Op-Ed: Have Faith in District, Community to Handle Difficult Conversations

A member of our community requested two weeks ago in writing to the Saucon Valley School Board a nominal, symbolic “Charlie Kirk Day” marking off the calendar on Oct. 14 in line with the U.S. Congress’s recent vote in favor of a Charlie Kirk National Day of Remembrance. The resolution for this passed in the Senate by unanimous consent and in the House on a widely bipartisan basis.

Speaking for myself, as one board member, it was a reasonable request and we treated it, I believe, as we would any reasonable request that had community backing. Other community members also appeared to be strongly in support of it. Two of us on the board asked that the item be placed on an upcoming agenda, but that has not happened yet, and likely won’t. An informal ad hoc bipartisan working group was formed by the board president, Cedric Dettmar, and I was asked to serve as chair with director John Conte also serving.

I myself was not a fan of Charlie Kirk, and I disagree with virtually all his opinions, but I also respect that for many Sauconites he meant a lot precisely because he engaged in peaceful civil discourse about divisive topics at public educational institutions, and for those reasons, I supported the idea as a matter of fairness and equanimity to a big part of community. I also maintain that Charlie Kirk, as Ezra Klein writes, was “one of the most effective practitioners of persuasion.” Others see things very differently–including most of the people who voted for me.

I have great love and regard for many community members on all points of the political, cultural and economic spectrum, and I find it difficult, personally, to ignore sincerely felt and authentic pleas to the board, but take it from me: there are many strange and misinformed asks we get that never see the light of day. Not to sound high-handed (come serve, and you will see), but you have no idea.

But no substantive consensus could be reached by our working group, despite many powerful and at times poignant discussions among ourselves about the importance of condemning political violence and supporting robust civil discourse. 

We did agree, tentatively, to the idea of the district posting a Charlie Kirk-themed Facebook post similar to the many identity-related posts the district has made in recent times. Such a post was meant to condemn all political violence and also recognize Charlie Kirk as a cultural figure. It would contain an anodyne, broad message. An even broader concept that acknowledged other recent instances of political violence was supported by some committee members, including me, but there was no larger consensus on that. 

But by the time there were mock-up concepts created of the first idea, half the bipartisan group members felt they could no longer participate in the group for different reasons, all of which I respect. There was also no evidence of sustained clamor among local supporters of Charlie Kirk for a recognition by the district.

Because of all this, I recommended that we not go forward and let the matter die. We tried. We listened to each other. We discussed it. We said we were hopeful about talking in the future about civil discourse. Despite pushback from some community members, which I also appreciate tremendously, I do think the bipartisan working group was a good and prudent idea. But I think, personally, the idea is dead.

Saucon Valley School District has a well-established history already of acknowledging a wide variety of special days and months that many residents would consider politically charged or biased. Most of them are for things that I, personally, would associate with more liberal political outlooks. Some are clearly not (eg, “Grandparent’s Day”). We let these be, perhaps because they’re representative of our politically and culturally diverse community, and they cost no one, really. I like that.

I myself, as a college educator, cannot ignore the fact that Charlie Kirk was murdered at a public school–the kind of institution of higher ed that many of our students aspire to reach one day. Students and parents have a special voice and schools an important stake in addressing violence on campuses and school grounds and the issues surrounding it. As National School Walkout Day demonstrated in 2018, for example, schools not only can handle robust debate on charged subjects, but are often, historically, the sites of activism—a fact that Charlie Kirk himself often addressed. All but one U.S. House member in Pennsylvania voted in favor a national resolution honoring Charlie Kirk. That, if nothing else, makes it worthy of consideration wherever the public enjoins its consideration. 

I wholeheartedly agree with many who say that we have our hands full already at Saucon Valley, particularly with the need to improve our academic performance and equip our children for success in a difficult world filled with conflict. I ran on that. 

But we can walk and chew gum at the same time. The notion of avoiding controversial or “divisive” cultural issues at schools seems risky and wrongheaded to me. Such thinking has, in different eras, been the very hammer used to suppress everything from women’s suffrage to resistance to the Vietnam War. We don’t need mobs, but we also don’t want to go down the road of a false, insipid “neutrality.” As we’ve seen time and again this year in America, one faction’s “truth” or “neutrality” is another’s “weaponized” rhetoric or “radicalism.”

The idea of a politically antiseptic public school environment is more educationally stunting than a few awkward episodes where we see Saucon working through sharply differing perspectives. This is public education, after all. We’re trying to equip children to be active, expressive citizens who speak up and take part in the issues of their day, not to hide in some perfect cocoon of “neutrality.”

And this isn’t the Satan Club controversy, which the district tried to make go away–and ended up paying tens of thousands of tax dollars in a settlement because of its action to suppress expression unlawfully. For a zillion reasons, the comparison is irrational. There is no legal peril facing the district. There will be no humiliating payoff to ACLU-backed plaintiffs. The Charlie Kirk affair was a political, not a legal, debate, and like it or not, school boards sometimes reflect and refract local community politics.

There is deeply held positive sentiment towards Charlie Kirk in Saucon. It’s not one or two people with connections to an outside group. It’s hundreds of your neighbors. The murder of Kirk upset them deeply. It scared them, and people’s reaction to it has also been frightening many others. 

I would argue that our community and indeed our students are resilient enough to grapple with difficult issues at many levels. They do already, actually.

Let’s have more faith in our community to handle controversies. It’s how we handle them that matters. On the current board, we have thus far conducted ourselves in public with respect for one another’s differing perspectives, and I believe this helps us in dealing with community-adjacent conflicts and debates on the issues of our day, where there are sometimes intense emotions. I not only respect my fellow board members, but I also like them and admire them. We disagree about many things, but we do so–or try to!–respectfully, in the spirit of healthy civil discourse. And many past board members I ran against only grow more estimable to me every day I learn more about what this school board thing means. I will always welcome vigorous political debate around school board. It gets parents and students engaged, and it causes people to read, pay attention and understand their civil rights and those of others.

People are right to decry reportedly rude behavior on social media in the community related to this; one parent warned me about “the topic creating mudslinging and disparaging comments in our community on social media.” But topics don’t create bad behavior. People behave badly. School districts can’t control trolls on local Facebook. I do think we can model vigorous and intense–but civil and polite–discourse. I would rather include divergent voices than force a false peace. We’re not Facebook. We’re public education.

I’m a taxpayer, too, and a longtime student of the district’s history, and if there’s one thing I’ve learned in scrutinizing decades of controversies both serious and ridiculous in Saucon, it’s that things never end well when the district takes sides or tries to suppress the voices of the community. Not liking the politics or perspectives of half the community is everyone’s right. Saying my side deserves acknowledgment and yours doesn’t is not. And above all: We don’t get to decide how other people feel or think. What they call non-political, I can assure, is not what you call non-political–and vice versa. We can’t champion free speech for me, but not for thee.

I’ve had some difficult conversations with disappointed supporters about all this, people I admire greatly, including a few close friends and family members. My main feeling is that I appreciate them all the more for their candor with me and courageous willingness to talk things out–and to listen, too. They honor us all. I matter little, I know. But the right to speak freely and respectfully to one another binds us and keeps us safe in Saucon–and across our nation. That’s always worth discussing with neighbors.

Bill Broun is a writer who lives in Hellertown and is a member of the Saucon Valley School Board. Letters and op-eds about local topics are published at the discretion of the editor. Opinions shared on our community platform are solely those of the author.