Letter: Letter Writer Seeking Clarity on MGRSD's Diversity Initiative
 |
To the Editor:
A citizens' letter read during public comment at the May 13 Mount Greylock Regional School District Committee (MGRSD) and a second letter giving "unwavering support" to the Diversity Equity Inclusion and Belonging (DEIB) initiative seem to have sparked controversy. The article covering that meeting (iBerkshires, May 17, 2021) seems to have fueled the fire. Hoping that context helps to clarify, some additional information is provided below.
Process is as important as product. Previously, we wrote two letters stating our questions: one directed only to the committee, then a second directed only to the superintendent. Although the superintendent's response was more detailed, it still did not provide all the information we believe we had rightfully and respectfully requested. After much thought, we decided to "go public" during the Public Comment section of the School Committee meeting. Again, mindful of process and transparency, we submitted our third letter in its entirety well before the meeting. We did not seek to blindside anyone. Apparently, we did not.
The strongly-worded letter from DEIB supporters was read immediately after ours. Were the negative comments from DEIB supporters directed at the authors of our letter? Was it meant to silence those who question? As for our participating in DEIB (rather than "criticizing"), it is difficult to join that which we did not know existed. Then, following the superintendent's presentation of the DEIB initiative to date — the first outreach to the entire MGRSD community as far as we know — one member of the committee characterized our questions as "demands," and proposed that the committee pass a resolution to support DEIB efforts in order to "protect [the Superintendent's] time and energy from needing to respond to continual[] ... criticism[.]" (We had sent two previous letters, as mentioned above.)
Yes, our letter is long and detailed. Some subjects, like the DEIB initiative, are sufficiently complicated and controversial to require something more than sound bites and/or bullet points. I leave it to those who have the time, energy, and inclination to read both our letter and the DEIB letter in their entirety, looking to tone as well as individual words. I also encourage viewing the meeting on YouTube or other video resources.
I, and apparently now others, believe our good-faith efforts were both misunderstood and disrespected. People who wish to judge for themselves have access to our third letter as well as the DEIB support letter, both read during the Public Comment section of the meeting. In fact, all correspondence referenced above is a matter of public record: www.wlschools.org/ under meeting documents for May 13 in the packet or on video recording at public comment 03.2 and 03.3.
I believe the evidence will speak for itself.
Donna Carlstrom Wied
Williamstown, Mass.
Tags: letters to the editor,
