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.

Letter: Williamstown Should Adopt Ban on Sewage Sludge Land Application

Letter to the Editor

To the editor:

This year, Williamstown Town Meeting will be considering whether to adopt a new bylaw that would prohibit the land application of sewage sludge or sewage sludge-derived products (biosolids). The ban would apply to land application of sludge and biosolids to farmland as a soil amendment or to home gardens where store bought compost may contain biosolids. The intent of this bylaw is to protect farmland, water sources, food crops and ultimately animals and people from PFAS contaminants.

PFAS are per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a group of "forever chemicals," and are linked to health issues like cancer, liver damage and immune system dysfunction. They enter wastewater systems through residential, commercial and industrial sources. Conventional treatment processes are largely ineffective at removing them. As a result, PFAS pass through treatment systems into surface waters or accumulate in sewage sludge/biosolids.

Most states and the federal law have been slow to regulate this activity. The EPA's January 2025 Draft Sewage Sludge Risk Assessment identified human health risks associated with land-applied biosolids containing as little as 1 part per billion of PFAS and yet federal law does not yet impose limits on PFAS in biosolids.

A growing number of states are adopting a range of regulatory and monitoring strategies. Maine is the only state so far to impose an outright ban on land application of biosolids from wastewater treatment plants, while Connecticut has banned the sale of biosolids containing PFAS for land application. In New York State, at least two communities, Thurston and Cameron, have banned the land application of biosolids.

At this time, we don't know of any farms in Williamstown that currently use biosolids. But we also don't know the future of the farms in our community. Biosolids can also be found in some commercially bagged compost. While this bylaw would not ban the sale of these products, we hope it will raise awareness and encourage our residents and local vendors to find biosolid-free products for use.

Let's keep our lands safe for our children and future generations. Williamstown's Select Board, Agricultural Commission, and the Board of Health recommend adoption of this article. We hope you will support this article on May 19, 7 p.m. at the town meeting at Williamstown Elementary School.

Stephanie Boyd
Sharon Wyrrick

Williamstown, Mass. 

 

 

 

 

View Full Story

More Williamstown Stories