By Nick Driver | The San Francisco Examiner
A battle is brewing over whether the San Francisco Unified School District should include anti-war study as part of a pro-peace curriculum.
A resolution proposed by the board’s two Green Party members — the newly elected Sarah Lipson and the two-year veteran Mark Sanchez — would direct San Francisco’s public school teachers to spend a day talking about peaceful ways to end the conflict with Iraq.
“The comments coming out of the White House are leading toward war, and the kids in this district are impacted by that in two ways,” said Sanchez.
“First, money going toward war is not going into education, and second, students of color have the highest proportion of people going into battle,” he said, pointing out that 90 percent of San Francisco’s public school students are minorities.
“We want to point out a pro-peace curriculum, and we shouldn’t be backing away from groups that support peace,” said Sanchez of his resolution. In its current form, the resolution would direct the SFUSD’s curriculum department and chief academic officer to create study materials from websites such as the anti-war www.notinourname.net.
But as newly elected board members were sworn into office last week, Lipson, Sanchez and Eric Mar — the three school board members most passionate about teaching the evils of war — found themselves on the defensive.
“I feel like the board is using our kids, without their permission, or without their knowledge even, to make a one-sided political statement,” said Lori Partridge, who is a parent against the war.
“I simply do not believe that the intention here is education — it is propaganda, and no matter how much I may agree with it, it’s wrong to hoist it on the kids.”
“This is such a misguided idea,” another anti-war parent wrote in an open e-mail forum to the sponsors.
“I have no doubt that my son’s teacher will ignore it if you decide to pass this resolution,” she said. “Political stances and actions belong in the homes and within families when children are 18 or younger.”
Sanchez and Mar sponsored the resolution in December, soon after a similar one was passed in Oakland. Now, Mar and Sanchez, under pressure from parents, fellow school board members and Jewish groups who view some anti-war groups as anti-Israeli, have watered down their rhetoric and dropped a key clause endorsing a nationwide anti-war march scheduled for Jan. 18.
Another clause, which lists the names of pro-peace websites, is next on the chopping block, and will probably be dropped from the main text before the next Board of Education meeting.
“I will be meeting with some of my friends in the Jewish community, and I have received phone calls from supporters and those with very serious concerns,” said Mar.
But he defended his resolution as necessary in the current climate, in which the resolution’s supporters say media outlets report the potential war as a certainty.
“We want to give a real civics lesson on the war, the Bill of Rights, and also conflict resolution,” Mar says. “We certainly don’t want to impose our views on anyone.”
Now, with Lipson’s election giving near-majority control to the Green-leaning faction on the seven-member board, the amended resolution looks set for passage.
Unless, that is, enough angry parents show up to oppose it.
“Much of the anti-Israeli disinformation (on the websites listed in the resolution) is straight-out lies,” said parent Faith Luber. “Many of us feel that this whole situation has given people the opportunity to vent their anti-Semitic views in an ‘acceptable’ manner.
“The Board of Education should stick to handling district problems, not global ones. That’s what they were elected to do.”
Reach Nick Driver at ndriver@examiner.com.
|
