The Associated Pross

Recently, a friend posted an article from Fox News on their Facebook page, called “Oregon promotes teacher program that seeks to undo ‘racism in mathematics’: A toolkit includes a list of ways 'white supremacy culture' allegedly 'infiltrates math classrooms.’” The article was posted with concerns that mathematics instruction was being eroded by the curricular toolkit mentioned in the Fox article. In the comments to my friend’s post, there was a mix of responses. Some responses sought to understand the tool and its use and some expressed deep frustration and confusion. One such comment provided, “I wasn’t aware arithmetic could even be ‘racist’…so confused! I could see if something was subjective, but math …change my mind.” Others questioned the validity of the article because it was from Fox News.

After reading the thread I read the article, and after reading the article I explored the part of the toolkit singled out in the article: “A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction: Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction.” I didn’t read all 81 pages of it (many of the pages were reflection guides for teachers to complete), but I did explore it thoroughly. I then posted a response, which I have shared below. After examination of the resource, I concluded that Fox mischaracterized the toolkit. My response in the thread intended to correct Fox’s mischaracterization by providing an example of how and why anti-racist practices are relevant and necessary in mathematics instruction. The response to my post has so far been positive and appreciated. Here is the response in its entirety (edited only to embed hyperlinks and for structural clarity):

There seems to be a lot of confusion about what this curriculum is and isn’t, and I think I can help clarify. Background for those who don’t know me (which will be everyone but [my friend]). I’ve been an educator for over a decade. A middle school social studies and ELA teacher for a decade, a high school assistant principal for two, and was a lawyer before that. For transparency, I’m what you’d call a progressive liberal and am fully invested in dismantling oppressive systems from public education. That said...

This resource is designed to provide teachers a tool to improve their instruction. One way any teacher can improve their instruction is to identify the ideas and beliefs they have that are rooted in bias (typically implicit bias, in that they aren’t aware they have the bias) and replace those ideas with more accurate ones. And I mean this broadly, in terms of their practices. Here’s an example. In college I had a professor that stopped using multiple choice tests because the evidence he came to learn was multiple choice tests (for whatever reason, you’d have to read the research) favored men over women. Men scored higher on average on such tests, consistently, in a way that revealed the test had embedded biases. These affects were eliminated when the same content was switched to short answer. And it makes sense, right? A multiple choice test frames answers in specific ways, limits choice to only those phrasings, and if the test is largely written by men, then the language chosen will reflect the point of view and experiences of men. I’ll note this wasn’t a math class - it was a law and policy class - but the idea remains that written course materials aren’t written in a vacuum; they are written by people with their own experiences, and those experiences can bleed into content, even if unintended.

So let’s look at mathematics instruction and the use of this particular tool.

The biggest concern I see above, a fair one, is that the implication here is that math isn’t objective, and teachers are going to start teaching 2+2=5. This is not what the tool is saying, and I can assure you no math teacher would agree to teach 2+2=5. The objective/subjective description in the tool isn’t about the computations. Rather, it’s about the presentation of mathematical problems and the insistence that, for the application of math to real-world problems, there can be only one solution.

Let’s consider a relevant example. If we look at COVID, we can find concrete numbers about the rate of its spread, the distance it travels in the air, the permeability of masks and their degree of protection, etc. If you were to take this information and phrase it in a math question: In a city of 100,000 people, how many citizens will contract COVID given these concrete data points? This question seems fair, right? The virus doesn’t discriminate. It doesn’t know if a person is white or black. So, this seems like a straight-forward, computational problem. If it were, you could run the numbers and find an answer. The math used, the computations, would be the same for anyone who answers this problem. The computations are objective. This isn’t controversial.

But, the above question is problematic, and it’s the implicit problems that this anti-racism tool is seeking to remedy. Let’s explore why it’s problematic.

In the problem I imagined, I provided you with a specific scope of information. I stipulated what was relevant to determine the “correct” answer. But, there are relevant conditions that would need to be considered to answer a question like this in the real-world that were omitted from my presentation of the problem. What considerations were omitted that would need to be considered if we were trying to solve this problem in the real world? For starters, you’d have to consider population density. We know the virus spreads faster in areas where there are more people. If each person is a vector of transmission and you place more people in a smaller space, then density matters. And if density matters, you are now opening up the data and history of population density. This includes neighborhood designs and housing designs (single-unit, multi-family, apartments). Now you are including social context, social data, into the mathematical data set to arrive at the accurate answer. But there’s more. We know that neighborhood design in the United States was not created in some objective way. Neighborhoods were explicitly segregated (through redlining and other explicitly racist policies and practices), neighborhoods continue to be de facto segregated (through gentrification), and this plays a role in who lives where - in the denser cities or the less-dense suburbs and rural areas. Specifically, the data shows that Black families tend to live in areas of higher population density. These facts are relevant in terms of  generational wealth (who can afford health care), access to health care (how easy is it to get from home to my doctor), access to healthy food (e.g. less fresh produce in high poverty areas, which include the denser cities, which affects community health), and access to good paying jobs (e.g. higher paying jobs that can accommodate working from home, which decreases a person’s risk to contracting COVID, versus working in jobs that have to be done in-person). So now, if we’re looking at what seemed to be a cut-and-dry math problem, an “objective” problem, what we see is, to get to the most accurate answer, to really know what the rate of spread will be, the mathematicians in the real world would have to include these data sets from the realm of social science. 

And it’s the inclusion of data like this, that most teachers wouldn’t think to consider, that this tool is seeking to help with. So, when a teacher says there is only one right answer, we can push back to say “what do you mean by that? Do you mean that we just run the numbers from the initial question?” Traditionally that is yes. But this tool says, “Hey, we need to be able to identify, and teach students to identify, those problems that omit essential information relevant and necessary to truly arrive at the correct answer. At what the true rate of COVID spread is.” And this is so important! If we don’t include this data and miscalculate the rate of spread, then our policy decisions will be misinformed, and our own personal behaviors will be misinformed. And we know that my characterization above is accurate because it’s supported by the evidence. (No less than the CDC outlines the above, too: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/health-equity/race-ethnicity.html). Black people are 2-3 times more likely to contract COVID as a result of the system’s design, which is rooted in systemic-racism and white supremacy (PBS has a wonderful documentary and resources on the history of redlining and its affect on the ability of communities of color to accumulate wealth). But Black people are far less likely to have access to the vaccine (see Scientific American article).

When we look at this question now we see that the initial framing was problematic, and indeed racist. Omitting data sets that affect Black communities is racist. Framing the question in a way that only considers some raw numbers, and implying that those are the only numbers needing to be considered to arrive at the “correct” solution, is racist. Training teachers to spot weaknesses like this in a curriculum, or in their own practices, to ask deeper questions and train their students to ask deeper questions, is good for math instruction and good for student learning. 

So the tool isn’t eroding the objectivity of numbers. Rather, it’s examining the subjective role that teachers play in the creation of math problems, the subjective role of defending which numbers are considered relevant to answering a problem, and the subjective role of limiting or allowing discussion on math problems like this. If the initial question were asked in class and a student raises their hand to ask: “Do these numbers take into affect the increased rate of spread in high-poverty neighborhoods and its disparate impact on Black communities?” will the teacher say, “Wow, that’s an important question to ask if we’re to accurately model and calculate the impact of the spread,” or will the teacher say, “Those numbers don’t matter. Just calculate the numbers in the problem.” This matters. Because either we will honor the lived experiences of our students and examine questions relevant to their lives, or we will gate-keep and shut down inquiry that explores questions raised by students. The tool is designed to prepare teachers in mathematics to have these considerations in instruction. 

The following post originally appeared as a two-part post by Jessica Paco on her Facebook page. It was in response to a post by the Annie Wright Schools on June 2nd, which read: “We are here for our black community in solidarity, support and love. bit.ly/2Xpwj0j #BlackLivesMatter,” and had an attached graphic of the Annie Wright logo (its famous arches) embedded within a golden heart. The link attached to the Annie Wright post was included in their post, and links to a letter that was sent out to Annie Wright parents, students, faculty, staff, trustees and alumni on June 2nd as well. Jessica’s response to Annie Wright’s post is reprinted here with her permission without any edits beyond merging the two posts into one.

Part 1:

It has taken me two years to verbalize an incident that occurred at Annie Wright Schools. Two years too long. White silence is a privilege and I am sorry that I did not speak up or speak out loudly enough. 

BLACK LIVES MATTER

I am sorry that it took me two years to tell this story. It is not about me. It is about voice and I was silent. I kept silent for the wrong reasons. I was scared that my voice would negatively affect my colleagues. I was scared that my voice would negatively affect my students. Annie Wrights Schools has a prestigious name. I was scared that good people associated with the school would be embarrassed or angry about what I had to say. I was scared that my voice would hurt my family. After two years, I am still scared. 

BLACK LIVES MATTER more than my fear. 

Two years ago in May 2018, I turned in my letter of resignation to Annie Wright Schools. I worked with the school for five years operating as both a lower school and a middle school Spanish teacher. A week after I turned in the letter, the Director of Middle School pulled me aside in the cafeteria and asked if I had ever worn a Black Lives Matter shirt to school. I asked why. I was informed that a parent was airing grievances with the school and that this was one of the raised concerns. I said that I had worn the shirt in the fall to a basketball game. There was a staff vs. student blackout game (you wear all black). I had worn it as part of my black attire. I didn’t end up on the court as we needed some teachers in the stands to monitor the students. So yes, I wore the shirt to a school event. I asked if this was a problem. I was assured this was NOT a problem. The director was just “fact checking” the information and I was assured multiple times during this informal discussion that the shirt was not a problem. I went to the Director’s office after school to express my concern for the questions that were asked of me in the cafeteria and that I still felt shaken by the idea that a concern like this had reached me. I would’ve hoped to have blanket support for such a complaint. Again, I was assured that it wasn’t much more than part of a laundry list of concerns that one family had expressed. In fact, this family had also expressed concern that a black student had worn a BLM shirt and they thought this was also inappropriate. 

BLACK LIVES MATTER, so I wore the shirt again.

There was an off-campus event at American Lake. Seventh grade students make wonderful milk-boats and try them out on the water. On this particular day, it was rainy and very cold. I wore my BLACK LIVES MATTER shirt under an unzipped fleece, but it was there. The following morning, I was wearing a Martin Luther King shirt to school. I was approached again by the MS Director. They asked me if I had worn the BLACK LIVES MATTER shirt to the event at American Lake and I said yes. They said, “Didn’t I tell you not to wear it again?” to which I replied, “No. Actually, you said you were just fact-checking and that you didn’t see any problem with the shirt. I need you to give me a clear message on this. If Annie Wright thinks that wearing this shirt is wrong, then I won’t wear it again. So is it right or wrong?” They replied, “It is wrong.” The Head of Schools (HoS) wanted to speak with me. I was scared.

BLACK LIVES MATTER more than my fear.

I believed that explaining the situation was all that would be necessary. Clearly, there must be some misunderstanding. The shirt is a statement of solidarity. The shirt is inclusive. As a white teacher in a predominately white school (both faculty and student body), the best thing I could do for a student of color would be to identify myself as an ally. That is also why there is a corner of my classroom with the only posters you will find in English. Those posters declare the following: WE THE PEOPLE: ARE GREATER THAN FEAR; WE THE PEOPLE: DEFEND DIGNITY; WE THE PEOPLE: PROTECT EACH OTHER; and finally, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”-MLK Jr. Even the MS Director had specifically complimented me on including this area in my classroom. None of these explanations were welcomed or accepted.  HoS said that I had been told not to wear the shirt again and that I deliberately disobeyed direction. I assured HoS that the Director (who was present in this very meeting) did not previously give this message and that, in fact, had expressed that there was no problem with the shirt and that the conversation was just a “fact checking” mission. I would also like to note that such directions usually would require a meeting in an office and/or an email to put such a direction in writing. I was told that the shirt was political messaging. “Is it anymore political than the shirt I am wearing today or the messaging in my classroom?” To which HoS said, “I don’t have any idea what is on your shirt.” I replied, “This is Martin Luther King.”

MARTIN LUTHER KING’S LIFE MATTERED

I was told a few things that I will never forget as they both shocked me and placed upon me a fear that I will never quite wrap my head around. HoS told me I was insubordinate. I was a week away from finishing my contract and looking for new employment, and I was being accused of insubordination. I remained silent. HoS then repeated that the Black Lives Matter shirt was indeed political messaging, that I knew it was, and that such ideas should be kept private. HoS specifically said, “Don’t you think that our conservative, republican, full-tuition paying parents see this as political messaging?!” I remained silent. 

I REMAINED SILENT.

Part 2 

I was placed on administrative leave for a day without pay. The conditions of my return were that I would not speak about the incident; I would not do or say anything that could be considered political; I would not say anything about this or any related topics. If I could not meet these requirements, I would be fired. The last term was not dependent on whether I completed my contract or not: I would not be allowed to receive letters of recommendation from the Lower School Director, the Middle School Director, or anyone else affiliated with the school. I could only attain one from the Head of Schools. I agreed to the terms and I kept silent. The next day a black teacher wore a Black Lives Matter shirt to school. They were told to cover it up. They were told by the HoS that the shirt was problematic and that it put the school in an awkward position. White lives also mattered. They covered up the shirt.

BLACK TEACHERS MATTER

There was an all-faculty meeting called to the Chapel that week. The shirt was discussed. Teachers were allowed to ask questions about what constitutes political messaging on our behalf. An LGBTQ teacher asked if their pride bracelets qualified as political messaging. They were told no. They disagreed with HoS and explained that surely, even their presence in the classroom could be considered political depending on who was the judge of such things and so certainly there was likely a family that did not approve of the bracelets. This did not qualify as political messaging according to HoS. This was a double standard. I remained silent. I finished my contract. 

BLACK VOICES MATTER

That summer, the faculty dress code was amended to read: “Employees are expected to dress in attire appropriate to the work being accomplished and to the educational environment. Inappropriate attire includes but is not limited to: clothing with written or graphic messaging…” The shaded piece was added to ensure that there would be no more written or graphic messaging to express that BLACK LIVES MATTER. It was added to silence the faculty. It was added to give power to the members of the Annie Wright Schools community that politicized black lives. These are the voices that Annie Wright Schools valued in 2018. We already had diversity trainings, committees, and surveys about our best practices. We knew better. Diversity, equity, and inclusion were already pieces of our strategic plan. I am not sure what has changed in two years other than the opportunity to post on Facebook and not appear complacent. 

SAY BLACK LIVES MATTER; MAKE BLACK LIVES MATTER

A Response to Mike Jankanish’s Op-Ed, entitled “Diversity education is a divisive education.”

Wilson High School social studies department chair, Mike Jankanish, espouses a racist ideology that substantially interferes with his teaching as a social studies teacher in Tacoma. In his op-ed for the Tacoma News Tribune on March 10, 2019, “Diversity education is a divisive education,” Jankanish argues that the adoption of House Bill 1314 will erode fundamental tenets of American democracy and create a divisive school environment for students. 

In our rebuttal to Jankanish below, we will explain, in detail and with sufficient evidence, that Jankanish’s ideas are inaccurate, dangerous, and indeed, racist. To make this rebuttal with clarity and precision, we will quote from Jankanish’s op-ed at length, use direct citations of relevant documents referenced by Jankanish, and evaluate his claims in the order presented to demonstrate their weaknesses. By the end, we will have demonstrated that his op-ed is racist and underserving of placement in the local paper, or any paper, for that matter, and that, as a result of his dangerous views, Jankanish is not deserving of employment as a teacher. The mission of Tacoma Public Schools reads, “In partnership with parents and community, we will provide a comprehensive educational experience that is rigorous, individualized and enables students to contribute to a changing and diverse world.” A teacher who does not value the lived experiences of the members of his school’s community cannot provide a comprehensive educational experience that enables students to contribute to a changing and diverse world. Jankanish fundamentally resists a changing and diverse world, a world that, inferred from his own words, challenges his identity as a white man and calls into question the validity of his teaching career. 

Intellectual Dishonesty: Equivocating History and Mischaracterizing State Law

In his first paragraph, Jankanish appeals to the Great Seal of the United States and the motto contained therein - E Pluribus Unum, Latin for “out of many, one.” Calling this idea “the achievement of the American Revolutionary generation,” he writes in paragraph two that, “if adopted, [House Bill 1314] will turn this achievement on its head, proclaiming the goal of mandating a public schools curriculum that emphasizes ‘diversity’ and ‘global citizenship.’” Within his first two sentences, Jankanish has framed his argument dishonestly, undermining any credibility to his ideas. 

First, Jankanish equivocates the meaning of E Pluribus Unum. The motto’s meaning, “out of many, one” (which isn’t even an official motto of the United States), refers to the formation of a union from the 13 colonies (see page 6 of the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Public Affairs document, “The Great Seal of the United States”). But Jankanish cites the motto for a different purpose, to imply that the motto refers to the people of the colonies themselves, that out of many nationalities, out of many peoples, comes one new people, the American people. This is a dishonest interpretation of the motto, put forward to support his argument that diversity is inherently antagonistic to the founding principles of American democracy. It is not, and Jankanish’s argument to the effect is dishonest and wrong. 

Second, Jankanish mischaracterizes state law when he says that House Bill 1314 will “proclaim the goal of mandating a public schools curriculum that emphasizes ‘diversity’ and ‘global citizenship.’” House Bill 1314 does not create such a proclamation. Rather, Washington State has already codified into law the goal of creating global citizens. The very first sentence of RCW 28A.150.210, which puts forward the goals of school districts under basic education, provides:

“A basic education is an evolving program of instruction that is intended to provide students with the opportunity to become responsible and respectful global citizens, to contribute to their economic well-being and that of their families and communities, to explore and understand different perspectives, and to enjoy productive and satisfying lives.” (Emphasis added for clarity.)

By implying that House Bill 1314 creates a new goal of basic education, when it in fact does not, Jankanish seemingly hopes to persuade readers otherwise unfamiliar with current state law that the Washington State Legislature is overreaching. It is not. House Bill 1314 instead requires school districts to offer ethnic studies courses and curriculum that help to satisfy this current state law. Jankanish’s argument that the bill creates new goals is therefore dishonest and wrong. 

Ad hominem: Using pejoratives to dogwhistle conservatives

In paragraph three, Jankanish writes, “House Bill 1314, supported by a host of the usual liberal suspects, would direct the state school superintendent’s office to develop an ethnic studies curriculum.” In writing this sentence, Jankanish reveals his bias and lack of intellectual decorum by using the phrasing “usual liberal suspects” pejoratively, as if merely being liberal is worthy of criticism. The inclusion of the phrase is irrelevant to the text of the bill, except to communicate to like-minded readers that the proposed law is supported by liberal Representatives, and therefore, should be rejected on it its face. This line of argument is a classic ad hominem attack, as it ignores the substance of the bill and instead implies a fault with the nature of its supporters, that they are, in fact, liberals. 

Jankanish’s ad hominem was no accident, as he makes use of another common pejorative in paragraph five when he writes, “Given the overall leftist influence in our state public schools, a great many districts are likely to expose students to this proposed curriculum.” Referring to public education as “overall leftist,” Jankanish makes use of a term that is commonly used in a derogatory manner to imply communist or socialist beliefs, and in doing so, dogwhistles readers likely to see left-leaning politicians in a derogatory (not just differing) light. In using the dogwhistle ‘leftist’ to describe public education, then, he is implicitly encouraging readers to conclude that House Bill 1314 is part of a larger left-wing threat to the very existence of America.  

Especially problematic with Jankanish’s use of ad hominem is that it reveals an inability to talk about politics neutrally, which is an essential quality for social studies teachers. High school social studies teachers teach politics, acting as gatekeepers to curriculum, ideas, grades, and access to intellectual opportunities and discourse. If Jankanish views liberalism as inherently problematic, worthy of pejorative attack, how will he treat his students that adopt liberal views for themselves? Are they as antagonistic to his existence as a teacher as liberal politicians are antagonistic to him as a citizen?

Ignoring History: Omitting Assimilation and Segregation

In paragraphs six through eight Jankanish promotes a Euro-centric and white-supremacist view of American history that omits the atrocities committed against Native Americans and African Americans while sterilizing the assimilation of immigrants. When he writes,“The great goal of the common neighborhood public schools was to provide an environment where children of immigrants would, over time, be welcomed into the common American culture,” he’s mythologizing the history of public schools when it comes to diverse peoples. The reality is that the United States committed horrific acts of injustice against Native Americans by assimilating them through boarding schools and maintained a system of segregation against African Americans that wasn’t federally recognized as unconstitutional until Brown v. Board of Education (see also Brown v. Board). Furthermore, even if the common school did exist to welcome immigrant children into the popular American culture (a claim he asserts without any evidence), he fails to acknowledge whether such a goal is relevant or important today. American history is fraught with immoral, racist treatment of non-whites. Suggesting that a primary goal during this period ought to be a primary goal today ignores this immoral, racist history and is a white-supremacist narrative. 

White Supremacy and the Appeal to Identity Politics

In paragraphs nine through twelve, Jankanish expands his narrative to assail “identity politics,” arguing that, “this increasing emphasis on cultural diversity is not just about school curriculum but part of a larger agenda to implement the goals of identity politics.” Without articulating what he believes the goal of “identity politics” to be, or even what identity politics means, he continues that, “This way of thinking is based on the assumption that certain groups of Americans are inherently marginalized in our society and are the victims of ongoing discrimination.” These two sentences reveal a deep racism that must be rejected. 

First, Jankanish’s use of the term ‘identity politics’ is racist. In a 2015 article by Vox writer Matthew Iglesias, Iglesias deftly demonstrates how all politics are identity politics, and writes:

“The implication of this usage (which is widespread …) is that somehow an identity is something only women or African-Americans or perhaps LGBT people have. White men just have ideas about politics that spring from a realm of pure reason, with concerns that are by definition universal.”

Jankanish, in using “identity politics,” is doing exactly what Iglesias describes: he is implying that identities are only something that “diverse” people have, and that white men merely have ideas about politics that spring from their realm of pure reason (as if white men aren’t taught to navigate the world from a position of privilege that comes merely from being white and male). 

But this ignores white-America’s history of using white identity to further its agenda. Enslaving blacks was identity politics. Whites identified who was to be owned — blacks — and owned them. Whites identified who was to be assimilated or destroyed - Native Americans - and assimilated or destroyed them. White men controlled the vote. White men controlled politics (and still largely do!). White men controlled businesses (and still largely do!). American systems were created by white men for the benefit of white men. This was and remains identity politics, and Jankanish’s refusal to acknowledge any of this is dishonest and racist. 

Jankanish’s approach, of using whiteness as the norm for the “common American culture,” is both predicted and explained by professor and author Robin DiAngelo, who poignantly defines white supremacy as more than just the idea that whites are superior to people of color. In a 2017 article for Yes! magazine, she explains:

“White supremacy captures the all-encompassing centrality and assumed superiority of people defined and perceived as white, and the practices based upon that assumption. White supremacy is not simply the idea that whites are superior to people of color (although it certainly is that), but a deeper premise that supports this idea—the definition of whites as the norm or standard for human, and people of color as an inherent deviation from that norm.”

Jankanish does exactly this: he implies whiteness as the norm for the “common American culture” for which people of color are the inherent deviation from that norm, and he attacks “diversity education” as “divisive” because diversity education attacks his paramount belief that whiteness is the pinnacle, the norm, of American culture. When Jankanish denies the marginalization of people of color, he’s really only denying that whites face marginalization for being white. This is white supremacy in action.

Second, Jankanish refuses to acknowledge that certain groups of Americans are marginalized in our society and explicitly denies that certain groups are targets of ongoing discrimination. Excerpting from an earlier blog post on this topic, we previously demonstrated that this marginalization and discrimination is ongoing:

“Blacks are disproportionately incarcerated in the United States. Despite constituting less than 25% of the U.S. population, black Americans “constitute nearly 1 million of the total 2.3 million incarcerated population,” and “black men were more than six times as likely as white men to be incarcerated in 2010.” The disparate treatment of whites and blacks within the Justice System is even more pronounced when drug statistics are analyzed. “[Five] times as many Whites are using drugs as African Americans, yet African Americans are sent to prison for drug offenses at 10 times the rate of Whites.”

….

“In an Education System free of systematic racism, suspension rates of the different races should be proportional to the population of those races within the school. However, in the United States, this does not hold true. Blacks are disproportionately suspended (and expelled) in American public schools. According to the Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection on student suspensions, and reported by CBS news, blacks are suspended at an overall rate that is three times higher than whites. With suspension increasing the likelihood of a student dropping out (e.g. even one 9th grade suspension doubles the chance of a student’s dropping out), and dropping out increasing the likelihood that a young person ends up in prison (known as the School-to-Prison Pipeline), the Education System in the United States is essentially designed to fail black students.”

That Jankanish ignores ongoing marginalization and discrimination of any group of people who are not white is patently offensive, racist, hetero-normative, sexist, and classist, and demonstrates a lack of fitness for being a classroom teacher. 

But denying racism and discrimination is only half of Jankanish’s abhorrent view. His next sentence goes a step further and actually blames marginalized peoples for undermining American institutions (the very institutions that systemically discriminate against them), which is a form of gaslighting. He writes:

“But the increasing emphasis on some identifying characteristic, such as race, gender, sexual orientation or nationality, undermines a historical American achievement: Creating institutions, like broad-based political parties, has served to unite diverse groups around policy proposals that bond Americans to a common enterprise. Even if this goal has not always been realized, it was assumed the effort ought to always point toward its achievement.”

But this argument is a brazen lie. Attention is paid to these identities because these identities, among others, have been historically (and continue to be) discriminated against. The historic discrimination faced by these groups ultimately resulted in federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate on these bases. For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” It was the historic practice of racism and discrimination that kept people divided. Federal laws like Title VII served to reduce and eliminate that discrimination which would pave the way to heal and unite America.

Ignoring Reality: American Institutions Have Failed Themselves

Skipping some of his final paragraphs, the remainder of Jankanish’s op-ed boils down to his second to last paragraph, where he writes: “This is probably the worst result of the identity politics of those who want to push a diversity education agenda in our schools. The movement represents a loss of faith in the foundational institutions of the American experiment, and worse, undermines those institutions.” Jankanish expresses a view of the “American experiment” that is uniquely white and male. Foundational institutions: the American justice system, schools, housing, places of employment, infrastructure, the military, medical care (and the list goes on) have historically and routinely harmed marginalized people, and these people owe no allegiance to the systems that were created to oppress them. Jankanish wouldn’t notice the harm caused by these systems because these systems weren’t created to harm him.  So when he ends his op-ed with the quote “A House divided against itself cannot stand,” then claims “That’s exactly what will be accomplished by diversity education: a house divided,” he ignores the demonstrable and overwhelming evidence that it’s not diversity which divides America, but the systems of oppression which were created to the benefit of white men at the exclusion of nearly everyone else. 

A History of Racist Op-Eds 

Mike Jankanish’s op-ed Sunday was not his first use of the TNT’s op-ed space to pedal his racist ideas. Indeed, a quick Google search shows that he has written multiple op-eds over the last few years, each antagonistic to marginalized groups. 

In “School policies set students up for college failure,” Jankanish minimizes the lived experiences of students while identifying a list of what he considers to be counter-productive practices that harm students. His list includes: using standards-based grading practices; allowing for more students to access advanced classes; and “Constantly attributing students’ problems to the existence of white privilege, institutional racism or other artificial barriers inhibiting student success.” Here, Jankanish asserts that white privilege and institutional racism are artificial barriers, which amounts to a denial of their very existence. And of course he would make that argument — admitting that he benefits from institutional racism (he does) and white privilege (he does) would threaten his own white male identity, an identity he admits to having. At the beginning of this article, Jankanish admits, even if mockingly, that, “I am an older, white male, the trifecta of privilege,” but it’s only because of these very privileges he mocks that he is even positioned to deny the existence of white privilege and institutional racism. 

Jankanish has also written about the proper way to protest police violence against persons of color (see “Shootings: Three lessons Americans should absorb”); the proper way to rap at school (see “Rapping Principal: He shortchanges Tacoma students”); and the proper way to respond to the election of a president (see “For Tacoma youth, making political impact beats wallowing in grief”). In each of these op-eds, Jankanish dismisses the real experiences and emotions of marginalized groups. He appeals to reason using logical fallacies and to reasonableness using the privilege of an older, white male who has no need for introspection. Jankanish writes like a person auditioning for the lead role in a play based on this article.

Jankanish’s op-eds, if written only as an area resident, read like a “Get off my lawn” reminder. But nearly every piece he writes ends with the following words: “Michael Jankanish of Tacoma is the chair of the history department at Wilson High School, where he teaches Advanced Placement U.S. history and American government.” Jankanish is not simply writing as a private citizen. By attaching his position as the chair of the history department at Wilson to the end of his op-eds, Jankanish appeals to the authority of his position within the disctrict to lend credibility to his demonstrably racist and supremacist beliefs, which erodes any claim that he is merely speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern (which is the constitutional standard applied to matters of free speech for public employees). That he has done this for years demonstrates a flagrant abuse of his position as the history chair and reveals a teacher whose speech, if deemed to substantially interfere with the operation of the school, would likely not be protected. 

In Conclusion

This rebuttal is too long. It doesn’t take four pages to know that Jankanish’s op-ed is racist, that his racist views will have a chilling effect on his students, that his views have likely caused harm to decades’ worth of students already, or that he doesn’t belong in a classroom. 

That said, this rebuttal was worth every word. When white men in positions of authority and influence spew their bile, and when local newspapers provide a pulpit to spew that bile, then other white men ought to rise to oppose it, forcefully, and with intention, to reject the racist assertions, the rewriting of history, and the ignoring of evidence. Jankanish's op-ed does not sit well with Tacoma. The city of Tacoma is better than his view of the world, and the students of Tacoma deserve better than a social studies teacher who openly promotes the views of white supremacy while erasing the experiences of everyone else who is not a white man.

Postscript: King 5

When given a chance to explain his op-ed to King 5 News, Mike Jankanish’s dug himself an even deeper racist hole. In a March 11 interview about his op-ed (we, along with two other local teachers, were also interviewed for this segment), Jankanish doubled down on his racist rhetoric and dismissed criticism of his op-ed as “non-sense.” 

First, Jankanish tries to minimize the awfulness of his op-ed by stating “[we’re] supposed to have open discussion, open debate, right? About issues.” Civilized discourse is indeed a hallmark of critical thinking, but not all ideas deserve airtime or debate. Some ideas are just bad. For example, slavery was a bad idea. It was a dehumanizing, violent, oppressive system. It was also legal. But it’s legality provides no basis for discussing its merits today. It was a bad idea. Similarly, Jankanish’s views, which would erase the identities of non-whites by denying their very value to society, are bad ideas not worthy of debate. Contrary to Jankanish’s belief, we owe him no discussion on the merits of his ideas. His ideas have been litigated throughout the history of thought and the verdict is that these are bad, racist ideas. 

Second, Jankanish asserts that, “We have a certain common heritage that create, for example … the Constitution of the United States.” He stutters when saying this, which obscures the clarity of any point he’s trying to make, but it seems fair to say Jankanish is referring to the common heritage of the “Founding Fathers,” that they were of European descent. This line of argument again norms the “common American culture” as white, Euro-centric culture (and heritage, in this case). This norming (notice his use of the term “we?” Surely he means white people?) ignores the history of non-whites in the United States, for example the heritage of African Americans and Native Americans, that their ancestors were brutalized, enslaved, and dehumanized to make way for what Jankanish flippantly calls “the American experiment” in his op-ed. By asserting a common heritage for all Americans today, Jankanish erases the history of non-whites in the United States, which is a racist, white supremacist approach to history.

Third, when asked if he knew that Native Americans were here before the Constitution, he said, “Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. I don’t see how that’s relevant.” For Jankanish, the existence of Native Americans on this continent is not relevant. It’s not relevant because their existence doesn’t advance his narrative of white supremacy. His words are revelatory, though — they reveal a brazen willingness to deny the very existence of a non-white people who have a stronger historical claim to these lands than any white man. 

Fourth, when asked about whose “common goals” are we talking about, he replied “the goals that formed the country, ok?” He then identified European arrival as the start of the formation of the country as a political unit. In admitting that the goals that matter for the formation of the country are identical to European arrival, he implicitly admits that the only ideas relevant to his “common American culture” are European ideas and ideals, whiteness, at the expense of all others. Except, the formation of the country wasn’t some tidy chore that Europeans just happened to complete before supper. The United States formed and expanded west on the backs of non-whites: the use of slave labor to farm the South and create an entire economy; the genocide of Native Americans to secure the unjust taking of lands; the use of Chinese immigrant labor to build the Transcontinental Railroad. The goals of these distinct, diverse people were not the “common goals” of European Americans. And Jankanish’s statements implying otherwise prove that he is unfit to teach history in any capacity, let alone AP History. 

Fifth, Jankanish stated that, “I really don’t care what the administration is going to think or not think about it, ok? I exercised…I made an argument and made a statement.” Mike Jankanish is a public employee of the Tacoma Public Schools, and his op-eds state as much on the bottom of the page. By linking his opinions to his professional title, he isn’t merely making an argument and a statement (as a private citizen); he is making a statement as the history chair of Wilson High School. As such, regardless of whether he cares what the administration thinks of his views, the administration cares about his views, especially if they result in a substantial disruption of the Wilson learning environment (which will be learned in the upcoming days and/or weeks as students and families learn of his op-ed and choose how to respond). If Jankanish’s views disrupt the orderly operation of the school, he might lose First Amendment protections on his speech and risk discipline from the district. 

And finally, when asked whether his words would result in students not feeling safe in his classroom (which would amount to a substantial disruption of the learning environment), Jankanish says, “All of that is nonsense,” without elaborating why such a claim would be nonsense. Non-white, non-male, non-straight students have an increased likelihood of feeling marginalized in the classroom of a teacher who doesn’t believe that these same non-white, non-male, non-straight students are ever discriminated against. How can these students feel safe in a room where their teacher denies any threats to their existence even exist?