UPDATE: The proposal described below PASSED on September 10 by a board vote of 4 to 1. Shame on this school board, except for the one sane voice: Board Member Lou Sauter. Those voting in FAVOR of this radical proposal were Lori Trent, Liz George Stump, President Jenny McKenna and Nidhi Satiani.
UPPER ARLINGTON (OH) SCHOOL DISTRICT Proposal for “Equity” August 2024
AKA, “Tyranny with a Smiley Face”
The Board of Education of the Upper Arlington (OH) Schools drafted a proposal for “equity in education” which will be considered for a vote on Tuesday, September 10.
The draft document is HERE.
It’s an outrageous, radical document and the community should be alarmed that people who think like this are in leadership positions.
Consider this statement (emphasis added):
. “The Board will allocate resources to locate inequities and to implement strategies, programs, and processes targeted at reducing equity gaps (i.e. outcome disparities based upon identity characteristics ) in order to further cultivate an educational environment where student achievement and opportunities are equitable and all students are challenged and supported, every step of the way.”
Here are some points about why this is so unworkable:
· There’s an apparent intent to hire new DEI staff to “implement strategies” to do what, exactly? What problem are we trying to fix? And by what definitions? Those hinted at later are quite radical and inequitable.
· “Reduce equity gaps” and “outcome disparities” based on identity characteristics seems not only unfair and very likely discriminatory, but impossible. There are too many variables in the lives of students to “fix” everything perceived to be wrong. THIS IS NOT THE SCHOOL’S JOB— to micromanage everyone’s lives, approve some views and not others.
· “Identity characteristics” is a way to officially institute stereotyping and bias—which the document later claims to want to reduce.
· Some of these characteristics --“sexual orientation” and “gender identity” --are not accepted among large elements of the community as worthwhile and valid to normalize among minor children. They are, in fact, identities and behaviors replete with high risk practices that we should be steering children away from, not toward. There is no evidence any of this is inborn. It’s not like race and we should stop treating it in policy decisions as if it is.
Here are some thoughts about the rest of the document:
· The document scorns the well-accepted definition of “equality” while applauding the recently invented definition of “equity” to encompass righting all perceived wrongs, equalizing “outcomes,” rewarding some behaviors and views and punishing others. This is socialism, applied in a school setting. And it’s discriminatory.
· “Inequity” is then defined as “prejudice, hate or bias” and apparently if one disagrees with the “identity characteristics” ( labels) of the preferentially-treated students/staff, one is a hater. This seems childish, spiteful, unjust and totally unsupportive of many students /staff. Are we really going to pretend this is anything other than far-left tyranny?
· Students are to be provided “equitable access.” Who doesn’t have this now? Does this mean we must include pro-“LGBTQ” material in classes ( because that’s clearly the extreme bias of this proposal)? Does this mean confused boys must be allowed on girls’ sports’ teams and in female restrooms and locker rooms? That there won’t be “equitable access” to what is determined to be “support” if UA doesn’t stock libraries with obscene books produced with “LGBTQ” characters? That’s a common and completely distorted argument often made to retain pornographic material in school libraries. Publishers love being able to reap large profits by serving up porn to our kids.
· And UA is to “remove any known barriers” to those who have been labeled in the most favored students/staff caste system. How would this be accomplished if, for instance, there are teachers and students who do not believe homosexuality or gender confusion are worthy behaviors, and don’t use what will apparently be the required pronouns, etc.? Are those students/staff subject to suspension, administrative leave, dismissal, for having the wrong opinions? And this rigid thought/speech environment is supposed to produce “robust” academics? Highly unlikely!
· And why is “gender identity and expression” singled out for special consideration? UA will be subject to medical malpractice lawsuits before long unless the leaders read the writing on the wall. The UK and much of European medicine is backing away from blanket endorsement of child body mutilation for the purposes of supposed gender change, and soon American medicine will wake up as well. It’s unnecessary and harmful and UA should not encourage children to go down this road.
· And everyone will be held “accountable” for this nonsense. More tyranny and more ways to endorse high risk and harmful practices.
UA does not need this harmful proposal. Hopefully this draft is soundly defeated and our children are protected from foolish, misguided leadership.
