White teachers get chopped first

It used be just "affirmative action," the term used for race-based preferential hiring practices.  The Minneapolis public school system just doubled down on that by adopting race-exclusionary hiring practices.

If you're white, you need not apply. 

As in, there is zero chance you'll be hired.  Irrespective of your résumé.  Your color excludes you from consideration.  Because racism — the real thing — is now institutionalized. 

Formerly, it was practiced by private individuals, who refused to hire or do business with people they didn't like on account of their race.  This was a despicable practice but limited in its harm caused because it wasn't institutionalized.  It was practiced here and there, often covertly — by dint of the practitioners being regarded by most people as despicable.

That private sanction prevented systemic racism. 

Minneapolis's government schools — for that is what they are, since they are controlled by the government and people are forced to pay for them by the government — codify racism.  In effect, it is the law — and thus, institutionalized. 

Put on your hood and robe before you read the following statement, which you might even call...Protocols

To remedy past discrimination, Minneapolis Public Schools and the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers mutually agreed to contract language that aims to support the recruitment and retention of teachers from under-represented groups as compared to the labor market and to the community served by the school district.

Italics added. 

"To remedy past discrimination"...by blackballing (whoops! — trigger word) people who haven't "discriminated" against anyone.  Because discriminating against them is how you remedy past discrimination... 

"Aims to support"...when, in fact, the policy is specifically written to exclude.  Here is the language of exclusion, verbatim, straight from the mouth of institutionalized racism:

If excessing a teacher who is a member of a population underrepresented among licensed teachers in the site, the district shall excess the next least senior teacher, who is not a member of an underrepresented population.

Yes, "excessing."

How does one "excess" an applicant for a job?  As opposed to assessing him.  The racist who wrote this is a teacher, mind.

Hopefully, not of English.

As it turns out, the malapropism does have a meaning.  It means firing — the white teacher.  And not hiring any replacement teachers who are white.

Manhattan Institute senior fellow Christopher Rufo says "this is the inevitable endpoint of 'equity,'" by which he means the institutionalizing of the racism that "affirmative action" policies were (supposedly) meant to dissipate.  For it is no longer simply an attempt to look for qualified applicants who happen to be other than white and to encourage them to apply — assuming they are qualified.  It is the deliberate exclusion from any consideration of people who are white, irrespective of their qualifications.

Irrespective of their seniority, even.

The Minneapolis school system and its union partners in reverse Ku Kluxery insist that white teachers already working be the first ones to be fired — so as to replace them with non-white teachers, who (according to the compact Protocols) cannot be laid off, irrespective of seniority or performance.

Italics added.

In other words, incompetent teachers — such as those who use "excessing" rather than assessing (or terminating) — are guaranteed their jobs — on the taxpayers' dime — whether they "perform" or not.

So long as they're of the right race.

"Students need educators who look like them and who they can relate to," say the latter-day Father Coughlins of the Minneapolis government school system and their union-partners-in-racism.  "This language gives us the ability to identify and address issues that contribute to disproportionately high turnover of educators of color."

Fox News quoted attorney Harmeet Dhillon, of the Center for American Liberty — which litigates attempts to institutionalize racism — as urging any teacher currently employed by the Minneapolis school system threatened with loss of job on account of his color to "call a lawyer."

Heritage Foundation education fellow Jonathan Butcher agrees, citing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

But while the legal objections are sound, this is ultimately a moral question.  How did it become moral to discriminate openly?  And — more than just that — for organs of the government, which is what the Minneapolis school system is — to openly practice discrimination?  The same government that — once upon a time — passed laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of race and sex?

The world is truly turn'd upside-down — the reference being to the tune played by the British troops surrendering to the American army at Yorktown, the decisive battle of the Revolutionary War.

But only if Americans of goodwill — of all races — surrender to this.

To this inversion of morality — and legality — being pushed by modern American racists, who do not agree with Martin Luther King's injunction that human beings ought to be judged and treated not according to their skin color but the content of their character.

As well as their résumé.

A.J. Rice is president & CEO of Publius PR, editor-in-chief of The Publius National Post, and author of the #1 Amazon bestseller The Woking Dead: How Society's Vogue Virus Destroys Our Culture.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com