Judging Freedom - Minneapolis teacher contract protects educators of color

Episode Date: August 17, 2022

Minneapolis school district DEFENDS deal with teachers' union to lay off white staff ahead of people of color because it will 'remedy the effects of past discrimination' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti... #teacher #discriminationSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, August 17, 2022. It's about 1125 in the morning here on the east coast of the United States. Earlier this week, the Board of Education of the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota entered into an agreement called a collective bargaining agreement with the teachers union whereby the board would follow racial preferences when it comes to hiring, particularly when it comes to replacing someone who leaves by retirement or resignation or for any other reason. This means that if a white teacher retires and there's a space to hire that person's replacement, the Board of Education of Minnesota will hire a person of color to replace the white person. The Board of Education's argument and the school, the teachers union's belief is that this will remedy past discrimination against persons of color.

Guess what? That's not lawful under the Constitution. A Board of Education cannot use racial preferences. The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from doing so. This very issue is before the Supreme Court this fall with respect to colleges that are owned by states. University of Texas comes to mind. The Supreme Court permitted the University of Texas 25 years ago to use racial preferences as one of five considerations when it came to hiring. The Board of Education of Minneapolis is using racial preference as the dominant factor when it comes to hiring. Even by the Supreme Court's opinion in the University of Texas cases, there's more than one case,

this is not permitted. So how can this be challenged? Well, it's just a policy. It hasn't been put into place but as soon as some teacher who works for the Board of Education in Minneapolis, Minnesota, white teacher retires, resigns, or leaves otherwise and is replaced by a teacher of color, whoever is white and was up for that job will have a cause of action, a right to challenge the collective bargaining agreement, but not until then. Why? Because the Constitution requires a real case of controversy.

You can't just challenge an agreement or a governmental act because you don't like it or you think it might harm you. For better or for worse, the case or controversy requirement of the Constitution requires that there be a real case and a real controversy, meaning as a plaintiff, your ox was gored. You actually were harmed by this policy. So once a human being comes along who's been harmed by this policy, and it'll be the first person not hired who's qualified because of a racial preference, that person is in a position to challenge it. And I would beg that person to do so because this policy will stay in place unless and until the court's invalidated. It is a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits the states from making decisions based on race. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom.