We all remember the credo of Ingsoc from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four:
A main focus of the SPS Department of Equity and Race Relations is "institutionalized racism." What is it? Dr. Caprice Hollins, director of the department, gave her definition on KUOW's Weekday program on August 31, 2005 (starting at 15:16):
Well, institutionalized racism is about our culture. It's about the systems that we have and our policies and procedures. It's not something that you can always see or touch, or point to and say, "aha, there it is." It's just the way that we do things without taking into consideration the impact that it has on diverse groups of people.If you read through all the obfuscation, she is saying that only by treating people of different races differently can we avoid institutionalized racism! All of her statements in the interview back this up -- teachers must form their own racial identity, know the racial identity of their students, and then tailor their teaching methods based on race.
My dictionary defines racism in relevant part as "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race." Postbellum lawmakers used this belief to justify segregating black students in their own schools. The whole Civil Rights Movement was based on fighting that view, demanding that people "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character," in Dr. King's immortal words.
The Seattle Schools now aim to reverse the direction of progress, away from a color-blind society and toward one where race pervades every decision. They do this in the name of tolerance, but it leads to a place very near segregation. Perhaps the next superintendent will be named Jim Crow.
Posted by Andy MacDonald at May 17, 2006 10:22 AM | Email ThisListen to Dr. Hollins Alice in Wonderland comments at http://www.kuow.org/m3u/weekday-a20050831.m3u
How can I express the gratitude I feel over the fact that my kids are not having to participate in the insanity that reigns in Seattle Public Schools? My kids are instead in a school that actually teaches them academic subjects and provides an excellent learning environment. Thank goodness!~
Posted by: Misty on May 17, 2006 11:14 AMI watched her video and got the same thing - "let's focus on our differences." I suspect it comes from her Women Studies training, which is all about the differences between the male and female "genders" and defining a good side (female) and a bad side (male).
It may be that this sort of mentality will take us backwards, and back to segregation. But, I get the strong sense from watching Hollins that the real motive is white punitive.
After all, punish for who you are (if you are male) is exactly what most of the persecriptions of gender-based feminism are for public policy. Since the Clinton administration, they have largely gotten their way. The natural next step is to start applying this ideology in more precise settings, such as focusing obsessively on the differences between races and so-called cultures, and in particular defining whites as bad, and blacks as good. Even a whole spectrum of good to bad: black is best, then native american, then latino, then Asian, and at the bottom is whitey.
There is nothing really new about that, except that it has probably not applied as an institutionalized, official, and systematic (as Hollins likes to say) policy with children. Well, not since segregation. We can see where feminism has taken us in public schools, with boys now having 5 times the drop-out of girls, much lower test scores, and even are 5 times more likely to commit suicide as teenagers. Plus, the refusal to even talk about that tragedy. That's hit black and white boys, and latinos, and every other race or culturally identified boy.
Let's not beat around the bush about it. Hollins wants to be much more specific now. She wants to go after the white boys. Really, the population of white boys in SPSD is the perfect group to go after. As a group, they are weak and can't fight back. Their parents tend to be working class. They are small in numbers.
After white boys, of course, will be white girls. But, they will be let off the hook to the extent that they cooperate with the program. Then, Asian boys and girls, since they seem to have this dreaded "future time orientation" as part of their culture and thus perform better than both whites and blacks in school.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope she proves to have just made a couple of errors in judgement on her definition of racism and actually does some good for everyone involved, especially the students (regardless of race and all the other diversity-speak identities). But, seeing that her program is to require the "education" of teachers, and then seeing the "courses" her departement will be giving, that hope is hard to maintain.
Posted by: BananaLand on May 17, 2006 04:57 PMI sent your comments to their teachers and principal and expressed my outrage.
If you pay taxes in Seattle and / or have children that attend the Seattle Public School system, please let teachers, principals and elected officials know that you do not tolerate this.
While you are at it, read SPS' policy on "controversial issues" and demand that the school live up to the policy.
I recommend that Sound Politics and other blog-spots make a deliberate effort to track what is going on in the SPS and report on it regularly. I am sure that there are plenty of parents and others that can contribute material of how individual teachers are out of line and how SPS turns a blind eye or, worse, promotes their efforts.
Again, thank you!
Posted by: Parent on May 17, 2006 08:31 PMI am trying to figure out your perspective and I would love some feedback from you.
From this post, I think that you are either saying:
Things are pretty fair now in the Seattle Public Schools with regard to race and therefore to continue noticing race is detrimental.
Or
Racism is still a problem, but focusing on race adds to the problem, instead of reducing it.
From past conversations with you, I am leaning towards the first interpretation – that you think there is a level playing field. Clarification? Other interpretation?
Radley Balko seems to think that Brita Butler-Wall is behind this. I'm not sure. Not because she isn't capable of it, but because she's probably not the only Seattle school board member still living in the PC fantasyworld of the 90s.
Posted by: thehim on May 17, 2006 11:20 PMThe Seattle Public Schools define individualism as a form of “cultural racism,” declaring that “cultural racism” includes “emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology.”
On their web site, they also define racism to include stereotypically white traits such as “future time orientation,” which is a pejorative word used for studying and “acting white” to reap future advancement, rather than devoting one’s energy to being hip or cool and enjoying the moment.
It is racist for the Seattle schools to stereotype achievement as a “white” characteristic. Plenty of non-whites study and exercise self-discipline. No school system should disparage student studying and achievement. That is at odds with a school system’s basic educational mission.
The Seattle schools also declare “equality” of treatment to be a form of racially-biased assimilation, favoring instead affirmative action in the form of “unequal treatment for those who have been disadvantaged over time,” to give historically oppressed groups “special programs and benefits.”
The “equality” they deride – the notion that “people who are the same in those respects relevant to how they are treated in those circumstances should receive the same treatment” – is the same notion of equal treatment whose infringement is the basis for a disparate-treatment discrimination lawsuit under the federal civil rights laws, under U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
In an apparent conflict with federal law, the Seattle schools deny that whites can be the victims of racism. They define racism as limited to acts against groups that have “little social power in the United States (Blacks, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asians), by the members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites).”
By contrast, federal appeals courts routinely rule against institutions that fire or harass white employees, recognizing that whites can indeed be victims of racism. See, e.g., Bowen v. Missouri Department of Social Services (2002) (racial harassment of white employee by black co-worker); Taxman v. Board of Education (1996) (termination of white teacher instead of black teacher). And the Supreme Court held that racial discrimination against whites by local governments is generally illegal in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989). Affirmative action can’t be used to justify terminating or harassing an employee.
The Seattle schools’ racist policy, which appears to condone unlawful racial discrimination and retaliation against whites, is on the web site of its Equity and Race Relations department, directed by Caprice Hollins, a politically-correct self-proclaimed multicultural “educator.” Some education.
It appears that the Seattle schools would rather spend their time teaching (and practicing) racism, rather than reading, writing, and arithmetic.