TURNERS FALLS — The Gill-Montague Regional School Committee clarified a 2009 district policy about the “Tomahawk Chop,” making it clear that no school-sponsored groups are allowed to perform the gesture.
The vote at Tuesday night’s meeting was in reference to the Thanksgiving Day Game where the members of the football team did the Tomahawk Chop — when participants moves their arm in a downward chopping motion to mimic a Native American use of the hatchet — as they were coming out from halftime.
School officials declined to discipline anyone from the team or staff of the school regarding the incident, but said they checked back into the policy voted on in 2009 by the School Committee. The language at the time specifically mentioned the band and cheerleading team was barred from doing the Tomahawk Chop or the accompanying chant. Superintendent Michael Sullivan presented background to the committee saying that when he took the job, he received information about the ban and had always previously interpreted it to cover all student groups.
School Committee Chairman Mike Langknecht said the previous school committee left a “gap” in the policy by not putting it in a manual. He said the only place they were able to find it is in the minutes from the original meeting.
The committee voted unanimously to rewrite that policy and add specific language to alleviate confusion during the duration of the board’s decision process on the school’s mascot. After the board decides whether to keep or change the mascot, they may also revisit the Tomahawk Chop policy.
The language of the original policy also said the gesture falls under the district’s non-discrimination policy.
During public comments, several people shared concerns about the policy as well as about recent public presentations on the topic of mascots. Two people called for the district to make a public apology to the football team and coaching staff and also for the district to have a Native American speaker who is in favor of keeping the mascot, something the board addressed later in the night.
During Sullivan’s report about the game, he said the concern was not about if rules were broken or punishing people, but rather if students needed more education to understand the offensive nature of the action.
“This brings up the fact that we need some more clarity about this stuff,” he said.
He added that administrators at the school talked to students but said that reports from the public that students were “interrogated” are not accurate.
“That’s not what they do. I have full faith in our administrators,” he said.
He said that the district has no interest in controlling fans or adults, and that they will do what they want to do. But he also added that the School Committee can’t do anything to combat the social media claims on either side of the debate.
Langknecht also apologized for an Open Meeting Law violation during the educational forum on Monday night. He said the speakers asked not to be filmed and he agreed, not realizing that the forum was considered a sanctioned School Committee Meeting and they couldn’t deny someone from filming.
The school board also discussed upcoming educational forums for students and the committee. They are now looking for local Native Americans willing to speak from the perspective that they are O.K. with the school keeping the mascot. Members of the committee said they wanted the speaker to be local, as the other presentations have been.
Still, the committee wanted to clarify that they are trying to find diverse perspectives.
“This is not a Senate hearing where were bringing expert testimony for making our point,” Langknecht said.
He also touched on concerns that students are being negatively affected by parts of the process, particularly the aggressive dialogue and social media postings.
“I’m concerned about the collateral effects on students,” Langknecht said.
Board members shared that concern, and noted that they have called for civility on both sides of the process.
Committee member Christina Postera said there’s a big difference between someone being a racist person or someone unintentionally doing something that is interpreted as a racist action.
“Nobody is intentionally racist,” she said. “But I don’t know if the children have the capacity to separate the two.”
She added that calling others racist has added a lot of conflict into this discussion.
“As we know, there are not racists in these schools,” she said.
Reach Miranda Davis at
mdavis@recorder.com.