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。
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。
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。】
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。
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.