To the editor: GM schools face a disturbing trend of non-acceptance
The Chester Telegraph | Apr 21, 2026 | Comments 2
At the most recent school board meeting a Chester resident suggested that classrooms should be inspected to see if they include LGBTQ+ or Black Lives Matter materials, while claiming that such materials violate district policies – which they don’t. The comments by the superintendent and the complaint by the resident echo the disturbing trend of opposing inclusive materials in classrooms that most often targets “All Are Welcome Here” banners and LGBTQ+ pride flags.
These types of attacks on inclusive messaging are not motivated by academic concerns, but rather by a political agenda and cultural bias. They are also dangerous. A 2024 study found that 44% of LGBTQ young people in Vermont have considered suicide, more than 10% attempted to take their own lives and 69% experienced depression and anxiety. The primary reason for depression and suicidal ideation among LGBTQ+ young people is bullying and a lack of acceptance.
Forty percent of transgender and nonbinary students experience bullying on school grounds. Last October, a transgender Middlebury College student tragically took her own life after experiencing vicious online harassment and repeated and deliberate misgendering on campus.
Multiple studies have shown that inclusive materials in classrooms, such as pride flags and banners reduce bullying, absenteeism and depression among LGBTQ+ young people. They also affirm that the classroom is a safe place to learn. Inclusive materials harm no one; removing them harms many.
There are compassionate, humane and rational reasons for supporting inclusive materials in classrooms. There are also pragmatic reasons for not attempting to remove or ban them. The ACLU Vermont chapter issued a detailed letter in which it states that banning pride banners and flags in classrooms amounts to “viewpoint discrimination” and is unconstitutional. That position has been affirmed by the courts. The ACLU, the Trevor Project and other human rights organizations have challenged such bans and are committed to continuing to do so.
I encourage the GMUSD board to reject any proposal to adopt regressive policies that may negatively impact the safety and well-being of students, which increase the likelihood of bullying, or potentially infringe on the constitutional rights of students and teachers.
Robert Nied
Chester
Filed Under: Commentary • Letters to the Editor
Mr. Miles forgets that he specifically raised the issue of LGBTQ+ and Black Lives Matter materials in the classroom and called for an inspection of classrooms to see where such materials are displayed. If he indeed has “no problem with any group or identity” why is he focused on materials representing two marginalized groups of students? Calling inclusive materials for marginalized students “unfair” to non-marginalized students is disingenuous and not a persuasive argument for pretending LGBTQ+ students and students of color are not frequently subject to bullying, harassment, and even violence.
First of all I was at this meeting. The talk and dissucion was not about LGBTQ or Black Lives Matter. It was about policy and fairness. It was stated loud and clear as well as having no problem with any group or idenity.The LGBTQ and BLack Lives Matter in classroom was brought up to me by parents and other students. As to why they get displayed and no others? The meeting was about policy and fairness for those of you who still believe in it? When I read this artical I feel Bob missed the conversation of the school board meeting by a long shot. Let me try and clear up some confussion here first hand. Policies are put in place to guide and help make things more clear and understanding in helping eliminatint problems.
Example Act 152 & E5 in short not having the power over branding or pointing to one or another specific group or another. If you say that was about mascots only? Then what about classrooms and rest of the school? No policies and anything can go or be represented worn or said in classrooms? That would make no sense at all. A policies for on the field but nothing in the classroom? The point of that meeting was to be clear about what is allowed and fair to ALL. Why is it ok to display flags/banners for one or two groups and not others to be fair? The classrooms use to be free of this all together for reasons. 1. To be fair if you showed favoritisn to one or two groups is that fair to all the others? No, if you put up flags or banners to reprsent all groups what would you have? Distraction in the school and classrooms with students drifting from learning to gazing at walls and ceiling. I find problems with this atrical above. In todays society it is about trying to be fair with respect to all. Not just one group or identity. The bullying part in fact happens to every group or identity and has exsisted for a very long time, not right but true. 2. I am consearned with ACLU portion stating. ” viewpoint discrimination” Are they just looking at one viewpoint or should we be considering all viewpoints to be fair? Is there viewpoint right or mine or yours? Does the ACLU represent just one or two or what is fair in general for all? 3. The numbers of depression and thought of suicide at 44% if you are LGBTQ. This is alarming and the need to get to the root of the problem is necessary. Though I must say this problem too exist in many groups and identities, disturbing but true. I am not so sure a flag or banner is at the heart of this in any group or identity but something much bigger needs to be looked into. So once again the meeting was to talk about policy and fairness for all. Weather the school was in compliance of a policy? Or is it about twisting and bending the policies and fairness to soot one’s own belief? In ending all students should be and show respect in schools to all! Bullying is never ok and should be addressed right away.