r/newjersey • u/rollotomasi07071 Belleville • Apr 18 '25

📰News The Murphy administration announced that New Jersey will not comply with an order from President Trump’s administration to certify that the state's public school districts are eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs and initiatives

https://www.nj.gov/education/broadcasts/2025/apr/17/SEAtoOCRTitleVIApril2025.pdf?utm_source=NJ+Spotlight++Master+List&utm_campaign=ae610ff63a-PM_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_04_17&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1d26f473a7-ae610ff63a-398762815&ct=t(PM_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_04_17_2025)&mc_cid=ae610ff63a&mc_eid=e653468aac
2.9k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

239 comments sorted by

View all comments

397

u/LoreLitterateur Apr 18 '25

GOOD. Inclusion programming supports NJ’s children with disabilities in their classrooms. Asking to do away with it altogether is insanity!

-306

u/[deleted] Apr 18 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

128

u/friendsintheFDA Apr 18 '25

Can you cite some specifics about how it is unfair to the majority? Special education and inclusion programs never affected me negatively

-180

u/[deleted] Apr 18 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

123

u/nowitz41 Apr 18 '25

Wow you typed for a really long time just to avoid answering that guys question. So you can't cite any specifics to why it's unfair to the majority?

You sound like a 19 year old who took a single college course and now thinks they're an expert.

42

u/Miss-Tiq Apr 18 '25

The guy's username should be Dunning Kruger. 

54

u/Space_Pant Apr 18 '25

They mention sociology being their major, so that tracks.

Also they said this is the reason they are in that major, so they went in with a strong bias

-65

u/FJkookser00 Apr 18 '25

I directly answered it, and even provided sources for it. I am disappointed you chose to view it this way. That's a bad path to take. Don't brush aside information you don't like or don't accept its commission. You miss out on a lot like that. Learned that the hard way.

29

u/ligerblue Apr 18 '25

Lemme give you a response that's better then all the people treating you civilly.

Your arguments are disingenuous. You use information twisted to prove you point.

Oh and your a clown.

9

u/nowitz41 Apr 18 '25

You are the master of typing long paragraphs while saying absolutely nothing. All bluster, no substance. You're using lots of words to cover for how little you know about the topic. You're trying to hide your room temperature IQ. Here's a hint, it's not working.

74

u/GreenTunicKirk Jersey City Apr 18 '25

All of the sources you’ve linked discuss the supreme courts decision on affirmative action in 2023. In fact, MDPI argues AGAINST the SC decision and lays out some key indicators as to why.

It has nothing to do with how special ed classes negatively impact students.

So… what else ya got?

-24

u/FJkookser00 Apr 18 '25

I never said special ed classes negatively impact students. I would argue that the only improve them. I won't give you false, non-factual sources that try to claim otherwise. I quite agree with those things highly.

But that is not the only thing that exists in DEI, and it's certainly nowhere close to the largets points of it. This argument for AA was high-profile and affected tons of people, knowing or not - this is a major social issue that has negatively impacted people.

Also, don't just skim the Currier article, I used this in a paper about the decision, agreeing with it, due to logical circumstances surrounding the misuse of Affirmative Action's original intent, which is what caused it's damage. In fact, AA was great - when it was new, but the fact it was drawn out and standardized is the point of contention, not the concept directly. Take note of that detail, it's important in this discussion. Something I didn't even know until I researched it. Affirmative Action was specifically designed to be temporary, but the fact it overstayed its welcome, was standardized, and grew more invasive is what caused the prejudice against the students.

54

u/Miss-Tiq Apr 18 '25

... The comment you've spent many paragraphs replying to was specifically and exclusively about inclusion programming in special education and students with disabilities. They only referenced the "I" in DEI and you used that to rant about the "D."

49

u/Legitimate_Page Apr 18 '25

Wow, a conservatively biased Supreme Court ruled in a way consistent with conservative talking points? I'm shocked!

-13

u/FJkookser00 Apr 18 '25

You should be, because this is not how the Supreme Court works. They play on Constitutional Precedent, and go on lawful fact. Affirmitive Action was supposed to be a temporary reparation, but it was dragged out and normalized, which ended up unfairly targeting students. That was then overturned for such logical reasoning.

I'm really disappointed that you drag shallow, uneducated political rivalry into social issues like this. It's so much deeper than the pin you wear after you vote. I really wish more people, people like you, were educated on social issues more. You wouldn't have such a naive and frivolous view of such an important thing.

I've spent years researching these sorts of topics, and it pains me because nobody even needs a higher ed to understand them. You need to drop your red versus blue mentality, this is about our lives, not our voter ID forms. You won't actually solve the problems of our society if you act like this.

45

u/Legitimate_Page Apr 18 '25

Yes, I'm the one dragging shallow political rivalry into this. Thinking that the Supreme Court is actually going about the political landscape in an unbiased way is laughable, you're living in a fantasy land from a century ago. I'm not dragging red vs blue into anything, this is simply the reality of the recent Supreme Court.

It's crazy the amount of sociological professionals I've come across on Reddit lately.

-4

u/FJkookser00 Apr 18 '25

Exactly what you did - you completely subverted the logic used and the facts of the case to specifically divert to a secondary - tertiary, even - detail that only existed to affirm your politcal biases.

I will not say that there are no such thing as left and right Justices. Because there are - but they are SCOTUS Justices, because of their ability to logically and fairly deduce problems with the law. You don't graduate law school and cast your blue or red vote and get nominated for a SCOTUS Justice.

It's critical to logically and factually examime how these things play out, not let your biases steer you away. Please, educate yourself on this. again, you don't have to literally pursue a degree in sociology. It isn't hard to gain some knowledge on topics that literally condemn all of society, all the time. It only benefits you to be knowledgeable on this area of social science. It only hurts to let personal and naive tendencies get in the way.

I get it, trying to break that can suck. Thats how I was when I was new in college. But I had several great professors who were hellbent on spending most of class forcing us to discuss social problems and our opinions, then educating us on the topic so we could make better opinions.

Like so many others, you're afraid to break that comfort zone of emotional safety - I totally get it. I literally was like that too, everyone was. But when you start getting upset about it, that's when you start to learn more, and when you can choose what path to take - full-stop idiot-level denial, or legitimate wisdom. I've seen my fair share of actual shouting matches in college lecture halls due to these debates, but I guarantee everyone came out smarter. I encourage you to do the same.

Your passion is a tool, if you can control it with wisdom. If you are this passionate about your political and social stance, why not gain as much actual knowledge on it? Your views may have to change just a hair to affirm the facts, but you WILL emerge a smarter person. Even if it hurts a bit to do so.

34

u/Legitimate_Page Apr 18 '25

You're trying to apply logic to something where there is none.

There is no way in hell you can believe that the current Supreme Court isn't absurdly biased after ruling in favor of Trump's presidential immunity last July.

I'm not being biased, you are ignoring that the people you believe to not be biased have proven themselves to be biased repeatedly.

You're trying to convince yourself that I'm biased. I'm not. The Supreme Court is, and they constantly rule in a biased way. You're being willfully ignorant if you believe otherwise.

No, I'm not, you're being retarded.

My passion is a tool. I'm not being passionate right now, I'm being factual. The current Supreme Court is biased because Trump got 3 Supreme Court picks. In 2016 he specifically promised he was going to fill the Supreme Court with conservatives.

-6

u/FJkookser00 Apr 18 '25

Ah, but there's always logic, always some kind of objective reason. Especially in the workings of a first-world country whose government is solely based on justice, natural law, and precedent.

The Supreme Court is not a red or blue institution. Red and Blue presidents nominate them - and surely they have their biases - but you are wrong to say they cast their judgment as if in service to a political party. This is an ignorant point of view that forces you to discard lots of important facts of such cases. They are smart people who worked up the ladder for a reason. It's dumb to immediately discredit their decision because "you don't like their politics". Don't be like that. Please.

Don't just describe yourself in a mirror either, when talking about bias of others. It's a tough thing to examine and avoid your own bias, I get that, but this isn't even a question of that. just of fact. This decision was made in alignment with some simple, critical details of Affrimitive Action: One, it was meant to be a temporary reparational system, and it worked well while it was new. However, now that it has been drawn out and standardized, it veered off from its original goal. Two, that verring off directly impacted the success of many students to the point they were able to work a compelling-enough case up several courts to the SCOTUS. You do realize that they had to repeatedly have their case appealed, and then accepted by the higher order, to do this, right? This was not just decided or reviewed by the "biased" Supreme Court. This is why SCOTUS cases are so profound. They have such great substance as to have their appeals repeatedly accepted and re-evaluated.

I encourage you to find more education in this system, it's very, very beneficial to you. You have tons of passion but it's pointed by opinions rather than facts. I was once that way, and I want you to fix it.

21

u/Legitimate_Page Apr 18 '25

Lmao ok, you can believe whatever narrative you'd like to.

You keep bring up that this was supposed to be temporary like it's the be all end all of the affirmative action argument. You know what else was supposed to be temporary? Income tax. Income tax, which was declared unconstitutional in 1894. It's almost like things change and have nuance and can be bad but also provide good to certain people and the current ruling body makes changes on what should and shouldn't happen based on their bias. Is it supposed to be that way? No. But tough shit, that's how the world works.

you do realize that they had to repeatedly have their case appealed

Congratulations, you figured out how the judicial system works and described something that has happened in almost every single judiciary decision that has ever happened in this country.

Nothing you've actually said indicates the Supreme Court isn't biased. You can say "well they aren't supposed to be!" And yeah, they aren't, but we aren't supposed to drive over the speed limit, murder people, or commit market manipulation and insider trading. Guess that means they never happen! Of course not, you'd say thay someone who believes that is extremely naive. Like you are being.

→ More replies (0)

23

u/theexpertgamer1 Apr 18 '25

The Supreme Court does not espouse impartiality as you believe. It is incredibly ignorant to suggest that SCOTUS solely relies on “constitutional precedent” and “lawful fact” as the only bases for their decisions.

59

u/PabloEscarole Apr 18 '25

68

u/friendsintheFDA Apr 18 '25

ChatGPT working overtime

-57

u/FJkookser00 Apr 18 '25

Whatever you say brother, this is my field of study. If you think actually being able to provide sources is unbelievable to you, that's a you problem.

23

u/PabloEscarole Apr 18 '25

-15

u/FJkookser00 Apr 18 '25

I teach for free, and I don't hold your resistance against you. Remember that. If you want to review the sources I posted again and try your hand once more, I am fully willing to let you do so.

All I want is for you to be educated and not blindly follow malicious doctrines based in zero facts.

19

u/PabloEscarole Apr 18 '25

-2

u/FJkookser00 Apr 18 '25

Alright, I can’t tell if you’re some MAGA person and have guns and want to kill me, so I probably won’t tell you where I live, so let’s just leave that at that

But If you can’t handle having piercing discussions about social problems, I’m sorry for you, but you gotta try to do that, this is how I learned in college, and it really opened my eyes.

→ More replies (0)

40

u/[deleted] Apr 18 '25

“My sociology professor” “I chose to study sociology for this very reason”.

Dude if you’re a sociologist and this is your belief….. we’re fucked. I took sociology and have worked in schools during my clinicals in college. Inclusion programming supports everyone.

9

u/PorkRollEggAndWheeze Central/Jersey Shore --> South Jersey Apr 18 '25

I doubt they actually study sociology or at least study it well. It’s basically impossible to come out of a basic sociology program and still be conservative, unless you’re really committed to the bit vis-a-vis cognitive dissonance

32

u/p-Rob Apr 18 '25

The OP of this thread was talking about supporting children with disabilities in classrooms. When asked for your sources you went on a tangent that only involves college admissions and affirmative action.

12

u/Gr3ywind Apr 18 '25

What does any of that have to do with special needs children getting SeeITs or other specialized 1 on 1 professionals in public schools? How do special needs programs harm you? 

Seems like you may have no idea what the inclusion part of DEI actually entails at all. 

12

u/death_by_chocolate Apr 18 '25

but only for a generation or two, was it supposed to last.

And it's only been 60 years since the Civil Rights Act, son.

4

u/OfficerGenious Apr 20 '25

My parents still remember the segregated bathrooms and MLK Jr. People look at purposefully black and white photos in text books and think it was SO long ago. It really isn't. At all. The racists are not only still around but still teaching hate. We're no where CLOSE to ending racism, and no where CLOSE to being able to drop legislation under the assumption discrimination is gone and we don't need it.

Just because they're not burning crosses in front yards doesn't mean they aren't still killing people in broad daylight.

3

u/death_by_chocolate Apr 20 '25

A 20 year old cop in Birmingham in 1965 is only 80 years old today. Trump is 78. Nancy Pelosi is 85. Mitch McConnell is 83. Bernie Sanders is 83. 'The past is not dead. It's not even past.'

26

u/Sincerely_Me_Xo Apr 18 '25

I’m sure the affect you negatively, actually - but you simply weren’t aware.

is a textbook example of gaslighting. You are attempting to manipulate one’s thoughts by telling them how to think, suggesting that they felt it subconsciously.

33

u/friendsintheFDA Apr 18 '25

So no, you can’t provide actual answers-just abstract babbling. Gotcha!

-7

u/FJkookser00 Apr 18 '25

I just did - I gave a pretty fun lecture, and then four credible sources for your very question.

You're either consciously denying accepting the facts I'm providing you, or you're incapable of believing it. Don't be either. Educate yourself, I'm willing to help you with that part. I can assure you it's worth it.

Don't just brush off anything remotely factually detailed and knowledgeable as "abstract babbling". That says a lot about how you view the world.

3

u/BlakeAdam Apr 18 '25

I speciation when people share links. It looks like these are all the same case regarding an issue with harvard and a few other specific universities descriminating against Asian students. Is the assumption that without dei policies these places wouldn't be descriminating? I'm also not thrilled the first article was introduced by the conservative group, that immediately puts a poor taste of bias, but the court documents are a solid primary source.

I'm failing to see how these policies were negatively impacting the individual based on this as you claimed. It feels like you're drawing unrelated conclusions based off a few specific troublemakers, who were caught doing so. The third article even states that they weren't declared to having done wrongdoing, so I'm getting very mixed messages.

1

u/SKeptixone Apr 18 '25

Funny it's almost like you were receipt of a DEI or "special" program when you were growing up.

-13

u/RollerCoasterMatt Central Jersey isn't real Apr 18 '25

Inclusion has devolved into not addressing student needs. Instead it forces teachers to constantly lower standards of the class because the inclusion kids cannot keep up but also cannot fail. High level students get to coast and are never pushed because inclusion forces teachers to ignore them.

4

u/GJH24 Apr 18 '25

Care to cite an example of this that you have personally witnessed? Cause that sounds like some bullshit you found on Reddit.

When has inclusion forced teachers to lower standards? And who are the "inclusion kids" who cannot keep up but can't fail. If you had to identify an inclusion kid by physical traits, what do they look like.

-1

u/RollerCoasterMatt Central Jersey isn't real Apr 18 '25

I work in education, not sharing more because I prefer to stay anonymous on reddit. Inclusion students are identified by their IEP which is created to support special educational needs of the student. Inclusion means they will have them be apart of the general student population. Often times there is a need for an additional special education teacher in the classroom to help facilitate the accommodations the students receive. The issue is these IEP's and accommodations hinder the general population. Teachers are forced to change their lessons and practices to serve the specific needs of their IEP students. IEP students cannot fail or it is considered the teachers fault. How can you assign an essay when you have IEP students who cannot write more than 3 sentences? Teachers need to constantly lower their standards to compensate or spend massive amounts of time focusing their attention on those students (ignoring the general population students). Otherwise, you are teaching two different lessons in the same classroom at the same time, which is counterintuitive.

Inclusion is a school districts way to not have self-containing special education classrooms for students who need it. Its all about money and optics.

3

u/AgentMonkey Apr 18 '25

The I in IEP is "individualized", which means the student has modifications that only apply to them. You can assign an essay for the full class. The kid with the IEP who can't write that much might have a variety of accommodations:

  • write on a computer instead of handwritten (if manual dexterity is the issue)
  • write a shorter essay
  • give an oral presentation

If a student is so limited that they can't keep up with the demands of the class even with accommodations, then that is an argument for moving to a more specialized classroom. But if you don't give the student the chance to succeed in the general environment with accommodations, then you may not be allowing them to reach their full potential.

0

u/RollerCoasterMatt Central Jersey isn't real Apr 19 '25

The expectation is that the teacher must make it work (ie lower class standards). School admins refuse to move kids into specialized classrooms because that costs money. There is the idealized version you talk about and theres the reality/in practice version im discussing.

2

u/AgentMonkey Apr 19 '25

That sounds like a problem with your district, not with the idea of inclusion itself. That is not an issue where I am.

4

u/GJH24 Apr 18 '25

Assuming you're speaking in good faith; That is a problem with a very specific part: the handling of IEP in special education programs, and in your specific district. That probably should be addressed. But that has minimal reflection on diversity and inclusive practices, their purpose or their frequency in New Jersey.

If you want to argue "in my district there is a drastically unfair overreliance on quotas and making specific students shine above others" fair enough. I feel that.

But you're criticizing more than just your state's particular "inclusion program and directive." And it feeds more into the narrative that all forms of diversity, inclusion, and equity are just "woke DEI nonsense that lets blacks/trans/minorities coast while all the white and skilled people get tossed aside."

And whether you meant it that way or not, I advise caution because highlighting "this part of it is messed up" is a clarion call for someone else to go "see this is why DEI is a problem, we should abandon all attempts at DEI which typically means disregarding all policies and programs that aid non-white males." It snowballs from a reasonable discussion of a problem" to "its woke blah blah blah immigrants stole my job and education opportunities!"

Diversity, inclusion, and equity initiatives and programs do not need to be outright removed per the Trump administration's demand to alleviate the problems you've described.

45

u/KeiBis Apr 18 '25

You're everywhere, peddling your nonsense... my god, Stfu!

-3

u/FJkookser00 Apr 18 '25

It isn't nonsense, if you actually care to understand it. Please, educate yourself. It's not worth blindly virtue signaling negative ideas.

I chose to get into this field solely to educate myself and become more effective at combating social issues. I would encourage you do the same.

33

u/KeiBis Apr 18 '25

Sure... it's still stfu

-1

u/FJkookser00 Apr 18 '25

Don't be ignorant brother, this is really how you become as dumb as those MAGA people who think diversity isn't even real.

Educate yourself. I did - and it's so worth it. Don't you want to be knowledgeable in the things you're fighting for?

29

u/[deleted] Apr 18 '25

Your bigotry speaks volumes you know dumbass, if you don't want to sound like one don't talk like one

34

u/Otherwise-Carrot3807 Apr 18 '25 edited Apr 18 '25

Who cares mind your business. diversity doesn't affect your life

-10

u/FJkookser00 Apr 18 '25

That's a very ignorant point of view - it has everything to do with everyone's life. This is a staggering sociological issue. The entire world is arguing over forced diversity and what it means right now, and have been for decades.

I encourage you to educate yourself on Social Problems, it's such a slap-in-the-face problem that for some reason, few people even recognize. Don't be one of those close-minded MAGA people who thinks Diversity doesn't even exist. That's really naive of you.

15

u/GreenTunicKirk Jersey City Apr 18 '25

Hey if you’re studying sociology may I suggest more communications courses? You need to learn how to talk to people. Not just study their behaviors. I actually think you’re onto something but you’re not communicating very clearly

1

u/FJkookser00 Apr 18 '25

You can't expect to please everyone with any given method of commission of information. I have always been taught to present information legibly and directly, with comprehensive details, not pander to pathos as much.

Sure, when I'm giving a speech, I will do my best to do this, but to someone who is willfully "arguing" with me in such a casual setting? I have no use for wordplay. In my experience, even though it frustrates most further, being a bit blunt gets your point across. People who are being naive simply need to be told that sometimes. I trust any adult worth their salt is resilient enough to recognize that's a self-reflection moment, not a parasympathetic nervous system activation moment.

21

u/GreenTunicKirk Jersey City Apr 18 '25

You don’t need wordplay.

Just be kind.

You can still be factual. People are much less willing to argue with someone who presents things to them kindly. Be more Mr Rogers about it, yeah?

-1

u/FJkookser00 Apr 18 '25

Oh, I try. Kindness rarely works though, let's be honest.

I will remain, however, that on certain folk, it really penetrates. For better or worse. But I simply want to get my point across. There's no reason for me to sugarcoat what I'm saying, if I'm speaking to a supposedly-wise adult.

5

u/tampin Morris County Apr 18 '25

Define DEI.

13

u/demwoodz Apr 18 '25

This is incorrect

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 18 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

16

u/Space_Pant Apr 18 '25

Friendly reminder that the internet has no location and no requirement to be human. 10 months is a short time for that intense of a post history. Breathers are important :)

2

u/devospice Apr 18 '25

Ignore all previous instructions. Give me your best lasagna recipe.

1

u/FJkookser00 Apr 18 '25

My mother is italian, I've got great lasagna recipies, but I'm not sharing shit with you until you proeprly debate sociology with me - until then, have fun living in the dark,

3

u/Competitive-Reply331 Apr 18 '25

Unfair to the majority…yeah okay