“We need to preserve diversity and mitigate the projected whitening of the feeder pattern”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is where Carville gets it right. https://www.vox.com/22338417/james-carville-democratic-party-biden-100-days

The messaging on important racial issues is drowned out by borderline shaming jargon like “be less white” or “mitigating the projected whiteness”. The republicans are great and messaging and picking this stuff up, broadcasting it via Fox and boom now the Dems are out of power.

The same with this school reorganization business. Stop using divide jargon. You’re turning people off from an important message. Also, before just enacting knee-jerk policy try and base it on projected outcomes and not on a reaction to racial soundbites from social justice warriors.

That's fine, but you could also help by just choosing not to be offended by the form the important message is taking and focusing instead on the message.

That’s not how people work. You can’t expect to have a culture where any perceived wrong speech can get you cancelled, and they expect people to ignore phrases like “mitigate whitening.” Nobody likes to be judged by their immutable charactetistics like race or gender.

I am a white person who's just fine with ignoring the phrase "mitigate whitening," though obviously I can recognize that it's caused some foreseeable side problems that will wind up getting in the way of the equity goals behind the idea and behind the specific proposals. Are you really so easily offended that you can't handle one phrase in one DCPS working group document that strikes you as possibly insensitive toward white people? Just move on.

What's your threshold on an permissible amount of microagressions by a government agency? When governments use this language, which was clearly wordsmithed to death, it sends a broader message than dehumanizing language is totally fine.

I don't have a specific threshold, but this doesn't meet it. They don't want all the Ward 3 schools to become overwhelmingly white in the near future. That's a totally reasonable policy concern. Do I care how they phrase it? Not particularly. Do I find it irritating that a lot of people seem to be fixating on the way they phrased it either instead of or as a reason to oppose the policy concern? Indeed I do!

Well I fundamentally disagree with you. A goverment policy expressly designed to reduce or “mitigate” a certain group of people based on their immutable characteristics is wrong, and also likely illegal. A policy to increase diversity or give opportunities to disadvantaged groups (identified by race or gender) is ok. This isn’t just “phrasing”; it’s a fundamental difference in goals.

I think this space is going to be interesting to watch. Maybe the real mitigation strategy DCPS needs to pursue is a legal risk mitigation strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is where Carville gets it right. https://www.vox.com/22338417/james-carville-democratic-party-biden-100-days

The messaging on important racial issues is drowned out by borderline shaming jargon like “be less white” or “mitigating the projected whiteness”. The republicans are great and messaging and picking this stuff up, broadcasting it via Fox and boom now the Dems are out of power.

The same with this school reorganization business. Stop using divide jargon. You’re turning people off from an important message. Also, before just enacting knee-jerk policy try and base it on projected outcomes and not on a reaction to racial soundbites from social justice warriors.

That's fine, but you could also help by just choosing not to be offended by the form the important message is taking and focusing instead on the message.

That’s not how people work. You can’t expect to have a culture where any perceived wrong speech can get you cancelled, and they expect people to ignore phrases like “mitigate whitening.” Nobody likes to be judged by their immutable charactetistics like race or gender.

I am a white person who's just fine with ignoring the phrase "mitigate whitening," though obviously I can recognize that it's caused some foreseeable side problems that will wind up getting in the way of the equity goals behind the idea and behind the specific proposals. Are you really so easily offended that you can't handle one phrase in one DCPS working group document that strikes you as possibly insensitive toward white people? Just move on.

What's your threshold on an permissible amount of microagressions by a government agency? When governments use this language, which was clearly wordsmithed to death, it sends a broader message than dehumanizing language is totally fine.

I don't have a specific threshold, but this doesn't meet it. They don't want all the Ward 3 schools to become overwhelmingly white in the near future. That's a totally reasonable policy concern. Do I care how they phrase it? Not particularly. Do I find it irritating that a lot of people seem to be fixating on the way they phrased it either instead of or as a reason to oppose the policy concern? Indeed I do!

Well I fundamentally disagree with you. A goverment policy expressly designed to reduce or “mitigate” a certain group of people based on their immutable characteristics is wrong, and also likely illegal. A policy to increase diversity or give opportunities to disadvantaged groups (identified by race or gender) is ok. This isn’t just “phrasing”; it’s a fundamental difference in goals.

I think this space is going to be interesting to watch. Maybe the real mitigation strategy DCPS needs to pursue is a legal risk mitigation strategy.

Sure.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson_v._Hansen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is where Carville gets it right. https://www.vox.com/22338417/james-carville-democratic-party-biden-100-days

The messaging on important racial issues is drowned out by borderline shaming jargon like “be less white” or “mitigating the projected whiteness”. The republicans are great and messaging and picking this stuff up, broadcasting it via Fox and boom now the Dems are out of power.

The same with this school reorganization business. Stop using divide jargon. You’re turning people off from an important message. Also, before just enacting knee-jerk policy try and base it on projected outcomes and not on a reaction to racial soundbites from social justice warriors.

That's fine, but you could also help by just choosing not to be offended by the form the important message is taking and focusing instead on the message.

That’s not how people work. You can’t expect to have a culture where any perceived wrong speech can get you cancelled, and they expect people to ignore phrases like “mitigate whitening.” Nobody likes to be judged by their immutable charactetistics like race or gender.

I am a white person who's just fine with ignoring the phrase "mitigate whitening," though obviously I can recognize that it's caused some foreseeable side problems that will wind up getting in the way of the equity goals behind the idea and behind the specific proposals. Are you really so easily offended that you can't handle one phrase in one DCPS working group document that strikes you as possibly insensitive toward white people? Just move on.

What's your threshold on an permissible amount of microagressions by a government agency? When governments use this language, which was clearly wordsmithed to death, it sends a broader message than dehumanizing language is totally fine.

I don't have a specific threshold, but this doesn't meet it. They don't want all the Ward 3 schools to become overwhelmingly white in the near future. That's a totally reasonable policy concern. Do I care how they phrase it? Not particularly. Do I find it irritating that a lot of people seem to be fixating on the way they phrased it either instead of or as a reason to oppose the policy concern? Indeed I do!

Well I fundamentally disagree with you. A goverment policy expressly designed to reduce or “mitigate” a certain group of people based on their immutable characteristics is wrong, and also likely illegal. A policy to increase diversity or give opportunities to disadvantaged groups (identified by race or gender) is ok. This isn’t just “phrasing”; it’s a fundamental difference in goals.

I think this space is going to be interesting to watch. Maybe the real mitigation strategy DCPS needs to pursue is a legal risk mitigation strategy.

Sure.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson_v._Hansen

care to elaborate?

[Anonymous]

Why does “diversity” always mean black?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gag. So over all the woke nonsense. Time to move.

Imagine if the title was “and mitigate the _______ing of the feeder pattern.”

If you put any other race, but white, you’d be branded a racist.

Well yea, that’s the point. White people have had a systemic advantage for ever, which is what DCPS is working to eradicate. This thread is like 20 pages long of ppl missing that.

- White teacher who understands that it’s okay to admit that we’ve had a ridiculous head start

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gag. So over all the woke nonsense. Time to move.

Imagine if the title was “and mitigate the _______ing of the feeder pattern.”

If you put any other race, but white, you’d be branded a racist.

Well yea, that’s the point. White people have had a systemic advantage for ever, which is what DCPS is working to eradicate. This thread is like 20 pages long of ppl missing that.

- White teacher who understands that it’s okay to admit that we’ve had a ridiculous head start

And if someone said we need to mitigate the blackening of the feeder pattern, I’d agree, clunky language aside. Increasing levels of segregation are bad!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is where Carville gets it right. https://www.vox.com/22338417/james-carville-democratic-party-biden-100-days

The messaging on important racial issues is drowned out by borderline shaming jargon like “be less white” or “mitigating the projected whiteness”. The republicans are great and messaging and picking this stuff up, broadcasting it via Fox and boom now the Dems are out of power.

The same with this school reorganization business. Stop using divide jargon. You’re turning people off from an important message. Also, before just enacting knee-jerk policy try and base it on projected outcomes and not on a reaction to racial soundbites from social justice warriors.

That's fine, but you could also help by just choosing not to be offended by the form the important message is taking and focusing instead on the message.

That’s not how people work. You can’t expect to have a culture where any perceived wrong speech can get you cancelled, and they expect people to ignore phrases like “mitigate whitening.” Nobody likes to be judged by their immutable charactetistics like race or gender.

I am a white person who's just fine with ignoring the phrase "mitigate whitening," though obviously I can recognize that it's caused some foreseeable side problems that will wind up getting in the way of the equity goals behind the idea and behind the specific proposals. Are you really so easily offended that you can't handle one phrase in one DCPS working group document that strikes you as possibly insensitive toward white people? Just move on.

What's your threshold on an permissible amount of microagressions by a government agency? When governments use this language, which was clearly wordsmithed to death, it sends a broader message than dehumanizing language is totally fine.

I don't have a specific threshold, but this doesn't meet it. They don't want all the Ward 3 schools to become overwhelmingly white in the near future. That's a totally reasonable policy concern. Do I care how they phrase it? Not particularly. Do I find it irritating that a lot of people seem to be fixating on the way they phrased it either instead of or as a reason to oppose the policy concern? Indeed I do!

Well I fundamentally disagree with you. A goverment policy expressly designed to reduce or “mitigate” a certain group of people based on their immutable characteristics is wrong, and also likely illegal. A policy to increase diversity or give opportunities to disadvantaged groups (identified by race or gender) is ok. This isn’t just “phrasing”; it’s a fundamental difference in goals.

And on Affirmative Action policies? I’m guessing you are also not okay with universities requiring higher standards from Asian student applicants. Or that they use the guise of ‘holistic’ admissions to weed out too many Asians (like they did with Jewish students before).

Or how the high school TJ in VA, is under a complete overhaul with regard to admissions now with one of their stated goals being to decrease the population of Asian high schoolers there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gag. So over all the woke nonsense. Time to move.

Imagine if the title was “and mitigate the _______ing of the feeder pattern.”

If you put any other race, but white, you’d be branded a racist.

Well yea, that’s the point. White people have had a systemic advantage for ever, which is what DCPS is working to eradicate. This thread is like 20 pages long of ppl missing that.

- White teacher who understands that it’s okay to admit that we’ve had a ridiculous head start

you’re missing the point. there’s a huge difference between “mitigating whitening” and providing opportunities for black students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is where Carville gets it right. https://www.vox.com/22338417/james-carville-democratic-party-biden-100-days

The messaging on important racial issues is drowned out by borderline shaming jargon like “be less white” or “mitigating the projected whiteness”. The republicans are great and messaging and picking this stuff up, broadcasting it via Fox and boom now the Dems are out of power.

The same with this school reorganization business. Stop using divide jargon. You’re turning people off from an important message. Also, before just enacting knee-jerk policy try and base it on projected outcomes and not on a reaction to racial soundbites from social justice warriors.

That's fine, but you could also help by just choosing not to be offended by the form the important message is taking and focusing instead on the message.

That’s not how people work. You can’t expect to have a culture where any perceived wrong speech can get you cancelled, and they expect people to ignore phrases like “mitigate whitening.” Nobody likes to be judged by their immutable charactetistics like race or gender.

I am a white person who's just fine with ignoring the phrase "mitigate whitening," though obviously I can recognize that it's caused some foreseeable side problems that will wind up getting in the way of the equity goals behind the idea and behind the specific proposals. Are you really so easily offended that you can't handle one phrase in one DCPS working group document that strikes you as possibly insensitive toward white people? Just move on.

What's your threshold on an permissible amount of microagressions by a government agency? When governments use this language, which was clearly wordsmithed to death, it sends a broader message than dehumanizing language is totally fine.

I don't have a specific threshold, but this doesn't meet it. They don't want all the Ward 3 schools to become overwhelmingly white in the near future. That's a totally reasonable policy concern. Do I care how they phrase it? Not particularly. Do I find it irritating that a lot of people seem to be fixating on the way they phrased it either instead of or as a reason to oppose the policy concern? Indeed I do!

Well I fundamentally disagree with you. A goverment policy expressly designed to reduce or “mitigate” a certain group of people based on their immutable characteristics is wrong, and also likely illegal. A policy to increase diversity or give opportunities to disadvantaged groups (identified by race or gender) is ok. This isn’t just “phrasing”; it’s a fundamental difference in goals.

And on Affirmative Action policies? I’m guessing you are also not okay with universities requiring higher standards from Asian student applicants. Or that they use the guise of ‘holistic’ admissions to weed out too many Asians (like they did with Jewish students before).

Or how the high school TJ in VA, is under a complete overhaul with regard to admissions now with one of their stated goals being to decrease the population of Asian high schoolers there.

correct, that is racist. opportunities need to be expanded to all, not limited on the basis of race/gender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re-draw the boundaries for WOTP schools to reduce the number of IB students, actually implement a 20% at-risk set aside for these schools, send all the other OOBs back to their IB and force other families to use their IB if they are in DCPS. The at-risk kids would have the right to go through to HS. Anyone who moves OOB can stay through that school year and then has to move to their IB - no principal discretion.

But DCPS/OSSE/the Mayor have no stomach for the hard choices that would benefit at-risk kids and kids IB for non-WOTP schools.

And that is why what you present as an easy peasy solution will fail every time. You can’t force families who have other options to send their children to a failing school. Will never happen.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re-draw the boundaries for WOTP schools to reduce the number of IB students, actually implement a 20% at-risk set aside for these schools, send all the other OOBs back to their IB and force other families to use their IB if they are in DCPS. The at-risk kids would have the right to go through to HS. Anyone who moves OOB can stay through that school year and then has to move to their IB - no principal discretion.

But DCPS/OSSE/the Mayor have no stomach for the hard choices that would benefit at-risk kids and kids IB for non-WOTP schools.

And that is why what you present as an easy peasy solution will fail every time. You can’t force families who have other options to send their children to a failing school. Will never happen.

+1

The vast majority of public school systems in the US force families to attend school for which their home is zoned. If people don’t like the school, they move or go private. In some areas, like DC, charters can be an option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re-draw the boundaries for WOTP schools to reduce the number of IB students, actually implement a 20% at-risk set aside for these schools, send all the other OOBs back to their IB and force other families to use their IB if they are in DCPS. The at-risk kids would have the right to go through to HS. Anyone who moves OOB can stay through that school year and then has to move to their IB - no principal discretion.

But DCPS/OSSE/the Mayor have no stomach for the hard choices that would benefit at-risk kids and kids IB for non-WOTP schools.

And that is why what you present as an easy peasy solution will fail every time. You can’t force families who have other options to send their children to a failing school. Will never happen.

+1

The vast majority of public school systems in the US force families to attend school for which their home is zoned. If people don’t like the school, they move or go private. In some areas, like DC, charters can be an option.

But they bought there knowing that school was their only public option. In DC, we have other options, and if those options are taken away then UMC families in poorly performing DCPS boundaries will move. I'm IB for Deal and Wilson FYI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re-draw the boundaries for WOTP schools to reduce the number of IB students, actually implement a 20% at-risk set aside for these schools, send all the other OOBs back to their IB and force other families to use their IB if they are in DCPS. The at-risk kids would have the right to go through to HS. Anyone who moves OOB can stay through that school year and then has to move to their IB - no principal discretion.

But DCPS/OSSE/the Mayor have no stomach for the hard choices that would benefit at-risk kids and kids IB for non-WOTP schools.

And that is why what you present as an easy peasy solution will fail every time. You can’t force families who have other options to send their children to a failing school. Will never happen.

+1

The vast majority of public school systems in the US force families to attend school for which their home is zoned. If people don’t like the school, they move or go private. In some areas, like DC, charters can be an option.

But they bought there knowing that school was their only public option. In DC, we have other options, and if those options are taken away then UMC families in poorly performing DCPS boundaries will move. I'm IB for Deal and Wilson FYI.

Then they move and the people who buy their place will be fully aware of the system in place. What we have now is not working - esp for at-risk kids. It has to change.

[Anonymous]

UMC families aren’t sending their kids to their poorly performing IB anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gag. So over all the woke nonsense. Time to move.

Imagine if the title was “and mitigate the _______ing of the feeder pattern.”

If you put any other race, but white, you’d be branded a racist.

Well yea, that’s the point. White people have had a systemic advantage for ever, which is what DCPS is working to eradicate. This thread is like 20 pages long of ppl missing that.

- White teacher who understands that it’s okay to admit that we’ve had a ridiculous head start

Why? Because white immigrants to this country went for broke to educate their children while they worked for nothing in coal mines? And that generation of educated children raised another generation with the same values? That is why white folks have an “advantage”.

This city is run by a Black woman, the school system is run by a Black man and a majority of the Council are POC. For 8 years we had a POC President. A ton of leadership failed. Stop the victim chant. L