Hey, there! Log in / Register

Janey names two Latina education activists to School Committee

New School Committee members

Acting Mayor Kim Janey today announced she had appointed Rafaela Polanco Garcia and Lorena Lopera to the School Committee, replacing Alexandra Oliver-Dávila and Lorna Rivera, who resigned over the Westie-whites text messages last month.

Both new members have children in BPS.

Polanco Garcia (left in photo), who immigrated from the Dominican Republic, is director of parent engagement and organizing at St. Stephen’s Youth Programs in the South End. According to the mayor's office:

Polanco Garcia is an immigrant who lives in public housing in South Boston and has a background in law and bilingual advocacy. Her activism on behalf of the Latinx community in education includes working on the No on 2 campaign in 2016, helping to pass a sanctuary schools resolution, and passing the Student Opportunity Act.

Lopera, a Colombian immigrant, is New England director of Latinos for Education.

Lopera is a Jamaica Plain resident and veteran of local organizations focused on expanding educational access for Latinx youth and students of color, including Roxbury-based Sociedad Latina, La Vida, Inc., and Building Excellent Schools, as well as national organizations such as City Year and the Posse Foundation. Most recently, she was the Executive Director at Latinos for Education, New England, the first Latino-founded and led national organization dedicated solely to creating leadership pathways for Latinos in education. She is currently co-chair of the Hurley K-8 School Site Council.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 

Ad:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

From the city charter:

The person upon whom such duties shall devolve shall be called “acting mayor” and he shall possess the powers of mayor only in matters not admitting of delay, but shall have no power to make permanent appointments

The school committee is functional with fewer members, so this can be delayed until November. Janey has no authority to make these appointments.

up
Voting closed 80

Their terms end when her term does, if she is not elected mayor.

up
Voting closed 40

Is that even legal? The charter (based on the 1991 law that made the entire committee appointed not elected) does not define any method for a Mayor (let alone an acting mayor) to make a temporary appointment to the school committee. It's the same as the President not having any way to make a temporary appointment to the Supreme Court.

There seems to be no legitimate way to add people the school committee before November, unless the state legislature changes the law. The school committee should just operate as a smaller body.

Though it's possible that these appointments are just an elaborate show for the press, and the new members will just sit in on committee meetings without actually being on the committee (like Anakin and the Jedi Council). That would be consistent with how Janey is handling other things.

Also technically, Janey's "term" ends in January. Her duties as acting mayor will end in November.

up
Voting closed 36

Like I’ve said a THOUSAND TIMES

NO ONE ENFROCES THAT. NO ONE.

That’s why the “acting qualifier is pointless. I said this before she became mayor. Her appointment as more or less as “permanent” as any other mayors. No one is gonna step in and parse that vague nonsense out. Because if she’s re-elected every single person she appointed remain on board lmao.

Some argued the school committee couldn’t properly function and shouldn’t have voted in the schools issue without the new members. If she didn’t appoint she’d get lambasted for neglecting the serious pressing issues.

Boston is full of (anti-black) haters so it’s all so predictable.

up
Voting closed 43

n/t

up
Voting closed 38

This only applies to male acting mayors.

up
Voting closed 28

Between an education activist and a Latina education activist?

up
Voting closed 69

After the racist and hurtful comments that were made by past school committee members, it would have sent a strong message if she had chosen someone from the Asian community and a white person from West Roxbury.

up
Voting closed 91

Appeasing the Westie whites and Asians.

She is in a battle for black Boston first with AC. She needs to win that first.

up
Voting closed 29

Famously easy to win over Black voters with Latino appointments.

up
Voting closed 32

I'm sure those remarks occasioned a great deal of lost sleep and mental anguish, and absolutely no glee at an opportunity to pounce.

up
Voting closed 28

Dear White People, Please Stop Pretending Reverse Racism Is Real:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/kwzjvz/dear-white-people-please-stop-pre...

up
Voting closed 26

If owned a store and you came in and I said “sorry, white people aren’t allowed in here”.

What term would you use to describe that concept (differentiating the situation with not letting gays, women, people in wheelchairs, short, or ugly people in)

Isn’t there a word you could use to describe that situation?

up
Voting closed 26

So, that's a strawman, because where are you finding POC-owned stores that discourage white folks from spending money at them? Places whose primary business is peddling goods very much want us to support them, and I encourage my fellow white folks to do so.

There are, however, plenty of things around here like POC-only yoga classes and therapy groups. Masshealth/CBHP has designated specialty agencies for Black folks, Deaf folks, and Latinx folks. These spaces are very necessary because of racism. We white folks are exhausting, and it's a legitimate need for POC to have space where we aren't there perpetuating racism.

https://www.wearyourvoicemag.com/no-black-safe-spaces-not-racist/

https://arrow-journal.org/why-people-of-color-need-spaces-without-white-...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/30/white-people-black...

up
Voting closed 21

Meaning I get it and understand it.

Let’s give you one that has held up in court for a hate crime.

A group of black kids drive around looking specifically for white kids to beat up (and they do it). We know that is a hate crime and has held up as a hate crime in the courts.

But your saying it isn’t “racial”. Or is it not “racist”?. At some point this semantical argument becomes silly and/or pointless.

But to my other example, you may have a black or Korean store owner who may profile a black youth because they might think that kid will shoplift….racist thought? We know it isn’t based in white supremacy so does that mean it can’t be racist because it doesn’t to me from a place of power?

up
Voting closed 31

We’re not talking about hate crimes. We’re talking about the definition of racism. Racism and hate crime are not interchangeable.

up
Voting closed 20

Was it based on race? Do we come up with a new word? Would that not be a racial attack?

up
Voting closed 20

Race-based hate has been used a lot in the past year or so.

up
Voting closed 20

Racial is no good, race based hate is good.

Ok

up
Voting closed 21

This thread is about the word racism. Again, racism and racial are not interchangeable. You keep wanting to change the word/move the goal posts. .

Racial attack is fine.

up
Voting closed 18

By Satansfirst was “racist”

Then eeka talked about how reverse racism isn’t real (fine)

Then I responded.

And racial attacks aren’t racist is what you are saying. Also good to know.

up
Voting closed 20

We know it isn’t based in white supremacy

Where do you think the Korean shopkeeper got the idea that the Black youth should be looked at with suspicion? Do you think he thought that up by himself?

up
Voting closed 22

You think those guys learned from the KKK or something?

up
Voting closed 21

…are the only white people who are bigoted against Black people? That’s the only place where white supremacy asserts itself in American culture?

up
Voting closed 21

Where Koreans (or African American store owners) might learn to profile young black males in their stores?

up
Voting closed 19

The stereotype of Black people being criminal and untrustworthy is an idea that dates back to slavery, continued through the reconstruction and Jim Crow eras (and manifested itself in an epidemic of lynchings), was a very common trope used by politicians in the civil rights era, was deployed in the Southern Strategy of the Regan era, and is famously documented in current times in the ubiquitous “Karen” videos. It’s also been a stock favorite of racist uncles and bigoted grandmas for centuries of family dinners. And this before we even talk about white-wing cable news, AM radio, and the internet.

Any person sentient in the United States has been bombarded with the idea that “Black people are suspicious” since day 1, born here or not. It is an idea born from white supremacy and propagated by white supremacy. Sure, I suppose a hypothetical Korean shop keeper could have avoided all those influences and then organically and independently generated his own idea that Black shoppers automatically deserve suspicion, but it seems white supremacy is the likely culprit.

The white supremacist stereotype of the Black criminal is as American as apple pie and baseball.

up
Voting closed 22

This isn’t unique to the United States.

up
Voting closed 24

White supremacy is everywhere.

up
Voting closed 19

Some of the places I’ve been Explain please….

up
Voting closed 20

You mean 3 places occupied by the British in the 1800s and 1900s? Huh, wherever could these countries get the notion of a racial hierarchy where Black people are at the bottom if not from occupiers whose whole brand for the previpus 300 years was African slavery?

up
Voting closed 18

Great Britain never occupied China. They may have tried (among other countries) but they didn’t.

If you think white people are the only reason some cultures look at others differently you don’t know what you are talking about. Egypt specifically is very deep on this. Before Great Britain existed Egypt has a thousand year old culture which is very difficult to dissect in terms of race, especially today.

up
Voting closed 36

…why did yo ask the question?

up
Voting closed 9

That “racism” is only one thing and is somehow always based or traced back to “white supremacy”

up
Voting closed 20

No it isn’t real. Racism is racism.

up
Voting closed 15

Racism, bigotry, and discrimination: these are all overlapping concepts, but they are not synonyms. They have different definitions.

It’s helpful to be aware of these differences when talking about topics relating to race, but not everyone is willing to learn.

up
Voting closed 15

What’s the value in creating such a complex word taxonomy?

Also, it seems like there’s something revisionist here in asserting what “racism” means and what it doesn’t. The word means whatever people popularly understand it to mean, not what you try to assert by fiat.

But it’s not really about what the word means now, is it? It’s really about a normative vision for what it should mean in service to a particular ideology. That’s fine and all, but just don’t pretend that you’re talking about word definitions.

up
Voting closed 20

Not revising.

Racism is believing one race is superior to others and then systematically applying those beliefs into behaviors and policies to harm to minorities and restrict their freedoms and rights. Racism is systemically tied to the power structure. That is definitely not the exact same as bigotry, prejudice, or discrimination. Racism is not interchangeable with those words.

How is that even controversial? How is that “revisionist” or creating a “complex word taxonomy”? It’s not a new definition and it’s a fairly easy concept to grasp; it’s only complex if you are lazy or incurious. People get big mad when you suggest that you can’t just make a word mean whatever you want it to mean.

up
Voting closed 14

Racism is believing one race is superior to others and then systematically applying those beliefs into behaviors and policies to harm to minorities and restrict their freedoms and rights. Racism is systemically tied to the power structure.

I don't disagree that what you said here is a real concept. But when someone from the Nation of Islam believes that all white people were products of a lab experiment by an African scientist (Yakub) and that white people are essentially "devils" what kind of word would you describe this sort of concept? If someone said they believed in it and that white people were devils and "inferior" to blacks (moors I believe is the term used by the NOI), then do we need to use a different word because the NOI doesn't have the "power structure" to back up these feelings or ideas?

Or if just some random person (insert race here ____) believes their race is "superior" to other races, unless they have power, or "apply those beliefs into behaviors and policies to harm minorities", then it isn't "racism"?

up
Voting closed 22

The hideously racist and anti-semetic Black nationalist Nation of Islam is a good example of how far into the extremes we have to stretch to find credible examples of Black superiority racist belief structures in the US. NOI is so extreme as to believe in the deranged mythology you outline and to have sought alliances with foreign leaders such Moamar Kadaffi and Idi Amin.

But even more interesting, NOI is so dedicated to hate that white supremacist groups are praising Farrakhan because, while even though Farrakhan laments the “white devil”, the smoke he brings for white people is relatively tame compared to his disgusting and demented anti-Jewish hate speech. Sure I know about Yakoub and that I am thought of as the white devil, but I can’t think of any real transgressions commited by NOI against white people other than the guy in the bow tie not handing me a copy of Final Call at Downtown Crossing. While I am sure some examples exist, Farrakhan’s anti-white rhetoric pales in comparison to prolific amount of original anti-Semitic sleeze and propaganda injected into the world by Farrakhan and NOI, which filters into the non-NOI Black community and has probably been converted into physical violence against Jewish people more than we can quantify. We know that NOI propaganda penetrates into mainstream, non-NOI Black culture given the number of non-NOI (often Christian) Black entertainers and athletes who share Farrakhan speeches on social media.

The most visible anti-white racist is known far better as a prolific and dangerous anti-Semeite. Which is to say if this is the worst-of-the-worst of anti-white Racism, then it demonstrates just how rare white folks like myself encounter actual anti-white racism. Furthermore, let’s be clear: none of us were blocked from a job interview or promotion, securing a loan or a lease, profiled by a shopkeeper or law enforcement, or denied educational opportunities, etc etc because anything NOI said or did. Their brand of anti-white bigotry is simply not a threat or has any impact on white people’s lives.

Often times when “anti-white racism” is brought up it’s something like the BS “Westie whites” debacle. Yes, it was a shitty, unprofessional comment and the committee member was correct to resign. It was bigoted. But “racist and hurtful” as the original commenter said? As another commentator pointed out certain white people wait with glee for for a comment like that so they can smugly and disingenuously claim that certain minorities “are just as racist” as some whites and “white people face racism all the time, too”, as if 400 years of white supremacy—the dominant and defining strain of bigotry and hate in the US and current undefeated champ—is now somehow, because “racism is racism”, on the equivalent level as “Westie whites”.

Equating “Westie whites” with actual beliefs of superiority and systems of oppression is not useful for progress and is a tool to minimize and dismiss actual racism. If someone thinks that “Westie whites” is a valid example of actual racism, then they are living a privileged life and should be thankful.

up
Voting closed 17

Excellent summation.

up
Voting closed 13

It’s always good to see one of the Originals. Thank you.

up
Voting closed 8

Great - you make my point in your final sentence.

You are asserting your preferred definition for “racism” - i.e., “whatever YOU want it to mean.”

That’s not the same thing as simply relaying the definition of the word, which is what you’re purporting to do.

I don’t think this is a trivial difference. You’re smuggling in a normative argument under the cover of disabusing people of confusion about word meaning.

up
Voting closed 16

It’s the definition. Crack any textbook.

up
Voting closed 14

That you said textbook and not dictionary. That says something doesn't it?

up
Voting closed 13

Is a common phrase

up
Voting closed 8

Sure it is a common phrase.

you said "crack any textbook". That is not even close to being the same and isn't very common to say.

Either way if you look up the term in the dictionary, it isn't really what you describe above.

up
Voting closed 12

…at odds with my definition above?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

up
Voting closed 11

Dictionary:

a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

You:

Racism is believing one race is superior to others and then systematically applying those beliefs into behaviors and policies to harm to minorities and restrict their freedoms and rights. Racism is systemically tied to the power structure.

No where in the first definition of the word racism does your insertion of "minorities" or "power" exist. Those two quotes above are very different.

Just because you want to use Merriam's second definition of the word:

the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another

doesn't mean others are wrong when it they want to use the word as it is meant to be used by the dictionary's first example. And even in this second example it doesn't use a specific race.

up
Voting closed 12

2a : the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
specifically : WHITE SUPREMACY

It’s in there

The dictionary definition supplied absolutely supports my definition above.

up
Voting closed 9

But don't tell me not to use a word based on it's first definition just because you want it only defined by it's second.

up
Voting closed 14

You said no dictionary supports my definition, and I showed you that a popular and credible dictionary does use it.

Use the words “racism/racist” however you want; you seem very attached to the simplified, outdated meaning of the word and reluctant to let it go. But going forward, please don’t pretend that you’re unaware of how usage of racist/racism departs from similar words like bigotry, prejudice, discrimination, and hate crimes, as they are not interchangeable.

If you don’t know, now you know.

up
Voting closed 12

You said this:

Racism is believing one race is superior to others and then systematically applying those beliefs into behaviors and policies to harm to minorities and restrict their freedoms and rights. Racism is systemically tied to the power structure. That is definitely not the exact same as bigotry, prejudice, or discrimination. Racism is not interchangeable with those words.

Then you said this:

It’s not my preferred definition
By tblade on Sat, 07/24/2021 - 12:06pm.
It’s the definition. Crack any textbook.

We now know you were using the 2nd definition (and not even that, you went down further into an example of how it could be used. But it actually was your preferred definition because you ignored the 1st actual definition of the word, which doesn't include the words power or minority.

Then you say:

But going forward, please don’t pretend that you’re unaware of how usage of racist/racism departs from similar words like bigotry, prejudice, discrimination, and hate crimes, as they are not interchangeable.

As I said here:

I don't disagree that what you said here is a real concept.

I understand that racism can be looked at with the lens of power, white supremacy etc, but that it is not it's only definition (as we can clearly see from the FIRST definition in the dictionary.)

So I obviously know that the term racism is tied to power, structure, etc.

That's really all right? That the dictionary would back someone up if they wanted to call a black man racist if that black man felt that Asians or Jews were inferior races?

up
Voting closed 28

I was using both the first and the second entry. I’m not using some arbitrary “preference” as accused by BenHa above.

up
Voting closed 12

As long as you know it is ok to just use the first definition and not feel need to include the concepts of power or white supremacy in it.

up
Voting closed 15

I am sure that you have a fine “stop Asian hate” sign on your lawn. It is quite possible for somebody to be racist towards Asians. I will spare your tiny brain the history lesson. For whatever reason, if we are talking school admissions everyone pretends that Asian people are white.

up
Voting closed 21