In a letter to the editor of the Boston Globe, dated April 3, 2024, Lisa Lazars, Executive Director of Educators for Excellence, criticized the use of seniority as a criterion for teacher lay-offs in Boston and throughout Massachusetts public schools because she claimed that it had a disproportionate impact upon teachers of color.

Ms. Lazars’ argument ignored the fact the use of seniority- coupled with the requirement of just cause for job dismissals – are the bedrock principles of all unions. She was also oblivious to the to the weight of historic data which show that permitting some other criteria to govern the dismissal of teachers or other public employees – other than seniority when municipalities are confronted with budgetary shortfalls – would allow extreme subjectivity to govern what is now a very transparent process and fatally undermine unions.

By contrast, the American Federation of Teachers argues that “Seniority is one of the most important benefits union members gain through collective bargaining. It is the mainstay of union efforts to create a fair and objective system of rewards for long-term professional commitment and sound job performance. For those who have proven themselves through continued employment, seniority offers the fairest criterion for awarding a wide variety of negotiated benefits. Seniority is the rightful determinant of some fringe benefits; of protection from layoffs; of recall priorities; of promotional opportunities and of other advantages that may be available to employees on a competitive basis.” Further, the American Federation of Teachers views “seniority as a central feature of an equitable, objective system of labor-management relations. It is one mechanism for neutralizing the arbitrary, politically-motivated ways decisions are often made by school administrators and local school boards.”

Ms. Lazars, who was born in Trinidad, believes that people of color, irrespective of where they were born, the racial history the countries in which they were born, or their respective qualifications, should be given performance in employment over long-term employees, or native-born citizens, a majority of whom are white. Her argument is little less than racist drivel. It is also an explicit invitation to gut Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and is at loggerheads with the provisions of § 70(h) of Title VII which provides that “an employer can apply different standards of compensation, or different terms, conditions, or privileges of employment pursuant to a bona fide seniority or merit system.”

Ms Lazars is apparently ignorant of the long-lasting and pernicious effects of Boston’s last experience with race-based lay-offs that occurred during the desegregation process. In 1981, 710 white teachers, at the behest of a federal court order, were discharged solely because of their race after the City of Boston claimed a budgetary shortfall that was later shown to be fictitious. The refusal of the members of the Boston Teachers Union to strike over the issue of affirmative-action lay-offs poisoned race-relations among teachers for decades and further contributed to the downward spiral of the Boston Public Schools.

Contrary to Ms. Lazars’ belief, there is not is not a scintilla of evidence that supports the proposition that students of color perform better when taught by educators of color. That proposition is belied by the fact that, despite declining student performance, more than 42% of Boston’s teachers are self-declared minorities. Further, the Boston Public Schools’ current expenditure of more than $30,000 per pupil is the highest in Massachusetts and among big city schools across the country.

Ms. Lazar also chose not answer the question why only 14% the Boston Public Schools population are white,  despite the fact that whites comprise at least 50% of Boston’s population. To add further salt to the wounds, Ms. Lazar ignores the fact that while people of color – including  the children of wealthy immigrants from India -are now permitted to enroll their children in METCO, a consortium of suburban public schools – while white children living in Boston’s public housing are denied that same privilege.

The pervasive emphasis upon identity politics has continued to drive middle class families out of the Boston and many other urban centers and has polarized our politics among those who should otherwise be allies. Across the United States, polling shows that increasing numbers of hard-scrabble white working class and middle class families believe that they and their children are being denied the chance to participate in the American Dream. At the same time, they are forced to listen to incessant strictures by a commentariat of wealthy, privileged, tone-deaf ideologues who whine about white privilege and patriarchy.

In his seminal book, Twilight of Common Dreams, the late NYU Sociologist Todd Gitlin argued that conflicts about identity politics were a sideshow, and obscured a paradigm shift in American politics. As his book advertisement notes ,“The Left, which once stood for universal values, has come to be identified with the special needs of distinct ‘cultures’ and select ‘identities’. The Right, long associated with privileged interests, now claims to defend the needs of all. The consequences are clear: since the late 1960s, while the Right has been busy taking the White House, the Left has been marching on the English department.”

Progressives and those who identify as advocates of social justice need to condemn this incredibly divisive and insensitive process of slicing and dicing Americans into groups based upon perceived racial or biological characteristics. If not challenged, identity politics will create its own antithesis: a rigid, authoritarian right-wing society that will successfully cement the status-quo in favor of those who are already the winners.