Unfortunately, the results of these programs at other educational institutions have often been very negative. The destruction of educational standards, recontextualizing and criminalizing of childhood behavior, racially motivated hiring and professional treatment, erosion of the rights of some children at the expense of others. None of these are goals truly serve the children or help to provide for their future educational needs, least of all (ironically) the people these policies are often intended to benefit.

Politically motivated experimentation on children and schools tends to only hurt both of them, and only fuels the drive that pushes valuable students away from the public system and into charter schools, private schools, and home schooling. When schools become about providing an experience rather than an education, they lose their effectiveness as institutions.
Of course, real incidents where children have difficulty in their environment should be addressed in their context as effectively as possible.

Obviously, all the teachers and employees in the district are deeply invested in the wellbeing of the children and the performance of their duties. Unfortunately, DEI initiatives are often used as a tyrannical club to wring social and educational concessions from both faculty and students in the interest of improving the experience for those who perceive themselves as deserving of them.
I wish this were not the case, but often such assertions of rights are used to deprive others of rights. Such as the right of teachers to have certain behavioral and academic expectations of their students, the right of administrators to equally apply certain policies, the right of children to be treated as children and not as adults or criminals or participants in some consciously evil enterprise, the right of prospective employees to be judged and evaluated as individuals rather than as representatives of a racial (or other) subgroup, the right to the assumption of innocence (particularly when it comes to children and to dedicated staff members), and the right to be respected as inviduals capable of self-determination and responsibility.

If we grant certain special classes the right to demand certain experiences and certain outcomes, we will find that such rights can only be granted at the expense of others. Rights are, after all, something we assert outwardly, something that we demand from others. All students have various rights, as do educators, many of which are in tension with one another. The creation of special classes whose rights override those of other vested stakeholders (students, parents, educators, administrators, or other prospective customers or employees) has unfortunately been a frequent outcome of DEI audits.

Education comes with its own demands and its own rights, as well as its own responsibilities that we take on when we either engage in providing it or engage in seeking it. It is my hope that the DEI audit will not represent a step toward the degredation and politicization of education. But my experience with previous such audits has not been encouraging. Already the jingoistic use of such language in disctrict communications as “hate” (which is fundamentally connected to legal judgements against speech and behaviors), presumably in reference to the words and actions of students and faculty and potential legal and professional actions that could be taken against them, is very troubling.

Treating students and faculty as accused prisoners to be judged (or perhaps prejudged and needing to prove their commitment to the cause to gain exhoneration), rather than as humans in important relationships, valuable adults and developing children, is a consequence I fear.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion are all wonderful ideas. But they are not such universally and unequivocally good ideas as to be such that you can seek and endorse them without reservation. It all depends on what you include, what you determine to be equal, and what you diversify with.

Ultimately, the job of a school is to provide education, not a feeling or an experience. And that means a certain amount of necessary discrimination. Some subjects will be deemed relevant while others will not. Some behaviors will be deemed conducive to the group endeavor while others will not. Some applicants will be deemed skilled while other will not.

Excellence in education requires the proper operation of feedback mechanisms that allow students and teachers to optimize their performance, recognizing that both have real efficacy in determining their resulting outcomes and bearing their share of responsibility for it. It is also the case that even socially, we all bear some responsibility for our own situation and cannot expect the district to be able to determine, except by tyrannical control, that we have a certain experience. Often the school experience conveys rather than generates the negative social and educational experience that some students have. Some of this may be inevitable, some of it may be unintentional, and some of it may even be the school system’s duty to convey (such as the commensurate limitations that naturally result from bad behavioral or academic performance).

Of course, it must always be the goal of the district to serve all its students (and their parents, and in a way its employees too) to the best of its ability. But that goal is complicated by two problems. First, what truly “serves” the interests of the students? It might not be so simple as what they would prefer. And second, serving and pleasing everyone equally at the same time may not be possible, as I earlier expressed. Serving the interests of one group may conflict with serving the interests of another. And creating special classes whose demands are able to override the general rights and concerns of the population, as well as the specific rights and obligations of the district as a provider of education, is not a formula for producing excellence either among the students nor among the faculty.

If the district is able to keep all these values in mind, then I am sure that the results of the DEI audit will be positive and fruitful. Unfortunately, my experience has rather been that such inquiries are the beginning of the erosion of the institutional values of the enterprise in the interest of personal and political appeasement of certain individuals. Hopefully I am wrong, and that is not how things will go with District 20.

Hopefully the audit will not become a wedge to open the door so some parties can override the purposes and conditions and principles of education in the interests of political realignment and indoctrination. That would be a loss for all the students, educators, and parents, not least of all those who are most disadvantaged and vulnerable. The degredation of the core mission of educational institutions and the inhibition of their ability to carry out that mission truly serves no one. It is my hope that this audit will not cause the district to lose sight of its core mission and the true value it provides, as has happened in so many other institutions (with all the best intentions). It is also my hope that the district will be able to listen to the anecdotes of concerned parties and seek productive solutions for their concerns without compromising the fair and appropriate treatment of the students and faculty.

I wish you all the best in your efforts to negotiate this difficult time and difficult situation. I am sure that there is no solution that won’t result in making someone unhappy. Because the respective rights and interests of various interested parties are inherently in tension with one another and because the foundational goals and values of the district force it to make certain discriminatory choices in order to serve and protect those goals, there will always be winners and losers. Someone will always be unhappy. And no one will ever get everything they want or get everything all their way in a shared public space. It is always a negotiation. And hopefully the push toward diversity, equity, and inclusion as an overriding set of values will not allow that negotiation (as well as the values of the institutions and its participants) to be subverted and overridden. I know that you are in a position subject to great criticism and pressure, and I hope you are able to negotiate it successfully, for the good of everyone. You have my best wishes and hopes.

Yours respectfully,