In response to this edict from the Trump administration giving every school district only 10 days to respond, one brave district superintendent wrote this. (Name was withheld for obvious reasons..)

Still Not Signing: A Superintendent's Response to the Department of Education's Anti-DEI Ultimatum

The federal government gave us ten days to sign away our values. Here’s our answer.

April 8, 2025

To Whom It May (Unfortunately) Concern at the U.S. Department of Education:

Thank you for your April 3 memorandum, which I read several times — not because it was legally persuasive, but because I kept checking to see if it was satire. Alas, it appears you are serious.

You’ve asked me, as superintendent of a public school district, to sign a "certification" declaring that we are not violating federal civil rights law — by, apparently, acknowledging that civil rights issues still exist. You cite Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, then proceed to argue that offering targeted support to historically marginalized students is somehow discriminatory.

That’s not just legally incoherent — it’s a philosophical Möbius strip of bad faith.

Let me see if I understand your logic:

If we acknowledge racial disparities, that’s racism.

If we help English learners catch up, that’s favoritism.

If we give a disabled child a reading aide, we’re denying someone else the chance to struggle equally.

And if we train teachers to understand bias, we’re indoctrinating them — but if we train them to ignore it, we’re “restoring neutrality”?

How convenient that your sudden concern for “equal treatment” seems to apply only when it’s used to silence conversations about race, identity, or inequality.

Let’s talk about our English learners. Would you like us to stop offering translation services during parent-teacher conferences? Should we cancel bilingual support staff to avoid the appearance of “special treatment”? Or would you prefer we just teach all content in English and hope for the best, since acknowledging linguistic barriers now counts as discrimination?

And while we’re at it — what’s your official stance on IEPs? Because last I checked, individualized education plans intentionally give students with disabilities extra support. Should we start removing accommodations to avoid offending the able-bodied majority? Maybe cancel occupational therapy altogether so no one feels left out?

If a student with a learning disability receives extended time on a test, should we now give everyone extended time, even if they don’t need it? Just to keep the playing field sufficiently flat and unthinking?

Your letter paints equity as a threat. But equity is not the threat. It’s the antidote to decades of failure. Equity is what ensures all students have a fair shot. Equity is what makes it possible for a child with a speech impediment to present at the science fair. It’s what helps the nonverbal kindergartner use an AAC device. It’s what gets the newcomer from Ukraine the ESL support she needs without being left behind.

And let’s not skip past the most insulting part of your directive — the ten-day deadline. A national directive sent to thousands of districts with the subtlety of a ransom note, demanding signatures within a week and a half or else you’ll cut funding that supports... wait for it... low-income students, disabled students, and English learners.

Brilliant. Just brilliant. A moral victory for bullies and bureaucrats everywhere.

So no, we will not be signing your “certification.”

We are not interested in joining your theater of compliance.

We are not interested in gutting equity programs that serve actual children in exchange for your political approval.

We are not interested in abandoning our legal, ethical, and educational responsibilities to satisfy your fear of facts.

We are interested in teaching the truth.

We are interested in honoring our students’ identities.

We are interested in building a school system where no child is invisible, and no teacher is punished for caring too much.

And yes — we are prepared to fight this. In the courts. In the press. In the community. In Congress, if need be.

Because this district will not be remembered as the one that folded under pressure.

We will be remembered as the one that stood its ground — not for politics, but for kids.

Sincerely,
District Superintendent
Still Teaching. Still Caring. Still Not Signing.

#education #resist #broligarchy #fascism #racism #DEI #MadKingDonald #authoritarianism

From LinkedIn

The social security administration “never had a data breach" in its 85 years of operation. TikToker lnkd.in/ev73WSJa , policy nerd Kathryn Anne Edwards, talks about the SSA for 53 minutes and somehow makes it interesting: lnkd.in/emueVBEN

As a young person (age 22) she wrote “A Young Person’s Guide to Social Security” and clearly has been obsessed with the topic since then.

Apparently the SSA was never in danger of bankruptcy. Even the 2035 milestone of having to reduce payments is 70% solvable if they remove the cap on payments for incomes over $170,000 (5% of the population). The cap was introduced in 1983 at the same time as 50-year planned change in payments rates to safeguard beyond 2035. The plan had two mistakes: one, adding that cap, and two, not predicting that wages would stagnate for people below the cap while skyrocketing for the people above the cap.

In other words it has nothing to do with the ageing population – that was predicted, priced and planned 50 years ago, with regular updates from the government’s actuaries.

She wrote her book back then because young people keep on being told social security will not last. This is not true and it is an amazing welfare program.