Obama-Appointed Judge Rules in Favor of College Professor’s Lawsuit Over Anti-White Critical Race Theory Trainings

Norristown, Pennsylvania – In a recent ruling, a judge appointed by former President Barack Obama sided with a college professor who sued his employer over critical race theory trainings that he claimed were anti-White. The lawsuit alleged that the professor, Zack De Piero, was subjected to traumatizing trainings that portrayed White teachers as a problem and labeled the English language as “White supremacy.” Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the United States District Court in Norristown, Pennsylvania, allowed the race discrimination case to proceed, stating that discussing the influence of racism on society does not violate federal law.

The lawsuit, filed by the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR), detailed the alleged incidents of discrimination and hostility towards White faculty members. According to the lawsuit, De Piero was singled out for ridicule and humiliation because of his race. When he complained about the racial insults directed at White faculty members, he was told by an administrator that there was a problem with the White race and suggested he attend “antiracist” workshops until he understood.

The lawsuit also highlighted instances where equity administrators and directors allegedly engaged in behavior that perpetuated racial stereotypes. For example, one equity administrator engaged in breathing exercises and suggested that White staff members needed to hold their breath longer than people of color in order to “feel the pain” that George Floyd endured. The suit further claimed that a professional development video stated that “White English kills people of color.”

In response to the ruling, Michael Thad Allen, the attorney representing De Piero at FAIR, emphasized the importance of not wrapping up racist stereotypes as “anti-racist” practices. The university, Penn State, declined to comment on ongoing litigation.

The case serves as another example of the ongoing debate surrounding critical race theory and its implementation in educational institutions. Proponents argue that critical race theory is necessary to address systemic racism, while critics claim it fosters divisiveness and discriminates against individuals based on their race. The impact of these debates is felt directly by individuals like De Piero, who continue to suffer the emotional consequences of the alleged discriminatory practices they encountered in the workplace.

As the lawsuit moves forward, it raises questions about the boundaries of discussing race in professional settings and the potential legal consequences for employers who engage in essentialist and negative language around race. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for future discussions and trainings on critical race theory in workplaces and educational institutions across the country.