17 Comments

Dan Goeller is a whistle-blower, who is simply giving an insider's perspective of the degree to which the woke mind-virus has infected this non-profit, among many others.

Calling him "liar" is a weak response & a slur.

This article in no way sheds light on any possible motivation for Dan to do this, other than his own personal convictions. In fact, he brought these facts to light at great expense to himself; and made some of the most powerful men in SF his enemy.

This is what bravery looks like.

Expand full comment

Reading and reviewing documents and statements previously made by SEUW tell a story contrary to what they say now.

Expand full comment

Wow! Thanks for creating the content you have Dan! It’s really raised a lot of important awareness for me! I appreciate people who help us learn what’s really going on like you have here Dan! Keep up the good work.

Expand full comment

How does someone make "inaccurate and often outright false statements" when all I did was simply provide the SEUW's own documents and videos documenting their DEI work? Here is a 4-minute video that shares those documents: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etRQQ4Zz7pw

I think the public should look at the evidence and make up their owns minds.

Expand full comment
founding

Dan, what changed from the time you accepted United Way funds and now, when you don't? Thanks.

Expand full comment

The concise answer to your question, Chuck, is that I've seen the United Way evolve into a blatantly political and ideologically-focused organization that is not transparent to its donors about this agenda. When I expressed questions and concerns about this ideological implementation in our local SEUW leadership, they consistently denied that there is anything political or ideological in their DEI efforts, and that everyone else is on board with it except me. So the Harmony board decided that we no longer wanted to be associated with an organization whose values were antithetical to ours. And I decided that people in our community needed to know what the SEUW was saying and doing in private, but that they continually deny in public. If you want more specific details, please read on or feel free to view videos documenting the SEUW's DEI efforts on YouTube: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAbedA8rjuF2-KOUZV7nEQgiY8ccI8HkW&si=jm_XwqkX70PVi8W2

The SEUW implemented an online application system created by UW Worldwide in 2020. It included the collection of demographic data: gender, race, ethnicity, and income. I asked why we were now required to collect this private information from our program participants, and was told it was part of the requirements of the UW Worldwide. When I looked at the DEI section of the UW Worldwide's franchise requirements, it states that local franchises (like the SEUW) will "use race equity as one criteria to be considered in making community investments." I believe that prioritizing or excluding certain people (based on their group identities) to prioritize others does not justify intentional discrimination. Our US Supreme Court just affirmed this truth in its recent ruling that “all forms of discrimination based on race–including so-called affirmative action–are prohibited under the Constitution.”

On Nov. 29, 2021 funded agencies and their board members were asked to attend a virtual session focused on "the information you will need to be aware of for the upcoming (application) process and also discuss our work regarding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and how this will likely impact our process over the next few years." The SEUW then provided four DEI training sessions to funded agencies' staff and board members which were "highly recommend that individuals working closely with data and outcome measurements attend. The summer series, in particular, will help you prepare for future United Way applications."

The first two DEI sessions were led by Chloe Clements and JJ Johnson who co-founded Ace Academy in Sioux Falls. They describe their school: "Education at ACE is activism, children's rights, equity work, decolonization and so much more." The first DEI training promoted the value of equity (everyone achieves the same outcome) over equality (everyone has the same opportunities). Here's a small sample: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3Kr2eVZmF0

The second DEI training session explored implicit bias and microaggressions and how these "concepts" harm people of color, LGBTQ, and other oppressed groups. Participants in that session took an "implicit association test" (IAT) which told them what sort of bigot they were (i.e. racist, ageist, et al). When Chloe and JJ asked who would like to share the results of their IAT, there was a long, awkward pause. Eventually, Brenda Kibbe the SEUW board chair, shared that she was ageist. "I don't think that's true," she said. "Maybe it's wishful thinking because I want to be younger." Chloe and JJ then tried to diffuse the awkward tension by debunking the whole notion of implicit bias that they were promoting. That's easy to do since it's already been widely debunked in the scientific community, despite its continued popularity among DEI trainers. https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the-job.html

The two DEI data series seminars were led by Dr. Suzanne Smith from Augustana University. That session included lectures on how "focusing on DEI is the right thing to do," as well as an explanation of radical transgender theory to ensure that gender identity data is accurately collected: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvSJazqEHnI

I was also alarmed to see that the SEUW's DEI committee, chaired by Brenda Kibbe, was also staffed with some local community activists. Susan Williams, founder of the Transformation Project is one example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cbad1043YKc

Another member of the DEI committee was Goi Yol. Mr. Yol "represented the Sudan People Liberation movement" and "built networks with the African Union Peace Commission" in Sudan. When I asked the SEUW leadership (in September of 2021) why they had a former leader in these Marxist organizations on their DEI committee, they didn't have an answer. However, Mr. Yol's tenure on the SEUW DEI committee ended that same month. You'd have to ask them why or if that's just a coincidence.

Each time I asked the SEUW leadership about why they were promoting neo-Marxist political and ideological concepts in their DEI training sessions, and why they were assimilating it as their "core value and practice to advance their mission," they consistently replied that, "we're sorry if you see DEI as a political and ideological agenda." They also claimed they had "only heard positive feedback from donors on our work to bring attention to DEI." However, they've never included any mention of diversity, equity, or inclusion in a single piece of their campaign promotional materials. As you saw when the Dakota Scout article was published though, it seems that their donors are not actually happy when they heard about it.

The SEUW asked me to "share my questions and concerns about their DEI efforts." I spent two years collecting information and an entire year talking to the SEUW leadership about those concerns and questions. My concern was that the SEUW would not be able to continue raising money for its funded agencies if they continued infusing this political ideology into their organization, and eventually, their allocation process as they repeatedly emphasized (in the training sessions) was their goal. As you see in their letter to the editor, the SEUW leadership distances themselves from the DEI principles whenever questioned about them.

Why were we, the funded agencies, constantly told that "we needed to see our organization's mission through the lens of equity" if they didn't expect us to do anything related to it? Why were we told that we needed to "join the SEUW on their DEI journey" if it's optional? Why are the DEI questions and DEI data collection optional if it's included on the application that they use to determine our funding?

It will be difficult for us to raise the 2/3 of our budget ($125,000) we were receiving from the SEUW. But I have faith that God will provide for us if we're obedient in doing the right thing. And I'm also certain that I'm doing the right thing by shining a light of truth on this divisive and destructive ideology that is infecting our local institutions, and holding the leaders who are complacent or complicit with this agenda accountable for their actions.

Expand full comment
founding

Got it. You are a Extreme Conservative. I'm done here. Thanks.

Expand full comment

Nice rebuttal, lol.

Expand full comment
founding

And he is. He described it in his response to me.

Expand full comment

Wow. Painfully insightful. We don’t like to think these things exist, especially here vs “someplace else”, but it has to be exposed. It’s so much easier to look the other way or believe what one’s staff or Board reports. Thank you, Dan, for choosing principle over the huge dollars. Character is what you do when it’s difficult but do it anyway. Our donation dollars have shifted & we’ll ask the hard questions you did before we contribute.

Expand full comment
founding

Opposition to Diversity, Inclusion, and Equality no matter how you Cloud it, is really just an Excuse for Bigotry.

Expand full comment

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Expand full comment

The letter provided by the Sioux Empire United Way in response to allegations made by Dan Goeller appears to be an articulate and thorough clarification of the intent behind the questions in their application. I wonder then, was this simply a misunderstanding? I can understand that if one sees a question on an application, they may presume that they are required to answer unless the document expressly states that the field is not required. However on many documents, only fields marked with an asterisk are required. I haven't seen the form. Perhaps the option to leave the field blank was ambiguous?

In the SEUW letter, they claim to have reached out to Mr Goeller to clear up a misunderstanding, but received no response from him. I do not see that an attempt was made to reach out to SEUW regarding Goeller's allegations prior to publishing the original article. It appears that only previous statements from SEUW were referenced, and perhaps some of their wording was taken out of context.

To my understanding of the response letter, they do not intend to withhold funding from organizations which are not actively collecting the requested information. Rather, they hope to help to FURTHER support organizations wishing to foster a supportive and inclusive environment in their outreach; not to punish anyone, but to facilitate growth where they see the opportunity.

As a parent and a grandparent, I wish to see organizations and entities fostering a culture of inclusion and acceptance of our community members. I believe that when people feel accepted as they are, it has a positive impact on their mental health, which in turn affects their attitude in work and social environments, ultimately creating a ripple effect of positivity throughout the community. Since SEUW is an organization which helps to fund community outreach organizations, it stands to reason that they would seek to foster inclusiveness education and support when the organizations they fund show openness to learning and growing in that aspect. I don't see how showing support and compassion for any group which has been historically marginalized based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender identity, or orientation would be detrimental to a community.

The letter from SEUW appears simply to clarify intent. They appear to aim to simply identify opportunities to further benefit the community, not to withdraw funding from community organizations which seek to, or are already making positive impacts on the community. Did I misunderstand? Was SEUW contacted for clarification prior to the publication of the original article, to which they felt compelled to respond? Again, the presence of a field on a questionnaire does not necessarily mandate a response unless it is marked "required."

I myself have missed that nuance when filling out forms, believing that fields were required when they weren't, and I have often declined to answer questions that were not required. I appreciate SEUW's clearing the air on this matter, and I do hope people who have expressed their withdrawal of support for SEUW will read the letter, think critically on this clarification, and consider researching further to be absolutely sure SEUW truly does not align with their values. Misunderstandings happen. We're all human, after all.

*As note, I did search for and locate the application form online. At this moment it does expressly state that the gender identity field is NOT required. If that is different from the form Mr Goeller was provided when his organization chose to boycott SEUW, I would be interested in seeing the original form.

Expand full comment

Interestingly, Sioux Empire United Way (SEUW) has a whole page on their site dedicated to DEI implementation. They write, “In June 2020, our Board of Directors took our first steps in our organization’s deepened commitment to building a sustainable system for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) into our organization and our funded agencies and programs.” Further down the page it continues with a laundry list of DEI related, “Key Accomplishments to Date”, naming one specifically as, “Included metrics to measure diversity, equity, and inclusion progress with the funded application process.” (Source: https://www.seuw.org/diversity-equity-and-inclusion) Quite curious. They may argue that such reporting is not “required” to be awarded funds, suspect as that is given that they are, as stated above, “…building a sustainable system for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) into our organization and our funded agencies and programs”, but that’s beside the point, and anyone with any commonsense is not fooled here; it is clear these metrics play a role, and will probably play an increasingly larger role as time goes on. Are not these metrics inextricably bound with the DEI agenda, which they are, by their own admission, committedly pursuing? And, we should continue asking, why again are they “voluntarily” requesting the gendered pronouns and sexual identity of kids and other participants, followed along with explanatory questions? The rabbit hole gets a lot deeper, as I found out…

With respect, this and the other article didn’t really do full justice to the whole extent of what Dan has found in regard to this issue, it’s not simply a reporting issue that led to the break (though that in itself could warrant such a thing), from what I could gather. As with all things, there’s always more to the story. From what I can doubtless gather from the additional documents and video provided by Dan (links below), SEUW whole approach to social problems, their whole framing, in other words, is essentially loaded with DEI nomenclature and politically charged language we’ve all come to know and see cropping up in traditionally woke leftwing spaces and coastal states, such as Oregon, NY, or CA. You’ll even find SEUW sponsoring newly developed, local DEI “training opportunities for funded organizations' staff and Board of Directors.” I was frankly shocked. A larger trove of content documented by Dan, which brings greater light to this issue, including the content of the “trainings”, can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/@Leninists_OTP. Dan’s talked on a couple local podcasts to better explain everything, which can be listened to here: 1) https://t.ly/yUbKD and 2) https://t.ly/ezRy0. All this was very eye-opening to me, as I had no idea this kind of woke leftwing stuff was so entrenched in this area.

Expand full comment

So, do they ask for the information as outlined in the first article or not? Plain and simple.

Expand full comment

The questions on demographics are no different from questions you would see on a questionnaire at a clinic, dmv, or job application. And just as you are welcome to Decline to answer the questions on those types of forms, organizations applying for funding from SEUW are welcome to Decline to answer those questions. They do not affect an organization's ability to receive funding. The questions only serve to aid SEUW in understanding which demographics their funds are serving and to help them find opportunities to serve the communities even better.

Expand full comment