By Anna Pier
Friday, October 9 was the last day that the Pride Flag greeted students at the entrance to Sonoma High. The evening of October 8 the Sonoma Valley Unified School Board voted 3-2, that only the U.S. and California flags will be flown at Sonoma Valley High School. In a sad and ironic twist, the following day was Homecoming, arguably the happiest day in the life of the school. In the past months Sonoma High students, both gay and straight, have made clear, in heartfelt and eloquent statements, the importance of the Pride Flag flying for their sense of well-being and confidence that their school is a safe place for everyone, where intolerance, hatred and prejudice are not allowed.
The decision was the last item on the Board’s agenda. Option 1, which provided for only the national and state flags to be flown, was approved at 9:22, following about twenty minutes of discussion. President David Bell opened that by reading a very lengthy statement which addressed why he had directed the acting superintendent to have the Pride Flag taken down, pending a discussion at the next month’s board meeting. His remarks were based on what he called the “precedent of inequality,” and the deeper problem of “bias and a lack of viewpoint neutrality” reflected in flying just the Pride Flag year-round.
The ultimate Adoption of Option 1 was preceded by unsuccessful motions on the two other options before the Board. First, Trustee Anne Ching moved, based on her constituents’ position, the adoption of Option 3, which overall would have maintained the status quo, keeping the Pride Flag flying as it had since 2019, until its removal in January at the direction of President Bell. Trustee Gerardo Guzman seconded the motion, affirming that Option 3 most reflected the original student impulse which led to raising the Pride Flag. The Option failed 2 -3, with only Guzman joining Ching to support it; Bell and Trustees Landry and Lehman voted against it. Ching called for the “preferential vote” of Student Voice Austin Cheeseman, who voted “aye” in what is a symbolic vote.
Bell then moved adoption of Option 4, which he had submitted independently, despite the fact that it ignored both the Board’s process using an Ad Hoc committee; and the Board’s recent agreement in a Governance session to eliminate Board Policy 9322, which allows for an individual member to place an item on the agenda.. The motion failed for lack of a second by any of the other four trustees.
The third motion, again made by Bell, was for adoption of Option 1, to fly only the national and state flags. It was seconded by Lehman, who justified his support based on research he had conducted about 60 northern California school districts, and conversation with a trustee of San Francisco Unified School Board about their flag policy. He was not guided by the many voices of local students and community members speaking last night and at earlier meetings, as he approved the motion. Ching and Guzman voted against it. Guzman had read a statement which affirmed that only Option 3 would have been consistent with the Board priority of “building trust in the community,” and failing adoption of that option, the board should just walk away and leave the flag the way it had been. Bell called for the preferential vote of Cheeseman, which was “nay.” He then called for the trustees’ vote. Bell, Landry and Lehman voted “aye,” while Ching and Guzman opposed it.
After the vote, the trustees discussed the possibility of choosing to fly the Pride Flag for a month during the upcoming school year, an option which Lehman and Landry enthusiastically supported.
As the Board was about to start Public Comment on items not on the evening’s Agenda, Superintendent Jason Sutter inquired if the motion was effective the next day. Bell, consulting with Landry, responded that it should be effective on Monday.
Be First to Comment