The School Committee’s policy subcommittee released its latest draft flag policy, which appears to exclude students and the community from having any input in what flags and banners are displayed in schools, a stance that the subcommittee indicated was largely due to advice from the School Committee’s attorney. It could lead to the removal of Black Lives Matter, Juneteenth and Pride flags.
More than 120 students and residents packed two recent public forums, with the overwhelming majority asking that students have a voice in the decision-making process around flags.
The draft policy released March 7 states only U.S., Massachusetts and POW/MIA flags can be displayed on school district property. It also gives the School Committee sole power to approve any additional “flags, banners and similarly symbolic displays that reflect the school district’s mission, vision and values.”
Lastly, the new policy says the School Committee “will not accept any third party requests.”
The policy implicitly rejects a counter proposal by Marblehead High School students, which had been legally vetted by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders and would have given them a voice in deciding what banners and flags can be hung inside schools.
Student reaction
“I am extremely disappointed with the School Committee and the new flag policy proposal they are working on,” Marblehead High School senior Maren Potter wrote to the Current.
“Students at the forum unanimously opposed their flag censorship policies and gave a well-researched and reasonable proposal that I feel was never really considered,” Potter continued. “It’s really disappointing that they do not trust school administrators and students to uphold MPS values and make decisions about what banners and symbols can be displayed in schools. Students are not giving up, and many of us will be voting for the first time in June. I plan to vote for School Committee members who put students before their own personal beliefs.”
What the lawyers say
The School Committee’s attorney John Foskett of Valerio, Dominello & Hillman wrote in a March 3 letter that, to qualify as “government speech” and thus be immune from First Amendment viewpoint discrimination challenges, the decisions on which flags to hang would have to be “determined and designed by the policy making body, the School Committee, and the Superintendent acting at the Committee’s direction.
He continued, “Teachers, students and families are ‘private persons’ in this context and cannot determine government speech.”
Foskett cited a decision last June by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Cajune v. Independent School District, in which the issue is whether a Minnesota school district forfeited its right to veto “Blue Lives Matter” and “All Lives Matter” banners by allowing such “private persons” to take the lead in hanging “Black Lives Matter” banners.
Download
Boston First Amendment attorney Jeffrey Pyle calls the subcommittee’s latest draft policy “unduly restrictive for a school.”
“Both teachers and students have First Amendment rights in school, as well as speech rights protected by state law,” Pyle told the Current. “Teachers often put up messages of all kinds in their classrooms, including symbols of welcome and inclusion. And, students have put up posters and other speech around schools for ages. Schools don’t need to have blank white walls (or, alternatively, have only School Committee-approved speech about the school district’s ‘mission, vision, and values’ on the walls) in order to comply with the First Amendment.”
Community feedback
More than 30 people tuned into a virtual subcommittee meeting on March 7, with most complaining that the latest draft does not reflect the public’s sentiments.
“The community has been clear in its feedback: We don’t want the School Committee to be making these decisions based on your own personal politics. These decisions should be made within the school community, with involvement from students, teachers and administrators,” said Angus McQuilken.
McQuilken also asked the subcommittee to define “third party” in the new policy and clarify whether it refers to students, principals, parents and/or the superintendent.
One mother named Adri Howes said she would pull her children from Marblehead schools if this flag policy takes effect. She said her child came home from the Brown School last year and asked, “Mom, is it true that white people are smarter than Black people?”
Howes added, “If that’s what is in our schools, that’s something teachers should be talking about. It’s wrong and hateful. We have this very right wing School Committee making these crazy policies that the majority of Marblehead is very clearly opposed to.”
She later told the Current, “I want to emphasize that my concerns are with the district administration — particularly the School Committee — not with the incredible teachers, staff and principals at the Brown School.”
Two people spoke in favor of the draft policy, including Sharman Pollender.
“I’m listening to all of you on your soap boxes, telling me what people of color want. These flags have continued to divide this community and this country,” she yelled.
Next steps
Schaeffner said she would get a few clarifications from the district’s lawyer, specifically on the definition of “third party” and would meet with Taylor again. She hopes to present a draft policy to the full School Committee on Thursday, March 20. New policies must be discussed three times before being approved.
Schaeffner added this, “We take our advice from our attorney, particularly in this case. If there are folks who want us to ignore our attorney’s advice, that’s not something I’m willing to do.”
