LAWSUIT: Teachers Sue District Over CRT And Training Telling Them To Vote For Socialists

Written by Wes Walker on August 24, 2021

Become a Clash Insider!

Big Tech is clamping down on conservative media big time. Don’t let Big Tech pre-chew your news. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we’ll make sure to keep you in the loop.

The same firm leading the court challenge against Biden’s race-based farm legislation is also representing some teachers tired of being extorted by their woke school district.

Southeastern Legal Foundation is headed to court to remind the School District of Springfield Board of Education that they don’t get to ignore or set aside those inconvenient parts of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that get in the way of their political agenda.

The federal lawsuit reads: “Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated staff risk employment penalties for exercising their right to avoid messages with which they disagree and express messages with which they do agree.”

“Plaintiffs and similarly situated staff are threatened with docked pay and loss of credit hours if they do not affirm those beliefs and participate in those trainings, both in the past and going forward.”

The trainings were one of the many exposed by the Manhattan Institute’s Chris Rufo earlier this year. They included things like an “oppression matrix” and teachings like “colorblindness” and “all lives matter” are forms of covert White supremacy.

“SPS [Springfield Public Schools] promotes and reinforces a view of race essentialism that divides Americans into oppressor and oppressed based solely on their skin color,” Wednesday’s lawsuit reads. “SPS sets up a dichotomy between white and non-white races that depicts whiteness as inherently racist and a tool of oppression.” —SLF web page

John Solomon interviewed the chief council, who told us…

“Last year, the school district there required all of its employees — so anyone down from a bus driver driving the kids to school, all the way up to an AP history teacher, actually teaching them in the classroom – required them to do what they called an equity and anti-racist training,” Kimberly Hermann, SLF chief counsel, told the John Solomon Reports podcast.

…The trainers also taught the educators to “espouse socialist ideas” and “to vote for socialist candidates,” while also teaching socialist ideas to kids as young as four or five years old, Hermann said.

This is a First Amendment case because the required training was for all school district employees and discriminated based on viewpoint, causing them to self-censor their true beliefs and “forcing them to accept beliefs that they just simply don’t agree with,” she explained. — JustTheNews

The full 29-page complaint can be viewed in this PDF. Here is a sampling of their complaint:

16. After viewing these images, acknowledging their oppression, discussing white supremacy, and sharing personal views and identifying information, staff are directed to conclude the training by participating in an “Anti-Racist Solo Write,” wherein they are expected to disclose the steps they plan to take “to become an Anti-Racist” in conformance with the training’s lessons.
17. The district mandates these viewpoints as part of staff’s job responsibilities.
According to SPS, racial equity “is more than a value, but now part of our work and job
18. By binding equity to job responsibilities, SPS forecloses any opposition to equity
or anti-racism and chills the speech of staff who disagree with those concepts.
19. Worse still, SPS warns its staff during programming that “white silence” is a form
of white supremacy. At the same time, it requires staff to “be professional” and “stay engaged”
during break-out discussions “or be asked to leave.” SPS puts its staff in the no-win situation of wondering if they should say what they really think (at the risk of being asked to leave), repeat what they think the district wants to hear (in conflict with their own beliefs), or not speak at all (at the risk of being labeled a white supremacist).
20. SPS makes this programming mandatory. If staff opt out, their pay is reduced.
21. Staff are expected to pass what they learn in the mandatory programming down to
their students.
22. Plaintiffs are all public employees, but even public employees are entitled to First
Amendment protection for speech on matters of public concern. See Morgan v. Robinson, 881 F.3d
646 (8th Cir. 2018). It is undisputed that “[s]peech about racial discrimination is a matter of public concern.”

Christopher Rufo posted about the training that the teachers were subjected to including some images from the sessions.