Teacher Disciplined for Saying "Privilege" Training Involved "White-Bashing BS" Can Go Forward with First Amendment Claim

"[T]he only evidence of disruption pointed to by Defendants is the fact that a teacher felt uncomfortable at a session designed with the expectation that participants would feel uncomfortable."

An excerpt from the long opinion in Grande v. Hartford Bd. of Ed., decided Tuesday by Judge Sarah Russell (D. Conn.):

This case centers around the Hartford Board of Education's investigation and reprimand of Grande for comments he made during a Zoom training held on October 28, 2020…. Grande began working as a physical education teacher for the District in 1989 and continued in that role until he retired on October 1, 2024.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Hartford Public Schools stopped in-person instruction for a period of time beginning on March 17, 2020. In fall 2020, Grande was teaching remote physical education to his students…. Avicolli [Director of Arts and Wellness] sent a survey to teachers within her department regarding the level of student engagement during remote classes. Grande answered the survey reporting that not many students were showing up to his remote classes. This lower attendance reflected a national problem of student engagement during the pandemic. After Avicolli conducted the survey, she scheduled a professional development training for teachers in her department. …

The PowerPoint [used at the training] identifies as the "learning target" of the session the following goal: "I can explore my own identity and privilege to better understand how I relate to my students in order to increase engagement and collaboration." The agenda for the meeting shows that the session would include an "Identity and Privilege Activity" and "Break-Out Group Reflection Time" as well as "Closure in Whole Group." The PowerPoint explains that participants will "explore our privilege as related to various social identities" and says "[w]e believe it is critical for everyone to reflect on privilege in this way in order to use our individual and collective privilege(s) for equity and social justice."

The PowerPoint includes an "Identity Wheel" with pie slices that are labelled with categories including race, gender/sex, sexuality, nationality/citizenship, other, religion, class, and ability. Each pie slice is divided into eight sections. The instructions explain that slides for each social identity will be displayed with eight statements that describe examples of "privilege related to that category's system of oppression and privilege." Participants are instructed to shade a section of the wheel if their answer is "basically yes" to the statement….

After doing the activity, teachers participating in the training moved into smaller breakout groups with fellow teachers. The PowerPoint instructions for the breakout group discussion ask, "How did it feel to engage in this activity?" The "Norms in Breakout Groups" are listed as: "Assume positive intentions"; "You don't have to share if you don't feel comfortable doing so"; "It's OK to feel discomfort. This isn't easy!"; and "Agree to disagree respectfully." The discussion prompts listed are: "Why is it important for us to aware of privilege as an aspect of our identities/experience?"; "How did completing this activity affect my understanding of myself?"; "How did completing this activity affect my understanding of my students?"; and "How does my identity impact my relationship with my students?" Avicolli acknowledged that the breakout groups could be uncomfortable and she expected participants to be uncomfortable. She said no one was required to speak in the breakout groups.

According to Grande, he started out the discussion in his breakout group by saying to the other teachers: "I was just man-bashed and white-shamed. I'm gonna sit here quietly." He said he added: "I'm not buying into this white-bashing BS." Defendants' Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement contains slightly different phrasing of Grande's statements: "I just got man bashed and white shamed, but I'm going to sit there quietly" and "I'm not buying into that white bashing BS." Grande asserts that his comments sparked no reaction or disruption during the breakout group meeting itself.

Grande says he made his comments to address what he viewed as discriminatory content of the presentation because he did not "think teachers should have to go through this and have their race and gender and their sexual preference, you know, targeted or pointed at." Grande viewed the presentation as an attempt to indoctrinate teachers and ultimately students, which he found objectionable. Based on the prompts, Grande believed that the presentation targeted a certain class of people, including him, and was an exercise in "critical race theory," rather than one aimed at improving the education of students.

In response to a written survey asking teachers about the presentation, Grande questioned how the training related to "art, music, or PE/health" and stated he believed the training was "part of the Superintendent's agenda to advance her career." According to Avicolli, Grande was the only person who spoke out to say the presentation was objectionable….

Following a complaint (more on the details below), Grande was investigated and disciplined (formally reprimanded, told that "future misconduct could lead to disciplinary action, including termination of employment," and required "to take a 'Sensitivity Awareness' training"). He then sued, and the court allowed his First Amendment retaliation claim to go forward.

Generally speaking, the government may not discipline an employee based on the employee's speech if

1. the speech is not said by the employee as part of the employee's job duties, Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006), and
2. the speech is on a matter of public concern, Connick v. Myers (1983), and
3. the damage caused by the speech to the efficiency of the government agency's operation does not outweigh the value of the speech to the employee and the public, Pickering v. Bd. of Ed. (1968).

Here is how the court analyzed these elements:

[1.] The parties dispute whether Grande was required to attend the training but it is undisputed that Grande was not required by his employer to speak during the breakout session. Although Grande spoke at a professional development training session purportedly related to student engagement, Grande's comments were not directed at how to engage students in his class. Rather, Grande voiced his opinion that an exercise at the training targeted teachers in a discriminatory manner based on their race and gender. Grande's criticism of a social identity exercise as discriminatory is not "'part-and-parcel of his concerns' about his ability to 'properly execute his duties'" as a teacher ….

[2.] Defendants assert that when Grande spoke in the breakout session he was airing personal grievances to other teachers rather than speaking on a matter of public concern. Grande asserts that his comments that the training exercise was "white bashing BS" and he felt "man bashed and white shamed" were directed at what he perceived as gender and race-based discrimination in the workplace and therefore matters of public concern.

"Speech deals with matters of public concern when it can be fairly considered as relating to matters of political, social, or general interest to the community or value and concern to the public." To identify matters of public concern, courts consider "the motive of the speaker, cognizant that speech on a purely private matter does not pertain to a matter of public concern and, conversely, that an individual motivated by a personal grievance can simultaneously speak on a matter affecting the public at large." "Whether an employee's speech addresses a matter of public concern must be determined by the content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record. Connick.

In Connick, the Supreme Court referred to the "right to protest racial discrimination" as "a matter inherently of public concern" regardless of whether the protest is communicated in a public or private forum. The Second Circuit has noted that it has "held repeatedly that when a public employee's speech regards the existence of discrimination in the workplace, such speech is a matter of public concern." …

[3.] Other than pointing to a single teacher's complaint, Defendants provide no argument for how Grande's speech was disruptive or potentially disruptive…. The complaining teacher said that Grande's comment made her "very uncomfortable," and was "very disturbing," "deeply affects the community" served by the Hartford Public Schools, against her "moral beliefs," and "disrespectful to the work that we are trying to start in our department." There is no question that the complaining teacher disagreed with Grande's viewpoint and was upset when she heard his comments. But "[i]n order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint."

Defendants rely on Grillo v. New York City Transit Authority (2d Cir. 2002), where the Second Circuit held that an employee had not engaged in protected speech when he said at a training that certain management techniques were "women's stuff," and "women who dress like that [like the women in the building where the class was being held] should expect to be grabbed and pulled on." The Second Circuit reasoned that "even if this comment raised matters of public concern, Grillo's employer was justified in restricting his speech given the mildness of the sanction (a rebuke), the comment's tenuous connection to matters of public concern, and its significant potential for disruption." The court reasoned that "[i]n addition to its obvious provocativeness, we note that this statement advocated to future NYCTA supervisors behavior that could have subjected them and their employer to liability for violating various laws." Here, in contrast, Defendants have posited no such concerns about liability regarding Grande's comments.

Grande shared his comments in a breakout room that specifically encouraged teachers to share their thoughts and agree to disagree. The exercise appears to have been designed with the expectation that participants might feel uncomfortable, as the instructions informed participants: "It's OK to feel discomfort. This isn't easy!" Indeed, the teacher who complained about Grande appears to have anticipated discomfort about the topic of the training as she thanked Avicolli for holding the session and said she was looking forward to growing in "the uncomfortable" and seeing change in the department as a result. Accordingly, the only evidence of disruption pointed to by Defendants is the fact that a teacher felt uncomfortable at a session designed with the expectation that participants would feel uncomfortable.

Grande's comments were not made to students or parents at the school. Instead, Grande spoke via Zoom to a small group of teachers who worked at different schools. ECF No. 43-1, at 115-20. Grande had never had previous contact with the teacher who complained about him. Grande Dep., ECF No. 45-2, at 33. Defendants have not provided evidence that it was anticipated that Grande would work with anyone in the breakout room in the future. Accordingly, Defendants have not established based on undisputed facts that Grande's comments could be expected to disrupt his relationships with coworkers at his school or the operation of the District. Drawing all inferences and resolving all factual disputes in Grande's favor, as is required at this stage of the case, these circumstances raise questions about the reasonableness of assessing Grande's comments as disruptive to school operations.

Moreover, there is a disputed issue of fact regarding whether Grande was reprimanded based on a determination that his comments were disruptive or based on his speech itself…. The record suggests a range of possible reasons for Grande's discipline. It appears that Avicolli may have taken issue with the comments at least in part based on the viewpoint Grande expressed. At her deposition, Avicolli said she found Grande's comments "inappropriate" and "unprofessional" because they showed "resistance in having a growth mindset or an open perspective."

After learning of the teacher's complaint, Avicolli wrote to other teachers who had participated in the breakout room that Grande had made "inappropriate and aggressive comments" that were "unacceptable," "saddened" her, and created an "unsafe and hostile environment." Defendants say that Wilson "made the decision to discipline Plaintiff because of what he said and 'how he communicated out in the breakout room, which impacted the training session.'"

At his deposition, Wilson said that he concluded Grande used "vulgarity" in the breakout room. The reprimand letter signed by Wilson said that Grande had violated a provision of the Hartford Public School Employe Handbook by making "inappropriate and unprofessional comments." The Handbook provision referenced provides that "[e]mployee behavior that does not reflect positive social values will have a negative influence on students and fellow employees and is unacceptable." The letter stated that the misconduct finding was not based on Grande's "opinions or feelings regarding the training" but solely on the way Grande "expressed these sentiments which was inappropriate, unprofessional, and made several staff members uncomfortable."

Notably, the complaining teacher did not express discomfort over Grande saying "BS" or "bullshit." Rather, the discomfort appeared to be at least in part related to the opinion that Grande expressed. ECF No. 43-1, at 117 ("That statement deeply affects the community I serve. I cannot stand for a statement that is against my moral beliefs."). {Although Defendants point to the complaint of only one teacher as showing disruption, another teacher expressed feeling upset after the meeting. This teacher also appeared to be upset at least in part based on the viewpoint Grande expressed. ECF No. 43-1, at 118 ("He was dismissing what I was saying. I was upset after the meeting. These are important developments to further understand the discrepancy amongst us to be better educators. I felt like [ ] my opinion was shut down.").} Accordingly, there are disputed factual questions as to whether Grande was reprimanded for using "vulgarity," speaking "aggressively," or expressing an opinion that others disagreed with.

In sum, there are genuine disputes of material fact bearing on whether the assessment of the disruption caused by Grande's speech was reasonable and whether Grande was reprimanded because of a disagreement with the opinion Grande expressed rather than the disruption. See Rankin v. McPherson (1987) ("Vigilance is necessary to ensure that public employers do not use authority over employees to silence discourse … simply because superiors disagree with the content of employees' speech").

Plaintiff is represented by Logan M. Hetherington and Nathan J. McGrath (The Fairness Center) and Craig C. Fishbein (Fishbein Law Firm, LLC).

[UPDATE 9/11/25 2:41 pm: I originally erroneously said "Avicolli was investigated and disciplined," but of course that was mistaken; I've corrected it to make clear that it was Grande who was investigated and disciplined. Thanks to commenter Lee Moore and to Jordan Brown for the correction.]

Comments

[John F. Carr]

"it is undisputed that Grande was not required by his employer to speak during the breakout session."

If he had been required to give his reaction to the session, would his words be unprotected as job-related?

[Rossami]

Only if his job required him to speak a particular way. In other words, a biology teacher can be required to teach about evolution and words against that in the classroom could be unprotected as job-related. But this? No.

[JasonT20]

It is always a job requirement that teachers act "professionally" and respectfully toward each other and toward supervisors. Which I would expect to be true in virtually all workplaces. How can what he said be considered "professional"?

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose in much the same way the training could be?

[Sarcastr0]

A training you think is bad and wrong isn't unprofessional without more specific information on it's tone, language, etc.

[TwelveInchPianist]

A training that said that the natural condition of African-Americans was in permanent bondage to Caucasian-Americans wouldn't necessarily be unprofessional, it would depend on the tone and language?

[Don Nico]

More accurately, in what way were they unprofessional.

[JasonT20]

"I was just man-bashed and white-shamed. I'm gonna sit here quietly." He said he added: "I'm not buying into this white-bashing BS."

That's a rant, not a discussion or a debate or expressing an opinion according to the norms clearly stated before the breakout session started. Ranting is not professional.

[Kazinski]

If a Black man had to sit in training he thought was demeaning and scapegoating Black men for societal problems do you think he should be disciplined for saying:

"I was just man-bashed and Black-shamed. I'm gonna sit here quietly." He said he added: "I'm not buying into this Black-bashing BS."

I sincerely doubt it, and so do you if you are being honest.

[JasonT20]

... do you think he should be disciplined...

A serious answer to your loaded hypothetical is to point out that it is loaded. Your scenario is assuming that the Black, male teacher is correct that the training was demeaning toward him, as a Black man, and that it scapegoats Black people generally for societal problems. You are assuming that any reasonable person would agree with that characterization, therefore any reasonable person would think that he was justified to call the training "BS", among the other things he said, and therefore shouldn't be punished for it.

I see this actual situation very differently from that.

Start with the learning goal of the training:

"I can explore my own identity and privilege to better understand how I relate to my students in order to increase engagement and collaboration."

I see something missing in there that would make me, as a white man, just like Grande is, feel like this message was targeting me to the exclusion of others. I don't see anything in that learning goal that would only apply to white men. It is not addressed to white men. Grande, and I assume you, read that learning goal as if it said, "Okay, for white men, here is your learning goal, those of you in marginalized identity groups can skip that."

The decision also references something else they were presented:

The PowerPoint explains that participants will "explore our privilege as related to various social identities" and says "[w]e believe it is critical for everyone to reflect on privilege in this way in order to use our individual and collective privilege(s) for equity and social justice."

Again, that is not addressing just the white men in the training. It addresses "participants" and that "everyone" should reflect on privilege in order to use that privilege (individual and collective) for "equity and social justice."

You and Grande are responding to "privilege" and "equity and social justice" as trigger words that make you feel targeted. I can understand that. It isn't entirely irrational to feel that way. But getting past those feelings is the point of the whole exercise.

It isn't only white men that have privilege. Anyone with a college degree has privilege compared to those that don't have one [edit: or access to some other post-secondary education or training]. Anyone that grew up with both parents in the household has privilege compared to those that didn't. Anyone that grew up in a decent house instead of a roach-infested shithole has privilege compared those that did grow up in that roach-infested shithole.

Every teacher, simply by virtue of their college degree and full time job with benefits, is going to have some privilege compared to students they will have that are poor, live with one parent or a different relative or foster care, have a learning disability, or a physical disability. None of that depends on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, or nationality. Statistically, some groups have higher rates of poverty, etc., but they can occur for anyone.

The "social identity" that the training talks about will mean race, sex, ethnicity, etc. But it cam also mean economic class. It can also mean single or two parent household. It can mean a lot of things.

Seeing those words used in those training materials makes you jump to conclusions that the whole training will end up "white shaming" and "man bashing", but maybe not. You don't know, because you weren't in that training. That Grande felt like he was being white shamed and man bashed could be fair. Or it could be that he just didn't want to admit that being a white male made him statistically more likely to be in a home, when he was in school, that was financially, socially, and physically safe and stable compared to many of his students. And that is a fact, not "BS".

[Brett Bellmore]

You're tacitly assuming that 'demeaning towards whites' isn't a thing, so that if he felt demeaned he must have been mistaken. That's because you assign status on the basis of race, so that individual circumstances cease to matter.

I object to the concept of "privilege", as it is used here. I have, as a white man, no privileges as I understand the term:

"A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste."

I have no special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to me or enjoyed by me as a white. Such rights as I do have are the entitlement of ALL Americans, without regard to group membership.

What you're describing are not privileges, as I understand them. Certainly, growing up in an intact family was advantageous. It's not barred by law or custom to blacks.

Graduating from HS with excellent grades and a high SAT was the product of lucky genetics and having parents who demanded that I finish my homework on getting home before I could do anything else. Blacks are not particularly genetically disadvantaged, and there are plenty of them out there who are natively smarter than me. And if one settles down to do his math homework before playing, the academic sloth police won't show up to arrest him.

And on and on. Nothing I have was a matter of privilege, it was available to anybody.

Or if it wasn't, if locally in a time and place it was denied to somebody, that was a violation of their rights, not a special privilege granted to me, who got nothing everybody isn't entitled to.

So, when I check my "privilege"? I come up empty.

[JasonT20]

I object to the concept of "privilege", as it is used here. I have, as a white man, no privileges as I understand the term:

"A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste."

That's the dictionary definition of privilege, I take it? That's fine, but you might also want to know how that word is used in this context. It is not different than the dictionary definition, but the context adds to it some distinguishing characteristics of groups not in that definition. Categories like race, gender, nationality, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation.

Think about it this way. Would you have had the right, as a paying customer, to sit at lunch counter in the Jim Crow South? Or was it a privilege reserved to paying customers that were white?

To oversimplify it, I think of rights as things you have regardless of whether an authority respects and upholds them. When they don't, they are denying you your rights. A privilege is granted at the discretion of those with the power to grant it, and it is the fact that they have that power that makes the privilege what it is. That is consistent with the definition you used, as something that is "granted" or "enjoyed", not something someone is naturally entitled to.

Up to the late 20th century, white people had the privilege of not being subject to discrimination because of their race. They had the privilege of being able to pursue any career they wanted, attend the best colleges and universities, and serve as elected public officials. (Most of that also was a privilege for straight men. Or, if they were gay, that they stayed in the closet.) You may think that these are basic human rights for everyone, and I would agree that they should be. But I argue that they are only rights, in practice, when they are upheld as rights for everyone. Otherwise, they are indistinguishable from privileges.

People of other races, women, LGBTQ+, Hispanics, and non-Christians weren't extended the same privileges in many parts of the country. For some people, there was no where in the country where they were equal.

You and I, as white men, still get some of that privilege just as those that aren't white men still aren't granted it. If nothing else, growing up in a white, Christian, middle-class or above family has been a huge advantage in the opportunities I have had in my life compared to the statistical likelihood for people that don't fall into that group.

That's not some leftist ideology, that is a fact.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Think about it this way. Would you have had the right, as a paying customer, to sit at lunch counter in the Jim Crow South? Or was it a privilege reserved to paying customers that were white?"

Bluntly, YES. The white customers were not experiencing "privilege", the black customers were experiencing discrimination.

The basic problem with using "privilege" to denote not being discriminated against, is that "privilege" is something people aren't entitled to. It's a gift, it's special treatment, people are expected to feel a bit guilty about benefiting from it.

That's why the term is being used here.

But, wrongly, because we're not actually talking about privilege, but instead the rights that belong to everybody. The advantages accruing to not screwing up, too.

So, if I and you walk through an alley, and you get mugged and I don't, maybe I should feel sorry for you being mugged, but I should in no way feel guilty about not being mugged.

If I did my homework, and you didn't, I might feel sorry you didn't have parents who'd force you to do what you should, but I shouldn't feel guilty of my good grades.

Basically you're misusing the word "privilege" in an effort to wrongly induce guilt. And that's what I'm rejecting.

[JasonT20]

It's a gift, it's special treatment, people are expected to feel a bit guilty about benefiting from it.

I've been quite clear that I don't feel guilt because of the unearned advantages I've gotten in my life for having been white. I do feel a responsibility to address the fact that those advantages happened and to think about ways to correct both that legacy and the way that society still gives unearned advantages to people that look like me.

Basically you're misusing the word "privilege" in an effort to wrongly induce guilt. And that's what I'm rejecting.

Guilt for having an unearned privilege only comes when you accept it without doing anything to address the inherent injustice of receiving that privilege. I think that it makes sense for some of this backlash some white people express, as they feel like the left is trying to make them feel guilt for past discrimination, is due to how they don't want to sacrifice anything to correct the inequalities that exist now because of that past discrimination.

They are the people that got a head start in a race, but they didn't get that head start because they did anything to cheat. It was other people that set them up ahead of others without involving them at all. But, they insist that their only responsibility now is to not break any rules themselves. To apply any remedy that gives something to the runners that were cheated, while those that got the benefit of the cheating don't get anything? That would be unfair to them.

In that situation, you would just declare the race invalid and start over playing fairly for everyone. But life isn't a race, and that is not possible when it comes to past discrimination. There is only the remedy of giving boosts to those that were treated unfairly (or that start their lives behind because of that past unfair treatment). If that looks like 'reverse discrimination' to those that got the head start, then that is why they would, and should, feel guilt. But not for the past discrimination. They should feel guilt for not being willing to correct injustice when they see it, because it would cost them something to do so.

Which is why your hypothetical here is actually a valuable lesson:

So, if I and you walk through an alley, and you get mugged and I don't, maybe I should feel sorry for you being mugged, but I should in no way feel guilty about not being mugged.

You shouldn't. You should feel guilty if you just stood there and only felt "sorry" for me for being mugged, and then continued on your way like it doesn't affect you that I was mugged. Or maybe you just assume that it is someone else's job to help me or punish the mugger, and if neither of those things happen? Well, that's just life.

[Lee Moore]

Jason : I see something missing in there that would make me, as a white man, just like Grande is, feel like this message was targeting me to the exclusion of others. I don't see anything in that learning goal that would only apply to white men. It is not addressed to white men. Grande, and I assume you, read that learning goal as if it said, "Okay, for white men, here is your learning goal, those of you in marginalized identity groups can skip that."

That is probably because you have limited yourself to considering the stated “learning goal.” But within the learning goal is … the learning :

The instructions explain that slides for each social identity will be displayed with eight statements that describe examples of “privilege related to that category’s system of oppression and privilege.”* Participants are instructed to shade a section of the wheel if their answer is “basically yes” to the statement. Grande asserts that the statements “were strategically worded in a way that would prompt a ‘yes’ response from someone like Mr. Grande, who identifies as a straight, white, Christian male, and required him to shade in particular sections of his ‘identity wheel.’

But surely this is just the opinion of the crazed straight, white, Christian male bigot himself ?

Apparently not :

Avicolli acknowledged at her deposition that she would expect straight, white men to answer “yes” to all of the statements on the sexuality, race, and gender race slides.

In short, the presentation and the follow up questions were designed to make particular sorts of people – the sorts with blotchy pink skin, dangly genitals and a preference for people with the non dangly genitals - examine their “privileges” and to lead them by the nose to the necessary confessions, during the “struggle sessions.”

And Mr Grande, though he was a mere PE teacher with hardly two brain cells to rub together, was able to grok it. As any passing amoeba would have done.

*Never mind amoebas, you don't even have to be alive to know what's coming after "statements that describe examples of privilege related to that category’s system of oppression and privilege.”

[JasonT20]

That is probably because you have limited yourself to considering the stated “learning goal.” But within the learning goal is … the learning :

Sure, I limited myself to what I saw in this article, because I guessed that Eugene presented the most relevant parts of the opinion in this excerpt form what he calls a long opinion. I neither have the time nor the inclination to read the full opinion.

Grande asserts that the statements “were strategically worded in a way that would prompt a ‘yes’ response from someone like Mr. Grande, who identifies as a straight, white, Christian male, and required him to shade in particular sections of his ‘identity wheel.’

Strategically worded to prompt someone that has privilege because of his race to answer yes to whether he has privilege because of his race? I get it, though. He doesn't agree that he has privilege, and probably doesn't even agree that this is a real thing, like so many of you here seem to. Maybe that is what he was calling "BS" and that doing an activity that might make him question his existing belief that he doesn't have privilege looks to him like an attack, aka "man bashing" and "white shaming".

Avicolli acknowledged at her deposition that she would expect straight, white men to answer “yes” to all of the statements on the sexuality, race, and gender race slides.

Yeah. According to the premise of the activity and training, he would have to answer yes to those statements if he was answering honestly. You're just confirming what the training is based on, not that Grande is right about his perception of it. Also, what other slides were there, that someone that wasn't a straight, white male would also answer yes to statements on those slides?

In short, the presentation and the follow up questions were designed to make particular sorts of people – the sorts with blotchy pink skin, dangly genitals and a preference for people with the non dangly genitals - examine their “privileges” and to lead them by the nose to the necessary confessions, during the “struggle sessions.”

If you want to characterize the activity as forcing "confessions", that is your perception. I don't view acknowledging that I have privileges as confessing anything, because that is not anything I need to feel guilty about. Maybe there are some "anti-racist" activists or others in that realm actually trying to make straight white men feel guilty for their privilege. I don't see it, but I don't see everything. If I did see that, I would argue against it, or ignore it if those people weren't receptive to a different perspective.

But, I also don't consume a ton of conservative media commentary constantly telling me that there is a whole conspiracy of CRT/DEI, "woke" activists infiltrating government and academia trying to make me feel guilty for being a straight white male. Thus, I am not made hypersensitive to things that might be even just slightly similar to these ideas I am told to be afraid of. Especially when they use the same trigger words, like "privilege" or "social justice". That makes it a lot easier for me to shrug my shoulders at anything that I might one day see as trying to make me feel guilty for something I didn't do.

Never mind amoebas, you don't even have to be alive to know what's coming after "statements that describe examples of privilege related to that category’s system of oppression and privilege.”

Like this. You "know" that "what's coming" next is an attack on you for being your race and sex. Because you have been primed to see that by years of people you listen to, trust, and agree with telling you to watch out for it. I see an exercise in self-reflection that might help me understand students of mine that are still dealing with the legacy of Jim Crow, sexism, and gay-bashing, among other forms of oppression that I refuse to wave away as only relevant to the past. And I know that I would need that self-reflection because I didn't experience that oppression or its continuing legacy, and neither did my parents, grandparents, or anyone else up my ancestral tree for at least the last 100 years.

Too bad Grande only saw man bashing and white shaming in those materials. He might have actually come away from the workshop feeling less guilt. He would be a happier person in the end.

[Lee Moore]

Maybe there are some "anti-racist" activists or others in that realm actually trying to make straight white men feel guilty for their privilege. I don't see it, but I don't see everything.

Perhaps you missed the “prepare to be made uncomfortable” bit.

Also, what other slides were there, that someone that wasn't a straight, white male would also answer yes to statements on those slides?

The slides, per EV’s note identified the following axes of privilege / oppression :

race, gender/sex, sexuality, nationality/citizenship, other, religion, class, and ability

“other” could mean anything. I’m guessing “nationality/citizenship” refers to illegal aliens, rather than suggesting that being French is a privilege and being Italian is not. “Religion” I assume means that being Christian is a privilege but being Muslim is to be oppressed. (Though obviously not in Syria or Pakistan.) ie it doesn’t mean that to be religious is a privilege per se. But we didn’t see the score sheet for that one. Class is obviously an axis of advantage / disadvantage, though the American class structure is pretty porous compared to other societies. Ability or the lack thereof is obviously an advantage / disadvantage, but while it is to some extent innate it is hardly immutable. (Ability is a good illustration of the deliberate silliness of labelling advantages and disadvantages as privileges or oppression. If you don't want to listen to a singer who can't sing in tune that's not oppression. It's lack of ability. Maybe he should try becoming a plumber instead.)

The difficulty is that while you could certainly argue – motte – that these things may influence your success or failure in society to some extent, it certainly isn’t the case – bailey - that there’s a reliable axis of oppression / privilege.

Take sex as an obvious example. There simply isn’t any general advantage to being a male in 21st century America. 21st century Saudi Arabia, maybe. If you want to be a super high paid CEO it helps to be male – for various reasons, some social, some biological. But you want to avoid living under a freeway, or if you want a sexual partner, please, please, I’ll take anyone – it helps to be female. If you want to live a life of play and no work, it helps to be female (so long as you’re pretty.) And so on. Biology gives men and women different advantages at different things, and social customs generally reinforce those things. Whether you feel advantaged or disadvanted by your sex depends on the life you want.

No doubt it is infuriating for highly intelligent, hard working, motivated women who want to scrabble to the top of the corporate tree and who have no interest in using their ovaries, to find the playing field not quite level. (Though much more so than even 30 years ago.) These are the women who would vigorously check the box to confirm that to be female is to be oppressed. And no doubt it is their sisters in academia who design the sex bits of these CRT games to reinforce their priors. But these are a tiny minority of women (just as their counterparts are a tiny minority of men). You could find a much larger cohort of bottom of the heap, or incel, men, who would be happy to assure you that it sucks to be a guy.

[Lee Moore]

cont -

These things are not axes of privilege and oppression, they’re just some of the things that influence your life, one way or another. As do :

family structure, health, personality, mentors, inherited wealth, good or bad schooling, wise or foolish parents, language(s), good or bad luck, drug free environment, low crime environment, friends, era (ie if you want “privilege” try “being born after WW2” - or if you’re Chinese, after Mao’s death.)

The point, obviously, is that many things influence how you do in life, and trying to make a chart of a selected few of them, and claiming that everyone in the group experiences the same positive or negative pull from their group membership is simply political propaganda. (Even “inherited wealth” cuts both ways. Some use their inherited wealth to make their lives even more successful and cheerful, probably more turn into drug-addled wastrels who would have done a lot better as the child of a factory worker with the looming of next week's rent as a spur.)

But even more – indoctrinating teachers and so ultimately children that they are in the grip of oppressive or bountiful forces beyond their control is absolutely the wrong thing to be teaching. It is obviously true that some things are within your control and some things are outside it, but it is more or less impossible in most cases to say how much of any given result is down to you and how much is down to something else, not excluding dumb luck.

Consequently it is a very useful heuristic to assume that you are responsible for what happens to you, even if in reality, to some unknowable extent, you’re not. The more you behave as if your own choices and actions matter, the better choices you will make, and the better actions you will take.

If you want a real axis of oppression / privilege it’s “exposure to propaganda that others control your fate.”

Rather like this oppression :

I see an exercise in self-reflection that might help me understand students of mine that are still dealing with the legacy of Jim Crow, sexism, and gay-bashing, among other forms of oppression that I refuse to wave away as only relevant to the past.

The “privilege” end of this axis is a teacher who says “Whatever your disadvantages, your life is for you to make. Don’t sit there like a lump and whine “it’s not my fault.” Take the cards you’ve been dealt and do the best you can with them. Whining never made anyone either happy or successful.”

Strange that you feel able to give that advice to Grande, without seeing that it is generally true.

[Bwaaah]

Excellent treatment of the subject, Lee Moore.

[JasonT20]

Strange that you feel able to give that advice to Grande, without seeing that it is generally true.

Strange that you think it is a one or the other choice. Do I help a disadvantaged student apply their abilities as best they can, or do I encourage them to sit there like a lump and whine about it not being their fault that they are poor, their parents never got to go to college because their parents were discriminated against and were kept poor by racists, so they can't do as much to help them with their homework, etc., boo hoo.

I don't have to tell that student anything about their disadvantages. I just help them do their best. What makes it easier for me to find out what is going to be the most effective way to help them is knowing and understanding what their disadvantages are. This whole thing was about giving the teachers the tools and information they needed to serve all of their students instead of treating them all like identical cogs.

Treating each child exactly the same in a classroom assures that some children won't get what they need to meet their full potential. There is always a balance to how to divide your time as a teacher between individualizing things in the classroom, how you help students, and so on, with being able to deliver that to all students. Doing the same thing for the whole class and not modifying anything to suit individual students is more efficient. But it is less effective for students that aren't close to the "average" student you design your classroom and the curriculum around.* (That applies for students that are gifted as well as those that are struggling, btw. So, yes, I am completely against getting rid of gifted programs and other opportunities for the best and brightest students to be challenged.)

*There is something that tries to get around the tradeoff, though. It is called universal design. It is predicated on the idea that you can design an environment, product, or service that takes into account all of the different types of people that will use it. That you won't need to lose efficiency trying to make individual accommodations to the standard by modifying things. Instead, you just make sure it will work for everyone from the start. Think about a building or outdoor area where one section is going to be a few feet above a different section. If you use a ramp instead of stairs, then no one needs to do anything to accommodate someone in a wheelchair, and the people that aren't disabled also get what they need. If it is built that way from the start, then no one will have to go back and spend extra money putting a ramp when they finally realize that there will be people in wheelchairs using that space.

There are limits to how much that can be applied to everything, though, I suspect. I think universal design is an ideal, not something you expect to achieve.

[JasonT20]

I’m guessing “nationality/citizenship” refers to illegal aliens, rather than suggesting that being French is a privilege and being Italian is not.

Guessing that it refers to "illegal" immigrants is a guess biased by your own politics. At least, that is what I guess.

“Religion” I assume means that being Christian is a privilege but being Muslim is to be oppressed. (Though obviously not in Syria or Pakistan.)

Yeah, that is actually the correct assumption for the U.S. Being Christian is being in the overwhelming majority. And if you don't think that matters, ask those in the gallery at a Texas State Senate session last month what they think.

[Lee Moore]

Treating each child exactly the same in a classroom assures that some children won't get what they need to meet their full potential. There is always a balance to how to divide your time as a teacher between individualizing things in the classroom, how you help students, and so on, with being able to deliver that to all students. Doing the same thing for the whole class and not modifying anything to suit individual students is more efficient. But it is less effective for students that aren't close to the "average" student you design your classroom and the curriculum around.

I quite agree. The solution for gifted* children is described here :

https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/why-we-stopped-making-einsteins

but it is of course very expensive in terms of resources, though the pay off may be yuuge.

For regular folk though, school is necessarily something in the line of mass production, though AI may help provide individualized pedagogy to some extent. Absent a major change arising from AI, and assuming “aristocratic tutoring” can never be available to any but the few, the natural form of “universal design” in education is to organize homegeneity. That is to say dividing children by aptitude, and to some extent personality, into groups that are sufficiently like-minded as to be suited to similar pedagogy. Or to put it another way – down with diversity. Put like children together and unlike children apart.

Let me know when you have persuaded the teachers unions and Democratic pols to bite on that one 🙂

The other little problem, socially, with improving the effectiveness of education is that it is likely to widen rather than to narrow differences in educational attainment. Ineffective education helps prevent the able children from racing ahead. Again – let me know when you have the votes for that.

PS don’t be building “universal” ramps in snowy country. Far more dangerous than steps.

* by “gifted” I mean actually gifted, not the US obsession with 50% of the population being gifted. They’re not.

[Lee Moore]

I might add, because why not, that the value of homogeneity doesn't apply only to children, it applies just as much to teachers. There are teachers who may thrive on teaching neat, orderly, compliant, reasonably intelligent children (I will eschew the temptation to label this cohort "girls" 🙂 ) but who struggle when dealing with rowdy, sulky children who would rather be outside playing sports.

Some teachers may be good at teaching the gifted, some good at teaching the slow. And there may be some who excel at teaching any and all types of children.

But these excellent all-rounders will necessarily be rare, compared to those who have their little niche. Dividing the children into homogeneous groups allows these niche teachers to do a good job with pupils who suit them, rather than flail and fail trying to be all rounders, when they lack that ability.

As far as educational effectiveness is concerned, diversity sucks, homogeneity shines.

[Kazinski]

I don't think there is any doubt that a Black Man if he complained in similar terms he felt picked on in any training would have a his feelings validated.

But if a White man does the same he is disciplined.

That is disparate treatment based on race.

I don't know what the training encompassed, so I am not going comment on whether he "should" have felt picked on or not, but I don't think there is any doubt those were his actual feelings, and he was invited to provide feedback, so he did.

And the discipline was based on the content of the feedback, not any disruption, and if there was any disruption it was due to the content of his feedback, not how it was delivered.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think there is any doubt that a Black Man

Hypothetical oppression is so easy to prove!

[Krayt]

They went out of their way to point out how it was an exercise in things that might make you uncomfortable, and to discuss it.

Horrors, he did so.

I also find it telling the instructor then went on to describe how horrible what he said made her feel, as if it justified the retaliation, or a defense against it.

"I feel so attacked, I curl up like a ball and sic government on you" for me, but not for thee.

[JasonT20]

They went out of their way to point out how it was an exercise in things that might make you uncomfortable, and to discuss it.

They went out of their way to point out that discussing it was expected to be done while assuming positive intentions and agreeing to disagree respectfully. Why do you all keep skipping that part?

[Michael P]

Probably people skip that part because the entire basis for that kind of struggle session is to assume negative intentions (of white people or others with "privilege") and to silence disagreement.

[JasonT20]

The other thing I keep seeing is people believing things about this training based on what they imagine it to be rather than what is presented in this excerpt of the decision.

[Don Nico]

You just want to have your hands over your ears. Had the man insulted a member of the audience or the facilitator, that would have been unprofessional, but he didn't.
This was scarcely any credible reason for firing except pretextual.

[JasonT20]

You want to prove that you haven't been paying attention, do you? Talking about anyone getting fired in this case does that quite well.

[MickeyFitz]

Would there even be a question that a Black teacher would have the right to express concern about what were perceived as racist anti-Black statements?

[Ken Arromdee]

>Accordingly, the only evidence of disruption pointed to by Defendants is the fact that a teacher felt uncomfortable at a session designed with the expectation that participants would feel uncomfortable.

Obviously, the session was designed to make participants feel uncomfortable when they were accused of racism against blacks, not to make them uncomfortable when they were accused of racism in favor of blacks.

Also obviously, the defendants are not going to admit this.

[ReaderY]

Could the teacher have sued the school district for fraud here, separately from any First Amendment claim and from any question about whether r not his comments were job-related?

The school districted created a workshop in which teachers were explicitly asked to express their opinion and promised that causing discomfort was OK. Then, when the teacher relied on these representations, the school district then used the information it obtained about his opinions to fire him, allegedly for causing others discomfort.

Why isn’t that fraud plain and simple?

[JasonT20]

Why isn’t that fraud plain and simple?

Read my comment below. The expectations for how they should have expressed any of their experiences and views were clearly stated. He did not meet those expectations. He blew right through the boundaries they clearly put up. There is nothing fraudulent or bait-and-switch about this. Definitely not anything "plain and simple."

[Don Nico]

"He blew right through the boundaries they clearly put up. "
Wow, you see things that are not there. The Plaintiff was the one who was offended; the snowflake whiner, not so much.
There is no claim that the Plaintiff spoke further so as to disrupt the so-called training.

[JasonT20]

Wow, you see things that are not there. The Plaintiff was the one who was offended; the snowflake whiner, not so much.

You are not seeing or are ignoring the things that are. I have no idea what you think I saw that wasn't there. I show exactly where the statement from me that you quoted comes from in my other comment. You're just making things up that sound good to you.

[Don Nico]

You are the one who sees blowing through boundaries. I see only a brief expression of discomfort not pointed at any individual followed by the plaintiff remaining silent throughout the meeting.

[Lee Moore]

and promised that causing discomfort was OK

No, the participants were told that feeling discomfort was OK. The discomfort-causing sword was to be wielded by the management, the employees were allowed to feel the pain.

There was no indication that employees were permitted to dish out any discomfort themselves.

However, I should think that the instruction that it's OK to feel discomfort could be used - by the plaintiff - to show that the management did not think that causing discomfort was a serious matter. They intended and expected to cause some of it themselves. Thus if the employee caused discomfort himself, the school is in a weak position to argue that this is a big deal, deserving of disciplinary action.

[Krayt]

"Permitted to feel", that's a weak rack on which to hang your hat, especially when they were split up into discussion groups.

Anyway, off to a jury it goes to decide this stuff.

[not guilty]

While I have not read the District Court opinion, the excerpt quoted by Professor Volokh shows the existence of disputed material facts, such that summary judgment was properly denied.

It also shows this plaintiff to be a whiny hothouse flower who can't stand to have his worldview questioned.

[ReaderY]

But doesn’t this case also show the School District folks to be at least equally whiny hothouse flowers who at least equally couldn’t stand to have their worldview questioned?

After all, the teacher, after complaining, was nonetheless willing to continue to work with these folks. But the School District wsn’t; it fired him. Which one was the least accepting of others’ viewpoints?

[kenwanobi]

The District didn't fire him, they reprimanded him and threatened to discipline him if he re-offended. He stayed at the school until he retired in 2024.

[Gwegan]

I'm not sure you understand what is happening here. The school district's motion was denied and now the matter will go to trial. That is a major win for the Plaintiff. The school district will now almost certainly settle. Your statement sounds like it is describing the school administrator not the plaintiff.

[not guilty]

Of course the denial of a defendant's motion for summary judgement is a major win for the plaintiff. The school board here will likely offer a cost of defense settlement, but I suspect that this plaintiff will not be a compelling witness for himself if the case does go to trial.

As Lyndon Johnson told his successor as President, "[sometimes] like being a jackass caught in a hail storm[,] you've got to just stand there and take it."

[Lee Moore]

not guilty : It also shows this plaintiff to be a whiny hothouse flower who can't stand to have his worldview questioned.

I beg to differ. He was expressly invited to express his feelings :

The PowerPoint instructions for the breakout group discussion ask, "How did it feel to engage in this activity?"

He expressed them.

Nor did his expressed feelings indicate an unwillingness to have his worldview questioned. They indicated an unwillingness to have somebody else's worldview rammed down his throat. The world is full of worldviews, not just two. If the particular one being rammed down your throat strikes you as absurd and insulting, that doesn't imply that you are unwilling to discuss a hundred other worldviews in a civilised manner.

I agree with Reader Y except when he says "equally." If you require your employees to sit through and participate in the presentation of your worldview, that human society is secretly governed by alien lizards with enormous powers, that is an attempt to exclude ALL other worldviews from discussion.

But a participant, declining to play that game and who dismisses it as absurd, does not thereby demonstrate that his mind is closed to any and all worldviews except his own. He is merely rejecting one alternative worldview - the lizard theory.

[JasonT20]

Nor did his expressed feelings indicate an unwillingness to have his worldview questioned. They indicated an unwillingness to have somebody else's worldview rammed down his throat.

To use Grande's choice of words, that's BS. He expressed absolute certainty in his views and he said, "but I'm going to sit there quietly" and "I'm not buying into that white bashing BS."

That is stating plainly his intention to not engage in any further discussion, and he plainly indicated that he wasn't going to change his mind. Your distinction between only rejecting one worldview from being "rammed down" his throat vs having his worldview questioned at all does not hold up either. For one thing, his comment was so short, that trying to infer whether he was willing to consider other viewpoints, just not the "white bashing" one from the training, is impossible. I can't even tell what his worldview is from what he said. From what he said, we can only tell that his worldview rejects whatever he thought was the worldview of those that designed the training.

If the particular one being rammed down your throat strikes you as absurd and insulting, that doesn't imply that you are unwilling to discuss a hundred other worldviews in a civilised manner.

Why doesn't it imply exactly that? Why should we give him the benefit of the doubt that he isn't as closed-minded about some other worldview as he is about that one?

He is merely rejecting one alternative worldview - the lizard theory.

Nice straw man you got there.

[Don Nico]

Jason,
The man was invited to say his piece. He did and then shut up.
You don't like his opinion. You would have preferred that he accept brainwashing.

[JasonT20]

The man was invited to say his piece.

He was not invited to call anyone else's views BS.

You don't like his opinion.

Whether I "like" his opinion or not is irrelevant. I don't agree with it, but had I been there, I would have shown him more respect than he did others. I certainly would not have said that his opinion was "BS" to everyone in the room, including him.

You would have preferred that he accept brainwashing.

I would have preferred that he act like a professional educator at a training, instead of acting like he was making a TikTok.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If the training had said that the natural condition of the African-American was in permeant servitude to the Caucasian-American, would you think it unprofessional for a black person to call it BS?

Would you avoid referring to such a viewpoint as BS out of fear of being unprofessional?

[KenveeB]

You go to much different trainings than I do, if a comment by a participant in a breakout session that something is BS makes you have vapors. I wouldn't expect the speaker to phrase things that way, but breakout sessions are much more casual among the participants because the goal is to have them actually participate. It's not like he went on a lengthy, expletive-ridden tirade. Calling something BS is pretty standard in a lot of commentary.

[LexAquilia]

I don't think I've ever been to a conference where I didn't say at one point in time, "that's BS".

[Bwaaah]

I was just thinking the same thing. And all my employers put up with it. I was sometimes accused of being "unprofessional." But the accusers were always the feckless whiners, and the bosses always defined "professional," first and foremost, as getting the job done quickly, competently and satisfactorily. (I always placed high value on a respectful, cohesive workplace, so the accusers could never actually claim higher ground on those fronts.) Under company management's definition of "professional," the "He said [blah] [blah]" complainers were unhelpful, self-absorbed, beside-the-point under-producers.

JasonT20: your definition of "unprofessional" reflects an unhelpful emphasis of formality over function, of propriety over performance. It's an emphasis that I've only seen in empty-suit types of people. That type of heavy-handedness may be tolerated in woke-captured institutions like schools and non-profits, but it stifles dialog, performance and creativity. It favors defensive risk-aversion over honest communication. You finding his behavior "unprofessional" is regressive, thin-skinned bullshit. Get more tolerant, less overbearing.

[JasonT20]

...if a comment by a participant in a breakout session that something is BS makes you have vapors.

As I've said in other comments, I have 21 years of teaching professional development workshops, including plenty of "breakout sessions". Yes, they get more informal there. But no, I've never had anyone say that the whole thing was BS as if the rest of us were part of that, and then preemptively declare that that was all they were going to say about it, deliberately shutting down any way to respond without escalating an argument.

[KenveeB]

He said "I got bashed" and "I'm not going to accept that bashing BS." Not the rest of everything you're reading into it. You seem determined to read the absolute worst possible meaning behind everything he said and the best possible meaning behind everything the trainer said, but that's not actually the test. We look what was actually said.

[Don Nico]

Jason,
He did not call any particular person's views BS.He did not insult any particular person. An employee is not required to change his mind, only specific relevant behavior in the actual place of work.
You betray your preference for brainwashing with your every reply.
Such expectations helped Ms Harris lose the election. People don't like to be told what to believe or else.

[JasonT20]

He did not call any particular person's views BS.He did not insult any particular person.

A particular person designed and put together the training materials. A particular person was leading the training, explaining it as they went through the instructions. He doesn't need to name that person for everyone that heard him to know that he was including whoever presented the materials and the instructions in his statements.

You betray your preference for brainwashing with your every reply.

"Brainwashing" is such a loaded term that I can hardly take this seriously, but I'll respond anyway.

This training does start with premises that many of the participants were not going to agree with. What little I can see in this excerpt from the materials does do a poor job of understanding this and preparing those that do disagree with it to engage in constructive dialogue. Every participant is still responsible for maintaining decorum and professionalism, though. To say otherwise is to say that they aren't mature enough, and don't have enough emotional control to be expected to follow behavioral norms. In other words, they are children, not teachers.

Calling this "brainwashing" also diminishes the participants as not having the critical thinking skills or capacity for independent thought to resist said "brainwashing". Your hyperbole is not serving to support Grande, but to make him seem so intellectually weak, that his vitriolic response and immediate shutdown of any rebuttal was his only defense against indoctrination.

You are equating instructions to engage in an exercise of self-reflection as "brainwashing" and indoctrination because you, like Grande, don't agree with the premises behind those instructions. You, and the others here arguing this, are just continuing to assert that this characterization of the training materials is true. You are doing the same thing Grande did. He stated his opposition to the position and views of the training and that he wasn't going to engage or participate in any further discussion of it.

People don't like to be told what to believe or else.

Where was the "or else"? Had he followed the instructions, assuming positive intent from those he disagreed with, agreeing to disagree respectfully, and not sharing anything he didn't want to otherwise, then there was no "or else". Nothing in the record here indicates that he should have thought, going into the break out session, that he would be punished in any way, for not believing what the training was saying.

The ruling makes clear at the end, summarizing its previous discussion, that the factual record is disputed as to whether he was punished afterwards based on his expression of disagreement or based on his behavior that the District claims violated professional expectations. His lawsuit is about what he claims is retaliation for having expressed his opinions about the topic and the training. That's why it's a suit based on Free Speech grounds.

And it is worth noting, that this suit would not exist at all, had the exact same sequence of events happened at a private school. This free speech claim of retaliation can only happen at all because the District is a government entity. Private employers don't have to uphold an employee's freedom of speech rights at work in anything like the way government employers do.

[Lee Moore]

I agree that it's a poor effort at brainwashing. You'd have to be pretty feeble to actually be brainwashed by this, though you could well be cowed into acquiescence by the fear of disciplinary action.

But while we're on hyperbole, I notice that you have not yet had the time to discharge your mind on the appearance of the word "oppression" in the course notes. Indeed right up there front and center in the course's theme. I await your analysis with interest.

[JasonT20]

Are you saying that white people never oppressed racial minorities in this country? The materials you quoted talk about that "category's" system of oppression, right? Being a member of the same race or sex or whatever as that category is not an accusation of being an oppressor. I've given my thoughts on why some people interpret it that way in other replies.

[Lee Moore]

He expressed absolute certainty in his views and he said, "but I'm going to sit there quietly" and "I'm not buying into that white bashing BS."

Eh ? Have you got some extra source of info ? Taking the District's account he said no more than :

"I just got man bashed and white shamed, but I'm going to sit there quietly" and "I'm not buying into that white bashing BS."

This doesn't express absolute certainty in his own views - it doesn't even mention any - it merely rejects the lizard view.

That is stating plainly his intention to not engage in any further discussion,. ..... of the lizard view.

and he plainly indicated that he wasn't going to change his mind ..... about the lizard view.

For one thing, his comment was so short, that trying to infer whether he was willing to consider other viewpoints, just not the "white bashing" one from the training, is impossible.

Bingo ! You can't tell, nor can I, nor can not guilty, from his very brief remarks whether or not he was willing to consider any or all of the non-lizard theories. Consequently not guilty's (and your) accusation that he wasn't open to any challenge of his worldview is unfounded.

I can't even tell what his worldview is from what he said. From what he said, we can only tell that his worldview rejects whatever he thought was the worldview of those that designed the training.

Double Bingo ! We can deduce that he's not a lizard guy. But otherwise, we can't deduce what he thinks. Maybe he's a Great Turtle guy, maybe he's a Copernican willing to entertain, for the purposes of discussion, both the multiple universes theory and the Great Turtle theory. We don't know.

moi : If the particular one being rammed down your throat strikes you as absurd and insulting, that doesn't imply that you are unwilling to discuss a hundred other worldviews in a civilised manner.

toi : Why doesn't it imply exactly that?

Shirley, this is not difficult ? You are required to attend a discussion on the evolution of mammals. There are no doubt many aspects of this which are unknown, speculative, open to discussion, theories abound. But it turns out you're going to get the creationist theory. If you immediately say to yourself 'Oh good grief, not this crap again !" it doesn't imply that your mind is closed to all the other fascinating possibilities, that are not obvious crap, that you would be very happy to discuss.

I'm afraid I don't understand why you're disagreeing with me. The evidence is sufficient to paint him as being of the opinion that the Supervisor's oeuvre du jour - the privilege and identity pentangle - was crap. As it is. It certainly isn't sufficient to conclude that he was any more closed minded than you when you sighed "oh good grief, not this creationist crap again ?"

[LexAquilia]

You are missing one of their assumptions.

If he WAS open minded, he wouldn't reject their worldview. They're like a wife who insists that if her husband really was listening to her, he'd agree with her.

[JasonT20]

Taking the District's account he said no more than :

"I just got man bashed and white shamed, but I'm going to sit there quietly" and "I'm not buying into that white bashing BS."

Why did you say, "Taking the District's account..." when the place you copied that from clearly says that Grande's own words are only slightly different? Were you trying to cast doubt on the accuracy of the District claims he said?

This doesn't express absolute certainty in his own views - it doesn't even mention any - it merely rejects the lizard view.

He said he got man bashed and white shamed. He called the training white bashing BS. That's clearly showing certainty that the training and its premises are those things. His larger worldview beyond that? You're right, he wasn't expressing certainty in his whole worldview.

..... of the lizard view.

Keep using the appeal to ridicule by calling the training and its premises "the lizard view". I'm sure that will prove your argument.

Consequently not guilty's (and your) accusation that he wasn't open to any challenge of his worldview is unfounded.

I'm not basing my belief that he was not open to challenge on whether I know what his worldview is. I was basing it on how he totally shuts down any possible discussion about what he said. The opinion says that Grande's version of events is that no one responded to his statement. Duh, of course not. Any response would have escalated an argument once he said that he was just going to sit there quietly. He said that, consciously or not, so as to make anyone that replied the bad guy for pushing him when he was just going to hold his tongue. After he gave his opinion as the last word, of course.

I'm out of time for now. I may or may not be back.

[Lee Moore]

Why did you say, "Taking the District's account..."

Because if I took Grande's only marginally different account, someone - by which I don't mean you - would be along to say "Ah but that's just what he says." If I take the District's words, then we can use it as a stipulation.

I appreciate your point of view but again I don't really understand why we're arguing. I entirely agree with you that with his words and attitude, he demonstrated a completely closed mind on the lizard view. But as I keep on repeating, emphatically to reject the lizard view does not betoken a closed mind and a dogged insistence on his own worldview.

I use "lizard view" as an algebraic variable, the content of which is irrelevant, because I am trying to explain that the rejection of one thing does not imply the rejection of all things but your own favorite. This applies for any value of the variable, and thus includes the particular item we are discussing, which is the CRT identity and privilege pentangle.

[JasonT20]

Because if I took Grande's only marginally different account, someone - by which I don't mean you - would be along to say "Ah but that's just what he says."

If I had done that, then you could have done what I did, which is to point how there's both his words and the District's slightly different words right next to each other in the opinion. Your explanation doesn't make much sense to me, but whatever.

I use "lizard view" as an algebraic variable, the content of which is irrelevant, because I am trying to explain that the rejection of one thing does not imply the rejection of all things but your own favorite.

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense either. Not when substituting "lizard view," as in conspiracies about lizard people, is an obviously absurd view. You're not giving me any reason to think you actually came up with that randomly instead of using it as an attempt to paint "the CRT identity and privilege pentangle" as being absurd on their face, just like believing in lizard people is. It's much easier to do that than to argue against them on the merits. Even "CRT identity and privilege pentangle" is a weak attempt at belittling the ideas, since they aren't what anyone associated with those positions call them.

[Lee Moore]

If I had done that, then you could have done what I did…

I was trying to save myself some labor, assuming that nobody could possibly object to my using the District’s words, so there’d be no objection to respond to. Clearly my attempt was in vain.

You're not giving me any reason to think you actually came up with that randomly

I’m not claiming that. I’m saying that it stands as a variable in the logic chain. But I chose it because it, and the learning on offer, and creationism, are, to borrow your phrase “absurd on their face.”

instead of using it as an attempt to paint "the CRT identity and privilege pentangle" as being absurd on their face, just like believing in lizard people is. It's much easier to do that than to argue against them on the merits.

Of course ! Why should I waste my time arguing about CRT any more than arguing about lizard people or creationism ? It would be a tedious waste of time. Who bothers arguing with cultists ?

Whereas not guilty’s point – that the guy was welded to his worldview as demonstrated by his outright rejection of this little CRT game (expanded from race to other oppressive groupery) – is a point that amused me to refute. not guilty was wrong and obviously so. But he’s not gripped by the doctrines of a cult (so far as I am aware)– he just got his rational thinking wrong on this occasion. No doubt on some other occasion, if he can be bothered, he’ll correct one of my mental flubs.

[JasonT20]

Why should I waste my time arguing about CRT any more than arguing about lizard people or creationism ?

That is finally something that makes sense. I don't expect you to waste your time arguing against what you think CRT is. I'm sure that does seem as ridiculous as creationism or lizard people to you. It still doesn't make sense to me why you think that believing in lizard people has any equivalence with anything actually based on the facts on record, though.

[Rossami]

re: "Why should we give him the benefit of the doubt "

Because it's motion-to-dismiss phase and all assumptions and benefits of doubt are granted to the non-moving party. Maybe during discovery, you'd be able to find some evidence that he's entirely closed-minded. But so far, you're just speculating and inventing your own reasons to try to reject his opinions while being remarkably closed-minded about the culpability of the school district in their reaction.

[Rossami]

I'd say rather that it's the school district administrator who's not only a whiny hothouse flower but an utter incompetent. The fix to 'students are skipping our zoom classes during the covid lockdown' could be several things but it's very obviously not 'let's double-down on identify politics'.

[Lee Moore]

Following a complaint (more on the details below), Avicolli was investigated and disciplined..

Eh ? Wasn't it Grande being investigated and disciplined ?

[JasonT20]

I saw that also and assumed it to be an error.

[JonFrum]

Black women. Can't live with 'em, can't live with 'em.

[gormadoc]

Remote PE must be an easy class.

[JasonT20]

The "Norms in Breakout Groups" are listed as: "Assume positive intentions"; "You don't have to share if you don't feel comfortable doing so"; "It's OK to feel discomfort. This isn't easy!"; and "Agree to disagree respectfully."

Grande's comments broke those norms. He was not assuming positive intentions by those that designed and delivered the training. Nor did he agree to disagree respectfully when he referred to the goals and premises of the training as "white bashing BS."

Expectations for professional behavior were clearly stated, and he did not even try to meet those expectations.

I'm not sure about the legal questions surrounding this case. Maybe his suit has merit, maybe it doesn't. I don't know.

But I was a public school teacher for 21 years. If I had said something like that at a training, where we had been reminded how to treat each other as professionals because the administration and trainers knew it would be contentious, I would fully expect to have been disciplined for it.

I've been in many, many PD trainings and workshops that I thought were stupid, bad pedagogy, and even some based on social views I thought were bullshit. For all of those, my views on it were mild compared to those of some of my colleagues. In none of them, did I ever see any of us blurt out our disdain that bluntly, crudely, and with contempt for those running the training.

After the training, in plan rooms or our own classrooms after school or during lunch, we would let out everything we were thinking without holding back. But that is different, because in those settings, we are around colleagues with whom we've already established our own separate expectations and boundaries, and we have discussed so many similar things before, that we weren't going to be surprising anyone with what we said. On top of that, we were choosing to be around each other during our own time.

The law may demand something different as the outcome of the case, but I am certain that Grande acted unprofessionally.

[Lee Moore]

I've been in many, many PD trainings and workshops that I thought were stupid, bad pedagogy, and even some based on social views I thought were bullshit. For all of those, my views on it were mild compared to those of some of my colleagues. In none of them, did I ever see any of us blurt out our disdain that bluntly, crudely, and with contempt for those running the training.

When, long ago, I was a middle level corporate exec there were forums from time to time when the Big Chief would expound his "vision", objectives, philosophy, whatev and plans for the following year. Participants were invited to share their views freely - don't hold back. And obviously there was a lot of BS on offer. Also we all noted that there was precious little by way of a reprise on last year's BS.

But everybody knew - obviously - that "share your views - don't hold back" was not intended to be taken seriously. However there was one old guy who was famously blunt, so if I had an uncomfortable question for the Big Chief, I'd just mutter it to the old guy and he'd say "yes, that's right, that makes no sense at all" and he'd get up on his hind legs and ask the uncomfortable question. To the obvious annoyance of the Big Chief.

In the end they fired him, but he was OK with that. He got a decent pay off.

[JasonT20]

I'm not seeing how that is relevant. In those forums, you were told to "share your views - don't hold back" in a way you knew, implicitly, was not going to be upheld, so how is that in any way similar to what happened in that district's workshop or in my experience that I described?

[Lee Moore]

They are identical. In both forums the invitation to express your thoughts / feelings was insincere - some things were OK, if they toed the management line, some things were not.

And, gloriously, in each forum there was a single fool who was brave enough, or foolish enough, to express himself incautiously.

[JasonT20]

In both forums the invitation to express your thoughts / feelings was insincere - some things were OK, if they toed the management line, some things were not.

You keep asserting that the expected norms for the breakout sessions were insincere without doing anything to support that. Continuing to point to your own experience doesn't cut it.

And, gloriously...

Gloriously unprofessional, maybe.

[Lee Moore]

He was invited to express his feelings. He did so. And was disciplined for doing so. How much more insincere can you get ?

[JasonT20]

In sum, there are genuine disputes of material fact bearing on whether the assessment of the disruption caused by Grande's speech was reasonable and whether Grande was reprimanded because of a disagreement with the opinion Grande expressed rather than the disruption.

[Lee Moore]

The only “disruption” alleged was the hurt feelz of a couple of co-workers.

In another context such things might count for something. But the District is, in this case, trying to run the following argument.

“The guy was disciplined because he made co-workers uncomfortable….in a forum we set up intending to make participants uncomfortable and warning them to prepare to be made uncomfortable.”

This kinda pins the District to a very low value for the harm caused by making people uncomfortable. Doesn’t fly too well, does it ?

Even running the argument doubles down on the insincerity.

[JasonT20]

“The guy was disciplined because he made co-workers uncomfortable….in a forum we set up intending to make participants uncomfortable and warning them to prepare to be made uncomfortable.”

What was going to make the participants uncomfortable, according to the training materials? I figure that since you've read more of the opinion than I have, you might even have more quotes from the materials than what I see here. Surely you can answer this question thoroughly. Maybe you can show me where it was expected that the participants would be the ones making each other uncomfortable with the manner of how they expressed their views. And why that takes precedence over the explicit instructions to "assume positive intent" and to "agree to disagree respectfully" along with the basic expectations of professionalism and respect teachers have on them at all times as they interact with each other.

Even running the argument doubles down on the insincerity.

I could calculate pi to several decimal places using the circularity of your arguments. You continually make assertions that depend on other arguments you've made being true, after thinly supporting those arguments, if at all.

"They were insincere when they told teachers to be respectful and assume positive intent. I know that because they told them that they would be made uncomfortable. I know that the District trainers meant that they would make each other uncomfortable with how vociferously or derisively they stated their opinions and/or opposed other views. I know that they meant that participants would make each other uncomfortable because they were insincere in their instructions to be respectful toward each other."

[Lee Moore]

What was going to make the participants uncomfortable, according to the training materials? .....Maybe you can show me where it was expected that the participants would be the ones making each other uncomfortable with the manner of how they expressed their views.

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter who is going to make who uncomfortable - the point is the District has nailed its valuation to the mast - making co-workers uncomfortable is OK and expected in this session. It does not see the distress of uncomfortableness as as big deal.

If you'd like to go to court with the argument that making subordinates uncomfortable is perfectly OK, but making equal ranking workers uncomfortable is a total no-no, worthy of disciplinary action, good luck with that.

[JasonT20]

You're missing the point.

No, that is the point. The District claims that its effort to discipline Grande is based on how his statements affected his colleagues. For your argument to work, you have to show two things: 1) that the District expected that the things teachers would say to each other and how they would say them was included in what would make them "uncomfortable", and 2) that there were no boundaries communicated to them as to how far they could go in making each other "uncomfortable.

The complaining teacher's statement included:

The complaining teacher said that Grande's comment made her "very uncomfortable," and was "very disturbing," "deeply affects the community" served by the Hartford Public Schools, against her "moral beliefs," and "disrespectful to the work that we are trying to start in our department."

Did she expect that this discussion would make her feel that way? The fact that she complained formally is evidence to the contrary.

The opinion later notes [my emphasis]:

...the teacher who complained about Grande appears to have anticipated discomfort about the topic of the training as she thanked Avicolli for holding the session and said she was looking forward to growing in "the uncomfortable" and seeing change in the department as a result.

More facts that cut against your idea that claims the expectation of the training was that the sources of uncomfortable feelings were known and intended to include teachers saying things that at least some of them might find disrespectful and "disturbing". And, that this expectation was only implied somehow despite clear instructions not to be disrespectful or assume bad motives.

If you'd like to go to court with the argument that making subordinates uncomfortable is perfectly OK, but making equal ranking workers uncomfortable is a total no-no, worthy of disciplinary action, good luck with that.

An employer can make the case that their employees feeling uncomfortable, because of the topic of training or by what the materials ask them to think about, can be justified if it benefits their performance at work. And they can do that while simultaneously arguing that employees' interactions with each other during the training should remain respectful and moderated because that is necessary for them all to perform their jobs well.

It isn't that hard for me to see it this way. Maybe because I was a teacher for more than long enough to know that being a good teacher meant checking my own ego as much as I could so that I could serve my students in the best way possible. Having the humility to understand that I don't know everything, and I am not right about everything, means being open to the possibility that something I think is stupid, pedagogically wrong, or doomed to fail, might end up working. Being human, I didn't always do that. Maybe not even most of the time, but that is the ideal. The professional expectation is that I don't rant about how wrong I think a workshop to my colleagues that might see value in it, simultaneous with making it clear that I won't engage in constructive discussions about what I said.

A different teacher than the one that formally complained said,

"He was dismissing what I was saying. I was upset after the meeting. These are important developments to further understand the discrepancy amongst us to be better educators. I felt like [ ] my opinion was shut down."

That backs up my view that he was foreclosing any discussion after making his rant. That teacher's deposition shows that she believed that she wasn't able to get the benefit she wanted to get from the training because of what he said and how he said it.

Doing something that makes it harder for others to learn in an educational setting? That is disruptive. The opinion here is wrong, just like you are, that his words only made others "uncomfortable."

[ReaderY]

He was invited to express his feelings. He expressed his feelings.

He was not asked to express his professional opinion or anything like that. He was asked to express his feelings.

Just as people’s feelings aren’t always rational, they aren’t always professional, or respectful, either.

When employers put things in writing, before assuming that “everybody” understands that they don’t actually mean it and it’s just boilerplate puffery, if they want to avoid getting sued and losing they will need to think about how judges and juries are likely to understand it.

[JasonT20]

When employers put things in writing, before assuming that “everybody” understands that they don’t actually mean it and it’s just boilerplate puffery, if they want to avoid getting sued and losing they will need to think about how judges and juries are likely to understand it.

If he didn't read the instructions given in the training prior to the breakout sessions, didn't take it seriously, and/or assumed it was just "boilerplate puffery", that's on him. Or, he can try and prove at trial that it was the regular pattern of such workshops for them to be given instructions that behavior norms would be to express themselves without calling the point of view of others, especially the presenters, "BS", but it was just "puffery" that wasn't ever enforced.

Do judges and juries really rely on how they subjectively interpret the words of contracts, employee manuals, written instructions to employees, and other such documents? Or do they tend to start with the plain meaning of the text? And then put it on a party to prove that the plain meaning wasn't how things were done in practice, so they should be held to the practice instead of the written rules?

[Don Nico]

""white bashing BS.""
Are you such a snowflake that you find that phrase by itself disrespectful?
Your may be certain about what is unprofessional. But you are just being an ideological tyrant.

[Rossami]

Your standards of "professionalism" may be laudable but they are not the accepted standard in the vast majority of workplaces in the US. Far stronger language (including outright profanity) is quite often the norm. To say that the euphemism "BS" crosses the line assumes more about the standards and norms of this particular workplace than we have evidence for. Certainly far more than can be assumed at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Moreover, you'd have to contend with Avicolli's testimony that Grande's comments were "unprofessional" not for the words they used but because they showed "resistance in having a growth mindset or an open perspective." In other words, opposition to the content of his comment, not to the manner of opposition.

Finally, you'd have to show that his word choices were materially different from the words used in the very presentation he was objecting to. We don't know for sure from the snippets above but the word choices of "man-bashed" and "white-shamed" sound like direct parallels to words and phrases popular identity-politics demagogues.

If this case were as simple as "his word choices were unprofessional", the school district would have argued that and almost certainly would have won the motion-to-dismiss. They didn't and they didn't, suggesting that the case is not as simple as you're trying to make it.

[JasonT20]

Your standards of "professionalism" may be laudable but they are not the accepted standard in the vast majority of workplaces in the US.

The vast majority of workplaces in the U.S. are not public schools. The accepted standard of professionalism that matters is the accepted standard at Grande's workplace, not the standard at the vast majority of all workplaces.

To say that the euphemism "BS" crosses the line assumes more about the standards and norms of this particular workplace than we have evidence for. Certainly far more than can be assumed at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

I made clear at the beginning that I wasn't commenting on the merits of the legal arguments. I have always been focused on the professional expectations themselves as they relate to his behavior at that training. I have used my own experience of 21 years teaching as the basis of my arguments along with the record presented in this article for how the District communicated its expectations to Grande.

I have also gone into enough detail about how his statement relates to these things for it to be clear that I was not relying on his use of "BS", and that it is only part of why I am convinced that he violated professional expectations.

The primary evidence I see in this short excerpt regarding the expectations for the participants is a clear statement included in the instructions for the breakout sessions to "assume positive intent" and to "agree to disagree respectfully". That is very clear to me. I understand that to mean that I would be violating the norm to assume positive intent if I said that the training materials "man bashed" and "white shamed" me. I would understand those instructions to mean that I would not be agreeing to disagree respectfully if I expressed my views that forcefully and also said that I was going to "sit" there "quietly". That is because I would know that I had just shut down the ability of anyone else to express disagreement with what I said without starting a bigger argument even more likely to get even more acrimonious.

None of that relies on the use of "BS". That is just an extra layer to the unprofessional nature of what he said. "BS" is relatively mild, since it doesn't say the whole word, and it isn't unusual for teachers to talk like that in workshops or trainings, but it is unusual to use even that mild level of vulgarity if other teachers might think it related to them in some way. And it certainly would be the case that any teacher that agreed with the goals and premises of the training would see his statement as including them through association. Anyone that agreed with the training believed in "BS", according to Grande.

"What you believe is BS, and that's all I'm going to say." That would be inherently disrespectful, and it isn't even in the spirit of "agree to disagree" as anyone should understand that phrase.

[Don Nico]

"Grande's comments broke those norms. "
Nonsense. You expect meek "party discipline" at an indoctrination session.
You claim of unprofessionalism unfounded. It certainly is not what non-zealots see.

[JasonT20]

You claim of unprofessionalism unfounded. It certainly is not what non-zealots see.

If you were a teacher colleague of mine, we had opposing points of view on some matter related to our jobs, and you said that "non-zealots" hold your position, that would be unprofessional. You are implying very clearly, that I would be a "zealot" for holding the opposing view.

[Bwaaah]

It looks like your school bubble has gotten very large. You speak of it as if it stands uniquely aside from other types of institutions, with your tripe being the voice of the new oppressor in town.

We'll see.

[wvattorney13]

They invited the discussion. Under the 1A they cannot limit the discussion to only the viewpoints that they agree with.

In the private business mentioned above, the boss can fire you for questioning him or company policy.

But this speech, a brief two liner, did not disrupt the "training session" nor did it show an unwillingness or inability to do his job. Well, I guess it did put a damper on silencing conservative voices in the district.

[Sarcastr0]

What I'm getting from all this is that a lot of folks here think anything they have to hear that makes them feel uncomfortable as white people gives them license to disrupt and swear and sue.

And the will assume what they need to from recent events to feel like the heroes, even as everyone else sees the cringe.

It's like an entitlement to white fragility.

MAGA is catering to this. I predict yet higher petty, cringey nonsense to come over the next 3 years.

[wvattorney13]

"anything they have to hear that makes them feel uncomfortable as white people gives them license to disrupt and swear and sue."

1) He didn't disrupt. He commented during the period of time set aside for discussion.

2) Oh he swore? Who's the fragile one now? In fact, he said "BS." He didn't swear but if he did, I didn't know that training sessions were subject to 1850s Victorian morality.

3) You imply that he sued because he had to hear something that made him uncomfortable. That is not true. He sued because the government took punitive action against him for exercising his right to free speech.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not talking about this guy, I'm talking about you lot here who are white knighting him and eagerly explaining how he's entitled to act like a jackass at work because white feelings.

Cringe.

[Lee Moore]

Don't be a twit.

If you are required to attend "training" the point of which is to demonstrate that you are, because of your "group identity" , an "oppressor", you're entitled to say that the training is absurd.

Anyone's entitled to say and do what he did in similar circumstances. And as and when such struggle sessions are held for the purpose of accusing people of other groups of being oppressors, by virtue of their being in such and such a group, I will laugh at those sessions too. I just haven't had the opportunity.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure dude. Keep making up what you're sure happened.

It's cringe as hell, but this seems a safe place for white people yearning to be oppressed by minorities.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I think you are right up to a point. But I assume you and I both worked for the fed, and both had to suffer through horrible training sessions where we were expected to participate in nonsense. If this were one of those type things, I have sympathy for Grande, although he perhaps could've saved his opinions until the point at the end where they inevitably ask participants to comment on the quality of the training.

[Sarcastr0]

I also have sympathy for the OP, though self control in the workplace is kinda part of the biz almost everywhere.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for the commenters here weaving elaborate stories of persecuting trainings so they can get mad and feel oppressed.

It also makes me wonder what kind of coworkers they were.

[Bwaaah]

Ill-spirited pussy says what?

[Don Nico]

As for the "weaving elaborate stories of persecuting trainings so they can get mad and feel oppressed."
"It also makes me wonder what kind of coworkers they were."

More of your deceitful ploys, just insult by innuendo those with whom you disagree.
It makes me wonder what kind of overbearing colleague that you must be. See how that works?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

If they don't get their hit of anti-woke, they get serious withdrawal symptoms. I guess they have to take it where they can get it.

[Don Nico]

Geez, typical dishonesty and distortion from S_0.
The man did not disrupt and swear. He sued not because of the "training" but because he was fired.
He is as entitled to "white fragility" as a black is entitled to "black fragility" or seeing racism around every corner.
Your MAGA is catering is small compared the catering to the CRT or woke mentality that has permeated campuses and corporate workplaces.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

My understanding is that he was not fired. He retired four years after this incident.

[SRG2]

Both sides are wrong.

[Don Nico]

Care to elaborate?
For example, would you fire an employee for that remake at a "training session?

[Marshal]

I'm really confused why these administrators and consultants aren't being charged for violating the CRA of 1964 which prohibits racial discrimination in employment.