September 24, 2021

Ms. Laurie Gruhn

Head of School
The Gateway School
lgruhn@gatewayschool.org

Sent via Email

Dear Ms. Gruhn:

I am an attorney at the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR), a nonpartisan organization
dedicated to advancing civil rights and liberties rooted in our common humanity. We have more than 70
chapters nationwide and tens of thousands of members, including in New York City. FAIR’s advisory
board includes John McWhorter, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Steven Pinker, Bari Weiss, and others similarly
dedicated to our mission. Our website, fairforall.org, can give you a fuller sense of our identity and
activities.

We write in response to four incident reports submitted anonymously to FAIR on September 15 through
our transparency website, fairtransparency.org, regarding The Gateway School. Those reports state, in
pertinent part:

On the LinkedIn profile of a writing specialist, she states that she is working on
curriculum development at Gateway: “as I create a new course that combines
research, writing, and technology skills with issues of civic importance.” She is
clearly referencing civic issues of importance to her. She says that she is a feminist
and in her previous job as a 6th grade writing teacher at Democracy Prep Public
Schools, she “designed and implemented my own original curriculum centered on the
principle of justice. My students have read and written about Colin Kaepernick, Anita
Hill, world religions, Harvey Milk, girls education, the AIDS crisis, and more.” This
teacher is clearly interested in promoting a certain political agenda. Nowhere is this
stated on Gateway’s website nor has this been shared with parents. Parents have no
idea that she will expose children to a one sided view of the world and that her
curriculum will not introduce students to other ideas that she disagrees with. Gateway
teaches some of the most vulnerable students and this teacher should not be permitted
to indoctrinate them.

According to the LinkedIn account of a Humanities teacher, she is a co-chair of the

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion committee at The Gateway School …. Parents were
never told that there even is a DEI committee at Gateway. Parents have not been
notified of who the other co-chairs are or who the members of the committee are.
Parents have not been told what the purpose of the committee is. Parents have been
left completely in the dark. Parents have also not been notified that the Humanities
curriculum has been revised by this teacher to have an “anti-racist lens.” The school
 Ms. Laurie Gruhn
September 24, 2021
Page 2

has never used the term “anti-racist” with parents. The teacher also mentions “affinity
groups, curriculum audits, and recruitment and retention practices.” This teacher does
not mention in her profile that the primary goal for students who attend Gateway is to
help them overcome learning disabilities. It is clear that her primary focus is on
teaching “social justice.” On Gateway’s website, in the Humanities curriculum
section, there is no mention of antiracism. The school is misleading parents.

On July 10, 2016, a head math teacher at The Gateway School wrote a racist
comment on Twitter. “Stop talking about me on Twitter so that when I come and
check it I get a creepy feeling like when Japanese people sneeze.”

Students at Gateway are repeatedly asked by teachers to state their pronouns. Some
teachers say it’s optional. According to my child, the students don’t understand why
the teachers are asking this and they make jokes about having to share their pronouns.

Those reports raise several legal and ethical concerns. First, while pro-human antiracism is a core part of
FAIR’s mission, institutions across the country are implementing antiracism and social justice in ways
that violate civil rights laws. For example, many schools now teach students that skin color determines an
individual’s behavior, thinking, and perspective; that individuals are either “oppressed” or “oppressors”
based on the color of their skin; and that “whiteness” or “blackness” (as the case may be) is a detriment.
Such teachings violate New York’s Human Rights Law. That law forbids any “education corporation or
association” from permitting harassment of any student based on race, color, national origin, and other
characteristics. N.Y. Exec. § 296(4). “Education corporation or association” includes non-sectarian private
schools such as Gateway. See North Syracuse Cent. Sch. Dist. v. State Div. of Human Rts., 950 N.Y.S.2d
67, 73 (N.Y. 2012) (Human Rights Law applies to non-sectarian private schools). Intentions are
irrelevant; the discriminatory effect is what controls. State Div. of Human Rts. v. Kilian Mfg. Corp., 360
N.Y.S.2d 603, 608 (N.Y. 1974). Certainly it is demeaning and harassing for adults to reduce vulnerable
children to their skin color and tell them that this color -- over which they exercise neither choice nor
control -- determines culpability and responsibility for any number of social and historical ills. We trust
that in crafting its antiracism approach, Gateway is mindful of New York’s civil rights protections and
will implement antiracism programs in which all students are treated with equal respect and dignity, and
no students are made to feel demeaned, subordinated, or categorized based on skin color or other
immutable traits.

Second, the report of affinity groups suggests that Gateway may be dividing students according to skin
color or other immutable characteristics, as affinity groups often do. We believe the Human Rights Law
precludes non-sectarian private schools from establishing race-specific groups, even if well-intentioned.
See Butterly & Green, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 367 N.Y.S.2d 230, 235-6 (N.Y. 1975) (promoting racial
segregation violates Human Rights Law); see also Illiano v. Mineola Union Free Sch. Dist., 585 F. Supp.
2d 341, 355 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (Human Rights Law is “generally the same as” Equal Protection guarantee
of the Fourteenth Amendment); Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954) (school segregation
violates Equal Protection guarantee); Kilian Mfg. Corp., 360 N.Y.S.2d at 608 (intention is immaterial
 Ms. Laurie Gruhn
September 24, 2021
Page 3

under Human Rights Law). Dividing students by skin color has the further deleterious effect of eroding
school cohesion: it teaches them to color-code their fellow human beings, to perceive those in different
groups as the victim or the oppressor, the “ally” or the adversary, or simply “the other.” Rather than
unifying students, it furthers intolerance, division, and even racism. If Gateway’s affinity groups are based
on skin color or other immutable characteristics, we urge it to reconsider and focus on the children’s
shared humanity.

Third, parents report that some Gateway teachers are pressuring students to adopt certain political
ideologies, and/or curating content in a way that exposes students to only a narrow band of viewpoints.
One of the central purposes of education is to teach students how to think, not what to think. Gateway
appears to agree: according to its website, it strives for students to think from an “objective perspective”
and “emphasizes the development of critical thinking skills.” Compelling or pressuring students to declare
their pronouns, however, demands that they unquestioningly accept (or at least parrot) a particular set of
beliefs about sex and gender, thereby depriving them of the essential opportunity to apply critical thinking
skills and reach their own conclusions. It is therefore not surprising that students are confused about
pronoun declarations, as reported, for confusion often results when critical inquiry is lacking.
Additionally, while social justice movements may be legitimate educational topics, most socio-political
issues are complex and open to substantial disagreement and debate about their causes, nature, and
possible solutions. We hope Gateway exposes its students to a broad range of voices and perspectives to
enable them to form their own opinions and productively engage with diverse ideas.

Fourth, parents are disturbed by the math teacher’s social media post that Japanese people trigger
“creepy” feelings. Gateway’s non-discrimination policy states that it “does not tolerate any individual
verbally or physically harassing any other individual on the basis of actual or perceived race (including
traits associated with race), color,” and other characteristics. While the post appears to have been made on
the teacher’s personal account, we hope the school has taken steps to address such statements and
maintain the trust of the community.

Finally, at least some parents were unaware until recently of the DEI committee’s existence or the
placement of social justice (rather than the support of children with learning disabilities) at the center of
various curricula. Certainly it is the prerogative of an independent school to create a DEI committee and
focus its curriculum on whatever it wishes, within the confines of civil rights laws. However, we hope the
school will be forthcoming and transparent with such information so that parents and guardians, both
current and prospective, can decide whether Gateway is the best choice for their children.
 Ms. Laurie Gruhn
September 24, 2021
Page 4

We would like to give Gateway an opportunity to respond. Please let us know within the next five
business days if you intend to do so.

Very truly yours,

Letitia Kim
Managing Director of the Legal Network
Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism
letitia@fairforall.org

cc: Polly Brandmeyer, Chair of the Board of Trustees