San Francisco school board halts appointment based on race
&gt; Here&#x27;s the current ethnic makeup of the PAC:<p>&gt; Three Latinas<p>&gt; Three white women<p>&gt; Two African Americans<p>&gt; One Asian American<p>&gt; One Pacific Islander<p>&gt; All current members of the PAC are women. Brenzel would have been the only man, and he happens to be white.<p>How do you even parody this?<p>&gt; About 33% of SFUSD students are Asian, 28% are Latino, 15% are white and 6% are African American. The school board argued that adding a white male would tip the balance in the PAC. Whites would then become the &quot;dominating race.&quot;<p>What if we didn&#x27;t encourage a world in which people identified with and advocated for their own race? I.e., you have some extra white people (or whatever race) on the board but it&#x27;s not really a problem because they aren&#x27;t lobbying for &quot;white interests&quot; (whatever that means). In what world is segregating everyone to their own racial lane going to deliver more equitable outcomes for individuals? Surely this is only going to enforce antiquated, racist ideas that race is a useful predictor for anything at an individual level (i.e., &quot;I know everything I need to know about a person from their race&quot;). Surely this is the very essence of racism? Do these people really not understand that they&#x27;re being far more racist than their broader society? Or are they aware of their racism but using terms like &quot;anti-racism&quot; and &quot;equity&quot; deceitfully?<p>EDIT: Looks like TFA was flagged off of the front page, which is really too bad because this seems like a very important topic and very relevant to much of this forum (considering how frequently we deal with racial employment policies in tech or the broader BLM threads over the summer or general SF&#x2F;SV happenings).