view it as some kind of self-enforced punishment for white guilt or whatever.
I offered a couple of solutions abstract of having many details. And what evidence do we have that this was fairly bargained not knowing what else was on the table. It may have been merely a pretty distasteful compromise. But I’m pretty sure it’s illegal unless having it part of a CBA gives it some additional legal protection like it does in pro sports relative to antitrust laws.
this may not be the same, but in a way it reminds me of title 9 , some schools, not florida by the way, took the easy way out, did not add womens sports to close the gap, but cut out men's sports. this seems to be what, if it actually happens, is going on, not training minority candidates, but cutting loose qualified white teachers.
From the OP. Yet he started this thread and got a band wagon of responses. It’s pretty straightforward to me. If you fire based on seniority all the diverse teachers get fired. It’s not their fault decades ago the hiring practices were all white. I know the white fragility label is flammable but I really think it’s appropriate here. No matter how you don’t fire underrepresented candidates that’s what they have to do.
This is the solution they agreed on democratically, and if "diverse" hiring practices are legal, then why would bargained for layoff practices that account for diversity be illegal? I don't know how bargaining went but if they adopted this because the state wanted it in order to get some other concession or more pay, then that's how these things work, and its still something they agreed to ultimately.
I’m not reading unqualified minorities. Just seniority. All unqualified and bad teachers should be handled the same. We are talking about how to trim a totally qualified population due to budget constraints.
let's take a poll here. all those who if they were middle of the pack seniority in a job and would be ok with be fired to hire a maybe less qualified minority raise their hands, anyone?
What does this have to do with this policy? They aren't laying off people to hire different teachers. This is about who goes first if they eliminate jobs or positions, or reassign people. The layoffs would probably be the first to be rehired if they added those jobs back.
As I suggested earlier, it’s only “fragility” when it’s someone else’s job. If it was yours on the table, then you would have a very different perspective.
My first thought was that it’s somehow the back end of what an affirmative action hiring process would be. But it seems that a member of a public union would have a greater expectation of due process when they are fired than someone who was never in the union to start with. So that was the difference in my opinion. It’s also an elegant way to potentially skirt around age discrimination (if all the white teachers are the eldest), another protected class.
