Several remarkable and likely unprecedented things happened at Tuesday night’s Irvine Unified Board of Education Meeting (November 7, 2023):
There was a crowd of more than 100 in attendance.
A community member was successfully able to get an item added to the meeting agenda and was allowed to introduce and share comments on the agendized item.
38 members of the public commented on the agenda item.
(Although the Board did not vote on the item) Each Board member shared their position on the introduced item after hearing all the public comments on it.
The agenda item that drew the crowd and was requested to be added to the Nov 7 agenda (in accord with Board Policies) was a policy to limit flags on display on school grounds. The item was formally listed as 10a. Request for Policy to Limit Flags on Display on School Grounds under the public comments section of the agenda. Those who turned out for the meeting had no exposure to the policy being proposed ahead-of-time unless they had been tipped off by someone within IUSD Staff or Administration. The actual policy being proposed was not provided with the meeting agenda print out available the day of the meeting, nor was it attached to the electronic board meeting agenda for November 7 that was published for public display on November 3. The agenda item itself did not give any indication of what action, if any, would be allowed or taken by the Board during the meeting.
Per social media posts made more than 24 hours before the scheduled meeting, it became apparent that members of the Orange County LGBTQ center had been tipped off by an IUSD insider that the Board was not giving any consideration to the policy nor did they intend to vote on it. Please see screenshots below.
Further evidence of what little regard the Board had for the introduction of a policy to limit flags on display on school grounds, Board President Lauren Brooks attempted to call up the first of the 38 public commenters without any introduction or reading of the policy first. Ms. Brooks corrected course upon being reminded by the audience that the policy needed to be introduced first before anyone could reasonably comment on it. Given that the number of people who filled out cards to share comments exceeded the 30 minute public comment allotment on a single topic, the Board voted to allow one hour for comments on the agenda item at 2 minutes each as opposed to 3 minutes traditionally allowed. There were public comments remaining after the one hour mark at which point the Board voted unanimously to allow the remaining comments to be heard. The total amount of time given to public comments for agenda item 10a was one hour and twenty one minutes.
The 38 individuals that shared public comments on agenda item 10a were a mix of students (most were IUSD students), IUSD teachers, IUSD staff and community members- many of whom are parents of IUSD students. There were more public comments in opposition to the policy than in favor of it at a ratio of :
21 opposed to 16 in favor, 1 neutral**
**There was one public comment that wasn’t explicit on whether they were opposed to or in favor of the policy hence it is categorized as a neutral comment.
Four of the five student board members shared comments in opposition to the policy while one student board member Ruby Yang (representative sitting in for Woodbridge High board member) remained silent on the matter. Student Board member from Irvine High, Alexis Tran, was the last to comment before the Board members weighed in with their comments. Alexis proclaimed she was “shaking in [my] her seat” from listening to the comments, so much so that she had to pass a note to a fellow student board member that she was anxious and the comments were making her feel stressed out. The comments she was referring to were those in support of the flag policy. While she admitted that what she was sharing was her own view and was not representing the views of Irvine High, she alleged all those who commented in support of the policy are haters and more specifically haters of the LGBTQ+ Community. She stated that she took time to memorize the faces and voices of all those who commented in support of the policy as they were commenting marking them in her mind as “people who stand against IUSD’s flag policy and pride flags”. A UCI professor along with 8 members of IUSD Staff voiced opposition to the policy. Several of the staff that expressed opposition are sponsors of their school’s Gay Straight Alliance club (GSA). IUSD’s LGBTQ+ Community Support Liaison and Mental Health Specialist, Maureen Muir, was one of the 8 voicing opposition to the flag policy.
Those in support of a policy that would limit flags on display indicated it would:
Limit or eliminate un-necessary distractions and enable the focus in classrooms to remain on academics
Facilitate a greater sense of inclusion as the American Flag is representative of liberty and justice for all
Close the door to any potential lawsuits that could arise when other potentially controversial flags are displayed in or brought into classrooms
Reduces/eliminates the risk of viewpoint discrimination
Upholds Ed Code provisions which are very clear in their expectations for the display of the American Flag and the daily patriotic acts that are to be performed on campus and in classrooms
In addition to expressing support for a neutral flag policy, multiple commentors raised concern about the noticeable district-wide decline in academic performance.
Those opposed to having a policy that would limit flags on display cited the following reasons for their opposition:
Display of the Pride flag opens the door for people to engage in open conversation and dialogue about its importance, meaning and significance- these conversations should happen in the classroom
Students learn best when their identity is accepted and acknowledged- something best accomplished when a pride flag is on display
It’s a visible signal that IUSD is a safe and welcoming environment and a place where everyone can feel connected
Removing the flag is likely to cause harm to students who are already struggling to feel accepted and suffering socially-emotionally
Gives peace-of-mind to all who came before the current generation and struggled with their identity
Although each Board member commented on the proposed policy over a span of about 17 minutes, the Board was unanimous in their sentiment that there is no need for a policy and no action will be taken by them . Board Member Cyril Yu summed it up as follows:
“I look at the policy added to our Board calendar as a solution looking for a problem. Somebody decided they have a solution and they're looking for a problem. We don't have this problem here in Irvine. The Policy is being raised by a group of individuals who feel like there is a problem here. Well, there isn't. You've heard the voices of our teachers and our students that are telling you there is no problem in this district. We do not need to change something that is working perfectly fine.”
The agenda item was officially concluded and brought to a close around 8:25pm. Fewer than 5 community members remained for the entire duration of the meeting- the vast majority exited after public comments.
Note to Readers: A separate substack post will be made on the 4-1-1 from this meeting. The flag policy agenda item required its own post per the amount of meeting time and community interest devoted to it.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.