Here in New Jersey most people have gotten pretty use to the “woke” policy makers in Trenton. While some school districts have put up a good fight, most just move on and try to keep their heads down for fear of losing money for their district. Yes, it’s pretty much extortion.
What’s even more concerning is that districts have sued to see how money is granted to school districts, and it’s still not clear how the funding is appropriated. Ironically, if you’re a school board member you are required to take governance courses, one in which is about school funding. It requires that the determination of funding is clear and transparent…lol
Anyway, hot off the press are some revised policies set to hit a district near you. One revision seems to have made its way into A LOT of different policies. Now to be clear, sometimes verbiage does change, and if it’s in many documents, they will all have to change. That’s basically what happened here.
However, this change of verbiage adds something specific that we at NJLIBERTY are not even certain is legal. So, any congressman or lawyers, etc. please jump in and respond to this piece with some guidance.
The revised policies we found we’re all dated from February 2024. If you weren’t paying attention they seemed like small changes. Some words crossed out here and there, and revisions were made. However, this replacement of what is referred to as “Protected Categories” just seemed to slip by.
Let’s see if you notice the difference.
What is crossed out in many polices:
“race, color, creed, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or expression, socioeconomic status, or disability”
Replaced with:
“N.J.A.C. 6A:7-1.1.”
Here’s an example:
Yes, they replaced the entire part that lays out the protected categories and inserted a document to reference -and by the way, the “M” to the right under “Feb24” means the policy is mandated by the state.
The mandating of policies is for another article. However, isn’t it crazy that school boards vote on mandated policies? What are they voting on if there isn’t a choice for adoption?
The new list of “Protected Categories” “pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:7-1.1.” looks like this..
“housing status, socioeconomic status, immigration status, or any protected category as stated at N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq., such as race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, civil union status, domestic partnership status, affectional or sexual orientation, genetic information, pregnancy or breastfeeding, sex, gender identity or expression, religion, disability, atypical hereditary cellular or blood trait, service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or nationality”
While there can be plenty of arguments made here, there is one in particular that seems like it requires special attention.
“immigration status”
Really? Yes.
N.J.A.C. 6A:7-1.1 then goes on to reference Article 1 paragraph 5 of The New Jersey State Constitution and Civil Rights laws. Like we said, we’re not lawyers, but wouldn’t citizenship be required for federal and state laws/funding to be applicable?
Also, can a policy override “immigration status”?
To be fair, this is not a child’s fault and it should have never got to this point to begin with. Plus, we are not advocating for pulling children or even singling them out. This is something for the adults to handle and insist the best results for all children every time; stop with the categories.
However, it’s concerning that school policy can dance around the US and state laws to enjoy the benefits and protection via citizenship. In addition, there are some other policies in the document that should probably be reviewed as well.
How did this get past the law makers in Trenton? How is this not all over the news?
It might have something to do with the push in 2018 to back off the police from illegal aliens, sorry, undocumented immigrants.
To be clear, Chapter 7. Managing for Equity in Education did make the news, but not for its added protected category of “immigration status”. It went viral because on its face most of it is just ridiculous nonsense regarding gender, global society initiatives, and what can only be described as mental illness.
This is why we are always stressing; don’t look at what they are showing you, look at what they are not. Here in both cases, it’s absurd, but is it legal?
Considering the clown show that is our southern border; we need to know.
Here’s a link to N.J.A.C. 6A:7-1.1
N.J.A.C. 6A:7, Managing for Equity in Education (nj.gov)
Sagalogic Part IV will be out later this month. Hope you’ll check out the first three pieces and join us for the last part; Gloves Off.
Thanks for reading.
Cited:
Policy 2260 Equity in School and Classroom Practices
N.J.A.C. 6A:7, Managing for Equity in Education