For more background and context on the shift to CLEs, reference Cypress article “How ‘Days of’ are becoming optional ‘Community Learning Experiences’”
The high school is trying to sell a rollback of its social justice education as an improvement. Several fundamental issues with the transition to Community Learning Experiences (CLEs) from the previous “Days Of” format demand attention. The administration’s move is flawed because it whitewashes complex subjects, silences unorthodox perspectives and normalizes muting the interest of the community.
Before analyzing the current plan of CLEs, it’s important to go over the context of the past two years. For over a decade, the Day of Racial Reform and Solidarity (DoRRS), was implemented as a way to use diverse views to educate students about how race and ethnicity impact people’s identities, to point out the subtle ways racism can manifest and to spur antiracist action. This day built off of other “Days of” that related to the school’s social education. One of the most treasured parts of DoRRS and other Days of, the “Telling Our Stories” speeches, allowed students and staff to share their personal perspectives. Two years ago, however, a student went off his agreed-upon script to draw a parallel between historical genocide and the Israeli government’s military operations in Gaza. Faced with controversy and pushback from the Brookline community, the administration took action to punish the statements.
The following year, the administration required students to pre-record their “Telling Our Stories” speeches rather than present them live. Additionally, a coalition of community members attempted to influence the school administration to restrict a student from giving a speech at DoRRS on the grounds that the student had previously spoken at a pro-Palestine protest. This included doxxing and verbally assaulting the student in a school committee meeting.
This year, the administration is overhauling the system to implement CLEs, a system wherein student organizations and teachers plan events that the administration can completely veto at its discretion, under the justification that it is a “transition year” to rethink and revive interest. The current plan did not include any content on racism to replace DoRRS, and the changes, including the forms for potential student suggestions, went largely unannounced to students until after the deadline for student submissions had ended.
To me, the trend here is obvious. The administration wants to have a completely neutral and non-political event that doesn’t cause controversy. It has been working towards this ideal for the past two years. The fundamental problem is that in challenging conversations, there will always be people offended over any statement or event that challenges their existing beliefs. For an event like DoRRS to challenge the assumptions involved in racism, the day must be willing to allow new perspectives, even if people stuck in their ways get upset. Silencing such perspectives sends the message that absolutely no change is needed and that systemic racism and bigotry do not exist in our institutions and communities.
Furthermore, CLEs are a broken system by design. In “Days of,” the school was able to use its reach to find and amplify voices who otherwise lacked a platform. CLEs, however, put more of the burden on students to develop pitches for these days and lessons. It should be clear that creating an entire day of educational programming is a monumental task that requires a great deal of support and effort, so students unable to get this support will be heavily disadvantaged. Under CLEs, the perspectives that will be most supported are the perspectives already supported. The perspectives that already have organizations, clubs and vocal advocates will be the ones with the most persuasive pitches. At their most basic level, CLEs naturally amplify the already dominant voices of the high school at the exclusion of many others.
Finally, it seems clear that CLEs are not truly designed for regaining interest in “Days of,” as the administration has said to explain the switch. If that was the guiding philosophy behind the transition, why wasn’t the change announced on Canvas or the weekly announcements or in advisory presentations before the deadline for student submissions? Why not take the opportunity to push students towards expressing their voices by reaching out to the wider student community, rather than hiding the change until after the point of no return? Why does the administration continue the exact same pattern of whitewashing that drove me and others like me away from DoRRS? Why has every person at school who I’ve asked about the move to CLEs, teacher and student, responded negatively to it?
My answers to these questions are simple: the administration wanted a system where it was given an absolute veto of any possible controversy or negative outside response; it knew the school community would push back, and it had the power to force a sudden change in the hopes that it would be a resolution to the controversies.
Fortunately, we have a tremendous amount of power over our education. We have access to a strong system of student representation and advocacy. The time is now to use that power productively. We must come together as a community to support an immediate return to the proper function of “Days of,” and we must do so with urgency. One thing you can do is support and sign up for the newsletter of the Student Identity Protection Alliance, a group fighting to preserve our education around social issues. We cannot rely on the administration’s mercy, but must rather take the fate of proper education into our hands.
