Are you sick and tired of talking about the Marblehead Public Schools’ flag policy?
Yeah, we are, too.
But here’s the good news: In the latest iteration of its draft policy regarding flags, banners and symbolic displays, a subcommittee of the Marblehead School Committee may have hit upon a key concept that could bring this long-running saga that has divided the community to an end: “mission, vision and values.”
First off, the third prong of the new draft policy — “The committee will not accept third-party requests” — is overly rigid and not dictated by the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision referenced throughout this debate, Shurtleff v. City of Boston.
How do we know? There have been municipal flag policies adopted since Shurtleff that very much incorporate the concept of “third party requests.” Pepperell is one example.
The School Committee’s attorney may well be right that the safest policy would be one in which the “policy making body,” the School Committee and the superintendent acting at its direction, ultimately make the call over which flags and banners hang in the schools.
If it goes too far in the direction of “outsourcing” that decision, the board may well leave the district vulnerable to First Amendment “viewpoint discrimination” challenges, in which other “private persons” could argue that, for every “Black Lives Matter” flag, there would need to be a “Blue Lives Matter” or “All Lives Matter” banner, as is the subject in an ongoing legal battle in Minnesota.
But that’s where we come back to the idea of “mission, vision and values.”
It seems to us that what’s been missing in this debate so far are statements from the School Committee clearly articulating and committing to what the district’s “vision and values” are. That seems to be what is animating the parents and students who have been showing up at meeting after meeting to express outrage over what at least appears to be an abandonment of values they deem both essential and uncontroversial. That is why one parent attending the most recent virtual meeting March 7 said she was moved to think about pulling her child from the Brown School. She thought she lived in a community where no one believed one race is inherently more intelligent than another — and now she is not so sure.
By now, it seems clear that the majority of the current School Committee will never embrace the slogan “Black Lives Matter” as their “government speech.” Many who have spoken at flag policy meetings believe this is a shame, that “Black Lives Matter” is being misconstrued, in part due to bad faith attacks.
Be that as it may, the solution for these folks is at the ballot box. Until they are unseated, our elected School Committee members are allowed to decide what “government speech” should look and sound like.
Our elected School Committee members are also apparently unwilling to embrace the Pride flag. That is perhaps even more out of step with the community, given that the Select Board has in the recent past approved a Pride sidewalk and hosts an annual Pride flag raising ceremony on the Abbot Hall grounds in June.
But again, to the extent people find that disappointing, the solution would be to elect school board members with less of an apparent aversion to rainbows.
Where the logjam over this policy might break, though, is if the School Committee would explain its objections to Black Lives Matter and Pride specifically, and then express some openness to embracing related ideas less tainted by associations with our polarized political environment.
Each day during the school year, METCO students board buses around 6 a.m. in Boston bound for Marblehead. Waking up earlier than their more local peers is far from the only challenge these students face. If not “Black Lives Matter,” what type of representation of the idea “thank you for adding to our community; we’re glad you’re here” might this School Committee endorse?
Many of us are old enough to look back with regret on the ways in which our LGBTQ peers — even if we did not yet know the acronym — were teased, ostracized or worse. What type of signage would the School Committee support to express, “You are safe, and you are as much of a part of this community as anyone else”?
The School Committee is leaving the impression that it would like little beyond the U.S., Massachusetts and POW/MIA flags to adorn school walls. But as attorney Jeffrey Pyle told the Current, that’s not what the First Amendment requires.
It seems to us that the School Committee could very much incorporate the input of student-and-faculty advisory boards without running into the “Shurtleff problem.” The board might ask its legal counsel that question directly.
While adopting a policy that allows little more than the U.S., Massachusetts and POW/MIA flags has the allure of simplicity, we know too much about the value of inclusion and how to best serve students’ social-emotional needs for that to be the right answer here.
If the School Committee does not envision wielding its exclusive power to approve signs in its latest draft policy in a stingy manner, it should say so, loudly and clearly.
In the words of the Human Rights Campaign, “Silence is not an option.”
