This seems much so much ado about nothing. Seriously, who ANYWHERE is actually claiming that teaching Rosa Parks is "divisive"? For there to be a "division" there needs to be at least two sides involved, so who is the "Don't teach Rosa Parks" side? What are their numbers and who is their spokesperson?
Teach history. Use objective standards of what is important and what isn't. Don't use demographics to decide what is important. Don't push some activist ideology to "radically transform" America or "deconstruct" or "queer" normative anything. Present people as people, situated in their own historical context, not as mere incarnations of classes pre-sorted into "oppressor" and "oppressed".
Doesn't Civil Rights law ALREADY address the matter of defining terms like "discrimination" and actions being illegally motivated by racial animus? It's absurd that we can have decades of experience and precedent in "don't be anti-Black" and 'don't be anti-woman" but these "professionals" act utterly confused when told to ALSO "don't be anti-white" and "don't be anti-male". If "don't be a bigot against ANY protected category of person" is too hard a standard for them then it's pretty damn disturbing that these people have positions of taxpayer-funded authority and influence.
Why blame Trump for failing to define DEI? It should already have been accurately defined by the people who created it. As an educator, and as a rational human being, I am fed up with people throwing terms around with no real idea what any of it really means.
How many people are capable of accurately and knowledgably defining the terms they use on a daily basis? I challenge everyone to make sure they have the greatest possible comprehension of the terms they use so gratuitously. What is 'social justice', climate change, a 'fair share' of taxes, conservatism, liberalism, communism. capitalism, free market, and yes, DEI. I've read countless pieces centered around DEI, and have yet to hear anyone explain what it is and what it is not.
"The administration’s vague framing of DEI as inherently discriminatory, often without specifying which practices are targeted, has created a chilling effect, with some schools preemptively scaling back programs and curriculums meant to educate students about people that belong to the marginal groups due to fear of losing federal funding."
That's okay with me. Educating students about people that belong to marginal groups is so distant from the central function of K-12 education that I suspect eliminating any and all programs that even approach this description could be done with almost no loss to educational quality... and a great deal of money could be saved.
Ultimately DEI is just a chess piece. The real issue is the staggeringly overloaded edifice of administrators, who use programs like DEI to justify their existence without providing any real value to schools whatsoever. There are two basic options here: 3x the number of administrative per student as there were in 2020, plus all of the nonsense that accompanies them (rules and curriculum materials and trainings and forms that overburden teachers and do nothing to educate kids)... or fewer administrators. MANY, many fewer. Throw those overpaid hacks into the job market and their unscientific, unsustainable abstractions with them. That is what parents demand.
The only parents and kids who support DEI tend to be wealthier, and use the ideas as signals for college selection and peer socialization. What does that tell you? If these ideas were really about marginalized people (in any way) they'd be popular among them. Instead, they have been create and sustained by the most overeducated and unproductive elements in our society. It's time to cut the cord, and let those professionals apply DEI in their own lives and careers, without being lavishly supported by taxpayers.
Administrations and teachers aren't confused. They might be using that as cover for non-compliance. They know darn well what constitutes DEI because they wrote and designed the policies around it, created employee positions to execute it, trained teachers to teach it, ignored parental concerns about it, shamed students who didn't fit the new normal, and censored anyone who dared to speak out about it at council and board meetings. There is a difference between equity and equality. DEI pushes the first whereas no one objects to equality.
You could actually read the executive orders and you will get all the information that you say isn't there. They are very clear and specific. It isn't the confusing horror show you make it out to be. That is the actual rhetoric.
Your post is dishonest and implies that DEI has been conflated to include the bad with good.
We know better:
“what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul". (“Billy Madison”—1995)
Six years ago, my then-high schooler started spouting 'white privilege' to me. I was stunned. My child is of mixed heritage. I always made it clear to him that his great-grandparents pulled themselves up from the poverty that awaited them in early 20th century slums. The men died early due to asbestos. I did this not to push guilt but rather a duty to help others achieve and to be grateful. Current history forgets Karl Marx was writing about the horrific conditions of workers in England, including a large number of children working by the age of 7. Around that time, Frederick Douglass was in England to gain support for the abolition of slavery in the US. His autobiography makes reference to this as well as the plight of the Irish suffering a terrible famine. Food was exported by the English, and the Irish were literally reduced to eating each other. My grandfather fought in the IRA, so some guy of Irish descent thought I would be impressed that his sister's British friend apologized for the treatment of the Irish. I responded that I thought it was an incredibly stupid gesture as the poor woman's family probably suffered equally harsh treatment. While the chimney sweeper guy in the Mary Poppins movie may sing quaintly, that must have been a horrific, deadly job for children. So I am all for teaching history but not in the sense of victimhood but as lessons to learn with a moral tale and not a forced narrative. Some time ago, the Smithsonian Magazine ran an article on the Tulsa Massacre. In one short paragraph it noted that Black businessman went to Teddy Roosevelt voicing their concern at those who were leading the territory to statehood. The leaders for statehood were heralded by Nation Magazine for bringing about a progressive government. Months later the massacre happened. I later went to share the article with my father as he had been a social worker and we often discuss various social topics. The online version seemed to have deleted the paragraph. I wrote in to complain.
Sadly, I don’t believe that there is any ambiguity at all. Trump and Co just haven’t yet said the quiet part out loud. They’re spelling it out with executive orders and shakedowns, but until they feel emboldened to clarify “DEI means teaching shit that makes our white children squirm” there will continue to be a lot of confusion.
> Take Black History, for example. Is teaching about the Civil Rights Movement or slavery part of DEI? To some, it’s just history and factual events that are a part of American history and shaped the nation. To others, it’s a cornerstone of equity education, spotlighting marginalized voices. Many educators and administrators fear that Trump's administration’s stance may suggest the latter, framing such content as part of a "woke" agenda. Yet without explicit guidance, schools are left guessing. Does a lesson on Rosa Parks risk federal funding, while one on the Founding Fathers doesn’t?
Well these days many schools have taken to teaching about the Civil Rights Movement or slavery to the exclusion of all other history. So, yes it probably should be scaled back.
The very smart people at Harvard and other DEI infested universities don’t seem to remember that the Supreme Court has already told them that discriminating on the basis of race is unconstitutional and yet they have promised to continue to do so. I hope the Feds drop the hammer on them.
The comments here stun me. I've had 'discussions' with people who insist that there is no harm in DEI and that everyone who ever attended a DEI assembly left invigorated and happy to spread the ideas heard. That wasn't my experience. The reality is that, as the author stated, DEI is many things and, depending on the politics of the instructor and the intent of the curriculum creator, it can be education or indoctrination. So yes, clear definition is needed here. BUT, I agree with the commenters who say too many DEI supporters are playing dumb. "DEI.....what's that?" Again, clear definition.
If a government is allowed to break the law in an emergency
The government will create an emergency in order to break the law
The idea that the most advanced and protected airspace in the world was caught by surprise the way they were by among the least advanced armies is risible
Wagging the dog: Body Language Expert Examines: Israeli Netan-Yahoo Declares War On Hamas, Smirks When Mentioning the Contrived "Invasion" of Israel: https://old.bitchute.com/video/eAN12noFlId0 [7:04mins]
Here is a clarified example of DEI language: “…leaving educators uncertain about how to balance legal compliance with the need to address systemic inequities in increasingly diverse classrooms.
Take Black History, for example. Is teaching about the Civil Rights Movement or slavery part of DEI? To some, it’s just history and factual events that are a part of American history and shaped the nation. To others, it’s a cornerstone of equity education, spotlighting marginalized voices.”
This seems much so much ado about nothing. Seriously, who ANYWHERE is actually claiming that teaching Rosa Parks is "divisive"? For there to be a "division" there needs to be at least two sides involved, so who is the "Don't teach Rosa Parks" side? What are their numbers and who is their spokesperson?
Teach history. Use objective standards of what is important and what isn't. Don't use demographics to decide what is important. Don't push some activist ideology to "radically transform" America or "deconstruct" or "queer" normative anything. Present people as people, situated in their own historical context, not as mere incarnations of classes pre-sorted into "oppressor" and "oppressed".
Doesn't Civil Rights law ALREADY address the matter of defining terms like "discrimination" and actions being illegally motivated by racial animus? It's absurd that we can have decades of experience and precedent in "don't be anti-Black" and 'don't be anti-woman" but these "professionals" act utterly confused when told to ALSO "don't be anti-white" and "don't be anti-male". If "don't be a bigot against ANY protected category of person" is too hard a standard for them then it's pretty damn disturbing that these people have positions of taxpayer-funded authority and influence.
Nicely said
Why blame Trump for failing to define DEI? It should already have been accurately defined by the people who created it. As an educator, and as a rational human being, I am fed up with people throwing terms around with no real idea what any of it really means.
How many people are capable of accurately and knowledgably defining the terms they use on a daily basis? I challenge everyone to make sure they have the greatest possible comprehension of the terms they use so gratuitously. What is 'social justice', climate change, a 'fair share' of taxes, conservatism, liberalism, communism. capitalism, free market, and yes, DEI. I've read countless pieces centered around DEI, and have yet to hear anyone explain what it is and what it is not.
"The administration’s vague framing of DEI as inherently discriminatory, often without specifying which practices are targeted, has created a chilling effect, with some schools preemptively scaling back programs and curriculums meant to educate students about people that belong to the marginal groups due to fear of losing federal funding."
That's okay with me. Educating students about people that belong to marginal groups is so distant from the central function of K-12 education that I suspect eliminating any and all programs that even approach this description could be done with almost no loss to educational quality... and a great deal of money could be saved.
Ultimately DEI is just a chess piece. The real issue is the staggeringly overloaded edifice of administrators, who use programs like DEI to justify their existence without providing any real value to schools whatsoever. There are two basic options here: 3x the number of administrative per student as there were in 2020, plus all of the nonsense that accompanies them (rules and curriculum materials and trainings and forms that overburden teachers and do nothing to educate kids)... or fewer administrators. MANY, many fewer. Throw those overpaid hacks into the job market and their unscientific, unsustainable abstractions with them. That is what parents demand.
The only parents and kids who support DEI tend to be wealthier, and use the ideas as signals for college selection and peer socialization. What does that tell you? If these ideas were really about marginalized people (in any way) they'd be popular among them. Instead, they have been create and sustained by the most overeducated and unproductive elements in our society. It's time to cut the cord, and let those professionals apply DEI in their own lives and careers, without being lavishly supported by taxpayers.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/leviathan
Administrations and teachers aren't confused. They might be using that as cover for non-compliance. They know darn well what constitutes DEI because they wrote and designed the policies around it, created employee positions to execute it, trained teachers to teach it, ignored parental concerns about it, shamed students who didn't fit the new normal, and censored anyone who dared to speak out about it at council and board meetings. There is a difference between equity and equality. DEI pushes the first whereas no one objects to equality.
You could actually read the executive orders and you will get all the information that you say isn't there. They are very clear and specific. It isn't the confusing horror show you make it out to be. That is the actual rhetoric.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-indoctrination-in-k-12-schooling/?utm_source=wh_social_share_button
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity/?utm_source=wh_social_share_button
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/?utm_source=wh_social_share_button
Your post is dishonest and implies that DEI has been conflated to include the bad with good.
We know better:
“what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul". (“Billy Madison”—1995)
Six years ago, my then-high schooler started spouting 'white privilege' to me. I was stunned. My child is of mixed heritage. I always made it clear to him that his great-grandparents pulled themselves up from the poverty that awaited them in early 20th century slums. The men died early due to asbestos. I did this not to push guilt but rather a duty to help others achieve and to be grateful. Current history forgets Karl Marx was writing about the horrific conditions of workers in England, including a large number of children working by the age of 7. Around that time, Frederick Douglass was in England to gain support for the abolition of slavery in the US. His autobiography makes reference to this as well as the plight of the Irish suffering a terrible famine. Food was exported by the English, and the Irish were literally reduced to eating each other. My grandfather fought in the IRA, so some guy of Irish descent thought I would be impressed that his sister's British friend apologized for the treatment of the Irish. I responded that I thought it was an incredibly stupid gesture as the poor woman's family probably suffered equally harsh treatment. While the chimney sweeper guy in the Mary Poppins movie may sing quaintly, that must have been a horrific, deadly job for children. So I am all for teaching history but not in the sense of victimhood but as lessons to learn with a moral tale and not a forced narrative. Some time ago, the Smithsonian Magazine ran an article on the Tulsa Massacre. In one short paragraph it noted that Black businessman went to Teddy Roosevelt voicing their concern at those who were leading the territory to statehood. The leaders for statehood were heralded by Nation Magazine for bringing about a progressive government. Months later the massacre happened. I later went to share the article with my father as he had been a social worker and we often discuss various social topics. The online version seemed to have deleted the paragraph. I wrote in to complain.
Sadly, I don’t believe that there is any ambiguity at all. Trump and Co just haven’t yet said the quiet part out loud. They’re spelling it out with executive orders and shakedowns, but until they feel emboldened to clarify “DEI means teaching shit that makes our white children squirm” there will continue to be a lot of confusion.
> Take Black History, for example. Is teaching about the Civil Rights Movement or slavery part of DEI? To some, it’s just history and factual events that are a part of American history and shaped the nation. To others, it’s a cornerstone of equity education, spotlighting marginalized voices. Many educators and administrators fear that Trump's administration’s stance may suggest the latter, framing such content as part of a "woke" agenda. Yet without explicit guidance, schools are left guessing. Does a lesson on Rosa Parks risk federal funding, while one on the Founding Fathers doesn’t?
Well these days many schools have taken to teaching about the Civil Rights Movement or slavery to the exclusion of all other history. So, yes it probably should be scaled back.
The very smart people at Harvard and other DEI infested universities don’t seem to remember that the Supreme Court has already told them that discriminating on the basis of race is unconstitutional and yet they have promised to continue to do so. I hope the Feds drop the hammer on them.
The comments here stun me. I've had 'discussions' with people who insist that there is no harm in DEI and that everyone who ever attended a DEI assembly left invigorated and happy to spread the ideas heard. That wasn't my experience. The reality is that, as the author stated, DEI is many things and, depending on the politics of the instructor and the intent of the curriculum creator, it can be education or indoctrination. So yes, clear definition is needed here. BUT, I agree with the commenters who say too many DEI supporters are playing dumb. "DEI.....what's that?" Again, clear definition.
If a government is allowed to break the law in an emergency
The government will create an emergency in order to break the law
The idea that the most advanced and protected airspace in the world was caught by surprise the way they were by among the least advanced armies is risible
Wagging the dog: Body Language Expert Examines: Israeli Netan-Yahoo Declares War On Hamas, Smirks When Mentioning the Contrived "Invasion" of Israel: https://old.bitchute.com/video/eAN12noFlId0 [7:04mins]
Problem | Reaction | Solution | Murder | Landgrab
Here is a clarified example of DEI language: “…leaving educators uncertain about how to balance legal compliance with the need to address systemic inequities in increasingly diverse classrooms.
Take Black History, for example. Is teaching about the Civil Rights Movement or slavery part of DEI? To some, it’s just history and factual events that are a part of American history and shaped the nation. To others, it’s a cornerstone of equity education, spotlighting marginalized voices.”