Last week, more information emerged about the stay-away order issued in March against the mother of a Pelham Elementary School student. It provides a somewhat fuller picture of a conflict that has upset many in the Amherst area and led some to question the judgment of Superintendent Maria Geryk.
But essential facts are still not before the public. While the notion of a young African-American mother being unable to enter her child’s school raises legitimate concerns among the public, this situation began as a dispute between one school and one parent, and may best be resolved between those parties.
Instead, it has become a rallying point for people who call it an example of institutional racism. The parent’s allegations of bias are serious, but until more information is available, it is premature to assign blame. While facts are sorely needed, the situation makes that difficult. Geryk’s administration, which is charged with protecting family privacy as well as school safety, has been properly circumspect in statements about the case. And the mother involved, Aisha Hiza, has not agreed to allow school officials to provide a fuller picture of why they felt it necessary to involve both Amherst and Pelham police in the matter, citing concerns about public safety. Until all the information is available people of conscience should temper their rhetoric and show respect for those on both sides of this dispute by urging those directly involved to seek a resolution.
Citizens in Amherst rightly hold local officials to high standards. And those officials, perhaps especially Geryk, know their actions will undergo scrutiny.
When this dispute arose, the mother’s stated concerns seemed not only warranted, but frustratingly familiar. Hiza said her daughter, who is biracial, had been the subject of racially tinged bullying by classmates. She said her child, as a result of this, asked if she could lighten her skin, the mother told the Bulletin, “because her skin was called dirty.”
The mother says the bullying was physical as well as verbal. She alleges that not enough was done by the school to address the matter. The mother acknowledges being insistent, but says she gave the school no reason to feel threatened.
She declared that the stay-away order was in itself an instance of racism. The president of the Amherst NAACP rallied to her side. A member of the Amherst-Pelham Regional School Committee called the order a “racist, unnecessary” act. And that committee’s chairman also questioned the school’s actions.
Geryk, in initial statements after people came to public meetings to protest, said that to ensure school safety, she “has the right to exercise authority to preclude certain people from being on the school property.” An attorney for the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, representing Geryk, said in May that the order followed “a series of needlessly belligerent and contentious confrontations” involving the parent.
Two weeks ago, Geryk offered more information, saying she felt a need to address allegations of racism and said “remaining silent has led to unfounded suppositions and assumptions because of the lack of factual information.” It was “immediate safety concerns,” she wrote, that led her to impose the stay-away order. “School and district administrators would take the same action no matter the race, background, or financial circumstances of any family.” She said the school had been addressing the parent’s concerns for five months, starting last fall, and that process “appeared to be effective.” But things changed in March, Geryk said in her statement, without providing details, and police got involved.
Hiza and her community allies say the school system’s actions are driven by a perception that black people are dangerous. “They’ve turned it all around into we’re the bad guys,” she has said. The depth of her distrust became clear last week, when Geryk disclosed that Hiza had been told June 1, during a conversation with the Pelham principal, that the stay-away order would be lifted that day. The day before, she’d been given a notarized letter saying the order would end based on steps taken on both sides to resolve the conflict. Despite that, the parent attended a June 6 Select Board meeting at which allegations of racism were again advanced by her supporters. She told the Bulletin she had not disclosed the change because she had been waiting for Geryk to speak to the issue and still wanted answers about why the order had been issued.
Though this began as a private dispute, as of last week many members of the public had become involved. They deserved to know that behind the scenes the mother and school had come to an understanding.
It is not for anyone but Hiza to say whether she trusts what officials tell her. She has a right to her own anger; she alone witnessed her daughter’s distress and saw the hurt in her eyes. It is up to her to decide whether she was treated fairly.
But without knowing the circumstances that led to the stay-away order being imposed, others should take care not to assume the worst of public officials.
Racial misunderstanding affects every part of public life. Addressing it is part of America’s unfinished business. All schools must confront bullying, in whatever form. But as this work continues, it is wrong to declare institutional racism until the evidence is in.
Doing so demeans the important work of finding it and rooting it out.