Minneapolis Public Schools Lawsuit Will Expose the Failure of Affirmative Action for Black and Native Male Educators
The lawsuit between Minneapolis Public Schools and the U.S. Department of Justice could be fixed overnight, if only someone dared to say the obvious: the district is too big to succeed. 
That’s right, shrink it. Fewer layers, fewer “executive directors of innovation equity leadership,” and more actual teachers who know their students' names. Instead of bloated bureaucracy and selective “diversity” programs that only help insiders, a smaller, leaner system might actually... function. Imagine that. The DOJ wouldn’t need to sue if we stopped outsourcing equity to policies that protect the privileged few. Cut the district, trim the egos, and maybe, just maybe, Black and Native male educators would be hired for their qualifications, not their connections. Wild idea, right? Common sense. Too dangerous for policy.
That’s right, shrink it. Fewer layers, fewer “executive directors of innovation equity leadership,” and more actual teachers who know their students' names. Instead of bloated bureaucracy and selective “diversity” programs that only help insiders, a smaller, leaner system might actually... function. Imagine that. The DOJ wouldn’t need to sue if we stopped outsourcing equity to policies that protect the privileged few. Cut the district, trim the egos, and maybe, just maybe, Black and Native male educators would be hired for their qualifications, not their connections. Wild idea, right? Common sense. Too dangerous for policy.
Read the filing here PDF.
By Don Allen (Editorial Opinion) Journal of A Black Teacher (2025)
The lawsuit that the United States Department of Justice filed against the Minneapolis Public Schools will have far-reaching implications that extend beyond the individual contract agreement. This is because the lawsuit will expose the flaws that are embedded within the structure of Affirmative Action and equity employment practices that are geared towards the betterment of Black males and Native American male teachers who are thenajчикelapse at the MPS, it is the embodiment of the pledge they readily give but are not really providing.
The federal lawsuit alleges that the MPS practiced race-based and sex-based discrimination in employment as a result of their collective bargaining agreements and their partnership with the Black Men Teach (BMT) initiative. On the face value, this appears to be a praiseworthy initiative. However, on deeper observation, a clearer picture emerges: this serves only a chosen few, those deemed “safe” and “acceptable” by their definition as initiated by the authorities in this case, and union influence.
Let’s be very clear about this: many black men and NATIVE MALE educators working within, or trying to get into, the Minneapolis Public Schools were never going to be a part of this circle of protection. There was stratification by the very communities this ‘equity’ work was supposedly lifting up. You were either accepted into ‘the’ fellowship, if your voice sounded like district policy, or if you were already inside, and you were going nowhere.
This lawsuit forces us to consider the question: when a district is able to provide a special program for Black men, but is still not hiring or supporting the vast majority of Black men, what are we actually doing?
As indicated in the federal lawsuit complaint, BMT Fellows enjoyed opportunities that no one else had access to, not even Black teachers. These opportunities included exclusive interviews, exemptions from layoffs, and additional professional development days that were paid for. It was not an issue that the opportunities existed in the first place, but that the MPS decided to reserve them for a select few who could be used to appease those who might complain about the lack of progress in hiring and retaining Black male teachers when the MPS could have extended these opportunities to everyone in the fellowship program.
And make no mistake, it is not simply a question of hiring. It is a question of power. But once the system had the law on which it could lean, not to prioritize white men in layoffs or reassignments, it did not pivot towards equity; it pivoted towards power. It invented new classifications, terms, and processes that looked like a pivot towards reform while locking in the existing power of gatekeeping. Racial preference policies were used not to lift up, but to choose.
At the same time, the cracks are there for everyone to see. The implications of a school district suspending more than 10 students in one day in the same school are telling. It is a question of what is happening in those classrooms, in those offices, for there to be so many failures. It is not a question of anomalies; it is a question of failure on a systemic level. The district prefers its policies and appearances over its culture.
MPS is too big, too vertical, too protective of itself. It has become a bureaucracy too consumed with dwelling on criticism rather than dealing with difficulties. It creates new committees, new language, and press releases while classrooms lack assistance, schools turn over personnel, and teachers are exhausted. Those in positions of authority acknowledge these aren't new issues, that they could be remedied within less than two weeks if those experiencing dysfunction, not those observing it, were given authority.
These people, though, are normally left out of the dialogue. Not because they lack knowledge, but because they lack loyalty. They do not speak in palatable language. They do not play political games. Thus, instead of being employed and promoted, they are systematically removed.
The thing is, the real story of Affirmative Action has always been hidden from public view. Not the sensationalized version that has been used in court battles or college applications, but the experience in places like MPS, where the concept of racial justice was simply absorbed into the institutional brand without ever being fully enacted. Now concepts like “underrepresented” have become talismans for both legal defenses and marketing slogans, with true equity distributed like a finite resource to those approved.
It’s easy to write a program on paper and say, ‘We are helping Black men.’ It’s much harder to build a districtwide culture where we hear them out, where we listen to them, and give them jobs not based on where they came from, where they went to fellowship, and where their principal sends them from. That takes honesty and humility and a willingness to release control. This lawsuit may very well reveal not only a problem with the process but the structure that was not ever going to work for everyone.
The problem is that real equity is possible. Solutions have already been identified. Some Black male teachers and Native educators have great leadership qualities and experience working through trauma. However, they do not reside in the central office. Nor do they sit on educational advisory groups. Even better yet, they don't get called for job interviews, including veterans..
A changed MPS and districts such as it must first recognize that its current structure for achieving equity is broken. Not hypothetically or idealistically, but realistically. Not because it seeks to lift up, but because it determines who can be lifted up. The federal lawsuit might be the legal tipping point. But on a moral and ethical level, that point was passed a long time ago, when black men were asked to wait, reapply, or "go through the program," while the district celebrated diversity publicly and refused it privately. But there is still time to correct this. Not months, not years, but weeks. But those individuals who can correct this problem don’t work for MPS. They are in the community teaching, leading, mentoring, and waiting for a system to recognize their value. Until then, the truth will reveal itself. This is because, contrary to being a dispute over policy, this case is a mirror. And MPS, just as many others, may not like what it sees.
The lawsuit that the United States Department of Justice filed against the Minneapolis Public Schools will have far-reaching implications that extend beyond the individual contract agreement. This is because the lawsuit will expose the flaws that are embedded within the structure of Affirmative Action and equity employment practices that are geared towards the betterment of Black males and Native American male teachers who are thenajчикelapse at the MPS, it is the embodiment of the pledge they readily give but are not really providing.
The federal lawsuit alleges that the MPS practiced race-based and sex-based discrimination in employment as a result of their collective bargaining agreements and their partnership with the Black Men Teach (BMT) initiative. On the face value, this appears to be a praiseworthy initiative. However, on deeper observation, a clearer picture emerges: this serves only a chosen few, those deemed “safe” and “acceptable” by their definition as initiated by the authorities in this case, and union influence.
Let’s be very clear about this: many black men and NATIVE MALE educators working within, or trying to get into, the Minneapolis Public Schools were never going to be a part of this circle of protection. There was stratification by the very communities this ‘equity’ work was supposedly lifting up. You were either accepted into ‘the’ fellowship, if your voice sounded like district policy, or if you were already inside, and you were going nowhere.
This lawsuit forces us to consider the question: when a district is able to provide a special program for Black men, but is still not hiring or supporting the vast majority of Black men, what are we actually doing?
As indicated in the federal lawsuit complaint, BMT Fellows enjoyed opportunities that no one else had access to, not even Black teachers. These opportunities included exclusive interviews, exemptions from layoffs, and additional professional development days that were paid for. It was not an issue that the opportunities existed in the first place, but that the MPS decided to reserve them for a select few who could be used to appease those who might complain about the lack of progress in hiring and retaining Black male teachers when the MPS could have extended these opportunities to everyone in the fellowship program.
And make no mistake, it is not simply a question of hiring. It is a question of power. But once the system had the law on which it could lean, not to prioritize white men in layoffs or reassignments, it did not pivot towards equity; it pivoted towards power. It invented new classifications, terms, and processes that looked like a pivot towards reform while locking in the existing power of gatekeeping. Racial preference policies were used not to lift up, but to choose.
At the same time, the cracks are there for everyone to see. The implications of a school district suspending more than 10 students in one day in the same school are telling. It is a question of what is happening in those classrooms, in those offices, for there to be so many failures. It is not a question of anomalies; it is a question of failure on a systemic level. The district prefers its policies and appearances over its culture.
MPS is too big, too vertical, too protective of itself. It has become a bureaucracy too consumed with dwelling on criticism rather than dealing with difficulties. It creates new committees, new language, and press releases while classrooms lack assistance, schools turn over personnel, and teachers are exhausted. Those in positions of authority acknowledge these aren't new issues, that they could be remedied within less than two weeks if those experiencing dysfunction, not those observing it, were given authority.
These people, though, are normally left out of the dialogue. Not because they lack knowledge, but because they lack loyalty. They do not speak in palatable language. They do not play political games. Thus, instead of being employed and promoted, they are systematically removed.
The thing is, the real story of Affirmative Action has always been hidden from public view. Not the sensationalized version that has been used in court battles or college applications, but the experience in places like MPS, where the concept of racial justice was simply absorbed into the institutional brand without ever being fully enacted. Now concepts like “underrepresented” have become talismans for both legal defenses and marketing slogans, with true equity distributed like a finite resource to those approved.
It’s easy to write a program on paper and say, ‘We are helping Black men.’ It’s much harder to build a districtwide culture where we hear them out, where we listen to them, and give them jobs not based on where they came from, where they went to fellowship, and where their principal sends them from. That takes honesty and humility and a willingness to release control. This lawsuit may very well reveal not only a problem with the process but the structure that was not ever going to work for everyone.
The problem is that real equity is possible. Solutions have already been identified. Some Black male teachers and Native educators have great leadership qualities and experience working through trauma. However, they do not reside in the central office. Nor do they sit on educational advisory groups. Even better yet, they don't get called for job interviews, including veterans..
A changed MPS and districts such as it must first recognize that its current structure for achieving equity is broken. Not hypothetically or idealistically, but realistically. Not because it seeks to lift up, but because it determines who can be lifted up. The federal lawsuit might be the legal tipping point. But on a moral and ethical level, that point was passed a long time ago, when black men were asked to wait, reapply, or "go through the program," while the district celebrated diversity publicly and refused it privately. But there is still time to correct this. Not months, not years, but weeks. But those individuals who can correct this problem don’t work for MPS. They are in the community teaching, leading, mentoring, and waiting for a system to recognize their value. Until then, the truth will reveal itself. This is because, contrary to being a dispute over policy, this case is a mirror. And MPS, just as many others, may not like what it sees.
Comments
Post a Comment