Is this inappropriate-school district requiring teachers to read White Fragility?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. So much white fragility. AKA snowflakes.

Put on your big girl panties and read the book. You won’t melt.

It’s not the reading it, it’s the discussing such a loaded topic with coworkers that’s the problem. Do you honestly not see how a white person who disagrees with the book’s premise and says so during the discussion, could be placing themselves in a very precarious situation?

If someone isn’t willing to read a book with an open mind and discuss on any level (even if they disagree), then that person isn’t intellectually curious enough to be in a teaching position.

I’d also be curious why they “disagree with the premise”.

Oh really? What would you say about making The Bell Curve a required reading and discussion, and labeling anyone who balks at it “not open minded and intellectually curious”

Nailed it, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol I can't believe you idiots are actually trying to defend this book

If the book said all black people are racist

and white people can't be racist

would you tolerate that,,, no.... so how the f can you tolerate it in reverse

OP here. I just started reading the book and to be fair the author doesn’t state this. She does say that racism exists among all groups, however she does state that this book is specifically geared towards a white audience and is focused on white racism. The problem I have is is I don’t think the employer should require us to read (and more specifically discuss) a book that is solely focuses on white racism. Can you imagine requiring such a conversation about Asian racism, or Hispanic racism?

I mean, if the majority of teachers were Asian or Hispanic and there were multiple studies about the detrimental effects of their racism/implicit bias on educational outcomes for their students then yes?

But what if someone doesn’t agree that most white teachers have such a degree of implicit bias that it is detrimentally effecting their students of color? If we say that are we going to be chastised for not recognizing our racism? Don’t you see that this is a topic that a white teacher simply can’t disagree with without possibly jeopardizing their career?

But what if men think it’s okay to call women sweetie at work and put both hands on their shoulders while they are sitting at a desk?

If they speak up women will chastise them and say they are rude and creepy.

Don’t you see men are in a no win situation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. So much white fragility. AKA snowflakes.

Put on your big girl panties and read the book. You won’t melt.

It’s not the reading it, it’s the discussing such a loaded topic with coworkers that’s the problem. Do you honestly not see how a white person who disagrees with the book’s premise and says so during the discussion, could be placing themselves in a very precarious situation?

If someone isn’t willing to read a book with an open mind and discuss on any level (even if they disagree), then that person isn’t intellectually curious enough to be in a teaching position.

I’d also be curious why they “disagree with the premise”.

Oh really? What would you say about making The Bell Curve a required reading and discussion, and labeling anyone who balks at it “not open minded and intellectually curious”

Nailed it, PP.

She would Have “nail it” if she posted a book that sited research that has been peer reviewed and there are some that were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "book" is basically

white people are always racist

black people can't be racist ever

Yep. That is the summary.

Which is a shame. In contrast my organization has had some short Virtual trainings that a corporate diversity trainer does and they are VERY well done. She is relatable, uses more neutral language (everyone needs to “X” vs just “White people need to...”). And definitely comes at it from a sense that seems to convey “hey we are all good faith and nice people here, but sometimes we do some hurtful things accidentally without realizing it. Let me tell you about what some of those are to help make it easier to avoid those unintended slip ups”.

+2 The bolded is basically what my (black) son stated when he handed me (white mom) the book to read. You don't really need to know any more than that. Buy the book, open it a few times and bend some pages so it looks like you've read it, and then nod, nod, nod in meetings where the book is discussed. Say as many mea culpas as appropriate.

I agree with another poster that the backlash from all of this is going to be intense. Not just whites but Hispanics, Asians, Jewish, you name it.

Oh your poor son.

Don't feel sorry for my son, sweetie. He is at a Top 10 university with a 3.95 gpa. He knows BS when he reads it.

If he gave it to you to read, he’s trying to send a message...not subtly, and you aren’t getting it. Poor kid.

He gave it to me to read because we often switch books. He reads a lot of trash and he is never afraid to tell me his opinion when he does. I get that your agenda is to castigate and malign regardless of consequences. I also get that you're feeling insecure and angry so you're lashing out. I think you need to talk to your therapist about it.

You are the one lashing out and yes your son gave it to you for a reason .. don’t disrespect him. You don’t get a free pass for having a black child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. So much white fragility. AKA snowflakes.

Put on your big girl panties and read the book. You won’t melt.

It’s not the reading it, it’s the discussing such a loaded topic with coworkers that’s the problem. Do you honestly not see how a white person who disagrees with the book’s premise and says so during the discussion, could be placing themselves in a very precarious situation?

If someone isn’t willing to read a book with an open mind and discuss on any level (even if they disagree), then that person isn’t intellectually curious enough to be in a teaching position.

I’d also be curious why they “disagree with the premise”.

Again it’s not the reading of the book, that I object to it, it’s the having to discuss it with co-workers that I object to.

Then just listen.

Well of course. But even just listening and not participating in the discussion could be viewed negatively. People will wonder if the reason the teacher is being silent is because they disagree with the book, and they would there fore be viewed with suspicion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. So much white fragility. AKA snowflakes.

Put on your big girl panties and read the book. You won’t melt.

It’s not the reading it, it’s the discussing such a loaded topic with coworkers that’s the problem. Do you honestly not see how a white person who disagrees with the book’s premise and says so during the discussion, could be placing themselves in a very precarious situation?

If someone isn’t willing to read a book with an open mind and discuss on any level (even if they disagree), then that person isn’t intellectually curious enough to be in a teaching position.

I’d also be curious why they “disagree with the premise”.

Oh really? What would you say about making The Bell Curve a required reading and discussion, and labeling anyone who balks at it “not open minded and intellectually curious”

Nailed it, PP.

She would Have “nail it” if she posted a book that sited research that has been peer reviewed and there are some that were.

NP. Well I guess she could have "sited" (sic) some works but I'm not sure you would have the capacity to understand the sites (again, sic).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. So much white fragility. AKA snowflakes.

Put on your big girl panties and read the book. You won’t melt.

It’s not the reading it, it’s the discussing such a loaded topic with coworkers that’s the problem. Do you honestly not see how a white person who disagrees with the book’s premise and says so during the discussion, could be placing themselves in a very precarious situation?

If someone isn’t willing to read a book with an open mind and discuss on any level (even if they disagree), then that person isn’t intellectually curious enough to be in a teaching position.

I’d also be curious why they “disagree with the premise”.

No, not of course. The time to "just listen" (barf) has come and gone. We listened. And listened. And spent decades tolerating quotas and lectures. Now it's riots and defund the police. Here is a thought- if white teachers are so horrible for your children, send them to a school with no white teachers. Live in neighborhoods where police aren't allowed to enter. It's time to stop listening to this nonsense. Disengage. Let these people do what they want to do, but do it on their own time and own dime.

Again it’s not the reading of the book, that I object to it, it’s the having to discuss it with co-workers that I object to.

Then just listen.

Well of course. But even just listening and not participating in the discussion could be viewed negatively. People will wonder if the reason the teacher is being silent is because they disagree with the book, and they would there fore be viewed with suspicion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. So much white fragility. AKA snowflakes.

Put on your big girl panties and read the book. You won’t melt.

It’s not the reading it, it’s the discussing such a loaded topic with coworkers that’s the problem. Do you honestly not see how a white person who disagrees with the book’s premise and says so during the discussion, could be placing themselves in a very precarious situation?

If someone isn’t willing to read a book with an open mind and discuss on any level (even if they disagree), then that person isn’t intellectually curious enough to be in a teaching position.

I’d also be curious why they “disagree with the premise”.

Again it’s not the reading of the book, that I object to it, it’s the having to discuss it with co-workers that I object to.

Then just listen.

Well of course. But even just listening and not participating in the discussion could be viewed negatively. People will wonder if the reason the teacher is being silent is because they disagree with the book, and they would there fore be viewed with suspicion.

You are paranoid and acting fragile. Do you see that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. So much white fragility. AKA snowflakes.

Put on your big girl panties and read the book. You won’t melt.

It’s not the reading it, it’s the discussing such a loaded topic with coworkers that’s the problem. Do you honestly not see how a white person who disagrees with the book’s premise and says so during the discussion, could be placing themselves in a very precarious situation?

If someone isn’t willing to read a book with an open mind and discuss on any level (even if they disagree), then that person isn’t intellectually curious enough to be in a teaching position.

I’d also be curious why they “disagree with the premise”.

Oh really? What would you say about making The Bell Curve a required reading and discussion, and labeling anyone who balks at it “not open minded and intellectually curious”

Nailed it, PP.

She would Have “nail it” if she posted a book that sited research that has been peer reviewed and there are some that were.

NP. Well I guess she could have "sited" (sic) some works but I'm not sure you would have the capacity to understand the sites (again, sic).

You should email apple and tell the iOS 13.1.6 does not know which site/cite to use on voice to text.

She did so...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone freak out so much about being referred to as racist? I'm a white person and I seriously don't get this. There is so much "OMG this book is offensive because it says I'm racist" or "OMG that person suggested that I'm racist just because I'm white, how dare they?"

Seriously, what's the big deal? We all pick up a ton of racism just from living in a society that had racism baked in for centuries, and so virtually all white people are racist to some degree or another. Pointing out that you're probably racist is just saying, "Hey, you're probably contributing in some way to making life harder for people of color, and almost all other white people are too. Can you please pay some attention to how that's happening and try to improve?" It seems like the reaction should be, "Whoa, that sucks for people of color. You're right, it seems important for me to do my best to look out for and improve on the ways I've picked up racism so I cause less harm to people of color."

Where does this "how dare anyone suggest I'm racist?" reaction come from? Why do you care that people think you're racist-- do you think they're accusing you of being a terrible person or part of the KKK or something? What's so controversial about the assertion that all or almost all white people are racist? Do you get this freaked out when people point out other kinds of commonly-held biases in society, like sexism or ableism or the way that people tend to value conventionally attractive people over less attractive people?

(I realize it is ironic to be raising this on this thread because I gather that the book in question would give me some more insight on this question of why y'all are so terrified of/furious about anyone calling you racist, but I am curious to hear it from your own mouths...)

How is it helpful? Being called a racist suggests that you willfully believe others are less than you just because of the color of their skin. This effort to redefine it to also mean the unintentional biases that we absorb from living in our society takes none of the sting out of that term.

Do people throwing “racist” around want to help drive constructive change or just to lord others’ unintended mistakes/missteps over them. Kind of seems like the latter from your PP. If we instead focus on HOW to best drive change we’d be using an approach that does not try to intentionally offend the people you are coaxing you change right off the bat.

What? No it doesn't! You think that the only racism that's real racism is intentional and malicious? That's obviously not the only kind-- willful and intentional racism is probably a pretty small sliver of racism these days. That doesn't make unintended racism "not real racism," though. Is this why people freak out about being called racist-- you honestly think the only meaning of racist is "I don't like people of color/I proudly admit I think they're inferior to me?"

[Anonymous]

I see fragile is the new racist for the woke/she set. Those words mean nothing in the real world

Also I'm not going to just listen to a pov that is total BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If the book is required reading in preparation for a free and open discussion that can include dissent, that's fine. If the idea behind requiring you to read the book is that it presents "the truth," then, yes, that's concerning.

that sounds like a great idea for a public school district- I'm sure HR is going to have an awesome time sorting through the fall out of an open and frank discussion on race

If a book is such that critical discussion of it is bound to be inflammatory, then that suggests the book should not be assigned in the workplace, don’t you think?

yes?

Inflammatory to whom? I am just wondering whose feelings were are trying to protect here.

I'm guessing your black and brown co workers deal with what they would consider inflammatory statements all the time.

To white people. Isn't that pretty obvious?

Quoted PP here. Yes, it is obvious. I wrote that to prove my point.

[Anonymous]

She should have been sjw autocorrect. And to pp unconscious bias is a lot different than active racisim

I will actually throw y'all a bone that unconscious bias is an issue due to the fact that there are racial stereotypes based on some truths but become an issue and racist when applied to a situation without actually evaluating it first

I would support having a conversation on the last paragraph but a book that starts from a false premise of all whites are racist is not only wrong but dangerous especially when used as support for a racist driven agenda against whites from poc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She should have been sjw autocorrect. And to pp unconscious bias is a lot different than active racisim

I will actually throw y'all a bone that unconscious bias is an issue due to the fact that there are racial stereotypes based on some truths but become an issue and racist when applied to a situation without actually evaluating it first

I would support having a conversation on the last paragraph but a book that starts from a false premise of all whites are racist is not only wrong but dangerous especially when used as support for a racist driven agenda against whites from poc

If it makes you feel better you could just replace "racist" with "unconscious bias around race" because that's really the type of "racism" that's at issue.

[Anonymous]

Also, don't speak on about the book until POC do first. POC will be the first to tell you they don't care what white people think about race. Talk about a lose-lose.