Lawsuit in Minnesota against CRT
A law firm has taken legal action on behalf of Minnesotans opposed to critical race theory (CRT) who argue that they’ve become victims of bullying and retaliation for speaking out against what they say is a divisive and discriminatory philosophy…
One UMLC client, Dr. Tara Gustilo, a Filipino American doctor who was chairwoman of obstetrics and gynecology at Hennepin Healthcare System (HHS), was “demoted essentially because of her polite opposition to the Critical Race Theory that’s saturating her organization,” Seaton said in a statement.
“I see a racist and divisive ideology of race essentialism taking over our nation and my institution,” Gustilo said. “Further, there seems to be this growing intolerance for people with different opinions or ideas and it seems that this tribalistic ideology is fostering that kind of intolerance.”
In her EEOC complaint, Gustilo alleged that HHS “engaged in discriminatory and retaliatory behavior by demoting me on the basis of race due to my refusal, as a person of color, to subscribe to Critical Race Theory and the views of the Black Lives Matter movement and even admitting that such refusal served as the ‘trigger’ for my demotion.”
Other UMLC clients made similar allegations, with a Native American man claiming that his employer forced him to retire early due to his opposition to CRT…
I like the phrase used by Dr. Gustilo: “race essentialism.”
Those two plaintiffs are especially interesting because their treatment is another example of the fact that people who are members of ethnic minorities are expected by the left to toe the leftist line on race and if they don’t do so they lose any favored status the left might otherwise have given them. A “person of color” who refuses to support the CRT program is a special enemy to the left:
I’m glad they’re fighting back, and I hope more people do the same.
And in a case that William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection writes about in this post today, 5th Circuit Judge James C. Ho (nominated by Donald Trump) opined as follows on the subject of disparate impact:
Congress enacted Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit intentional racial discrimination—not to restrict neutral policies untainted by racial intent that happen to lead to racially disproportionate outcomes. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d; Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 280–81 (2001) (“[§ 2000d] prohibits only intentional discrimination,” not “activities that have a disparate impact on racial groups”).
There’s a big difference between prohibiting racial discrimination and endorsing disparate impact theory. See, e.g., William N. Eskridge, Jr., Dynamic Statutory Interpretation 78 (1994) (disparate impact is “a significant leap away from” intentional racial discrimination). It’s the difference between securing equality of opportunity regardless of race and guaranteeing equality of outcome based on race. It’s the difference between color blindness and critical race theory…
Prohibiting racial discrimination means we must be blind to race. Disparate impact theory requires the opposite: It forces us to look at race—to check for racial imbalance and then decide what steps must be taken to advance some people at the expense of others based on their race. But racial balancing is, of course, “patently unconstitutional.” Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 723 (2007). Accordingly, “serious constitutional questions . . . might arise” if “[disparate impact] liability were imposed based solely on a showing of a statistical disparity.” Tex. Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affs. v. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519, 540 (2015). See also Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S.557, 594–96 (2009) (Scalia, J., concurring) (same).
Disparate impact and CRT are not the same thing, but they rest on similar foundations and both are similar in that they constitute discrimination masquerading under the guise of non-discrimination. CRT’s entry into the workplace and public school system has energized many people who were previously unaware of the insidious and pernicious way in which these doctrines can and will be applied.
Yes, I think “race essentialism” says it well. Race is the only important thing about anyone, in this view. This makes it tough on my mixed-race relatives, though. Instead of being valuable individuals, they’re told they must chose one part of themselves and deny some other part.
One aspect of the notion of “disparate impact” that has occurred to me is the impossibility of avoiding it. Can you imagine any law or public policy that would not have different impacts on various subsets of society? I’ve tried, and frankly I cannot think of any. Then again, we are solemnly assured that everything is racist, so perhaps this is supposed to be confirmation.
I hope the plaintiffs draw a decent judge (not Peter Cahill). Note, there are four people in the chain of command above Dr. Gustilo. I do wish their names were trumpeted all over Minnesota, especially the one who signed the letter demoting her. Note, the CV of the director of her organization indicates she is not a medical professional, but someone apparently hired for political connections.
Best of luck to Gustilo. I hope we get coverage of the case as it proceeds.
The whole business of equal outcomes is completely rotten; not just because it’s explicitly and incorrigibly racist, but also because it requires the State to police every transaction from beginning to end. So much for liberty exercised by autonomous individuals: whatever result they reach will be second-guessed by a legion of commissars and rewritten to ensure “fairness.” Result? Complete infantilization and the death of initiative. A totally centralized system of control. Sterility.
The vocabulary describing CRT could use some refurbishing, to point up its evil idiotic quality. I always liked the phrase “counting by color” because it conveys in simple terms the approach and the racism at its core.
The irony of CRT, and the idea of equal outcomes for all, while the Olympics are being contested in Tokyo is quite rich. From earliest time, humans have tested themselves in competition with others. It has become so deeply entrenched in human culture as to be one of our oldest traditions. And yet, we have dreamers who want to set aside the idea of competition and meritocracy that has served us well down through the ages. Their idea, basically Marxism, is a lie so attractive that shallow thinkers and slackers cannot resist it. That we have to contest such an idea in our courts is, IMO, unbelievable. CRT is as bad for humanity as any virulent disease and ought to be recognized as such by anyone with some knowledge of history.
As Andrea Widburg (aka Bookworm) says here, there have been many videos of white and black people pushing back against CRT, but this is indeed one of the best.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/08/a_new_video_with_the_best_pushback_yet_against_critical_race_theory.html
I used to read Parker’s work some years ago, and am glad she is still active in activism.
From the About page: