Chieftain hearing seems to inch forward but questions remain
Shawn Cunningham | Nov 29, 2023 | Comments 3
By Shawn Cunningham
© 2023 Telegraph Publishing LLC
AOE General Counsel Emily Simmons chairing a remote meeting of appellants and a lawyer representing the school board in July
Emily Simmons, the general counsel with the AOE, said that she expected hearings and a decision before schools reopened in the fall.
But while a representative of AOE recently told The Telegraph that they “anticipate the proceedings to be complete by the end of the year,” the movement toward that goal has been sporadic and incomplete. No hearing date is set, not all those appealing have heard from the AOE and some basic decisions on procedure have either not been made or made and not been communicated to the parties.
Act 152, which prohibits schools from using discriminatory mascots and/or branding, requires each school have a policy that is in line with the law. If a person thinks a school’s branding violates its policy they can make a complaint to the school board. That board must hear the complaint and decide whether or not its branding violates its own policy. If the school says it does not, complainant can appeal to the Secretary of Education.
The Green Mountain appeal appears to be the first brought under the law and some of the delay could be attributed to that, but the state’s Administrative Procedure Act lays out how such hearings will be conducted. The kerfuffle over the hiring of a law firm – apparently to defend the Chieftain name – and that firm’s subsequent dismissal and reinstatement by the GM board may also have contributed to the delay.
Attorney Mick Leddy at a July remote meeting was dropped by the school district and then brought back
As of Oct. 24, GM board chair Deb Brown told The Telegraph that school board attorney Mick Leddy was still on the case but declined to say whether he was actively defending the name or not, citing attorney-client privilege.
But in each instance, those appealing the decisions say that their questions and requests have been mostly unanswered.
Carrie Roy King of Chester told The Telegraph that repeated emails to Simmons, who is acting as the hearing officer on behalf of Acting Education Secretary Heather Bouchey, go unanswered. The most pressing question aside from a hearing date is how the hearing or hearings will be conducted.
Even on Nov. 16, when Simmons sent a scheduling poll to King, school board chair Brown and attorney Leddy, King did not know if the three complaints — hers and Matthew Gorsky’s and Deb Velto’s — had been joined into one and if the hearing would be “on the record” or “de novo.” In the former, Simmonds would look at the proceedings back in the spring. The latter allows for new information and witness testimony.
King notes that her witnesses will not be available until after Dec. 19, but that date was beyond those offered on the scheduling poll. She laid out her questions about the hearing in an email to Simmons on Monday Nov. 20 and as of Tuesday Nov. 28, she has received no reply.
Velto and Gorsky have said that they too have gotten little or no information from the AOE.
On Nov. 15, a spokesperson for the agency told The Telegraph that because this is a “pending matter” no other comment could be given.
Filed Under: Education News • Featured
“What the mascot is will have not iota of impact on how our students are prepared for their future lives”… is a troublingly ignorant statement, one needs to look no farther than the well cited Wikipedia page on the topic to understand why this statement is grossly misinformed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_mascot_controversy
Which reads, in part:
“A consensus on the damage caused by the use of Native American mascots was stated by the Society of Indian Psychologists in 1999:
Stereotypical and historically inaccurate images of Indians, in general, interfere with learning about them by creating, supporting and maintaining oversimplified and inaccurate views of Indigenous peoples and their cultures. When stereotypical representations are taken as factual information, they contribute to the development of cultural biases and prejudices, (clearly a contradiction to the educational mission of the University.) In the same vein, we believe that continuation of the use of Indians as symbols and mascots is incongruous with the philosophy espoused by many Americans as promoting inclusivity and diversity.[40]
Sports mascots have been cited as an example of microaggressions, the everyday insults that members of marginalized minority groups are subject to by other groups in society.[41]
In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued a resolution “Recommending the Immediate Retirement of American Indian Mascots, Symbols, Images, and Personalities by Schools, Colleges, Universities, Athletic Teams, and Organizations” due to the harm done by creating a hostile environment, the negative effects on the self-esteem of American Indian children, and discrimination that may violate civil rights. Such use also affects non-natives: by reinforcing mainstream stereotypes, and preventing learning about Native American culture. The APA states that stereotyping is disrespectful of the beliefs, traditions and values of Native Americans.[42] In 2021, the New York Association of School Psychologists reiterated the APA position on Native mascots in its position statement advocating the inclusion of Indigenous persons in educational programs regarding diversity
Similar resolutions have been adopted by the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport,[44] the American Sociological Association,[45] the American Counseling Association,[46] and the American Anthropological Association.[47] In a 2005 report on the status of Native American students, the National Education Association included the elimination of Indian mascots and sports team names as a recommendation for improvement.[48] In 2018, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation announced it would no longer consider teams with racist mascots, such as the Kansas City and Washington football teams, for its annual RWJF Sports Award; this recognizes organizations that contribute to public health through sports.[49]
Social science research has substantiated the objections by Native Americans to use of such elements. In particular, studies support the view that sports mascots and images are not trivial.[50] Stereotyping directly affects academic performance and self-esteem of Native American students, contributing to other issues faced by Native Americans, including suicide, unemployment, and poverty.[51] European Americans exposed to mascots are more likely to believe not only that stereotypes are true, but that Native Americans have no identity beyond these stereotypes.[52] Two studies examining the effect of exposure to an American Indian sports mascot found a tendency to endorse stereotypes of a different minority group (Asian Americans), which is indicative of a “spreading effect”. Exposure to any stereotypes increased the likelihood of stereotypical thinking; demonstrating the harm done to society by stereotyping of any kind.[53][54] A connection between stereotyping and racism of any group increasing the likelihood of stereotyping others was made by Native Americans opposing the “Indians” mascot in Skowhegan, Maine, when fliers promoting the KKK were distributed in that town.””…
Things are definitely askew when the focus of attention in the field of education is on mascots, symbols, but not actual effective and cost efficient education.
This has been one big red herring to distract attention from what counts….education itself. What the mascot is will have not iota of impact on how our students are prepared for their future lives.
How much longer must this pathetic drama play on? Simply put, to objectify a person or group is an attempt to strip that group of its humanity. One can say, “I didn’t mean it that way.” Still, words have meaning and just because objectification may have been allowed in 1970, it is not now. It matters not if the intention was benign, it is no longer so. I do not believe casting humans as objects was ever wholly benign, it surely is not now.
Leo Graham
Elm Grove, WI