Minneapolis teachers union contract calls for layoffs of white teachers first

[NED funded]

https://alphanews.org/minneapolis-te...eachers-first/

Yeah, I am not sure about this one

A Minneapolis teachers union contract stipulates that white teachers will be laid off or reassigned before “educators of color” in the event Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS) needs to reduce staff.

After the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers (MFT) and MPS struck a deal on March 25 to end a 14-day teacher strike, the two sides drew up and ratified a new collective bargaining agreement complete with various proposals.

One of the proposals dealt with “educators of color protections.” The agreement states that if a non-white teacher is subject to excess, MPS must excess a white teacher with the “next least” seniority.

“Starting with the Spring 2023 Budget Tie-Out Cycle, if excessing a teacher who is a member of a population underrepresented among licensed teachers in the site, the District shall excess the next least senior teacher, who is not a member of an underrepresented population,” the agreement reads.

According to the United Federation of Teachers, “excessing” means “reducing staff in a particular school when there is a reduction in the number of available positions in a title or license area in that school.”

The agreement adds that non-white teachers, as well as those working in various programs, “may be exempted from district-wide layoff[s] outside seniority order.” The agreement also prioritizes the reinstatement of teachers from “underrepresented populations” over white teachers.

The stated justification for these measures is “to remedy the continuing effects of past discrimination by the District.”

“Past discrimination by the District disproportionately impacted the hiring of underrepresented teachers in the District, as compared to the relevant labor market and the community, and resulted in a lack of diversity of teachers,” the agreement adds.

The Star Tribune reports that the “seniority-disrupting language” of the agreement is one of the first of its kind in the entire United States. Teachers are normally laid off or excessed based on seniority alone, but the new agreement adds a racial component as well.

James Dickey, senior trial counsel at the Upper Midwest Law Center (UMLC), says the racial component violates both the Minnesota and United States constitutions.

“The [collective bargaining agreement] … openly discriminates against white teachers based only on the color of their skin, and not their seniority or merit,” Dickey told Alpha News. “Minneapolis teachers and taxpayers who oppose government-sponsored racism like this should stand up against it.”

Dickey also urged “any Minneapolis taxpayer or teacher who opposes this racial preference system” to send the UMLC an email.

According to the Star Tribune, roughly 16% of MPS teachers with tenure and 27% of its probationary teachers are non-white, while more than 60% of students are non-white.

[Mekh]

wtf is Alpha News oh wait ... https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/alpha-news/

[Santti]

wtf is Alpha News oh wait ... https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/alpha-news/

In other words, it's more than likely complete and utter bullshit.

[Flarelaine]

Despite the source, there seems to be fire beneath the smoke.

https://www.startribune.com/new-minn...lor/600179265/

Let me preemptively remind anyone to post constructively and mind our longstanding rules when posting.

[Beefhammer]

https://alphanews.org/minneapolis-te...eachers-first/

Yeah, I am not sure about this one

Oh noes, something the agreed upon could happen.

[Milchshake]

Despite the source, there seems to be fire beneath the smoke.

https://www.startribune.com/new-minn...lor/600179265/

Let me preemptively remind anyone to post constructively and mind our longstanding rules when posting.

Please read the title. Notice the:

• Lazy title, lack of Camel Case.
• The inherent race baiting in the title. The OP framed this explicitly as an attack against white people. Instead of an imitative to preserve diversity.
• We all know this thread will be locked.

It reflects on the leadership of MMO.

• You lock it early and pre-empt the shit-show.
• You leave it unlocked to "stir the pot", the forum looks desperate for attention. Leadership looks bad.

[PC2]

If things aren't going to be based on individual merit(like they should be) then they should at least be based on a non-genetic factor like the net worth of a teacher or their familial income. Picking winners and losers based on genetics isn't going to be sustainable.

Also if all white teachers want to give PoC teachers priority in a purely voluntary manner where they don't feel coerced in any way then that would be totally fine.

[Fugus]

Despite the source, there seems to be fire beneath the smoke.

https://www.startribune.com/new-minn...lor/600179265/

Let me preemptively remind anyone to post constructively and mind our longstanding rules when posting.

Might I suggest moderation change the title to be something that isn’t meant to race bait?

[NED funded]

Oh noes, something the agreed upon could happen.

You don't think it's weird they are taking an explicitly racist approach to seniority?

Like no skin off my back if they want diversity in how they hire. It is kind of a different story when it comes to layoffs and seniority. It explicitly favors certain employees based on their race

[Dezerte]

In teaching it matters to the children who the teachers are, including what they look like. Teachers can become parental figures, adults that children look up to. Like many other jobs, teaching is a job that demands more than just pure merit. So no, it's not necessarily racist.

[Edge-]

You don't think it's weird they are taking an explicitly racist approach to seniority?

That's not the intent or reason why if you've read beyond alpha news, a garbage new source.

It is kind of a different story when it comes to layoffs and seniority.

Why? Hiring initiatives are based on diversity to help expand a talent pool and bring in different perspectives. Why should firing ignore those same measures, especially if there are historical wrongs in the hiring that haven't been reckoned with?

It's not an easy or comfortable topic, but I think it's a discussion that can be had without a bunch of folks polishing up their pearls so they can be seen clutching them.

[Beefhammer]

You don't think it's weird they are taking an explicitly racist approach to seniority?

Like no skin off my back if they want diversity in how they hire. It is kind of a different story when it comes to layoffs and seniority. It explicitly favors certain employees based on their race

I'm pretty sure it went like this in the negotiations, since MN is a pretty fucking racist state, if layoffs are called, let's protect our minority brethren, since the white teachers could easily find employment as teachers elsewhere faster. If this was such an issue, the teachers would never have voted for it. Do you not understand how collective bargaining and unions work? They can't just do whatever they want, proposals are brought up, negotiated, then voted on. This agreement passed. This isn't some out of the blue change made without the members knowing or vote.

[Endus]

You don't think it's weird they are taking an explicitly racist approach to seniority?

Like no skin off my back if they want diversity in how they hire. It is kind of a different story when it comes to layoffs and seniority. It explicitly favors certain employees based on their race

When you have any systemically unequitable status quo, the only way to redress that system is through the application of some counterbalancing systemic bias. The difference being that the counterbalance is intended only to exist so long as is necessary to eliminate that original inequity; it's not a new status quo, it's a temporary corrective measure.

The alternative is typically that we should just stick with equitable practices moving forward, but that's implicitly an argument for the maintaining of the original inequity, a refusal to address the historical wrongs, and just allow them to continue.

Framing a redress of racist policies as "racism" itself is maliciously-intended horse shit. It's a refusal to accept that the status quo is an actively-produced-and-defended wrong.

See also any and all arguments that try and refocus on "merit" without acknowledging that it's a meaningless and subjective label and the current problem exists because "being white" was deemed as having more "merit" for literally centuries.

[NED funded]

That's not the intent or reason why if you've read beyond alpha news, a garbage new source.



Why? Hiring initiatives are based on diversity to help expand a talent pool and bring in different perspectives. Why should firing ignore those same measures, especially if there are historical wrongs in the hiring that haven't been reckoned with?

It's not an easy or comfortable topic, but I think it's a discussion that can be had without a bunch of folks polishing up their pearls so they can be seen clutching them.

Hiring is diff from laying off. That should be obv. Focusing on diversity when hiring is not harming anyone. It is giving an opportunity to people that might not have had it otherwise.

Laying off someone is choosing who is going to be laid off and dealing with the stresses related to it. That decision should not be made on the basis of race

- - - Updated - - -

When you have any systemically unequitable status quo, the only way to redress that system is through the application of some counterbalancing systemic bias. The difference being that the counterbalance is intended only to exist so long as is necessary to eliminate that original inequity; it's not a new status quo, it's a temporary corrective measure.

The alternative is typically that we should just stick with equitable practices moving forward, but that's implicitly an argument for the maintaining of the original inequity, a refusal to address the historical wrongs, and just allow them to continue.

Framing a redress of racist policies as "racism" itself is maliciously-intended horse shit. It's a refusal to accept that the status quo is an actively-produced-and-defended wrong.

See also any and all arguments that try and refocus on "merit" without acknowledging that it's a meaningless and subjective label and the current problem exists because "being white" was deemed as having more "merit" for literally centuries.

The issue at hand is that there are a lot of white seniority teachers cuz a history of racism. The fix is to have more diverse hires. Not laying off white teachers until reaching parity which is what the solution here is. If someone needs to retire then they should be retired and not excused just because they happen to be black, hispanic, etc

[Endus]

The issue at hand is that there are a lot of white seniority teachers cuz a history of racism. The fix is to have more diverse hires. Not fire white teachers until reaching parity which is what the solution here is.

Again, that is a stance that inherently supports and defends the white supremacist status quo. That's why it doesn't get the support you're hoping for.

Promising not to engage in future injustices does not redress historical injustices. This is a really fuckin' basic concept.

[Edge-]

Hiring is diff from laying off. That should be obv.

Explain the difference to me. They're two sides to the same coin, often driven by budgetary reasons more than anything else.

Focusing on diversity when hiring is not harming anyone.

There are many who argue otherwise. But if that's not harming anyone, than making decisions on who to retain while considering diversity shouldn't be harming anyone, either. Because it's not.

Laying off someone is choosing who is going to be laid off and dealing with the stresses related to it.

Hiring is choosing who is going to be hired and the other applicants denied dealing with the stresses related to it.

That decision should not be made on the basis of race

It's not being made based purely on the basis of race. It's being made with diversity being one of the considerations rather than simply going by seniority, which is, frankly, a generally terrible way to handle it.

Diversity remains a problem, with teachers of color still being underemployed in the fields due to decades of racism and other factors. Making these decisions purely on seniority destroys these efforts, as those likely to be let go first are the newest teachers hired, primarily teachers of more diverse backgrounds.

I'm still waiting for the good argument on why seniority should matter more beyond "they worked there for longer" which...alright? And? The goal of layoffs under any conditions should be towards an achievable goal rather than "just because we gotta get rid of people." The contract the district negotiates is towards that end - working to ensure that they have more diversity in teachers to help students, as the article notes studies have shown that children of color having a teacher of color who can (can) better understand them tends to result in better educational outcomes for the students.

And really, the point of hiring teachers or laying teachers off is to give the students the best education possible and set them up for success. So we should pursue policies, including in hiring and firing, towards that end.

[postman1782]

You don't think it's weird they are taking an explicitly racist approach to seniority?

Like no skin off my back if they want diversity in how they hire. It is kind of a different story when it comes to layoffs and seniority. It explicitly favors certain employees based on their race

No, you lied specifically about it, and now are trying to change the narrative.

[Mekh]

You don't think it's weird they are taking an explicitly racist approach to seniority?

Like no skin off my back if they want diversity in how they hire. It is kind of a different story when it comes to layoffs and seniority. It explicitly favors certain employees based on their race

It's not that hard: you do diversity hires to have a more diverse pool. If you don't have similar protections to firing, the same mechanisms that lead to requiring diversity hires in the first place will lead to non-white people being fired first. This approach aims to maintain the diversity they tried to build.

[BeepBoo]

Affirmative action and predisposition to hire diversity over actual demonstrated ability is always garbage in every form it takes. This is no different. At their core, they're all discriminatory for things like "skin color, ethnic background, etc" which... is racist.

[Edge-]

Affirmative action and predisposition to hire diversity over actual demonstrated ability is always garbage in every form it takes.

Phew, good thing that's not what's happening, and that this rarely actually happens as candidates need to be qualified for the position to begin with.

At their core, they're all discriminatory for things like "skin color, ethnic background, etc" which... is racist.

That's not what racism actually means.