Minnesota Public Schools has enacted a new, racialized policy that will govern how layoffs are conducted. The MPS recently reached a settlement with MFT (Minneapolis Federation of Teachers) in March, to end a 14-day strike by teachers. This agreement has caused controversy.
The new contract, which was obtained by Alpha News, “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.”
You did read it right. If the policy goes into effect, the first to be laid off will be the white teachers. One of the proposals included in the contract addressed “educators of color protections,” which dictate that if a non-white teacher is subject to being laid off, MPS has to instead lay off 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 states.
According to the agreement, non-white teachers “’may be exempted from district-wide layoff[s] outside seniority order,” and will also be given priority during reinstatement.
Additionally, the contract states that teachers working at “racially isolated schools…with the greatest concentration of poverty,” will be shielded from layoffs as well.
The purpose of this policy is ostensibly to remedy the district’s past issues with racial discrimination.
“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 contract explains.
Hans Bader was a Constitutional lawyer who wrote an editorial in which he said that this policy is against the Constitution. His words were:
Title VII of Civil Rights Act declares it unlawful. When it comes to termination (as opposed to hiring or promotion under an affirmative-action plan), an employer can’t racially discriminate even against whites. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1996 that an school district can’t consider race even as a tie-breaker, in deciding who to lay off, even to promote diversity, because that (a) unduly trammels the white teacher’s rights — even affirmative action plans are supposed to be mild and not unduly trammel someone’s rights, and getting fired as opposed to being denied a promotion unduly trammels someone’s rights — and (b) putting that aside, the school district couldn’t consider race to promote diversity when black people weren’t seriously underrepresented in its workforce as a whole. Taxman, v. Board of Education of Piscataway 91 F.3d1547 (3d Cir. 1996).
The teachers’ union continues to push for its racist policies. Edward Barlow, who sits on the MFT’s executive board, told the Star Tribune that the measure could be “a national model” and that it is “a huge move forward for the retention of teachers of color.”
This policy could be challenged in court. This policy appears to violate civil rights laws. It is part a growing trend for discriminatory behaviour on the part school districts. Many schools have instituted “racial affinity groups” that specifically divide students by race. Eric Adams, the New York mayor, has been criticized for asking applicants to apply for positions within his city in an effort promote diversity.
This is remarkable because these people feel comfortable violating civil rights law. Maybe they think that no one will ever challenge them. Parents Defending Education has been successful in bringing lawsuits against several districts that employ racial-affinity groups. This group may not be as tolerant of the idea. Exposure is crucial when it comes to such abuses. However, the legal system can be the most powerful weapon against those who use woke discrimination practices in the name of equity. MPS should be able to challenge this quickly in court.