5 of 9 (3 from Amherst) Regional SC members showed up to the 4:00 meeting unanimously chastising 7/3 memo from Committee Chairs
The renegade Regional School Committee meeting today called by Vice Chair Trevor Baptiste and (sort of) cancelled by Chair Lawrence O'Brien did attain a quorum, and after a brief discussion unanimously passed a motion countermanding a 7/3 memo critical of Dr. Amilcar Shabazz.
Over 75 people crammed into the Pelham Library
55 comments:
A non-apology apology: he is sincerely sorry that WE misunderstood his statements, not sorry for what he said. Once again, Shabazz is the victim, he is the misunderstood one.
It's everyone else's fault: us for misunderstanding his statement, the community's for spreading the rumor he was reiterating at the ETF meeting, the adults in the schools for not intercepting the violent act against the kid before it occurred, so on and so on.
Shabazz does use implication: one example is when he reported online in writing that Vira signs were being dismantled and stolen and that Vira voters were being intimidated on the eve of the SC election, neither of which were true.
Lies, implications, and making himself out to be the victim each time is this guys m.o.
At least he doesn't cower under a cloak of anonymity.
Mr. Shabazz, you apologize for stating what you "heard in the community". In the spirit of openness and clearing all of this up, and so we can hold that person accountable, will you please tell us who in the community told YOU that the aggressors went looking for "the greatest student racist they could find"?
And now you want him to be a snitch?
I'm disgusted by the SC. When will they call Shabazz on the carpet for his lies. So now he's the victim? How about the kid who actually got beaten up? What a shameful display today!
I actually think that was a pretty solid apology. I agree he should not have started by saying he was "misunderstood". There was also a little grandstanding.
But overall I think he gave a nice, thoughtful, heart-felt apology and he went up a few notches in my view.
If I were the victim, I would be pleased with that.
-- Mig
Too bad we can't have a vote of no confidence in this SC. Too bad we can't vote them all out of office. Well not all. Just the fools in attendance today. Starting with Rick Hood. I don't care what Rick Hood's opinion is. Two law firms have weighed in and did l said today's meeting was not an official legal meeting of the SC.
If you listen carefully beyond his opening sentence, it's not a non-apology apology, as Anon 5:22 p.m. alleges.
And, I think that, if taken seriously, the content of today's statement, expressing his dismay about ALL racially motivated violence originating from our schools, fortunately advances the cause of reconciliation beyond where we were before he made his unfortunate but misconstrued remarks some time ago. So this looks to me like one step backward and then two steps forward today.
In effect, Mr. Shabazz has experienced painfully what many of us folks who are not of color fear for ourselves in this community, that our words of candor will not be received in the well-meaning spirit in which we offer them.
He owned up to the mistake, and clarified his overall intent. The use of Lincoln's First Inaugural always helps. That should be the end of it.
Rich Morse
That can't be the end of Mr Morse because he did not apologize for the lies he told at the same meeting. If he was sincere he would also apologize for those.
And all we have is your word (a Cowardly Anon Nitwit) that he told "lies."
I agree with Rich Morse. The first sentence was off-putting, but after that he gave a sincere apology.
Some people will not be happy no matter what he says. But I was impressed by how deep he went. It was not perfunctory.
--Mig
And now you want him to be a snitch?
Yes, Larry. We need to eradicate the secretive culture, and show our kids that it's OK to tell on someone if they are spreading hateful, slanderous lies against another, or have engaged in physical violence, among other things (such as bringing drugs or weapons into school.)
The old days of not wanting to be a "rat" have to change, that only results in more injustice.
I'm assuming whoever told Mr. Shabazz about the incident did so in confidence.
And there's a special place in Hell for journalists or public officials who give up a source.
So you'll protect a source who feeds you a slanderous lie?
Yes. If you guarantee somebody something is "off the record" then it is off the record. Period.
But I try to pick my sources so that they don't flat out lie to me.
Which is why I don't put much stock in Anons like you.
Saw some reference to attorneys around holding this meeting today, and understand that it was not an appropriate meeting because a vice chair can not call a meeting without the chair and supt. Does that mean today was not a real school committee meeting? And, given attorney client privilege, can someone request the communications between school committee members to uncover the story behind the story here?
Why is the school committee spending so much time dealing with the adult behaviors and taking the focus of our kids? Shabazz kept talking about himself as if he is the central of our small town politics. When did that happen? Can we get back to the business of schools and working together to solve these complex issues which are plaguing the nation...not just Amherst?
Is the family of that white student in a position to sue Shabazz??
I see what you're saying, somebody in the community told Shabazz "off the record" that the student agressors went searching for "the greatest student racist they could find", and Shabazz's only error was believing his source and reiterating what he heard while acting in capacity as school official. That makes perfect sense, now I understand. Shabazz didn't come up with "greatest student racist" himself, it was a rumor within the community, and now we can't know where the false statement originated, because that would be "snitching".
Shabazz was irresponsible for reiterating the information, and as a public figure he should step down. That is totally unacceptable.
The family of the white student can sure the school administration and any one of the 5 SC members who voted today. Those 5 can be sued personally.
Did those sc members know the position they were putting themselves in? It makes sense for shabazz becaues of slander or something to the effect.
Today was not an official SC meeting. No matter what Rick Hood said. It was a violation.
Anon 9:27- what grounds are there for a lawsuit? All the SC members did today was disavow the process by which the memo to Mr. Shabazz was undertaken. They don't, as a committee, seem to go beyond that into the veracity of the memo itself, do they?
They all knew the position they put themselves and the town in.
I hope Shabazz has learned his lesson and will refrain from repeating "rumors he heard in the community" again while acting in his official capacity as task force chair.
If I was
And I do wish at least one of the five members who complained about Shabazz's statements at the ETF meeting will come out and state the content of his other false innuendos about the superintendent. Larry is right, at this point he can just "sweep them under the rug".
Just like his written online false reporting of civil rights violations (the destruction of campaign signs and the intimidation of voters, which never occured, but which implicated the Appy campaign.)
Shabazz, March 25th 2014: "We have a real-world election taking place right now with people to help to get to the polls. We have our (Vira's) signs being taken down and voters being intimidated right now."
Pure "innuendo and implication": the civil rights violations he claims happened never happened.
Are false accusations of civil rights violations during a campaign prosecutable?
Just what we need, another cash payout....enough is enough..where is the district's attorney? Aren't we paying them to keep our sc out of these kids is messes?
To the parents of the kid who was assaulted: please teach the five officials who attended this evening's illegal meeting a lesson and SUE their asses!
The attorney is the one who told the SC chairs to send the memo to the ETF. This is the memo that was disavowed today. The chairs acted to protect the schools and the SC members and the 5 who met today undid that protection.
Then what the hell was Irv Rhodes writing about in the paper? Is he advising Shabazz, Baptista, Hood and te others into disregarding legal opinion? His article appearing today is either craftily planned or pure coincidence.
To those of you saying the sc members who met today should be sued by the victims family, what would the actual damages be?
-- Mig
Irv's editorial is honest and brilliant. I don't agree with everything he said, but it comes from the heart and there's not a lie to be found within it. I do not regret voting for Irv over Shabazz. I know personally of five separate lies Shabazz has told while acting in the role of SC member, I have never heard a lie from Irv.
I totally agree with Anon 126. I don't agree with everything Irv has said or done and I don't agree with all the sentiments in his recent editorial but he has never lied in his role as SC member. Something that cannot be said about Shabazz. There is a huge gulf in the moral character of the 2 men.
"The work that all of us in Amherst need to do should center on what is right, rather than who is right or which group is right."
Thank you Irv!
Let's get past the accusations and grandstanding and on with the business of improving our schools.
Irv's article was very well done. I thought this part best expresses a more common yet typical reaction from Amherst on issues it find itself unable or unwilling to solve.
"The moral authority of a town cannot be dictated and it certainly is not represented by symbols such as a diversity liaison — the post proposed in a program devised by the town manager and school superintendent. The work that all of us in Amherst need to do should center on what is right, rather than who is right or which group is right"
Anon 5:33 pm:
Who is to say that none of Vira Douangmany Cage's election signs were removed or dismantled ..... not by any campaign, but maybe by some overzealous supporters or unruly students.
I live in a downtown neighborhood & campaign signs disappear here almost every election.
Surely, this must be enough for us to move on and put this behind us.
Let's hope.
40 comments - 6 from Larry and 34 from Anonymous.
Have you considered turning off your anonymous feature to improve the level of dialogue here?
Best,
Brett
The "social contract" is that we waive our personal rights of revenge & vengeance to the state in exchange for the state's promise to punish the perpetrators on behalf of the victims.
There have been two hate crimes that we know of and likely more -- and Black kids doing this with impunity.
The message to White kids is simple: you are on your own.
It is only a matter of time before you have scared White kids with guns, and that's not going to end well. Worse, even trained police officers routinely hit people other than the person they are shooting at -- this is not going to end well...
Assuming you have a living White kid afterwards, you are going to have a competent defense attorney who is going to employ the Jason Vassel defense -- that the Black kids deserved to get shot.
That Team Maria are a bunch of vicious racists, that the Amherst schools are a cauldron of racism, and thus the defendant did nothing wrong. These will be attorneys "from away" who neither care about the consequences of saying this nor likely to be silenced by thuggish bullying, that would actually backfire.
Remember that this is a criminal trial -- folk like Mary Custard can be compelled to testify. Remember that neither FERPA nor anything else applies -- defense can go through all her files and then demand she justify everything in them.
This would get messy.
Two other things -- and I am disappointed that Bill Newman isn't pointing this out:
First, one has a Constitutional right to be a racist. We don't have to like such people, and we have a free speech right to condemn them, but they have a right to express such things.
That is the point I was trying to make about the RSU's Penis Montage -- *I* never said that they didn't have a right to do it, only that I was condemning them for doing so.
The price we all pay for our right of free speech is having to tolerate the free speech of others.
Second, even if it were criminal to say certain things, that doesn't justify vigilantism. The school authorities are the ones empowered to enforce the rules -- not some ad-hoc cadre of students. No matter how justified they may be, that not something that students should be doing.
This is just like the dark days when the Klan did stuff like this, and Clarance Thomas is quite clear what the effect of that was. There are thugs in that school who need to be dealt with -- and it doesn't matter what color their skin is.
Surely, this must be enough for us to move on and put this behind us.
Yes, and surely vigils and community outpourings of support and personal outpourings of support and a personal bodyguard and modifying all the other teachers schedules and improved rules about when my kid can enter the hallways and reams of articles about her plight and a couple months of paid leave must be enough to put the Carolyn Gardner thing behind us.
But wait--the number one charge Shabazz has given the ETF is to come up with ways to support Carolyn--an adult.
I guarantee we won't stop hearing about her!
I live in a downtown neighborhood & campaign signs disappear here almost every election.
Sure, but do you get online the day of the election and more than imply that one camp is committing civil rights violations (voter intimidation) against individual voters from the other?
Innuendos, insinuations, implications...LIES.
Katherine Appy also had signs taken during the campaign. She never accused Vira's campaign of nefarious doings.
Back in 1992 Russ Vernon Jones ordered my campaign signs removed from the entryway to Fort River School (but legally planted more than 100 feet from the polling booth), as he was a big supporter of Ellen Story.
RE: Brett and Anon Postings
Curious to know if you, Larry, are going to turn off this option. It does not appear that you care for anonymous bloggers.
No, I will not.
And I don't consider commenters "bloggers".
Thanks Larry.
Any particular reason you are against having folks attach their names to comments?
You have a solid site and I find some of the comments aren't constructive.
Just curious. You definitely don't owe me a reply.
You have to dig through a lot of crud to uncover the occasional diamond.
And I also worry about retaliation.
Look what happened to Steve Akalis, former electrician at the Amherst Public Schools.
Ed attaches his name to every post and none of them are constructive. They are nothing more than ramblings.
...the content of today's statement...fortunately advances the cause of reconciliation beyond where we were before he made his unfortunate but misconstrued remarks some time ago.
Maybe. At the very least it put Shabazz's back against the wall and the "anti-racism" troupe's feet to the fire, and forced someone in the black community in Amherst to finally admit (sort of) that black kids are not--by far--the only ones experiencing the actions and effects of racism in our schools.
"My comment (was) to say our district needs help with racism on all sides of the fence, not just with white students."
(Well, actually, for a few weeks after the task force meeting we heard that he was trying to convey the frustration black kids feel in the schools, and how they were simply acting on the frustration of being discriminated against all the time. But we'll take it.)
Old resentments corrode the soul.
Who's that one woman, dead center in that one picture?
Yee-owza,
summmbody needs a
"lifestyle lift"
if you catch my
drifffffft.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_X6A7TwFzU
-Squeaky Squeaks
p.s. Oh definitely.
7:48
Get a life...post your pix and let us take pot shots at you....sounds dumb eh? Get the message!
Post a Comment