Racial hiring at Durango School District 9R appears discriminatory

A racial hiring policy at Durango School District 9R is being cloaked as diversity, and it appears to be a potential target of an Executive Order from President Donald Trump.

Specifically, Trump’s order seeks to eliminate federal funding or support for illegal and discriminatory treatment and indoctrination in K-12 schools, including based on gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology.

“My Administration will enforce the law to ensure that recipients of Federal funds providing K-12 education comply with all applicable laws prohibiting discrimination in various contexts and protecting parental rights, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.; Title IX, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.; FERPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232g; and the PPRA, 20 U.S.C. 1232h,” said Presidential Order Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling.

Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., was enacted as part of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.

Of relevance to Trump’s Order is the millions in federal funding to District 9R for the Grant Services Fund and the Food Service Fund.

Locally, Durango School District 9R’s has a hiring policy that was created to “to engage in voluntary racially-sensitive recruitment practices in order to address a historical lack of diversity in the workforce.”

In September of 2021, Durango School District 9R’s Board of Education revised a policy that would require the Superintendent to do the following:

“Actively recruit employees who more closely reflect the diversity of the student
population,” said Operational Expectation OE-04 Personnel Administration.

To be clear, the School Board that adopted the hiring policy on diversity was doing so knowing that the parameters of diversity were those measurements of the applicant’s race.

Before adoption, the policy was reviewed by attorney Darryl Farrington to ensure that it would safeguard the district against legal challenges, according to Laura Galido, the District’s Director of Human Capital.

For context, here’s what Galido said was written up by Farrington (I added bold lettering for emphasis):

“Guidance from legal counsel: As evident from the authorities cited above, the legal constitutional principles involved are not new, and we did not find any recent authorities that change what seems to be a well-established principle, which is that employers, including public entities, have the leeway to engage in voluntary racially-sensitive recruitment practices in order to address a historical lack of diversity in the workforce, That seems to fit the circumstances in the District that have been identified by the Board. Importantly, the policy statement does not seek to implement a quota system that by its terms or necessary effects would necessarily exclude members of the majority racial category from employment, and it also does not articulate a goal of either maintaining a particular existing racial balance of the student population. Either of those objectives would potentially violate established requirements because they would necessarily entail measures that would “trammel” the rights of Caucasian employees. However, a broad and general goal of engaging in recruitment practices aimed at creating a workforce that better “reflects” the racial or ethnic diversity of the student population would not, in our opinion, be viewed by the courts as “necessarily” impinging on the rights of any particular employee or group of employees, particularly when, as is the case here, the reason for the policy is to address a historic lack of diversity. With that said, I might make a suggestion in the policy statement the words “more closely” be added before the word “reflect.” I think that may help blunt any assertion that the Board is trying to establish a racially proportionate workforce,” said Farrington.

Overall, the recruitment policy came shortly after the Durango School District 9R Board of Education adopted and approved a resolution on diversity, equity and inclusion.

Former Superintendent Dan Snowberger opposed the draft DEI Resolution

During the drafting of the Durango School District Board Resolution on Diversity, Equity & Resolution, then Superintendent Dan Snowberger expressed to board members privately how accusatory the resolution was.

Former Durango School District 9R Superintendent Dan Snowberger.

“I feel it is my responsibility to point out that a large number of 9-R staff members are highly insulted by the wording of your equity resolution. My day has been spent on the phone with leaders from across the district expressing deep concern. It contains information that is not factual, it clearly condemns the employees of the district as being the culprits of this inequity, fails to acknowledge the work that has been done in the district to address the issue of opportunity and achievement gaps, and elevates the BOARD as the body that is intending to fix it. If that is the message you wish to send to our community and our staff, please feel free
to proceed with passing it as written.
I am unsure who the board wishes to satisfy by doing so, but your statement clearly is pandering to an element of our community who wants you to admit something that is not supported by fact. It is clear that we can always do more and I – as well as every member of the district – is more than willing to partner in doing so. If your point is to somehow paint me as a racist since I – as the leader of the district – have allowed all of these injustices during my 8 1/2 years of leading the district, I’d rather you pass a resolution that targets me instead of pointing the finger at all of our employees who will remain. That would be unfactual, but at least the great people who remain will not feel as if they are being painted in a light undeserved,” said Snowberger.

In response, Board Member Andrea Parmenter also recognized the racist nature of the Resolution, telling Snowberger in part:

Board Member Andrea Parmenter.

“FYI – I couldn’t agree with you more on this. The previous draft was even more inflammatory and my all my edits around the misguided mea culpa and the assigning of the burden of blame and accountability were rejected. It reads like someone with an agenda on a political rant with a megaphone and crowd of agitated supporters. Not to mention all the clearly personal opinions littered throughout with no references. Three of the “whereas” statements don’t even make sense – all pointed out in my edits and not accepted.
There are many ways to acknowledge past mistakes and show an awareness and commitment to improve such situations in the future without throwing an entire race under the bus and shaming everyone associated with 9-R forever into the future. It is ridiculously biased. Why not just adopt a statement along the lines of–White people really suck and we have been and will always be collectively racist and we know it. Except for the current board members who are so enlightened we wrote a declaration as proof of how non-racist we are!
And as usual, none of the time, energy, emotion, and discussion of this has had any real-time or quantifiable impact on student achievement – especially for those this document vows to help and protect.
Another rabbit hole like the one we went down with BLM with no students the better for it,” Parmenter said.

In addition to Snowberger’s objections with the wording of the Resolution was his noticing of the secret meetings that were going on.

“There seems to be a lot of meeting and talking outside of the public eye going on. It seems Kristin, Erika and Mick are pretty solid on this. I’m not sure this would end effectively for me and I don’t want to put you in a bad spot.
To be honest, I’m not sure I should be at work right now. My dad is getting progressively worse and I can say my life is in shambles. I will be speaking with Kristin this morning about a leave of absence. I’ve worked hard in my 35 years in education. These last two years have been HELL and I can say I’m starting to question my own worth as an individual, at the same time having a hard time setting aside my principles. I’ve gone non stop in helping Olga and my dad these past few weeks and really feel I’m at a breaking point emotionally,” said Snowberger.

Result of racial policy addressing lack of diversity

While attorney Darryl Farrington said that his advice to the District would help blunt any assertion that the board is trying to establish a racially proportionate workforce, the District itself boasts of its success at hiring a more racially diverse workforce.

For example, an Operational Expectations Monitoring Document OE-04 appears to comment on the success of the District’s attempts at racial diversification:

“We also continue to recruit and attract an increasingly diverse candidate pool resulting in a more
ethnically and racially diverse workforce. When we look at staff newly hired in the 2023-2024 school
year as compared to the new hire staff data from the 2022 EEOC reporting cycle we show the
following increases:
● Hispanic or Latino new hires increased 243%
● American Indian or Alaska Native new hires increased 50%
● Two or More Races increased from 0 new hires in 2002 to 6 new hires in 2023-2024.
● Black or African American increased from 0 new hires in 2002 to 4 new hires in 2023-2024,” said Operational Expectations Monitoring Document OE-04 (Personnel Administration).

As the District diversifies its workforce, does this happen as a result of staff discriminating against qualified Caucasian employees simply because of the candidate’s racial status?

At the same time, does this increased diversification happen as a result of fewer Caucasian candidates?

It’s unclear what the actual racial diversity of Durango School District 9R’s student population is at the time of this reporting.

Personally, when I see the faces of who’s working at Durango School District 9R, I don’t see imbalanced racial proportions.

However, I do understand that Durango School District 9R would want to claim that they’re being racially sensitive as a public relations measure. It’s identity politics.

Racial discrimination prohibited by Equal Employment Opportunity Act

As the policy of Durango School District 9R appears to be changing the racial proportions of its workforce, an existing law raises the question of what legal grounding the policy has.

For instance, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 was passed by congress to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, and marital or familial status.

Did the increased hiring of minority races result in the discrimination against Caucasians who were otherwise qualified for the same jobs, aside from the color of the candidate’s skin?