[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

This is one of the few times I agree with commenter Davis. Bloom’s hyperbole is unnecessary. We need questions answered about why Williams resigned, not hysteria. Does her leaving have to do with guns on MA’s campus? How could her performance reviews change so drastically since August?

[Post removed due to speculation]

My three daughters attended M-A and am a strong supporter of our public education system. The inflammatory rhetoric from the meeting is unhelpful and unfounded. I know Board Member Rich Ginn personally and he has always upheld the highest standards of personal and professional integrity. I won't speculate on the reasons behind the closed door meetings, but certainly the gun incidents were frightening. Current Board Chair Du Bois showed admirable restraint in responding to the comments of former Board Members. I wish former Superintendent Williams well. I also support the Board and trust that it is acting with the best long-term interests of the community in mind.

This article tells us what happened, and offers lots of commentary about what happened, but not why this happened. Without understanding the reason for the decision all commentary is useless.

The Board should provide its reasoning for taking this action.

Ronen,
They may not be able to disclose the details you are asking for because it involves a minor and his right to privacy. I did not attend the meeting at M-A last night with the Atherton Police Chief, but now I wish I had.

It also involves the confidential personnel issues of the ex-superintendent.

I would encourage anyone who wants more information/background/color (as well as the response - or lack of response- of each trustee to the outpouring of harm this decision caused, whether intentional or not) to listen carefully to board comments at the end of the 12/14 meeting, available on YouTube: Web Link

[Post removed due to speculation]

ReginaR, did this actually happen? “…after she was contacted by a Principal requesting permanent expulsion of a dangerous student, and she then denied that request, and that student went on to bring a loaded firearm onto campus…”

Hi Hmmm,
All I can tell you is that I heard those details as a consistent story from two sources within the school. So, to answer your question, I believe that is what happened, and based on the timing as well as the severity of the action taken by the School Board, it is the only plausible explanation I have seen evidence of to date.

Regina is in the comment section promoting an idea that the superintendent was fired about the gun incidents that happened at MA while also spreading a misrepresentation of what safety around guns means. We have no facts about why the superintendent was removed.

Just because a person cannot see how something can be related to race, does not mean that an event has no connections to race.

The cry “not everything is about race,” is often said by those who don’t have a complex understanding of race relations and structures in our society that uphold systems of supremacy. It is a tactic to suppress BIPOC voices and avoid the burden of addressing privileges and very real concerns that BIPOC members of our community have.

People here should not dismiss valid concerns about race because that is what contributes to the environment for racism to flourish and continue to exist in our society. It should actually be part of the policy of this website to not allow the dismissal of experiences related to feelings and realities of racism in our community.

If you are unable to see how this situation has racial connotations, please sit back and listen to the very eloquent arguments by others who explain in clear detail what that means. Too many spoke up with very detailed and valid points in these board meetings for their experiences to be dismissed so easily. Some were emotional, yes, but that doesn’t make their concerns any less valid either. Many are speaking from a long history and experience with racism in the community, and seeing their concerns dismissed for decades.

Remember, no one person is the arbiter or decider of whether or not something has racial connotations or contributes to racial traumas experienced by members of our community. When someone says this feels racist or contributes to events in the past where racial sensitivities were not considered, they usually have a very good reason for feeling that way.

If the superintendent being fired was due to not expelling a kid who may have brought a gun to school, it is a reality that the staff in the district move to not expel students because that is what actually creates an unsafe situation and grudges where students come back and retaliate. What they do instead is fold the student more into systems and programs that get to the root of the issue to prevent gun-related incidents from happening.

We could then actually argue that the superintendent acted in a way that supports her staff and also makes us safer as a result of complex realities they understood that some in the community cannot understand. It is precisely because systems are in place promoted by the superintendent supporting equity and being less punitive that M-A was able to know these kids have guns and keep everyone safe. They were in closer contact with these children as a result.

Now, if we just move to expel kids left and right to appease some rich privileged people in the suburbs who don’t have to deal with the realities of gun violence, we have created a situation where guns will still come to school, but kids will just be smarter about hiding it. We will also discourage kids from sharing information we need to address the issue. This makes everyone less safe.

Simply expelling students or firing the superintendent for the lack of expelling a student regarding guns does not solve the issue of guns on our campus. It is a move that creates an illusion and gives an excuse to get rid of her, but solves absolutely nothing and actually sets us back quite a lot. The issue around guns in our community is complex and not always related to wanting to commit school shootings. A lot of gun possession by kids in this area is related to trauma some kids go through where they feel unsafe going to and from school. Many people in this community are unable to see those realities from their privileged positions.

Dear “Concerned Parent,”

I absolutely disagree with everything you have taken to writing. Furthermore, I disagree with the removal of valid comments made by Joseph Davis (who at least has the character to use his name).
What if a situation like this had happened with Uvalde or Sandy Hook? A Superintendent who didn’t act on red flag warnings made by a principal? We’d be screaming for for their head.
Yet you and others want to make this about race?
I strongly maintain my position that there was cause to fire this woman and it was not because of the color of her skin.
Your accusation that I don’t understand why the board’s actions are racist must be grounded in something tangible, so please share those reasons with us.

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]
I do hold a "complex understanding" of race relations. As a matter of fact, I hold a degree in Sociology and spent 5 years living in South Central Los Angeles while attending USC. Before you tell me that is a "white privileged school" I will tell you that I was part of that community. I used the same public parks and facilities, I ate in the same restaurants and shopped in the same local stores as Hispanics, Blacks, Koreans and others, and I am a better person for it. I understand that racism is a huge problem in our culture. My political leanings are to the left.
I DO NOT HOWEVER, THINK THAT THIS FIRING WAS RACE-BASED AND THAT IS MY FINAL COMMENT ON THE SUBJECT. WE WERE LUCKY THIS TIME. NEXT TIME WE MAY NOT BE.

You can disagree. I ask that you are detailed and specific about what you disagree with, point by point.

Without that, you are avoiding concrete points I made regarding the truth of safety and gun possession, and experiences in this district related to race.

Your first comments assume that the superintendent must have done something wrong. Looking at all of the angles includes both the option that it could have been a valid reason, which was acknowledged by many, and also the option that it could have been invalid and unwarranted or based on race.

The district fired Dr. Williams in secrecy and added meetings to the schedule that were not regular. A reasonable person who has the context of this same thing happening in our district to other people of color in the past could conclude that the board was intending to push her out and found a technicality to do so. It is not a new tactic.

Two former board members spoke out against their conduct as well. The removal of the superintendent was timed after those board members left. Do you disagree with those former board members who have more information than you or I, who would not have voted to fire Dr. Williams and also praised her in their last board meeting with her?

Two current board members are known for not wanting Dr. Williams to be hired and for trying to find a reason to get rid of her. People did not come to these conclusions just so they can unnecessarily bring race into this. It is the board’s actions that provide evidence something unnatural and unfair is going on.

Not one person at the board meetings said anything bad about Dr. Williams. We heard from one person who worked in the district since 1995 who said Dr. Williams trained them better than any other superintendent they have ever seen.

People have experienced and documented racism in our district related to their background for a long time, and our district has a very hard time retaining staff of color. You can close your eyes to it if you wish.

I’ll say again: just because you do not consider the firing to be race-based doesn’t mean that is not the case.

It just means that you are picking and choosing what aspects of the situation to consider so you can stick to that viewpoint. Those who brought up race did not bring it up in a vacuum. They also brought up there could be a valid reason. The conduct of the board is the evidence that something not right is going on. Why are you so dismissive of the board’s shady actions that match with actions and patterns of behavior in the past that have served to push people out of our district who happen to be people of color?

There is plenty of evidence that indicates this firing could have been based on race as one of the factors. Nobody is saying that is the only thing to consider. Whether true or not, there have been rumors that the board does not want to spend more money on equity projects. We also heard from multiple staff on the inside who spoke up and said the board wanted to get rid of Dr. Williams from the minute she stepped foot into the role. They are not saying those things for fun. It is because of experiences they had interacting with board members.

It is revealing how the board did not send her off in a way that showed appreciation for the good work she did do. Even if they had to fire her, they could have done so in a way that invited her to still celebrate her successes.

A recent news article pointed out Dr. Williams’ salary came into question by Dubois. Dr. Williams was one of the lowest paid superintendents in the region although she was in charge of the biggest, most diverse, and wealthiest schools in the county. She should have been paid more for her level of responsibility and experience but the board president still questioned her low pay as if it were too much.

Pay attention to the details you want to. It is ok to disagree. A lot of people can see what is going on.

Regina, I am disagreeing with you and bringing up more considerations but I am not attacking you.

I did not say anything about "rich white suburbs." To quote myself exactly, I spoke about "rich people in privileged suburbs" which can include people of all backgrounds. Why do you assume I was only talking about white people?

I'm glad you had diverse experiences and I hope you learned something from them. That doesn't mean you cannot be dismissive of racism or the details of how race factors into situations. A person who has gone through a history of unfair experiences centered around race is usually not going to be so definite in dismissing racism as a factor in situations like this. If they bring it up, it is often for a very good reason that needs to be considered. I feel that people have brought up race in a reasonable manner in relation to the board's questionable and secretive actions.

Nobody wants to see guns in schools and that is not something to argue about. I mention the suburbs because our schools are very mixed economically and people in those areas can be more disconnected from gun violence and the reasons why kids may bring guns to school. They may push for expulsions and punitive actions without fully understanding what a real solution is.

We aren't safer if we expel kids without understanding the reasons for them bringing a gun to school. As far as I know, one kid was suspended and another one was expelled so they are facing the consequences of their actions.

If the district did fire the superintendent because she didn't rush to expel a kid, there may have been good reasons that you are not considering. It is only something visual to show parents who are easily riled up and want to see "action" without fully understanding these situations. Expulsion could create a situation where students with guns will come back and retaliate later on, threaten teachers or staff, or more kids will bring guns to school and be smarter about not getting caught.

"The cry “not everything is about race,” is often said by those who don’t have a complex understanding of race relations and structures in our society that uphold systems of supremacy."
I'm curious doesn't this cut both ways? If there isn't enough information to say it's not about racism then it doesn't sound like there's enough information to say that there was racism. It sounds like there's a bunch of rhetoric from both sides without a bunch of facts. That can make for a pretty contentious discussion. If the superintendent was asked to leave because she made a decision that put students safety at risk then that makes sense and seems perfectly reasonable. Allowing a student who had exhibited serious problems and who the principal wanted to remove because of safety fears to remain at the school and then having that student bring a gun to school was a very poor decision. If that is actually what happened, and I really have no way of knowing, then replacing the superintendent seems like the best way to ensure the future safety of the students.

It is unlikely that we will ever know the real reason the superintendent is no longer in that position. Whether it was a mutual agreement whether she quit or whether she was fired, that information will most likely always be kept confidential so people can make up whatever they want and choose any reason that suits their position and you'll never be able to say if it's right or wrong.

From what I know about board member Shawneece Stevenson, she isn't going to let the board get away with racist decisions.

"to not expel students because that is what actually creates an unsafe situation and grudges where students come back and retaliate. "

There may be a liability issue here. If the school does NOT expel a student who brings a firearm, and that student subsequently were to return to campus and use a firearm, the District could be liable for not expelling the student. Could the expelled student come back and create harm anyway? Of course that is a possibility, and, it's also a possibility any other student, or adult, could create harm.

I would want the student expelled, regardless of the student's race or relative equity. The only criteria I see as valid is that the student violated the law, and a significant law at that. Nothing else matters.

"It is precisely because systems are in place promoted by the superintendent supporting equity and being less punitive that M-A was able to know these kids have guns and keep everyone safe."

This statement is not supported by any facts. How "M-A was able to know these kids have guns" is unexplained, and therefore one cannot assume "systems supporting equity" had anything to do with M-A's ability to know.

As often is the case with high school students, word travels fast either by mouth or by text. It's likely that an anonymous student reported the incident to the school administration. That reporting process occurs outside of any "system supporting equity". That reporting process falls under the category of : if you see something, say something. Thank goodness someone reported the condition.

Brien, it does not cut both ways. I explained the valid basis that some have to feel that this situation was not handled properly, and why race is a factor for many people in the community/district. The district has a history of low retention of staff of color, and has also engaged in well-known actions to push out staff of color.

There would not be two former board members who called out the new board's actions if people were making things up out of thin air.

Too many are positioned to be defensive any time a mention of racial disparities are brought up. I have to wonder, why is the first assumption to write people's valid and detailed concerns up just because they mention race as a factor in how this was handled? That defensiveness is telling.

A person or entire groups who have gone through inequalities based on race are more equipped to point out when that is occurring than people who are typically on the side of producing or ignoring or dismissing the inequalities.

We all understand that people can be fired for reasons other than race but this situation is not that simple. It includes actions by the board that make no sense, go against norms, include secrecy, and also attitudes from two board members that they wanted to get rid of Dr. Williams before she even had a fair shot at the job. This is also after the experience of a prior superintendent who they moved at a snail's pace to fire and happened to be white. Comparing the two situations is enough to bring up disparities in treatment.

Unless Regina is willing to specifically state who she heard these rumors from, they are possibly her own bias playing out in the comments. Many in the community are also completely disconnected from the realities of gun possession and push for solutions that will not actually work to keep our students safe. Punishment for the sake of illusion will not keep kids safe or help kids who possess guns as a result of serious trauma related to gun violence.

"I would want the student expelled, regardless of the student's race or relative equity. The only criteria I see as valid is that the student violated the law, and a significant law at that. Nothing else matters."

Respectfully, comments like this show the lack of connection to reality of what is happening with gun possession in our community and this is the obstacle we have towards finding a real solution that keeps kids safe.

A gun being on the school campus is still a major risk and unacceptable. I am not debating or arguing that point. I am only pointing out the issue is not as simple as "expel the kids, no questions asked!"

Not every kid who is bringing a gun to school is doing it to shoot up the school. The kids who fit that profile are not these kids and are probably going to come from another situation if we look at the data.

There are kids who bring guns to school because they fear for their lives going back and forth to school. Expelling them without considering their reality or experience is a foolish thing to do and only adds to their trauma. If you have to face a kid who is bringing a gun to school because they lost family members or friends and have PTSD, I wonder how much you would stick to these attitudes.

"It's likely that an anonymous student reported the incident to the school administration."

That's not what happened. The recent meetings explained what actually happened. If you are curious you can always talk to the school or police department and get your facts right before assuming.

"Not every kid who is bringing a gun to school is doing it to shoot up the school. The kids who fit that profile are not these kids and are probably going to come from another situation if we look at the data."

The vague "other situation" has no bearing on the fact that a minor was arrested for possessing a loaded firearm on a high school campus. This is clearly a violation of the law, and perhaps close to the worst possible scenario, which I will leave to your imagination.

I doubt you will find any sympathy in this case. The student crossed a line and should never be allowed back on campus. It's really that simple. We have laws and policies for a reason.

The student committed a grave offense. The student is expelled as a result. This is how our society works.

"There are kids who bring guns to school because they fear for their lives going back and forth to school. Expelling them without considering their reality or experience is a foolish thing to do and only adds to their trauma."

And do we consider the trauma of the the other students, teachers, and staff who are aware that a student brought a gun to school, and subsequently *returned to school* ? Considering the population of the school, I have to assume the ratio is 1500:1 in terms of trauma. Put 1500 other people on edge for the sake of not "adding" to one student's perceived trauma?

If I was a student, I would be very uncomfortable having that student in the classroom, or anywhere on campus. And the teachers?

What you are misunderstanding, ignoring, or not acknowledging is that guns have always been at our schools and on the campuses. This is not something new that is just starting to happen.

This is precisely the disconnect I am talking about with many in our community who are only satisfied with the illusion of something being done about guns in our schools. There is no connection to the reality that the plain, cold facts are loaded guns were always there and have been for many, many years.

Those are just two incidents where the kids were caught with them, and they were caught because certain systems are in place where the kids were in closer proximity and connection to the staff as a result of newer work and approaches being taken in the district.

Guns were on the campus long before this superintendent was hired and will still be there after her firing. Ignore this point if you choose to but don't pretend to care about the children and the issue if you do.

The points I am talking about move towards real solutions - not illusions or fake platitudes of something being done about guns to satisfy a privileged group who is disconnected from the true reality our kids of all backgrounds live through.

Thanks to this board's deceptive and dishonest actions, I strongly suspect we will get a new superintendent who is only there to do their bidding. As a result, we will move further away from the approaches we need to take to really get to the bottom of this gun issue and many others.

The illusion continues.

I am firmly in the Zero Tolerance camp on this one. Bring a gun to school (loaded or not) and that will be the last time they are allowed on campus. It boggles my mind that with everything that has happened in the past 20 years from Columbine, to Sandy Hook to Stoneman Douglas to Uvalde and the hundreds in between, that anyone would be trying to make excuses for a student to bring a gun on campus. Start with the fact that it is illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to possess a firearm and it is illegal for anyone (except law enforcement) to bring a firearm onto a school campus, the safety risks are evident. So the "bring a gun to campus and get expelled" is the least of the consequences, that person should be arrested (adult or juvenile) and their punishment should be determined by the courts (jury of their peers, judge, etc.) I have kids in school and who will likely attend M-A and I would want no less to keep them safe. People keep pushing for more gun control legislation but we just need to use the laws that are already there and we would be safer...

@Concerned Parent:

Thank you for pointing out the complexity of race relations. It is hard for those who have not lived through overt and institutional racism to see the BIPOC perspective, or the impact that racism has had generationally. If your great grandfather lived it, and your grandfather lived it, and your father lived it (feel free to insert the maternal side as well), then mistrust of the system is ingrained. That said, if the issue is complex and requires a deeper probe and understanding by many, then it does not help when people like Mr. Bloom go on a rant about violence and the destruction of black and brown bodies. Such language throws gasoline on the fire and does nothing to sooth tensions. If anything, it drives folks further apart, and denigrates efforts by those who seek harmony and real solutions. I wish Ms. Williams all the best and hope at some point that the truth comes to light.

Brien, nobody is making excuses or arguing that kids should not be face consequences for bringing guns to school. Guns are dangerous and have no place at a school. We all agree on that and want our kids to be safe. No arguments there.

What I am saying is the issue of guns is more complicated than expulsion being the only solution we look at. That is a punishment that helps after the fact but will not prevent guns from being at school in every situation. A lot of kids do not care about being expelled depending on the circumstances and hardships they are facing that cause them to bring guns to school.

Many in our community do not understand that the guns were always there and kids were not being caught with them. They were already around our kids daily. Guns are still going to be there after these two students were expelled. Expulsion alone is not addressing the reasons some kids bring guns to school, nor will it prevent them from doing so again.

That disconnect in the community is preventing us from reaching real solutions to keep our kids safe. For a lot of people, as long as those two kids were expelled and we advertise expulsion as a punishment, they will move on and think the situation is fully handled when it really isn't. The situation is more troubling than it looks, and our kids need better solutions. I am glad those two students faced consequences and they should have. I also understand that it did nothing to stop the larger issue.

"People keep pushing for more gun control legislation but we just need to use the laws that are already there and we would be safer."

Bingo. If the law and the school regulations had been properly enforced the kid wouldn't have been back on campus with a gun.

And some are worried about HIS trauma? Give me a break. Life is full of trauma. Part of growing up is experiencing trauma and learning to deal with it. Not enforcing the rules or the law because "it might traumatize little Johnny" is total BS. This is just another in a long line of reasons this garbage keeps happening.

"Now, if we just move to expel kids left and right to appease some rich privileged people in the suburbs who don’t have to deal with the realities of gun violence, we have created a situation where guns will still come to school, but kids will just be smarter about hiding it. "

Examine this statement and its extreme bias: " expel kids left and right to appease some rich privileged people". Excuse me? You are stating that expulsion appeases "rich privileged people"? In a word, no. I suggest you get in touch with non-rich, non-privileged people. Ask those non-rich, non-privileged people if it is OK to expel a student who carried a gun to school. Limit your question to non-rich, non-privileged people only.

Somehow the issue of class or privilege is being introduced into your argument. I suggest you provide your philosophical discovery tools to the events which took place at Uvalde or Columbine. You will find that in each case the schools had very typical enrollment and demographics for those locations. In both cases the people who committed the atrocities were troubled. In both cases it appears the tragedies could have been avoided if swift and/or pre-emptive steps had been taken. This is not the time to explore the so called "root issues". Things must be addressed in the order of urgency. Step one is the physical safety of all students, teachers, and staff. Any subsequent steps are the role of mental health professionals located outside of, and not under the the direction of the school of the District.

The role of a school district is to run schools. And this role has hard limits. Once those limits are breached the issue is in the hands of someone other than the school.

Can a school act as a first reporter, or as a mental health screening resource. Yes and it's a good idea to do so. But once laws are broken, or violence is threatened, clearly the limits of the school have been exceeded, and there is no turning back. Period, end of story.

MenloVoter, when you wrote

"Not enforcing the rules or the law because "it might traumatize little Johnny" is total BS. This is just another in a long line of reasons this garbage keeps happening."

You are identifying the main issue at play here, and it's one I encourage all readers to consider and to *discuss with friends*. If a small minority of the population screams loudly enough, and in an activist way, that "opinion" has the real possibility of being accepted out of fear.

The way to confront an ideology which appears to make no sense (in this case, not expelling the student due to some sort of "root issue" at home) is to respond in numbers. Common sense is everywhere! Yet, common sensical people are often afraid to speak up out of fear of being ostracized, or called a something-phobe, or of being cancelled. This is the tactic of our so called cancel culture.

Common sense dictates that if a student brings a gun to school that student should be immediately expelled, no further discussion. Done.

Does the student need counseling ? Due to the student's age, most likely yes, as there is still time to redeem the student and allow the student to live a productive life. But such counseling it not the responsibility of the school or the District.

Common sense must prevail, and it will only prevail if people are fearless in their support of common sense. I applaud you for speaking the truth, I encourage others to do the same even it it means risking your status.

Concerned Parent,

As I read your comments it looked like you were making excuses for the kid that brought a gun on campus. Saying things like your comment below seems to me that you are advocating for not expelling them.
"There are kids who bring guns to school because they fear for their lives going back and forth to school. Expelling them without considering their reality or experience is a foolish thing to do and only adds to their trauma. If you have to face a kid who is bringing a gun to school because they lost family members or friends and have PTSD, I wonder how much you would stick to these attitudes."

Maybe I read it wrong but I think that expelling them is the first and immediate step that needs to take place. I would 100% stick to that attitude even if this were my own child. Regardless of the consequences to the kid that brings a gun to campus, having to face parents who lost their children because they were killed by a shooting on campus is infinitely worse. Once they have been expelled and charged for breaking the law (actually multiple laws) then they can be evaluated and determined if they have issues that need to be addressed and possibly mitigating. I will say this, if a kid brought a gun to a campus where my child attended school and they were not immediately expelled from that campus I would not be sending my child back there.

I believe the bullying is a serious problem that needs to be addressed and is often overlooked or downplayed but can we all agree that there is no excuse for bringing a gun on campus and putting everyone's lives as risk "whether they intended to use it or not"?

Back to the topic at hand, if the superintendent in anyway overruled a decision by the principal or staff at M-A that resulted in putting students at serious risk then I think asking her to leave makes sense. Not a racial issue, it would be an issue of bad decision leading to the risk of students.

"Expulsion alone is not addressing the reasons some kids bring guns to school, nor will it prevent them from doing so again."

But immediate expulsion is required. Hopefully the school and the superintendent agreed with this sentiment and acted immediately. No second chances here, it's just too much risk.

Anything further, any "addressing the reasons" is beyond the scope of the school and the school district. I suggest you take your ideology to San Mateo County's Health and Human Services unit, and/or take your ideology to your elected representatives at the local and state level.

Brian wrote

"Not a racial issue, it would be an issue of bad decision leading to the risk of students."

And a bad decision violates common sense. It's really as simple as that.

But instead the issue gets lost in the weeds of "appeasement" and "root issues". There is a time for philosophy, and a time for action. In urgent situations, action takes top priority.

I suspect, but I do not know, that the Board took action.

"Bingo. If the law and the school regulations had been properly enforced the kid wouldn't have been back on campus with a gun."

Not exactly. There are kids still bringing guns to our schools after those events who are not deterred by any policies for expulsion. Strict policies for expulsion are only part of the solution. There should also be more solutions where strict policies alone do not deter guns at school.

"And some are worried about HIS trauma? Give me a break. Life is full of trauma. Part of growing up is experiencing trauma and learning to deal with it."

This is a complete misunderstanding. I am not talking about the trauma from facing a consequence. I am talking about kids bringing guns to school because of gun violence, gangs, drug rings, poverty, and trauma in their community.

"You are stating that expulsion appeases "rich privileged people"?"

Yes, I am. In public forums, people from affluent communities have not talked about why kids have brought guns to school for years. They have focused on expelling kids. People in areas where gun violence is a daily occurrence already know guns have been in our schools for years.

"I suggest you provide your philosophical discovery tools to the events which took place at Uvalde or Columbine."

At Uvalde and Columbine expulsion policies did nothing to deter students from school shootings. They are consequences that can be dealt to students after the fact, if we are lucky. They are not preventative.

Another shooting in the midwest happened where a student was bullied for over a year, reported the bullying, nothing was done, and he brought a gun to school and shot several people. Did he care about being expelled? Expulsion policies were enforced at that school.

Our points are all valid. We are all concerned. That is why I talk about other perspectives to be considered. They have been mostly absent from the public discussions about guns and they are what cause our students and teachers to feel unsafe.

[Post removed due to unverified speculation]

"But immediate expulsion is required. Hopefully the school and the superintendent agreed with this sentiment and acted immediately. No second chances here, it's just too much risk."

I agree. For everyone's safety, we also cannot ignore that expulsion is not preventative for most situations. Listen to the teachers and students. They agree with consequences and are also saying that expulsion by itself is not enough to address this issue in our community.

"Saying things like your comment below seems to me that you are advocating for not expelling them."

Only if people don't read closely to understand. I didn't advocate against expulsion. I said the issue is more complicated. Expulsion is necessary if we are lucky enough to catch a student with a gun. What about the more common situations where expulsion does not prevent a gun from being at school? A majority of school shootings in America are happening because kids do not care about strict policies and still bring a gun to school. What are we doing about that major safety issue?

"There is a time for philosophy, and a time for action."

It is a fact that guns are in our schools daily. It concerns me that more people aren't aware of this issue.

"Back to the topic at hand, if the superintendent in anyway overruled a decision by the principal or staff at M-A that resulted in putting students at serious risk then I think asking her to leave makes sense. Not a racial issue"

That was a theory. If it has to be pushed, we should also validate that guns were in our schools before those two students were caught and are still in our schools right now. If the superintendent did something wrong, it should have been communicated to everyone properly. Nobody would take issue. Their actions highlighted instead of ruled out racial concerns. How the removal was handled dishonestly, board members making it known they wanted to remove her when she started her job, low pay compared to her peers, to name a few things. All are valid.

"The Superintendent failed in her primary function, which is to preserve school safety. Everything else is just rhetoric."

I agree that expelling that kid before he came to school is something that should have been done if that is what really happened. Respectfully, please do us all a favor and be more clear about your sources. It would help the community understand the truth.

If that is what happened, why didn't the school board communicate and avoid speculation that is damaging? Why did they engage in behaviors that do not rule out racial concerns and only add to their appearance? The way they handled this is very irresponsible. They should be held accountable for that as much as the superintendent was held accountable.

"Preserving school safety" means listening to teachers and students closely because they are the people who are at the schools and know what is happening. In the public board meetings, teachers and students said guns are in our schools daily and have been for a long time. This is bigger than those two students.

The lack of a superintendent makes our community less safe. Our community not understanding the larger issues around guns that students and teachers live through daily also makes our community less safe. She was doing her job well overall even if they were upset about her handling of one event. They could have kept her in place until we transitioned to a new superintendent which would be the more responsible thing to do in terms of safety.

Even if the superintendent was fired, people should not be satisfied with that or expulsion as the only action the school board takes to keep us safe. Judging by the comments, people will look at her removal and a strict policy of expulsion as the issue being "solved".

Listening to students and teachers and a functioning school board that acts ethically and responsibly is what preserves school safety.

ReginaR, thank you for the context, and if not apparent, I agree with you. I think many others do as well, but are afraid to voice their agreement out of fear of being labeled.

I am not opposed to compassion, and I think children are in need of compassion. But hard limits must be drawn and respected.

The race-related rhetoric here sounds wackier than it should because the article is leaving out that these secret meetings are the very first actions of a newly elected board where the two new members campaigned against initiatives that many see as benefiting our students of color. Maybe it is about guns, but most of us have been waiting to see how dramatically the new board would change course on some of these programs and that makes the timing of this “firing” either very telling or very unlucky.

Just so grateful to read a voice of reason in Concerned Parent’s comments among others. To deny that racism and sexism are not factors in any situation is pure ignorance, albeit most likely lack of actual insight and not an act of ill will. To the person claiming their insight based on dining at the same establishments as people of other races? Wow. Welcome to 1975! Good job bettering yourself. I am taken aback by the amount of highly educated//sociologically uninformed people in my community. Dr. Williams had a target on her back from day one, and I would beg you to take a moment and consider the fact that as. BIPOC woman, she was the lowest paid superintendent in decades. I guarantee that had she been a white man these closed door meetings would be open, and there would be other action taken before a firing. Aside from college I have spent my life here, 35 years, and though not loud and overt, the racism is present now as ever. I have never been in school (private in menlo and portola valley) with more than 2 black people. Their lack of representation and presence speaks to the silent unwelcome that this community is afraid of speaking of. I stand by my statement and I am ashamed of this part of Menlo and Atherton.

Not long ago, on a campus where I worked, a young man who had a discipline rap sheet a mile long threatened another kid with bodily harm. He also had a knife in his locker and apparently threatened to use it. The young man received little to no consequence, other than being assigned a personal aid that followed him everywhere on campus. Even though the principal wanted the young man expelled, she was overridden by the superintendent. The young man came from a very well to do Caucasian family and speculation was that the superintendent feared a potential lawsuit. The point being that school staff and district officials are constantly walking on eggshells, and unfortunately choices must be made regarding general school safety, the well-being of individuals, and the ever-present threat of lawsuits. It has gotten out of hand, so you see what you saw at MA. School districts are pouring more and more resources into “risk management”, but there are just too many to manage, especially given under trained or understaffed campuses. MA is not alone in this regard, and if our society views public schools as the frontline defense against society’s ills, then the schools are destined to fail.

"initiatives that many see as benefiting our students of color.

How many is many? This is an undefined term meant to sway the reader. Is "many" defined as 6, 12, or 1100?

"Maybe it is about guns, but most of us have been waiting..."

And most is defined as? This is an undefined term meant to sway the reader

"Maybe it is about guns"

Maybe? Casually dismissing a life and death issue?

"Even though the principal wanted the young man expelled, she was overridden by the superintendent. The young man came from a very well to do Caucasian family and speculation was that the superintendent feared a potential lawsuit."

In the case of a loaded gun, as verified by the Atherton police, I would put the odds of a lawsuit at zero, and the ethnicity of the student plays no role. The student is not harmed by the expulsion. Inconvenienced? Sure, but judges are usually pretty bright people and expulsion is the expected outcome.

The issue here in not a lawsuit because the student was expelled, the issue is a lawsuit because the school and the District had a clear warning. They are compelled to act on this warning there is no "second chance". The prudence of expelling the student is as plain as day.

"I guarantee that had she been a white man these closed door meetings would be open, and there would be other action taken before a firing."

How can you guarantee this? Do you have particular insight into the minds of the board members? The word guarantee is being used for effect only, as a means of advancing your theory.

Hey “JT” nice way to cherry pick my comments!
To be part of a community is to partake of all that community has to offer. That includes local ethnic restaurants among others things.
Maybe you’re the one who belongs in 1975.

Teacher said: "two new members campaigned against initiatives that many see as benefiting our students of color." I find this claim extremely offensive considering both these new members are people of color themselves and at least in my area (Area D) ran against white incumbents/opponents. The "initiatives" that the new board opposes is the idea that M-A should eliminate honors and AP courses in the name of "equity." How that makes any sense is beyond me and I am proud to have voted for someone who is a person of color and ran against this harmful ideology. In fact, if anything I would argue its more problematic to simply assume that our POC students are incapable of surviving in an honors class and need it to be removed.

To Parent: Your own point can be applied to what you are saying. In this district, with its history and demographics, you cannot confidently say that race would not play any role in how the school board would respond to a white, male superintendent.

Dismissing concerns about race and gender correlate to the experiences staff of color have spoken about. People should look up the origins of defensiveness related to discussions of race and why some people in this community are so quick to become defensive whenever this topic is brought up. It is based on guilt or denial.

People don’t want to have to look at race as a factor. Their lived experience also means they cannot dismiss it when they see the signs and patterns they are familiar with as red flags. It is an unwanted extra burden they carry, not something they take pleasure in recognizing.

Race and gender play a role in the workplace in this country. This district is well-known for its struggles retaining staff of color, including Black staff who are women. Parents, teachers, and students all verified this with personal accounts in board meetings that you can watch online.

JT made a great point about intent. If someone talks about how a certain action by the school board has racial implications, it doesn’t mean that the school board acted out of malice and evil intent. We are also not saying the superintendent was above consequences. It is the way the new school board executed firing her that brings up major red flags.

Why did two former board members say their actions are dishonest and not vote to fire or remove Dr. Williams earlier?

Regina, we do not know why the superintendent was fired. Other rumors in the district have said it was related to unfair pay. It is very interesting that prior board members praised her on their way out and the new board comprised of two members who made it know they never wanted to hire her moved to fire her in a dishonest way. Actions speak louder.

I just want to say it is possible to disagree and be respectful of others.

To anyone who is reading this: Participating in a community means listening to people openly without being defensive or quick to dismiss or belittle their valid concerns, especially when they take the risk of voicing their experiences and perceptions related to race or gender.

I qualified my opinions days ago, although it may be lost in all of the hyperbole, so I will repeat it….
Based on the timing of the firing, along with severity of the Board’s actions, along with my inside information, this is what I BELIEVE HAPPENED.
You can believe whatever you’d like to.
However, nothing else I’ve seen or heard makes the same amount of sense as the scenario I have put forward.
It does not make me a racist because I believe that someone can screw up at their job and get fired, whatever the color of their skin. That happens every single day.
I certainly don’t need to be criticized for trying to give people food for thought.

MJones, M-A has not eliminated honors and AP courses. They are still available.

People of color can also be strategically used against goals of equity and usually are when it comes to affirmative action or teaching accurate history. It is a common tactic historically that causes division. Each group feels "right" and the division maintains a system of inequality and racial hierarchy. It matters that the English teachers we have heard in board meetings, of all backgrounds, are against what was campaigned on. Do their voices matter? They are the ones in the classrooms.

What teachers really want is to teach classes that are full of diverse students, broaden our cultural lens and to address systemic issues in education. Many kids who are forced into AP courses because of their parents suffer from mental health issues or have a very hard time fitting into society and in school socially. Before my words are twisted, I didn't say all but it is enough to be an issue. They are also set up for failure in life if they are uncomfortable in diverse spaces.

"its more problematic to simply assume that our POC students are incapable of surviving in an honors class and need it to be removed."

This is another common misrepresentation. A recognized obstacle in our community for education is many students who do not come from richer communities, do not have access to expensive tutors, mental health supports, after school programs, and a foundation that helps wealthier students to be successful. We would only see a widening in the gap between students.

If they must push AP classes, I would like to see this school board vote for the new AP African American Studies pilot and hire more Black teachers. We could then see if it is just about AP courses for the sake of ranking and comparison, or if they really want our kids to learn something valuable and have a good experience in school.

Some people should just be honest and say they don't care about inequality if that's what they feel.

"the new board comprised of two members who made it know they never wanted to hire her moved to fire her in a dishonest way."

Cannot be verified.

In re-reading through the posts, someone is asking for more details on my sources. My sources are legit.
Two members of the faculty at M-A. One participated in recovering the firearm.
I’m done defending my position to people who are hell-bent on making this about race, because they make everything about race. That level of narrow-mindedness is no better than a racist’s.

ReginaR, you are correct, this has nothing to do with race and everything to do with school safety. Unfortunately in today's world there are people who knowingly (to promote an ideology) or unknowingly (bandwagon) who introduce "ism's" into a discussion.

By introducing an "ism" it sets up any counter argument for defeat, and it muddies the water.

I'm surprised the discussion got this far without "sexism" getting thrown in.

In my opinion, it's critical that people of the community speak up when faced with such "ism" tactics. The issue was safety. Anything else is a diversion.

The safety of the students and staff is critical and urgent. Nothing else matters.

@ Parent

About the young man at my former site: Is there a rational reason why the superintendent opposed his expulsion other than fear? If not a lawsuit, then what was he afraid of? Bad press? The distraction of an expulsion proceeding? The cost of sending the young man to a private school that “met his needs”?

Eventually the knife wielding student was cleared for the end of the year field trip to Great America, whilst multiple kids of color who had lesser violations were denied. I refused to attend the trip because I knew that I would be assigned to keep an eye on the young man since I had a good rapport with him. The principal berated me for being “unprofessional” until I said, “If he does something to harm others on the trip, and I intervene, I am exposed. If I turn and look away (trust me, many administrators do just that to avoid trouble) I am exposed too. At this point in my career, I refuse to take the risk”. When I added, “You have a Title 9 issue on your hands with all the students left behind, and I will not be part of that”, she changed her tune. No coincidence she quit at the end of that school year.

If Ms. Williams did not fear a lawsuit, something else did dissuade her. Fear of lawsuits, however, is rampant in the public schools. My former district keeps a massive reserve to settle suits even though roofs are leaking, and classrooms are decaying. Fear is a powerful motivator, and lawsuits have skyrocketed. Maybe former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor can add some insight. I was part of a panel that interviewed her before her retirement. My question to her was, “How has the court changed over your quarter century tenure?” She replied, “We are now overwhelmed with cases”. When asked why, she replied, “We have become a litigious society, and people will sue over almost anything”. If a suit against Ms. Williams or the district is unrealistic, the fear is still quite palpable.

@ Parent, some of my replies to you just got approved a day late so you can scroll up to see them.

“Cannot be verified."

It was verified across multiple board meetings by people who work at the district and interact with the school board closely as accounts of their experiences. It has never once been disputed. If numerous people share an experience, I am not so quick to dismiss them.

"you are correct, this has nothing to do with race and everything to do with school safety."

I would point out that you can only believe that “opinion” if you invalidate countless teachers, parents, and students who spoke out about their lived experiences and the ramifications of the board’s actions.

If a person really cares about safety, they need to consider all of the factors that contribute to safety - not a limited scope of what they individually decide safety means.

Safety includes listening to staff, teachers, and students who work at our schools as the #1 priority to understanding what is really happening at schools. Points made by some here have not addressed the full picture and only reflect solutions regarding punishment. They ignore realities the teachers and students say they live through which is loaded guns being at school daily. I expanded the conversation to include the full picture, and I choose to not close my mind to information that needs to be considered in solutions for safety.

I have responded with detailed analysis and objective realities. I validated good points and found points of agreement. I have also highlighted weaknesses in logic, cultural blindspots, and dismissals of valid information and experiences in our community.

This is my last comment here.

Whether some of you like it or not, these issues are complicated with many angles. If we really care about what we are discussing, or this community, we need to keep an open mind and free ourselves of instant defensiveness, dismissal of experiences, and cognitive bias.

Happy holidays!

Retired Local Teacher:

While the fear of the threat of a lawsuit is definitely real, in this case it doesn't make much sense. If the super was afraid of a lawsuit for expelling a problem child who was potentially violent, did she fail to think about the lawsuit that would result from not expelling him and then he comes to campus with a gun and uses it to kill and or injure other students? If I were in her shoes, I'd be far more concerned about being sued for the latter scenario. No, she decided not to expel for some other reason. Whatever it was, it was a pretty stupid. It leads me to question her competence. If this kind of poor decision making was a pattern, I'd say that was a good reason to fire her. Nothing racial or sexist about it, just poor employee performance.

Oh I don’t think that Dr. Williams decision-making had anything to do with fear of a lawsuit.
I think it had everything to do with a misguided philosophy, the basis of which has already been discussed on this forum by some, including “Concerned Parent”.

Could this "other reason" or "misguided philosophy" that some are hinting at please be specified? Was Ms. Williams really dissuaded by sheer incompetence? Did Ms. Williams not seek the advice of anyone else, including district legal counsel? Were board members shut out of this process completely? I find it hard to believe that Ms. Williams acted in a vacuum. If she did, then there is a much bigger problem with the district than the former superintendent.

California Education Code states that an expulsion recommendation is mandatory for “Possessing a firearm at school without prior written permission”. In addition, “Expulsion hearings are usually at night and may be part of a larger school board meeting. Expulsion hearings are held in "executive session" in front of the school board and are closed to the public. The school board acts like a judge and will decide whether to expel a student by a majority vote”.

How come, it seems, few in the district, including Ms. Williams at the time, were familiar with the Ed. Code? I find it hard to believe that Ms. Williams willfully violated the Ed. Code and the rest of the district leadership played along. Was she let go because she refused to follow the Ed. Code?

ReginaR, it's not her that gets sued ... is the SUHSD.

Although as you claim Dr. Williams decision-making may not have had anything to do with fear of a lawsuit, it's the Board of Director's role to consider liability. And it appears the Board decided her misguided philosophy was not only problematic, eventually it could lead to the harm of students or staff, and yes, result in a massive liability for the District.

Like many things in life, once someone is warned of a risk they are duty-bound to cure that risk. Classic law school case is the family who does not fence their swimming pool or have restricted access to the pool area.

What is the misguided philosophy? I am not trying to defend anyone. Just want to know clearly what folks see as her misguided philosophy.

Omg, people! Let me go back up and break out the verbiage for you!
"Posted by Concerned Parent
a resident of Menlo-Atherton High School
on Dec 16, 2022 at 10:46 am
Concerned Parent is a registered user.
If the superintendent being fired was due to not expelling a kid who may have brought a gun to school, it is a reality that the staff in the district move to not expel students because that is what actually creates an unsafe situation and grudges where students come back and retaliate. What they do instead is fold the student more into systems and programs that get to the root of the issue to prevent gun-related incidents from happening.

We could then actually argue that the superintendent acted in a way that supports her staff and also makes us safer as a result of complex realities they understood that some in the community cannot understand. It is precisely because systems are in place promoted by the superintendent supporting equity and being less punitive that M-A was able to know these kids have guns and keep everyone safe. They were in closer contact with these children as a result.

Now, if we just move to expel kids left and right to appease some rich privileged people in the suburbs who don’t have to deal with the realities of gun violence, we have created a situation where guns will still come to school, but kids will just be smarter about hiding it. We will also discourage kids from sharing information we need to address the issue. This makes everyone less safe.

Simply expelling students or firing the superintendent for the lack of expelling a student regarding guns does not solve the issue of guns on our campus. It is a move that creates an illusion and gives an excuse to get rid of her,but solves absolutely nothing and actually sets us back quite a lot. The issue around guns in our community is complex and not always related to wanting to commit school shootings. A lot of gun possession by kids in this area is related to trauma so...."

Furthermore, to respond to "Local Retired Teacher"....
Karl Losekoot absolutely wanted to expel this student. I actually think he wanted to get rid of his girlfriend too, but I cannot swear to that.
Bottom line is, whatever the "district policy" is, it was NOT followed in this case, and as a result, my child along with all others, were put in harm's way.
THAT IS WHY DR, WILLIAMS WAS FIRED, AND RIGHTFULLY SO.
I've really put my neck out here, and I am done now.
People who think that everyone in this world just going to do what they are supposed to do, especially those that have their own agendas, are just naive and wrong.

Clarification for "Local Retired Teacher"....
Your comment is off for the following reason:
When the initial expulsion request was made, the student in question had not yet brought the firearm on to campus.
At least he had not been caught with it.
So, the statute that you site didn't apply yet.

ReginaR, thank you for being courageous.

This is such a simple case. If a student brings a gun, the student should be expelled. No further discussion.

Perhaps a San Mateo County social worker can work with the student and family after the expulsion.

And the elephant in the room: what's worse than a student with a gun? A traumatized student with a gun.

Let that sink in folks. Traumatized people are not stable.

@Regina

I taught for 30 years and would not defend bringing a loaded gun to school. Having been through many code red drills I know the fear that students, parents, staff, and society face.

The law says this (irrelevant parts deleted):

48915.
(a) (1) Except as provided in subdivisions (c) and (e), the principal or the superintendent of schools shall recommend the expulsion of a pupil for any of the following acts committed at school or at a school activity off school grounds, unless the principal or superintendent determines that expulsion should not be recommended under the circumstances or that an alternative means of correction would address the conduct:
(A) Causing serious physical injury to another person, except in self-defense.

(B) Possession of any knife or other dangerous object of no reasonable use to the pupil.

(E) Assault or battery, as defined in Sections 240 and 242 of the Penal Code, upon any school employee.

(2) If the principal or the superintendent of schools makes a determination as described in paragraph (1), he or she is encouraged to do so as quickly as possible to ensure that the pupil does not lose instructional time.

(b) Upon recommendation by the principal or the superintendent of schools, or by a hearing officer or administrative panel appointed pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 48918, the governing board of a school district may order a pupil expelled upon finding that the decision to expel a pupil for any of those acts shall be based on a finding of one or both of the following:
(1) Other means of correction are not feasible or have repeatedly failed to bring about proper conduct.

(2) Due to the nature of the act, the presence of the pupil causes a continuing danger to the physical safety of the pupil or others.

Did Ms. Williams seek an alternative means of correction? What about the "administrative panel" or "governing board"?

What "agenda" are you referring to? Sorry if I am confused.

If letting a gun toting scofflaw skate is part of a larger agenda, can someone please be courageous enough to state unequivocally the larger perceived agenda of the former superintendent?

RetiredLocalTeacher - Concerned Parent stated

"If the superintendent being fired was due to not expelling a kid who may have brought a gun to school, it is a reality that the staff in the district move to not expel students because that is what actually creates an unsafe situation and grudges where students come back and retaliate. What they do instead is fold the student more into systems and programs that get to the root of the issue to prevent gun-related incidents from happening."

See an agenda in there?

Not expel, but fold the student...

Like I said, this is now into the weeds. All of these comments make it sound like the student in question had the gun PRIOR TO the principal's request for expulsion. This is NOT THE CASE. The principal correctly identified red flags in this student's violent tendencies, which included engaging in a fight at Bellermine High School during a football game. In my opinion, the decisions of the principal, who is in the trenches and not in a cushy office at the district, should trump those of the Superintendent.
If that is not what happened in this case, then I am at an absolute loss as to what prompted the firing.
Bottom line, my opinions haven't changed.

ReginaR, I'm pretty sure the football game was played on Menlo Atherton's field.

The school you reference is known as Bellarmine, it's located in San Jose.

And I'm very sure it wasn't. This was the FRESHMAN GAME. NOT VARSITY.

ReginaR, thank you for clarifying this was Freshman football.

Thank you ReginaR for this insight, I think it is crazy to attack the school board off of things we do not know, especially in this difficult decision regarding school safety.

Concerned Parent makes a lot of claims about Honors classes, but it seems like they fall victim to the myth that we need to have lower expectations for everyone to solve the achievement gap instead of raising the standard for all. As a parent, I have seen how M-A has eliminated classes like Honors English, Honors Biology, Honors Chemistry, etc... all in a secretive manner designed to subvert (rightful) community backlash. It is so refreshing to finally see people stand against this regressive philosophy. It is also extremely offensive to accuse the person of color and M-A grad who represents the area around Menlo-Atherton on the School board of being a pawn of white supremacy, when the very theory you are advocating for is that some of M-A's students are not capable of taking rigorous classes. I agree with you that we need to offer more AP's (including AP African American studies) and that some students need more support to thrive in these classes, but the answer is never to eliminate classes as M-A has done. I cannot comprehend how this is even a controversial issue, but I am glad that things look to finally be changing.

@Parent

“Folding a student into systems and programs” as an alternative to expulsion is not an agenda. It is a statement made by the Concerned Parent, and it is also part of the Education Code: “the principal or the superintendent of schools shall recommend the expulsion of a pupil for any of the following acts committed at school or at a school activity off school grounds, unless the principal or superintendent determines that expulsion should not be recommended under the circumstances or that an alternative means of correction would address the conduct”.

Assuming the Superintendent chose the “folding option”, and I’m not asserting that was the best option, the counter assumption seems to be that this was part of her larger agenda. If there was an agenda, it should be discernable, and those who clearly see it should be able to articulate the nature of that agenda. Can someone please do so in plain terms?

If the student was a red flag, and nothing substantive was done until it reached a crisis level, well then, welcome to public education. I am not excusing the superintendent, but, as I stated before, she did not act in a vacuum. However, she clearly took the fall. If her so-called agenda was so counter to community values, how come she was hired? Was she able to hide her intentions from the board that hired her?

@Retired Local Teacher, both the candidates endorsed by the outgoing candidates got crushed by double digit margins. I do not think either were in touch with the values of the communities they represented, especially regarding some of the points I brought up before.

"Was she able to hide her intentions from the board that hired her?"

This would not be uncommon, candidates lie and obscure all the time.

@ Parent

So what agenda was she lying about?

@M Jones

I am just trying to get clarification on the objectionable agenda. It seems as if you are saying that two board candidates endorsed by outgoing board members were soundly defeated because they supported eliminating AP classes, which I am assuming the fired superintendent supported as well. Somehow this is tied to not wanting to expel a gun wielding student, which is somehow tied to a larger, counter community agenda. What was the larger agenda of Ms. Williams and her supporters?