GM board hears complaints that Chieftain name violates policy

By Shawn Cunningham
© 2023 Telegraph Publishing LLC

On Tuesday night, Chester resident Matt Gorsky told the Green Mountain Unified School Board that the harm in using the Chieftain name is “in the inescapable connection between it and 50 years of a racist mascot depicting people this country has conducted cultural genocide against….” He was just one of seven people and organizations lodging six complaints that by re-instating and continuing to use the Chieftain name at Green Mountain High, the district is violating its own policy, adopted in January of this year.

The backdrop of this is state legislature’s 2022 enactment of Act 152 “relating to non-discriminatory school branding.” The act requires the creation of a model school policy that prohibits “school branding that directly or indirectly references or stereotypes the likeness, features, symbols, traditions, or other characteristics that are specific to either: (A) the race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity of any person or group of persons” or those associated with “the repression of others.” The bill was sponsored by Windsor County Sen. Dick McCormack.

The law requires that Vermont public and publicly funded schools adopt a non-discriminatory mascot policy that is “at least as comprehensive as the model policy” and have a process by which complaints of violations of the policy may be heard by the district board, with an appeal process to the Secretary of Education. The school board is required to make a written response to all complaints within 45 days. The response must include a statement of the reasons.

Four individuals and three organizations filed complaints with the district, but only the individuals (who are local) attended the hearing. The NAACP and Gedakina filed their complaint as one and said they stood by it and would not attend. Alyssa Chen of the Education Justice Coalition in Burlington submitted a late complaint and was neither in the room or on Zoom.

In his complaint, Chester resident Matt Gorsky said that the harm exists because the people who are members of the Indigenous culture are saying that it is harmful, implying that they are the only ones who can assess the harm. He also noted that TRSU’s vision statement includes two pertinent clauses. These are to “teach and model empathy, compassion, responsibility and respect” and to “aspire to be citizens of a diverse democracy and a changing world.”

Carrie Roy King asserted that the board violated the non-discriminatory mascot policy when it re-instated the Chieftain name in February. She said that it is impossible for the name Chieftain not to have “a direct or indirect reference” to Native American cultural appropriation due to the use of the Indian head mascot for the past 50 years.

“By re-instating the Chieftain after adopting the E5 policy, the board continues to stoke the fires of division at this school,” she said, adding that the school is notorious for a negative, unwelcoming and exclusive learning environment.

King asked the board to answer several questions in its written decision. These include:

• Why would you need to rebrand the Chieftain if it is not a violation of the policy?
• Why would board members cite the lack of an enforcement clause for compliance with the E5 policy as a way to justify reinstating the Chieftain? and
• Why would board members ask to strike the word “indirectly” from the policy if keeping it put the district in violation?

Emily Burkland told the board that “if the goal of the school is to bring people together in a safe place, where racism and bigotry are not tolerated, using the Chieftain name for a mascot is not something that serves that vision. Instead it serves to divide and creates an unsafe atmosphere that isn’t conducive to learning. Keeping the name and changing the image does nothing to erase the historical symbolism that is preserved on social media and in alumni communities.”

Deb Velto of Springfield, who has been involved with the mascot issue locally for 10 years and taught at a Navajo school in the past, presented the board with binders filled with information on the topic of discriminatory mascots – especially when referring to Indigenous peoples. She urged the board to watch videos she had included in the binder and noted the contributions of Native Americans in the research. She also pointed to the work of GM students 10 years ago as they tried to change the Chieftain mascot but left the school feeling defeated. Velto also pointed to current students whose work on the topic had informed the legislature’s adoption of Act 152. Velto noted that the daughters of both King and Burkland have been among those GM students actively involved in removing the name from the school.

When all the complainants had been heard, Andover representative Scott Kendall moved to recess the hearing. This was so the board could convene a special meeting — warned the day before — to hear community complaints against the non-discriminatory mascot policy before going into a deliberative session.

But Cavendish rep Dennis Reilly objected, noting that this was not a meeting, but a hearing that was to be followed by a deliberative session.

With one member attending on Zoom, the board was required to take a roll call vote that rejected the motion to recess 6 – 3 with Chair Deb Brown not voting.

The vote to move directly into deliberative session was passed at about 7 p.m. and those attending were asked to step outside while the board deliberated for a little less than an hour and returned with no decision.

Defense of name presented at special meeting

The special meeting, warned within the 24-hour requirement but not with much public notice was a forum for pro-Chieftain sentiments to complain about the policy itself. It attracted a little more than a dozen people, but many left when the school board went into its deliberative session.

Randy Miles told the board that they needed to hear both sides before making a determination on whether “Chieftain” violates the policy. Relying on the dictionary definition of the word, Miles’ reasoning was that the name is not about any one person or people. He said that there was no intent to be racist but now it stands alone without any direct reference to the former mascot image.

Miles said that dropping the name would go against what he claimed was the sentiment of the majority in the area and he asked that if the Chieftain name goes, what else must go? Miles then asserted that the name “Green Mountain” was also associated with the mascot and asked if that should also go.

Both Miles and Chester resident Roy Spaulding objected to the word “indirectly” in the policy but board member Adrienne Williams explained that state statute does not give the board any authority to lessen the policy but only to make it more strict.

Spaulding said that the district should be a leader “like a Chieftain” and show how a school can retain its name rather than giving in and going along with the state’s dictum.

The board adjourned around 8:30 p.m. It will now have 45 days to answer the six complaints in writing.