GM board hears complaints that Chieftain name violates policy
Shawn Cunningham | Apr 12, 2023 | Comments 8
By Shawn Cunningham
© 2023 Telegraph Publishing LLC
The E5 policy complaint hearing underway at the GM library
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.
Matt Gorsky speaks to the issue
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 King asks the board to answer several questions about its approach to the policy.
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 tells the board that keeping the name
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.
Deb Velto speaks about the GM students who have worked to replace the mascot
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 speaking at the special meeting that followed the complaint hearing and 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.
Filed Under: Education News • Featured • Latest News
Here is how far they are willing to go with the I am offended. One of the 8 school images they want gone is a flying turtle!!!! .That is why is said it will never stop . If they take the chieftain name away because it can’t be separated from the mascot by that logic the Green mountain name would have to go too because you can’t separate them. All that will be left for GM is the EKG looking line on the front of the building !!!
Matt is right. The school board is prioritizing nostalgia over harm.
I’m glad to see more people standing up against racism and bigotry. I’m also glad to see the Green Mountain Unified School Board taking this issue seriously and trying to make changes to their mascot policy. I’m curious to know what specifically the district plans to do to change the name and logo.
I see that the “selective offense” and Slippery Slope fallacy are still being used as reasoning to keep something which is illegal, by VT Act 152.
“Selective Offense” is nothing more than a bad actor be called out on bad behavior while saying it’s not true because the actor doesn’t think it is bad behavior. If one goes by the definition of those bad actors of what constitutes harm, no harm can ever be done. Harm is defined by those it happens to, not by those who impose it upon others.
A slippery slope argument, in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is an argument in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect. In other words, it’s a string of events which are imagined and unlikely to happen, but because they’ve been brought up one should avoid taking the small step because otherwise pandemonium will ensue.
One side of this argument has studies and research to back up their claims of harm. The other has rhetoric and fantasy, stuck in an age when bad behavior was ignored because it was common place.
“Prejudice is an emotional commitment to ignorance.”
-Nathan Rutstein
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_mascot_controversy
It is a sad day for us all when we can twist the true meaning of a word and the reason it was chosen. Fact #1 Chieftain is listed in the Oxford dictionary as (Leader of people or clan) No DIRECT pointing to race, gender or any group of people! Just representing Leaders. Fact #2 I feel some people feel the name sounds like it belongs to the Native Americans? No, it was used by the Scottish, then french, English and everyone else from the early 1800. In other words this powerful word Chieftain belongs to all races.Fact #3 While the mascot had to go and nobody really disagrees with that. We try to tie and pull in the word Chieftain. It was never chosen for racist reasons only what it stood for, Leaders! Fact #4 The mascot is gone for good there is no more direct or indirect left to debate. If You attach Chieftain as indirectly related as the Act 152 and our E5 policy states? Then EVERYTHING in that school comes into play! There is no understanding of anything else. I feel the School board has done there job in eliminating the problem by removing the mascot. To go after a good meaningful name is to over step your power and the majority of how people feel about this name CHIEFTAIN and what it has always represented from the kids of 1971 and today. Leaders! If the school board stops at the heart of the problem Mascot There work is done! Do not over step the main focus of the problem. If the school board blames it on the ACT 152 and The E5 as it is worded then they should challenge it! They do represent us do they not? We then could celebrate the word like this maybe? GM Chieftain Leaders or we could remove it
and choose the Ostrich with its head in the sand !
Back on February 9th testimony was provided to our state legislators about the sorry state of children’s mental health and adequate funding to provide proper staffing to address this crisis.
I think we should all thank Senator Dick for crafting a law that enables just one student to kick off a major crisis that divides communities across Vermont. To say nothing of the carbon expense associated with addressing this.
Given the current codified rules and regulations that enable, (and weaponize) selective outrage, perhaps we should just abandon the use of mascots, least we add to the growing mental health problems facing our children and adults. Ironically the Abenaki Nation rejected a similar type of complaint aimed at Missisquoi Valley Union School.
Perhaps we change it to “The Carlton”, in honor of that great comedian that was so adept at lampooning the turbo stupidity of mankind.
It would appear that the same non discriminatory policies, if applied to professional teams, would call into question the Boston Celtics, the New York Knickerbockers, the Pittsburgh Pirates, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, the New Orleans Saints, the Las Vegas Raiders, the New Jersey Devils, and, of course, the Atlanta Braves. Even the New England Patriots glorify people who, in their era, were traitors to the King. During the Red Scare era of the 1950s, the Cincinnati Reds temporarily became the Cincinnati Redlegs. And the Washington Bullets basketball team became the Wizards. But isn’t wizardry a form of occult worship? Orlando Magic too?