ACHTUNG: The following is not a “fair and balanced” article. It is an editorial by the editor.
There was legitimate criticism raised by Wayland Union school officials and friends in the past week about closure of the high school and cessation of athletic activities.
When it was announced Friday, March 5, that disappointing Covid statistics was forcing the high school to move from all in-person instruction to all virtual for two weeks, there indeed was much resultant wailing and gnashing of teeth on social media.
Much of the protest surrounded sports being halted, thereby tremendously disappointing athletes and their parents. Some expressed their displeasure by suggesting the decision to close and halt was nothing short of dictatorial and arbitrary.
After viewing and reading comments, I suspected there would be something along the line of torches and pitchforks greeting the subsequent on-line Board of Education meeting Monday, March 8. But with one notable exception, the meeting was dominated by crickets.
To be sure, much of the steam from protesters was taken away by the announcement Monday afternoon that athletics could resume as long as proper testing procedures were used.
There are two reactions to this controversy that was headed off at the pass that make sense.
One is that indeed there are far too many willing to hide behind their computer screens to raise a ruckus and point fingers, but when the rubber meets the road, they are nowhere to be found to stand up and be counted. Some would refer to them as Facebook cowards.
But in their defense, there seem to be poor mechanisms in place for in-person protests or face-to-face questioning. I have long maintained that policies in place for public comment discourage citizens from asking legitimate questions and smack too much of “Thank you for the comment, now run along.”
Too often when citizens ask a deliberate body or administrator a question, they get the perfunctory thanks and are told they will get a reply later. Justice delayed is justice denied. It sounds too much like, “We don’t really want to hear what you have to say, so let’s get this over with.”
Indeed there are abusive people who step to the mic, whether in-person or on line, but it seems the meeting chairperson can control offensive or wrong-headed speech if and when necessary. Time limits aren’t necessary when the board president takes control of the meeting.
It’s not just the school board that is guilty of this. I’ve seen too many councils and township boards that seem to avoid meaningful rapport and dialogue that ultimately could be helpful in airing of grievances and perhaps move toward reconciliation.
A pox on both their houses — the Facebook cowards and the board that doesn’t want to hear their wrath. There should be way to work out our differences and issues. Citizens should be allowed to express their opinions and public officials should be allowed to force them to keep it clean.
“chairperson can control offensive or wrong-headed speech if and when necessary.”
I completely agree with you. Zuckerberg and Dorsey do this on a daily basis. It’s often called censorship…
Cheers!
Township board meetings typically do not allow citizen input on most issues until after votes are taken. Very few people typically attend these meetings, but what’s the use? Public input is limited to an opportunity to speak twice an evening in the Hopkins Township Board meetings. The public is not invited or allowed to share any input into discussions. I observed reports with errors approved by all members present when the error was obvious. Could not say a word until public input was allowed.