I watched and listened carefully to everything at the Hamilton Southeastern (HSE) School Board meeting Wednesday night. Perhaps my way of looking at all this is through a little different prism than others. I moved to Fishers in 1991 after marrying my wonderful wife Jane. We have twin daughters that attended HSE School Grades K-12. I began covering the school board on this blog in 2012. I know a little history here.
Our school board members did something amazing. They listened to their own community. About 3,500 people organized to advocate for what they thought was, and is, right.
What could have been a black eye on our community has turned into a shining moment to remember. But first, a little history on how we arrived at this point.
The HSE Schools have had the same nondiscrimination policy for students and staff for about 19 years. In 2015 a revised policy was presented to the board.
Two brave school staff members spoke before the board saying the language was not strong enough. Here was the language proposed in 2015:
“Hamilton Southeastern School Corporation…does not discriminate on the basis of a protected class including but not limited to race, color, national origin, age, religion, disability or sex (including sexual stereotype nonconformity), in the programs or activities which it operates or the employment therein or admission thereto. The School strictly adheres to all non-discrimination and anti-harassment laws and does not tolerate any such acts.”
The board decided not to act and referred the issue to the school corporation’s Policy Committee. The nondiscrimination policy remained in that committee for more than three-and-a-half years.
When the policy was presented to the school board again, policy language was debated, and this is what the board approved April 24th of this year, on first reading:
“The school corporation will not discriminate in its educational and employment activities on any basis prohibited by applicable federal or state laws.”
The vote to approve that policy was 4-3….Mike Bottorff, Amanda Shera, Sylvia Shepler and Brad Boyer voted yes….Julie Chambers, Janet Pritchett and Michelle Fullhart voted no.
For the policy to receive final approval, a second reading vote would need to happen.
At that point, some community members, unhappy with the language approved by the board that did not list protected groups, began to organize. As the May 8th vote approached, HSEqual had a Facebook follower count around 3,500. They organized all those people in less than two weeks.
I offered to provide a podcast interview with those supporting the language approved by the board on April 24th and that request was declined. But I offered the same opportunity to the HSEqual and they accepted.
What impressed me most about HSEqual was their emphasis on civility. The leaders of HSEqual made it clear that they were promoting positivity and civil discourse. If you want to get into personal attacks over this issue, that’s your right, but you are not doing that as part of HSEqual.
The group had a large group of people waiting outside the school administration building before the doors opened at 6:30pm for the 7pm meeting. The board room filled up quickly and overflow rooms with the live video of the meeting were set-up at the administration building and Cumberland Road Elementary School next door.
I couldn’t visit all the rooms, but the crowd had to be in the hundreds. All but a handful were supporters of HSEqual.
On Monday, the school board Web page posted updated language, stronger than the April 24th approval. However, it used the phrase “gender nonconformity” and placed the word “unlawful” in the proposed language, and HSEqual did not support that wording because, in the view of that organization, the language did not provide enough protections for transgender students.
Then, around noon on Wednesday, just hours before the scheduled second reading vote, a new policy proposal was posted on the board’s agenda. The phrase “gender nonconformity” was changed to “gender identity” and the word “unlawful” was removed in two place.
The policy before the board was this wording:
======
Hamilton Southeastern School Corporation will not discriminate or tolerate any form of
discrimination in its educational or employment activities for any reason or on any basis
prohibited by applicable federal and state laws, including race, color, religion, sex, sexual
orientation, gender identity, national origin, age or disability. This includes but is not limited to a characteristic, trait, belief, practice, association or other attribute. Hamilton Southeastern Schools will foster a culture and environment that does not marginalize, treat unfairly or disrespect any member of our school community and will recognize the uniqueness and individuality of all students, educators, staff and administrators so they have an opportunity to succeed.
This commitment applies to all School Corporation operations, programs, and activities. All students, administrators, teachers, staff, and all other school personnel share responsibility for avoiding, discouraging, and reporting any form of harassment or discrimination. This policy applies to conduct occurring on school grounds immediately before, during, or immediately after school hours; in any school program or activity taking place in school facilities, on school transportation, or at other off‐campus locations, such as at school‐sponsored field trips or a training program; or using property or equipment provided by the school, including school‐owned computers and the school’s computer network.
The immediate remedy for any act of discrimination shall be to end it, treat the individuals
involved equitably, and, as much as practically possible, eradicate any effects of discrimination. The school corporation may impose discipline as appropriate.
=======
This language was approved 5-2, with Mike Bottorff, Julie Chambers, Janet Pritchett, Brad Boyer, and Michelle Fullhart casting yes votes. Voting no were Amanda Shera and Sylvia Shepler.
Shera had proposed an amendment to the policy, what she described as a “conscience clause,” allowing exceptions to the policy on personal religious grounds. The board voted that amendment down by a 5-2 vote, with Shera and Shepler the only two board members voting yes.
Shera complained that the language posted Monday and early Wednesday were completely different compared to what the board approved April 24th, and she had asked Board President Bottorff to have the language removed from the agenda because it had “materially changed” from the approved language on April 24. Shera said Bottorff denied her request. She claims the change in proposed policy language was “underhanded” and “violates Open Door Law.”
Brad Boyer had voted for the language approved April 24th but in speaking before the May 8th vote, clearly struggled with his decision on how to vote this time. He stated his misgivings about the language before the board, but in the end, changed his mind and his vote.
Board President Mike Bottorff also changed his vote (more on that later).
The most amazing part of the meeting was the public comment period.
Let me make this clear – there were a handful of people speaking against the policy language before the board, including Curt Smith of the Indiana Family Institute, a conservative organization.
But the vast majority of those speaking were supportive of the newly-revised nondiscrimination policy.
There were gay and transgender students describing the abuse received from fellow students. There were parents of gay and transgender students advocating for their children. There were student groups involved on issues of discrimination. There were health professionals expert in gay and transgender issues.
It was often emotional testimony and was like nothing like I had ever witnessed in my journalistic and governmental careers. It is too bad not all the audience could fit into the board room because the atmosphere was emotional and compelling.
Board President Bottorff had said little publicly about the debate over the school district’s nondiscrimination policy until after the vote Wednesday, when he read a prepared statement.
“This board recognizes the hardships faced by under-served, and marginalized populations and has taken the significant substantive action in support of various groups of this nature,” Bottorff said.
He then pointed to the hiring of a Chief Equity and Inclusion Officer and implementation of training in equity and cultural issues. The board pursued and won a Lilly Foundation grant aimed at the school district’s counseling program. The board also approved an enhanced analytics program and hired a Mental Health Coordinator to implement an enhanced mental health program throughout the school district.
Bottorff says the board recognizes “the work is ongoing.”
The board president then listed examples of threats made against board members and members of their families. “These actions only sewed division and discontent,” according to Bottorff. He urged the community to “do better in talking to each other regarding divisive issues.”
The big question facing the school corporation, and the entire community it serves, is this question – where do we go from here?
The approval of a nondiscrimination policy by no means will solve everything. But it is a beginning to start working toward solutions.
One of the highlights of the public comment period came from student groups that are working hard toward changing the culture in their school buildings. They acknowledge the problems in their own school and are working now to transform it.
I sincerely hope the HSEqual organization remains active now that their major goal has been accomplished in the policy vote. I would love to see these people with so much energy and concern be a positive force to bring about change where it is needed within our school system.
I want to once again point out the level of bravery shown here. The students and parents speaking before the board showed amazing courage.
But I want to point out how courageous two board members were in this controversy – Brad Boyer and Mike Bottorff. Boyer changed his vote and did so after listening carefully to what his constituents were saying to him. He admitted there were parts of the policy he voted for that concerned him, but he voted yes on this language because he thought that was the right thing today. The same goes for Mike Bottorff, who did change his vote from April 24th to May 8th. I’ve covered local school boards for years, and changing votes in a situation like this does not happen often
Now, a personal note from your volunteer news blogger. I have been covering this major school board story as the local election campaign was coming to an end. I had election night coverage Tuesday and the school board meeting Wednesday. Both were late nights for a guy that isn’t as young as he used to be. So I may slow down my posts for a few days and get a little rest. But don’t worry, I’m still here, waiting to cover the next school board meeting when the crowd will likely not be very large.
In three cities across 10 offices, 11 Democrats ran in Tuesday’s primary. In Carmel, Cleaster Davis, Ti’Gre McNear, William Howard II and Miles Nelson all ran unopposed for four city council district seats. Fishers saw three Democrats run unopposed for city council seats: Jocelyn Vare, Lane Skeeters and Adam Kaps. Noblesville voters will also have the opportunity to elect up to three Democrats to their common council: Paula Jo Gilliam, Jeremy Hawk and Jason Myers. Myers came out ahead against Gary Bartunek in the only race in the county between two Democrats.
