3 complaints target ‘Chieftains’ name; to be considered at April 11 hearing GM District Board, AOE to contemplate next steps

By Shawn Cunningham
© 2023 Telegraph Publishing LLC

At a special meeting next week, the Green Mountain Unified School District Board will hear three complaints alleging that the continuing use of the “Chieftain” name for the Green Mountain Union High School is a violation of a school district policy adopted earlier this year.

This “quasi-judicial” session is scheduled for 6 p.m. on Tuesday, April 11. In Vermont, such a meeting carries no requirement for public comment and the board can hold a closed door deliberative session after hearing complaints and asking questions.

The school policy in question – known as E5 – is mandated by last year’s Act 152, which was enacted by the legislature and signed by Gov. Phil Scott. The intent behind it is to give students a “positive and inclusive learning environment…by eliminating the use of discriminatory school branding,” including “mascot, nickname, logo, letterhead, team name, slogan, motto, or other identifier.”

The school district has received three complaints about the Chieftain name. One — from local chapters of the NAACP and Gedakina (an organization that promotes indigenous culture and education)  —  lists the mascots of eight Vermont schools including Green Mountain’s Chieftain. The other complaints are from community members Carrie King and Matthew Gorsky and are specific to Green Mountain.

The NAACP-Gedakina complaint stated that while the image of an apparently Native American man wearing a Plains Indian headdress has been dropped, “because the name still exists, so does the image. The legacy still continues, dropping the name is not sufficient.”

Gorsky wrote of his disappointment in the board’s decision to keep the “racist team name, the Chieftains.” Gorsky, who identified himself as not only a Chester resident but “an indigenous person,”  said that the board is “in conflict with the use of a Name which is connected to the negative depiction of a race this country has committed cultural genocide against.”

In her complaint, King writes that the “use of the Chieftains … directly contradicts the responsibility of Vermont school boards to prohibit school branding that directly or indirectly references or stereotypes …”

“The hearing,” GM Board chair Deb Brown told the Telegraph, “is to hear the complaints that are saying we have violated our discriminatory mascot policy – not to discuss the Chieftain name.” Brown explained that having heard the complaints she expects that the board will go into a private session to deliberate but she does not expect a decision on that evening. “We have 45 days to announce a decision,” said Brown who noted that the decision, which will be in writing, will give the reasons for the board’s action. You can read the procedure for the meeting here.

“I’m not sure we’re going to discuss (the NAACP/Gedakina) complaint because they are not going to be present and I’m not sure we can make a decision on a complaint when we’re not allowed to ask questions,” said Brown. “But it will be up to the board if they want to discuss it.”

Brown said it would also be up to the board if they wanted to answer each complaint individually or issue one decision for all complaints.

Complainants have a process for appeal

If the board decides that the Chieftain name does not violate its mascot policy, any or all of the complainants have 30 days to appeal the decision to the Agency of Education. Act 152 gives the Secretary of Education the appellate authority.

“We haven’t received any of these yet so it’s uncharted territory,” said Ted Fisher, AOE spokesman and legislative liaison, who said a complainant who disagrees with a school board decision “can just send us an email” to start the appeal process.

“The secretary (of Education) will address complaints consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act (3 V.S.A. §§ 809-816). If the secretary finds that the district branding violates the law, the district will be required to change the branding,” said Fisher.

Back on the legislative radar

Having received the NAACP’s Mascot Complaint Statement,  which asserts that the new law has already failed, the Senate Committee on Education asked the AOE for an update on the implementation of Act 152. In oral and written testimony   on Friday, March  31, Fisher told senators that the law is still new and that the AOE is “aware” that many school districts have worked to adopt policies and review their branding. He said that the agency is also aware that individuals and organizations have expressed concerns about one or more schools and several complaints have been filed with school boards.

Fisher testified that since the AOE  secretary is part of the appeals process outlined in the statute, the agency is reluctant to comment too much on possible complaints or on the appeals process so as not to prejudice the authority to which complainants can appeal.

“I can’t say what our process will be (when the AOE gets a complaint) because right now it’s hypothetical since we haven’t gotten one yet,” said Fisher.

Committee member Sen. Nader Hashim of Windham County noted that Black and brown people who believe something is racist are told to go stand in front of a board to say why. “It doesn’t feel right to say its a Black or brown person’s responsibility to make organizations do the right thing when (those organizations) should be taking steps to do it themselves,” said Hashim who spoke of the AOE taking a more unilateral approach to implementing the law.

No apparent penalties for non-compliance

While Fisher told The Telegraph that the AOE could require the school to change the Chieftains name, it does not appear that the current law gives the secretary sanctions to compel compliance, which were in the original bill.

Act 152  was sponsored by Windsor County Sen. Dick McCormack, who told the Telegraph in February that he regretted that the law contains no penalties for non-compliance.  As introduced, however, the bill included a clause that said “Any public school not in compliance three years after passage of this act shall be ineligible to compete in Vermont Principals’ Association–sanctioned events.”

Vermont Principals Association Executive Director Jay Nichols told The Telegraph that he testified against that version of the bill, noting that elected school boards could make decisions that might only be changed by subsequent elections. Nichols said his association “doesn’t want to be in the business of punishing kids” for those decisions made by adults.

While the VPA has no specific policy regarding discriminatory mascots, it did issue a “Statement on Mascots & School Symbols” in August 2020, in which the VPA Executive Council said, “Any mascot, nickname, symbol, or logo that has marginalizing, racist, or exclusionary elements should be replaced to demonstrate what it means to be an inclusive, welcoming, and strong community.”

How did we get here?

The question of whether or not to keep the Chieftain mascot has been around for years. In October 2021 the GMUSD board voted to stop using the logo that featured the silhouette of an apparently Native American man wearing a Plains Indian headdress. The board decided to keep the Chieftain name but in January of this year, it adopted the model policy “Nondiscriminatory Mascots and School Branding” put out by the Vermont School Boards Association.

That policy puts the onus on the superintendent to “assist the school board in ensuring the prohibition of school branding that directly or indirectly references or stereotypes the likeness, features, symbols, traditions or other characteristics” based on “race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation or gender identity….”

At the same January meeting the board voted 7-2 to “retire” the Chieftain name although one board member who voted in favor of the motion said she felt ambushed since the discussion and vote were not on the agenda.

The board’s February meeting saw a large group of Chieftain supporters asking for the vote to be rescinded. There was discussion of “rebranding” and Adrianne Williams – who voted in the majority to retire the name moved to rescind that decision. Referring to the idea of rebranding the name, Williams warned the board that it should not “set and forget” the effort.

At the same meeting, then chair Joe Fromberger announced that the NAACP and Gedakina had sent the board a complaint based on the Chieftain name.

There was further discussion at the March meeting in which Superintendent Lauren Fierman pointed to the rebranding as an indication that the Chieftain name is indirectly associated Native Americans. Board member Jeff Hance said he had researched 21 such non-discriminatory policies and that Vermont was the only one that used the term “indirectly.” He asked if the E5 policy could be sent back to the policy committee to remove that word.

Fierman said the board could adopt a more restrictive policy, but it can’t adopt one that is less restrictive.