Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I actually just saw a very frightening manifestation of that bias in a newspaper ad for public school teachers in Norton, MA. It stated that teachers with "a strong commitment to active anti-racism" were encouraged to apply. So, apparently, being qualified for a position now also means holding the same political views as your colleagues.
The fact that these people are educators--the ones who rail against bias, discrimination, etc.--and, yet, don't seem aware of it when it is done in favor of their own political agenda is, to me, the very definition of "uneducated/ignorant." I guess the defintion of "educated" has changed.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your intention or maybe it's not clear (or maybe neither) but it seems like you are saying in this and other posts that being anti-racist is a political position only held by liberals. Aren't there conservatives who are not racist?
I find it a frightening manifestation of bias b/c political views are now being required in order to secure employment. As I've said, it shouldn't be an issue. What other job requires you to be an "active anti-racist"? None.
I'd say probably any number of jobs that require you to work with an extremely diverse population where at times it can be very difficult to get any of those 37 different racial or ethnic groups (not an uncommon number of ethnic/racial groups for some large comprehensive high schools) to play well with others.
I'd hear "Active anti-racist" and default to thinking you're talking about one of those kinds of extreme diversity schools or districts.
Howdo you sort it our when the Muslim Somalis start picking on the Kosivan girls for not covering their heads? How do you handle tension between the Haitians, Ethiopians, and African Americans? Puerto Ricans v. Mexicans? Do you know appropriate cultural and behavior standards for talking with Hmong parents on teacher conference night? Are you willing to view the concept of when birthday cupcakes are appropriate through a filter of when Jewish High Holy Days are?
If you can't process every one of the above and more, then you're going to run screaming from that school within the first semester, and then the school has to start all over hiring someone again, which is a huge annoyance to everyone involved in the filling the classroom spot process.
I find it a frightening manifestation of bias b/c political views are now being required in order to secure employment. As I've said, it shouldn't be an issue. What other job requires you to be an "active anti-racist"? None.
What I'm failing to see is how anti-racism is a politcal issue. Is religious tolerance also a political issue? I know that Fox news makes a big deal about libbies and race. In the 2008 Democratic platform, here is the wording that appears:
"Democrats will fight to end discrimination on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, sexual orientation, gender orientation, age, and disability in every corner of our country, because that's the America we believe in."
And that's the only mention of the matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarlaJane
Moreover, the advert is advertising for a definite belief. Not even many of the religious schools about whom this thread were initially started insist on that [that prospective teachers hold certain religious and/or political beliefs].
No, most religious schools do not require you to hold certain beliefs. (I am employed by a Catholic school, but I am not a Catholic.) However, one's teaching has to be consistent with the beliefs of the school community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarlaJane
Yet another problem is one that you also pointed out: many liberals see no problem with insisting that someone be an "anti-racist" b/c they agree with such a stance. In fact, you go so far as to refer to someone as a "troglodyte" if they do not hold such a stance--is that teaching tolerance? No, it isn't.
What I meant to convey is that racists are troglodytes. I think that those who are afraid of anti-racism are misinformed about what this means, particularly in an educational setting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarlaJane
I find it a frightening manifestation of bias b/c political views are now being required in order to secure employment. As I've said, it shouldn't be an issue. What other job requires you to be an "active anti-racist"? None.
I'm not in favor of discrimination based on political views unless is is relevant to the job (working for the DNC or RNC, for example). Yet, I will point out that political affiliation is not considered a protected class, while religious affiliation is.
What I'm failing to see is how anti-racism is a politcal issue. I know that Fox news makes a big deal about libbies and race, but I haven't seen any major party include racism in its platform.
Also, I sort of wonder why, aside from politics, anti-racism is so scary to you. What is it you think you have to lose under such a policy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarlaJane
Furthermore, there is a very big difference between someone who is not a racist and someone who is an "active anti-racist." The former is most of us, the latter is a zealot. If they really wanted to make sure that their candidates would treat all students fairly (as you so eloquently stated above--great point), they could ask them questions in an interview or look at their coursework.
I have spent some time speaking with black mothers about their experiences sending their children to a non-racist, relatively diverse, ecumenical private school. These mothers were themselves teachers at the school who respect their colleagues. These women also have heartbreaking tales to tell of bias their children suffered at the hands of white teachers. At the same time they will tell these stories, they will also share that they do not believe the teachers who caused their families angst to be racist. Rather, they are people who made inappropriate assumptions or acted in a way that unintentionally caused offense. Such bias comes out in action, it is not self-reported in interviews or written into lesson plans.
As another example, a family member came this summer to visit me in DC. On sunday, we went to a DC-themed church service that addressed the issue of racial division. After the service, this (white) relative exclaimed to me and a local black politician how "we all are one," and how the service had been so inspiring. She really meant it. Well, the previous day, while walking in a majority black neighborhood, she exclaimed to me, her daughter, and her son, "Guys, be careful!" as we were about to cross the path of a black man on the sidewalk. He was plugged into an iPod and exhibiting no unusual behavior as he walked up the street.
Before a woman like this relative of mine entered a classroom to teach, I would want her to tune into the fears and assumptions that govern her daily behavior. I would also want her to be open to hearing from someone else if she unintentionally caused offense. That's anti-racism. It's not particularly radical when you boil it down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarlaJane
I just think that tolerance should be the goal rather than thinking one way or the other.
Yes, tolerance is the goal. And as long as racial minorities are reporting race-based conflict in their daily lives, we have not reached tolerance as a society. I am, therefore, committed to dialog with others about the actions of the public at large and even my own actions. I trust that it takes a great deal of bravery to confront me with concerns about having exhibited bias. The least I can do is respect that bravery. If I were a principal, I would ask that my staff exhibit the same respect. Such respect has nothing to do with politics. Nor is it zealous.
What I'm failing to see is how anti-racism is a politcal issue. Is religious tolerance also a political issue? I know that Fox news makes a big deal about libbies and race. In the 2008 Democratic platform, here is the wording that appears:
"Democrats will fight to end discrimination on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, sexual orientation, gender orientation, age, and disability in every corner of our country, because that's the America we believe in."
And that's the only mention of the matter.
No, most religious schools do not require you to hold certain beliefs. (I am employed by a Catholic school, but I am not a Catholic.) However, one's teaching has to be consistent with the beliefs of the school community.
What I meant to convey is that racists are troglodytes. I think that those who are afraid of anti-racism are misinformed about what this means, particularly in an educational setting.
I'm not in favor of discrimination based on political views unless is is relevant to the job (working for the DNC or RNC, for example). Yet, I will point out that political affiliation is not considered a protected class, while religious affiliation is.
What I'm failing to see is how anti-racism is a politcal issue. I know that Fox news makes a big deal about libbies and race, but I haven't seen any major party include racism in its platform.
Also, I sort of wonder why, aside from politics, anti-racism is so scary to you. What is it you think you have to lose under such a policy?
I have spent some time speaking with black mothers about their experiences sending their children to a non-racist, relatively diverse, ecumenical private school. These mothers were themselves teachers at the school who respect their colleagues. These women also have heartbreaking tales to tell of bias their children suffered at the hands of white teachers. At the same time they will tell these stories, they will also share that they do not believe the teachers who caused their families angst to be racist. Rather, they are people who made inappropriate assumptions or acted in a way that unintentionally caused offense. Such bias comes out in action, it is not self-reported in interviews or written into lesson plans.
As another example, a family member came this summer to visit me in DC. On sunday, we went to a DC-themed church service that addressed the issue of racial division. After the service, this (white) relative exclaimed to me and a local black politician how "we all are one," and how the service had been so inspiring. She really meant it. Well, the previous day, while walking in a majority black neighborhood, she exclaimed to me, her daughter, and her son, "Guys, be careful!" as we were about to cross the path of a black man on the sidewalk. He was plugged into an iPod and exhibiting no unusual behavior as he walked up the street.
Before a woman like this relative of mine entered a classroom to teach, I would want her to tune into the fears and assumptions that govern her daily behavior. I would also want her to be open to hearing from someone else if she unintentionally caused offense. That's anti-racism. It's not particularly radical when you boil it down.
Yes, tolerance is the goal. And as long as racial minorities are reporting race-based conflict in their daily lives, we have not reached tolerance as a society. I am, therefore, committed to dialog with others about the actions of the public at large and even my own actions. I trust that it takes a great deal of bravery to confront me with concerns about having exhibited bias. The least I can do is respect that bravery. If I were a principal, I would ask that my staff exhibit the same respect. Such respect has nothing to do with politics. Nor is it zealous.
I think that we're going to have to agree to disagree b/c I completely disagree with just about everything you've said (and you've disagreed with just about everything I've said) and I highly doubt that we are going to convince one another But just to shorten my argument, I think that, in the fight against discrimination and tolerance, it is very easy to become exactly what you hate (i.e. intolerant of intolerance, discriminatory against those that discriminate) and I don't agree with such stances. I think that there should always be freedom of thought and that thoughts/beliefs should not be tied to employment no matter how much we might disagree with what someone believes.
I'd say probably any number of jobs that require you to work with an extremely diverse population where at times it can be very difficult to get any of those 37 different racial or ethnic groups (not an uncommon number of ethnic/racial groups for some large comprehensive high schools) to play well with others.
I'd hear "Active anti-racist" and default to thinking you're talking about one of those kinds of extreme diversity schools or districts.
Howdo you sort it our when the Muslim Somalis start picking on the Kosivan girls for not covering their heads? How do you handle tension between the Haitians, Ethiopians, and African Americans? Puerto Ricans v. Mexicans? Do you know appropriate cultural and behavior standards for talking with Hmong parents on teacher conference night? Are you willing to view the concept of when birthday cupcakes are appropriate through a filter of when Jewish High Holy Days are?
If you can't process every one of the above and more, then you're going to run screaming from that school within the first semester, and then the school has to start all over hiring someone again, which is a huge annoyance to everyone involved in the filling the classroom spot process.
That really is not what I understood from that kind of advert. If they were worried about someone being diplomatically savvy and culturally aware of many different cultures, then I think the advert would have read differently, like "We are a very diverse school, so experience with people from various cultures required" rather than "active anti-racism," which is a political stance that has almost nothing to do with experience. Perhaps the whole thing is just a misunderstanding and the phrasing is misleading but I got the feeling that they were essentially saying that they were looking for someone with particular political leanings, which is something that I don't agree with in a job advert and which I know many liberals would take issue with were the job ad advertising for someone with staunch conservative beliefs. As I've said before, I don't think that beliefs should not be involved in the employment process. It may be a reality but that doesn't make it acceptable.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your intention or maybe it's not clear (or maybe neither) but it seems like you are saying in this and other posts that being anti-racist is a political position only held by liberals. Aren't there conservatives who are not racist?
What I'm actually trying to say is that politics/beliefs shouldn't be involved in the hiring process or employment. I don't think that not being racist is something that is characteristic of a particular political party, although it does seem to be an issue that is associated with/a pet peeve of many Democrats, many of whom were referring to any and all people in the last election who didn't vote for Obama as "racist," which is something that the Republican Party didn't really do (at least, not to my knowledge). Of course there are conservatives who aren't racist. But I think that people who would refer to themselves as "active anti-racists" would probably be liberal, or, at least, considered liberal. But that really doesn't have a whole lot to do with my original issue, which is that one's belief system should not be tied to employment.
I am a Protestant mainline Christian and I have a very very hard time with curricula that push a specific religious agenda or perpetuate false hoods such as creationism or the rapture.
I am a Protestant mainline Christian and I have a very very hard time with curricula that push a specific religious agenda or perpetuate false hoods such as creationism or the rapture.
Thank you. I think that may have been the first on-topic post since the first five.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But just to shorten my argument, I think that, in the fight against discrimination and tolerance, it is very easy to become exactly what you hate (i.e. intolerant of intolerance, discriminatory against those that discriminate) and I don't agree with such stances. I think that there should always be freedom of thought and that thoughts/beliefs should not be tied to employment no matter how much we might disagree with what someone believes.
