You will be made to care, or you will be made to pay — your choice.
Back in the ’70s and ’80s, one of the things I repeatedly heard from the pro-abortion crowd was, “You can’t legislate morality.” But if you have been paying attention for the last decade or so, you know that morality can be legislated and, for that matter, enforced, provided of course, that it is the right brand of morality. And two Springfield, Mo., teachers have discovered that enforcement can come with a massive price.
Just the News reports that teachers Brooke Henderson and Jennifer Lumley have been hit with a judgment of almost $313,000 in legal fees after they filed a lawsuit over a CRT policy. A press release from the Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) explains that Henderson and Lumley filed their suit back in August of 2021, alleging that anti-racism training in their district “compelled their speech and discriminated against them because of their views that America should be colorblind.” According to the press release:
The challenged training was textbook anti-racism. In fact, Ms. Henderson and Ms. Lumley were told they needed to commit to anti-racism, which had a “proactive” element to advocate for political and social change. The training further taught that colorblindness and “white silence” were tools of white supremacy, “white people” were privileged, and that equality was harmful.
The training session began with instructions to “stay engaged,” “speak your truth,” and “acknowledge YOUR privileges.” It featured a slideshow and a series of videos, including the death of George Floyd and cartoons about “systemic racism” and “understanding white supremacy” that asserted our nation was founded on white supremacy. They were told “systems of oppression were “woven” into the “very foundation of America,” and that white supremacy is a “highly descriptive term for the culture we live in.”
The press release has links to the training material. The training itself culminated with an “anti-racist solo write,” during which participants read anti-racist statements and write what they would do to become anti-racist. Chairman Mao would be so proud to know that the traditions he started are still being upheld with such fidelity.
Henderson and Lumley were warned that if they did not participate in the struggle session, they would be called upon to do so. So when they did speak, it was to express their opposition to the district training. The press release says that they were “corrected” and that they “self-censored.” When Henderson and Lumley’s lawsuit came before federal district judge Douglas Harpool, he ignored the evidence in the case, called the case itself frivolous, and ruled against the teachers. But Harpool was not done. He also ruled that Henderson and Lumley owed the district $313,000 in legal fees. The SLF is assisting the teachers with their appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Just the News notes that:
General Counsel Kimberly Hermann called Harpool, a longtime Democratic elected official in Missouri appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama, “a lone agenda-driven federal judge” determined to “deny concerned teachers and parents the right to seek redress in court.
If school districts would stop fighting transparency and allow parents to see all instructional materials (like federal law requires), then it wouldn't cost them this much.
Learn more about open records laws with @slf_liberty Parent Guidebook ➡️ https://t.co/8gfbbXQkoW https://t.co/IL1QBjdMCT
— Kimberly Hermann (@kimmiehermann) March 30, 2023
Hermann added:
Ms. Henderson and Ms. Lumley are educators who are being punished by a federal judge for courageously stepping forward to file one of the nation’s first civil rights lawsuits tackling so-called ‘anti-racism’ training that requires educators to pledge allegiance to radical, unconstitutional views on race and politics. If this ruling stands, teachers and parents will have no check against unlimited government power to violate free speech and equal protection rights—and they will be punished if they attempt to do so through our courts.
The SLF further asserts that Harpool’s ruling was motivated by something more than pure partisanship. Harpool, it is alleged, awarded the damages as a deterrent to people who might be inclined to speak out against CRT in the future. And that seems like a fair assessment. If someone has an objection to CRT, not only will they lose, but they will incur stiff legal fees to boot.
So objectors need to learn to be silent and comply after admitting to being racist, of course. As Harpool is an Obama appointee, we know where his fealty lies. And it is not just with the left. Harpool knows a cushy, well-paying gig when he has one. And he knows how the game is played. And he undoubtedly intends to keep playing it, no matter the cost to the school children in Missouri.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member