Urbandale schools to vote on leaving CIML Monday
URBANDALE, Iowa — The Urbandale Community School District will vote on whether to leave the Central Iowa Metro League (CIML) on Monday evening.
Currently, Urbandale is the smallest school by enrollment in the CIML, which contains schools like Southeast Polk, West Des Moines Valley, and Ankeny. In early February, the district received an official invitation to join the Little Hawkeye Conference, which includes smaller schools like Norwalk and Indianola.
Hearing for Iowa bill removing gender identity from Civil Rights Act scheduled for Monday
Before making a decision, the district sent out a survey to parents, students, and coaches to get an idea of what the community wanted. According to survey results released late last week, the majority of parents and staff want to leave the conference. However, the majority of students and coaches want to remain in the CIML to continue competing against some of the best schools.
The Urbandale School Board will vote on whether to leave the CIML or stay at a meeting on Monday at 6 p.m. at the UCSD Administration Office. If the board accepts the invitation to join the Little Hawkeye Conference the change would begin in the 2026-2027 school year.
Metro News:
Des Moines Art Center begins removing Greenwood Pond: Double Site
Urbandale schools to vote on leaving CIML Monday
Fleeing car crashes into Des Moines ministry building Monday, police say
Scholastic Spotlight: Shuler Elementary's Tech Squad
Bunnies in the library, TheraPets sensory friendly day
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
2 days ago
- Washington Post
Nine reasons for cautious optimism about individual liberty
Aristotle's axiom 'one swallow does not make a summer' suggests caution in anticipating large reverberations from a Supreme Court ruling last week. But the court's unanimous affirmation of a principle that is commonsensical but now controversial might indicate its readiness to temper the racialization of American law and governance, to which the court has contributed. In 2019, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual Ohio woman who had worked in a state agency since 2004, was denied a promotion for a job that went to a lesbian colleague with less experience at the agency and lesser academic credentials. Ames was subsequently demoted to a position involving a 40 percent pay cut, and her prior position was filled by a gay man. Ames filed a lawsuit saying she was discriminated against, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, because of her sexual orientation. She lost in a district court and in her appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which held that she had not demonstrated 'background circumstances' (not defined, anywhere) to justify her suspicion of discrimination. This demonstration requires, the 6th Circuit said, a member of a majority to show that her employer is 'that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' The court heard this case not to decide the merits of Ames's accusation but to consider her extra burden in making them. In Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's short (nine-page) opinion for the court, she noted that 'disparate treatment' (discrimination) claims generally rest on 'circumstantial evidence,' but only members of a majority have the additional evidentiary burden of demonstrating 'background circumstances.' Jackson briskly held that Title VII draws no distinction between majority-group and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, it concerns unlawfully hiring, discharging or otherwise discriminating against 'any individual' (Jackson's emphasis). By stipulating protections for every 'individual,' Congress 'left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.' Jackson quoted the court's language in the 1971 Duke Power Co. case: 'discriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed' (Jackson's emphasis). In Duke Power, however, the court greased the nation's slide into laws that recognize, in order to privilege, groups. The court conceded that the company did not intentionally discriminate on the basis of race. It nonetheless was guilty of illegal discrimination because when making promotions it administered an aptitude test that had a 'disparate impact' on groups: 58 percent of White candidates and 6 percent of Black ones passed. By creating an illegal discrimination of effects, severed from intentions, the court opened a path to racialist thinking and laws. And a racial spoils system based on the theory that disparate social outcomes should be blamed on 'systemic' racism. So, racism will persist until 'the system' — a.k.a., society — is dismantled and reassembled equitably, which might take a while. Such language — systemic injuries to certain (not all) minority groups — undermines a foundational American premise: that rights (and responsibilities) inhere in individuals. This has helped to create today's simmering stew of grievances: the toxic binary of oppressors and oppressed, grievance groups versus groups aggrieved by being accused of complicity, even if unintentional, in oppression. Justice Jackson's opinion focused, properly, on the narrow question of what Title VII requires and does not mandate. Justice Clarence Thomas, however, in a 14-page concurrence (joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch) deplored 'problems that arise when judges create atextual legal rules and frameworks.' By now, much constitutional law is 'judge-made': extracted from, not found in, constitutional or statutory texts. Including some doctrines that conservatives rightly applaud, such as the 'major questions' doctrine: Executive agencies should not exercise powers of vast economic and political significance unless Congress has clearly and explicitly authorized this. Other examples: Miranda warnings (by police), the exclusionary rule (excluding illegally seized evidence from trials), the nondelegation doctrine (limiting Congress's ability to delegate to executive agencies essentially legislative powers). The 'background conditions' requirement for majority plaintiffs is, however, unambiguously discrimination mandated as social policy, implausibly tickled from Title VII language. How will Jackson apply her 'individuals, not groups' reasoning when, soon, the court announces its ruling in a case from Louisiana under the 1965 Voting Rights Act? The core issue there is: Does a map of six congressional districts, drawn after the 2020 Census, constitute 'vote dilution' that denies a particular group, Black voters, a 'meaningful opportunity' to elect candidates of their choice. No such language is in, or implied by, the Voting Rights Act, or is compatible with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws for individuals.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Trump's DEI Purge Is Erasing Civil Rights History Across the South
Stay up-to-date with the politics team. Sign up for the Teen Vogue Take At the National Memorial for Peace and Justice, there's a suspended iron tomb labeled 'Clarke County, Mississippi.' On this tomb, sandwiched between eight others, is the name Alma House. Alma, an African American girl who grew up in early 20th-century Mississippi, was just 16 years old — and nine months pregnant — when she was lynched by a white mob. President Donald Trump wants us to forget about girls like Alma. His administration's attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion are fundamentally about rewriting US history and covering up the scars of racism and brutality that are an inescapable part of our nation's past. Trump's actions — including banning words like 'inequality' and 'injustice' from government websites and documents; rewriting websites about the Underground Railroad; sanitizing school curricula; defunding museums; removing explicit segregation bans from federal contracts; targeting disparate-impact liability, one of the primary legal mechanisms used to enforce the 1964 Civil Rights Act — represent a wholesale attack on Black Americans, not to mention a clearly white supremacist agenda. What makes this agenda particularly dangerous, in my eyes, is that so many Americans seem to welcome it. The harmful results of Trump's project became clear to me when my high school took its entire junior class of 60 girls to the Deep South for a five-day Civil Rights trip. We visited some of the major landmarks of the Civil Rights era, such as the Little Rock Central High School, where an angry mob confronted the school's first Black students; the Lorraine Motel, where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated; the Edmund Pettus Bridge, where peaceful marchers advocating for voting rights walked from Selma, Alabama, to Montgomery and were assaulted by police; the 16th Street Baptist Church, where four little girls were killed in a Ku Klux Klan bombing; and the home of MLK. All the while, the actions of the Trump administration hung over us like smog. At the museums we visited, the people we spoke to were deeply worried about revoked funds, their first-amendment rights, and the history they tell. At one National Park Service-run Civil Rights site, I asked a park ranger — whose identity I'm keeping confidential to protect his job — if the government's recent moves had affected his work. (The federal government has laid off thousands of national park workers in recent weeks.) Though we were outside, with no one in earshot, the park ranger dropped his voice to a near whisper: 'We can't talk about that,' he said. 'I can't give you a positive or negative response. But…' He briefly scanned the area, a furtive glance from side to side, before gesturing for me to look at his face. Slowly, he nodded twice. 'Keep asking the questions you're asking,' he told me. At the National Civil Rights Museum — built inside the Lorraine Motel, where MLK was shot and killed just 57 years ago — I asked my class's tour guide, whose name I'm also keeping confidential, a similar question. He told me that the museum — with its future imperiled by an Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) that has been newly decimated by the Trump administration — had issued a statement calling for community support of IMLS and pleading for the federal government to turn its chainsaw away from museums. 'Recently, we've changed the name of our DEI program,' he said. 'It's still there, but we can't call it that because of how much we're being targeted. It is something that we're immensely worried about, and it's very concerning what we're seeing nationally.' But, he added, 'until they haul us away in handcuffs, we're not softening anything.' The next day I spoke to a former Children's Crusader and survivor of the 1963 16th Street Baptist Church bombing — who also chose to remain anonymous for fear of government interference with her work — and asked if Trump's assault on DEI and Black history scares her. The Birmingham Civil Rights Institute, for example, which she has worked with to tell her story, is currently at risk of being wholly cut off from governmental funding. 'It does,' she said. 'Nobody can stop me from talking, but if it's banned…' She paused before continuing: 'If you're watching the news, they're shipping [immigrants] out of here. It could be you; it could be me. We have to look out for each other. My hope is that, when you see these negative things happening, you'll remember the things I've said. I'll march as long as I can, and I'll tell these stories as long as I can, but I'm counting on you guys,' she shared, referring to young people. 'I've lived long enough to see us at our very worst, and I've seen us rise and do things I could have never imagined,' she said further. 'And I see us faltering again.' Throughout this trip, I was struck deeply by the experience of standing at the sites where such great evils occurred — and by what the silencing of this history could mean for our country's future. It is a common adage that those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it, but it was only while standing outside the Montgomery Capitol, where Confederate and Civil Rights monuments stand side by side, watching an anti-Trump 'Hands Off!' protest develop, that I truly grasped the danger of this moment. Too many of us have fallen for the pernicious fallacy that America has moved past these awful events. But our nation has yet to recover from Jim Crow. Alabama only legalized interracial marriage in 2000. In parts of the Deep South, white parents kept high school proms effectively segregated through the early 2000s by hosting private dances for their children. Mississippi did not officially ratify the Constitution's 13th amendment — which abolished slavery — until 2013. As I returned home from the airport to the supposedly political safe haven of New York City, I couldn't stop thinking about a fact I learned on this trip: that Wall Street is named after a wall built by enslaved people. Then I couldn't stop thinking about the fact that many people may never know such history. As MLK's son Martin Luther King III said when he spoke to my class, remembering history 'is not about collective guilt, but about collective responsibility. You have to ask yourself what kind of America you want to create.' Originally Appeared on Teen Vogue Want to read more Teen Vogue history coverage? 6 of the Most Famous Cults in U.S. History This Deadly Georgia Lake Holds Secrets About U.S. History Helen Keller's Legacy Has Been Sanitized Why We're Still So Obsessed With the Salem Witch Trials
New York Post
3 days ago
- New York Post
Hooray! America is finally heading toward race and gender fairness
At long last, America is moving toward fairness in hiring, promotions, and college admissions. The latest good news: In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court said everyone deserves the same protection from discrimination, including straight white women and men. In the decades since Martin Luther King Jr. called on us to judge people by the 'content of their character,' this country has moved in the opposite direction. Racial preferences, Diversity Equity and Inclusion programs and quotas favoring women, LGBTQ+ and other groups replaced judging each individual. The average white guy or woman has been getting the shaft in corporate hiring, college admissions or even becoming a government supplier. But now that is changing. Recent events, including the Trump administration's bold disavowal of DEI and discriminatory practices in hiring and promotion, and the high court ruling in Ames v. Ohio on Thursday, suggest America is not doomed to be a hopelessly divided caste society where group identity trumps an individual's essence. We are starting to move in the right direction, where each individual can succeed on the merits. Marlean Ames' win on Thursday is another step forward. Ames, a 61-year-old white heterosexual woman, sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services, where she'd worked for 16 years. Despite getting favorable reviews and promotions, in 2020 she was turned down for a higher position that went to a lesbian, and then demoted, to be replaced by another gay man. She alleged discrimination based on her heterosexuality. Lower federal courts rejected Ames' claim , saying because she is part of a majority group — heterosexual white women — she had a higher burden of proof than a minority would have. But the justices ruled that having different standards for majority and minority groups violates Title VII, the portion of the landmark Civil Rights Act that outlawed workplace discrimination. Ames still has to prove her case in the lower courts, but she will be treated the same as any minority group member alleging discrimination, not facing what Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson termed a 'heightened standard' of evidence. The Supremes' ruling will reverberate in federal courts across America. In the Sixth Circuit and four other circuits, that double standard prevailed until now. Kudos to the top court for rejecting that two-tiered system of justice. 'Reverse' discrimination is as bad as any other kind. Proving it shouldn't be harder. Amen. We are in a new era that began with the Supreme Court's 2023 rulings striking down reverse discrimination at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. After George Floyd's death in 2020, many companies launched ambitious efforts to diversify their workforces. Though well-intentioned, they caused resentment and violated the nation's bedrock principle of color-blind equality. The justices' ruling against Harvard sent a signal to the corporate world to change course. Credit also goes to politicians — including Donald J. Trump — consumers and even corporate shareholders who challenged DEI. Major companies began rolling back their DEI programs. Lowe's was one of the first. Now the company says it wants to be a 'unifier.' Citigroup reports it has dropped 'diversity, equity and inclusion' from the title of its talent management team. Home Depot, Google, Goldman Sachs and many others have publicly scrapped hiring goals based on race, ethnicity, sex or gender. It's a big change from the recent past, when a young white man graduating from college had to worry that internships and training programs at the big financial institutions and other corporate giants wouldn't consider him because of his race and gender. But it's good news for everyone, not just him. The six decades of concocted preferences since Martin Luther King's famous 'content of their character' speech and the harm these preferences caused should teach us that treating people differently based on the group they belong to is a mistake. Discrimination — no matter the group and however well-intentioned — inflicts new injustices. As Ames said, 'We're trying to make this a level playing field for everyone. Not just a white woman in Ohio.' It's also reassuring that the unanimous opinion in Ames was crafted by Justice Jackson, the most liberal member of the court and herself often considered a DEI pick. It's another sign that America may be coming together on the need to end such distinctions altogether, whether invidious or virtuous in intent. Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York and co-founder of the Committee to Save Our City.
