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.

Williams College Lone Suitor for Development of Water Street Lot

By Stephen DravisiBerkshires Staff

Williams College hopes to replace the current Facilities Services building on Latham Street and use that space for a new  athletics complex. 
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — If the town accepts an offer from Williams College, a 1.27-acre lot that long has been eyed as a possible venue for housing and economic development instead will find a use similar to its history.
 
The college was the lone respondent to the town's request for proposals to purchase and develop 59 Water St., a dirt lot known around town as the "old town garage site." This was first reported Wednesday by Greylock News. 
 
If successful, the college plans to use the former town garage property for the school's Facilities Services building. Or it could be turned back into a parking lot.
 
Williams' offer includes a $500,000 upfront payment and a 10-year agreement to make $50,000 annual donations to the Mount Greylock Regional School District according to the proposal unsealed on Wednesday afternoon.
 
If it closes the deal, the college said it will explore development of a three- to four-story Facilities Services building with "a structured parking facility providing approximately 170 spaces."
 
"[I]f site constraints impact our ability to develop both structured parking and the Facilities Services building, our backup proposal is to develop the parking structure with approximately 170 spaces, also with capacity to support institutional and public needs," the college's proposal reads.
 
The college's current Facilities property at 60 Latham St. has an assessed value — for the .42-acre lot only — of $113,000 and an annual property tax bill of $1,606, according to the town's website.
View Full Story

More Williamstown Stories