,
33 tweets,
7 min read
Read on Twitter
Hey folks. We’re back at SFUSD HQ for another round of Washington #mural thunder. On the Board of Ed agenda: finding a way to hide but not destroy the murals. Some will call this is a reversal after the June vote to paint over the mural. But it isn’t. Here’s why...
As our story explained (but other outlets unfortunately downplayed or ignored), the June BOE vote had a big fat caveat: if there were any signs of delay from legal challenges etc, the board would opt to cover (ie hide) but not destroy the murals.
Thx to regulations, odds of delay were, oh, about 100%, & the board members knew it. Mark Sanchez, the member who said destroying the mural would be like reparations, told us that night that “chances of painting over prior to paneling are probably long.” thefrisc.com/washington-hig…
The fastest way to stop kids from seeing the mural — the overarching goal of those opposing the mural — is to construct something. School starts in one week, by the way. It should be interesting to see what kind of compromise emerges....
... cover it quickly, like with a curtain? Spend a little more time and erect wooden panels?
As board prez @stevoncook opens the meeting, he dedicates the evening to Toni Morrison, Nobel Prize winning author who died last week. A pro-mural attendee shouts “she supported the mural!” Hmm, a quick web search returns no evidence of that. 🧐 Hit us up if you find something.
Coming up: 15 min of promural public comments, then 15 min of anti.
First up: the Rev Amos Brown, legendary African-American pastor and SF NAACP prez who threw his support behind the mural recently.
Rev Brown recommends that the board members read this book books.google.com/books/about/St…
The good reverend used 5 of the pro side’s 15 minutes. “Leave that mural alone! It tells the truth about Mr Washington’s complicity in the slave trade...”
Here’s a story about Brown and local black leaders supporting the mural last week in case you missed it nbcbayarea.com/news/local/NAA…
Historian R. Cherny warns the board that the “compromise” on the table is not a good faith effort to follow laws. Hint of legal strategy? The mural is in 16 sections. Covering each one might require legal justification. (Fewer than half have images people have deemed offensive.)
When promural speakers berate board members or antimural people for being uneducated or ignorant, it’s not a good look.
You’ve probably seen the mural’s images that show African slaves and the dead Native American. Here’s another image 
Now antimural speakers. 1st up: a woman from Seneca nation says people of color are being “used and weaponized” against each other. She very pointedly reminds the black people in the room “who helped your ancestors escape slavery.” That didn’t go over well with Rev Brown.
Parent of incoming 9th grader at Washington: “Why do we need a mural to show us who George Washington was? We have Google for that.”
Several antimural speakers feel betrayed and shocked that there’s more discussion. Thought this was settled. Didn’t anyone notice that the board inserted a loophole in the decision you could drive a cable car through?
Young man (sorry, I missed his name): you wouldn’t have a mural of Dan White standing over the dead body of Harvey Milk in Terminal 1 of SFO (recently renamed in Milk’s honor).
@AliMCollins a board member says rightwing sites like Breitbart are pushing the same agenda as mural supporters. “If you want your murals I say come and get them.”
@AliMCollins says all options including relocation should be on the table. Wants to amend the proposal to include language about permanent removal or relocation. Board’s counsel says Collins is just restating what the proposal already says.
Collins makes it clear that painting over the murals should still be one of the options.
From @stevoncook - first I’ve heard a cost estimate for relocating the mural (or taking down the surfaces): $5m. I didn’t quite catch where he got that number.
Cook also confirms to that he brought the proposal under consideration tonight as a way to get painting over the mural *off the table* as an option.
@AliMCollins amendment (meant to keep painting over as an option) fails to pass. The vote on Cook’s original proposal - to find an alternative to destruction - now begins.
With each vote the board members get to make looooong speeches. We’re only three votes in.
According to board member @rpnorton Washington English teacher Thomas Reddy assigned to all his students a final exam of writing to the board about their feelings about the mural.
@rpnorton votes yes. I believe it’s now 2-2.
@FaauugaMoliga says it breaks his heart to support the recommendation.
@AliMCollins up now. Says a democratic process can also be inequitable. Also tells the media to take the quotes off of “traumatized” when people say they’re traumatized. She votes no.
@stevoncook admits his proposal isn’t making many people happy. He takes this all on himself: if you want to vote someone off the board for this, he says you can point to him. “Direct it toward me and let this board get back to work.”
It passes 4-3.
What this means: the mural could still be covered up. It will not be painted over, barring more twists and turns.
To be clear: the board did not decide tonight *how* to hide the mural. Just that they will explore different ways to do so. Legal challenges could continue. If the board decides to cover nonoffensive parts of the mural, for example, it might have to explain why.
