Letter: Look for Facts in Bias Incidents

Letter to the EditorPrint Story | Email Story

To the Editor:

The May 13, 2024, article entitled "'The Roof is Caving In': Mount Greylock School Committee Hears Details of Bias Incidents." If reported accurately, and if I interpreted the article correctly, Mr. Dravis brought to light some extremely troublesome issues. If prejudice is occurring routinely in our schools and elsewhere in town, especially in those institutions under the auspice of town governance, a clearly reasoned plan must be created and implemented.

Also troubling in the article was "… the meeting also features some of the most frank commentary to date from district administrators about the shortcomings of the preK-12 district's efforts to address the problem." There are other quotes from the district leadership that indicated that as Superintendent McCandless said, "We are really just trying to find mechanisms that actually work. We have invested a great deal of money into this work, and as evidenced tonight by the things people didn't want to be saying because they're living in pain at home-the things we're doing aren't working."

Was any conclusion reached that indicated the next step? It seemed that some believed adding additional DEI efforts were in order. It seemed that others believed we should rethink the whole DEI movement.

Might the next step in addressing the prejudice "crisis" be to look for facts? Narratives are extremely important, and should be taken very seriously, but a closer investigation that values the facts of the alleged incidents might reveal different and/or additional perspectives.



Is there anyone who can argue that DEI is not a controversial approach to combatting intolerance? Is there anyone who can argue it has not furthered divisions in our community? It is difficult to judge because so many people are silent. How do we know what the community thinks? What they value?

Might we use our current confusion and frustration to revisit how DEI was introduced to the town? Was there an attempt to calmly encourage discussion with townspeople who questioned (not even challenged) the principles and strategies inherent in DEI before those principles were put into place ? Were there clearly stated MEASURABLE goals shared with townsfolk that could serve as a basis now as to how we should go forward? Taxpayers are, after all, are expected to pay the bills.

No question that mistakes have been made and by many people on all sides of the tolerance issue. Let us try to correct those mistakes and move on to create a tolerant and flourishing community.

Donna Wied
Williamstown, Mass.

 

 

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Fitch, Barrett Meet in Debate for State Representative Seat

By Stephen DravisiBerkshires Staff
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — The two candidates for the Democratic nomination to represent the First Berkshire District on Beacon Hill found a lot of common ground Thursday on some issues but differed on what is needed to get things done in their only scheduled debate leading up to the Sept. 1 primary election.
 
The incumbent, John Barrett III, and Andrew Fitch, a North Adams city councilor, met in a theater at Williams College's Paresky Center in a forum sponsored by the town's chapter of the League of Women Voters, fielding questions submitted by the public and posed by moderator Jennifer Howlett for just less than an hour.
 
The pair agreed at least in part on issues ranging from same-day voter registration to assisted suicide to the statewide ballot initiative to repeal the legalization of cannabis in the commonwealth.
 
But they parted ways when asked whether they would support efforts to institute a single ballot primary and whether the current Legislature has been responsive enough to respond to a 2024 ballot initiative to have the state auditor audit the House and Senate.
 
Barrett argued that the Legislature already conducts audits and puts the results on the state's website. He further pointed to a lawsuit brought by Auditor Diana DiZoglio over the issue.
 
"She went to court, and the court asked her, are these the four things you wanted [from an audit], and she said yes," Barrett said. "We gave her legislation that gave her the four things she wanted."
 
Calling himself a "big fan of audits," Barrett argued that he participated in them as mayor of North Adams for 26 years. He called efforts to have the state auditor conduct the audit of the Legislature a "Republican thing" and a "sad game."
 
View Full Story

More Williamstown Stories