Marblehead School Committee completed a second reading of its proposed flag policy last Thursday and is now one reading away from being able to vote on it.
This reading wasn’t finished without the committee hearing more community feedback and proposing some additional changes to be made before the third, and potentially final, reading.
Marblehead parent Nyla DuBois urged the committee to include a “viewpoint-neutral clause” in the policy. Chair Jenn Schaeffner addressed this comment by stating that while the exact words “viewpoint neutrality” are not included in the policy, that is what the policy is supposed to mean.
“We know this from this language, but we’re (school committee) in it all the time, so it’s obvious to us that’s another piece that’s already embedded in all this, but if it’s helpful to write it, then that’s fine as well,” she said.
Erin Opperman — a queer parent and lawyer concerned about the “formulation of the policy” — shared her worries that this policy will cause the School Committee to be sued based on First Amendment rights.
She added that, to her knowledge, the issue that led to discussion of whether to have a flag policy “was essentially created not by students, but by adults, by a parent and a reactionary teacher — and instead of dealing with the actions by those two adults, this committee risks creating an unnecessary and reactionary policy that is creating a problem that, in my opinion, didn’t exist in the beginning.”
Opperman continued by sharing that “one unfortunate aspect of this discussion has been hearing some of the voices of this town and of this committee that are offensive.”
“I certainly hope — as a woman married to another woman who has two children in town, one of which is a public school student — that this committee keeps in mind that it is offensive to hear that people are offended by the Pride flag,” Opperman said. “It is offensive to hear that people think that that flag does not represent traditional family values. I assure you that not only my family but other queer families in town have admirable family values.”
She said this in reference to a comment committee member Brian Ota made at the March 20 school committee meeting.
He had said: “We’ve been getting a lot of support with our proposal from the public, and I also want to point out that nobody ever comes forward to say it in a public forum like this. Why? Because they don’t want to get the backlash for having an opinion that it should only be the three flags, period. That’s where my concern comes from because I also believe that. I mean, it’s very hard to talk about some of these family posters, the rainbow flags, because for the majority of people they may support those kinds of causes, but there are traditional, religious people who believe in traditional family values, whether you do or not, and the rainbow flag doesn’t support them, and they can’t say it out loud because they would get backlash.”
Marblehead parent Angus McQuilken brought a symbol that he said a teacher in Idaho has been ordered to remove from their classroom due to “a policy that is similar to what’s being proposed here.” The desk plaque read: “Everyone is welcome here.”
He asked the committee what would happen in Marblehead when teachers inevitably refuse to comply with the policy if it passes, specifically questioning if those teachers would be fired.
To that point, committee member Sarah Fox said, “Like any of our policies, it is the superintendent who operationalizes that,” and she gave an example scenario to compare how the policy would be enforced. Fox said if a student were to have alcohol on campus, Superintendent John Robidoux would be responsible “to take whatever action is appropriate.”
Additionally, after receiving community member Cindy Schieffer’s email request for the flag policy to recognize and celebrate heritage months at the appropriate times, the committee decided to add that language to the policy, which will be finalized and available at its next reading.
The School Committee does not have to vote on the flag policy at its next meeting, but it will have the ability to do so once that third reading is completed May 1.
“If we feel we’re still not fully baked, I have no problem asking you (Schaeffner) to make a motion to bring it to a fourth reading because I want to make sure we get it where it needs to be,” Fox said.
