Commentary By Lisa Storment, President of Wake UP Sonoma
On Thursday night, September 10, there was a school board meeting which continued to illuminate the ways in which we have the wrong people sitting on our school board, and points to its ineffectiveness.
Who are the adults in the room? Three of the Board members showed their inability to understand basic concepts of inclusion, bias and compassion. There were moments of shock, disbelief and outrage from the audience. The disrespect shown by some board trustees to the students and the community was difficult to comprehend, with Landry and Lehman taking time to literally lecture the audience on showing respect, which they definitely did not show themselves.
The fact that we had 11 students directly telling the trustees how they feel, courageously sharing their stories, and making direct asks, did not seem to impact the Board at all. Trustee Anne Ching asked Board President David Bell directly, “What is the problem we are trying to solve here?” Bell had no answer that made sense.
But those students were incredible. Austin Cheeseman, the Student Voice on the Board, ended up being the hero of the night, with Anne Ching giving him the platform to make important observations that ultimately guided how the discussion ended and added a third recommendation for consideration. For that, we thank you Anne, and Austin – an ally, who was measured, clear and consistent with his position.
Additionally, I was appalled at the comment made by Landry, who stated, “Has anyone prepared these kids for the idea that this flag may not fly year-round? If the only way they feel safe is to see a flag, then we have a lot more work to do. Because when they leave, the world doesn’t respond like that, and we are not preparing you for a world where people are not always kind.”
I can’t imagine how that made the students feel. And, my response is – yes, you do have a lot more work to do. Because it was never just about the flag. It’s about backing up the symbolism of the flag with the actions of training all school staff to implement the anti-bullying and harassment policies. We are advocating for exactly that.
With that said, I need to try to debunk a few myths that keep getting perpetuated, both online (where there were close to 1,000 what I would call hate comments), and at these school board meetings.
MYTHS – AND OUR RESPONSE
Here are, in my opinion, just a few of, the misconceptions (I will call them myths), being perpetuated with what I believe to be inaccurate information, in a controlled venue that allows for minimal input from the public. Unfortunately, there are minimal challenges from other board members when inaccurate information is stated.
MYTH: Why are we focusing on the flag, when the more important thing to focus on is learning and education.
RESPONSE: This issue was actually created by David Bell in taking the flag down. Our question back to the Trustees is, why did Bell decide that this was the most urgent priority for the Board, and which the Board has had to primarily focus on since then. We agree the focus should be on education. As Anne Ching pointed out to Bell, “You knew the consequences, but you did it anyway”.
MYTH: The School’s Anti-Bias policy is violated by flying the pride flag. Bell keeps saying that the Bias is the flag.
RESPONSE: The anti-bias policy exists to protect students from being marginalized. It cannot be used as a tool to achieve marginalization. If a student is made uncomfortable by a symbol of inclusion, the school’s role is to educate that student, not alter the environment to accommodate their prejudice. To suppress a minority group to appease the dominant group is the literal definition of bias. Repeating this false claim actually violates the district’s own anti-bias policy. By acting on this fake bias, board members are breaking the exact policy they are sworn to uphold. The district’s anti-bias policy does not say ‘protect all students — unless someone feels uncomfortable.’ Yet, board members who side with this complaint are doing exactly that. Weaponizing the rhetoric of ‘All Students’ to erase and isolate the specific students under threat is a deliberate act of othering and bias.
MYTH: Bell’s repetitive comment is that inclusion means “all students”, and in this context it is being used to mean “all flags”, including flags to represent religious beliefs on a high school campus.
RESPONSE: The educational definition of inclusion, and the laws and policy that outline the idea of inclusion, are meant to mitigate the harm to marginalized populations – while at the same time not excluding others. In my opinion, everyone sitting on a school board, should understand inclusion fully.
To quote The Edvocate, an online magazine created to advocate for education equity, reform, and innovation, “Inclusive education is paramount in creating a positive, engaging learning environment where each student feels valued and respected. This inclusive approach involves removing barriers and promoting inclusivity by accommodating the specific needs of every student. It fosters a sense of belongingness among students and reduces the discrimination that may arise owing to differences such as disabilities, ethnicity, socio-economic status, gender identity or cultural background.”
MYTH: Regarding religion, Bell keeps saying If you fly the Pride flag, you have to also fly all of the religious flags to be truly inclusive.
RESPONSE: The proposed SVUSD Policy states, “Symbolic flags considered under this regulation shall not include flags of foreign nations; flags whose primary purpose is to promote or represent a religion or religious organization; or flags associated primarily with political parties, candidates, campaigns, ballot measures, or partisan political advocacy.”
It should be noted that Bell crossed this out on the policy update, and instead proposed it say, “Symbolic flags considered under this regulation shall not include any flags prohibited by state or federal laws.” It should also be noted that Superintendent Jason Sutter indicated that religious flags are not specifically prohibited, but according to legal counsel, flying one religious flag, but not another, puts the school district at risk. (Editor’s note: California and federal law prohibit public institutions from flying religious flags.)
MYTH: A flag won’t help students feel safe, or prevent suicide. And, “It won’t help students learn”.
RESPONSE: On September 10, the Board also passed a suicide prevention resolution. Their resolution says that a safe and nurturing school environment lowers suicidal thinking. Those are their words, not ours. The district’s own YouthTruth survey found that about 27 percent of LGBTQ+ students had seriously considered suicide in the past year, compared to about 4 percent of their classmates. So the students most at risk are named in the district’s own data, which are LGBTQIA+ students. Then the students were asked directly about the flag, and at the June 18 meeting two trustees, Lehman and Landry, questioned that survey or called for another one, and Bell directly told one of our team that he did not believe the data. So, If our students’ own data is good enough to put in a resolution, why is it not good enough when it points at the flagpole? And are the students who report the highest rates of suicidal thinking owed the same concern from this board as every other student, or only on the night they pass a resolution about it?
MYTH: Parents are complaining about the flag.
RESPONSE: WWe have asked for those complaints under the Public Records Act. The district has never handed over a single one that was sent to the school district prior to Trustee Bell ordering the Pride flag to be taken down. Anne Ching publicly stated that she was not aware of one parent complaint about the flag the entire seven years it was flying year round. Until Bell took the flag down, there were no complaints recorded. Landry’s reason for only flying the flag in May and June, rather than all year, was because a few students felt uncomfortable. So, she is more worried about a few students feeling uncomfortable than she is about many students not feeling safe or welcome.
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Three recommendations to come back to the Board for consideration, discussion, and possibly a vote.
1. Fly only the US, California and dragon flags, (not the rainbow dragon flag), and no pride flags on middle school and any elementary school campus.
2. Fly the US, California and symbolic flags with the Pride flag, up only in May and June, and no pride flags can fly on middle school and elementary school campus.
3. As recommended by Student Voice Austin Cheeseman: Fly the state and California flags, with the symbolic flagpole being decided by the student leadership for other flags, leaving the pride flag up now because he feels it’s totally inclusive, and if students want to change that they can decide that.
The wisdom of youth always astounds me.
So it’s not over yet!!!
Lisa Storment, LCSW, is President of Wake Up Sonoma. [email protected]
I am happy to see this, written by someone who was there, someone who has worked on this since day one, when this flag was taken down. And for all of us, students, community members, our school Superintendent, teachers, school staff and parents, this is the real story and it matters. Education is not just learning to read, write and do math, it is understanding our society and everyone in it, including those that are different than you. Thank you to all who have written letters, spoke out and attended school board meetings over the last few months..
Thank you for your thoughtful and educational commentary. This is an important issue and well worth the discussion. I agree with your comments about the wisdom of the students. Safety for all of the students should be a priority.
I like the new flag. Can we now talk about calling the team the “gay dragons” to honor and pro text our dearly gay LGBT students?
Lisa, the problem with calling every disagreement a “myth” is that several of these aren’t factual myths at all. They’re disputed policy questions, and labeling the other side prejudiced doesn’t resolve them.
Take the central question: if a public school chooses to fly symbolic or advocacy flags, what rules determine which viewpoints qualify?
That is not the same thing as asking whether LGBTQ students deserve protection from bullying. California law already requires schools to protect students from discrimination and harassment, and those protections include sexual orientation, gender identity **and religion**.
The harder question is what follows from that obligation.
Your article essentially says that if a student objects to the Pride flag, the school should “educate that student” rather than accommodate the objection because the objection reflects prejudice.
That assumes the very thing being debated.
A religious student can believe homosexuality is sinful without harassing anybody. Another student can see the Pride flag as an important symbol of inclusion. A public school has to deal with both students. Simply declaring one student’s objection illegitimate doesn’t make the pluralism problem disappear.
The same issue appears in the proposed flag policy.
Your article says religious flags may be excluded while the Pride flag remains. But the legal picture is more complicated than the editor’s blanket statement that government institutions are prohibited from flying religious flags.
In *Shurtleff v. Boston*, the Supreme Court unanimously held that once Boston opened a government flagpole to private groups and did not exercise sufficient control over their messages, it could **not exclude a Christian flag because of its religious viewpoint**. Whether a school flag program is government speech or a forum for student/private expression depends heavily on how the program is structured and controlled.
That is precisely why asking “what happens when another group wants its flag?” is a legitimate policy question, not a myth.
The suicide statistics deserve similar care.
The numbers concerning LGBTQ students are serious. Research also does show an association between LGBTQ-affirming school environments and lower reported suicide attempts.
But that research concerns the broader school environment. It does not establish that **this particular flag on this particular flagpole causes the reduction**.
Those are different propositions.
A school can take suicide, bullying and student safety extremely seriously while still debating what belongs on its official flagpoles.
And finally, the absence of a produced written complaint before January does not prove nobody in the community objected. It establishes that Wake UP Sonoma says its Public Records Act request did not produce such a complaint. Those are not the same claim.
This whole discussion would be healthier if disagreement were treated as disagreement instead of immediately being classified as prejudice, marginalization or a “fake bias.”
There are real legal questions here, real policy questions, and competing views about what official government symbolism means.
Calling one side’s arguments “myths” doesn’t make those questions go away.
It’s patently obvious that the students have a much better and clear eyed grasp of the issue than the so-called “adults” on the Board of Trustees, whose overall track record is one of repeated incompetence, subterfuge, avoidance, and denial. This is an issue about the school, which is there for the students. If the board and other adults, at least judged by their age if not their behavior, would back off and let the students decide, everyone involved would be better off, and the students would have the chance to collectively navigate a difficult issue. Just as they’ll be faced with and expected to do once they graduate. As always, there is opportunity within an atmosphere of dissent.
David, (I see you),
Is there such a thing as a “factual Myth?”. That’s exactly right. A myth is made up or incomplete information and that’s why I called them Myths. You didn’t get that? It’s really called “alternate facts”.
But here is something that is an actual fact.
According to the School Safety and Violence prevention for LGBT Students from California Safe Schools, “Under state law, public schools and non-religious private schools that receive state funding have a legal duty to protect students from discrimination and harassment on the basis of actual and perceived sexual orientation or gender identity, or on the basis of association with a person with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.” Title 5 CCR 4900(a). The current School board is stealing this protection from the students who so very clearly need it. A school board holds power in trust for students who can’t yet full wield it themselves. You are stealing their trust.
Another actual fact:
“All students have constitutional rights to equal protection under the law, and are protected under Title IX of the federal Education amendments acts of 1972 from sex discrimination in educational programs that receive federal funds. Schools must protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students and those perceived to be LGBTQ from harassment…… Schools cannot ignore harassment on the basis that LGBT students should expect to be harassed, or have brought the harassment upon themselves by being open about their sexual orientation or gender identity. Also, students have constitutional rights to freedom of expression including the right to be open about their sexual orientation and gender identity.” The attitude of this school board is actually functioning in a way that is causing these kids to be intimidated, has increased bullying at school, and leaves them feeling like they cannot be open about who they are. The flag, on the other hand, has the opposite effect. They also should not be told, by this school board, to brace themselves for those out there that won’t be kind. That is a very intimidating statement.
So, you seem to suggest, you think we should “accomodate the objection” of a few, over the safety and well being of the many students and allies who are directly affected and have openly expressed feeling harassed and bullied, with a completely inadequate response from the administrators of the school. Those kids who TELL US, that the flag gives them a feeling of protection. In real life, kids are TELLING US now, that they are being bullied, harassed and intimidated. Do you not believe them? Training of staff on how to prevent and intervene with bullying was discontinued in 2025. How truly sincere are school trustees and administrators in adhering to Title 5 and Title 9 regulations when even the gesture of keeping the flag up, is such a heavy lift out of what… fear? Homophobia? Stubbornness? I might suggest that there is some of all three in this situation.
Disagreement is one thing, but, when the argument actually contains biased and discriminatory statements, and actions, well, it’s no longer a disagreement, it’s a dangerous situation for those most impacted. It deserves to be classified as what it is, prejudice, marginalization and REAL bias openly expressed.
Just stop this politicizing of a safety symbol. it’s wrong, and is stealing trust from our youth. Get back to what you were “elected” to do.
Note: Jojo Lorenzo is a Brooklyn-based DJ, musician, and award-winning documentary filmmaker, best known as the creator of Book Club Radio, the groundbreaking music channel and party series. Drawing on a rock upbringing and a deep love of house, Jojo crafts a funky, high-energy sound built for the dance floor. Their background as a music documentarian informs every set, weaving story and rhythm into an experience that moves both body and spirit. At least you picked an interesting alias.