Apr
7
2025

Unwavering Confidence in One's Moral Superiority

[Amazon Link]
(paid link)

John Shea is superintendent of the Somersworth (NH) School District, and also, for the current academic year, superintendent of the Rollinsford (NH) school. He's contributing op-eds to my awful local newspaper, and his third one is headlined: Schools face choice of federal funding or doing the right thing.

And yes, John says, this Hobson's Choice is being forced on schools by Team Orange.

The U.S. Department of Education sent out a four-page memo on April 3 reminding public school superintendents across the country that federal funding for our school districts is contingent upon, among other things, compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You are likely familiar with the legislation. No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

I don’t happen to know of any superintendents who needed to be reminded of this. In Somersworth, nondiscrimination is fundamental to how we operate — and would be even without the federal law. Nonetheless, there’s no harm in the reminder – nor in the request that we sign on behalf of our district to certify that we are following the law. A little concerning that this seems to be the federal government’s new plan for how such laws will be monitored and enforced — given that the Office of Civil Rights is currently being decimated — but if this is what 77 million Americans apparently voted for last November, so be it.

If you're not seeing the problem yet… well, neither am I. ED says "obey the law", John says "we are." Ah, but:

What is more than a little concerning, however, is this. The memo goes on to state that diversity, equity and inclusion programs and practices (i.e., “DEI”) may be at odds with federal law. The memo does not define what they mean by “DEI” nor does it offer specific guidance as to precisely what is or is not legal in the eyes of the current federal administration. We know that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the use of race in the college admissions process two years ago (in the SFFA v. Harvard decision), but our elementary, middle, and secondary public schools have no admissions process. As was the case with the earlier “Dear Colleagues” letter from the U.S. Department of Education (on February 14), what we are left with are ambiguous threats about possible funding loss and/or legal action for anything related to diversity, equity and inclusion.

Well, judge for yourself: the press release emitted by the Ed Dept is here: ED Requires K-12 School Districts to Certify Compliance with Title VI and Students v. Harvard as a Condition of Receiving Federal Financial Assistance; the 4-page PDF to which John refers is here. The press release also points to a FAQ document, which is here.

The memo doesn't simply fling out the DEI acronym. Specifically:

Given the text of Title VI and the assurances you have already given, any violation of Title VI—including the use of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (“DEI”) programs to advantage one’s race over another—is impermissible. The use of certain DEI practices can violate federal law.

That should clarify a little, right? Or, from the FAQ's Question 8:

Schools may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin in their programs or activities. Many schools have advanced discriminatory policies and practices under the banner of “DEI” initiatives. Other schools have sought to veil discriminatory policies with terms like “social-emotional learning” or “culturally responsive” teaching. OCR’s assessment of school policies and programs depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Whether a policy or program violates Title VI does not depend on the use of specific terminology such as “diversity,” “equity,” or “inclusion.” Schools may not operate policies or programs under any name that treat students differently based on race, engage in racial stereotyping, or create hostile environments for students of particular races. For example, schools with programs focused on interests in particular cultures, heritages, and areas of the world would not in and of themselves violate Title VI, assuming they are open to all students regardless of race. Nor would educational, cultural, or historical observances—such as Black History Month, International Holocaust Remembrance Day, or similar events—that celebrate or recognize historical events and contributions, and promote awareness, so long as they do not engage in racial exclusion or discrimination. However, schools must consider whether any school programming discourages members of all races from attending, either by excluding or discouraging students of a particular race or races, or by creating hostile environments based on race for students who do participate.

I'd say things are pretty clear here, John: don't extend advantages or disadvantages to students based on their race. Don't racially stereotype. Don't create or encourage racial hostility.

But (back to John's op-ed):

Here in Somersworth, we do not have any particular programs, policies, or practices specifically labeled “DEI.” Diversity, equity and inclusion were fundamental values in our school district — and in our community long before the murders of Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, George Floyd, and the reckoning that emerged. They still are our fundamental values today. And I believe they always will be — regardless of whoever happens to be president of the United States. Clearly, there are now people in the White House who do not like the letters D, E, and I side-by-side, followed by words like initiative, program, or practice. And they want all of it gone.

The "murders" comment is weird. Relevance? Also legally iffy: only one of those killings (George Floyd) resulted in a murder conviction. The others did not even go to trial.

I would bet, however, that there's disparate treatment in the Somersworth schools, with heavy mention of Garner, Brown, Rice, and Floyd. With zero mentions of (say) Laken Riley, Jocelyn Nungaray, Jamiel Shaw II, Kate Steinle, or… I'm just guessing, though.

Things get pretty sappy, and also wordy. John shows that he can rattle off a lot of races, ethnicities, religions, sexual classes, and more:

In the Somersworth School District, what these three letters/words represent is pretty straightforward — and fundamental to who we are and how we strive to live. For starters, diversity is not a program, practice, or policy, it is who we are as a community. You can’t outlaw it; it is us. Black, white, Asian, native American, and Latino. Of Indonesian, French, Irish, Mexican, Canadian, and countless other national origins. Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, agnostic, atheist, and more. Straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender. Rich, poor, and everything in-between. Native English speakers and English language learners. Independents, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and so on. Toddlers, kids, teenagers, and adults of all ages. Blue collar, white collar, unemployed, retired. Individuals with disabilities, challenges, and learning differences of all sorts, minor and significant. We are immensely proud of who we are here in Somersworth. You can embrace your community’s diversity or despise it — but you can’t legislate it away. I guess you could deport everyone that fell into the categories you didn’t like —but that would never happen here in the United States. (Would it?) In Somersworth, we choose to cherish our diversity.

Disingenuity, thy name is John. He takes a similar tack with "equity" and "inclusion". They only mean good things! Not bad! And certainly they don't have anything to do with what the Ed. Dept.'s memo is talking about.

So when John bemoans that he might have to choose between "doing the right thing" and getting that cool cash from Uncle Stupid, his readers are left wondering what the heck he's talking about. He hasn't named a single "right thing" that might run afoul of the Ed. Dept.'s memo.

Ah, well. He's shown us what he really wants to show us. See my headline.

(My previous takes on John's columns here, here, and here.)

Also of note:

  • Fun while it lasted. Niall Ferguson writes on Trump’s Tariffs and the End of American Empire. Subtitle: "The president stands as much chance of reindustrializing the U.S. as you do of getting your frozen laptop to work by smashing the motherboard with a Minecraft hammer."

    Depending on your worldview, you probably think Trump’s tariff blitz is one of two things. Either a committed protectionist is trying to Make America Great Again by killing “globalism,” ending “forever wars,” and bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States. Let’s call this Project Minecraft. Alternatively, an unhinged demagogue is crashing both the world economy and the liberal international order, mainly to the advantage of authoritarian regimes. Call this Project Moscow.

    But here is what is actually happening: The American empire that came into existence after the failed autarky and isolationism of the 1930s is being broken up after 80 years. Despite Trump’s imperial impulses—wanting to annex Greenland, calling for Canada to become the 51st state—he is engaged right now in a kind of wild decolonization project.

    Like the post-1945 British Labour governments, he wants to shelter domestic manufacturing and the working class behind tariffs while reducing overseas commitments. But the net result will be both economically damaging and geopolitically weakening. Americans will come to miss globalism and policing the world. They will belatedly realize that there is no portal through which the United States can return to the 1950s, much less the 1900s. And the principal beneficiary of Project Minecraft will not be Russia, but China. Call it Project Manchuria.

    Niall admits he got some insight from his 7-year-old son, who went to see A Minecraft Movie. Probably not the worst place to obtain inspiration.

  • Other than that, though, it's fine. At AEI, Kevin Corinth and Stan Veuger look at that formula full of Greek letters that the administration tried to snow us with:

    And find: President Trump’s Tariff Formula Makes No Economic Sense. It’s Also Based on an Error.

    The formula for the tariffs, originally credited to the Council of Economic Advisers and published by the Office of the United States Trade Representative, does not make economic sense. The trade deficit with a given country is not determined only by tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers, but also by international capital flows, supply chains, comparative advantage, geography, etc.  

    But even if one were to take the Trump Administration’s tariff formula seriously, it makes an error that inflates the tariffs assumed to be levied by foreign countries four-fold. As a result, the “reciprocal” tariffs imposed by President Trump are highly inflated as well.

    As Teen Talk Barbie didn't quite say: "Math is hard!"

  • Someday we'll look back on this and wonder what evil spell we were under. Jay Nordlinger on Seeing Putin Clear.

    Putin’s Russia is a terror-state. Day after day, year after year, it kills and maims innocent people in Ukraine. “Children among 18 killed in Russian attack on Zelensky’s home city,” reads a headline from the BBC. (The article is here.) That city is Kryvyi Rih. Half the dead were children and teenagers, ages 3 to 17.

    We ought to know their names and faces. Otherwise, the dead are mere statistics, or abstractions. In a post, Vladimir Kara-Murza named their names, gave their ages, and showed their pictures.

    Kara-Murza, as you know, is a Russian democracy leader and a former political prisoner. He is a Russian patriot who believes in human rights for all — wherever they live.

    • In the Free West, leaders ought to decry atrocities such as the massacre in Kryvyi Rih. I hear no such sounds out of our government here in America. Who will now lead the West?

    Not Trump, I guess.

  • But lest we forget… Becket Adams looks at The Opportunistic End of the Biden Cover-Up.

    The people who told you there was nothing wrong with former President Biden are excited to discuss all the ways in which there was absolutely something wrong with former President Biden.

    If these people had any capacity for shame, they’d be feeling it about now.

    On MSNBC’s Morning Joe last week, where host Joe Scarborough boasted not long before Biden’s disastrous June 2024 presidential debate performance that “this version of Biden — intellectually, analytically — is the best Biden ever,” NBC News’s Jonathan Allen and The Hill’s Amie Parnes discussed their new book, which details the lengths to which the former president’s inner circle reportedly went to keep his deterioration a secret from voters.

    Scarborough and his chirpy co-host, Mika Brzezinski, nodded along during the segment, as if they were mere spectators to the effort to hide the president’s condition and not themselves active participants.

    But of course, they were active participants. Becket, as they say, has the receipts. As his subhed says: "Now that book deals can be made, the story can be told."

    You'd think there'd be more outrage about this. At least, among people who like to get outraged.

  • And then there's Hunter. Speaking of "now it can be told", Jonathan Turley describes why Joe pardoned his son Hunter for activities going back to 2014: Oh, That Influence Peddling: Times Finds Evidence Suggesting Hunter Acted as Foreign Agent.

    For years, some of us have written about the Biden family’s multimillion-dollar influence-peddling operation and the Justice Department’s refusal to charge Hunter Biden with being an unregistered foreign agent. Now, years later, the New York Times has found evidence suggesting that Hunter Biden was acting as a foreign agent as early as the Obama Administration, when his Dad was Vice President.

    It was completely obvious that Hunter had no marketable skills other than to be able to pronounce his last name. Jonathan notes the different treatment afforded to Hunter compared to Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, etc.