去年从《纽约时报》辞职的观点专栏作家魏斯（Bari Weiss），日前在她的Substack平台博客“魏斯的常识”上推荐大家必读一封信。
魏斯写道：如果你不了解Brearley，那是一所位于曼哈顿上东区的私立全女子学校，每年学费已达54,000美元，准家庭显然必须“保证反种族主义”才会被考虑录取。
这是一封名叫古特曼（Andrew Gutmann）的家长写的信，他的女儿自幼儿园起就在布里尔利学校（The Brearley School）上学，但现在他把女儿带离了该校。
上周二他给这所精英学校全体600名家长写了一封信。
至布里尔利家长们：
我们家最近决定下一学年不再让女儿去Brearley上学了。从幼儿园开始，她已经在布里尔利呆了七年。简而言之，我们不再相信管理层和校董会将把如何对孩子最有益放在心上。而且，我们也不再有信心，我们的女儿将获得必要的高质量教育，以帮助她成长为一个具有批判性思维，负责任，开明和具有公民意识的成年人。同样作为布里尔利的家长，我给大家写了这封信，分享一下我们离开的原因，同时敦促各位，在学校，社区和孩子的教育受到无法弥补的损害之前，采取行动。
不能强调得再多，布里尔利对种族的痴迷必须停止。任何有思想的父母都应该完全清楚，布里尔利彻底迷路了。校领导和董事会的懦弱和令人震惊的缺乏领导能力已经一览无遗，他们讨好一帮反智的假自由派暴民，然后允许这帮暴民占领学校。以下是我对布里尔利开展反种族主义行动的个人看法，但只是一部分，而且我知道其他父母也表达了相同的批评意见。
我反对以肤色论人。我不能容忍一所学 校，不但根据我女儿的肤色来评价她，还 要鼓励并指导她根据肤色去预判别人。带 着肤色和种族的眼镜去看待教育的各个方 面，历史的各个方面以及社会的各个方 面，我们正在亵渎马丁・路德・金博士的遗 产，并完全违反了为此奋斗并不惜一死的 民权领袖们。
我反对那些指控，说我们的国家和学校存在系统性种族主义。正常的理解是，系统性种族主义指的是隔离的学校，分餐的柜台，被关进集中营的日本人，遭受灭顶之灾的犹太人。在一段延续了几十年的时间内，系统性种族主义毫无疑问不是几个简单的孤立事件。问问现在的女孩，不管什么族裔，是否曾经遭受过朋友的羞辱，是否曾被老师轻视过，是否在学校偶尔遭受过不公待遇，有些孩子在这里度过了13年，你一定会听到一些委屈，有些比较琐碎，有些比较严重。但是在这个国家，自从60年代的民权运动以来，我们已经没有针对黑人的系统性种族歧视了，超过50多年了。如果一味声称还存在系统性种族歧视，那是明显的对历史的歪曲，也不会有利于当今的任何社会问题。如果非要说系统性种族歧视，那就是长期而广泛的，诸如affirmative action abc之类的政策，恰恰是逆向歧视。
我反对系统性种族主义的定义，显然布里尔利是认同的，那就是无论教育，工作还是社会，只要黑人不足，就一定是系统性种族主义的结果，或者是白人至上和压迫的结果。诸如此类的轻率而毫无根据的信念，跟布里尔利宣称的理智和科学真相截然相反。此外，布里尔利经常宣称，学校欢迎并鼓励针对种族和不公展开困难和令人不适的对话，我认为是一派胡言。
我反对那种想法，认为黑人如果没有政府 或白人的帮助就无法在这个国家取得成 功。通过采用批判性种族理论，布里尔利 正在倡导一种令人厌恶的观点，即黑人应 该永远被看成无助的受害者，不论他们的 技能，才智或艰苦努力，都无济于事。布 里尔利教给孩子们的恰恰是真正的种族主 义。
我反对强制父母参加反种族主义培训，尤 其是欢蹦乱跳的寻租骗子当主讲人的时 候。这些课程，无论内容还是形式，都太 速成，太简单，太幼稚，太空洞，以至于 教给幼儿园的学生我都会感到很尴尬。这 是对父母的侮辱，是任何教育机构都不能 容忍的，更别说布里尔利这种级别的学校 了。
我反对布里尔利虚假的，不当的和狂热般使用“平等”，“多元化”和“包容”这类词语。如果布里尔利真正关心所谓的“平等”，那就讨论一下是否停止对校友，兄弟姐妹以及那些巨富家庭的孩子优先考虑。如果布里尔利真正关心”多元化“，它就不会坚持给学生和家人灌输单一思想，这最让人联想到的是中国的文化大哥命。相反，学校将营造一个心智开放和思想自由的环境。如果布雷拉利真的关心“包容”，那么学校将重返座右铭中“一个布里尔利”所包含的理念，而不是灌输极其分裂的极端说法，那就是在这个国家，永远只有两个群体：受害人和压迫者。
我反对布里尔利倡导诸如黑名贵之类的团体和运动。BLM就是一个马克思主义组织，反对家庭，仇视两性婚姻，反对亚裔和犹太人，他们既不代表大多数黑人，也绝不会有助于黑人的最大利益。
过去一年，我们一而再，再而三地被告知，学校的首要任务是孩子的安全，这一点我同样反对。看在上帝的份上，布里尔利是学校，而不是医院！一家学校的首要任务永远是教育，过去是，将来也应该是。 布里尔利的误导性优先体现了他们的”安全文化“和“免责文化”，两者都已经证明对社会的毒害，并严重损害了两代儿童的心理健康和适应能力。受害的儿童还会越来越多。【千里走单骑注：作者所说的“安全”，并不是指人身安全，而是指思想安全，也就是学校以此为借口，灌输统一思想，禁止孩子接触不同的理念 – 俗称洗脑。】
我反对砍掉历史，公民教育和古典文学的课程。我反对禁书，这些作品已经世代相传，仅仅因为包含一些过时的用语，可能会冒犯那些薄脸皮和过度敏感的人（我女儿的四年级已经发生了这种情况）。我反对降低标准招收学生和聘用教师。我反对降低课程的难度和虚报成绩。如果允许这种反对种族主义的行动持续下去，任何睁着眼睛的父母都可以预见未来。
现如今，我们国家的领导层，无论哪个政党，无论哪级政府，都是历史上最不明智，最不讲道德的。布里尔利这样的学校按说是未来领袖的训练场。如果这一代人接受的教育，比现在的领导人还要糟糕，我们的国家将无法幸存。同样的，如果整整一代学生被教导去憎恨自己的国家并鄙视自己的历史，我们的国家将无法幸存。
最后，我以尽可能强烈的态度，反对布里尔利开始教育孩子去思考什么而不是如何 去思考。我反对学校正在营造的一个环 境，让我们的女儿和老师们因为担心〃后 果〃而害怕在课堂上发表自己的看法。我 反对布里尔利试图篡夺父母在道德教育方 面的作用，并强迫父母在家中采用这种虚 假的道德标准。我反对布里尔利正在分裂 社区的行动，不同种族的家庭现在被一分 为二，而不久前我们还是一个大家庭。
这些就是为什么我们不能再把女儿送去布里尔利的原因。
过去的几个月，我跟许多布里尔利的家长和类似学校的父母交流过。很显然，大多数父母都认为布里尔利的反种族主义政策是误导的，分裂性的，跟癌症一般，最终将适得其反。华人生活攻略许多人跟我一样相信，这些政策最终将摧毁这个直到最近还非常出色的教育机构。但是，我敢肯定，鉴于近来潜移默化的取消文化已经渗透到我们的社会中，大多数父母都不敢说话了。
但是你必须大声说出来。人多力量大，而且我向你保证，我们的人数绝对不少。请务必与主管部门和董事会联系，要求终止破坏性十足，反智和愚蠢透顶的反种族主义教育。如果不行，那就要求更换领导。为了我们的社区，为了我们的城市，为了我们的国家，最重要的是，为了我们的孩子，沉默不能再是一种选择。
此致，
安德鲁·古特曼
Our family recently made the decision not to reenroll our daughter at Brearley for the 2021-22 school year. She has been at Brearley for seven years, beginning in kindergarten. In short, we no longer believe that Brearley’s administration and Board of Trustees have any of our children’s best interests at heart. Moreover, we no longer have confidence that our daughter will receive the quality of education necessary to further her development into a critically thinking, responsible, enlightened, and civic minded adult. I write to you, as a fellow parent, to share our reasons for leaving the Brearley community but also to urge you to act before the damage to the school, to its community, and to your own child’s education is irreparable.
It cannot be stated strongly enough that Brearley’s obsession with race must stop. It should be abundantly clear to any thinking parent that Brearley has completely lost its way. The administration and the Board of Trustees have displayed a cowardly and appalling lack of leadership by appeasing an anti-intellectual, illiberal mob, and then allowing the school to be captured by that same mob. What follows are my own personal views on Brearley’s antiracism initiatives, but these are just a handful of the criticisms that I know other parents have expressed.
I object to the view that I should be judged by the color of my skin. I cannot tolerate a school that not only judges my daughter by the color of her skin, but encourages and instructs her to prejudge others by theirs. By viewing every element of education, every aspect of history, and every facet of society through the lens of skin color and race, we are desecrating the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and utterly violating the movement for which such civil rights leaders believed, fought, and died.
I object to the charge of systemic racism in this country, and at our school. Systemic racism, properly understood, is segregated schools and separate lunch counters. It is the interning of Japanese and the exterminating of Jews. Systemic racism is unequivocally not a small number of isolated incidences over a period of decades. Ask any girl, of any race, if they have ever experienced insults from friends, have ever felt slighted by teachers or have ever suffered the occasional injustice from a school at which they have spent up to 13 years of their life, and you are bound to hear grievances, some petty, some not. We have not had systemic racism against Blacks in this country since the civil rights reforms of the 1960s, a period of more than 50 years. To state otherwise is a flat-out misrepresentation of our country’s history and adds no understanding to any of today’s societal issues. If anything, longstanding and widespread policies such as affirmative action, point in precisely the opposite direction.
I object to a definition of systemic racism, apparently supported by Brearley, that any educational, professional, or societal outcome where Blacks are underrepresented is prima facie evidence of the aforementioned systemic racism, or of white supremacy and oppression. Facile and unsupported beliefs such as these are the polar opposite to the intellectual and scientific truth for which Brearley claims to stand. Furthermore, I call bullshit on Brearley’s oft-stated assertion that the school welcomes and encourages the truly difficult and uncomfortable conversations regarding race and the roots of racial discrepancies.
I object to the idea that Blacks are unable to succeed in this country without aid from government or from whites. Brearley, by adopting critical race theory, is advocating the abhorrent viewpoint that Blacks should forever be regarded as helpless victims, and are incapable of success regardless of their skills, talents, or hard work. What Brearley is teaching our children is precisely the true and correct definition of racism.
I object to mandatory anti-racism training for parents, especially when presented by the rent-seeking charlatans of Pollyanna. These sessions, in both their content and delivery, are so sophomoric and simplistic, so unsophisticated and inane, that I would be embarrassed if they were taught to Brearley kindergarteners. They are an insult to parents and unbecoming of any educational institution, let alone one of Brearley’s caliber.
I object to Brearley’s vacuous, inappropriate, and fanatical use of words such as “equity,” “diversity” and “inclusiveness.” If Brearley’s administration was truly concerned about so-called “equity,” it would be discussing the cessation of admissions preferences for legacies, siblings, and those families with especially deep pockets. If the administration was genuinely serious about “diversity,” it would not insist on the indoctrination of its students, and their families, to a single mindset, most reminiscent of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Instead, the school would foster an environment of intellectual openness and freedom of thought. And if Brearley really cared about “inclusiveness,” the school would return to the concepts encapsulated in the motto “One Brearley,” instead of teaching the extraordinarily divisive idea that there are only, and always, two groups in this country: victims and oppressors.
l object to Brearley’s advocacy for groups and movements such as Black Lives Matter, a Marxist, anti family, heterophobic, anti-Asian and anti-Semitic organization that neither speaks for the majority of the Black community in this country, nor in any way, shape or form, represents their best interests.
I object to, as we have been told time and time again over the past year, that the school’s first priority is the safety of our children. For goodness sake, Brearley is a school, not a hospital! The number one priority of a school has always been, and always will be, education. Brearley’s misguided priorities exemplify both the safety culture and “cover-your-ass” culture that together have proved so toxic to our society and have so damaged the mental health and resiliency of two generations of children, and counting.
I object to the gutting of the history, civics, and classical literature curriculums. I object to the censorship of books that have been taught for generations because they contain dated language potentially offensive to the thin-skinned and hypersensitive (something that has already happened in my daughter’s 4th grade class). I object to the lowering of standards for the admission of students and for the hiring of teachers. I object to the erosion of rigor in classwork and the escalation of grade inflation. Any parent with eyes open can foresee these inevitabilities should antiracism initiatives be allowed to persist.
We have today in our country, from both political parties, and at all levels of government, the most unwise and unvirtuous leaders in our nation’s history. Schools like Brearley are supposed to be the training grounds for those leaders. Our nation will not survive a generation of leadership even more poorly educated than we have now, nor will we survive a generation of students taught to hate its own country and despise its history.
Lastly, I object, with as strong a sentiment as possible, that Brearley has begun to teach what to think, instead of how to think. I object that the school is now fostering an environment where our daughters, and our daughters’ teachers, are afraid to speak their minds in class for fear of “consequences.” I object that Brearley is trying to usurp the role of parents in teaching morality, and bullying parents to adopt that false morality at home. I object that Brearley is fostering a divisive community where families of different races, which until recently were part of the same community, are now segregated into two. These are the reasons why we can no longer send our daughter to Brearley.
Over the past several months, I have personally spoken to many Brearley parents as well as parents of children at peer institutions. It is abundantly clear that the majority of parents believe that Brearley’s antiracism policies are misguided, divisive, counterproductive and cancerous. Many believe, as I do, that these policies will ultimately destroy what was until recently, a wonderful educational institution. But as I am sure will come as no surprise to you, given the insidious cancel culture that has of late permeated our society, most parents are too fearful to speak up.
But speak up you must. There is strength in numbers and I assure you, the numbers are there. Contact the administration and the Board of Trustees and demand an end to the destructive and anti-intellectual claptrap known as antiracism. And if changes are not forthcoming then demand new leadership. For the sake of our community, our city, our country and most of all, our children, silence is no longer an option.
Respectfully,
Andrew Gutmann
