Eli Kaplan writes,
"Yes, I am a friend and supporter of Rebecca; but this posting has to do with
my
own belief system. It is totally consistent with what I felt two years ago. I
ran a write in campaign in 2012 because I disagreed with both Carla and Doug on
the issues and there was nobody else expressing those viewpoints: openness,
transparency, not being afraid to speak up, and no negative talk behind the
back of candidates."
I liked a lot of what Rebecca Gagnon, the first time candidate had to say in
2010. I am not so impressed by her as the incumbent seeking reelection this
year.
Carla Bates and I had opposing views on several issues that most candidates
don't want to talk about. I believe that openness, transparency, and not being
afraid to speak up are qualities Carla and I displayed by openly speaking about
controversial issues, like tenure, seniority, and pay-for-performance. Neither
Eli in 2012 nor Gagnon in 2014 impress me as being open, transparent, and
courageous by being disengaged from that conversation.
In 2012, Carla Bates called for eliminating tenure and seniority rights for
teachers, I called for preserving tenure and seniority rights at forums
sponsored by Education Reform groups who supported Carla Bates. The same
education reform groups now support Don Samuels and Iris Altamirano.
At the "People's Forum," sponsored by Education reform groups supportive of Don
Samuels, there were clear differences of opinion between Don Samuels and me
over seniority rights for teachers, pay for performance, and some other issues.
Rebecca Gagnon and many of her supporters boycotted the event because of who
sponsored the event. Iris Altamirano participated but did not express an
opinion on issues that Don and I debated.
In my opinion, the Education Reform agenda championed by Don Samuels and Carla
Bates is basically a labor relations agenda masquerading as a school
improvement agenda. That Education Reform agenda includes the promotion of
Charter Schools, and elimination of union job protections for teachers. This is
something that the MPS Board has been implementing, and that superintendents
have been lobbying for in public hearings at the MN legislature.
Jim Graham writes:
"Heck, I even vote each time for that seemingly (in my opinion) crazy, racist,
socialist from the List. The one who runs every election for something, at
least when he runs for School Board. The logic being that ANY change in the
Minneapolis School Board has to be better than the one that presently is such a
failure for poor children of color."
Who on earth could Jim Graham be talking about?
I call for action to bring teacher turnover rates to low levels in all of the
district's schools, which was the strategic goal of the 2002 district
improvement plan. The 2002 plan didn't work because all probationary teachers
got layoff notices every spring, and many were replaced each fall. Under the
teacher tenure act for cities of the first class, but not the other teacher
tenure act, teachers do not have recall rights if "laid off" during their first
36 months of employment.
The district is more selective about who to give a layoff notice in recent
years. There are some "economic" layoffs, and a brand new category of layoffs:
"Performance layoffs." What is a "performance layoff?" It is how the district
fires probationary teachers on the basis of performance. Teachers are ranked,
with the help of evaluations based in part on student test scores, and the
lowest ranking teachers are yanked. And it is not a small percentage of
probationary teachers, especially probationary teachers in their third year of
employment who are ranked and yanked. That contributes to high teacher turnover
in high poverty schools, where a large proportion of probationary teachers are
yanked, and others quit or bid out because they don't get enough classroom
support, especially in high poverty schools.
Under both Minnesota and Federal law, racial disparities in exposure of
students to inexperienced teachers, and differences in teacher turnover rates
within the context of a racially segregated school district are deemed to be
"racial discrimination" in violation of Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and provisions of the Minnesota and Federal constitutions, according to the
Statement of Need and Reasonable of Minnesota Administrative Rules, chapter
3535, related to equal opportunity in education. Chapter 3535 was originally
called the "Desegregation Rule," but overhauled in 1999 to permit racially
segregated schools if "racially identifiable" schools have "measurable
educational inputs" that are comparable to schools that are not racially
identifiable. Measurable educational inputs include teacher experience levels
and turnover rates. A school is racially identifiable if the percentage of
students of color is greater than 90% or more than 25% above the district
average for grade levels served.
I have been called a racist for supporting Affirmative Action in hiring plans
by some, and for calling out some self-described "anti-racists" for
race-baiting or for having a difference of opinion with those who consider
themselves experts on the subject.
Affirmative Action in hiring plans generally require an employer to attract a
diverse pool of qualified job applicant, but not to hire and retain enough
members of protected classes, such as Blacks / African Americans, in order to
have a racially diverse workforce. Part of the problem is minimum compliance
strategies utilized by many employers. Only if the percentage of new hires from
a protected class is 2 standard deviations below the percentage of qualified
job applicants, is an employers deemed to be engaged in illegal discrimination
based on those statistics alone. Under that rule, if 25% of job applicants are
Black, then the employer has met their "hiring quota" of Blacks if 5% of the
new hires are Black. Forcing employers to hire any Blacks at all is called
"reverse racism." If that is what reverse racism is, then I am an advocate of
"reverse racism," a reverse racist.
A majority of Whites and a small minority of Blacks appear to be in
denial about the very existence of systemic racism. Didn't the Civil Right Act
put that behind us? Isn't the election of Barack Obama evidence of that?
According to the majority of Whites, and a minority of Blacks who answer most
opinion surveys about race relations, Blacks are disproportionately poor
because of cultural defects, e.g., intergenerational poverty, or just plain
laziness and not valuing education, hard work and thriftiness, unlike Whites.
I have been called a "racist" or "white supremacist" by self-described
"anti-racists for accusing them of race-baiting whites. I am thereby defending
Whites and white privilege, or so the argument goes. In online debates, I have
often seen "anti-racists" dismiss the views of others, including myself, as
being the product of being an unenlightened white, of being in denial about
racism, etc. Race-baiting is a common way to deal with someone who disagrees
with their teachings about racism, or what they call anti-racist education.
Here are a couple of big differences of opinion with many "anti-racists:"
In my opinion, conduct can be called "racist" based on the conduct alone
regardless of the race of the actor. Racism is the belief that one race is
superior to another, and discrimination that accompanies that belief, according
to standard dictionary definitions. Discrimination on the basis of race
generally favors whites over blacks when it comes to access to jobs, housing,
education, success in hailing a taxi or getting reasonably good service in a
restaurant. And let's not forget racial profiling that goes on in the criminal
justice system.
Many anti-racists define racism as privilege plus power. Whites are a
privileged class which has the power to enforce its privileges and its
prejudices. Further, it is asserted that only whites can be racist and engage
in racist conduct. By that definition, whites are obligate racists, and under
no circumstance can the conduct of people of color be called racist. What would
you call the conduct of anyone, including Blacks in the role of a restaurant
waiter, who gives priority to Whites over Blacks in table service. Both White
and Black waiters might do so on the basis on the same prejudices, but is the
preferential treatment of White customers "racist" if the waiter is White, but
not if the waiter is Black?
I believe that it is an accurate description of reality to say that Whites are
disproportionately affluent and in positions of power, and that it serves the
class interests of the rich and powerful in this society to maintain a
color-based caste system via racial discrimination. I also believe that the
perpetuation of a color-based caste system and systemic racial discrimination
is not in the interests of the large majority of the population, including a
majority of Whites. Many "anti-racists" agree with the former statement, but
not the latter. And that might explain the difference in how we approach the
subject. I have a class analysis and note that history shows that struggles
related to institutional racism have not been simply a struggle of Whites
against Blacks. There is a class dynamic, the struggle of the haves versus the
have nots. There are class divisions among Whites and Blacks that complicate
matters.
-Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood, Northside of Minneapolis