Criticism of Hunter warrants ‘serious notice’
When exactly did scrutiny into the words and actions — or lack of action — of our leaders become an act of bullying?
“Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence.” — Leonardo da Vinci
More and more we are hearing that anyone who raises questions or offers legitimate criticism of our school superintendent is engaged in “bullying” or even “hate speech.” How did this come to be? When exactly did scrutiny into the words and actions — or lack of action — of our leaders become an act of bullying? As taxpayers, do we not have the right to question those in power whose healthy salaries we pay? Isn’t questioning authority, and seeking some level of transparency and accountability, one of the hallmarks of civil democratic society?
There is not time here to review this administration’s repeated failure over the last three years to genuinely respond to the needs, concerns, and safety of our various minority students as well as our school community in general. To cite just a few examples: it’s the ongoing (essentially) no-confidence vote by METCO; the avoidance of dealing with repeated hate graffiti in a timely and proactive manner; the failure to honor the clear wishes of the community over the naming of the Ellen Garrison Middle School; or, just recently, the federal civil rights complaint “detailing rampant antisemitic abuse” in the Acton-Carlisle High School that “was allowed to take root and persist.”
When a leader is criticized over time and that criticism is backed up with clear examples and ongoing evidence of poor or questionable performance, then that leader, and the people who she or he is representing, should stop and take serious notice — and not try to dismiss it by calling it “bullying” or spending even more taxpayer money by hiring a PR firm.
Martin Schumacher
Highland Street
