A Response to Rita Montoya calling Community Members Racist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey Wootton-looking for your reaction to the fact that the entire county is looking at major cuts including to some very significant positions as you continue to complain that they won't give you money to fix your smelly school. Feeling at all tone deaf or still DGAF about anyone else?

Another insulting post aimed at Wootton, a majority Asian school.

Again the majority of the Wootton people demanding in testimony that the building get fixed and stay open in place no matter the budget constraints are privileged Caucasians! But they’re hiding behind the majority Asian school “cause” so they can be offended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey Wootton-looking for your reaction to the fact that the entire county is looking at major cuts including to some very significant positions as you continue to complain that they won't give you money to fix your smelly school. Feeling at all tone deaf or still DGAF about anyone else?

Another insulting post aimed at Wootton, a majority Asian school.

Again the majority of the Wootton people demanding in testimony that the building get fixed and stay open in place no matter the budget constraints are privileged Caucasians! But they’re hiding behind the majority Asian school “cause” so they can be offended.

Reread the original article linked in the OP, which references insults of smelly food of Asians. And, now this reference to a smelly school?

You can try to deflect, but it doesn't work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey Wootton-looking for your reaction to the fact that the entire county is looking at major cuts including to some very significant positions as you continue to complain that they won't give you money to fix your smelly school. Feeling at all tone deaf or still DGAF about anyone else?

Another insulting post aimed at Wootton, a majority Asian school.

Again the majority of the Wootton people demanding in testimony that the building get fixed and stay open in place no matter the budget constraints are privileged Caucasians! But they’re hiding behind the majority Asian school “cause” so they can be offended.

Reread the original article linked in the OP, which references insults of smelly food of Asians. And, now this reference to a smelly school?

You can try to deflect, but it doesn't work.

Ok, how about we change the word smelly to moldy? I really think you're reading too far into this trying to make the idea of smelly racial. Smell from mold, gas leaks, rodents in the walls---not the food the writer referenced in her opinion piece.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a thoughtful response to Rita Montoya's comment caught on a hot mic at the March 26th BOE meeting:

https://moderatelymoco.com/when-disagreement-becomes-racism/

I'm not following this argument that relocating Wootton "breaks up" the community. There was a boundary study that impacted a lot of high schools. The only school being taken out of Wootton is Cold Spring and I think they are fine with that.

I think it’s because they fear that Crown will be overcrowded and sooner or later they will be broken apart. Eg Parkway families become the new edge property and first one to be pushed out if and when Crown is overcrowded.

But also I think the authors point was even if you disagree with this premise, it’s not appropriate to call anyone who disagrees with you racist.

We are weaponizing racism so much to the point where it’s beginning to lack meaning.

I agree. I think it is important to be specific when calling out racism, and Montoya didn't do that when she made the hot mic comment. It makes a mockery of anti-racism to use it in this snarky and catty fashion. Unfortunately that is quite common in the anti-racist movement.

For all those ppl saying she was saying this in reference to the regional program and not boundary study, is this the best defense of Rita you can think of? Is it ever appropriate to call everyone who disagrees with you on a policy as racist? Is board member Julie Yang also racist then?

Rita’s regional programming speech was dripping in Anti-Asian hate. Rita Montoya hates Asians kids and Asian parents. We knew this before she let her mask slip.

I didn't hear any hateful language in Rita's regional programming speech. I thought it was dumb because she conflated the DCC and NEC with magnet programs that aren't part of the consortia. Describing the racial makeup of the magnet programs is not hateful or racist.

Per Rita, those who oppose regional programming whatever their reason (perhaps they want to preserve DCC and NEC), are all racist.

As a parent of color who is a huge fan of DCC, this is offensive on its face.

So to all the people who are saying o no Rita’s comment wasn’t about boundary program, it was about regional program—that’s not a defense babes. The most basic point of the article is elected officials shouldn’t call disagreement as racism. Thats not a controversial or hot take.

Try having a honest conversation with people rather than dismiss them as racist.

I agree it is stupid and distasteful to call everyone who opposed you racist, but it is not hateful towards Asians.

So racism doesn't equate to hate for you. OK.

Calling people racist isn't racism

"But indiscriminately labeling a room full of engaged parents, many of them Asian American, as racist is, at best, ironic; at worst, the very kind of conduct you claim to oppose."

What Rita said was racist - she was generally characterizing the opponents of the BOE's vote as racist. Rita put this out there and she has to own her words. It's too bad that she has never apologized for her hot mic comment.

Nope, not racism, that is absurd (by this standard I could call everyone who calls Rita Montoya (a Latina) racist, a racist - we can go on an on forever like this)

Nope, it's racist to make a generalized pejorative characterization about specific community members because they opposed the BOE vote, calling them racist. What Montoya said was racist.

Except she didn’t do that - she didn’t call anyone racist. She said “there’s the racism” pointing to Yang’s support for a decision that she feels props up institutional racism.

I know this is DCUM and it’s not exactly friendly territory for nuance but there is a significant difference between calling someone racist and pointing to something as racism.

A little exercise, taking race out of it since we’re obviously all confused about what racism is. Let’s imagine a man and a woman work together and do the same job. They have nothing but respect for each other and they get along well, but the man makes more than the woman. The man isn’t being sexist, even though he’s benefiting from institutionalized sexism. Now let’s say the company decides they need to address this inequity and they decide to do so by paying everyone in the same role the same salary, right in the middle of what the two of them make. The man is incensed that he’s going to take a pay cut and fights to stop the change. He is STILL not being sexist - he’s not saying his colleague shouldn’t make more - but by fighting to protect his own interests, he is fighting to perpetuate that institutionalized sexism, without ever saying a sexist word himself.

There are parents at Wootton who have been blatantly racist throughout this process. Most parents, even those fighting tooth and nail to prevent the move have not been - they really have been motivated by concerns about their neighborhood, or long bus rides, or even property values. They are not racist. But they have been ignoring, as this author does, the institutionalized racism that their self-interested arguments perpetuate.

Not saying Montoya’s comments were perfect - a hot mic moment at the end of a board isn’t the best place for nuance either - but Wootton parents demanding things from board members without making any attempt to actually understand those members is part of why their advocacy failed so spectacularly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a thoughtful response to Rita Montoya's comment caught on a hot mic at the March 26th BOE meeting:

https://moderatelymoco.com/when-disagreement-becomes-racism/

I'm not following this argument that relocating Wootton "breaks up" the community. There was a boundary study that impacted a lot of high schools. The only school being taken out of Wootton is Cold Spring and I think they are fine with that.

I think it’s because they fear that Crown will be overcrowded and sooner or later they will be broken apart. Eg Parkway families become the new edge property and first one to be pushed out if and when Crown is overcrowded.

But also I think the authors point was even if you disagree with this premise, it’s not appropriate to call anyone who disagrees with you racist.

We are weaponizing racism so much to the point where it’s beginning to lack meaning.

I agree. I think it is important to be specific when calling out racism, and Montoya didn't do that when she made the hot mic comment. It makes a mockery of anti-racism to use it in this snarky and catty fashion. Unfortunately that is quite common in the anti-racist movement.

For all those ppl saying she was saying this in reference to the regional program and not boundary study, is this the best defense of Rita you can think of? Is it ever appropriate to call everyone who disagrees with you on a policy as racist? Is board member Julie Yang also racist then?

Rita’s regional programming speech was dripping in Anti-Asian hate. Rita Montoya hates Asians kids and Asian parents. We knew this before she let her mask slip.

I didn't hear any hateful language in Rita's regional programming speech. I thought it was dumb because she conflated the DCC and NEC with magnet programs that aren't part of the consortia. Describing the racial makeup of the magnet programs is not hateful or racist.

Per Rita, those who oppose regional programming whatever their reason (perhaps they want to preserve DCC and NEC), are all racist.

As a parent of color who is a huge fan of DCC, this is offensive on its face.

So to all the people who are saying o no Rita’s comment wasn’t about boundary program, it was about regional program—that’s not a defense babes. The most basic point of the article is elected officials shouldn’t call disagreement as racism. Thats not a controversial or hot take.

Try having a honest conversation with people rather than dismiss them as racist.

I agree it is stupid and distasteful to call everyone who opposed you racist, but it is not hateful towards Asians.

So racism doesn't equate to hate for you. OK.

Calling people racist isn't racism

"But indiscriminately labeling a room full of engaged parents, many of them Asian American, as racist is, at best, ironic; at worst, the very kind of conduct you claim to oppose."

What Rita said was racist - she was generally characterizing the opponents of the BOE's vote as racist. Rita put this out there and she has to own her words. It's too bad that she has never apologized for her hot mic comment.

Nope, not racism, that is absurd (by this standard I could call everyone who calls Rita Montoya (a Latina) racist, a racist - we can go on an on forever like this)

Nope, it's racist to make a generalized pejorative characterization about specific community members because they opposed the BOE vote, calling them racist. What Montoya said was racist.

Except she didn’t do that - she didn’t call anyone racist. She said “there’s the racism” pointing to Yang’s support for a decision that she feels props up institutional racism.

I know this is DCUM and it’s not exactly friendly territory for nuance but there is a significant difference between calling someone racist and pointing to something as racism.

A little exercise, taking race out of it since we’re obviously all confused about what racism is. Let’s imagine a man and a woman work together and do the same job. They have nothing but respect for each other and they get along well, but the man makes more than the woman. The man isn’t being sexist, even though he’s benefiting from institutionalized sexism. Now let’s say the company decides they need to address this inequity and they decide to do so by paying everyone in the same role the same salary, right in the middle of what the two of them make. The man is incensed that he’s going to take a pay cut and fights to stop the change. He is STILL not being sexist - he’s not saying his colleague shouldn’t make more - but by fighting to protect his own interests, he is fighting to perpetuate that institutionalized sexism, without ever saying a sexist word himself.

There are parents at Wootton who have been blatantly racist throughout this process. Most parents, even those fighting tooth and nail to prevent the move have not been - they really have been motivated by concerns about their neighborhood, or long bus rides, or even property values. They are not racist. But they have been ignoring, as this author does, the institutionalized racism that their self-interested arguments perpetuate.

Not saying Montoya’s comments were perfect - a hot mic moment at the end of a board isn’t the best place for nuance either - but Wootton parents demanding things from board members without making any attempt to actually understand those members is part of why their advocacy failed so spectacularly.

How does being against the boundary proposal uphold institutionalized racism? Brown Station literally called option H “hyper segregation”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a thoughtful response to Rita Montoya's comment caught on a hot mic at the March 26th BOE meeting:

https://moderatelymoco.com/when-disagreement-becomes-racism/

I'm not following this argument that relocating Wootton "breaks up" the community. There was a boundary study that impacted a lot of high schools. The only school being taken out of Wootton is Cold Spring and I think they are fine with that.

I think it’s because they fear that Crown will be overcrowded and sooner or later they will be broken apart. Eg Parkway families become the new edge property and first one to be pushed out if and when Crown is overcrowded.

But also I think the authors point was even if you disagree with this premise, it’s not appropriate to call anyone who disagrees with you racist.

We are weaponizing racism so much to the point where it’s beginning to lack meaning.

I agree. I think it is important to be specific when calling out racism, and Montoya didn't do that when she made the hot mic comment. It makes a mockery of anti-racism to use it in this snarky and catty fashion. Unfortunately that is quite common in the anti-racist movement.

For all those ppl saying she was saying this in reference to the regional program and not boundary study, is this the best defense of Rita you can think of? Is it ever appropriate to call everyone who disagrees with you on a policy as racist? Is board member Julie Yang also racist then?

Rita’s regional programming speech was dripping in Anti-Asian hate. Rita Montoya hates Asians kids and Asian parents. We knew this before she let her mask slip.

I didn't hear any hateful language in Rita's regional programming speech. I thought it was dumb because she conflated the DCC and NEC with magnet programs that aren't part of the consortia. Describing the racial makeup of the magnet programs is not hateful or racist.

Per Rita, those who oppose regional programming whatever their reason (perhaps they want to preserve DCC and NEC), are all racist.

As a parent of color who is a huge fan of DCC, this is offensive on its face.

So to all the people who are saying o no Rita’s comment wasn’t about boundary program, it was about regional program—that’s not a defense babes. The most basic point of the article is elected officials shouldn’t call disagreement as racism. Thats not a controversial or hot take.

Try having a honest conversation with people rather than dismiss them as racist.

I agree it is stupid and distasteful to call everyone who opposed you racist, but it is not hateful towards Asians.

So racism doesn't equate to hate for you. OK.

Calling people racist isn't racism

"But indiscriminately labeling a room full of engaged parents, many of them Asian American, as racist is, at best, ironic; at worst, the very kind of conduct you claim to oppose."

What Rita said was racist - she was generally characterizing the opponents of the BOE's vote as racist. Rita put this out there and she has to own her words. It's too bad that she has never apologized for her hot mic comment.

Nope, not racism, that is absurd (by this standard I could call everyone who calls Rita Montoya (a Latina) racist, a racist - we can go on an on forever like this)

Nope, it's racist to make a generalized pejorative characterization about specific community members because they opposed the BOE vote, calling them racist. What Montoya said was racist.

Except she didn’t do that - she didn’t call anyone racist. She said “there’s the racism” pointing to Yang’s support for a decision that she feels props up institutional racism.

I know this is DCUM and it’s not exactly friendly territory for nuance but there is a significant difference between calling someone racist and pointing to something as racism.

A little exercise, taking race out of it since we’re obviously all confused about what racism is. Let’s imagine a man and a woman work together and do the same job. They have nothing but respect for each other and they get along well, but the man makes more than the woman. The man isn’t being sexist, even though he’s benefiting from institutionalized sexism. Now let’s say the company decides they need to address this inequity and they decide to do so by paying everyone in the same role the same salary, right in the middle of what the two of them make. The man is incensed that he’s going to take a pay cut and fights to stop the change. He is STILL not being sexist - he’s not saying his colleague shouldn’t make more - but by fighting to protect his own interests, he is fighting to perpetuate that institutionalized sexism, without ever saying a sexist word himself.

There are parents at Wootton who have been blatantly racist throughout this process. Most parents, even those fighting tooth and nail to prevent the move have not been - they really have been motivated by concerns about their neighborhood, or long bus rides, or even property values. They are not racist. But they have been ignoring, as this author does, the institutionalized racism that their self-interested arguments perpetuate.

Not saying Montoya’s comments were perfect - a hot mic moment at the end of a board isn’t the best place for nuance either - but Wootton parents demanding things from board members without making any attempt to actually understand those members is part of why their advocacy failed so spectacularly.

How does being against the boundary proposal uphold institutionalized racism? Brown Station literally called option H “hyper segregation”

Huge thank you to all those tireless Wootton advocates fighting to protect the best interests of Brown Station…amazing how they were able to find the time to marshal their considerable resources on another schools behalf while also building bridges to the “lower income” communities of Fields Road and Rosemont. Unless that’s…not even a little bit what happened…?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a thoughtful response to Rita Montoya's comment caught on a hot mic at the March 26th BOE meeting:

https://moderatelymoco.com/when-disagreement-becomes-racism/

I'm not following this argument that relocating Wootton "breaks up" the community. There was a boundary study that impacted a lot of high schools. The only school being taken out of Wootton is Cold Spring and I think they are fine with that.

I think it’s because they fear that Crown will be overcrowded and sooner or later they will be broken apart. Eg Parkway families become the new edge property and first one to be pushed out if and when Crown is overcrowded.

But also I think the authors point was even if you disagree with this premise, it’s not appropriate to call anyone who disagrees with you racist.

We are weaponizing racism so much to the point where it’s beginning to lack meaning.

I agree. I think it is important to be specific when calling out racism, and Montoya didn't do that when she made the hot mic comment. It makes a mockery of anti-racism to use it in this snarky and catty fashion. Unfortunately that is quite common in the anti-racist movement.

For all those ppl saying she was saying this in reference to the regional program and not boundary study, is this the best defense of Rita you can think of? Is it ever appropriate to call everyone who disagrees with you on a policy as racist? Is board member Julie Yang also racist then?

Rita’s regional programming speech was dripping in Anti-Asian hate. Rita Montoya hates Asians kids and Asian parents. We knew this before she let her mask slip.

I didn't hear any hateful language in Rita's regional programming speech. I thought it was dumb because she conflated the DCC and NEC with magnet programs that aren't part of the consortia. Describing the racial makeup of the magnet programs is not hateful or racist.

Per Rita, those who oppose regional programming whatever their reason (perhaps they want to preserve DCC and NEC), are all racist.

As a parent of color who is a huge fan of DCC, this is offensive on its face.

So to all the people who are saying o no Rita’s comment wasn’t about boundary program, it was about regional program—that’s not a defense babes. The most basic point of the article is elected officials shouldn’t call disagreement as racism. Thats not a controversial or hot take.

Try having a honest conversation with people rather than dismiss them as racist.

I agree it is stupid and distasteful to call everyone who opposed you racist, but it is not hateful towards Asians.

So racism doesn't equate to hate for you. OK.

Calling people racist isn't racism

"But indiscriminately labeling a room full of engaged parents, many of them Asian American, as racist is, at best, ironic; at worst, the very kind of conduct you claim to oppose."

What Rita said was racist - she was generally characterizing the opponents of the BOE's vote as racist. Rita put this out there and she has to own her words. It's too bad that she has never apologized for her hot mic comment.

Nope, not racism, that is absurd (by this standard I could call everyone who calls Rita Montoya (a Latina) racist, a racist - we can go on an on forever like this)

Nope, it's racist to make a generalized pejorative characterization about specific community members because they opposed the BOE vote, calling them racist. What Montoya said was racist.

Except she didn’t do that - she didn’t call anyone racist. She said “there’s the racism” pointing to Yang’s support for a decision that she feels props up institutional racism.

I know this is DCUM and it’s not exactly friendly territory for nuance but there is a significant difference between calling someone racist and pointing to something as racism.

A little exercise, taking race out of it since we’re obviously all confused about what racism is. Let’s imagine a man and a woman work together and do the same job. They have nothing but respect for each other and they get along well, but the man makes more than the woman. The man isn’t being sexist, even though he’s benefiting from institutionalized sexism. Now let’s say the company decides they need to address this inequity and they decide to do so by paying everyone in the same role the same salary, right in the middle of what the two of them make. The man is incensed that he’s going to take a pay cut and fights to stop the change. He is STILL not being sexist - he’s not saying his colleague shouldn’t make more - but by fighting to protect his own interests, he is fighting to perpetuate that institutionalized sexism, without ever saying a sexist word himself.

There are parents at Wootton who have been blatantly racist throughout this process. Most parents, even those fighting tooth and nail to prevent the move have not been - they really have been motivated by concerns about their neighborhood, or long bus rides, or even property values. They are not racist. But they have been ignoring, as this author does, the institutionalized racism that their self-interested arguments perpetuate.

Not saying Montoya’s comments were perfect - a hot mic moment at the end of a board isn’t the best place for nuance either - but Wootton parents demanding things from board members without making any attempt to actually understand those members is part of why their advocacy failed so spectacularly.

How does being against the boundary proposal uphold institutionalized racism? Brown Station literally called option H “hyper segregation”

Huge thank you to all those tireless Wootton advocates fighting to protect the best interests of Brown Station…amazing how they were able to find the time to marshal their considerable resources on another schools behalf while also building bridges to the “lower income” communities of Fields Road and Rosemont. Unless that’s…not even a little bit what happened…?

Way to completely side step and avoid the question. Is it because you realize you don’t have an answer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a thoughtful response to Rita Montoya's comment caught on a hot mic at the March 26th BOE meeting:

https://moderatelymoco.com/when-disagreement-becomes-racism/

I'm not following this argument that relocating Wootton "breaks up" the community. There was a boundary study that impacted a lot of high schools. The only school being taken out of Wootton is Cold Spring and I think they are fine with that.

I think it’s because they fear that Crown will be overcrowded and sooner or later they will be broken apart. Eg Parkway families become the new edge property and first one to be pushed out if and when Crown is overcrowded.

But also I think the authors point was even if you disagree with this premise, it’s not appropriate to call anyone who disagrees with you racist.

We are weaponizing racism so much to the point where it’s beginning to lack meaning.

I agree. I think it is important to be specific when calling out racism, and Montoya didn't do that when she made the hot mic comment. It makes a mockery of anti-racism to use it in this snarky and catty fashion. Unfortunately that is quite common in the anti-racist movement.

For all those ppl saying she was saying this in reference to the regional program and not boundary study, is this the best defense of Rita you can think of? Is it ever appropriate to call everyone who disagrees with you on a policy as racist? Is board member Julie Yang also racist then?

Rita’s regional programming speech was dripping in Anti-Asian hate. Rita Montoya hates Asians kids and Asian parents. We knew this before she let her mask slip.

I didn't hear any hateful language in Rita's regional programming speech. I thought it was dumb because she conflated the DCC and NEC with magnet programs that aren't part of the consortia. Describing the racial makeup of the magnet programs is not hateful or racist.

Per Rita, those who oppose regional programming whatever their reason (perhaps they want to preserve DCC and NEC), are all racist.

As a parent of color who is a huge fan of DCC, this is offensive on its face.

So to all the people who are saying o no Rita’s comment wasn’t about boundary program, it was about regional program—that’s not a defense babes. The most basic point of the article is elected officials shouldn’t call disagreement as racism. Thats not a controversial or hot take.

Try having a honest conversation with people rather than dismiss them as racist.

I agree it is stupid and distasteful to call everyone who opposed you racist, but it is not hateful towards Asians.

So racism doesn't equate to hate for you. OK.

Calling people racist isn't racism

"But indiscriminately labeling a room full of engaged parents, many of them Asian American, as racist is, at best, ironic; at worst, the very kind of conduct you claim to oppose."

What Rita said was racist - she was generally characterizing the opponents of the BOE's vote as racist. Rita put this out there and she has to own her words. It's too bad that she has never apologized for her hot mic comment.

Nope, not racism, that is absurd (by this standard I could call everyone who calls Rita Montoya (a Latina) racist, a racist - we can go on an on forever like this)

Nope, it's racist to make a generalized pejorative characterization about specific community members because they opposed the BOE vote, calling them racist. What Montoya said was racist.

Except she didn’t do that - she didn’t call anyone racist. She said “there’s the racism” pointing to Yang’s support for a decision that she feels props up institutional racism.

I know this is DCUM and it’s not exactly friendly territory for nuance but there is a significant difference between calling someone racist and pointing to something as racism.

A little exercise, taking race out of it since we’re obviously all confused about what racism is. Let’s imagine a man and a woman work together and do the same job. They have nothing but respect for each other and they get along well, but the man makes more than the woman. The man isn’t being sexist, even though he’s benefiting from institutionalized sexism. Now let’s say the company decides they need to address this inequity and they decide to do so by paying everyone in the same role the same salary, right in the middle of what the two of them make. The man is incensed that he’s going to take a pay cut and fights to stop the change. He is STILL not being sexist - he’s not saying his colleague shouldn’t make more - but by fighting to protect his own interests, he is fighting to perpetuate that institutionalized sexism, without ever saying a sexist word himself.

There are parents at Wootton who have been blatantly racist throughout this process. Most parents, even those fighting tooth and nail to prevent the move have not been - they really have been motivated by concerns about their neighborhood, or long bus rides, or even property values. They are not racist. But they have been ignoring, as this author does, the institutionalized racism that their self-interested arguments perpetuate.

Not saying Montoya’s comments were perfect - a hot mic moment at the end of a board isn’t the best place for nuance either - but Wootton parents demanding things from board members without making any attempt to actually understand those members is part of why their advocacy failed so spectacularly.

How does being against the boundary proposal uphold institutionalized racism? Brown Station literally called option H “hyper segregation”

Huge thank you to all those tireless Wootton advocates fighting to protect the best interests of Brown Station…amazing how they were able to find the time to marshal their considerable resources on another schools behalf while also building bridges to the “lower income” communities of Fields Road and Rosemont. Unless that’s…not even a little bit what happened…?

Way to completely side step and avoid the question. Is it because you realize you don’t have an answer?

That is my answer. Wootton families don’t care about Brown Station or the boundary study as a whole. They care about Wootton and keeping the population of Wootton as it is right now. That perpetuates institutional racism. Whether Brown Station families got screwed by the boundary study or not (I agree they did) simply isn’t relevant to the Wootton crew’s actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a thoughtful response to Rita Montoya's comment caught on a hot mic at the March 26th BOE meeting:

https://moderatelymoco.com/when-disagreement-becomes-racism/

I'm not following this argument that relocating Wootton "breaks up" the community. There was a boundary study that impacted a lot of high schools. The only school being taken out of Wootton is Cold Spring and I think they are fine with that.

I think it’s because they fear that Crown will be overcrowded and sooner or later they will be broken apart. Eg Parkway families become the new edge property and first one to be pushed out if and when Crown is overcrowded.

But also I think the authors point was even if you disagree with this premise, it’s not appropriate to call anyone who disagrees with you racist.

We are weaponizing racism so much to the point where it’s beginning to lack meaning.

I agree. I think it is important to be specific when calling out racism, and Montoya didn't do that when she made the hot mic comment. It makes a mockery of anti-racism to use it in this snarky and catty fashion. Unfortunately that is quite common in the anti-racist movement.

For all those ppl saying she was saying this in reference to the regional program and not boundary study, is this the best defense of Rita you can think of? Is it ever appropriate to call everyone who disagrees with you on a policy as racist? Is board member Julie Yang also racist then?

Rita’s regional programming speech was dripping in Anti-Asian hate. Rita Montoya hates Asians kids and Asian parents. We knew this before she let her mask slip.

I didn't hear any hateful language in Rita's regional programming speech. I thought it was dumb because she conflated the DCC and NEC with magnet programs that aren't part of the consortia. Describing the racial makeup of the magnet programs is not hateful or racist.

Per Rita, those who oppose regional programming whatever their reason (perhaps they want to preserve DCC and NEC), are all racist.

As a parent of color who is a huge fan of DCC, this is offensive on its face.

So to all the people who are saying o no Rita’s comment wasn’t about boundary program, it was about regional program—that’s not a defense babes. The most basic point of the article is elected officials shouldn’t call disagreement as racism. Thats not a controversial or hot take.

Try having a honest conversation with people rather than dismiss them as racist.

I agree it is stupid and distasteful to call everyone who opposed you racist, but it is not hateful towards Asians.

So racism doesn't equate to hate for you. OK.

Calling people racist isn't racism

"But indiscriminately labeling a room full of engaged parents, many of them Asian American, as racist is, at best, ironic; at worst, the very kind of conduct you claim to oppose."

What Rita said was racist - she was generally characterizing the opponents of the BOE's vote as racist. Rita put this out there and she has to own her words. It's too bad that she has never apologized for her hot mic comment.

Nope, not racism, that is absurd (by this standard I could call everyone who calls Rita Montoya (a Latina) racist, a racist - we can go on an on forever like this)

Nope, it's racist to make a generalized pejorative characterization about specific community members because they opposed the BOE vote, calling them racist. What Montoya said was racist.

Except she didn’t do that - she didn’t call anyone racist. She said “there’s the racism” pointing to Yang’s support for a decision that she feels props up institutional racism.

I know this is DCUM and it’s not exactly friendly territory for nuance but there is a significant difference between calling someone racist and pointing to something as racism.

A little exercise, taking race out of it since we’re obviously all confused about what racism is. Let’s imagine a man and a woman work together and do the same job. They have nothing but respect for each other and they get along well, but the man makes more than the woman. The man isn’t being sexist, even though he’s benefiting from institutionalized sexism. Now let’s say the company decides they need to address this inequity and they decide to do so by paying everyone in the same role the same salary, right in the middle of what the two of them make. The man is incensed that he’s going to take a pay cut and fights to stop the change. He is STILL not being sexist - he’s not saying his colleague shouldn’t make more - but by fighting to protect his own interests, he is fighting to perpetuate that institutionalized sexism, without ever saying a sexist word himself.

There are parents at Wootton who have been blatantly racist throughout this process. Most parents, even those fighting tooth and nail to prevent the move have not been - they really have been motivated by concerns about their neighborhood, or long bus rides, or even property values. They are not racist. But they have been ignoring, as this author does, the institutionalized racism that their self-interested arguments perpetuate.

Not saying Montoya’s comments were perfect - a hot mic moment at the end of a board isn’t the best place for nuance either - but Wootton parents demanding things from board members without making any attempt to actually understand those members is part of why their advocacy failed so spectacularly.

How does being against the boundary proposal uphold institutionalized racism? Brown Station literally called option H “hyper segregation”

Huge thank you to all those tireless Wootton advocates fighting to protect the best interests of Brown Station…amazing how they were able to find the time to marshal their considerable resources on another schools behalf while also building bridges to the “lower income” communities of Fields Road and Rosemont. Unless that’s…not even a little bit what happened…?

Way to completely side step and avoid the question. Is it because you realize you don’t have an answer?

That is my answer. Wootton families don’t care about Brown Station or the boundary study as a whole. They care about Wootton and keeping the population of Wootton as it is right now. That perpetuates institutional racism. Whether Brown Station families got screwed by the boundary study or not (I agree they did) simply isn’t relevant to the Wootton crew’s actions.

Interesting that you seem to know everything about everyone!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm Asian, grew up in a similar circumstance as that writer, but have a different viewpoint.

There are all types of Asians, but the sort that is in W schools are materialistic in a way that definitely reflects racism and classism. I don't think they realize it from inside their echo chamber.

Most Asians are not like this thankfully and we choose to stay clear of those clusters.

So you are saying every Asian person at a W school is racist and classist?

Yes, Jason. Now go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brown Station adamantly opposes the boundary proposal. They called it hyper-segregation.

https://moderatelymoco.com/brown-station-community-raises-segregation-concerns-over-mcps-boundary-proposal/

Are they racist? According to Rita, they are!

Questionable that moderatelymoco is your go to source. Do better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm Asian, grew up in a similar circumstance as that writer, but have a different viewpoint.

There are all types of Asians, but the sort that is in W schools are materialistic in a way that definitely reflects racism and classism. I don't think they realize it from inside their echo chamber.

Most Asians are not like this thankfully and we choose to stay clear of those clusters.

So you are saying every Asian person at a W school is racist and classist?

No because many Asian families are happy about the move to Crown.

Sorry you are racist and classist per the PP.

He/she/they said “There are all types of Asians, but the sort that is in W schools are materialistic in a way that definitely reflects racism and classism.”

Not the ones happy about the move.

No, actually even the ones happy about the move are racist and classist per the PP comment. They said they “sort that is in W schools” is racist and classist, and don’t forget materialistic.

You bought into Wootton. You are thus racist, classist, and materialistic.

There’s no nuance.

Does this vast generalization upset you? Because vast generalizations are bad?
So…ergo…an elected official calling all dissenters racist…is this good or bad?

Obviously what Rita said was bad. But hey, I am glad to know her true thinking, which I will remember in case she decides to run for office again. Hard no on Rita Montoya as an elected public official.

Look! We’re in agreement.
Rita Montoya sucks.
She’s worse than even Thomas Taylor—what an incredible achievement.

All of the Black people are laughing at you. You hated the last superintendent, Monifa McKnight and then you got the holy grail, a white man and he has now made a Black man the principal of predominantly Asian Wootton and is also forcing Wootton to integrate. We could not have written a better ending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brown Station adamantly opposes the boundary proposal. They called it hyper-segregation.

https://moderatelymoco.com/brown-station-community-raises-segregation-concerns-over-mcps-boundary-proposal/

Are they racist? According to Rita, they are!

Questionable that moderatelymoco is your go to source. Do better.

Moderately MOCO/Jason didn’t write that brown station article. It was written by “The Brown Station Parent, Future Parent, Former Parent, Former Teacher, Researcher, Advocate, and Current MCPS Teacher.” What about the article was wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a thoughtful response to Rita Montoya's comment caught on a hot mic at the March 26th BOE meeting:

https://moderatelymoco.com/when-disagreement-becomes-racism/

I'm not following this argument that relocating Wootton "breaks up" the community. There was a boundary study that impacted a lot of high schools. The only school being taken out of Wootton is Cold Spring and I think they are fine with that.

I think it’s because they fear that Crown will be overcrowded and sooner or later they will be broken apart. Eg Parkway families become the new edge property and first one to be pushed out if and when Crown is overcrowded.

But also I think the authors point was even if you disagree with this premise, it’s not appropriate to call anyone who disagrees with you racist.

We are weaponizing racism so much to the point where it’s beginning to lack meaning.

I agree. I think it is important to be specific when calling out racism, and Montoya didn't do that when she made the hot mic comment. It makes a mockery of anti-racism to use it in this snarky and catty fashion. Unfortunately that is quite common in the anti-racist movement.

For all those ppl saying she was saying this in reference to the regional program and not boundary study, is this the best defense of Rita you can think of? Is it ever appropriate to call everyone who disagrees with you on a policy as racist? Is board member Julie Yang also racist then?

Rita’s regional programming speech was dripping in Anti-Asian hate. Rita Montoya hates Asians kids and Asian parents. We knew this before she let her mask slip.

I didn't hear any hateful language in Rita's regional programming speech. I thought it was dumb because she conflated the DCC and NEC with magnet programs that aren't part of the consortia. Describing the racial makeup of the magnet programs is not hateful or racist.

Per Rita, those who oppose regional programming whatever their reason (perhaps they want to preserve DCC and NEC), are all racist.

As a parent of color who is a huge fan of DCC, this is offensive on its face.

So to all the people who are saying o no Rita’s comment wasn’t about boundary program, it was about regional program—that’s not a defense babes. The most basic point of the article is elected officials shouldn’t call disagreement as racism. Thats not a controversial or hot take.

Try having a honest conversation with people rather than dismiss them as racist.

I agree it is stupid and distasteful to call everyone who opposed you racist, but it is not hateful towards Asians.

So racism doesn't equate to hate for you. OK.

Calling people racist isn't racism

Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm Asian, grew up in a similar circumstance as that writer, but have a different viewpoint.

There are all types of Asians, but the sort that is in W schools are materialistic in a way that definitely reflects racism and classism. I don't think they realize it from inside their echo chamber.

Most Asians are not like this thankfully and we choose to stay clear of those clusters.

So you are saying every Asian person at a W school is racist and classist?

No because many Asian families are happy about the move to Crown.

Sorry you are racist and classist per the PP.

He/she/they said “There are all types of Asians, but the sort that is in W schools are materialistic in a way that definitely reflects racism and classism.”

Not the ones happy about the move.

No, actually even the ones happy about the move are racist and classist per the PP comment. They said they “sort that is in W schools” is racist and classist, and don’t forget materialistic.

You bought into Wootton. You are thus racist, classist, and materialistic.

There’s no nuance.

Does this vast generalization upset you? Because vast generalizations are bad?
So…ergo…an elected official calling all dissenters racist…is this good or bad?

Obviously what Rita said was bad. But hey, I am glad to know her true thinking, which I will remember in case she decides to run for office again. Hard no on Rita Montoya as an elected public official.

Look! We’re in agreement.
Rita Montoya sucks.
She’s worse than even Thomas Taylor—what an incredible achievement.

All of the Black people are laughing at you. You hated the last superintendent, Monifa McKnight and then you got the holy grail, a white man and he has now made a Black man the principal of predominantly Asian Wootton and is also forcing Wootton to integrate. We could not have written a better ending.

You speak for all black people? There are black people who oppose H. Do you speak for them too?