Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter
Good news for those of you with children headed to MIT in the fall!
The university has banned the use of diversity, equity and inclusion (“DEI”) practices in faculty hiring and promotions, joining a growing number of colleges and universities rejecting these racist practices.
DEI embraces the Marxist doctrine of critical race theory and actually worsens racial division and tension by dividing the world into two classes — the oppressed and the oppressors — and turning everyone into social justice warriors to fight for the oppressed.
One need only look at the “Gaza solidarity encampment” movement to see the impact of years of DEI training in action. This training has taught a generation of youth that, for instance, Israel is the oppressor and Palestine is the oppressed. Hence the large number of students who have found themselves chanting the deeply antisemitic “from the river to the sea” saying and brandishing trash-can shields they learned how to make from the The Do-It-Yourself Occupation Guide.
But as Karol Markowicz perfectly details in her latest op ed, the brainwashing of these campus activists starts long before college.
Enter the Connecticut Department of Education (CT DOE), which has warmly embraced the radical DEI agenda throughout all grades in public schools, and even codified that love of DEI into state law through, for instance, Public Act 18-34 - An Act Concerning Minority Teacher Recruitment and Retention.
CT DOE created a guide book for districts on “selecting and hiring” that includes things like “ensuing hiring practices prioritize candidates who demonstrate high levels of cultural responsiveness.”
The book was created, in part, with a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, and with input from the Bridgeport, Hartford, Meriden, New Britain, New Haven, New London, Norwich, and Waterbury public school districts; the teachers unions (American Federation of Teachers and CT Education Association), universities (Sacred Heart, UConn, Western CT State), and educational organizations, including the CT Association of Boards of Education ("CABE"), the CT Association of Public School Superintendents ("CAPSS"), and the Connecticut Association of Schools ("CAS").
The guide book mentions the word "equity" more than 80 times.
It describes the "language" of equity work, including equity indicators, what an "equity mindset" means, understanding unconscious bias and privilege, and much more. So when you see these terms mentioned in your school district, understand that "equity" is the underlying concept.
If a district chooses to hire White educators, those educators must be willing to become culturally responsive in order to "reduce or eliminate their biases" according to the guide book. Apparently, CT DOE doesn't think it's racist to assume that all White educators are inherently biased and have "unearned White privilege".
It also includes a detailed screening tool to assess your district's workforce to ensure it's aligned with the equity agenda. The tool implicitly suggests doing an "equity audit" of your district and approaching hiring practices through a "racial equity" lens.
CT DOE further offers a toolkit called “Creating an Action Plan and Sustaining Efforts to Increase Educator Diversity” that provides “norms” for hiring, including “understanding unconscious bias and privilege” and addressing systemic issues that “educators of color” face, including high living costs in affluent neighborhoods which are "predominately white."
The action plan requires that districts assemble a small “core team” of 6-8 people to do the work of advancing “equity” and suggests that the core team should be "led by an individual who demonstrates a personal commitment to the aspiration [of equity] and to the equity agenda."
The toolkit further cites The Wallace Foundation University Principal Preparation Initiative which provides supports to Connecticut administrator programs for the sole purpose of developing "equity-driven, anti-racist" school leaders.
The Wallace Foundation framework, which mentions equity over 150 times in its 24-page guide, identifies several specific practices desired in school leaders, including:
Another tool entitled “Six Domains for Culturally Responsive Hiring Strategies At A Glance” promotes the use of Peggy McIntosh’s White Privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack and a video titled Implicit bias and microaggressions. Note that we've already seen the Peggy McIntosh tool being used in the Greenwich School district under Superintendent Toni Jones.
The toolkit cautions that "roughly 80 percent of educators across the country are white" so if you take a "colorblind approach" to hiring, it will result "in the replication of whiteness across the educator workforce."
The intent of this guidance is to create "transformational changes" to your district.
Of course, we have been speaking at Greenwich Board of Education meetings for YEARS warning about the dangers of DEI and critical race theory — concepts that are subtly delivered through social emotional learning lessons, not so subtly delivered in classes like Sociology, and implicitly delivered through the choice of books, reading materials and videos used as examples, often in English and Social Studies classes.
We even passed out postcards more than three years ago with examples of these racist lessons because we were so concerned about the racial division created by such lessons. And because the goal of many of these lessons seemed to be turning students into social justice warriors.
But instead of people thanking us for exposing the blatant racist agenda rapidly proliferating inside our schools, the police were called to stop us from passing out the postcards.
And when we took posters to a Greenwich Board of Education meeting to expose more of the racist, divisive lessons being employed in Greenwich Schools, Superintendent Toni Jones ordered someone on her staff to destroy the posters when we weren't looking, according to a police investigation.
Why did she want to hide the posters from those who attended the Board of Education meeting? Was it because on some level she recognized how wrong it is to indoctrinate students into this radical ideology? Or is it because she didn't want parents to know what had already been happening right under their noses?
