I found this article after seeing calls for it to be pulled down and I was curious about the claims. I was blocked from commenting on the TIE website when I attempted to post a response. However, I have control over my blog and can post here.
After reading this article, my main reaction is to wonder why this random teacher got such a platform. His claims are made up and he has not cited any evidence. He makes his claims with such self-assurance and so little consideration of anyone else’s experience. For example, only saying to Ms. Ndorimana that he feels bad that she has been treated poorly, as if he has no ability to change the future or any effect on students. He is a history teacher, yet quickly dismisses how history shapes the present. The peppering of his language with terms like ‘totalitarian’ ‘inculcating groupthink’ ‘Marxism’ ‘postmoderism’ and ‘critical theory… Frankfurt school’ to sound as if he is informed shows that he has not engaged with the actual work of critical theorists. He is simply repeating talking points from Trumpist-oriented media. This is not a thoughtful critique of the work of his school, he has pointed to nothing specific he has been a part of. He has created some imaginary DEI workshops and trainings that he believes are totalitarian, although, I’m certain that he has the ability to choose to attend, and also to leave his job. I imagine he has been to a less-than-amazing training or a short-sighted meeting, but he doesn’t discuss his own experiences. In all of the ‘DEIJ’ acronym use, he forgets that INCLUSION is also for students with special needs, for students who have been bullied, and for students who need extra support. Vital programs for students are being hurt by anti-DEI rhetoric. His students do not necessarily have the choice of him as a teacher, and I wonder how free and welcoming his classes are, or if he aims to constantly argue about what a biological woman is, when he has clearly not put much consideration into empathy for that group either. He says 80% needs to be cut, which 80% is that? What particulars does he have a problem with? He was not questioned on this and was allowed to simply say that he thinks racism is bad, civil rights are good, but also doesn’t want to have to continue to improve the lives of students or the work of schools.
As teachers, we are working with the students in our classroom, not some imaginary ‘oppressed’ people. If schools think their teachers are not addressing students’ needs appropriately, then they need more meetings and plans about how to do so. It is not totalitarian, teachers do have choices. Teaching is political, teachers have political beliefs, and personal experiences — there is not just apolitical good that schools do — it is based on our beliefs of the purpose of education, who deserves it, and what ‘being educated’ means. Teachers often use some kind of critical theory in evaluating their curriculum, teaching styles, and the operation of their school. Teachers need to think about inclusion constantly– particularly in international schools. Racism occurs in subtle ways in international schools, different for every context and often not in the ways that white people from the US expect.
The ‘ideology’ of international school teachers is that we want a better future. It is that we are constantly learning, reflecting on our work and looking at our shortcomings. We are working with young people, who are growing up in a different world than we did. We have to adapt to it, not just assume we are correct and need no retraining. These are progressive ideals and perhaps they come into conflict with people who feel that things have gone too far. Perhaps Mr. Gillette needs to leave the teaching profession if he finds this work unappealing.
TIE should consider removing this article that is platforming someone who demonstrates so little care for students and the mission of international schools — or should annotate this conversation to define institutional racism, to point out the misuse of terms like totalitarianism, point out his intentional mischaracterization of trainings about white supremacy, and to clarify his statements about biological women as inaccurate and ill-informed.
Emily Winchip 
Hi Emily,
Thanks for your response to my article.
I do care about my students and the places where I work.
I just have a very different view of critical education.
Sincerely,
Scott Gillette
LikeLike
Hi Scott,
I’m glad you came to read some responses to the article. I truly hope that your school is a great place and I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary.
Please notice that there is a difference between having a different view than someone and calling for education programs to be dismantled. You have some power as a teacher and your characterization of DEI programs as harmful could be used to cut necessary programs for students. It also might be interesting to reflect on how your opinion has been published widely on the internet while the experiences of students or education workers who have benefitted from DEI may be less likely to get exposure. (This is a critical education policy analysis right here!)
There truly is overwhelming evidence for the need for DEI programs and how segregation, inequality, and exclusion are harmful for children and adults.
Just a few examples:
Special education inclusion is a difficult issue that we are just beginning to wrestle with.
Schools in the US are still incredibly segregated and this has huge consequences for specific kids.
There are still huge barriers to women in school leadership, even as education workers are predominately women.
It is easy to get pulled away from our mission to help students and to make schools great places to work. I think DEI programs are intended to do this and I hope that (even if resist the label of DEI) that you are working tirelessly to ensure that your students get the help they need to be successful.
Your critical theorist colleague,
Emily
LikeLike
Hi Scott, I think you are talking about critical pedagogy and Paulo Frieri. I don’t think it’s essential to subscribe to that specific educational philosophy but critical theory does have a lot of value in an understanding of intellectual history and development over the last century. To conflate DEIJ work with Leftist Authoritarian movements opens the door to ad hominem attacks and makes it harder to have a shared understanding of the positive values of liberal and conservative voices.
I would encourage us all to focus on the shared values of colleagues and international school community members who advocate for intercultural values and the pursuit of truth.
It’s tough work and impossible do in a divided house.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You seem to be focused only on what Mr Gillette said. The article was set up as a conversation. What did you think of Ms Ndorimana responses? Seems to me that is something to be considered when reviewing the article in its entirely.
LikeLike
Yes, my response was not a review of the arguments but what I wanted to respond to in what was published. There were a few key ideas that were most important to me, so I chose those only. It was not a full critique of the whole conversation or summary.
Ms Ndorimana also wrote a response on LinkedIn (which I wish would be published on TIE also) and I responded to her there. You can read that here.
I do wish that her responses had questioned the language that Mr Gillette used, the proof he had for his claims, and I wish she had questioned what 80% of DEIJ programs he actually wanted to cut. However, I realize that in the moment, it is not always clear how a conversation is going. If you read her response on LinkedIn, she also notes that her approach to the conversation was grounded in listening to a different viewpoint. While it was labeled a ‘conversation,’ he was clearly not there to listen to her or to change his mind.
I’m curious then, is there something that she said that you think requires a response?
Thanks,
Emily
LikeLike