What comes to mind when you hear the phrase ‘work together’? The thesaurus lists cooperate, collaborate, tend, contribute, join, aid, assist, participate and unite as possible synonyms. Over the past two years, the Berkeley Heights Board of Education has become embroiled in a series of attacks against select members starting with the ill-advised and very public motion to file ethics charges against a fellow board member. Residents who align with those who agreed to file the charges, either on a friendship or political level, have repeatedly trumpeted “Work Together”. It has become apparent that the true meaning behind that clarion call does not fit any thesaurus-suggested definition of ‘work together’.
Antonyms for ‘work together’ are block, check, counteract, disagree, harm, hinder, hurt, obstruct, oppose and protest. If you are reading this and thinking that sounds like our Board of Education, ask yourself – as honestly as you can – whether the conduct of those involved in that initial action fit into the synonym or antonym category. Have they, or their successors, made true and readily visible attempts to go beyond the words they voice? Work together has become a dog-whistle: a handy phrase whose beautiful tones ring out in a pitch too high for those who sound the call to actually hear it.
Where is this going? Over the past year, residents aligned with these candidates have managed to work together – with each other – to try and silence anyone who dares to speak out about anything contrary to their views and choices. Candidates for the Board of Education have rounded up like-minded individuals and taken closed-door actions that are the most divisive to occur since that far-reaching decision to make a public spectacle of what should have been a private process. They’ve learned a lesson, but it’s not a good one. They’ve learned to hide their blocking, counteracting, harming, hurting actions.
In one case, candidate Ruth DeBang is a board member of a local swim club. When a volunteer swim parent voiced concerns to the board about several events that had taken place during the season, rather than address those concerns, what happened next was an incredible display of ‘anti-work together’. The board conducted an “investigation”. This investigation consisted of interviewing the person whose actions the parent had concerns about, and a teenager. They did not interview the concerned parent, nor the two official swim team moms. They did not interview other adults who were involved. Mrs. DeBang and other board members instead sent a certified letter to the parent informing them that they were no longer welcome to be involved as a volunteer for the team. The board would graciously allow the parent to watch their children swim.
When I brought the subject up in person with Mrs. DeBang, one of her first statements was, “I don’t want to talk about this.” That, in a nutshell, is at the heart of the issue. These residents and Board of Education candidates don’t really want to work together. They don’t want to hear or consider ideas that were not originated among themselves. Instead of taking all ideas into account to create better systems, better solutions and better options for our schools and our students, they shut down conversation and rewrite the rules. They bully those who dare to point out these tactics, and that bullying has led to so many other residents keeping quiet, lest they be put in the crosshairs.
This article will likely get criticized because of how local it is, but they don’t get to harass and intimidate people behind the scenes while trashing people publicly on made up narratives. This is very consistent with how their supporters, who have focused on anything but academics and real issues, behave. It is reasonable to assume that how she handles her power as an officer of a community pool will translate to how she will handle it as a BOE member. This tactic of kicking people out of community spaces to isolate them and “other” them has a long-standing tradition in Berkeley Heights. This action is just more of the same rebranded under the Orwellian label of “Education, Inclusion and Community”…and she is not the only one on that ticket who has acted this way. (And if your issue is more with writing about this than about what happened, you are part of the problem.)
As written in an online reporting source “The first candidate, Ruth DeBang, highlighted her advocacy for inclusivity and diversity…” yet what we see from her actions is that those who won’t sit passively and quietly, and those with diversity of thought, are not only not included, they are to be removed. We need to do better than this if we’re to heal the cleaver wound left by our former Superintendent. We need to learn to stop taking razor blades to the cut. This is NOT healthy. It’s NOT kind. It’s NOT equitable. It’s NOT inclusive. We can do better.
NJ21st does not profit from its content, does not accept money for campaign or business advertisements and is not run by a corporation. We welcome content from ALL residents, regardless of political affiliation to contribute content as long as they work or reside in the 21st District and abide by our terms.
One thought on “Examining the Actions of the “Community” and “Inclusion” Ticket”