SWS - You are only invited if you’re Black

[Anonymous]

Please do not think all white SWS families are getting upset about this. I'm actually disgusted that someone posted the details of this event on an anonymous forum.
-White SWS parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please do not think all white SWS families are getting upset about this. I'm actually disgusted that someone posted the details of this event on an anonymous forum.
-White SWS parent

+1
-Another White SWS parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So … I get it. Black families have concerns that other races do not face. But the constant drumbeat of only focusing on one race at SWS is so off putting. The latest email from the school:

Dear SWS families,
As a part of the Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Anti-Racism (IDEA) Committee's ongoing commitment to fostering a strong sense of community and inclusivity within our school, we are excited to invite all families of children who identify as Black and/or of African descent to the upcoming Black Family Social.

Date: Sunday, October 1
Time: 11AM-1PM
Location: Sherwood Playground (behind SWS)

This special event is designed to celebrate and embrace the rich tapestry of our school community, specifically focusing on families with children who identify as Black and/or of African descent. It's an opportunity to come together and to strengthen connections and support among those of us raising Black children.

The bold appears in the email, in case you thought you might be invited as a white, Asian or Hispanic person. How is this “fostering inclusivity”?

Oh, FFS. I do not get why white people get so butt hurt about not being invited to every single thing. Not every event has to be for you or about you. You don't have to be included in everything. You really don't. You will survive. We have events for minority groups only so that they can make connections with others in their same situation without being drowned out by members of the majority. It's fine. It's not a conspiracy. You aren't being deprived of anything. You're not being hurt. Get over yourself.

Kind of like not being in the yoga pant clique. Ridiculous. Right?

Is your assumption that exclusion of Black people doesn't exist because it wasn't explicit? Or you, as a white person, don't see it, so it can't exist? At a minimum, you can find a few posts from people identifying as POC on old threads, if you bother to look, stating some didn't feel comfortable, didn't feel it was diverse enough, that they didn't want their kid to be the "only," or that they felt people were fake friendly, but then their kid was left out of invites. If you have good black friends (and surely you do, living in such a diverse area and attending a diverse school, right?), you should be able to have a conversation about this for better info than an anonymous message board likely dominated by white UMC/UC posters, yes?

Is exclusion right or wrong? Or just sometimes wrong? Seems obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m always interested in people who are outraged about these sorts of things. I think there are important discussions to be had but the people who are upset tend not to want to have them and I’ve never been convinced that their outrage isn't just hysterical.

White people are literally not invited to attend the discussions.

Are English only speaking parents invited to the group that is specifically for families of Spanish speaking kids at Deal?

And if not, are they offended?

How do affinity groups work at Deal? Their website says they have them but I haven't seen a multi page thread about it yet.

Been done with Deal for several years, but if I recall the affinity group may send out a note...but the overall school does not send out any notes on behalf of any affinity group. Deal only sends out notes inviting the entire school to various events.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So … I get it. Black families have concerns that other races do not face. But the constant drumbeat of only focusing on one race at SWS is so off putting. The latest email from the school:

Dear SWS families,
As a part of the Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Anti-Racism (IDEA) Committee's ongoing commitment to fostering a strong sense of community and inclusivity within our school, we are excited to invite all families of children who identify as Black and/or of African descent to the upcoming Black Family Social.

Date: Sunday, October 1
Time: 11AM-1PM
Location: Sherwood Playground (behind SWS)

This special event is designed to celebrate and embrace the rich tapestry of our school community, specifically focusing on families with children who identify as Black and/or of African descent. It's an opportunity to come together and to strengthen connections and support among those of us raising Black children.

The bold appears in the email, in case you thought you might be invited as a white, Asian or Hispanic person. How is this “fostering inclusivity”?

Oh, FFS. I do not get why white people get so butt hurt about not being invited to every single thing. Not every event has to be for you or about you. You don't have to be included in everything. You really don't. You will survive. We have events for minority groups only so that they can make connections with others in their same situation without being drowned out by members of the majority. It's fine. It's not a conspiracy. You aren't being deprived of anything. You're not being hurt. Get over yourself.

Kind of like not being in the yoga pant clique. Ridiculous. Right?

Is your assumption that exclusion of Black people doesn't exist because it wasn't explicit? Or you, as a white person, don't see it, so it can't exist? At a minimum, you can find a few posts from people identifying as POC on old threads, if you bother to look, stating some didn't feel comfortable, didn't feel it was diverse enough, that they didn't want their kid to be the "only," or that they felt people were fake friendly, but then their kid was left out of invites. If you have good black friends (and surely you do, living in such a diverse area and attending a diverse school, right?), you should be able to have a conversation about this for better info than an anonymous message board likely dominated by white UMC/UC posters, yes?

Is exclusion right or wrong? Or just sometimes wrong? Seems obvious.

The email does not exclude but yes, does make it clear that it is specifically for specific families, no different than any other event specifically for some families at other schools such as parents of dyslexic kids, parents of LBGTQ+ kids, parents of Spanish Speaking kids. You keep ignoring this point. If you are against ALL such groups, ok then say so.

[Anonymous]

Ugh, this is just classic SWS. In theory their Black affinity group (or whatever they are calling it) is probably meant to be analogous to the GDS group or the BSA-like group at Deal. Sure, we can argue that none of these race-based groups should exist at schools at all, but fact of the matter is that they do, and have for many many years. It is just how we do things in the US, or at least certain parts of the US.

But SWS uses this weird amped up language that makes people in their community who aren't completely on board with their approach to this issue feel like they're being shamed. FWIW, they do this with everything. Heaven forbid you question whether "joy" should come at the expense of academics, or whether it is a good thing for their teachers to be recommending ADHD meds so routinely. Question these things and you're a monster and not part of their "in" crowd. This is just par for the course with SWS. If you're a parent there, just get used to it. It is how they roll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The announcement doesn't say anything about white people not being invited (unless I missed it?). It says the talks plan on focusing on a certain group. Anybody is welcome to come and participate as long as they are on topic.

Correct, it doesn't.

It does. It doesn’t say “whites are NOT invited”, but it says they are excited to invite “all families of children who identify as black.” If your child doesn’t identify as Black, you are not invited.

I honestly don't view this as anything different than having such an email for any other specialty group from parents of LGBTQ+ kids to parents of kids with special needs. Literally just don't care.

Most of the time those aren’t phrased in an exclusionary way, though.

Assuming this is legal, people are free to issue exclusionary invitations. But what they aren’t free to do is control other people’s reactions to being excluded, or be surprised when people react badly.

Well, maybe it's because of the millions of dollars being spent by Christian nationalists and others to stir up outrage about things exactly like this? I suspect that 75% of the people expressing their opposition don't live within 100 miles of DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The announcement doesn't say anything about white people not being invited (unless I missed it?). It says the talks plan on focusing on a certain group. Anybody is welcome to come and participate as long as they are on topic.

Correct, it doesn't.

It does. It doesn’t say “whites are NOT invited”, but it says they are excited to invite “all families of children who identify as black.” If your child doesn’t identify as Black, you are not invited.

I honestly don't view this as anything different than having such an email for any other specialty group from parents of LGBTQ+ kids to parents of kids with special needs. Literally just don't care.

Most of the time those aren’t phrased in an exclusionary way, though.

Assuming this is legal, people are free to issue exclusionary invitations. But what they aren’t free to do is control other people’s reactions to being excluded, or be surprised when people react badly.

Well, maybe it's because of the millions of dollars being spent by Christian nationalists and others to stir up outrage about things exactly like this? I suspect that 75% of the people expressing their opposition don't live within 100 miles of DC.

And perhaps why suddenly there's a big long thread about it when affinity type groups and clubs have existed at schools for ages, whether it is the Black Student Union, Asian Student Union, Black Student Engineers, Girls who Code, etc (all clubs at JR, btw). My HS had these types of clubs 25 years ago, but now there's outrage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How "marginalized" are black students at SWW? Aren't they 1/3 of the school?

Zero percent marginalized. Black students are 1/3 of the school and the school does a ton of Black focused events. The school has Black Lives Matter posters. The library prominently displays books with Black characters. There is a yearly “Black Joy” art project that all lower elementary kids participate in and a special school wide event to display the artwork. There is a gigantic mural of a Black child on the side of the building.

All of which I have zero issue with.

What I find problematic (and illegal) is explicitly inviting only Black families to a school event and calling yourself inclusive.

Zero percent marginalized. You have to be kidding me.

Do tell. How are Black students marginalized at SWS? I’ll wait.

You are ignoring that this came about because of how Black families felt at SWS. Up to now, DCUM complained SWS was too white.

Why not just answer the simple question?

Yes that would be offensive BECAUSE white families are not a majority, the same as it would be offensive if families did something for straight only. But JUST AS I wouldn't be offended by families of LGBTQ+ kids having a gathering, I am NOT offended by families of Black kids having a gathering or families of Dyslexic kids having a gathering.

The difference between you and me seems to be that you simply don't believe that Black families have any unique concerns that would warrant such a gathering, do you? "I don't see race" right?

Still dancing around answering a question? I think the reason why is obvious.

I straightforward answered the question that it would be offensive and stated why. FFS.

You don't believe Black families have any unique concerns, or frankly don't care, do you? Answer my question.

List the unique concerns. That is the question. How are Black students marginalized at SWS?

They have been marginalized by not being included and feeling left out of the white yoga pant wearing clicks that DCUM has complained about SWS for years ("it's too white!" "You have to wear yoga pants to fit in!"). And they literally voiced this to school administration.

SWS stats are
27.7% Black
2.5% Asian
3.7% Hispanic
53.6% White
12.1% multiracial

So Black students are outnumbers 2-to-1 by white students, but they still make up more then 1/4 of the student body. Is such a larg group being marginalized? Seems to me the marginal groups are Asians and Hispanics.
https://www.myschooldc.org/schools/profile/98

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please do not think all white SWS families are getting upset about this. I'm actually disgusted that someone posted the details of this event on an anonymous forum.
-White SWS parent

NP & not part of this fight, but aren't you at least curious that OP apparently didn't feel comfortable expressing their thoughts non-anonymously in an SWS forum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, this is just classic SWS. In theory their Black affinity group (or whatever they are calling it) is probably meant to be analogous to the GDS group or the BSA-like group at Deal. Sure, we can argue that none of these race-based groups should exist at schools at all, but fact of the matter is that they do, and have for many many years. It is just how we do things in the US, or at least certain parts of the US.

But SWS uses this weird amped up language that makes people in their community who aren't completely on board with their approach to this issue feel like they're being shamed. FWIW, they do this with everything. Heaven forbid you question whether "joy" should come at the expense of academics, or whether it is a good thing for their teachers to be recommending ADHD meds so routinely. Question these things and you're a monster and not part of their "in" crowd. This is just par for the course with SWS. If you're a parent there, just get used to it. It is how they roll.

Right. You wonder why they felt the need to emphasize the exclusion, when the fact is that nobody would be likely to crash the meeting who wasn’t actually affiliated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The announcement doesn't say anything about white people not being invited (unless I missed it?). It says the talks plan on focusing on a certain group. Anybody is welcome to come and participate as long as they are on topic.

Correct, it doesn't.

It does. It doesn’t say “whites are NOT invited”, but it says they are excited to invite “all families of children who identify as black.” If your child doesn’t identify as Black, you are not invited.

I honestly don't view this as anything different than having such an email for any other specialty group from parents of LGBTQ+ kids to parents of kids with special needs. Literally just don't care.

Most of the time those aren’t phrased in an exclusionary way, though.

Assuming this is legal, people are free to issue exclusionary invitations. But what they aren’t free to do is control other people’s reactions to being excluded, or be surprised when people react badly.

Well, maybe it's because of the millions of dollars being spent by Christian nationalists and others to stir up outrage about things exactly like this? I suspect that 75% of the people expressing their opposition don't live within 100 miles of DC.

And perhaps why suddenly there's a big long thread about it when affinity type groups and clubs have existed at schools for ages, whether it is the Black Student Union, Asian Student Union, Black Student Engineers, Girls who Code, etc (all clubs at JR, btw). My HS had these types of clubs 25 years ago, but now there's outrage?

It makes sense when the groups are a very small minority. Not a sizable portion of the student body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The announcement doesn't say anything about white people not being invited (unless I missed it?). It says the talks plan on focusing on a certain group. Anybody is welcome to come and participate as long as they are on topic.

Correct, it doesn't.

It does. It doesn’t say “whites are NOT invited”, but it says they are excited to invite “all families of children who identify as black.” If your child doesn’t identify as Black, you are not invited.

I honestly don't view this as anything different than having such an email for any other specialty group from parents of LGBTQ+ kids to parents of kids with special needs. Literally just don't care.

Most of the time those aren’t phrased in an exclusionary way, though.

Assuming this is legal, people are free to issue exclusionary invitations. But what they aren’t free to do is control other people’s reactions to being excluded, or be surprised when people react badly.

Well, maybe it's because of the millions of dollars being spent by Christian nationalists and others to stir up outrage about things exactly like this? I suspect that 75% of the people expressing their opposition don't live within 100 miles of DC.

And perhaps why suddenly there's a big long thread about it when affinity type groups and clubs have existed at schools for ages, whether it is the Black Student Union, Asian Student Union, Black Student Engineers, Girls who Code, etc (all clubs at JR, btw). My HS had these types of clubs 25 years ago, but now there's outrage?

It makes sense when the groups are a very small minority. Not a sizable portion of the student body.

Ah so no Girls who Code group, GotR, etc?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The announcement doesn't say anything about white people not being invited (unless I missed it?). It says the talks plan on focusing on a certain group. Anybody is welcome to come and participate as long as they are on topic.

Correct, it doesn't.

It does. It doesn’t say “whites are NOT invited”, but it says they are excited to invite “all families of children who identify as black.” If your child doesn’t identify as Black, you are not invited.

I honestly don't view this as anything different than having such an email for any other specialty group from parents of LGBTQ+ kids to parents of kids with special needs. Literally just don't care.

Most of the time those aren’t phrased in an exclusionary way, though.

Assuming this is legal, people are free to issue exclusionary invitations. But what they aren’t free to do is control other people’s reactions to being excluded, or be surprised when people react badly.

Well, maybe it's because of the millions of dollars being spent by Christian nationalists and others to stir up outrage about things exactly like this? I suspect that 75% of the people expressing their opposition don't live within 100 miles of DC.

And perhaps why suddenly there's a big long thread about it when affinity type groups and clubs have existed at schools for ages, whether it is the Black Student Union, Asian Student Union, Black Student Engineers, Girls who Code, etc (all clubs at JR, btw). My HS had these types of clubs 25 years ago, but now there's outrage?

It makes sense when the groups are a very small minority. Not a sizable portion of the student body.

Ah so no Girls who Code group, GotR, etc?

Girls... who also code, and girls who also run aren't a large majority of girls. Try again. It's a very niche group. That's the key difference. It's not a GIRLS only private meeting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The announcement doesn't say anything about white people not being invited (unless I missed it?). It says the talks plan on focusing on a certain group. Anybody is welcome to come and participate as long as they are on topic.

Correct, it doesn't.

It does. It doesn’t say “whites are NOT invited”, but it says they are excited to invite “all families of children who identify as black.” If your child doesn’t identify as Black, you are not invited.

I honestly don't view this as anything different than having such an email for any other specialty group from parents of LGBTQ+ kids to parents of kids with special needs. Literally just don't care.

Most of the time those aren’t phrased in an exclusionary way, though.

Assuming this is legal, people are free to issue exclusionary invitations. But what they aren’t free to do is control other people’s reactions to being excluded, or be surprised when people react badly.

Well, maybe it's because of the millions of dollars being spent by Christian nationalists and others to stir up outrage about things exactly like this? I suspect that 75% of the people expressing their opposition don't live within 100 miles of DC.

And perhaps why suddenly there's a big long thread about it when affinity type groups and clubs have existed at schools for ages, whether it is the Black Student Union, Asian Student Union, Black Student Engineers, Girls who Code, etc (all clubs at JR, btw). My HS had these types of clubs 25 years ago, but now there's outrage?

It makes sense when the groups are a very small minority. Not a sizable portion of the student body.

So not allowed at Jackson Reed either then? JR is 30% Black, larger proportion than SWS.

What do you think?