Image 01 Image 03

Minneapolis School District Reportedly Planning to Lay Off White Teachers First

Minneapolis School District Reportedly Planning to Lay Off White Teachers First

“The purpose of this policy is ostensibly to remedy the district’s past issues with racial discrimination.”

This is apparently supposed to solve racial discrimination from the past. That’s some interesting logic, isn’t it?

RedState reports:

White Teachers Will Be First to Be Laid Off Under New Minneapolis School District Policy

Minnesota Public Schools (MPS) is instituting a brand spanking new racist policy dictating how layoffs will be conducted. It recently struck a deal with the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers (MFT) back in March to stop a 14-day teacher strike, and the entities came to an agreement that has already 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.”

Yes, you read that right. After this policy takes effect, if the district needs to downsize, it will be white teachers who get the ax first. 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.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The Gentle Grizzly | August 16, 2022 at 1:43 pm

Not that it will happen, but, EVERY non-black teacher should just resign. Walk out. I say “non-black” instead of “white” because the meaning of the wording is obvious. They want an all-black staff. Or, staph.

    henrybowman in reply to The Gentle Grizzly. | August 16, 2022 at 7:04 pm

    Better yet, every non-black teacher should resign his membership in the union.
    If Marxists are going to stab you in the back, why should you pay them to do it?
    Unions are supposed to protect your interests, not sell you down the river.

    I’m counting on the lawyers out here to reassure me this race-based horse hockey won’t pass constitutional scrutiny.

Good suggestion. While leaving, the non-black teachers should point out this will help the school system reach its goals faster, by offsetting the under-represented Black teacher time with some 100% Black teacher time.

First you criticize them as morally defective.

Then you deny them employment.

After that, you pass laws against interbreeding.

Then you send them to the “work” camps.

Where have we heard this song before?

Presumably the union did vote for the contract.

Im not sure who the bigger fool is.

Why are the white teachers still paying unions dues for representation like this? Isn’t this an example of voting against your own self-interest–the very thing that the liberals accuse us rubes of?

    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to rochf. | August 16, 2022 at 5:21 pm

    When one considers the views of so many in the teaching field, might it be they FAVOR this? That they are so infused with self-hatred for being white; so overwhelmed with white guilt that they favor their own demise?

      henrybowman in reply to The Gentle Grizzly. | August 16, 2022 at 7:06 pm

      Self-solving problem.
      Challenge them to act on their principles.
      Which they will do as soon as their school gives the local Indians back their land.

I wonder if there’s anticipation by those with less seniority to be the first one fired under this contract so they can sue? Because who will need to work after winning that lawsuit?

    henrybowman in reply to GWB. | August 16, 2022 at 7:08 pm

    Problem is, last-hired-first-fired isn’t a law, it’s a feature of a standard union contract. But this union just threw that out of its contract. So there’s no grounds to sue.

      No, the contract still has seniority built into it. It’s just that if that seniority means a non-white gets fired, then they move on up the seniority chain until they reach a white teacher.

      The grounds to sue are over explicitly racial discrimination.

Another Voice | August 16, 2022 at 6:02 pm

Are contracts with the School District or with the state?
As union contracts have legally been reviewed by both Board of Ed.,s, which approve the hiring and also by the legal representative for the union (local or state), this type of selective layoff would have to have very strict verbiage as to the process. Non-the-less, even If they have a written race clause as a qualifier for selection, legally challenged may not meet muster.

I bet that even if 75% of the teachers were black they’d still be considered by this contract to be underrepresented. I wonder what the actual percentage of black teachers is right now. Strange that they don’t say, because I bet it’s already higher than 12-13%.

It was approved by the union because there are enough white teachers with seniority who won’t be affected.

Tough cases make bad law. The first white teacher who is fired can sue. The claim will be (i) that the contract was void as a matter of Equal Protection regardless of what might otherwise be the outcome considering the interaction of the NLRA and the civil rights laws, and possibly (ii) that nothing in the NLRA overrides the civil rights laws under which the contract is void.

I wonder whether a newly hired white teacher could sue for a declaratory judgment that that clause in the contract is void. On the one hand, in the absence of staff reduction, where is the injury? On the other hand, there may be a reliance interest in continued employment to some degree when you take a position that is not completely at will employment.

This is a typical move by teacher’s unions, focus on their leftist agenda and to Hell with focusing on their role of teaching our children the things needed to become successful adults. I hope they get sued for racial discrimination because that’s what this is..

    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to Photoman42. | August 17, 2022 at 1:49 pm

    The last head of one of the teachers unions said students aren’t union members when such priority differences were brought up.

George_Kaplan | August 17, 2022 at 9:38 pm

Seems like White teachers need to update their race data – classify themselves as Pale rather than White, dredge up evidence they’re 1/1024th Red Indian etc.