Neutrality or Safety: You Cannot Have Both

Kate Bailey lives in South Burlington. She is a former chair of the South Burlington School Board and Chair of the South Burlington Progressive Party City Caucus.

Last week, South Burlington City and school district leaders had the opportunity to respond to the harm and fear ICE inflicted on our community. The statements can be summed up with a general concern for the safety of the City’s children but with a peculiar ask – in the name of safety, Superintendent Clark and Board Chair Abshere urged school staff and the community to “remain politically neutral.” They have asked for neutrality in the name of safety, but safety for our students actually demands courage and action. 

The threat to safety began when federal agents made the decision to racially profile and surveil the home of an immigrant family just a few blocks away from our school campuses. The safety threat elevated as ICE agents unsuccessfully tried to enter the home where a four year old child was inside with her mother and aunt, and an 18-year-old stayed with his uncle. By the end of the 10-hour standoff, ICE agents had broken into the home and taken the adults in what a federal judge would later refer to as warrantless and unlawful. South Burlington Police Department (SBPD) was on the scene for 10 hours. They know when school is dismissed and could have intervened to end ICE’s illegal raid. SBPD chose neutrality– which looked more like aiding and abetting state violence. 

Superintendent Clark emailed staff last week stating, “We do not need to be political in order to be humane.” I beg to differ. When the actions of our government are separating families and breaking the law, it is our duty to uphold our humanity by taking a stand. Community members and school district staff made a human tunnel and brought the four year old child to safety – with no support or actions by state or local police. Community members and district staff checked on the 18-year-old left inside the home and got a safety plan in place for him. Is the Superintendent implying these actions were political and therefore inappropriate? In the face of imminent danger and harm to those young people, what choice did we have? What would have happened to the two children in our school district if the community had not intervened? 

At the March 18th School Board meeting, current Chair Seamus Abshere discouraged the Board from making a statement that could be interpreted as “political” and seemed very uncomfortable with the notion of any specific safety planning beyond, again, a call for neutrality. Of note, the next morning Abshere testified in the Senate Education Committee with data about how education policy is specifically viewed through the opinions of the Republican party. 

I fear that calls for neutrality are really a call for censorship. South Burlington’s leaders seem more preoccupied by the discomfort of some hypothetical MAGA voter than the real, tangible harm our immigrant and BIPOC students and community are facing. 

City Councilors set the tone on March 16th when they quoted MLK Jr and Ghandi to indicate what type of protest is allowable. Protesters in the 1960s were often accused of hurting the cause of civil rights and being too political. Since South Burlington leadership has such an affinity for 1960s leaders, let me remind you of the words of historian and educator Howard Zinn who believed that teaching history and writing is never neutral, because in a world moving in unjust or destructive directions, neutrality is endorsement of the status quo. In short, “You can’t be neutral on a moving train.”