SWS - You are only invited if you’re Black

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

But it’s not open to boys, and if there is no running club for boys (or similar athletic club) then it’s probably a title 9 violation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

But it’s not open to boys, and if there is no running club for boys (or similar athletic club) then it’s probably a title 9 violation

So all public schools across the US that only have a boy's football team are in violation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

But it’s not open to boys, and if there is no running club for boys (or similar athletic club) then it’s probably a title 9 violation

Is the school running Girls on the Run or volunteers? Girls on the Run is a separate organization, so not like the school football team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Times are changing, and racism isn't institutionalized anymore. There is still racism on an individual level, but not institutional.

This event is perpetuating institutional racism. I get that many PP don't see it that way, and instead see it as righting a wrong, or rebalancing the scales or something. But bottomline is it perpetuates institutional racism.

Please explain. My understanding is that this was meant to create a safe space for black students and families to connect and build community. Institutional racism, to me, would be more focused on things like admittance policy or the institutional levers that create a high school that is not representative of the public school student body in DC. The impacts institutional racism appear alive and well even if the policies have changed.

So they are encouraged to connect and build communities with other black families. This goes to show that forcing diversity does not work. People prefer to be with those that are similar. Blacks, browns and whites can never work together to build diverse communities because at the end of the day, you really can only relate with those most similar to you. I don’t know why we keep spinning our wheels to fight nature.

[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: 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?

But it’s not open to boys, and if there is no running club for boys (or similar athletic club) then it’s probably a title 9 violation

So all public schools across the US that only have a boy's football team are in violation?

Girls aren't banned from football teams, they are able to try out.

[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: 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?

But it’s not open to boys, and if there is no running club for boys (or similar athletic club) then it’s probably a title 9 violation

Is the school running Girls on the Run or volunteers? Girls on the Run is a separate organization, so not like the school football team.

As a father of two young boys, there is no way that I would foist them and their antics on to a bunch of young women on the run. They would completely ruin the vibe. Maybe two or three boys, but any more than that and they would be shoving and each other nonstop. I love my boys, but in larger groups it’s downright barbarism. The girls don’t need that and I don’t need the stress.


But the it’s fine to have gendered-based athletic clubs.

[Anonymous]

Here is what GotR says:

"Girls on the Run designs programs specifically for girls, with the needs of today’s girl central to the curricula. Historically, girls have had limited access to opportunities in sports and physical activity-based contexts. While the number of opportunities has increased since the inception of Title IX, girls continue to receive lower levels of social support for participation and stop taking part at higher rates due to these barriers. Additionally, programs often fail to provide a learning climate which supports the optimal physical and emotional development of girls. As such, extensive efforts have gone into the design and evaluation of Girls on the Run to specifically address topics and challenges that girls encounter during late childhood and adolescence in a psychologically safe environment."

[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: 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?

But it’s not open to boys, and if there is no running club for boys (or similar athletic club) then it’s probably a title 9 violation

Is the school running Girls on the Run or volunteers? Girls on the Run is a separate organization, so not like the school football team.

As a father of two young boys, there is no way that I would foist them and their antics on to a bunch of young women on the run. They would completely ruin the vibe. Maybe two or three boys, but any more than that and they would be shoving and each other nonstop. I love my boys, but in larger groups it’s downright barbarism. The girls don’t need that and I don’t need the stress.


But the it’s fine to have gendered-based athletic clubs.

If you boys are shoving and behaving badly, you need to step up your parenting OR get them evaluated and help.

[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: 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?

But it’s not open to boys, and if there is no running club for boys (or similar athletic club) then it’s probably a title 9 violation

Is the school running Girls on the Run or volunteers? Girls on the Run is a separate organization, so not like the school football team.

As a father of two young boys, there is no way that I would foist them and their antics on to a bunch of young women on the run. They would completely ruin the vibe. Maybe two or three boys, but any more than that and they would be shoving and each other nonstop. I love my boys, but in larger groups it’s downright barbarism. The girls don’t need that and I don’t need the stress.


But the it’s fine to have gendered-based athletic clubs.

If you boys are shoving and behaving badly, you need to step up your parenting OR get them evaluated and help.

-Parent of a boy and a girl

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is what GotR says:

"Girls on the Run designs programs specifically for girls, with the needs of today’s girl central to the curricula. Historically, girls have had limited access to opportunities in sports and physical activity-based contexts. While the number of opportunities has increased since the inception of Title IX, girls continue to receive lower levels of social support for participation and stop taking part at higher rates due to these barriers. Additionally, programs often fail to provide a learning climate which supports the optimal physical and emotional development of girls. As such, extensive efforts have gone into the design and evaluation of Girls on the Run to specifically address topics and challenges that girls encounter during late childhood and adolescence in a psychologically safe environment."

But who runs the program? The school or outside volunteers? This is not like a school club or sport its more like Girl Scouts.

[Anonymous]

Race-based programs are literally subject to a different Constitutional standard of review than gender-based programs, so these are not equivalent examples. Still, in the old days this would clearly have been legal; with this court, less clear.

That said, I don't think the idea of identity groups are a big deal. They needed to just leave the "this is only for black people" as subtext. Same result; less overtly hostile. Also probably shouldn't have only this one single identity group that the school backs. At least they need a formal process for others to found their own and get the same access.

[Anonymous]

It seems like every year now these race-baiting headlines come out of SWS. What's going on over there?

[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.

You only have to scratch the surface to see institutional racism. Some examples you might have seen in the news are disparities in maternal mortality, discrimination in lending, residential segregation, differences in home value appraisals, POC kids getting disciplined more harshly in schools. https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2021.01394

“Systemic racism is so embedded in systems that it often is assumed to reflect the natural, inevitable order of things.”

If you say institutional racism doesn’t exist, you believe in the lie that the status quo is the natural, unadulterated order of things.

[Anonymous]

The invite is for people raising Black kids. You can be any color caregiver and attend. The invite centers children and helps create a positive cohort for the child. ultimately all of this is based on research in order to create better learning outcomes and narrow the educational achievement gap in elementary school. Is it so far fetched to understand that a good school for your kid might not be as good for a POC because of prejudice and biases coming from fellow students and their families as well as from staff? I can understand that black and POC families need some reprieve and support here.

People who labeled the invite as hostile, aggressive, or amped up, wouldn’t use those same words for another group. Whoever said that these groups are only needed if the numbers are very small just sounds afraid. What if Black kids ‘catch up’ and (gasp) surpass your kid’s achievement because they had a play date without you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The invite is for people raising Black kids. You can be any color caregiver and attend. The invite centers children and helps create a positive cohort for the child. ultimately all of this is based on research in order to create better learning outcomes and narrow the educational achievement gap in elementary school. Is it so far fetched to understand that a good school for your kid might not be as good for a POC because of prejudice and biases coming from fellow students and their families as well as from staff? I can understand that black and POC families need some reprieve and support here.

People who labeled the invite as hostile, aggressive, or amped up, wouldn’t use those same words for another group. Whoever said that these groups are only needed if the numbers are very small just sounds afraid. What if Black kids ‘catch up’ and (gasp) surpass your kid’s achievement because they had a play date without you?

Not afraid. Just want parity. Let everyone have their groups to meet, connect, and talk about their issues. If it's clearly beneficial, why are some groups afraid to let other groups meet, connect, and find support? What's the problem?