I looked up the reference to Cecilia Lewis who was pressured to leave her positions at two districts because of the first district hiring for an explicit DEI position. From the article, the people upset at her hiring come across as bigots. Whether they are or not will not be discovered because Cecilia Lewis does not seem to have actually made any public statements about what her intended plan for DEI was. Or at least I cannot find any. While I find the behavior of some of those parents to be repulsive due to the aggression they expressed based solely on the fact she was hired for DEI without actually learning the details of what it entailed, I find Lewis’ response to be disappointing.
If “CRT” had nothing to do with what she intended to implement, she could have adamantly expressed that and even condemned those ideas that people are rightfully upset with in relationship to CRT. She could have actually been a leader in the path toward an ideology superior to that of DEI. But that isn’t what she did. She seemingly wrote it off as too scary or too bigoted for her to confront.
While communicating with angry parents doesn’t sound particularly appealing, and I can sympathize with a person not wanting to do it, I feel like the *right* person for such a position as fraught with political controversy as one related to DEI would need to have the courage to both confront the parents who are clearly bigots and comfort the parents who are just afraid of the legitimate garbage that “CRT” is trying to promote. Someone who is going to be the “diversity” czar at a school cannot just write off a school as racist and leave before even making an honest attempt at breaching the prejudices they are confronted with.
My suspicion unfortunately is that she probably does or would sympathize with the Kendians and like our new recent Supreme Court justice, has no qualms about lying about it. I mean it’s theoretically possible for her to have no knowledge of CRT or DEI before being offered the position, but why the hell would she take a position for DEI without educating *herself* about it. A simple Google search would have informed her of the minefield she was entering. Someone that disconnected from the politics of DEI has no business having the position anyway. Without her adamant rejection of the reasonable association of DEI and Kendian philosophy and clearly rejecting those tenants of Kendian philosophy people are afraid of being taught or applied in the school, the coverage of her situation is missing crucial information to make a better and more accurate judgement.
Personally if I was hired for that position I’d not left like she did. I’d have stood my ground and attempted to persuade the parents the merits of my philosophy.
But what’s the chance of *me* being hired for such a position without the bullshit credentials that “DEI” positions demand? If *I* was hired and the parents didn’t let off and Tucker Carlson wouldn’t shut up -- even after I YouTubed my philosophical perspective on “diversity”, “equity”, and “inclusion” and clearly laid out my goals and plans, okay they are probably bigots.
"My suspicion unfortunately is that she probably does or would sympathize with the Kendians and like our new recent Supreme Court justice, has no qualms about lying about it. I mean it’s theoretically possible for her to have no knowledge of CRT or DEI before being offered the position, but why the hell would she take a position for DEI without educating *herself* about it. "
Have you read the pro-publica piece? There's a lot of conjecture in your comment, and a quick scan of the article will convince you that Cecilia was wronged. I trust Pro-Publica because their journalism is solid (actual journalism and not the kind you see on Substack or some blog).
Yes. I have read the pro public. The “article” I was referring to was the pro-publica piece. Given they failed to report a detailed expression of her own views on the claims of Kendian pseudo anti-racists when that was what the parents were angry about, I’d say their journalism was actually garbage. Arguably propaganda.
And are you saying Glenn Greenwald’s journalism isn’t solid?
If you read my correction to myself... you will also discover a quote from an interview she has where she denies CRT is being taught in classrooms.
Given that the teachers union that is the largest union in the country encourages teaching “crt” in k-12, her statement is either egregious ignorance or deception. Either way, her unwillingness to confront angry “diverse” parents and inform them of her views on “diversity” is enough evidence for me that she didn’t deserve the job. Maybe she will mature.
And we are now in a situation where it is reasonable to infer that anyone who accepts a DEI position is a Kendian until proven otherwise. Can you show me any DEI program using the words “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” that explicitly rejects the Kendian view of “equity” or his degenerate definition of racism? That would be very refreshing.
Actually I must correct my self. I went ahead and googled Diversity Equity and Inclusion and culturally responsive teaching. The latter is an established thing that appears significantly distinct from critical race theory and searching for DEI didn’t present any results that discussed the current political controversy over it.
So, therefore, she could very well have known nothing about CRT or that DEI was controversial if she had not followed politics. On the other hand... I came across an interview of her discussing CRT and saying:
“I don’t know why we continue to give life to it; cuz it’s not a part of k-12 education; it’s not”
Which is peculiar given the fact that last year the largest labor union in the US, the national education association, promoted a resolution that
“The Association will further convey that in teaching these topics, it is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks for understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory.”
And
“Provide an already-created, in-depth, study that critiques empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society, and that we oppose attempts to ban critical race theory and/or The 1619 Project.”
Or maybe it isn’t peculiar because shortly after that showed up it got scrubbed. Now you can still find references to the 1619 project and Black Lives Matter, but not critical race theory. Instead they have pivoted to the route it doesn’t exist. Unfortunately, the web saves everything. Even stuff rich labor unions try to gaslight the
country about.
So it’s quite possibly she is just ignorant and confused. And who knows what she actually thinks about the topics the term “CRT” refers to by the people upset at the position she was hired for. Either way, given her unwillingness to actually face the political controversy that does indeed exist, I don’t think the school lost anyone valuable when she left.
It’s extraordinarily disheartening that the biggest labor union in the United States is gaslighting the country about the racial ideology it supports public schools teaching. And so many supposed education experts are either complicit or oblivious.
I looked up the reference to Cecilia Lewis who was pressured to leave her positions at two districts because of the first district hiring for an explicit DEI position. From the article, the people upset at her hiring come across as bigots. Whether they are or not will not be discovered because Cecilia Lewis does not seem to have actually made any public statements about what her intended plan for DEI was. Or at least I cannot find any. While I find the behavior of some of those parents to be repulsive due to the aggression they expressed based solely on the fact she was hired for DEI without actually learning the details of what it entailed, I find Lewis’ response to be disappointing.
If “CRT” had nothing to do with what she intended to implement, she could have adamantly expressed that and even condemned those ideas that people are rightfully upset with in relationship to CRT. She could have actually been a leader in the path toward an ideology superior to that of DEI. But that isn’t what she did. She seemingly wrote it off as too scary or too bigoted for her to confront.
While communicating with angry parents doesn’t sound particularly appealing, and I can sympathize with a person not wanting to do it, I feel like the *right* person for such a position as fraught with political controversy as one related to DEI would need to have the courage to both confront the parents who are clearly bigots and comfort the parents who are just afraid of the legitimate garbage that “CRT” is trying to promote. Someone who is going to be the “diversity” czar at a school cannot just write off a school as racist and leave before even making an honest attempt at breaching the prejudices they are confronted with.
My suspicion unfortunately is that she probably does or would sympathize with the Kendians and like our new recent Supreme Court justice, has no qualms about lying about it. I mean it’s theoretically possible for her to have no knowledge of CRT or DEI before being offered the position, but why the hell would she take a position for DEI without educating *herself* about it. A simple Google search would have informed her of the minefield she was entering. Someone that disconnected from the politics of DEI has no business having the position anyway. Without her adamant rejection of the reasonable association of DEI and Kendian philosophy and clearly rejecting those tenants of Kendian philosophy people are afraid of being taught or applied in the school, the coverage of her situation is missing crucial information to make a better and more accurate judgement.
Personally if I was hired for that position I’d not left like she did. I’d have stood my ground and attempted to persuade the parents the merits of my philosophy.
But what’s the chance of *me* being hired for such a position without the bullshit credentials that “DEI” positions demand? If *I* was hired and the parents didn’t let off and Tucker Carlson wouldn’t shut up -- even after I YouTubed my philosophical perspective on “diversity”, “equity”, and “inclusion” and clearly laid out my goals and plans, okay they are probably bigots.
"My suspicion unfortunately is that she probably does or would sympathize with the Kendians and like our new recent Supreme Court justice, has no qualms about lying about it. I mean it’s theoretically possible for her to have no knowledge of CRT or DEI before being offered the position, but why the hell would she take a position for DEI without educating *herself* about it. "
Have you read the pro-publica piece? There's a lot of conjecture in your comment, and a quick scan of the article will convince you that Cecilia was wronged. I trust Pro-Publica because their journalism is solid (actual journalism and not the kind you see on Substack or some blog).
Yes. I have read the pro public. The “article” I was referring to was the pro-publica piece. Given they failed to report a detailed expression of her own views on the claims of Kendian pseudo anti-racists when that was what the parents were angry about, I’d say their journalism was actually garbage. Arguably propaganda.
And are you saying Glenn Greenwald’s journalism isn’t solid?
If you read my correction to myself... you will also discover a quote from an interview she has where she denies CRT is being taught in classrooms.
https://www.thirteen.org/programs/frontline/cecelia-lewis-critical-race-theory-doesnt-exist-in-k-12-kib7/
Given that the teachers union that is the largest union in the country encourages teaching “crt” in k-12, her statement is either egregious ignorance or deception. Either way, her unwillingness to confront angry “diverse” parents and inform them of her views on “diversity” is enough evidence for me that she didn’t deserve the job. Maybe she will mature.
And we are now in a situation where it is reasonable to infer that anyone who accepts a DEI position is a Kendian until proven otherwise. Can you show me any DEI program using the words “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” that explicitly rejects the Kendian view of “equity” or his degenerate definition of racism? That would be very refreshing.
Actually I must correct my self. I went ahead and googled Diversity Equity and Inclusion and culturally responsive teaching. The latter is an established thing that appears significantly distinct from critical race theory and searching for DEI didn’t present any results that discussed the current political controversy over it.
So, therefore, she could very well have known nothing about CRT or that DEI was controversial if she had not followed politics. On the other hand... I came across an interview of her discussing CRT and saying:
“I don’t know why we continue to give life to it; cuz it’s not a part of k-12 education; it’s not”
Which is peculiar given the fact that last year the largest labor union in the US, the national education association, promoted a resolution that
“The Association will further convey that in teaching these topics, it is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks for understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory.”
And
“Provide an already-created, in-depth, study that critiques empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society, and that we oppose attempts to ban critical race theory and/or The 1619 Project.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20210705090534/https://ra.nea.org/business-item/2021-nbi-039/
Or maybe it isn’t peculiar because shortly after that showed up it got scrubbed. Now you can still find references to the 1619 project and Black Lives Matter, but not critical race theory. Instead they have pivoted to the route it doesn’t exist. Unfortunately, the web saves everything. Even stuff rich labor unions try to gaslight the
country about.
So it’s quite possibly she is just ignorant and confused. And who knows what she actually thinks about the topics the term “CRT” refers to by the people upset at the position she was hired for. Either way, given her unwillingness to actually face the political controversy that does indeed exist, I don’t think the school lost anyone valuable when she left.
It’s extraordinarily disheartening that the biggest labor union in the United States is gaslighting the country about the racial ideology it supports public schools teaching. And so many supposed education experts are either complicit or oblivious.