There’s racist, and there’s not racist. But some are advocating for a new label: “anti-racist”. Now it’s not enough to not be racist; you must be anti-racist or you are racist, anyway.
Confused? Me, too. But that hasn’t stopped some from leveraging this new label for the benefit of the few. In the case noted below, a teachers union is using a claim of “…failure to be anti-racist…” against a school that fired a teacher who ridiculed a student for their constitutionally-protected views:
California Cypress College union claims firing of anti-cop professor had ‘chilling effect’ on workplace safety
The paragraph below is the most interesting one of the article:
“United Faculty stands in solidarity with all our faculty in protecting their academic freedom and the right to a safe work environment, free of hostility and threats to their physical safety and emotional well-being,” the United Faculty union’s president, Christie Diep, and lead negotiator, Mohammad Abdel Haq, said in a statement Monday.
But what about the rights of the student to a safe learning environment, free of hostility and threats to their emotional well-being? The teacher’s views are protected for the benefit of the teacher, but the student’s views are not? Isn’t it for the benefit of students that schools exist at all? Or are we to believe that they exist to provide jobs and security for the benefit of this teacher and her union brethren?
The school was right to dismiss this teacher for her treatment of a student. And race – contrary to what the union would have you believe – had nothing to do with it.