Anti-Racism Assembly Today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see a few things going on. I can see how this event may have been reckless, and that other schools are more careful in how they present this information (ironically, the schools with more children of color are much much more careful because they are very aware of not wanting to cause harm to those kids and to treat them gently.)

I can imagine the Janney principal is seeing racism in the school and urgently wanted to act. I myself know of at least one incident in lower elementary of a white child using a slur against a child of color. I'm sure there are more. And let's be frank: there are families who move to the Janney zone bc they like the high percentage of white children, because they consciously or subconsciously think white peers are better. That is white supremacy. They exist in that neighborhood. So rooting that our and exposing it to sunlight somehow is a good thing, in my opinion.

After living in NW for 20 years, I can pretty safely say this is patently untrue. Every single white family I have known moved to upper NW for the good schools and felt bad that they were giving up the diversity in their old neighborhoods (mostly Shaw, Petworth, etc.). They are moving to where RICH families are, not purposefully looking for white people. In this country, as we all know, wealth is divided along racial lines because of white supremacy. They didn't move out of Bloomingdale because they didn't like the Black kids, they moved with a great deal of guilt so that their kids had a viable path through high school and they could afford that. The vast majority of white people in DC are liberal and many, many of them have had a reckoning with themselves since Trump was elected. I know so many people "doing the work" and these are the rich upper classes of NW. I am not as rich as these people, but I find the honesty and actual work they are doing to be great. They put their money where their mouths are too.

So why didn’t they move to Shepherd Park or Crestwood (when it fed to Deal)?

Maybe because those elementary schools weren't as high-performing as those WOTP? Are they now?

We're three comments away from the disastrous debate over test scores. Scores do not equal performance. They equal demographics

Why do they equal demographics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see a few things going on. I can see how this event may have been reckless, and that other schools are more careful in how they present this information (ironically, the schools with more children of color are much much more careful because they are very aware of not wanting to cause harm to those kids and to treat them gently.)

I can imagine the Janney principal is seeing racism in the school and urgently wanted to act. I myself know of at least one incident in lower elementary of a white child using a slur against a child of color. I'm sure there are more. And let's be frank: there are families who move to the Janney zone bc they like the high percentage of white children, because they consciously or subconsciously think white peers are better. That is white supremacy. They exist in that neighborhood. So rooting that our and exposing it to sunlight somehow is a good thing, in my opinion.

After living in NW for 20 years, I can pretty safely say this is patently untrue. Every single white family I have known moved to upper NW for the good schools and felt bad that they were giving up the diversity in their old neighborhoods (mostly Shaw, Petworth, etc.). They are moving to where RICH families are, not purposefully looking for white people. In this country, as we all know, wealth is divided along racial lines because of white supremacy. They didn't move out of Bloomingdale because they didn't like the Black kids, they moved with a great deal of guilt so that their kids had a viable path through high school and they could afford that. The vast majority of white people in DC are liberal and many, many of them have had a reckoning with themselves since Trump was elected. I know so many people "doing the work" and these are the rich upper classes of NW. I am not as rich as these people, but I find the honesty and actual work they are doing to be great. They put their money where their mouths are too.

So why didn’t they move to Shepherd Park or Crestwood (when it fed to Deal)?

Maybe because those elementary schools weren't as high-performing as those WOTP? Are they now?

We're three comments away from the disastrous debate over test scores. Scores do not equal performance. They equal demographics

Why do they equal demographics?

https://theconversation.com/students-test-scores-tell-us-more-about-the-community-they-live-in-than-what-they-know-77934

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/12/01/sat-math-scores-mirror-and-maintain-racial-inequity/

https://scitechdaily.com/parents-school-reviews-correlated-with-demographics-and-test-scores-not-school-effectiveness/

If you don't want to read, basically the DC system rewards proficiency, not growth. Students in wealthier neighborhoods come into school more proficient in skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see a few things going on. I can see how this event may have been reckless, and that other schools are more careful in how they present this information (ironically, the schools with more children of color are much much more careful because they are very aware of not wanting to cause harm to those kids and to treat them gently.)

I can imagine the Janney principal is seeing racism in the school and urgently wanted to act. I myself know of at least one incident in lower elementary of a white child using a slur against a child of color. I'm sure there are more. And let's be frank: there are families who move to the Janney zone bc they like the high percentage of white children, because they consciously or subconsciously think white peers are better. That is white supremacy. They exist in that neighborhood. So rooting that our and exposing it to sunlight somehow is a good thing, in my opinion.

After living in NW for 20 years, I can pretty safely say this is patently untrue. Every single white family I have known moved to upper NW for the good schools and felt bad that they were giving up the diversity in their old neighborhoods (mostly Shaw, Petworth, etc.). They are moving to where RICH families are, not purposefully looking for white people. In this country, as we all know, wealth is divided along racial lines because of white supremacy. They didn't move out of Bloomingdale because they didn't like the Black kids, they moved with a great deal of guilt so that their kids had a viable path through high school and they could afford that. The vast majority of white people in DC are liberal and many, many of them have had a reckoning with themselves since Trump was elected. I know so many people "doing the work" and these are the rich upper classes of NW. I am not as rich as these people, but I find the honesty and actual work they are doing to be great. They put their money where their mouths are too.

So why didn’t they move to Shepherd Park or Crestwood (when it fed to Deal)?

Maybe because those elementary schools weren't as high-performing as those WOTP? Are they now?

We're three comments away from the disastrous debate over test scores. Scores do not equal performance. They equal demographics

Why do they equal demographics?

https://theconversation.com/students-test-scores-tell-us-more-about-the-community-they-live-in-than-what-they-know-77934

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/12/01/sat-math-scores-mirror-and-maintain-racial-inequity/

https://scitechdaily.com/parents-school-reviews-correlated-with-demographics-and-test-scores-not-school-effectiveness/

If you don't want to read, basically the DC system rewards proficiency, not growth. Students in wealthier neighborhoods come into school more proficient in skills.

That makes sense. However, it also makes sense for parents to want their kids to learn along peers who have a similar level of proficiency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m just surprised they had an assembly during COVID. Is this the first time she’s been introduced to these concepts? Seems like a chance to explain racial history and discrimination in your terms, OP.

Here's an explanation: some adults are dishonest and try to claim that they are fighting "racism" by engaging in utterly racist tactics. They cry and scream and call you bad names if they are called out on their tactics. They are bad people. Sometimes you will have to pretend to listen to them, but also know on the inside that they are dishonest and bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IS NO ONE ELSE CONCERNED THAT THE SCHOOL IS ASKING SMALL CHILDREN TO IDENTIFY MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES WITH RACIST BELIEFS AND WRITE THEM DOWN FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES?

Not to get too paranoid here, but this feels a little Berlin-1939 to me...

IS ANYONE ELSE CONCERNED THAT THEY MAY HAVE TO REFLECT ON THEIR OWN BELIEFS OR CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR BECAUSE THEIR CHILDREN WILL CALL THEM OUT

YOU ARE A DIRTBAG!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know you’re not going to like this point, but it’s the epitome of privilege to think that you should be able to set the terms for discussions of racism. This is an uncomfortable topic of conversation and it sounds like the principal did a solid amount of frontloading prior to the session.

You are welcome to your views on how racism should be discussed but if you are trying tell me that "I" and other white people MUST discuss racism without regard to how we view the conversation, then it's the epitome of foolishness to think we are ever going to engage in an honest conversation with you about anything. Doyin Richards was obnoxious, referring to hypothetical white kids as "Little Ainsley" and "Little Connor" . His disdain for White people was evident. If my pointing that out makes you think I am privileged, then please explain to everyone and me why we should allow a man like that to talk to our children like he is some kind of respected authority figure they should listen to. He is not. Shame on Janney for bringing him into this important conversation. Oh, and of course, I don't actually expect you to explain anything since, you know, I'm privileged and therefore my opinions and feelings are not worthy of your consideration. Yeah, good luck with that attitude.

TL;DR: if you don't talk about racism in a way that feels friendly and warm enough, I retain the right to remain racist, out of spite.

Twist: you actually are deeply racist and feel entitled to hate white people. Nobody requires you to confront, and you lack the ability to confront that or be introspective about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know you’re not going to like this point, but it’s the epitome of privilege to think that you should be able to set the terms for discussions of racism. This is an uncomfortable topic of conversation and it sounds like the principal did a solid amount of frontloading prior to the session.

You are welcome to your views on how racism should be discussed but if you are trying tell me that "I" and other white people MUST discuss racism without regard to how we view the conversation, then it's the epitome of foolishness to think we are ever going to engage in an honest conversation with you about anything. Doyin Richards was obnoxious, referring to hypothetical white kids as "Little Ainsley" and "Little Connor" . His disdain for White people was evident. If my pointing that out makes you think I am privileged, then please explain to everyone and me why we should allow a man like that to talk to our children like he is some kind of respected authority figure they should listen to. He is not. Shame on Janney for bringing him into this important conversation. Oh, and of course, I don't actually expect you to explain anything since, you know, I'm privileged and therefore my opinions and feelings are not worthy of your consideration. Yeah, good luck with that attitude.

TL;DR: if you don't talk about racism in a way that feels friendly and warm enough, I retain the right to remain racist, out of spite.

Twist: you actually are deeply racist and feel entitled to hate white people. Nobody requires you to confront, and you lack the ability to confront that or be introspective about it.

Psst... My kid learned at that assembly that it's impossible for white people to experience racism because they have so much power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know you’re not going to like this point, but it’s the epitome of privilege to think that you should be able to set the terms for discussions of racism. This is an uncomfortable topic of conversation and it sounds like the principal did a solid amount of frontloading prior to the session.

You are welcome to your views on how racism should be discussed but if you are trying tell me that "I" and other white people MUST discuss racism without regard to how we view the conversation, then it's the epitome of foolishness to think we are ever going to engage in an honest conversation with you about anything. Doyin Richards was obnoxious, referring to hypothetical white kids as "Little Ainsley" and "Little Connor" . His disdain for White people was evident. If my pointing that out makes you think I am privileged, then please explain to everyone and me why we should allow a man like that to talk to our children like he is some kind of respected authority figure they should listen to. He is not. Shame on Janney for bringing him into this important conversation. Oh, and of course, I don't actually expect you to explain anything since, you know, I'm privileged and therefore my opinions and feelings are not worthy of your consideration. Yeah, good luck with that attitude.

TL;DR: if you don't talk about racism in a way that feels friendly and warm enough, I retain the right to remain racist, out of spite.

Twist: you actually are deeply racist and feel entitled to hate white people. Nobody requires you to confront, and you lack the ability to confront that or be introspective about it.

This is true. You are not required to confront racism, nor are you required to be introspective about it. You are free to continue to be racist, and apparently you can be incentivized to do this if someone was mean to you.

Spite racism: your thing, apparently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know you’re not going to like this point, but it’s the epitome of privilege to think that you should be able to set the terms for discussions of racism. This is an uncomfortable topic of conversation and it sounds like the principal did a solid amount of frontloading prior to the session.

You are welcome to your views on how racism should be discussed but if you are trying tell me that "I" and other white people MUST discuss racism without regard to how we view the conversation, then it's the epitome of foolishness to think we are ever going to engage in an honest conversation with you about anything. Doyin Richards was obnoxious, referring to hypothetical white kids as "Little Ainsley" and "Little Connor" . His disdain for White people was evident. If my pointing that out makes you think I am privileged, then please explain to everyone and me why we should allow a man like that to talk to our children like he is some kind of respected authority figure they should listen to. He is not. Shame on Janney for bringing him into this important conversation. Oh, and of course, I don't actually expect you to explain anything since, you know, I'm privileged and therefore my opinions and feelings are not worthy of your consideration. Yeah, good luck with that attitude.

TL;DR: if you don't talk about racism in a way that feels friendly and warm enough, I retain the right to remain racist, out of spite.

Twist: you actually are deeply racist and feel entitled to hate white people. Nobody requires you to confront, and you lack the ability to confront that or be introspective about it.

i mean, i guess yes you can hold your allyship hostage unless you receive an appropriate amount of deference for your feelings...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is true. You are not required to confront racism, nor are you required to be introspective about it. You are free to continue to be racist, and apparently you can be incentivized to do this if someone was mean to you.

Spite racism: your thing, apparently.

The message is that as a white person, you will only and forever be racist purely based on the color of your skin. Your only recourse is to ponder it a lot. You cannot get rid of the stain. You can only try to atone, perpetually.

This is where it becomes religion. It's very Catholic.

This is also the whole "White Fragility" message from Diangelo.

E.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/18/white-fragility-is-real-white-fragility-is-flawed/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is true. You are not required to confront racism, nor are you required to be introspective about it. You are free to continue to be racist, and apparently you can be incentivized to do this if someone was mean to you.

Spite racism: your thing, apparently.

The message is that as a white person, you will only and forever be racist purely based on the color of your skin. Your only recourse is to ponder it a lot. You cannot get rid of the stain. You can only try to atone, perpetually.

This is where it becomes religion. It's very Catholic.

This is also the whole "White Fragility" message from Diangelo.

E.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/18/white-fragility-is-real-white-fragility-is-flawed/

oh no sometimes you have to think about stuff

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know you’re not going to like this point, but it’s the epitome of privilege to think that you should be able to set the terms for discussions of racism. This is an uncomfortable topic of conversation and it sounds like the principal did a solid amount of frontloading prior to the session.

You are welcome to your views on how racism should be discussed but if you are trying tell me that "I" and other white people MUST discuss racism without regard to how we view the conversation, then it's the epitome of foolishness to think we are ever going to engage in an honest conversation with you about anything. Doyin Richards was obnoxious, referring to hypothetical white kids as "Little Ainsley" and "Little Connor" . His disdain for White people was evident. If my pointing that out makes you think I am privileged, then please explain to everyone and me why we should allow a man like that to talk to our children like he is some kind of respected authority figure they should listen to. He is not. Shame on Janney for bringing him into this important conversation. Oh, and of course, I don't actually expect you to explain anything since, you know, I'm privileged and therefore my opinions and feelings are not worthy of your consideration. Yeah, good luck with that attitude.

TL;DR: if you don't talk about racism in a way that feels friendly and warm enough, I retain the right to remain racist, out of spite.

Twist: you actually are deeply racist and feel entitled to hate white people. Nobody requires you to confront, and you lack the ability to confront that or be introspective about it.

Psst... My kid learned at that assembly that it's impossible for white people to experience racism because they have so much power.

I agree. White people can experience prejudice but racism is about power and systems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is true. You are not required to confront racism, nor are you required to be introspective about it. You are free to continue to be racist, and apparently you can be incentivized to do this if someone was mean to you.

Spite racism: your thing, apparently.

The message is that as a white person, you will only and forever be racist purely based on the color of your skin. Your only recourse is to ponder it a lot. You cannot get rid of the stain. You can only try to atone, perpetually.

This is where it becomes religion. It's very Catholic.

This is also the whole "White Fragility" message from Diangelo.

E.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/18/white-fragility-is-real-white-fragility-is-flawed/

oh no sometimes you have to think about stuff

Pithy, useless response. Try harder.

Or read: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is true. You are not required to confront racism, nor are you required to be introspective about it. You are free to continue to be racist, and apparently you can be incentivized to do this if someone was mean to you.

Spite racism: your thing, apparently.

The message is that as a white person, you will only and forever be racist purely based on the color of your skin. Your only recourse is to ponder it a lot. You cannot get rid of the stain. You can only try to atone, perpetually.

This is where it becomes religion. It's very Catholic.

This is also the whole "White Fragility" message from Diangelo.

E.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/18/white-fragility-is-real-white-fragility-is-flawed/

oh no sometimes you have to think about stuff

There's a reason people reject Catholicism (and other religions) that isn't just the pedophilia stuff. If all anti-racism work is just self-flagellation and feeling bad (Catholic), you get people rejecting it.

My preference is actually Kendi, who seems to point to racism in systems/behaviors, not an individual, permanent stain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see a few things going on. I can see how this event may have been reckless, and that other schools are more careful in how they present this information (ironically, the schools with more children of color are much much more careful because they are very aware of not wanting to cause harm to those kids and to treat them gently.)

I can imagine the Janney principal is seeing racism in the school and urgently wanted to act. I myself know of at least one incident in lower elementary of a white child using a slur against a child of color. I'm sure there are more. And let's be frank: there are families who move to the Janney zone bc they like the high percentage of white children, because they consciously or subconsciously think white peers are better. That is white supremacy. They exist in that neighborhood. So rooting that our and exposing it to sunlight somehow is a good thing, in my opinion.

After living in NW for 20 years, I can pretty safely say this is patently untrue. Every single white family I have known moved to upper NW for the good schools and felt bad that they were giving up the diversity in their old neighborhoods (mostly Shaw, Petworth, etc.). They are moving to where RICH families are, not purposefully looking for white people. In this country, as we all know, wealth is divided along racial lines because of white supremacy. They didn't move out of Bloomingdale because they didn't like the Black kids, they moved with a great deal of guilt so that their kids had a viable path through high school and they could afford that. The vast majority of white people in DC are liberal and many, many of them have had a reckoning with themselves since Trump was elected. I know so many people "doing the work" and these are the rich upper classes of NW. I am not as rich as these people, but I find the honesty and actual work they are doing to be great. They put their money where their mouths are too.

So why didn’t they move to Shepherd Park or Crestwood (when it fed to Deal)?

I can speak to this for my experience - because Janney (and Key) are the top schools and a strong foundation from a good elementary school is 100% necessary to leverage good education in later years. If your elementary education is crummy, then the rest won’t matter. So getting deal without Janney is too late. Also, in addition to good schools, there is a safety concern. It is no secret that DC is one of the most dangerous cities in terms of shooting and violent crime in the country. AUPark and surrounding areas have the lowest incident of crime in the entire district, particularly violent crime. Sure, I get that has to do with a history of white supremacy structures. But that isn’t going to cause me to avoid the safest and best education options for my kids that I can afford. That’s not supporting racism; that’s being a good parent and sensible human being.