SWS - You are only invited if you’re Black

[Anonymous]

I’m a (white) SWS parent and am supportive of this effort. I’ll admit I was a little weirded out by the white affinity group discussed in a previous thread, but a space for black families to meet and build community sounds great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

More concerned than curious. It’s a really shitty thing to do and I hope Jeff removes the details of the event so the families don’t have to worry about any weirdos crashing out of spite.

Is there an online forum of sws parents? If I had concerns I wouldn’t know how to reach out to other parents behind those in my child’s class, and for those only through the school’s communication platform.

[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 if 30% of girls at a particular school enroll in GotR, we should shut it down then. That's too many. Got it.

[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?

Many things that were ok 25 years ago are not ok now, for example institutional racism. Students and parents are free to associate with whomever they like, but the school should never exclude any community members based on race.

Whoever wrote that letter at SWS needs to go back the DEI training, because they didn't really understand it.

[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 if 30% of girls at a particular school enroll in GotR, we should shut it down then. That's too many. Got it.

It's open to all girls, whether they run or not. They would welcome you if you were interested in learning to run. Do the affinity groups also welcome people who want to learn more but may not fit the profile?

[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.

I agree with this. It's not the concept, which I think is fine (though in the context of SWS's demographics, I actually think a POC group would be more inclusive), it's the super aggressive language coming in an official email from the school admin. The fact they re-emphasized that it was ONLY for black/African-identifying people as though other people in the community would intentionally crash otherwise.

[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?

Many things that were ok 25 years ago are not ok now, for example institutional racism. Students and parents are free to associate with whomever they like, but the school should never exclude any community members based on race.

Whoever wrote that letter at SWS needs to go back the DEI training, because they didn't really understand it.

Those clubs are at JR right now in 2023. In particular, the Asian Student Union description makes it clear it's for students of Asian descent at JR. Somebody start a thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree with this. It's not the concept, which I think is fine (though in the context of SWS's demographics, I actually think a POC group would be more inclusive), it's the super aggressive language coming in an official email from the school admin. The fact they re-emphasized that it was ONLY for black/African-identifying people as though other people in the community would intentionally crash otherwise.

They didn't use the word "only" (yes, it's implied, but it's not stated, to be clear). So it's no different to me than the Georgetown Day School description or the JR Asian Student Union description.

[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.

Even if that were true, when is it ever OK for one racial group to say there are too many of another racial group?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree with this. It's not the concept, which I think is fine (though in the context of SWS's demographics, I actually think a POC group would be more inclusive), it's the super aggressive language coming in an official email from the school admin. The fact they re-emphasized that it was ONLY for black/African-identifying people as though other people in the community would intentionally crash otherwise.

They didn't use the word "only" (yes, it's implied, but it's not stated, to be clear). So it's no different to me than the Georgetown Day School description or the JR Asian Student Union description.

Now you're grasping at straws, so I see you get what's wrong with the sws letter from SWS Administration.

[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: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.

Even if that were true, when is it ever OK for one racial group to say there are too many of another racial group?

Tell that to the OP of the "Why is SWS so white" thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree with this. It's not the concept, which I think is fine (though in the context of SWS's demographics, I actually think a POC group would be more inclusive), it's the super aggressive language coming in an official email from the school admin. The fact they re-emphasized that it was ONLY for black/African-identifying people as though other people in the community would intentionally crash otherwise.

They didn't use the word "only" (yes, it's implied, but it's not stated, to be clear). So it's no different to me than the Georgetown Day School description or the JR Asian Student Union description.

Now you're grasping at straws, so I see you get what's wrong with the sws letter from SWS Administration.

It's pretty clear to me that I wouldn't be welcome as a white person at the JR Asian Student Union or the GDS Black affinity group.

[Anonymous]

Isn’t this thread just proving why they need a black affinity group at SWS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this thread just proving why they need a black affinity group at SWS?

Pretty much.

[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 if 30% of girls at a particular school enroll in GotR, we should shut it down then. That's too many. Got it.

No, you should not exclude boys then.