Sure, I know that is a loaded title, but every time I turn around the Seattle School district is getting dinged for its diversity in which the focus is less on equality and opportunity then it is on blame shifting and rationalization.

Just recently I blogged about their latest manifestation:

Forget the War on Christmas, here comes the War on Thanksgiving

Caprice Hollins, the Director of Equity and Race Relations for the Seattle School District is at it again.  Caprice as you may remember was the architect of the idiotic racist racism policy for Seattle schools not long ago.  The school district was also sending kids to a bogus White Privilege seminar.

They love their faux diversity, they do. 

Before that I noted that:

As I noted earlier, Seattle went this route earlier this year.  As I noted in this blog, the issue was raised locally by sending a bunch of High School kids to a White Privilege Seminar .  You should be even more alarmed to learn that the curriculum is being pushed at high school levels too:

And speaking of White Privilege, that has made the news in Seattle, where the over compensating racial policies have turned a new page, are now sending students to a white privilege conference:

For the first time, Seattle Public Schools are sending students from four high schools to attend the annual White Privilege Conference, sponsored by the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, the University of Denver, Teaching Tolerance, Study Circles Resource Center, The Matrix, Center for Judaic Studies, GLSEN, and many more organizations. Speakers include Geneva Gay, Peggy McIntosh, Joy Leary, John-Paul Chaisson-Cardenas and many others who are actively engaged in anti-racism.

...

" The annual White Privilege Conference (WPC) serves as a yearly opportunity to examine and explore difficult issues related to white privilege, white supremacy and oppression. WPC provides a forum for critical discussions about diversity, multicultural education and leadership, social justice, race/racism, sexual orientation, gender relations, religion and other systems of privilege/oppression. WPC is recognized as a challenging, empowering and educational experience. The workshops, keynotes and institutes not only inform participants, but engage and challenge them, while providing practical tips and strategies for combating inequality.

The problem is that these conferences begin with a faulty premise and operate under no other possibilities, making the whole thing less about diversity and more about indoctrination of racism.

Seattle has a history of this overly sensitive multi culturalism, and reading back in previously blogs, you will note that White Privilege is an old theme that previously generated a lot of controversy:

Caprice Hollins needs to go

Today's P-I has a news article on the swirling controversy over the Seattle School District's bizarre definition of racism and the woman responsible for it, "Director of Equity and Race Relations" Caprice Hollins. The P-I's headline reiterates what I noted yesterday: "School district pulls Web site after examples of racism spark controversy". The original definition of racism is still in the google cache. And the statement that replaces it is just as appallingly un-American and racist as the original:

Our intention is not to ... continue to hold onto unsuccessful concepts such as a melting pot or colorblind mentality.

Well, Orbusmax had a few links up with flashback to this whole history, and some of the darker aspects of this are much clearer, so here is a much broader look at the racism in Seattle, and the implication that the people behind it are as much selfish and greedy as they are altruistic.

Embarrass Your Employer, While Getting Rich Off of “Diversity” Scams

Glenn Singleton of Pacific Educational Group has become a rich man by preaching racism, hate, and scapegoating. School systems hire him for hundreds of thousands of dollars to insult and scapegoat teachers and students based on their race under the guise of “diversity training.” That embarrasses the school systems that hire him in high-profile legal cases. Yet foolish school superintendents continue to hire him at exorbitant rates, as the Discriminations blog notes, citing a recent story in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Previously, Singleton embarrassed the Seattle Schools. In 2002, they hired him to indoctrinate their students and staff about racism. As a result, they redefined racism consistent with Singleton’s extreme and radical beliefs. The Seattle Schools defined “individualism” as a form of “cultural racism,” said that only whites can be racist, and claimed that planning ahead (”future time orientation”) is a white characteristic that it is racist to expect minorities to exhibit.

Singleton promotes the basest racial stereotypes, such as claiming that “’white talk’ is ‘verbal, impersonal, intellectual’ and ‘task-oriented,’ while ‘color commentary’ is ‘nonverbal, personal, emotional’ and ‘process-oriented.’” He also blathers about “the ubiquity of white privilege and racism,” and depicts Asian students as being “majority students” just like whites because they have the temerity to succeed academically in a predominantly white society. But although he views minority culture as not being “intellectual” and “task-oriented,” it is white teachers whom he blames for the underperformance of many minority students, since he claims it would be a “racist statement” to place any responsibility for minority underperformance on minorities themselves.

Singleton’s rantings would have passed unnoticed had it not been for the legal challenge to the Seattle Schools’ use of race in student assignment. Lower courts had upheld their use of race, and the case was pending before the Supreme Court, which had the option of declining to review the case without comment, as it had more than a dozen prior cases involving the use of race by public schools in student assignment.

But then Seattle’s bizarre and racist definitions of racism, closely tracking Singleton’s own extreme beliefs, came to my attention. At my suggestion, the widely-read Volokh Conspiracy law blog, which has been cited in federal appellate court opinions, and is read by Supreme Court clerks, publicized those definitions on May 17, 2006 (citing me), and shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court, which had previously held over the case for discussion, decided to review it. The Seattle Schools, embarrassed by public ridicule, took down the Singleton-influenced definitions of racism, which I used to urge the Supreme Court to hear the case.

In June 2007, the Supreme Court struck down Seattle’s use of race, and 4 of the 9 justices cited Seattle’s wacky, Singleton-influenced, definitions of racism in the course of their opinions. Justice Thomas, for example, cited those definitions as an object lesson in why not to defer to school districts when they use race. I filed the brief that brought those wacky definitions to the Supreme Court’s attention; it was one of the few amicus briefs filed in the case that opposed Seattle’s use of race. As a result of losing the case, Seattle is expected to pay more than a million dollars in attorneys fees to the lawyers who challenged its use of race.

 But despite this loss and waste of money, the man behind it continues, unabated:

Despite greatly embarrassing the Seattle School District, which hired him, Singleton continues to be hired by school superintendents to preach his weird message of racism and scapegoating. The Greenwich, Connecticut schools have hired him as a diversity consultant. So, too, has Jack O’Connell, California’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, who has hired Singleton and given him the opportunity to scapegoat white teachers for the poor performance of some minority students. And so has a Colorado school district that gave Singleton a “six-figure consulting contract.” Singleton has received hundreds of thousands of dollars to barrage a captive audience with racism and hate. Yet he thinks he’s oppressed.

And that is something no one wants to admit:  That race baiting is an industry.  The agitators have a lot invested in creating racial hostility and distrust.

In short, yes, I am accusing many racism activists of intentionally creating more racism and racial distrust, in order to give themselves a plank on which to make a living.

As I noted above, the Seattle School District adopted a fairly gross policy, then quickly took it down. Parts of it were PC but not bad, but some aspects were fairly inflammatory.

Well, it was saved as a cached page, so here again, to celebrate Thanksgiving in Seattle,  is racism, Seattle Style. 

Equity and Race Relations

Definitions of Racism

Racism:

The systematic subordination of members of targeted racial groups who have relatively little social power in the United States (Blacks, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asians), by the members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites). The subordination is supported by the actions of individuals, cultural norms and values, and the institutional structures and practices of society.

Note that the "definition assumes that only whites are racist, and only non whites are victims. Strangely enough the Dictionary is less specific:

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races

As you see a real definition only concerns itself with describing what it is, not who does it.  If the meaning holds any value, racism is a product of anyone hatred or policy, regardless of race. 

Individual Racism:

The beliefs, attitudes, and actions of individuals that support or perpetuate racism. Individual racism can occur at both an unconscious and conscious level, and can be both active and passive. Examples include telling a racist joke, using a racial epithet, or believing in the inherent superiority of whites.

Note that they interject subconscious behavior, which allows you to be racist even though you think you are not. 

Active Racism:

Actions which have as their stated or explicit goal the maintenance of the system of racism and the oppression of those in the targeted racial groups. People who participate in active racism advocate the continued subjugation of members of the targeted groups and protection of “the rights” of members of the agent group. These goals are often supported by a belief in the inferiority of people of color and the superiority of white people, culture, and values.

Again, the assumption is made about whites being the problem.  Since the definition of racism is so slanted and tainted the continued use of it just further corrupts it.  

Passive Racism:

Beliefs, attitudes, and actions that contribute to the maintenance of racism, without openly advocating violence or oppression. The conscious or unconscious maintenance of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that support the system of racism, racial prejudice and racial dominance.

Cultural Racism:

Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as “other”, different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers.

Institutional Racism:

The network of institutional structures, policies, and practices that create advantages and benefits for Whites, and discrimination, oppression, and disadvantages for people from targeted racial groups. The advantages created for Whites are often invisible to them, or are considered “rights” available to everyone as opposed to “privileges” awarded to only some individuals and groups.

Source: Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice, 1197 eds. Adams, Bell & Griffin

Race

A pseudobiological category that distinguishes people based on physical characteristics (e.g., skin color, body shape/size, facial features, hair texture). People of one race can vary in terms of ethnicity and culture.

Ethnicity

A group whose members share a common history and origin, as well as commonalities in terms of factors such as nationality, religion, and cultural activities.

Culture

The way of life of a group of people including the shared values, beliefs, behaviors, family roles, social relationships, verbal and nonverbal communication styles, orientation to authority, as well as preferences and expressions (art, music, food). “What everybody knows that everybody else knows.”

Acculturation

A dynamic process that occurs when members of one culture (culture of origin) come into contact with another culture (host/dominant culture) over a long period of time. The process involves exposure to, reaction to, and possible adoptions of aspects of the other groups culture. Adapting to the characteristics of the larger or dominant culture, while retaining some of one’s unique cultural traits.

Assimilation

The process of giving up connections to and aspects of one’s culture of origin and blending in with the host/dominant culture. Also, the wholesale adoption of the dominant culture at the expense of the original culture.

Prejudice

An attitude or opinion that is held in the absence of (or despite) full information. Typically it is negative in nature and based on faulty, distorted or unsubstantiated information that is over generalized and relatively in-flexible. Prejudices can be conscious or relatively unconscious.

Oppression

Treatment of a group of people within a society that results in the systematic denial of equal access to civil rights, freedoms, and power within that society. It involves a devaluing and non-acceptance of the target group and can be manifested economically, politically, socially, and/or psychologically. Individuals, through their values and behavior, can collude with a system of oppression which contributes to its maintenance in a society.

Equality

"In any given circumstances, people who are the same in those respects relevant to how they are treated in those circumstances should receive the same treatment" (p. 45). Equality defined in this way, looks at the individual and the circumstances surrounding him or her. It does not focus on group differences based on categories such as race, sex, social class, and ethnicity. This view is one of assimilation because it assumes that individuals, once socialized into society, have the right "to do anything they want, to choose their own lives and not be hampered by traditional expectations and stereotypes" (Young, 1990, p. 157).

Here comes affirmative action:

Equity

"…. deals with difference and takes into consideration the fact that this society has many groups in it who have not always been given equal treatment and/or have not had a level field on which to play. These groups have been frequently made to feel inferior to those in the mainstream and some have been oppressed. To achieve equity, according to Young (1990), "Social policy should sometimes accord special treatment to groups" (p. 158). Thus, the concept of equity provides a case for unequal treatment for those who have been disadvantaged over time. It can provide compensatory kinds of treatment, offering it in the form of special programs and benefits for those who have been discriminated against and are in need of opportunity."

Equitable Access

Equitable access provides groups of people access to resources, services and programs that would not otherwise be available to them due to disadvantages created over time resulting from many factors including marginalization, racism, discrimination, and oppression. In essence, equitable access attempts to create a level playing field between the have and have nots.

My challenge:  Take this list and compare many of the words to a normal dictionary, and you determine if the choices of definitions servers to promote disharmony, inequality and distrust, or if they promote tolerance, acceptance and harmony.

There is no argument that American History is an uncomfortable read.  We have a serious history of bad behavior.

But in theory we are growing and learning.  So, how does it help to tell white people, you were racist, so you still must be, and only you can be, and you cannot even help it.  You can't stop it.

Under such terms, why would any white person care about being racist or not?  If they are by your definition racist regardless of their actions, regardless of their values and regardless of their beliefs, then are you really encouraging them to not be racist?

That's what I see happening, the agitators want to subconsciously encourage racism, in order to keep the flames burning.

The most racist people these days are the activists and politicians who fan the flames of hatred for profit and power.

Particularly when they do so to a new generation of kids who should be learning to transcend racial boundaries.

 Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Random Yak, guerrilla radio, Right Truth, The Populist, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Big Dog's Weblog, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Allie is Wired, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Wake Up America, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS