The Marblehead School Committee faced intense scrutiny on Wednesday, leading to the tabling of a discussion on a controversial draft flag policy. This decision followed impassioned pleas from students and residents during a public comment period added to the agenda of the committee’s annual workshop.
Students Nina Johnson and Maren Potter criticized the lack of student input in developing the policy.
“You told us five months ago during the student listening sessions that you wanted to include student voices in this process, but by speeding up this process, you’re trying to pass this policy before school starts. You are actively trying to avoid student input,” Potter said.
The School Committee’s draft flag policy would allow only Marblehead, Massachusetts, U.S. and POW flags on school property. The committee is required to discuss the policy three times before voting on it. The retreat was to have been the second discussion.
The School Committee’s chair, Jenn Schaeffner, had previously said she hoped the policy would be approved before school starts on Sept. 3. If the new policy is approved before Sept. 3, the Pride flag in the high school cafeteria, along with the Black Lives Matter, Pride and Juneteenth flags, will be gone when students return.
Resident Cameron Wolfsen spoke about the personal impact of the proposed policy. As a member of the LGBTQ+ community, Wolfsen expressed concern about the message the policy would send to students like her own children.
“My wife and I recently made the difficult decision to leave our home, our family and our friends in South Carolina to move to Marblehead, the town where I proudly grew up,” said Wolfsen. “We did this because we wanted to raise our children in a town that shares our values, values of inclusivity, kindness and civic responsibility, a place where the school district lists ‘school culture’ among its core values and promises.”
Jordan Caress-Wheelwright, a parent of a Glover School student and employee at GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), raised legal concerns about the policy’s language potentially infringing on constitutional rights.
“They called attention to the phrase ‘banners, and similar symbolic displays,’ noting that it is vague and open to interpretation and/or enforcement that could infringe on the constitutional rights of teachers and students,” Caress-Wheelwright said.
Caress-Wheelwright also emphasized the importance of an inclusive school climate, citing research showing its positive impact on student engagement and academic outcomes.
“Studies have consistently found that positive inclusive school climates, in which schools appreciate students for who they are and acknowledge different students’ backgrounds —including racial, cultural, immigration status-based, and LGBTQ+ status leads to greater student engagement in school and better academic outcomes,” Caress-Wheelwright said, quoting from a GLAD brief.
Resident Renee Ramirez Keaney, drawing from her 40-year experience as a clinical social worker, stressed the significance of symbols of acceptance in schools.
“I know for them — any symbol of acceptance, any sense of welcome can matter,” Keaney said.
Educator and former candidate for Congress Angus McQuilken raised concerns about unintended consequences. As he spoke, he held up printed copies of flags for events like Earth Day, the Olympics and Juneteenth as examples of banners that could be banned.
“I strongly oppose this policy; I don’t think we need one at all,” McQuilken stated.
Kira Becker Kay suggested the policy was influenced by outside groups and criticized the meeting’s timing.
“Are you a School Committee or a cruelty committee?” Kay asked.
Following public comments, board member Alison Taylor provided clarification on the policy’s status and the process behind its development.
“It is a policy. It’s not banning anything,” Taylor said. “The reason that we’re doing this is not because we decided one day that we wanted to have this policy. We’ve never had a flag policy, and that has been fine, and it could have continued to be fine, except that administration asked us, and by law when administration asks for policy, we do have to develop one.”
Taylor addressed concerns about student input and explained the policy development process.
“I would like to have another listening session for sure,” she said, “if it’s the will of the committee.”
And it was its will. Members voted to postpone the discussion until September, with members Brian Ota, Taylor and Schaeffner voting yes and Al Williams and Sarah Fox voting no.
Interim Superintendent John Robidoux, meanwhile, acknowledged his stance on the policy.
“I would agree with the committee that tabling this discussion to have a larger, more inclusive input from the community makes sense,” Robidoux said. “As an educator, as an administrator, my sole focus is making sure students are heard and students are a part of their learning communities.”
