Lakeville schools to consider removing posters promoting inclusion amid lawsuit
The Brief
Lakeville School Board to vote on Tuesday whether to remove their "Inclusive Poster Series."
Eight posters in total, but two of them promote "Black Lives Matter."
The lawsuit alleged violation of policy against political statements, but some parents believe the posters only focused on inclusion should say.
LAKEVILLE, Minn. (FOX 9) - The Lakeville School Board will discuss and vote on Tuesday whether a series of eight posters promoting diversity and inclusion will be removed from schools.
This stems from a years-long lawsuit, upheld by an appeals court last year, alleging the posters violate a policy against political statements, specifically because two of them focus on Black Lives Matter.
Those behind the lawsuit believe they all need to be removed. Some parents are upset, arguing the images that promote inclusion are important messages that should stay.
The backstory
In 2020, when some teachers requested to put Black Lives Matter posters in their classrooms in the wake of George Floyd, the district was clear they could not, citing their policy against political statements.
But in 2021, when it came up again as part of a series of posters promoting diversity and inclusion, the district gave it the OK.
Several parents and students filed a lawsuit after they were denied permission to put up posters promoting other viewpoints, arguing that Black Lives Matter is a political organization and claiming their own free speech was violated.
"Proposals were made to put up All Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter," explained attorney Doug Seaton of the Upper Midwest Law Center, a conservative nonprofit which specializes in cases of what they see as government overreach. "And the district said no to those and only yes to the Black Lives Matter supported posters."
Dig deeper
After a district court tossed out the lawsuit, ruling that the posters were free speech, an appeals court reversed that decision in the summer of 2024.
A settlement conference is now scheduled for February.
Seaton is not opposed to the idea of the district creating new posters that promote equality among all students, but believes the current series of posters all need to be removed, not just the two that promote Black Lives Matter.
"We're very hopeful we'll have a settlement in the case," said Seaton, "and a start to that would be for them to adopt a position, a policy, of neutrality and remove these posters from the school corridors and the classrooms."
The other side
Some parents are not happy with the idea that all the posters could be eliminated. One who spoke to FOX 9, but wished to remain anonymous, said she understands the issue with the Black Lives Matter posters, since they do have a political agenda. But, as the parent of a student with special needs, she feels the message of inclusion for all is very important.
The CEO of the Down Syndrome Society of Minnesota wrote the district a letter expressing the same concerns. In a statement, she told FOX 9 that "as an organization that is focused on promoting inclusion for those that often find themselves in the margins, it is heartbreaking to see that people view inclusionary practices as harmful."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
US universities are moving to the right. Will it help them escape Trump's wrath?
In 2018, a teaching hospital at Harvard took down 30 portraits of distinguished doctors and researchers affiliated with the hospital. The portraits reinforced a perception that 'white men are in charge', a professor of medicine told the Boston Globe, and were relegated to less prominent areas of the hospital. Some students and faculty welcomed the decision, or were indifferent. Others were disconcerted. They saw the portraits' removal as the impulsive reflex of a university whose political atmosphere, already liberal leaning, seemed to continually lurch further left. In the years following, a series of fierce political winds – the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements; expanding diversity, equity, and inclusion programs; the Israel-Gaza war – buffeted Harvard, and each gale seemed to strengthen progressivism's hold on campus. Harvard began asking academic job applicants to file statements describing their commitment to 'diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging' in higher education. Opponents criticized the statements as political litmus tests. 'Over the last couple of decades, at Harvard and other elite institutions of higher ed, there has been kind of an ideological intensification in one direction,' said Jeffrey Flier, the former dean of the Harvard medical school faculty and a well-known critic of what he describes as leftwing conformity in academia. That ideological intensification is most pronounced in humanities and social science fields, he said, where 'it's quite a dominant reality'. Yet now – with a few years of distance from the ideological tumult that began around 2011, which some critics and observers dubbed 'the great awokening' – the situation feels very different. The Trump administration is pursuing an unprecedented pressure campaign on Harvard, on the grounds that it discriminates against white people and tolerates antisemitism. The university's federal funding is in question, as is its ability to enroll foreign students and make basic decisions about its own management. While many faculty and students at Harvard may still affiliate with the left, their power and influence feel pale in comparison with just a short time ago. The irony of Trump's attack is that Harvard and other universities – keen to appease critics who have accused them in recent years of liberal bias, tolerating antisemitism and being too soft on disruptive student activists – were already angling for an ideological re-alignment. As a result, these universities are now in an odd and paradoxical situation: trying to resist the Trump administration's project of ideological subjugation while at the same time quietly continuing their efforts to sand down their leftwing edges. It's a tricky dance, and it may not satisfy the Trumpist right. The problem is that 'in general, Harvard needs the government much more than the government needs Harvard', the political scientist Harvey Mansfield, who retired from teaching two years ago, said. Mansfield was for decades Harvard's best-known conservative. 'The Trump administration,' Mansfield added, 'has been rather creative in finding ways to torture its victim.' Harvard receives some $9bn in federal funding that is frozen or under review. In contrast to Columbia, which quickly capitulated to the government's demands, including that the university take over control of an academic department from its faculty, Harvard has tried to remain unbowed. It has sued the government, arguing that the Trump administration's actions threaten Harvard's academic freedom and violate federal procedures. Among other things, the Trump administration has demanded that Harvard cease all race- and gender-based affirmative action in hiring and admissions; take measures to screen out foreign students 'hostile to American values'; 'shutter' all DEI programs; and end recognition of several pro-Palestinian campus groups that the Trump administration has accused of antisemitism. The administration's attacks on universities have often emphasized the idea that they are centers of leftwing indoctrination. While it may or may not be the case that universities are incubators of a 'woke-mind virus', as Elon Musk and others have suggested, studies of the political makeup of the American professoriate do support the idea that it is disproportionately left-leaning. A 2016 study of voter affiliation at '40 leading US universities' found that in humanities and social science fields, such as history, economics, journalism and psychology, professors who were registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans by almost 12 to one. A 2022 survey by the Harvard Crimson found that 80% of faculty there identified as 'liberal' or 'very liberal'; only 1% identified as 'conservative', and none as 'very conservative'. In a letter last month to the US Department of Education, Harvard's president, Alan Garber, objected to the 'claim that Harvard is a partisan institution'. Yet he also acknowledged a 'need for greater intellectual diversity on campus' and indicated, without elaborating, that the university was taking 'initiatives to make Harvard a more pluralistic and welcoming place'. Last year, before Trump was again elected president, Harvard already appeared to be trying to change course. The school's Faculty of Arts and Sciences announced that instead of 'diversity statements', applicants would submit statements on their 'efforts to strengthen academic communities'. The university also convened a working group to study 'open inquiry' on campus. The group's report, released last October, found that 45% of students and 51% of teaching faculty were reluctant to discuss charged topics in class. More recently, in the face of Trump administration pressure, Harvard and other universities have walked back DEI efforts. Harvard recently renamed its diversity office the 'office for community and campus life' and said that it would no longer fund 'affinity celebrations', which are optional graduation events for identity-based groups, after the federal government said it would cut funding because of them. Harvard's most aggressive moves, however, have been its efforts to suppress sentiment viewed as being anti-Israel. In January, following a legal settlement with a group of students who accused the university of tolerating antisemitism, Harvard adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, despite opposition by people – including the author of the definition – who argue it is too easily used against critics of Israel. In March, the university dismissed the leaders of the school's Center for Middle Eastern Studies as well as suspended the Harvard Divinity School's 'Religion, Conflict, and Peace' Initiative. Critics had accused both of promoting one-sided views of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Other colleges and universities have taken similar tacks. Last year, Muhlenberg college, in Pennsylvania, fired Maura Finkelstein, an anthropologist known for her stridently anti-Zionist views, on the grounds that her perspective discriminated against Jewish and Israeli students. Universities broadly have taken restrictive measures to prevent a resurgence of widespread pro-Palestinian protests. The Atlantic recently speculated that Harvard and other universities, spurred by the political climate, may engage in a kind of 'affirmative action' for conservatives. Johns Hopkins announced a project this April, in collaboration with the right-of-center American Enterprise Institute, to 'increase heterodox faculty across the university'. It is unclear if academia's efforts to move right will make much difference. When it comes to higher education, the Trumpian right has not generally seemed forgiving of the ideological indulgences of the recent past. Despite Columbia's capitulation and Harvard's concessions, the government has not shown many signs that it is going to moderate its aggression. The University of Florida recently un-hired Santa Ono, an academic who was formerly the president of the University of Michigan, because conservatives disapproved of his past support for diversity efforts. Ono's efforts to distance himself from his own decisions made no difference. Reforms and compromises may not be enough to satisfy officials whose ultimate goal may look less like reform and more like retribution.
Chicago Tribune
2 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
President Donald Trump pushes ahead with his maximalist immigration campaign in face of LA protests
WASHINGTON — Donald Trump made no secret of his willingness to exert a maximalist approach to enforcing immigration laws and keeping order as he campaigned to return to the White House. The fulfillment of that pledge is now on full display in Los Angeles. The president has put hundreds of National Guard troops on the streets to quell protests over his administration's immigration raids, a deployment that state and city officials say has only inflamed tensions. Trump called up the California National Guard over the objections of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom — the first time in 60 years a president has done so — and is deploying active-duty troops to support the guard. By overriding Newsom, Trump is already going beyond what he did to respond to Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, when he warned he could send troops to contain demonstrations that turned violent if governors in the states did not act to do so themselves. Trump said in September of that year that he 'can't call in the National Guard unless we're requested by a governor' and that 'we have to go by the laws.' But now, the past and current president is moving swiftly, with little internal restraint to test the bounds of his executive authority in order to deliver on his promise of mass deportations. What remains to be seen is whether Americans will stand by him once it's operationalized nationwide, as Trump looks to secure billions from Congress to dramatically expand the country's detention and deportation operations. For now, Trump is betting that they will. 'If we didn't do the job, that place would be burning down,' Trump told reporters Monday, speaking about California. 'I feel we had no choice. … I don't want to see what happened so many times in this country.' The protests began to unfold Friday as federal authorities arrested immigrants in several locations throughout the sprawling city, including in the fashion district of Los Angeles and at a Home Depot. The anger over the administration's actions quickly spread, with protests in Chicago and Boston as demonstrations in the southern California city also continued Monday. But Trump and other administration officials remained unbowed, capitalizing on the images of burning cars, graffiti and Mexican flags — which, while not dominant, started to become the defining images of the unrest — to bolster their law-and-order cause. Leaders in the country's most populous state were similarly defiant. California officials sued the Trump administration Monday, with the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, arguing that the deployment of troops 'trampled' on the state's sovereignty and pushing for a restraining order. The initial deployment of 300 National Guard troops was expected to quickly expand to the full 4,000 that has been authorized by Trump. The state's senior Democratic senator, Alex Padilla, said in an interview that 'this is absolutely a crisis of Trump's own making.' 'There are a lot of people who are passionate about speaking up for fundamental rights and respecting due process, but the deployment of National Guard only serves to escalate tensions and the situation,' Padilla told The Associated Press. 'It's exactly what Donald Trump wanted to do.' Padilla slammed the deployment as 'counterproductive' and said the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department was not advised ahead of the federalization of the National Guard. His office has also pushed the Pentagon for a justification on the deployment, and 'as far as we're told, the Department of Defense isn't sure what the mission is here,' Padilla added. Much of this was predictable. During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump pledged to conduct the largest domestic deportation operation in American history to expel millions of immigrants in the country without legal status. He often praised President Dwight D. Eisenhower's military-style immigration raids, and the candidate and his advisers suggested they would have broad power to deploy troops domestically to enact Trump's far-reaching immigration and public safety goals. Trump's speedy deployment in California of troops against those whom the president has alluded to as 'insurrectionists' on social media is a sharp contrast to his decision to issue no order or formal request for National Guard troops during the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, despite his repeated and false assertions that he had made such an offer. Trump is now surrounded by officials who have no interest in constraining his power. In 2020, Trump's then-Pentagon chief publicly rebuked Trump's threat to send in troops using the Insurrection Act, an 1807 law that empowers the president to use the military within the U.S. and against American citizens. Current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signaled support on his personal X account for deploying troops to California, writing, 'The National Guard, and Marines if need be, stand with ICE,' referring to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The Defense Department said Monday it is deploying about 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles to support National Guard troops already on the ground to respond to the protests. Protesters over the weekend blocked off a major freeway and burned self-driving cars as police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades in clashes that encompassed several downtown blocks in Los Angeles and led to several dozen arrests. Much of the city saw no violence. But the protests prompted Trump to issue the directive Saturday mobilizing the California National Guard over Newsom's objections. The president and his top immigration aides accused the governor of mismanaging the protests, with border czar Tom Homan asserting in a Fox News interview Monday that Newsom stoked anti-ICE sentiments and waited two days to declare unlawful assembly in the city. Trump told Newsom in a phone call Friday evening to get the situation in Los Angeles under control, a White House official said. It was only when the administration felt Newsom was not restoring order in the city — and after Trump watched the situation escalate for 24 hours and White House officials saw imagery of federal law enforcement officers with lacerations and other injuries — that the president moved to deploy the Guard, according to the official, who was granted anonymity to discuss private deliberations. 'He's an incompetent governor,' Trump said Monday. 'Look at the job he's doing in California. He's destroying one of our great states.' Local law enforcement officials said Los Angeles police responded as quickly as they could once the protests erupted, and Newsom repeatedly asserted that state and city authorities had the situation under control. 'Los Angeles is no stranger to demonstrations and protests and rallies and marches,' Padilla said. 'Local law enforcement knows how to handle this and has a rapport with the community and community leaders to be able to allow for that.' The aggressive moves prompted blowback from some of Trump's erstwhile allies. Ileana Garcia, a Florida state senator who in 2016 founded the group Latinas for Trump and was hired to direct Latino outreach, called the recent escalation 'unacceptable and inhumane.' 'I understand the importance of deporting criminal aliens, but what we are witnessing are arbitrary measures to hunt down people who are complying with their immigration hearings — in many cases, with credible fear of persecution claims — all driven by a Miller-like desire to satisfy a self-fabricated deportation goal,' said Garcia, referring to Stephen Miller, a White House deputy chief of staff and key architect of Trump's immigration crackdown. The tactics could be just a preview to what more could come from the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress. GOP lawmakers are working to pass a massive tax-and-border package that includes billions to hire thousands of new officers for Border Patrol and for ICE. The goal, under the Trump-backed plan, is to remove 1 million immigrants without status annually and house 100,000 people in immigration detention centers.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Latest: Trump heads to Fort Bragg to celebrate 250th anniversary for US Army
President Donald Trump plans to speak at Fort Bragg on Tuesday to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army as he deploys the military in an attempt to quiet immigration protests in Los Angeles. Trump has promoted the Army's anniversary as a reason to hold a military parade in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, which is also his 79th birthday. Here's the latest: Trump's Tuesday schedule, according to the White House 12:25 p.m. — Trump will travel to Fort Bragg, North Carolina 2:40 p.m. — Once he arrives, Trump will observe a military demonstration 4:00 p.m. — Trump will deliver remarks to service members, veterans and their families 6:00 p.m. — Trump will travel back to the White House Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to face Congress for first time since Signal leaks He's expected to field sharp questions from members of Congress about his tumultuous start as Pentagon chief, including his sharing of sensitive military details over a Signal chat, in three separate Capitol Hill hearings beginning Tuesday. Lawmakers also have made it clear they're unhappy that Hegseth hasn't provided details on the administration's first proposed defense budget, which Trump has said would total $1 trillion, a significant increase over the current spending level of more than $800 billion. It will be lawmakers' first chance to ask Hegseth about a myriad of other controversial spending by the Pentagon, including plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on security upgrades to turn a Qatari jet into Air Force One and to pour as much as $45 million into a parade recently added to the Army's 250th birthday bash, which happens to coincide with Trump's birthday on Saturday. ▶ Read more about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth RFK Jr. ousts entire CDC vaccine advisory committee Kennedy on Monday removed every member of a scientific committee that advises the CDC on how to use vaccines and pledged to replace them with his own picks. Major physicians and public health groups criticized the move to oust all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Kennedy, who was one of the nation's leading anti-vaccine activists before becoming the nation's top health official, has not said who he would appoint to the panel, but said it would convene in just two weeks in Atlanta. Although it's typically not viewed as a partisan board, the entire current roster of committee members were Biden appointees. ▶ Read more about Kennedy's latest move Trump pushes ahead with his maximalist immigration campaign in face of LA protests Trump made no secret of his willingness to take a maximalist approach to enforcing immigration laws and keeping order as he campaigned to return to the White House. The fulfillment of that pledge is now on full display in Los Angeles. By overriding California's Gov. Gavin Newsom, Trump is already going beyond what he did to respond to Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, when he warned he could send troops to contain demonstrations that turned violent if governors in the states did not act to do so themselves. Trump said in September of that year that he 'can't call in the National Guard unless we're requested by a governor' and that 'we have to go by the laws.' But now, he's moving swiftly to test the bounds of his executive authority in order to deliver on his promise of mass deportations. What remains to be seen is whether Americans will stand by him once it's operationalized nationwide. For now, Trump is betting that they will. ▶ Read more about Trump's efforts to fulfill his immigration promises Trump heads to Fort Bragg while facing criticism for deploying military at Los Angeles protests Trump plans to speak at Fort Bragg on Tuesday to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army as he deploys the military in an attempt to quiet immigration protests in Los Angeles. Fort Bragg, located near Fayetteville, North Carolina, serves as headquarters for U.S. Army Special Operations Command. Highly trained units like the Green Berets and the Rangers are based there. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Army Secretary Dan Driscoll will also be at Tuesday's event, along with service members, veterans and their families. Trump has promoted the Army's anniversary as a reason to hold a military parade in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, which is also his 79th birthday. Trump, who sees the military as a critical tool for domestic goals, has used the recent protests in Los Angeles as an opportunity to deploy the National Guard and U.S. Marines to quell disturbances that began as protests over immigration raids. ▶ Read more about Trump's Fort Bragg trip
