Letters to the Editor do not reflect the opinions of The Reporter, its publisher or its staff. You can submit your own Letter to the Editor by email to News@ReadTheReporter.com. Please include your phone number and city of residence. The Reporter will publish one letter per person per week.
Dear Editor:
As a member of the Carmel Clay Schools (CCS) DEI parent/guardian advisory committee (PGAC) that Jennifer Graf Hendrix used to malign the district in her letter of Oct. 14, I want to set the record straight.
Contrary to Ms. Hendrix’s claim, CCS is tremendously transparent. Parents have access to all instructional materials available to their kids; when we have concerns, there are protocols for addressing them with teachers and media specialists. CCS is transparent about their curricular adoption policies and methods. And myriad procedures exist for parents to register and resolve complaints.
The only limits to CCS’ transparency are a) concerns for personal safety and b) privacy laws. They attempt to ensure the safety of students, teachers, and community members; and they follow legal advice to avoid violating privacy laws. While some folks may find these limitations frustrating, surely they can appreciate them. Shouldn’t the district prioritize the safety of students and families? Shouldn’t the district attempt to avoid lawsuits that would destabilize the schools?
Concerns for personal safety were what prompted the DEI PGAC to request that our names be withheld. Why were we concerned? Because of the tense political climate that Ms. Hendrix, as a leading member of Unify Carmel and a founder of Moms For Liberty – Hamilton County, has herself helped create. UC and M4LHamCo have doxxed and threatened community members, and the parents/guardians on the committee did not want ourselves or our children becoming targets. When people left the committee after the records request was approved, it wasn’t because of any insidious political maneuvering, it was because they didn’t want their family’s religious convictions, ethnic background, (dis)ability status, or gender identity navigation blasted out to groups poised to attack them.
Importantly, though, we felt comfortable asking for this privacy in the first place because there would be no good reason for anyone to know or care who we were. Despite Ms. Hendrix pretending that the PGAC “establish[es] policy,” even she notes that the role of the DEI advisory committee was always conceived as “receiv[ing] information. . . making recommendations . . . and provid[ing] perspective, feedback, and suggestions.” That is all we’ve done.
The DEI PGAC does not “establish policy”: we exist to expand CCS’s connections with the community, to open opportunities for dialogue and make sure CCS is being as inclusive as possible.
Editor’s note: Hendrix did not say the PGAC establishes policy; she was directly quoting Indiana’s Public Access Counselor Luke Britt. (Read here.)
Nothing that we in the PGAC suggest or recommend would or could be adopted by CCS without following standard, publicly available procedures. If we were to recommend a speaker, that speaker would have to undergo all the usual vetting, following all CCS guidelines. If we were to recommend a field trip, that trip would have to undergo all the usual approval processes. If we were to recommend a resource to teachers, that resource would have to make it through the curriculum committee’s regular approval processes. There is accountability and transparency when it matters – that is, when a suggestion becomes something the school district would consider implementing.
What I find most disturbing about the position Ms. Hendrix takes is that she is starting from a place of hostility to and mistrust of the schools, the administration, and the teachers.
Rather than trusting – not even for a single moment! – that the hardworking, dedicated educational professionals (most of whom are also our neighbors) who work in our schools might actually have good intentions, she assumes that everything they do is part of some vast conspiracy. She hasn’t even taken the time to pursue a “trust, but verify” approach. For example, instead of talking with someone in CCS to be reassured of the limits of the DEI PGAC’s role, she immediately assumed ill-intent and filed a FOIA request that cost the district time and money to fulfill.
We cannot thrive as a community with this level of antagonism and mistrust directed towards our most precious and honored institutions, especially when they have done nothing to merit it. CCS deserves better than hostility and half-truths.
Diane Hannah
Carmel
Thanks to the editor for clarifying that “establishing policy” were the words of the lawyer Ms. Hendrix chose to quote and not originally her own, but the point remains as I represented it: Hendrix’s letter is crafted to give the false impression that the PGAC establishes policy when she knows full well it does not.
Hello Diane (private citizen), I agree that some see everything our schools do as part of some vast conspiracy. The other extreme is supporting ccs to the point of ignoring the areas where our school community needs to make improvements.
Our community needs a candidate like me with the discernment to support when it is warranted and to provide constructive criticism when it will help to improve our district. We can do both!
For anyone who reads this letter as well as the corresponding comments and does not know Ms. Hannah, it’s important to note that Ms. Hannah routinely uses rhetoric, hyperbole, and/or misrepresentations when she is met with perspectives that challenge her own. I have plenty of documentation of this fact to defend my perspective and her letter is another example of this type of behavior. Let me explain.
In her second paragraph, Ms. Hannah appears to attempt to discredit Ms. Hendrix’s calls for transparency by focusing on issues where Ms. Hannah can easily provide defense. The areas where Ms. Hannah defends CCS transparency are not the focus of what Ms. Hendrix is concerned with – what is being raised is CCS lack of transparency regarding the parental advisory committees, not the specific areas that Ms. Hannah conveniently mentions. This is nothing more than misdirection.
In her next few paragraphs, Ms. Hannah debates then need for transparency and for committee member privacy. She falsely claims that Ms. Hendrix asserts that the committee sets policy (the Editor correctly noted it was the PAC that said that), asserts that the committee does not set policy in an apparent effort to minimize the calls for transparency, and states that “there is accountability and transparency when it matters – that is, when a suggestion becomes something the school district would consider implementing.” Not only is Ms. Hannah not the sole arbiter of when accountability and transparency matter, she also conveniently ignores the legitimate concern raised by Ms. Hendrix in her letter that “random, unidentified parents (will be) accessing student SEL (Panorama survey) data” and that at a minimum there should be “verification of a background check and/or a non-disclosure agreement” for the parental advisory board members who will access that data. With regard to privacy, Ms. Hannah does not appear to seek to understand or appears to blatantly ignore the Public Access Counselor opinion on this issue in spite of the fact that the opinion was cited and the opinion number was provided in Ms. Hendrix’s letter to which Ms. Hannah responds here. As was cited by Ms. Hendrix, PAC stated: “to the extent a community member chooses to avail themselves of the responsibility of establishing policies of a public school system, they cannot hide their identities or activities while doing so. Therefore, the roster of members and their selection — to the extent they are documented — is public record. CCS does not cite a statutory exception to disclosure for these materials.” As such, in spite of Ms. Hannah’s cleverly crafted objections and apparent lack of consideration of the totality of information provided – there is good reason for transparency and no privacy is warranted here.
The next part of Ms. Hannah’s letter is the most egregious and she will be fortunate if she is not sued for defamation. Ms. Hannah uses the old “guilt by association” trick in an apparent effort to link Ms. Hendrix to the aforementioned groups who have allegedly doxxed and threatened community members and allegedly may use the information requested to perpetuate these efforts. First off, we all have relationships with people or are members of groups with whose actions, behaviors, words, thoughts and values we don’t agree. Any relationship Ms. Hendrix may have with these groups does not mean she was a part of nor aligned with these alleged doxxing efforts and threats. Second of all, Ms. Hannah provides no proof and mentions no specific incidents that demonstrate Ms. Hendrix’s involvement in these actions nor support of these actions, if they are in fact actually true. All she provides are vague references to alleged incidents. Ms. Hannah appears to attempt to bolster this position by stating that committee members left “because they didn’t want their family’s religious convictions, ethnic background, (dis)ability status, or gender identity navigation blasted out to groups poised to attack them.” How would someone discern these characteristics based upon committee member names being released? The answer is – they wouldn’t be discernable, yet Ms. Hannah wants to continue her narrative that this information is desired or will be used to doxx and threaten community members. Her entire position here is a classic case of HEARSAY and projection unsupported by any documentation to substantiate it.
Ms. Hannah also appears to attempt to impugn Ms. Hendrix’s motivation and intent by stating she hasn’t taken a “trust but verify” approach and that “she immediately assumed ill-intent and filed a FOIA request that cost the district time and money to fulfill.” However, had Ms. Hannah done basic homework and read through the Public Access Counselor opinion referenced by Ms. Hendrix in her original letter, she would have seen that Ms. Hendrix did in fact engage the school first: “On October 7, 2021, Jennifer Hendrix (Complainant) emailed CCS seeking a copy of the public notice for the Committee’s meetings as well as confirmation that the meetings were open to the public. The next day CCS’s assistant superintendent informed Hendrix that parent committees as appointed by the superintendent are not open to other parents or members of the community.” Ms. Hannah’s claims here are patently false.
I could go on and on about Ms. Hannah’s approach in her letter but enough has been stated above. It is readily apparent that this letter is filled with nothing more than opinion in an apparent attempt to control the narrative around CCS transparency or lack thereof as well as discredit and disparage Ms. Hendrix. The only “record that has been set straight” here is the fact that due to her approach, Ms. Hannah is severely lacking in credibility and should not be trusted.
Dear Jon,
With all due respect, you seem to have missed the point here: The very quote you pull from the PAC *confirms* my objection to Ms. Hendrix’s false characterization of the DEI PGAC (which is the only committee I am familiar with, and as such the only one I was speaking about).
Mr. Britt wrote: “…to the extent a community member chooses to avail themselves of the responsibility of establishing policies of a public school system, they cannot hide their identities…”
Since the DEI PGAC and its members DO NOT ESTABLISH POLICY and do not “avail” ourselves of that “responsibility,” there is NO reason our identities should be a matter of public record.
It’s that simple.
But I do want to address another misunderstanding embedded in your comment: You suggest that DEI PGAC members’ fears about our identities being made available to UC and M4L were overblown because just sharing our names wouldn’t disclose any characteristics about us that would leave us open to attack.
I want to ask you to sit and think about that for a minute.
Imagine if your name were given to a group of people eager to find something about you or your family to attack, a group who you *knew* would be searching everything they could find about you and your kids and your spouse to see why you were on the committee and what type of input you might be providing. Your name is one of two dozen on a list, sure, but you know that the groups who requested your names have the time and energy to find out *everything* about everyone on that list and their family members AND that they have a record of sharing and publicizing what they find.
What if you had a kid who didn’t want his IEP put on blast? Or who was LGBTQIA+? What if you were a member of a religious minority? What if you were part of a community marginalized by race/culture/ethnicity and knew your neighbors might target you for not “knowing your place”?
Would you be so dismissive of safety concerns?
I strongly urge you to use your imagination and your empathy to understand why your neighbors might have acted as they did.
All best,
Diane
Hi Diane,
With regard to your first point, I’ll direct you, again, to the referenced opinion of the PAC that states very clearly: “CONCLUSION: Based on the foregoing, it is the opinion of this office that the Social Emotional Learning Parent-Caregiver Advisory Committee at Carmel Clay Schools is subject to the Open Door Law and its associated records are subject to the Ac- cess to Public Records Act.” As such, privacy is not warranted. You can certainly protest the semantics, but that is an issue to take up with the PAC and for CCS to appeal they so choose. They have tried to parse the meaning of words previously with PAC, unsuccessfully. This is also noted in his opinions.
As for your second point, I do not condone the targeting nor mistreatment of anyone based upon who they are. The point was that your statements are built upon a house of cards – numerous assumptions that all have to be true for this information to be used to “target” people. As I said in my letter: “ Ms. Hannah wants to continue her narrative that this information is desired or will be used to doxx and threaten community members.”. So your focus on the incorrect assumption that I lack empathy for the concern expressed by these parents is misguided. I don’t know if you simply misunderstand me or this is yet another of your efforts to misdirect and misrepresent. I do have a TON of empathy for people who fear for their own safety. I have experienced that myself in my own life. What I don’t have empathy for is your disingenuous approach to these conversations and your approach to others in the community.
I’d encourage you to seek to understand other’s intent and perspectives before impugning them. I’d also urge you to reflect on your focus on fear of targeting and safety when you call your neighbors extremists and members of hate groups. Those are clear examples of targeting that can lead to fears for safety.
Respectfully,
Jon
Dear Jon and Diane, aka private citizens – I would like to invite both of you to dinner at a local restaurant.
We must find a way to unite around our powerful “together we achieve” vision. We must find a way to focus on educating our children in an ever-changing world.
Sincerely,
Sheldon Barnes
I’m Rick James!
Jon,
Yet again you have missed the point, and, forgive me, but I must now assume it is deliberate.
The tendentious tale Ms. Hendrix spun out of strategically excerpted quotations, misinformation, and insinuation was one where CCS maliciously obfuscated their actions, leaving “parents and community members in the dark” while a secret cabal obtained “intimate access to our children.” This alarmist and disturbing tale is rooted, as I said, in hostility and half-truths.
The true story is far more mundane: CCS has, from the start of this matter, done its best to balance transparency, safety, and legal concerns.
Because the DEI PGAC has never had any role in establishing policy and because every recommendation we might make must be publicly vetted through standard CCS procedures before adoption, we believed we had a reasonable expectation of privacy to ensure our safety.
When other provisions of the Open Door laws were interpreted to require the disclosure of all committee members (despite our role being limited to “receiv[ing] information … and provid[ing] perspective, feedback, and suggestions”), some people were so spooked by the behavior of groups that Ms. Hendrix was prominently involved in as a vocal member (Unify Carmel) and founder (Moms For Liberty, Hamilton County) that they chose to remove themselves from the group entirely.
There is no conspiracy, no deception here—and NO attempt to hide things from parents. Remember: these groups were instituted *in order* to give parents and community members more transparency about initiatives the schools were taking. That was and is their function. That Ms. Hendrix chooses to ignore all that and focus on the one area where we (because of concerns for our and our families’ safety!) asked for a modicum of privacy betrays her antipathy to the district and its efforts to be inclusive for students and the community.
Since I know now that you are not engaging here in good faith, this will be my last comment here.
Diane
P.S. Sheldon, if you can get Jon to agree to stop making baseless ad hominem attacks on me in public, I’d gladly take you up on your offer. You’ve got my email, let me know!
We can come together without conditions. I know you care deeply for our community, especially our LGBTQ neighbors. I believe I am the only candidate who has come out and publicly said they are included in our non-discrimination policies. The mention of your email address tells me that you received my apology. We must find a way to move forward.
Hi Diane,
I will leave it to you and Jennifer to debate the merits of her claims around CCS transparency or lack thereof. That has not been the focus of my comments so it is not I who is missing the point here.
My focus all along has been on how YOU engage in dialogue with your fellow community members. It is unneighborly, unkind, and lacks integrity. Your approach is severely lacking. You cannot deny that you have, in unwarranted fashion, publicly called neighbors with whom you disagree “extremists” and “hate group members”.
I have indeed called out this specific behavior that you have publicly demonstrated in addition to your dishonest approach. You may those attacks and accuse me of not acting in good faith but that is nothing more than another example of your misdirection in an effort to remove the focus from your own unneighborly behavior that many, many of us desire to see you change.
Let me be clear, I am not attacking you. I am calling out your poor and disappointing behavior and approach to engaging members of your community. I hope to see it change.
Respectfully,
Jon
Hello Jon – I believe there are areas where CCS lacks transparency. I reached out to CCS and asked them how many fewer teachers we have due to declining enrollment. I requested a whole number, but they refused to disclose it.
You are right about the “extremists” and “hate group” labels. I tried my best to encourage Diane to focus on her ideas. The frequent refrain I received from her allies is that she is a “private citizen.” When I mention that she is featured in a Current in Carmel article where she and others say they “want to be [a] voice” in our City, I receive even more excuses for why I should ignore her and others who use some very vile words against our neighbors.
I would love to bring both of you to together over dinner without conditions.
The following statements in this article “Concerns for personal safety were what prompted the DEI PGAC to request that our names be withheld. The parents/guardians on the committee did not want ourselves or our children becoming targets [and] When people left the committee, it was because they didn’t want their family’s religious convictions, ethnic background, (dis)ability status, or gender identity navigation blasted out to groups poised to attack them.”
I ask why are family’s religious convictions, ethnic background, (dis)ability status, or gender identity even involved or matter in being a part of this committee? Were these personal attributes part of the accepted requirements of being on the committee?
If DEI PGAC does not establish policy, why does this committee even exist? Who in the Carmel community is not included and why do we need dialogue about inclusiveness?
I was involved with Carmel High School in the 90’s and it was naturally becoming diverse and as for inclusion, if your son wanted to be on the basketball team, he had to be exceptional in the art of playing basketball. This school had many club activities anyone could join and participate. As for equity, this is a personal private matter with students and families. Why is Equity even considered?
I welcome any thoughts and answers to my questions about the situation involving DEI and PGAC.
Good lord can someone please put a limit on Hannah’s word count. TLDR! Just another race hustler, to use Dr. Thomas Sowell’s term, and a known liberal activist trying to misdirect unwitting voters.
As for Barnes, it does not matter whether you think others falsely perceive conspiracy, whether there is conspiracy or not – what matters is that a board member listen respectfully and genuinely to those they would serve. You aren’t, you are casting judgement. You disqualified yourself here in print (yet again.)
Mr Briggs: The committee exists for the same reason Carmel created a public art advisory committee: Because the leadership was making poor decisions and getting so much public backlash, that forming a “public committee” was their attempt to fool the public into thinking they have a chance to impact decisions. They don’t. Both committees are feckless, powerless groups who at best can only make suggestions.