What is the reputation of Stone Ridge School of the Sacred Heart?

[Anonymous]

I support DEI work in general. What I don't support is the Upper School requiring all students to sign up for an affinity club. It made students uncomfortable, and although it could have been encouraged, the ideas of freedom of choice (as in choice not to join) should have encouraged as well. If the school stays on this trajectory, our current middle school daughter will be applying to Visi. Because we chose not to apply to Holton or NCS for just this reason -- too liberal. SR used to be a nice balance but.....

[Anonymous]

Please don't use religion to support critical race theory. They aren't close to being the same thing. CRT is the exact opposite of "inclusivity." It's shrouded in buzzwords that sound good, but it divides people and teaches them that they're victims or that they're guilty based on the colour of their skin.

I bet you're a really nice person who is trying to do the right thing for everyone. But if you dug down into the details of what CRT is actually about, you might rethink your support of what SR is doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I support DEI work in general. What I don't support is the Upper School requiring all students to sign up for an affinity club. It made students uncomfortable, and although it could have been encouraged, the ideas of freedom of choice (as in choice not to join) should have encouraged as well. If the school stays on this trajectory, our current middle school daughter will be applying to Visi. Because we chose not to apply to Holton or NCS for just this reason -- too liberal. SR used to be a nice balance but.....

+100

We're looking into the SJC honors program as well.

[Anonymous]

For everyone here who is opposed to DEI/CRT, how exactly do you want SR and other schools to tackle our nation's historic and systemic racism? What will make you and your daughters "comfortable" in discussing racism and the role it has played in our nation's justice system, housing policies, insurance offerings, transportation systems, athletic opportunities, grocery locations, health care systems, academic opportunities, farming policies, and so on? is there a level of being "uncomfortable" that you can live with?

Any time our schools and other American institutions try to discuss race and discrimination there is always push back from people who are uncomfortable. There is push back almost every time, usually by white Americans, who claim that is is not appropriate, not the right time, not the right format, not seeing things from "all sides," etc. We just went through Colin Kapernick getting assailed for taking a non-violent stance to protest police brutality by kneeling at the national anthem. When other athletes started to join him, there was tremendous opposition, especially on the political right. And remember, when MLK was assassinated a majority of Americans thought he was too radical. So there never seems to be a right time, right format, right way to discuss racism in America.

So, what would you replace the DEI effort at Sr with?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please don't use religion to support critical race theory. They aren't close to being the same thing. CRT is the exact opposite of "inclusivity." It's shrouded in buzzwords that sound good, but it divides people and teaches them that they're victims or that they're guilty based on the colour of their skin.

I bet you're a really nice person who is trying to do the right thing for everyone. But if you dug down into the details of what CRT is actually about, you might rethink your support of what SR is doing.

Maybe I'm missing something, because I thought they were required to attend ONE session during the multicultural festival.


Reasonable people could disagree on this, but theres not a CRT theme on the DEI commitment page.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please don't use religion to support critical race theory. They aren't close to being the same thing. CRT is the exact opposite of "inclusivity." It's shrouded in buzzwords that sound good, but it divides people and teaches them that they're victims or that they're guilty based on the colour of their skin.

I bet you're a really nice person who is trying to do the right thing for everyone. But if you dug down into the details of what CRT is actually about, you might rethink your support of what SR is doing.

+1 DP here . . . I have worked in the D&I space for decades faced different forms of personal discrimination, have family members who have dedicated their lives to working towards inclusion, and unfortunately had an older child that faced discrimination comments from staff at a Sacred Heart School. However, posters are confusing wanting inclusion, embracing diversity, fighting racism as automatically meaning you should then support CRT as an approach. Agree with this poster - I assume that people come with good intentions, but dig deeper from different sources on CRT. And even after a deep dive, if you agree with the principles, realize that its still relatively new and how the messaging is delivered - particularly to young kids, is a big testing ground.

[Anonymous]

I personally think Jesus himself would be supportive of inclusivity as it brings more people into the christian community.

God created man in his own image.

And man, being a gentleman, returned the favor.

Henri Rousseau

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please don't use religion to support critical race theory. They aren't close to being the same thing. CRT is the exact opposite of "inclusivity." It's shrouded in buzzwords that sound good, but it divides people and teaches them that they're victims or that they're guilty based on the colour of their skin.

I bet you're a really nice person who is trying to do the right thing for everyone. But if you dug down into the details of what CRT is actually about, you might rethink your support of what SR is doing.

+1 DP here . . . I have worked in the D&I space for decades faced different forms of personal discrimination, have family members who have dedicated their lives to working towards inclusion, and unfortunately had an older child that faced discrimination comments from staff at a Sacred Heart School. However, posters are confusing wanting inclusion, embracing diversity, fighting racism as automatically meaning you should then support CRT as an approach. Agree with this poster - I assume that people come with good intentions, but dig deeper from different sources on CRT. And even after a deep dive, if you agree with the principles, realize that its still relatively new and how the messaging is delivered - particularly to young kids, is a big testing ground.

If someone faces discrimination from a teacher, that teacher should be fired. And I have to assume that any Sacred Heart School would fire a teacher today that exhibited any kind of discrimination.

Nobody would put up with discrimination. Nobody is uncomfortable talking about inclusivity. Nobody is "pushing back" against building a culture free of racism and discrimination of any kind.

This is why I'm confused about CRT. The proponents of CRT tell us they want a society where people don't discriminate. Honestly, I don't believe there is a single example of discrimination at SR. By all means, let us examine our culture, our history, and our society's shameful episodes of discrimination in the past. But do we really need to assume that there is a level of systemic discrimination at SR that truthfully doesn't exist?

[Anonymous]

Please have a look at the @blackatstoneridge Instagram account and then tell me there is no systemic racism at SR.

— 90s alumna who knows building of community as a Christian value and a deep respect for intellectual values include being honest about and dismantling the structures reinforcing white supremacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For everyone here who is opposed to DEI/CRT, how exactly do you want SR and other schools to tackle our nation's historic and systemic racism? What will make you and your daughters "comfortable" in discussing racism and the role it has played in our nation's justice system, housing policies, insurance offerings, transportation systems, athletic opportunities, grocery locations, health care systems, academic opportunities, farming policies, and so on? is there a level of being "uncomfortable" that you can live with?

Any time our schools and other American institutions try to discuss race and discrimination there is always push back from people who are uncomfortable. There is push back almost every time, usually by white Americans, who claim that is is not appropriate, not the right time, not the right format, not seeing things from "all sides," etc. We just went through Colin Kapernick getting assailed for taking a non-violent stance to protest police brutality by kneeling at the national anthem. When other athletes started to join him, there was tremendous opposition, especially on the political right. And remember, when MLK was assassinated a majority of Americans thought he was too radical. So there never seems to be a right time, right format, right way to discuss racism in America.

So, what would you replace the DEI effort at Sr with?

Uncomfortable is good, I agree. Deep reflection, and self-evaluation, good. Making it a huge priority for school, good. But you've adopted a false premise that all push back is the same, and there can be no questioning of DEI methods, programming, choices, ramifications. I totally support prioritizing DEI efforts in a school, but it's completely reasonable and responsible for parents of all races, backgrounds, ideologies, to want to make sure it's constructive and helpful in terms of improving dialogue, improving understanding, improving inclusion. The segregated groups in the Stone Ridge program are perfectly appropriate subjects of concern and questioning, and I don't think it's fair to link legitimate questions about aspects of DEI programming with hostility to inclusion or racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please don't use religion to support critical race theory. They aren't close to being the same thing. CRT is the exact opposite of "inclusivity." It's shrouded in buzzwords that sound good, but it divides people and teaches them that they're victims or that they're guilty based on the colour of their skin.

I bet you're a really nice person who is trying to do the right thing for everyone. But if you dug down into the details of what CRT is actually about, you might rethink your support of what SR is doing.

Did you know that in the 80s, some parents rioted because SR taught liberation theology?

The completely intellectually dishonest uproar about CRT (which, incidentally, has been a thing since WAY before BLM or Kendi, if you — I don’t know — went to college in the last 30 years) is just another flavor of the same streak of regressive conservatism that fed that uproar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please don't use religion to support critical race theory. They aren't close to being the same thing. CRT is the exact opposite of "inclusivity." It's shrouded in buzzwords that sound good, but it divides people and teaches them that they're victims or that they're guilty based on the colour of their skin.

I bet you're a really nice person who is trying to do the right thing for everyone. But if you dug down into the details of what CRT is actually about, you might rethink your support of what SR is doing.

Did you know that in the 80s, some parents rioted because SR taught liberation theology?

The completely intellectually dishonest uproar about CRT (which, incidentally, has been a thing since WAY before BLM or Kendi, if you — I don’t know — went to college in the last 30 years) is just another flavor of the same streak of regressive conservatism that fed that uproar.

No I didn't. And nobody is rioting now. Maybe a sign of progress?

"Intellectually dishonest"

"Regressive conservatism"

This is precisely why people have an issue with CRT. It always devolves into this kind of name-calling.

[Anonymous]

Or perhaps use of those phrases is just proof that SR taught critical thinking and the value of questioning authority. Your call, PP.

But sure, you can tell your friends at Congressional or BS all about the big bad liberals who graduate from SR and send their children there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or perhaps use of those phrases is just proof that SR taught critical thinking and the value of questioning authority. Your call, PP.

But sure, you can tell your friends at Congressional or BS all about the big bad liberals who graduate from SR and send their children there.

You're not really interested in having an objective discussion about this, are you?

[Anonymous]

[guardian]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or perhaps use of those phrases is just proof that SR taught critical thinking and the value of questioning authority. Your call, PP.

But sure, you can tell your friends at Congressional or BS all about the big bad liberals who graduate from SR and send their children there.

You're not really interested in having an objective discussion about this, are you?

Different poster, but I was going to ask you the very same thing.