NORTH CLARENDON A recent School Board decision to display the Black Lives Matter flag at Mill River Union High School is not sitting well with some community members.
At Wednesday evenings meeting of the Mill River Unified Union School District Board, 26 people spoke during a public comment session that lasted nearly 90 minutes. Many of those who spoke took issue with the flag, with a number of them contending that the action is a violation of district policy.
Last month, the School Board voted 8-3 to approve a student proposal to display a version of the BLM flag that also features a rainbow on one edge to denote Black LGBTQ+ pride.
The flag was the first to be approved under a new district-wide policy for vetting flag display requests adopted by the board last fall. The policy was developed after efforts by the board last summer to raise the BLM and Pride flags were met with public backlash and threats of legal action.
During discussion prior to the approval of the request last month, board member Bruce Moreton argued that approving the flag might be a violation of MRUUSD Policy E4, which is related to risk management.
The policy reads: It is the policy of the district to minimize risk to the district as it discharges its responsibility for properly managing the resources of the school system. This responsibility includes concern for the safety of students, employees and the public, as well as concern for protecting the systems property from loss. No new program, policy or procedure will be adopted or approved by the board without first giving careful consideration to the school systems risk exposure.
At the time, both Superintendent David Younce and District Business Manager Stan Pawlaczyk clarified that the policy was related to fiscal risk only.
At Wednesdays meeting, Board Chair Adrienne Raymond addressed the potential policy violation, reading a statement from the boards legal counsel that said the district was not exposing itself to any uninsured risk by adopting the flag policy.
Raymond added that she also contacted the districts insurance provider whom she said informed her that the district would almost certainly be covered for any property and liability damage under its policy.
I think this puts peoples minds at rest, she said.
Yet that was not the case for some district residents.
I want this board ... to tell me where in your meetings youve ever talked about the many risks associated with this flag? asked Rep. Arthur Peterson, R-Clarendon, after reading Policy E4 aloud.
Peterson cited a decline in student enrollment over the last school year and the fact that the Clarendon Select Board has been openly discussing withdrawing from the school district as risks associated with displaying the BLM flag.
Peterson was a vocal critic of the districts efforts to raise BLM and Pride flags last year. However, in an interview with the Herald last September, he said he would honor the decision if either of those flags cleared the vetting process established by the board.
I personally wont be happy, but if it makes it through the process, it makes it through the process, he said.
Nonetheless, Peterson appears to be continuing his campaign against the BLM flag.
Earlier this month, he appeared before the Clarendon Select Board and he urged members to attend Wednesdays School Board meeting, citing the alleged policy violation.
On Wednesday, Select Board Chair Mike Klopchin and Selectman Robert Bixby addressed the School Board, telling them that the town is considering putting a nonbinding article about withdrawing from MRUUSD on the March Town Meeting Day ballot.
In my opinion all lives matter, said Klopchin.
Several other members of Petersons family spoke against the flag, including his wife, Barbara Peterson, who said that seven of her grandchildren are unwilling refugees from the school district because youre trying to put up communist ideals with the American flag.
Pay attention to education, stop with the indoctrination, she said.
Richard Ley, of Clarendon, read an excerpt from the districts equity policy, claiming the school board has failed students.
These policies expose concern not only for our students and our community, I believe they violate our moral responsibility to our students, he said. When we decide to create division and preferential treatment for any reason whether its skin color, religion, gender or a flag we fly we create peril, not only in our school but everywhere we send these students.
But while a number of speakers echoed the same concerns about the risk management policy as well as raised related concerns about the districts equity policy and the alleged teaching of critical race theory several others voiced their support for the flag.
Clarendon resident Madison Akin thanked the board for deciding to raise the BLM flag, asserting that the conversation has encouraged people to become more engaged and politically active.
However, she questioned the motivations of those who have been citing the risk management policy, stating, It seems odd to me that flying a flag is a safety concern yet caring for our Black and Brown students doesnt seem to evoke the same kind of safety concern.
Former School Board member John McKenna, who lost his bid for re-election in March, said risk was absolutely discussed in policy committee meetings related to the adoption of the flag policy.
It has been addressed, it has been considered to be acceptable risk, he said.
Heather Kent, of Clarendon, fought back tears as she recalled the suicide of her brother, who was gay.
She addressed the people in the room who spoke about their grandchildren, stating, Statistically, one of your grand-kids is gay, and they are hearing this.
Kent maintained that the BLM and Pride flags are not a political statement.
They are a statement to those kids, saying, We see you, we hear you, hold on. Please, hold on, she said, arguing that if the flag prevents one child from committing suicide, then it was worth it.
Clarendon resident Dave Potter suggested that its time the board put the BLM flag matter into the rear-view mirror, noting that the board has taking testimony from all sides and made its decision.
Mill River is not the first district in Vermont to have done that and life seems to have gone on just fine in those other locations, many of which are right here in Rutland County, he said.
Carol Geery, another resident of Clarendon, asserted that opposition to the BLM flag is more detrimental to the community than displaying it.
I worry more about my property value declining because of the cultivation of intolerance than because the school will be flying the Black Lives Matter flag, she said.
Riley Usher a recent MRUUHS graduate from Clarendon, said the BLM flag is non-issue among students.
I dont see why it has to be such a big issue to the parents and to the staff if its not an issue for the students, she said.
In other business, the board heard a request to adopt a district-wide statement of inclusion, but took no action.
It also received an update on the districts equity work in light of recent national attention around critical race theory.
CRT is a theory developed by legal scholars in the 1970s that looks at race as a social construct. Political conservatives have seized on the concept in recent months, alleging its being taught in K-12 schools.
MRUUSD equity coordinator Jodie Stewart-Ruck stated that CRT is not being taught in Mill River schools and there is no plan to do so.
(CRT) is a graduate-level theory taught in graduate schools and law schools. We do not have the expertise to teach that to Mill River public school students, and it wouldnt be appropriate for their age level, she said. We do believe that teaching kids to be critical thinkers is central for providing them with the education they need to be responsible community members and our future neighbors.
Read more here:
BLM flag remains an issue at Mill River - Rutland Herald