There are always people who think it’s okay to demean groups with stereotypes. A big part of American politics is demonizing “the other.” It’s why we can’t have nice things, like universal health insurance. Oh, if I get that, then those bad people will have it too.

Politicians routinely get away with it. Bush 1 ran a racist campaign featuring Willie Horton and won the presidency. This year, Donald Trump prominently featured xenophobia, and told absurd tales about teachers performing sex change operations in school. UFT Unity opposed Trump, and so did I. For Unity, though, ridiculing older people is something to stand up and cheer about.

It occurred to me, as I was pondering Unity’s tolerance of ageism, that, during the pandemic, they enabled remote voting at the DA, but not for the Retired Teachers Chapter. Is that in itself ageist? Was it ageist when they thought they could dump us into Advantage plans, or charge prices many could not afford to retain our current coverage? Was it ageist when they decided we should pay for raises to rank and file, raises from which we would not benefit?

Last week, I wrote about how a Unity District Representative tolerated and used ageist memes to ridicule those of us who won seats in the Delegate Assembly. Using stereotypes against a protected class is particularly distasteful to me. But UFT Unity, the titular leaders of the United Federation of Teachers, literally applauded it at last Monday’s Executive Board meeting. According to my source:

At Executive Board, Nancy Aromando asked, “what can be done when UFT members are lying about other UFT members, including employees?”

and LeRoy was like, “I’m going to assume that you’re talking about some posts that are going around, and even though you didn’t say his name, I’m going to let Aqeel Williams speak”

Then he gave a speech about how he’s a caretaker for old people (his mom, mother-in-law, grandma) and he’s a good guy and he’s not ageist.

Then all the UFT staff clapped.

Not sure who was lying, but it wasn’t me. My column provoked many responses. They varied, but only Unity members defended ageism.

Unity has been around a long time. As far as I know, ever since Albert Shanker supported the Vietnam War, they’ve never, ever admitted a mistake. It doesn’t seem to be in their DNA.

Aside from the approval of Unity members at the Executive Board, there were several defenses of the stereotypical memes in the comment section last week, and I’ll examine them. While Unity rallied behind the offender at Monday’s Executive Board meeting, there is no excuse for stereotyping a protected class. We have every right to demand better of our so-called leaders.

It’s a private conversation.

Actually, as it was a District Representative conversing with chapter leaders, it’s official UFT business. While it may have been confined to a group chat, it’s no longer private. No one disputes it happened.

Who’s to blame for the fact that a UFT employee engaged in enabling and propagating ageist stereotypes? Not me. Not the person who leaked it. It’s off topic anyway. It’s what you call a red herring.

This DR appeared to find aging hilarious. Some of us know different. My dad lived into his nineties. I’ll spare you detail, but what he went through was not precisely a laugh riot. Older people are not a protected class just for fun.

It’s just a joke.

Hey, I like jokes. Some I find funny, and others not. When I was very young, I heard lots of racist jokes. I heard a whole lot of anti-Semitic jokes. I did not find them amusing. At some point I realized that if I wasn’t amused by those jokes, jokes about other groups were just as unacceptable. Perhaps Unity Caucus will realize that one day too.

You want to tell a joke about yourself? Go ahead. You want to spread hurtful stereotypes about protected groups? Maybe you should find a job in a forest, and amuse the trees. You don’t talk about protected groups like that, particularly at work, as an ostensible educator.

This “joke” is not acceptable. Don’t bother gaslighting me.

If every one of us who did that were held to that standard, there would be no teaching force.

That’s a very low standard. The person who wrote this, evidently, assumes that every single educator indulges in stereotypical humor about protected classes. Yet I don’t. Nor do the overwhelming majority of educators I know.

That’s another reason I find this WhatsApp conversation so disappointing and distasteful. As a leader, you step up and stop this sort of thing. I’d certainly do that in my classroom, or chapter.

Regardless, the assertion that every teacher spouts bigoted stereotypes is not only false, not only ridiculous, but also offensive. It’s what you call a straw man fallacy, and not a particularly good one.

It’s self-deprecating humor.

I don’t know how old the DR who did this is. If he wants to make jokes about himself, fine. Making jokes about yourself, though, is not making jokes about a whole class of people. As a teacher, I know that well. I’d say I have to be careful about such things, but I don’t. These things do not even occur to me.

If I want to make a joke about myself in the classroom, that’s one thing. If I want to make a joke about everyone from a protected group, it’s quite another. I’m liable to offend someone, end up in a disciplinary meeting, and quite possibly up on charges (if not on the cover of the NY Post).

I’ve watched my Black students engage in “self-deprecating humor.” I won’t have that language in my classroom, and I wouldn’t dream of using it anywhere. No one would be defending me if I sent out memes about it—you know, if I stereotyped a protected class.

I understand that the District Rep. did not send out all the memes, and names were blacked out. I wasn’t clear on that before, and I apologize for my misunderstanding. . Actually, a source tells me that CLs sent the questions, and the DR replied with the memes. That said, someone cultivated an environment where chapter leaders felt comfortable posting this type of ageist, disrespectful, and divisive commentary:

My mother/ father/ friend makes these jokes.

Your mother/ father/ friend is not the subject here. Your mother/ father/ friend is not a UFT District Representative, and did not enable or encourage ageist memes with a group of UFT chapter leaders. If they joke about themselves, that’s one thing.

If your mother/ father/ friend propagates stereotypes about protected classes at work, you have my sympathy.

Regardless, it’s another red herring.

You post photos that make fun of Michael Mulgrew. Why is that okay?

It starts out ad hominem—that’s when you attack the person rather than the argument. I made fun of Mulgrew, and therefore I’m bad, so my argument isn’t valid. The fallacy is that addresses me, rather than my argument—that stereotyping protected groups is unacceptable.

To their point, irrelevant though it is, King Mulgrew photos are parody, which is protected by the First Amendment. When UFT portrayed Eric Adams as a clown, his supporters (whoever they may be) likely didn’t care for it. You don’t have to like my parody either.

UFT Unity parodied Migda Rodriguez, a UFT paraprofessional who needed two jobs to get by. They put her in a funny hat and asked, “Where’s Migda?” The answer? While Unity members were bellyaching about her not showing to meetings in their fancy offices, she was working a second job to make ends meet.

Parody is generally used to attack the powerful.

Michael Mulgrew makes triple what most teachers do. He makes disastrous decisions about our health care completely without our input. For my money, he merits ridicule a whole lot more than a working mom struggling to get by. Disagree? That’s your right. (And maybe your job, too, if you signed the Unity loyalty oath.)

Even if it were not okay to parody Mulgrew, it would have no bearing. Even if I were the worst person on earth, it would have no bearing. This is called whataboutism. What about your photos? What about Hunter’s laptop? It has nothing whatsoever to do with what we’re discussing—stereotyping a protected group. Here, older members, asking questions about a resolution, are portrayed as stupid:

The chapter leaders are not on the clock.

That’s true. They aren’t. But chapter leaders don’t make remarks like these in a vacuum. If ageism is normalized, that’s on leadership.

I’m a longtime teacher. It’s my job to set an example. As chapter leader, I felt the same. I had to keep members out of trouble, advising them about things that might result in disciplinary meetings. Aside from the conflicts I had with admin as part of my job, I kept myself out of trouble. The only letter to file I ever got was this one.

As CL, I sent out a weekly newsletter. I mean I wrote it. I didn’t just copy and paste what UFT sent. The most I ever stereotyped a protected group, when addressing members, was never.

I understand Unity is upset that the names of the CLs were blacked out on the memes. That’s also irrelevant. The fact is, this was a conversation they took as acceptable. Who gave them that impression?

Unity will not, does not address the fact that the District Rep. took no offense at these posts, as they stereotyped a protected class. If the meme below does not express explicit approval, I don’t know what does.

Look how he laughs at “You’re old.”

The guy who did it is a good person.

This is the opposite of ad hominem—he’s a good guy, so whatever he did must be good. More logical fallacy.

Frankly, I don’t know the guy at all. I never said he was a bad person. I said what he did was a bad thing. I don’t care if he’s the smartest, or funniest, or best-looking guy in the room. He encouraged chapter leaders to laugh over ageist stereotypes. Evidently he’s good to his mom. That’s fine.

But that’s the same as saying some of my best friends are Black. Or Jewish. Or Whatever. It is not an argument.

It makes absolutely no difference how nice the guy is. It’s what he did we’re talking about.

Not only that, but I’d bet did it because these delegates are not part of his caucus. I’d argue it shows the blatant lack of respect Unity has for independent thought. I’d argue there’d be no such conversation if we hadn’t defeated them in the RTC election.

But if I’m wrong, and the guy ridiculed retirees from his own caucus, it would still be just as unacceptable—because the guy still saw fit to stereotype a protected class. Our leadership literally applauds this.

A teacher should know better and model for students. A chapter leader should know better and model for teachers. A District Rep. should know better and model for chapter leaders. And holy crap, UFT officials should know much better. Instead, they applauded this guy at Monday’s Executive Board meeting.

This District Rep. failed utterly, and so did every Unity official who tolerated this behavior. It’s disgraceful they will not face the truth. They drew a line here.

Racism.

Xenophobia.

Ageism.

Which one is acceptable to the Unity Caucus?

On Monday, they told us loud and clear.

Thanks to Nick A.