WHILE SEVERAL STATE departments of education have developed work plans for diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives for schools, it is up to individual school districts to make these plans a reality through local policies and practices.

Unfortunately, championing this cause may carry a personal cost. Recently many of my superintendent colleagues and I have come under criticism by community members who view attention to diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, as a Trojan horse that will unleash untold harm on students. As the superintendent of a small, rural school district near Albany, N.Y., I have been called everything from a Marxist to a child abuser by critics. I have been on the receiving end of petitions that call for me to be fired.

As uncomfortable as it is to weather this invective, it is nowhere near as unpleasant as it is to live in the skins of our most marginalized students.

The anti-DEI movement in social media succeeded in conflating our work to address these needs with critical race theory, or CRT, a half-century-old branch of legal scholarship recently popularized in right-wing media. Those following this reasoning contend that DEI equals CRT and CRT is evil. By the transitive property, DEI is evil.

Unspoken Bias

Because school officials are teachers by nature, we have tackled this problem by attempting to educate the public about what CRT is and how it differs from DEI. In doing this, we have accepted the flawed underlying logic of critics — that it is our responsibility to be experts on a theory outside of our field of expertise. We also have lent legitimacy to the argument that there is a secret conspiracy afoot to confuse the public with an acronym switcheroo. The most serious ramification of this tactic is that it takes the focus off students who are actually experiencing inequity.

I grew up in a trailer park in rural upstate New York as the son of a single mom who worked nights to make ends meet. Though my mom did her best, many things were unavailable to me due to our circumstances. Certain extracurricular activities, athletics, field trips and even academic programs required resources that were beyond our reach. It was generally accepted that the kids in my neighborhood would just not be able to participate in certain aspects of public education.

There was and is an unspoken bias toward people in poverty. Chance was a factor in my success. Luckily, I was placed with a few teachers who took an interest in me and provided encouragement. I know now I also benefited greatly by being a white male with some natural talent for “doing school.” I took advantage of my privilege and luck — factors that ought not be part of any school district’s strategic plan.

Limits of Logic

As school leaders, we are often called on to take metaphorical blows from constituents. In this case, though, there is a strong chance very real violence will be directed toward some of us. News coverage by Reuters in February identified 220 threats of violence directed at a sampling of 33 school officials across 15 states.

I do not know whether we will be able to use logic to change critics’ hearts and minds. It is rational to fear threats when legitimate, but many of our students also live in fear of existential threats every day. If we are unable to support these vulnerable children, are we not complicit in continuing the harm being done to them?

As a superintendent, my decision to support diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in our schools has been an easy one, even while guiding a system through a pandemic in a hyper-charged political culture. Schools should be working to enact processes and programs to make sure that all kids have what they need to fulfill their dreams and aspirations. Deferring any longer is just not in their best interest.

JAMES NIEDERMEIER is superintendent of the Duanesburg Central School District in Delanson, N.Y. Twitter: @niedertech