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]
Be First to Comment