A teacher agreement in Minneapolis that reportedly stipulates white educators can be laid off first —regardless of seniority — is raising eyebrows and sparking debate.
Listen to the latest episode of CBN’s Quick Start podcast 👇
The Minneapolis Federation of Teachers union came to the agreement with Minneapolis Public Schools after a three-week strike earlier this year, setting aside the traditional seniority layoff model (known as “last in, first out”) to purportedly correct perceived past wrongs.
The newfound accord reportedly reads, “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.”
Before going any further, here is a definition of the term “excessing” in an educational setting, per the United Federation of Teachers:
“Excessing” is the process of 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. There are times when a school reduces the size of its faculty, such as when it experiences an unexpected drop in student enrollment, loses a budget line, or pursuant to state or federal law, is being closed, or phased out.
The policy allegedly works the same for reinstating teachers, with the district prioritizing recalling educators who are members of “a population underrepresented among licensed teachers in the district,” according to Fox News.
These moves come as 50 teachers of color were slated to lose positions in the fall due to enrollment issues. The policies, which toss out the “last in, first out” procedures generally governing education, are aimed at righting “past discrimination,” a Minneapolis Public Schools spokesperson told Fox News.
“To remedy the continuing effects of past discrimination, Minneapolis Public Schools and the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers (MFT) mutually agreed to contract language that aims to support the recruitment and retention of teachers from underrepresented groups as compared to the labor market and to the community served by the school district,” the spokesperson said.
The agreement allegedly stipulates the policy will no longer be in effect once the teacher pool better represents the community, among other factors.
According to the Star-Tribune, 60% of the pupils in the district are students of color, while just 16% of tenured teachers, and 27% of probationary teachers are individuals of color. According to the agreement, the goal is to have teachers better mirror the student body.
Proponents said it can often be counterproductive to court teachers of color and then see them be excessed first, if and when layoffs unfold. The former “last in, first out” policy required that the newly hired individuals be first to leave, which is what the new policy seeks to remedy.
The belief is that research shows teachers of color can help with retention, academics, and graduation for students of color, according to the Star-Tribune.
But while the provision has its supporters, The Daily Mail reported “fury” has also abounded, with some calling the plan illegal, unconstitutional, and purporting that it confronts past alleged racism with newfound acts of racism.
Hans Bader, a constitutional lawyer, recently wrote about why he believes this is illegal and unconstitutional:
This violates a well-known Supreme Court decision overturning the race-based layoff of a white teacher, and contradicts a well-known federal appeals court decision, which ruled that race-based layoffs of white teachers violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
It is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. 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. That ruling was Taxman v. Board of Education of Piscataway, 91 F.3d 1547 (3d Cir. 1996).
Others agree, including James Dickey, senior trial counsel at the Upper Midwest Law Center. He told Alpha News the Minneapolis agreement is “unconstitutional.”
“The [collective bargaining agreement] … openly discriminates against white teachers based only on the color of their skin, and not their seniority or merit,” he said. “Minneapolis teachers and taxpayers who oppose government-sponsored racism like this should stand up against it.”
It’s unclear what will unfold next, as opinions and views on the measure are just beginning to hit a fever pitch. Minneapolis is one of the first districts to attempt such a change.
***As the number of voices facing big-tech censorship continues to grow, please sign up for Faithwire’s daily newsletter and download the CBN News app, developed by our parent company, to stay up-to-date with the latest news from a distinctly Christian perspective.***