Evanston's tiny role in a controversial decision made by the Supreme Court last week
Is there somewhere we can send a donation or financial contribution to this site? Reading the supreme court.gov‘s document shows that district 65 literally goes against what the Supreme Court and laws of this land were base and found it on https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1199/222710/20220506160451513_2022.05.06%20SFFA%20v%20Harvard%20and%20UNC%20Amici%20Merits%20Stage.pdf
. The school board and superintendent clearly violated the constitution and need to be held reliable and accountable and punished.
I still do not understand how the affinity racial base groups that the Supreme Court mentions (which one of the newest Evanston councilman Juan is also gladly a part of )if you go to the next steps Evanston how that was promoted in the PTA blast for kindergartners
The Supreme Court is literally saying everything that the district did from the moment kids enter kindergarten has been illegal and against this country and was specifically done by Joseph Biden and the Democratic Party the second he came into office with his executive order of equity
From the brief specially about district 65 Evanston Illinois:
OCR is aware of concerning reports recently that schools across the country are discriminating on the basis of race in different ways. Sometimes, these reports have involved schools’ purported efforts to promote diversity and equity among students but are nevertheless prohibited because they violate Title VI.
Amici have also observed the use of race accelerating at the K-12 level, in tension with or violation of Title VI. See, e.g., Carl Campanile, US Dept. of Education curbs decision on race-based ‘affinity groups’, NEW YORK POST (Mar. 7, 2021) (“The findings—reached during the waning days of former President Trump’s time in office in early January—were in response to a complaint about a Chicago-area school district’s ‘racial equity’ training programs and lesson plans.”).13 This further demonstrates the need to revisit the Court’s approach to race-conscious educational practices and approaches schools adopt in the name of “diversity.”
Unfortunately, OCR is aware of recent concerning reports that schools across the country are discriminating on the basis of race in different ways. Sometimes, these reports have involved schools’ purported efforts to promote diversity and equity among students, but are nevertheless prohibited because they violate Title VI. OCR offers this video to highlight how these and other examples may create Title VI violations.
Similarly, schools may not create designated “safe spaces” that admit or exclude individuals on the basis of race.
One example that might violate Title VI is advocating a position that a particular race is collectively guilty of misconduct, or advocating a position that a particular race or something about that race is negative or evil. Title VI might also be violated if part of a curriculum instructs students that members of a particular race or racial identity pose specific dangers to other individuals, or if it advocates or forces members of certain races to deconstruct or confront their racial identities. For instance, a school may not advocate that students adopt specific beliefs based on their race, such as urging that white students be white without signing on to whiteness. These sorts of exercises would also be impermissible if used in the context of ascribing specific characteristics or qualities to all members of other races.
As reported in the New York Post, OCR’s findings included that Evanston/Skokie had engaged in extensive conduct that violated Title VI, including:
Separating administrators in a professional development training program in August, 2019 into two groups based on race—white and non-white.
Offering various “racially exclusive affinity groups” that separated students, parents and community members by race.
Implementing a disciplinary policy that included “explicit direction” to staffers to consider a student’s race when meting out discipline.
Carried out a “Colorism Privilege Walk” that separated seventh and eight grade students into different groups based on race.
“If you are white take 2 steps forward. If you’re a person of color with dark skin, take 2 steps back. If you’re black, take 2 steps back,” the privilege walk exercise said.
The same principal who at kindergarten orientation told us to read white fragility left because of the same things the Supreme Court mentions
I think that D65 is likely to settle rather than continue to litigate. Also, the consultants you reference will have to quickly retool.
I recommend this editorial by a constitutional law lawyer: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/opinion/affirmative-action-supreme-court-harvard.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Money quote: “The consequences of the Supreme Court's Harvard decision will reverberate throughout American law. There is no longer any such thing as “good" racial discrimination. There can be redress for actual discriminatory acts, but the idea that race by itself can be utilized as a proxy for achieving social progress is now almost certainly wiped away. Programs designed specifically around the race of the participants are going to face renewed scrutiny.”
Judge Robert Dow Jr. was originally assigned to this case I believe before this was announced