Or perhaps they just don’t believe in the Constitution in Minneapolis—you know, like in California. The Minneapolis Federation of Teachers struck a deal last March 25 with the Minneapolis Public Schools ending a teacher strike, and among the provisions was “educators of color protections.” If a non-white teacher is first on the list to be let go for budget reasons, the school system must fire a white teacher with the “next least” seniority instead.
The agreement reads in part,
“Starting with the Spring 2023 Budget Tie-Out Cycle, if excessing a teacher who is a member of a population underrepresented among licensed teachers in the site, the District shall excess the next least senior teacher, who is not a member of an underrepresented population.”
Needless to say…wait, I guess it does need to be said!—this is flat out illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The provision violates a Supreme Court decision overturning the race-based layoff of a white teacher. It violates contradicts a federal appeals court decision ruling that race-based layoffs of white teachers violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
It is wrong. It is discriminatory and unfair. It is biased and prejudiced. It is unethical.
Hey, but it satisfies the current cult of “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion,” so there’s no problem!
Kidding! This is simply defiance of the law and the bedrock principle of equal protection on multiple fronts. Since the teachers union supported this discriminatory provision, it may well be liable for discrimination along with the school district. Unions are subject to liability for racial discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1981, see, e.g., Woods v. Graphic Communications (1991) The Supreme Court has ruled that people who conspire with the government to discriminate can sometimes be sued along with it under the Constitution,in Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co. (1971).
Race-based layoff provisions also breach the law against racial discrimination in contracts, 42 U.S.C. 1981, as Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 276 n.23 (2003) made clear.
So how could the unions and the Minneapolis school officials adopt such a policy? It’s simple: they have malfunctioning ethics alarms, they don’t believe in the Constitution, and all participants believe in radically changing the nation’s norms regarding fairness, equality and respect for individuals by any means necessary, means that include pay-back racial discrimination.
Naturally, any white Americans who object to being fired or otherwise harmed because of their race are just racists and unwilling to atone for their privilege, that’s all.
“Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” is ethics rot, cleverly packaged. It needs to be exposed for what it is.