Vote Isaac Newman for EGEA President

---

It depends upon which funds you are talking about and how assertive you are in your negotiations. According to the district, the $7.7M that I cite represents both restricted AND unrestricted funds. Unrestricted funds can be used at our discretion. As for restricted funds: in many cases, even the details of how restricted funds are used can be negotiated. For instance, funds earmarked for "promoting equity", could achieve that goal by reducing class size, attracting/retaining experienced teachers via higher pay or hiring tutors. Current EGEA leadership is aware of this, but the majority of them support wasteful DEI spending over classroom needs.

This appears to be a bit of sleight of hand. My calculation specifically cites "more than" 2,700  "Teachers". I never claim that it represents a full accounting of union membership. Worse, Mr. Sutter gets his own numbers wrong. According to emails from Mr. Sutter himself, we had 3,264 members as of December (not 3,500). Beyond the fact that he is "debunking" a claim I never made, why would he use an "estimate" he knows is inflated? Note: even if his 3,500 number were right, cutting wasteful DEI spending would still amount to $2,200 per union member annually.

 It depends upon what you count as "DEI". I am in favor of Diversity, Equity (meaning fairness) and Inclusion as concepts, but implementation matters. The way our district uses the terms is often contrary to their traditional dictionary meaning. I oppose any programs that attempt to create "Diversity" by segregating us along racial lines or by treating people differently according to their race. I am against any version of "Equity" that seeks equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity and merit. People are different and make different choices so any truly fair system will arrive at different outcomes for different people. I oppose any "inclusive" policy that attempts to exclude people on the basis of skin color, view point or any other aspect of their identity. In essence, I believe that each person should be treated as the unique individual that they are, and we shouldn't make assumptions, assign blame or make decisions based upon their appearance or other immutable characteristics. 

The district added 28 hours of work to our year. Getting paid for additional work was the least they could have achieved in negotiations. If they were looking out for ALL members, they would have also sought an option to opt out or at least done their homework and properly vetted the curriculum being adopted. So yes, it is true that EGEA negotiated to get us paid for the trainings. However, they also ignored reasonable requests to lobby for an option to opt out. Indeed, EGEA leadership refused to even broach the topic with the district. They quite pointedly supported mandating that our members take the DEI trainings and refused to entertain any attempt to get the district to allow us reasonable alternatives.

From the moment I became aware of the trainings, I pushed the school board to either cancel them, adopt a new (less divisive) curriculum, or let teachers opt out. When they refused, I pushed them to at least answer this question: “What happens to those employees who don’t take the trainings?” 

When the District refused even that, I spent months trying to get EGEA to press the school board for an answer. Mr. Sutter, in particular, repeatedly refused  to seek an answer to the question. It was only after months of pressure by me and my colleagues that the Union finally came back with an answer. However, EGEA dragged its feet so long that by the time the answer was finally given, most people had already taken the trainings for fear of the consequences.

In almost every way. I believe that the union must represent ALL members fairly, even if they are in the minority. I believe that EGEA should be focused on the traditional union mission of improving Pay, Benefits and Classroom environment and that it should not spend time or effort attempting to push its political agenda on its own members. My opponent makes no mention of pay or benefits. Indeed, as I am writing this, his campaign materials do not seem to discuss a political platform of any kind.

The form of DEI supported by our district and union, puts employees and students into racially segregated categories of oppressed and oppressor classes. For example, in one of our mandated trainings (which EGEA approved), Robin De’Angelo suggested that being raised white makes one innately racist. Her claim is itself, racist. 

What's more, our mandated trainings suggested that colorblindness and meritocracy are racist myths. Yet that suggestion strikes at the core of our educational mission. How can you treat students fairly when you make race their defining feature? How can your classroom produce anything but mediocrity when you eschew merit (Coleman Hughs’s book, “The End of Race Politics” is actually quite insightful on this topic)?

Our current EGEA president believes in dividing us by race-- so much so that he actually defended an attempt to racially segregate union elections with the creation of a “BIPOC" only board seat. I attempted to convince Mr. Sutter to desegregate our elections and open the position up to all races. He outright refused, saying that he wouldn’t even if he could. EGEA leadership (our President included) were so dedicated to segregating our elections that they chose to fight for it in court rather than simply allow all members to run (without regard to race). EGEA lost in court and their arrogant and divisive stance cost them money, time, and prestige.

From the moment I became aware of the mandated trainings, I pushed the school board to either cancel them, find a less divisive curriculum, or let teachers opt out. When they refused, I pushed them to answer this question: “What happens to those employees who don’t take the trainings?”

 When they repeatedly refused to answer that simple question, I spent months trying to get EGEA to demand an answer on our behalf. Mr. Sutter, in particular, repeatedly refused to seek an answer to the question. It was only after months of pressure by me and my colleagues that the EGEA leaders finally, grudgingly, brought back an answer.

I think CTA AND EGEA are at their best when they stick to issues that unite all teachers. They are on their strongest footing when they protect teacher retirement, academic freedom, and push for better pay and working conditions. Additionally, I believe that EGEA and CTA should try to avoid hot-button issues which divide their membership. In cases where these issues are unavoidable (such as when a district mandates controversial trainings), the union should advocate for an end to the controversial policy or for a compromise which allows dissenting members to opt out. Unfortunately, both CTA and EGEA seem increasingly intent on taking up divisive issues (like DEI) and ignoring legitimate member concerns.