Reply to A Response to Rita Montoya calling Community Members Racist

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "A Response to Rita Montoya calling Community Members Racist"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Taylor has sown division into our community in so many ways. Too bad we have BOE members such as Montoya who just make it worse.[/quote]

We get it.  You don't like that she called out racism without making it crystal clear the positions among some of the save Wootton crowd she considered such, even though she had spoken to that earlier.

Which BOE members do you think haven't supported Taylor in things you are considering divisive?[/quote]

They are a total rubber-stamp. One and all. That is why I support reform that would seat another BOE member reporting to the county executive to monitor budget issues so that the county council and county executive are not subject without sufficient notice to autocratic strong-arming by a superintendent who is more of a wheeler-dealer than an educator.

Montoya stands out because she gratuitously labeled the community attending the March 26th BOE meeting as racist. I think Grace Rivera-Oven is a problem too, with her claims that the BOE is a part-time job and she doesn't have time to pay attention to everything. Get out Grace - the community deserves better than you.[/quote]

She mumbled, "That's the racism," when the crowd briefly cheered Yang's voting against the combined boundary/programs changes.  That was a follow-up to her:

1l pointing out in her earlier comments the overwhelming over-representation of white and asian students/under-representation of black and brown students in the county's most academically successful magnet programs

2) expressing that she wanted "to make it clear, to this community and to all of my colleagues, that a vote against this model is a vote to perpetuate the racist access to these programs..." (based on failing to add the additional seating and regionalization which might lead to more magnet participation among black & brown students)

3) getting immediate verbal interruption of that from the crowd on hand, which was dominated by the save Wootton folk, for which she had to take a pause.

1 was factual, though the conclusions implied bear examination (e.g., how much is a consequence of a  wealth/poverty divide instead of a directly racial divide -- the significant variance suggest it is more than just that, however).

2 was a questionable and facile claim, as there was far more than just program expansion on the table.

3 was the thing to which she was responding with the mutter when the vote came.  Clearly, it was an inadvisable utterance.

Could she have concluded that the interruption had been because it was a far more complicated issue than the up-or-down support for racial equity she made it out to be, rather than because people were saying it wasn't a racial equity issue at all?  Sure she could have.  I think most there/watching read it that way, so why couldn't she?  Perhaps because of the focus of that which she was saying...

But that doesn't make her aside remark rise to "gratuitously" labeling -- it was a reaction to one possible, if not the most likely correct, interpretation of the interaction.

Ageee thst Grace has become a disappointment.[/quote]

Thanks for your response Rita. Probably better for your mental health if you stay off DCUM.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics