Is our school really “No Place for Hate?” Our administration would agree that we are, as long as the school partners with the Anti-Defamation League and holds three school-wide activities that fight against hate within our school environment. Our administration would agree if the school simply supports student-led initiatives promoting less hate within our community. They agree that this is enough for the school to receive a banner that proclaims that we are“No Place for Hate.”
But this is not enough. An administration only willing to invest energy into earning an honorific title does not express true dedication to dismantling hate, but rather a dedication to the visage of good intent, with minimal action to back it up. The banner is a symbol to the students, to the community, to the administration, and to visitors to SSHS. How the symbol is perceived, however, differs. Some believe it represents continued support of an anti-hate climate, and that it looks nice when people visit schools and see the honorific banners. In other words, being “No Place for Hate” looks good. Yet this is insensitive to the actual victims of this virulent culture–the students. While an administrator may assume that the banner represents positive change within the school, it will be an ironic daily reminder to the students that their school is somehow “No Place for Hate” while, in reality, it remains a hateful environment.
The problem is not strictly “No Place for Hate” (NPFH), but the lack of additional initiatives to aid in reforming a harmful school environment. Facing an onslaught of allegations indicating pervasive hate-fueled language within schools, the administration shrugs off the blame, instead pointing to its support of NPFH. A school culture imbued with ignorance and hate is difficult enough to combat, so why do they believe a single initiative will make a difference? Our administration must do more. Student-led organizations are great, but this does not replace the need for administration-led organizations, which feel nonexistent.
In addition to supporting NPFH, our administration needs to enact programs such as restorative justice. The current methods for dealing with incidents of racist and insensitive language are unquestionably ineffective, and it is time for the administration to take initiative and adopt competent strategies. They must re-evaluate the consequences for students, as exclusionary discipline is unsuccessful and may even worsen situations. Justice must be restorative, promoting dialogue, and with the goal of reformation for harmful behavior–not punishment.
Analyzing the actions of the administration, or lack thereof, a banner boasting, “No Place for Hate” is undeserved. If they want a banner so badly, how about, “Place for Hate.” Meet the real requirements for being an inclusive, welcoming, and non-hateful space, and then replace it.