I am writing in response to the front-page article entitled “Teaneck High School Students Stage Walkout for Palestine” (November 30, 2023). I am also writing as a member of the Teaneck Board of Education and only as one member of the Board.
As the article observed, Board members received missives from many community members, most by far expressing outrage at the decision to permit the walkout. My concern is twofold: the marchers’ message and the rhetoric in response.
Like others, I found the marchers’ message provocative and incendiary. As Jason Shames, CEO of the Jewish Federation of Northern New Jersey, commented, it was divisive – to say the least. The question I want to raise is how to respond.
I supported the decision to permit the march because for students today, finding means of self-expression is imperative, even at the expense of the penalty for missing class. Of course class time is essential, but in the edgy climate of our times, made clear by our current preference for “both sides” (noted by the article’s reporter), students are limning conventional boundaries of speech. We don’t have to like the idea of marching on school grounds during school hours, but it is an education for our students by other means.
Fueling the outrage in response is the conflation of the march with social media and, as local heads of schools wrote in a letter (according to the article), “recent rallies.” Social media can be toxic; one observer cited in the article noted that antisemitism is “surging” on these platforms. Social media are also seedbeds of disinformation, including the platforms, repeated in the article’ lead, that claimed the Board “approved” the walkout. And yes, other rallies, like those staged by the KKK, are motivated by “antisemitism and violence,” as the letter observed. By contrast the march that took place on school grounds, as offensive as its adoption of the phrase “from the river to sea” is, kept its viewpoints implicit and nonviolent. (I observed one scuffle that took place beyond the school’s perimeter; the township police quickly and quietly quelled it.)
Outrage in response is surely proportionate. In unmistakable respects, it is the likeliest and most forceful response. I believe, however, there is another way, especially if the goal is to move beyond divisiveness and belligerence to something that stands a chance to be transformative. The district could, of course, punish the marchers for their provocation; it could have suppressed the march altogether. In these cases, the consequences could well have been corrosive, further alienating and disquieting our students. Better is to follow the march with “education and consciousness-raising” as Hillary Kessler-Godin remarked. Though she was referring to social media, we can and must apply her proposal to the march itself. As local school leaders observed, students “need…to express themselves, especially in response to global events that stir their passions and shape their worldviews.”
Their letter goes on to refer to other rallies and, on this basis, to the requisite “limitations” of expression. Let’s consider something more positive. The march, which was clearly polarizing, demands a response that is something other than increasingly polarizing. I believe it sets the stage for next steps, steps that I am advocating for and believe the district will, if it hasn’t already, put in place. These steps should, in my opinion, include bringing students together to share their perspectives, concerns and ideas for building a constructive and safe school environment. Safety must surely be a key part of these moderated discussions, for reports of intimidation by some students, including Jewish students, demand swift investigation and redress.
In the spirit of instruction by other means, I also believe that the high school should devote a half-day in lieu of classes to informed small- and large-group student-centered forums in order to promote inquiry and reflection on the volatility of our time, as well as on options for and consequences of how we choose to respond.
This, I need to restate, constitutes an education that actually responds to many of our students’ search for viable self-expression. It cultivates expression that is informed by cross-boundary understanding and, quite possibly, mutual respect. I wonder if those of us who are disturbed by the march’s message want to move in this direction. Not only would it deescalate current tensions in our schools and community, it will help our students grasp possibilities.
Dennis Klein
Teaneck
