You can access the comprehensive curriculum used during an English 10 class at this link.
On Wednesday, July 19th, the appeal regarding the white supremacy triangle materials took place at the Mankato Governmental Center.
During the appeal, there was an opportunity for the school board to maintain the previous committee’s approval while incorporating an addendum that would include additional slides or materials presenting different perspectives. Unfortunately, they chose not to do so and, on a 6-1 vote, agreed to proceed with teaching the white supremacy triangle without providing additional perspectives. Chris Kind was the lone board member who objected to teaching these materials without supplementary viewpoints. On the other hand, Chair Shannon Sinning and board members Kari Pratt, Erin Roberts, Kristi Schuck, Patrick Baker, and Liz Ratcliff supported the decision to continue teaching this material.
It’s worth mentioning that these materials were utilized in one class, and it is important to note that the majority of teachers would not choose to employ such instructional materials.
Presented below is the transcript of my appeals speech delivered to the Mankato Area School Board. The speech addresses concerns regarding the district’s adherence to policy 630 and the curriculum appeal pertaining to the White Supremacy Triangle:
I should not be here today. The students and parents concerned about these materials should have felt comfortable voicing those concerns to you, and the re-evaluation board directly or at least be aware that there is an established process they could follow. From the outset, the curriculum appeals process failed due to its complexity and need for more transparency. We must develop accessible and effective processes allowing our students to express their concerns freely. Throughout this six-month ordeal, I have come to view this process as a form of punishment for those who already feel hurt. Leaving the district is easier than having your concerns acknowledged. This issue extends beyond this policy to other policies affecting our students and teachers.
Today, you have been given an opportunity that (name redacted) English 10 class was denied—a chance to hear a different perspective. At the beginning of January 2023, I did not request the removal of these materials; instead, I sought only to present an alternative viewpoint. Unfortunately, I was denied the opportunity to enter the classroom and offer a different perspective, despite my previous volunteer work for the district and possession of a substitute teaching license from PELSB.
I also proposed that the district show a 5-minute video by Dr. Glenn Loury on the Spiral of Silence, which presents an alternative view to the notion of White Silence as a form of White Supremacy, as was introduced in the material submitted to the English 10 class. Dr. Loury, a professor of economics at Brown University, has shared his insights at Gustavus College. However, it required approval for the video to be included in the class. I was not provided the necessary guidelines to follow to gain acceptance. Consequently, your students were not given an opportunity granted to students at Gustavus.
Leigh Ann O’Neill, a lawyer at the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR), added, “We urge Mankato West to reconsider teaching these materials to students without a good faith presentation of contending perspectives.”
The students I spoke to felt uncomfortable providing alternative views while in class. Again, it would be beneficial for students and parents affected by this material to feel comfortable enough to express their opinions directly to you. Otherwise, this is my word against the building principal’s, and neither of us was always in that classroom.
This began a six-month-long process involving materials/discrimination complaints and concerns about 1st amendment rights violations, specifically compelled speech. The poorly followed and defined appeals process could have resulted in misunderstandings by the re-evaluation board.
The re-evaluation board should have looked at whether the materials aligned with the lesson, unit, and standard objectives of the ENGLISH course and whether they were being presented unbiasedly. The answer, when presented this way, is NO. This was supposed to go with the book “March” by John Lewis, Nate Powell and Andrew Aydin, yet the book was not mentioned in this material. When I asked if I could offer a different perspective to make for a less biased approach, I was declined. This was not an unbiased approach.
Ms. O’Neill, the lawyer as mentioned earlier, points out that the pyramid graphic and subsequent slides create a powerful impact, suggesting certain widely-held beliefs (such as we are one human race), and a well-known political slogan serves as a concrete illustration of white supremacy. O’Neill highlights the significant constitutional and civil rights implications of teaching such material to students.
Ms. O’Neill referred to several established court cases and laws that you were provided.
As part of this process, it is within the Guidelines for Policy 630 that someone should have taken the time to meet with me and explain the procedures. A meeting that should have occurred in January 2023 was not offered until June 30th, 2023—six months later. During this meeting with Paul Peterson, a school representative finally asked me about the students’ feelings, what process I had followed, and how I acquired this curriculum.
Dr. Peterson asked me to reconsider my appeal. He agreed that communication processes should be improved, and he wants to ensure we have procedures and policies that allow for our students and teachers to be heard. However, I could not in good conscience withdraw my appeal due to other instances where parents and staff have expressed concerns, and their concerns were not addressed.
In summary, the utilization of the white supremacy triangle, associated slides, and videos were utterly unrelated to the intended curriculum centered around the book “March.” Thus, it is irrelevant and does not align with the intended focus of the English 10 class. Furthermore, processes were not followed as outlined in Policy 630, creating potential confusion and misunderstandings.
However, my main concern is the limiting of open expression regarding concerns from students, parents, and teachers regarding safety, curriculum, and fair treatment. This systemic issue requires a collective effort from parents, teachers, legislators, unions, and community stakeholders. Together, we can ensure that the crucial voices of students, parents, and teachers are heard, rather than just those of special interest groups. Suppressed dialogue impedes educational progress and harms students. We need transparent and accessible procedures to address concerns without fear of retaliation, being ignored, or silenced.
Elizabeth Hanke
[email protected]
Mankato West Parent and Mankato MN Resident