Being used to buy racist, Liberal indoctrination manuals to indoctrinate those who will teach your children.
If my employer tried to push this kind of blatantly racist crap on me I'd respectfully throw it in the trash, or maybe burn it.
"Only those educators who acknowledge the existence of white privilege in America, that “white” is a culture in America and that race “is a definer for social and economic status” can reach proficiency, the authors contend."
As for the School Board President stating, "The book is intended to open a dialogue" I call BS. I'm still waiting to see evidence of Liberals who are truly interested in "open dialogue."
If my forays into this kind of BS politically correct liberal indoctrination are any indication there will NOT be "open dialogue." Oh sure, there's open dialogue, as long as you don't stray from the assumptions put forth in the diversity / cultural sensitivity training. Try to challenge those blatantly leftist assumptions within the group and you will be silenced for daring to think outside the box and for holding up the indoctrination lesson. Again, I'm just describing the mandatory "diversity workshops" I had to attend in my college dorms.
"The purpose of providing this resource is to help staff see that people come from a multitude of different backgrounds which cause them to respond differently to the same set of facts, depending on their personal perspectives."
The above is indicative of the bigger problem. When people think that it is acceptable to respond differently to, or simply eschew altogether, a set of facts because they conflict with that persons personal preferences it is almost impossible to have a rational discussion. When schools are teaching "cultural sensitivity" and ensuring that it pervades the teaching system, infecting the teaching of true academics and accurate history, is it any wonder we turn out such blatantly ignorant students?
I see it with my liberal roommate all the time. He chastizes me for my over reliance on facts and rationality as if it is somehow it is a bad thing to rely on such concepts rather than what he calls the "moral / emotional aspect." My personal morals and emotions are virtually worthless in a public policy discussion, unless my goal is to enforce my morals against others. My emotions and morals simply do not change the facts, nor do they change the logical conclusions to be gleaned from those facts. A position which is tied only to my emotions and not grounded by rational, factual thought might be fine for a discussion of religion, but it has no credibility whatosever from a policy standpoint.