They have a racism problem because their customers (the paying parents) have a racism problem. This isn't really a fixable problem, imo.
They have a racism problem because their customers (the paying parents) have a racism problem. This isn't really a fixable problem, imo.
...Typically, Tier 1 schools have predominantly Western faculty, are accredited by a Western agency, and have only a small percentage of domestic students. They are the preferred choice of diplomats, bankers, and executives, whose employers usually pay the tuition fees, which rival those of top universities. Tier 2 are a little bit cheaper, a little more local, a little less choosy. Tier 3 are for-profit businesses catering almost exclusively to the domestic market.
Tier 1 schools are hardest for teachers of color to break into. Many stop applying. Parents want White teachers, and the schools are loath to challenge parents. The remit to educate goes only so far.
In 2020, Heidi Dyck Hilty, a former international school teacher, publicly called on schools to start educating parents. In an article for the International Educator, she recounted seeing parents walk out at the first sight of a Filipina teacher, balk at an Indian teacher, and band together to complain about a teacher of Vietnamese origin (who turned out to be Canadian). She wrote of hearing administrators tell staff to change names that were “too ethnic.”
The willingness to indulge parental bigotry can require deception. When a school in Japan hired Charley Mendoza, a Filipina, as a homeroom teacher, it paired her with a young, White, American male aide. Mendoza says staff outright lied to parents, presenting the aide as the lead teacher and Mendoza as his assistant. “It is what it is,” the principal told Mendoza when she complained. “The parents want native speakers for their kids.” He didn’t need to explain that it really wasn’t about her English—after all, Mendoza was schooled in English from the age of 4. Her English is impeccable.
In many countries [edit: and as a general ethical thing] customer preferences are not a valid basis for acts of hiring discrimination and companies are not really permitted to facilitate...
They have a racism problem because their customers (the paying parents) have a racism problem. This isn't really a fixable problem, imo.
In many countries [edit: and as a general ethical thing] customer preferences are not a valid basis for acts of hiring discrimination and companies are not really permitted to facilitate discriminatory desires of their customers.
In the US this is provided for under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act – courts have consistently found that customer desires cannot be used as a valid defence here. For example in Chaney v. Plainfield Healthcare Center the 7th circuit found (emphasis mine)
Longstanding Circuit precedent and EEOC guidance establish that client or customer preference cannot excuse or justify race-based disparate treatment of employees. See, e.g., Village of Bellwood v. Dwivedi, 895 F.2d 1521, 1530-31 (7th Cir. 1990) (employer's refusal to "hire black workers … because he believes that his customers do not like blacks" is "discrimination, because it is treating people differently on account of their race"; it is "intentional discrimination, because it necessarily is based on the [employer's] awareness of racial difference and his decision to base employment decisions on that awareness"; and it is "actionable discrimination, regardless of its effects and notwithstanding the [employer's] own freedom from racial animus"); Rucker v. Higher Educational Aids Board, 669 F.2d 1179, 1181 (7th Cir. 1982)("Customer preference has been repeatedly rejected as a justification for discrimination against women," and "it is clearly forbidden by Title VII, to refuse on racial grounds to hire someone because your customers or clientele do not like his race."); see also Knight v. Nassau County Civil Serv. Comm'n, 649 F.2d 157, 162 (2d Cir. 1981) (employer's assignment of African- American personnel specialist, against his wishes, to "minority recruitment," based on belief he "would develop a better rapport than would a white person with the members of minority groups whom the [employer] was trying to recruit," violated Title VII); Fernandez v. Wynn Oil Co., 653 F.2d 1273, 1276-77 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding that "stereotyped customer preference [does not] justify a sexually discriminatory practice," and relying on EEOC decision holding "that the need to accommodate racially discriminatory policies of other nations cannot be the basis of a valid BFOQ exception") (citing EEOC Decision No. 72-0697, CCH EEOC Decisions 1971, P 6317, at 4569)).
Sure, this is definitely illegal in the United States, but these are international schools, they're in literally hundreds of different legal jurisdictions, each of with their own law, and...
Sure, this is definitely illegal in the United States, but these are international schools, they're in literally hundreds of different legal jurisdictions, each of with their own law, and different levels of how much their own law is even enforced.
I wonder whether that law applies to foreign companies who are merely recruiting in the US. Probably not, unless they're at least getting training here (or other employment activities).
I don't think the political willpower to fix this will exist in most of the world, perhaps with parts of Europe excepted.
Even if illegal its the sort of thing that's intensely hard to prove, and often overlooked because "well ok we can just close?" is the alternative. People forget how influential groups like the...
Even if illegal its the sort of thing that's intensely hard to prove, and often overlooked because "well ok we can just close?" is the alternative.
People forget how influential groups like the House of Saud are, and they sure as hell don't care about your local morals or takes and will gladly go to another institution that meets their criteria, and they're hardly the only one.
And that's just looking at the extremes. There's an entire cultural difference on how to handle things like this between even the US and the rest of the world, let alone places like India and China.
Sorry, should have been more explict – even if it's technically legal in some jurisdictions (I'm not an expert in Swiss law, but I imagine e.g. Ecolint is bound by the same kind of restriction)...
Sorry, should have been more explict – even if it's technically legal in some jurisdictions (I'm not an expert in Swiss law, but I imagine e.g. Ecolint is bound by the same kind of restriction) it's still not ethically sound to apply these racist practices. I think many international schools (especially the more prestigious ones, such as Ecolint) can change their actions because demand from parents will exist irregardless.
I don't disagree that it's fucked up and wrong, sorry if I made it seem that way. I just think that there are likely bigger racism fish to fry than international schools in most of these...
I don't disagree that it's fucked up and wrong, sorry if I made it seem that way. I just think that there are likely bigger racism fish to fry than international schools in most of these countries.
Perhaps the largest schools can do the right thing, but they're a minority of a tiny minority -- so I wonder how much effort it's worth exerting, and how much backlash it's worth.
They have a racism problem because their customers (the paying parents) have a racism problem. This isn't really a fixable problem, imo.
In many countries [edit: and as a general ethical thing] customer preferences are not a valid basis for acts of hiring discrimination and companies are not really permitted to facilitate discriminatory desires of their customers.
In the US this is provided for under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act – courts have consistently found that customer desires cannot be used as a valid defence here. For example in Chaney v. Plainfield Healthcare Center the 7th circuit found (emphasis mine)
Sure, this is definitely illegal in the United States, but these are international schools, they're in literally hundreds of different legal jurisdictions, each of with their own law, and different levels of how much their own law is even enforced.
I wonder whether that law applies to foreign companies who are merely recruiting in the US. Probably not, unless they're at least getting training here (or other employment activities).
I don't think the political willpower to fix this will exist in most of the world, perhaps with parts of Europe excepted.
Even if illegal its the sort of thing that's intensely hard to prove, and often overlooked because "well ok we can just close?" is the alternative.
People forget how influential groups like the House of Saud are, and they sure as hell don't care about your local morals or takes and will gladly go to another institution that meets their criteria, and they're hardly the only one.
And that's just looking at the extremes. There's an entire cultural difference on how to handle things like this between even the US and the rest of the world, let alone places like India and China.
Sorry, should have been more explict – even if it's technically legal in some jurisdictions (I'm not an expert in Swiss law, but I imagine e.g. Ecolint is bound by the same kind of restriction) it's still not ethically sound to apply these racist practices. I think many international schools (especially the more prestigious ones, such as Ecolint) can change their actions because demand from parents will exist irregardless.
I don't disagree that it's fucked up and wrong, sorry if I made it seem that way. I just think that there are likely bigger racism fish to fry than international schools in most of these countries.
Perhaps the largest schools can do the right thing, but they're a minority of a tiny minority -- so I wonder how much effort it's worth exerting, and how much backlash it's worth.