Note: This article contains strong language and references to racial slurs.
A contentious conversation over a statement on racial justice in the midst of recent and current national events continued at a Three Rivers Community Schools (TRCS) work session Monday. Board of Education (BOE) members Dan Ryan, Anne Riopel, and Kevin Hamilton discussed the relative merits of possible wording of the statement, as well as the potential for curriculum changes that might address issues of racism.
No specific curriculum changes are actively on the table, and none have been publicly detailed. However, public conversation about the letter began at the regular July BOE meeting, where members discussed a draft statement. The draft language pledges to address curriculum and other issues relating to racial equity.
Board President Erin Nowak asked board members to submit their comments and proposed language so she could draft a new letter. At Monday’s work session, only one board member, Linda Baker, had submitted anything. Ryan, who spoke extensively at July’s meeting on the subject, said, “I was going to, but you know, as I thought about it, of course I voiced my concerns at the last board meeting.”
Ryan expressed additional concerns. “You know, if this is a letter signed by (Superintendent of Schools) Ron (Moag), then it should be his own words, his own thoughts initially, how he truly feels about the situation. If others are going to collaborate with him, then their names should also appear at the bottom of the letter in the interest of transparency.”
In response, Hamilton said, “when this came up originally, I did suggest to Ron to put some of his own language in there, and he was OK with that. I guess, until I see something different, I’m OK with the current letter.”
Ryan went on to say, “I have no problems in principle with the letter itself. It was the language I was concerned about, that it could possibly be perceived as anti-police.” In July’s meeting, Hamilton said the draft made no mention of police.
Referencing the current pandemic, Ryan said, “I’m not sure that adding to the curriculum at this time, when we should be putting all our energies towards preventing students from falling further behind, as we’ve talked about the various formats (and) delivery systems earlier in the board meeting about how we can do that with students, that should be our focus. I think parents want that to be our focus.”
In July’s meeting, Ryan said the TRCS strategic planning committee was the most appropriate place to discuss racial justice concerns moving forward. He reiterated this belief on Monday, saying, “this is the perfect forum for them to address this issue and come up with possibly other equity initiatives, but I think the strategic planning committee is the place to do that.”
Ryan said, “I understand fully the concerns, not just locally, but on a national level. I was just concerned about the language of it. I think we’re venturing into the political arena which I think we have no business doing so. I think we potentially could alienate some parents and families because of this if we were to initiate a curriculum talking about racism.”
Citing a June letter by Portage Public Schools Superintendent Mark Bielang, Ryan described it as an example of the kind of language that he liked.
In the course of discussing curriculum concerns, Ryan raised a conversation he had with another person about the Harper Lee book, “To Kill a Mockingbird,” in which Ryan understood that a proposal was on the table to remove the book from the Three Rivers curriculum. “Now, this is a novel that is based in the mid-30s in southern Alabama, told through the perception of a six-year-old,” Ryan said. The book, a fictional novel, often appears in high school social studies curricula for its handling of racial justice questions.
“It is on the (Advanced Placement)-approved reading list, along with ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin,’ by the way. It’s won a Pulitzer prize. It inspired a movie that won an Academy Award, and we read this in a high school class, followed with a discussion that stimulated discussion about racial injustice,” Ryan said, also describing other social justice conversations the book prompted.
“And here you want the curriculum to teach about racism and the problems with racism in this country, and here’s a perfect tool to do that, and yet some of you want to ban that from our curriculum. I am shocked and appalled by that,” Ryan said.
Riopel, who had a conversation with Moag and Hamilton about the book and its classroom impact on black students, said, “Dan, it wasn’t that we want to ban the book from the curriculum. The problem is that students don’t know how to handle the language of the book. So, the education is to teach them about not laughing when you hear the N-word, or not laughing when you hear some of the things that occur in that book. It’s not that we want to ban the book, it’s that we want students to understand the inherent racism of it.”
Ryan responded to Riopel, “Martin Luther King said, ‘we did not make history, history made us,’ which is to imply if we erase history, we are more than likely to repeat the mistakes of the past.” The quote Ryan referenced appears in Dr. King’s 1963 book, “Strength to Love,” which is a collection of his sermons. The passage from which it comes reads, in part:
“In spite of this imperative demand to live differently, we have cultivated a mass mind and have moved from the extreme of rugged individualism to the even greater extreme of rugged collectivism. We are not makers of history; we are made by history. Longfellow said, ‘In this world a man must either be anvil or hammer,’ meaning that he is either a molder of society or is molded by society. Who doubts that today most men are anvils and are shaped by the patterns of the majority?”
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, “Strength to Love“
Ryan told board members that a skillful teacher could use “To Kill a Mockingbird” to teach justice themes. “It’s a perfect educational tool, which you guys are advocating. I don’t understand it.”
Riopel restated the intent of her discussion with Moag and Hamilton. “We’re not asking to ban the book, Dan. The whole idea is to teach students how to handle the comments. For example, to have students in a classroom that laugh every time the N-word is said, then you know that students haven’t had the cultural training that they need.”
In response, Ryan asked, “When do they get the cultural training? I want to know that. Martin Luther King gave his life for this, and it didn’t change that. Are we as the Three Rivers’ school system going to do that for students? Should this not come from parents? Should this not come from the community itself, along with education? Now, when is this going to happen?
“As I say, with a skillful teacher, they can talk about these sensitive issues with students. That’s what teachers are for. That’s what education is all about,” Ryan said. “The students come to these classrooms, they walk into these classrooms with preconceived ideas, that prejudice, maybe they get from home, maybe they get from social circles, and it’s up to the skillful teacher, through a stimulating and productive class discussion, to talk about these things.”
Hamilton offered some context for the discussion. He said, “let me chime in here, because I was the one that brought this up, Dan, with Ron, with the book. And, whether you know it or not, that book has the N-word in it about 48 or 49 times.”
Hamilton described an incident in Three Rivers where he said “a group of black men, young men came to me and they were pissed off because every time that word was said in the classroom, they felt uncomfortable because kids were sitting back laughing, and they got to the point where they refused just to do the work.”
Directing his next comments at Ryan, Hamilton said, “so, I totally get how you would feel that way, because you don’t have to worry about that. But, it’s extremely frustrating to not have an answer for those young men. So, I totally get why you think it’s OK, but I’m telling you it’s not.”
Ryan remained unconvinced that Riopel and Hamilton did not seek to ban the book.
“You want to erase all literature that has the N-word in it. What about the conversations between young black men on Facebook, using the word n***a, n****r, and stuff like that? That doesn’t seem to bother anyone,” Ryan said.
As board members began talking over one another, Nowak asked them to stop and bring the conversation back into focus. Board Member Julia Awe asked, “did we, as a board, vote to ban that book?” Riopel responded, “no, and a vote wasn’t asked to ban the book.” Moag said a conversation took place on the topic with another person, and “that’s where it stayed. There was no directive about ‘don’t teach it.’”
“I hope you guys get comfortable with this discourse because moving forward, having these conversations, that’s where we move forward,” Moag said. Referencing current, national events, he said, “I’ll never begin to put anybody else’s shoes on because I’ll try to understand, and I think that’s what we’re after here.”
Nowak restated her intent to draft a new letter with board member input. She said she would create a new draft with the feedback she already has, after which she will seek additional input. “Just give me some feedback on what you like, what you don’t like, themes that you think aren’t strong enough, themes that you think need to come out more,” she said.
The next regular BOE meeting will be August 17, by which time Nowak would like to have a letter finalized. “I don’t want to keep pushing this off,” she said. “I do want to get something out. So, if we can do a little better maybe communicating it through email. But I want to hear from all the board members, even if it’s just a, ‘yep, sounds great,’” or a no, Nowak said.
“Just don’t tell me ‘no, I don’t like it.’ I want to know what parts you don’t like and what parts to change,” Nowak said, emphasizing a tight schedule and a need for collaboration. “We can have a very constructive conversation about what we need to do to get that put out on behalf of Ron and the board.
“Don’t email me Monday at 1 on the 17th saying, ‘I want this changed,’ because it’s not going to happen. I work full time. I have to have some time before, but if you can get me your opinions back, I will have something compiled for the 17th.”
Dave Vago is a staff writer and columnist for Watershed Voice. A Philadelphia native with roots in Three Rivers, Vago is a planning consultant to history and community development organizations and is the former Executive Director of the Three Rivers DDA/Main Street program.
