School System's Diversity Programs Created by Group that Believes Only Whites Can be Racists
Huntsville City Schools used the Anti-Defamation League, which defines racism as a uniquely "white people" problem, to train teachers in 2021 and has used their student program for more than a decade
Socrates is believed to have once said, “The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.”
Most people, including the editors of the Merriam-Webster, Oxford, and American Heritage dictionaries among others, would generally define racism as the belief that one race is superior to another, and anything that oppresses or elevates people based on their race.
But not the organization that has provided diversity training and programs to teachers and students in the Huntsville City Schools system.
The Anti-Defamation League, a once noble organization that has since fallen into partisan decay, had a contract with Huntsville City Schools to deliver anti-bias training to its teachers last year after having already provided its “No Place for Hate” program to the system’s students for more than a decade, according to records.
Visit adl.org/racism and you’ll see the extreme way the organization defines the term:
“Racism: The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people.”
Ironically, that definition is itself a good example of racism — assigning to one group of people exclusive ownership of a vile trait based solely on the color of their skin.
But if that’s too complicated for your second grader to understand, the Anti-Defamation League has an “elementary school version” of the definition:
“The disrespect, harm and mistreatment of people of color based on made up ideas that white people deserve to be in charge and treated better.”
Records of the Huntsville City Schools Board of Education meeting on December 17, 2020 show a contract with the Anti-Defamation League to provide three training sessions in early 2021 from its “World of Difference Institute” program, as part of the system’s overall cultural diversity training effort.
“We do have a long-standing relationship with the Anti-Defamation League. This is the organization that sponsors our ‘No Place for Hate’ activities,” a system official said when describing the organization to the board. She added that it’s “a very important partnership that we want to maintain.”
Officials later told me that the system has been using the “No Place For Hate” program free-of-charge for more than a decade, though it “is not a curriculum.”
“Schools use it as a way to promote a bullying-free environment in the school,” the official explained.
Diversity training is a good thing, in principle. We could all learn to treat one another better, with dignity and courtesy, regardless of how we may look or speak or where we came from or how we worship.
But how can an organization that defines racism as a characteristic exclusively held by one group of people be the right provider of that training, or programs and content of any kind covering diversity, cultural awareness, or anti-bias to teachers and students?
That’s a simple question I asked every member of the Huntsville City School Board of Education earlier this month, both during the board’s citizens comments portion of their January 13th work session(1) and in emails sent the following week.
Their response?
Silence.
Carlos Mathews, the board’s president, did say in an email response that “Critical Race Theory is not being taught in Huntsville City Schools.”
“This is college level material and is not part of our curriculum,” he added.
That’s good to know, but I didn’t mention Critical Race Theory once during my speech or emails to the board about the Anti-Defamation League. But similar “We’re not teaching CRT” statements have become the standard response to concerns about the new wave of race-based activist programs in our schools. It’s used by some as a red herring or a straw man aimed at shutting-down the conversation and moving-on.
No reasonable person seriously thinks 9th graders are being taught something like Section 504.01, Critical Race Theory, just like a first year law student at Duke University.
But what are they being taught? We don’t know for sure, but some of what we’ve seen is alarming.
For example, one of the “No Place for Hate” publications lists uttering the phrase “build the wall” as an act of anti-immigrant bias. This, while about half of Americans believe that illegal immigration is a “very big” national problem, according to Pew Research, and a third believe that building a wall is “the best path for making America safer at its borders,” according to a Hill-HarrisX survey.
Believing that the wall should be built is a reasonable and mainstream position for someone to have, and there’s nothing intrinsically biased in holding it. But the Anti-Defamation League apparently believes that anyone who says “build the wall” is a xenophobe in need of reeducation. What would a child who goes through this program, and comes into contact with this particular piece of content or its instruction, think of their parent who happens to say this phrase at home?
The Opposing View
I sent a note several days ago to the Anti-Defamation League requesting an explanation or defense of their definition of racism, and how they could credibly offer diversity programs to children while holding such a view. They didn’t respond.
But one of the common views is this: minorities cannot be racist because they lack power, and having power over a group is the means through which racism actually manifests itself.
So, in America, only white people have power so only white people can be racist, the argument goes.
And then there’s the idea that the treatment of black people in America over previous generations was such a crime that it deserves a special designation, something like how there have been many genocides throughout history, but there’s only one “Holocaust.”
Thus, there’s racism, and then there’s “Racism.”
Both arguments may be somewhat sound … but only in a theoretical sense, and definitly only in retrospect.
Today, if a second grader asks, “What is racism?” it’s indefensible to tell them that it’s “the mistreatment of people of color based on made up ideas that white people deserve to be in charge and treated better.”
That’s factually wrong. It’s morally wrong. And it’s aspirationally wrong.
Going Forward
I approach the issue with a considerable amount of trepidation. After all, anyone who speaks against such training sessions or the organizations who provide them is invariable labeled a racist and called all sorts of other terrible names. And I surely don’t want to add my voice to the din of shouts and screams coming from people who either see racism everywhere, or those who believe it doesn’t exist it all. Much too much is being made of this issue everywhere in our society. There are many things that are far more urgent — income inequality, inflation, education, the breakdown of the American family, to name only a few.
But even though I feel uncomfortable addressing this issue, I feel even more uncomfortable about letting it pass uncontested. Because that’s exactly what should happen — we should have an issue with the Anti-Defamation League, it’s definition of racism, and the appropriateness of their programs being brought into our schools. They’re inviting their own criticism with such thinking.
At any rate, the specific problem here remains quite clear to me: schools feel a need to provide diversity training to teachers and students, yet the groups who have affordable, off-the-shelf solutions tend to be very political in nature, deeply invested in identity politics, and locked into a far left view of the issue. It’s reasonable to suspect that their personal political perspectives will seep into whatever training and programs they provide.
They obviously have a right to express and advocate for whatever their beliefs may be, and in some settings and ages they might even be worth having as guest speakers to share different views, but they don’t have a right to bring their organization, or its materials, into our classrooms as sanctioned training to instruct our teachers or children.
The Anti-Defamation League is a great example. It was once respected by conservatives and liberals, but since the installment of its current national director — a former official in the Obama Administration — the group has lurched more and more into the political arena. And when you read how they now define racism, their credibility on the subject just melts away. Anyone who subscribes to that definition has no business teaching children about diversity.
Mathews also said that future “professional development on diversity will be reviewed by our legal team before it is used in training sessions.”
That’s a good start, but what standards will the board’s attorney use, and will those standards be available for the public to see? They should be. And what about student programs? Will the board’s attorney review those, as well?
Aside from that, part of the lasting solution should clearly be to avoid partnering with organizations that have overt political agendas. School systems, especially those the size of Huntsville City Schools, should create and implement their own, home-grown diversity training programs, created by the experienced educators they have in-house, and reflective of the community in which they serve.
We need to be honest and frank with our children, and each other, about racism, not only past and present … but future. And the only way we will get to the future we desire is to face the facts, look into ourselves, our common selves as human beings, created equal — equally flawed and equally featured — including the potential to be both racist and not racist, regardless of the color of one’s skin.
History needs to be taught, unvarnished.
Current events should be discussed, openly.
People should learn to treat one another with the courtesy and dignity everyone deserves.
But starting from the definition that one group of Americans, today, is in the right, and the other in the wrong, is remarkably counterproductive.
And it should stop.
(1) Below is the the speech that I delivered during the citizens comments portion of the Huntsville City Schools Board of Education’s work session on January 13, 2022. I began by mentioning a definition shown in yet another, separate training program that has parents concerned, recently covered by AL.com, before addressing what I learned about the Anti-Defamation League’s involvement in the system:
“Good evening. My name is Pepper Bryars. Tonight I’m asking board members to personally address the controversy surrounding the school system’s Cultural Responsiveness Training. One piece of content shown in a training session last year contained the following definition:
Quote: “In the United States and Canada, racism refers to White racial and cultural prejudice and discrimination, supported by institutional power and authority, used to the advantage of Whites and the disadvantage of people of Color.”
Ironically, that definition is itself a good example of racism — assigning to one group of people exclusive ownership of a vile trait based solely on the color of their skin. Officials explained that this definition was shown during a portion of the training that focused on potential definitions.
Were other definitions of racism offered? We don’t know. We’re not allowed to see the training materiel.
We do know how racism is defined by the Anti-Defamation League, which records show was paid by this board to conduct mandatory Cultural Responsiveness Training for teachers in 2021.
Visit adl.org/racism and you’ll see their sole definition of the term. It reads, quote: “Racism: The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people.”
Most people wouldn’t define racism that way. This matters, because we’re not talking about debate or discussion. Training is instruction. Instruction implies a correct way of doing, or thinking. And the ADL’s view on racism is fundamentally wrong.
Still, Huntsville City Schools has used the Anti-Defamation League’s “No Place for Hate” program in our schools for more than a decade.
Are they the right people to partner with for such an effort?
Do you believe that organizations who define racism as a characteristic exclusively held by one group are the right people to provide training, programs or content on diversity, cultural awareness, or inclusion to our teachers and students?
The answer should be no.
But since this controversy has come to light, we have heard from your spokesman and your attorney, but not from you. I urge you to address this matter publicly. Let us know where our board stands.”