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 it’s 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 in ways they can’t .. or won’t, comprehend these ideas, but then continue to re-process and state their same listless, inaccurate arguments. The disrespect shown to the students, as well as the community with Board behavior was difficult to comprehend, with Landry and Lehman taking time to literally lecture the audience on showing respect, which they definately did not show themselves. The fact that we had 11 plus students directly telling them that how they feel, courageously share their stories, and make their direct asks.. did not seem to impact them at all. Anne Ching asking Bell directly, throughout.. “what is the problem we are trying to solve here?” Bell had no answer that made sense.
But those students were incredible. 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 that, we thank you Anne, and Austin Cheeseman – an ally, who was measured, clear and consistent with his position.
As a result, I am going to try to debunk a few myths that keep getting perpetuated both online (there were close to 1,000 hate comments online), and at these school board meetings.

Additionally, I was apalled 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.

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 venue that allows for incredibly controlled and minimal input from the public. Unfortunately, There are minimal challenges from other board members when inaccurate information is stated, nor an attempt to bring forward factual and accurate information, that I have seen.

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 Bell taking the flag down. Our question back to them, is, why did Bell decide that this was the most urgent priority which brought this forward into the light, and the Board has had to focus primarily on this since then. This is not the focus we want to take. 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 Schools 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 uncomfortable by a symbol of inclusion, the school’s role is to educate that student(s), 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, is meant to mitigate the harm to marginalized populations – at the same time not excluding others. In my opinion, everyone sitting on a school board, should understand inclusion fully. To quote The Edvocate: What is Inclusion in Education – The Edvocate
”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 – Something 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 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.
MYTH: A flag won’t help students to feel safe, or prevent suicide. “It won’t help students learn”.
RESPONSE: Thursday night, 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: We have asked for those complaints under the Public Records Act. We 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 7 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.

There are many more myths we would like to point out that are being perpetuated by this board, too extensive to go into here.
However, a more indepth article will follow as things unfold. For now, I leave you with how the evening resolved.

WHERE ARE WE NOW?
3 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) no pride flags on middle school and elementary school campus.
2. Fly the US, California and symbolic flags with the Pride flag up only in May and June. (when students are not there), and no pride flags can fly on middle school and elementary school campus.
3. (Recommended by Student Voice) 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!!!
We will report as soon as we know when this will come back to the Board for either discussion and/or vote. October 8th is the next Board Meeting, but we don’t know yet if if will be on the agenda. Stay tuned.