Gee!
The title of the article does not match its content, rather like clickbait on YouTube.
The title speaks of laying off white teachers regardless of seniority, yet the content gave a sort of starting with the next least senior teacher.
Wow! I’ve never heard of LIFO, or Last In First Out.
Titles don’t match content, that writer’s got some ‘splaining to do, but he’s not on the Forum.
Good grief. People want to bitch they didn’t provide a direct link but if it’s so darned important ■■■■■■■ Google it yourself!
Like I did. Damn, I’m sick of whining to be spoon fed.
Actually it DOES say what the OP says, just in different wording. Yea this is not right, did they even read this before they voted to accept??
No. The source to the Minnesota union policy.
Hey, you got a teacher’s union to actually agree to laying off teachers… that’s progress!
Stop that. Put down the broadbrush.
You aren’t understanding.
This article should include the source when talking about a policy. When the source is missing it makes me wonder if the article is misrepresenting the source.
The issue is not with our Google skills. We just want to know what source the author is working from. That’s all.
Oh, I get it. I hate that too.
That wasn’t directed just at you. 
That’s fair. Thanks for the link.
You did not read it correctly.
“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.”
In other words if the teacher in line next is is an underrepresented (ie a minority). The next person not a minority will be laid off if. Ie they will skip ahead on seniority to no minority teachers.
Seems like they are talking about how they will bring them back
They are talking about how they are laying them off and how they will bring them back.
In case of lay off they will lay off the white teacher first regardless of seniority, in case of reinstatement they will reinstate the POC before the white teacher regardless of seniority.
I hope all of the city’s teachers, white or otherwise, tell the union where to go and how to get there if it comes to that.
So much for the snobbery of white liberals sticking their noses up in the air about white conservatives in “the south” as racist.
As evidenced by that word salad of a link, white liberals in places like Minnesota are just more adept at prettying up their racism, rather like putting lipstick on a pig.
I’ll take my racism southern fried with mashed potatoes and gravy.
Just how snide and condescending is it to ASSume minority teachers will get through to these students because they look like them? Hell I’ve had fellow white teachers who couldn’t effectively explain the class materials, or tolerated too much nonsense from students so that it was more difficult to learn.
Or that they won’t be able to remain in teaching without special treatment? Bubba in places like Bama may be a racist idiot, but, unlike these union officials, at least he isn’t claiming to be anything else.
Do you think the Biden administration will stop this sort of discrimination? Of course not.
They may still have a chance in federal court…which is why the Democrats are so desperate to pack the court.
Underrepresented groups will not be laid off first. Generally that is minorities, but it doesn’t have to be.
If a school district has overrepresentaation of black or Latino teachers for example, black or Latino teachers would get laid off first.
Groups aren’t represented by people of the same race as them. That is the first idea that should be knocked out.
Whatever. I posted a simple clarification of what the policy says in the so called word salad.
White teachers should file a discrimination suit against the school district.
It’s a mechanism that already exists.
Here’s another source that provides a link to the contract:
