%20(1)%20(1).jpg)
THE FOLLOWING LETTER APPEARED IN THE RECENT EDITION OF THE GAZETTE
To the Editor,
The CHUFSD Board of Education has solicited comments on, or questions about, the latest draft of their ‘Policy 0105 Diversity Equity Inclusion.’ A detailed review of the policy provokes the following reflection.
To “take appropriate actions to interrupt and discourage hate speech, bigotry, discrimination, and harassment of any kind,” is laudable and should certainly be done: one would have assumed that it is already being done in our schools. It is likewise encouraging that “Nothing contained in this policy should be deemed to direct or encourage any administrator, teacher or staff member to engage in conduct or take actions violative of the United State Constitution, the New York State Constitution, or federal or New York state law or regulations.”
However, policy language, when worded as loosely as it has been, has the potential for inviting significant legal consequences. The concept that the district will “Establish mechanisms to ensure that students are empowered to report incidents of hate speech, discrimination, or harassment, or other inequities in confidence, and to ensure that such reports are investigated and addressed as appropriate in a timely manner,” is wide open to interpretation and could be used as an aggressive tactic between individuals in the CHUFSD environment. Lack of clarity on this point creates a blank check for accusations, to suit the whim or mood of any given moment’s accuser.
Concern over policies in other school districts in the national arena is considerable. Recent cases have gained attention in the news wherein students have been chastised (in some cases with punishments taking permanent residence on their records prior to applying to colleges) for what was selected to be interpreted as ‘hate speech’ or offensive speech. Students unduly punished for exercising their constitutionally protected freedom of speech (or for simply asking questions in particular contexts) are taking their cases to court, and suing the school districts (for example; 16 year old Christian McGhee in North Carolina, the Horace Greeley student referred to as OJ in New York, and a Corona del Mar High School student in California).
As we all know, words have outcomes, not only for the flippant and often ignorant and unknowing remarks of youth, but for the very policies that, though tentatively positioned to help students, can be subsequently wielded against them.
As written, the policy could also serve to restrict the scope of resources our teachers use for the benefit of their students. More tools and more reference, not less, can strengthen truly-equitable instruction. A point repeatedly described in the meetings of the committee that scripted the policy was the intention of conducting lessons focused on finding “power and privilege.” This can translate to teaching an idealogical agenda, rather than letting teachers and students come to conclusions on their own. No ideology should be taught or brought into school policies and curriculum.
Also in connection with academic performance, the definition of educational equity includes the language “narrowing the gaps between the lowest and highest performing students.” This could be interpreted as suggesting that, while increasing aid to lower performing students, higher performing students would reciprocally be artificially restricted in order to ‘cap’ their peak performance, so that the ‘gap’ remains as ‘narrow’ as possible.
Other questions arise, such as who would gather the data referred to in the language that reads “Gather data on a periodic basis from students and staff to assess school climate…”? What form would this data take (surveys; one-to-one interviews; stories told by individuals about other individuals; gossip; hearsay)? Can the term "school climate" be defined as space outside of CHUFSD property, or can it also be defined as interactions amongst students outside of school for the sake of potentially overreaching the policy’s coverage? In fact, the very definition in the policy allows for this, as it reads (sp) “School Climate refers to the individual experience of students, teachers, staff, parents and staff about the school, how positively or negatively the school and the people associated with it are perceived, and the character and quality of school life.” Again, the vagueness creates acute possibility and potential for complicated circumstances.
The language of the policy’s question “Which individuals should be included in the discussion concerning the identified disparities and identification of the actions that can be taken to address the identified disparities?” could be interpreted as suggesting that there would necessarily be individuals who should NOT be included as part of the process. In tandem with this is the following language “The Superintendent will establish a District-Wide Equity Committee. The Committee will include representation from faculty, staff, administration, students, and parents as selected by the Superintendent. The Committee will assist the administration in developing and implementing specific priorities and action plans identified by the Superintendent, or designee.” This language reads as having the goal of building a particular group of people based on specific restrictions with a predetermined outcome. What about individuals who wish to be involved, who may have valuable and constructive input, but are not specifically selected by the Superintendent?
Carefully assessing how the CHUFSD DEI policy could operate, and for what effect it may have on students, teachers, staff and families, is part of the responsibility we all (CHUFSD residents) share. Considering this language carefully and understanding the potential consequences of instating it is crucial, and will only give strength to the opportunities and most truly-equitable outcomes for all students.
Thank you for your time,
Jessica Dieckman
To the Editor,
The CHUFSD Board of Education has solicited comments on, or questions about, the latest draft of their ‘Policy 0105 Diversity Equity Inclusion.’ A detailed review of the policy provokes the following reflection.
To “take appropriate actions to interrupt and discourage hate speech, bigotry, discrimination, and harassment of any kind,” is laudable and should certainly be done: one would have assumed that it is already being done in our schools. It is likewise encouraging that “Nothing contained in this policy should be deemed to direct or encourage any administrator, teacher or staff member to engage in conduct or take actions violative of the United State Constitution, the New York State Constitution, or federal or New York state law or regulations.”
However, policy language, when worded as loosely as it has been, has the potential for inviting significant legal consequences. The concept that the district will “Establish mechanisms to ensure that students are empowered to report incidents of hate speech, discrimination, or harassment, or other inequities in confidence, and to ensure that such reports are investigated and addressed as appropriate in a timely manner,” is wide open to interpretation and could be used as an aggressive tactic between individuals in the CHUFSD environment. Lack of clarity on this point creates a blank check for accusations, to suit the whim or mood of any given moment’s accuser.
Concern over policies in other school districts in the national arena is considerable. Recent cases have gained attention in the news wherein students have been chastised (in some cases with punishments taking permanent residence on their records prior to applying to colleges) for what was selected to be interpreted as ‘hate speech’ or offensive speech. Students unduly punished for exercising their constitutionally protected freedom of speech (or for simply asking questions in particular contexts) are taking their cases to court, and suing the school districts (for example; 16 year old Christian McGhee in North Carolina, the Horace Greeley student referred to as OJ in New York, and a Corona del Mar High School student in California).
As we all know, words have outcomes, not only for the flippant and often ignorant and unknowing remarks of youth, but for the very policies that, though tentatively positioned to help students, can be subsequently wielded against them.
As written, the policy could also serve to restrict the scope of resources our teachers use for the benefit of their students. More tools and more reference, not less, can strengthen truly-equitable instruction. A point repeatedly described in the meetings of the committee that scripted the policy was the intention of conducting lessons focused on finding “power and privilege.” This can translate to teaching an idealogical agenda, rather than letting teachers and students come to conclusions on their own. No ideology should be taught or brought into school policies and curriculum.
Also in connection with academic performance, the definition of educational equity includes the language “narrowing the gaps between the lowest and highest performing students.” This could be interpreted as suggesting that, while increasing aid to lower performing students, higher performing students would reciprocally be artificially restricted in order to ‘cap’ their peak performance, so that the ‘gap’ remains as ‘narrow’ as possible.
Other questions arise, such as who would gather the data referred to in the language that reads “Gather data on a periodic basis from students and staff to assess school climate…”? What form would this data take (surveys; one-to-one interviews; stories told by individuals about other individuals; gossip; hearsay)? Can the term "school climate" be defined as space outside of CHUFSD property, or can it also be defined as interactions amongst students outside of school for the sake of potentially overreaching the policy’s coverage? In fact, the very definition in the policy allows for this, as it reads (sp) “School Climate refers to the individual experience of students, teachers, staff, parents and staff about the school, how positively or negatively the school and the people associated with it are perceived, and the character and quality of school life.” Again, the vagueness creates acute possibility and potential for complicated circumstances.
The language of the policy’s question “Which individuals should be included in the discussion concerning the identified disparities and identification of the actions that can be taken to address the identified disparities?” could be interpreted as suggesting that there would necessarily be individuals who should NOT be included as part of the process. In tandem with this is the following language “The Superintendent will establish a District-Wide Equity Committee. The Committee will include representation from faculty, staff, administration, students, and parents as selected by the Superintendent. The Committee will assist the administration in developing and implementing specific priorities and action plans identified by the Superintendent, or designee.” This language reads as having the goal of building a particular group of people based on specific restrictions with a predetermined outcome. What about individuals who wish to be involved, who may have valuable and constructive input, but are not specifically selected by the Superintendent?
Carefully assessing how the CHUFSD DEI policy could operate, and for what effect it may have on students, teachers, staff and families, is part of the responsibility we all (CHUFSD residents) share. Considering this language carefully and understanding the potential consequences of instating it is crucial, and will only give strength to the opportunities and most truly-equitable outcomes for all students.
Thank you for your time,
Jessica Dieckman
No comments:
Post a Comment