Profile in Courage - Not
Profiles in courage - not so much.
Standing on your principles and refusing to let them up.
There are so many ways to characterize the recent decision by the National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS) to cancel its primary diversity-related activities.
The organization’s People of Color Conference (POCC) and Student Diversity Leadership Conference (SDLC) have been small refuges for folks of color for years.
Here’s how the New York Times reported the news:
“Given the rapidly evolving political and legal landscape, we are taking this time to reassess the conferences,” the association said.
The association’s president, Debra Wilson, said in a separate letter to schools that “we know that diversity makes our schools and our entire sector stronger,” and that events were regularly reviewed to address the needs of attendees.
“Regularly reviewed to address the needs of attendees.” Yes!! The needs of Black students, teachers, staff and allies were reviewed and found to be of absolutely no importance whatsoever!
NAIS, for the uninitiated, is the professional association for the several thousand private (euphemistically called “independent”) schools in America. My former school, the Calhoun School in Manhattan, is a member. They host swell conferences in swell places, where like-minded private school people can network and cocktail together. The organization and the people are not all bad. They are, as my wife and I liked to say, “good Presbyterians,” whether Presbyterian or not.
At risk of appearing a biter of the feeding hand, I proclaim innocence in that I never attended their conferences in my 19 years as a head of school. My wife and I did, however, attend the annual conference of the National Association of Principals of Schools for Girls (NAPSG), where the locations were better and the hypocrisy less vivid. There was never a shortage of good Presbyterians.
I don’t use “good Presbyterians” as slander. To twist a phrase from soft racism, some of my best friends are Presbyterians, and many will concur with the dismay expressed herein.
The NAIS hypocrisy is very vivid indeed. This is not my first NAIS hypocrisy rodeo.
In 2012 I discovered that a number of very Christian member schools of NAIS excluded LGBTQ students and teachers. In many cases they required community members to pledge to marriage being only between a man and woman, blah and blah, to the point of homophobic ecstasy. Hate the sin and love the sinner, at least from arms length.
These schools flagrantly violated the diversity principles touted by NAIS and its subsidiaries. I asked why they were given the explicit and implicit endorsement of the association. In response I received several heaping servings of word salad. The only inference to draw was that good Presbyterians don’t want to stir the Christian pot.
I responded to their final steaming heap of rationalization with a letter, which I include in its entirety at the end of this post.
In partial fairness to my former profession, private schools have become more diverse at a time when public schools have been re-segregated. Many educators, at Calhoun and other private schools, have been doing important anti-racist work for decades.
Nonetheless, given the chickenshit record of NAIS and the latest preemptive concession to the Trump administration, I cannot comprehend why any school of conscience would remain a member.
At this time of peril, Black and LGBTQ youth need all the love and support we can muster. It is unconscionable that a wealthy, powerful organization surrenders without a shot being fired. But at least in this way they are consistent.
The letter:
January 11, 2013
Dear Members of the NAIS Board:
I write to express my profound disappointment with the “resolution” of the issue I brought to your attention last year regarding discrimination against gay and lesbian students and adults in enrollment and employment.
My concerns, as you know, were sparked by the clear discriminatory policy expressed by Oaks Christian School in an employment posting. I subsequently learned that other members of NAIS or its affiliates explicitly exclude “sexual orientation” from their non-discriminatory policies. The exclusion is unambiguous.
The documents I received from NAIS President Pat Bassett, including his blog post “On the Horns of a Dilemma,” described the long, deliberative process undertaken to address the “dilemma” I posed. The process was described in such detail that it took some time to distill the essence of the decision from the raw material.
My effort to do so yielded the following conclusions:
NAIS reaffirmed its Principles of Good Practice in this regard, but diluted the force of the affirmation by declaring adherence in “spirit” as sufficient compliance. The concept of “ministerial exception” seemed to be a guiding principle.
NAIS affirmed a commitment to the “big tent,” believing that embracing a range of schools with their implicit and explicit values was in the Association’s best interests.
NAIS deferred to affiliated organizations to determine whether a particular institution’s policies (or lack thereof) constitute a violation of “good practice.”
I won’t comment at length about the process through which these conclusions were reached except to note that inviting the Head of the Westminster Christian Academy to enlighten the NAIS Board seemed odd. Westminster Christian Academy not only discriminates in the way I cite, but has been explicitly complicit in public advocacy against gay and lesbian citizens, particularly in their support of Chick-Fil-A and its corporate attacks on same-sex marriage. This link will confirm my assertion: http://www.mbcpathway.com/2011/04/gays-leftist-group-target-christian-businessman/
Far from mitigating my concerns, the actions (or inactions) of NAIS have deepened them. It was one thing to be, or claim to be, unaware of discrimination by member institutions. It is quite another thing to be aware and then respond by bending the Association’s practices and policies to accommodate the discrimination.
The rather dense explication of the Board process indicated that many people moved from the ends of a continuum to the middle. This was characterized as progress. There are, of course, matters where compromise, common ground and conciliation are necessary or, occasionally, noble. This is a matter where compromise is ignoble, creating a false equivalence that requires accepting both points of view as having merit.
Discrimination, explicit or implicit, based on an individual’s sexual identity, is immoral, unconstitutional, offensive and hurtful. Dignifying bigotry through intricate political processes doesn’t erase the bigotry. It simply cloaks the bigotry in polite gauze. Any individual or institution using faith to justify discrimination is free to do so, but not in any organization to which I subscribe. Delegating the deliberations to regional or local organizations is tantamount to the states' rights arguments of the 19th century, which are a dark stain on America's history.
It is unimaginable that such a process, including the participation of a proudly discriminatory institution, would have taken place if the human characteristic under deliberation was “race.” There is no difference except, perhaps, in the minds and hearts of those who remain unsure of the full humanity and dignity of lesbian and gay boys and girls, women and men.
I am not alone in my deep disillusionment. Those of us who have serious concerns about this issue will have our own ethical decisions to contemplate.
Sincerely,
Steven J. Nelson
Head, Calhoun School