More Speech, Not Enforced Silence

Recently, I have been criticized for writing opinion pieces about public education while identifying myself as President of the Nevada Joint Union High School District Board. The criticism is that a Board President should remain publicly neutral, or that using my title suggests I represent the Board. I understand the concern, I simply disagree with the premise.

When I write an opinion piece, I am expressing my opinion. That seems apparent in a section labeled "Opinion." If I am authorized to write or speak on behalf of the Board, I will make that equally clear.

There is an important distinction between speaking on behalf of the Board and being President of the Board. The Board speaks officially through votes, resolutions, policies and collective actions. I am one of five elected trustees, and being President does not give my individual opinions four additional votes, and becoming President does not require me to stop expressing those opinions.

I identify myself as Board President because its true and provides relevant context. Most of what I write concerns education and our schools. Readers should know I am an elected trustee and currently serve as Board President. Omitting that information could be less transparent, not more. I believe public office should not require public silence.

Our country has a long tradition of elected representatives openly debating public issues. The First Amendment does not cease to apply when someone wins an election. In Houston Community College System v. Wilson, a unanimous Supreme Court addressed a dispute involving an elected trustee who publicly criticized his own board. The case reflects our tradition of elected officials debating, disagreeing and speaking publicly. That is not a defect in representative government, it’s part of representative government.

Serving as Board President carries responsibilities. I must conduct meetings fairly, accurately represent Board actions, respect fellow trustees and never attribute my views to them. The presidency requires fairness; it does not require intellectual anonymity.

We too often lose the distinction between politics and principles. I do not believe the Board dais or my education writing should become platforms for partisan politics. I am not interested in attaching a party label to every question facing our schools or sorting every issue into a red or blue box.

I do, however, have principles. I believe in hard work. I believe merit should matter. I believe individuals should be judged by their character, effort and achievement rather than by the group to which someone assigns them. I believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility, equal treatment under the law and the potential of every student when challenged to succeed. These principles inform how I think about education, just as each trustee's principles inform their approach. That is not partisanship, its representative government.

There is a difference between neutrality in administering a meeting and neutrality of thought. Voters did not elect five trustees without opinions. They elected individuals with different experiences, judgment, values and ideas about how best to serve students.

I would like to hear more from my fellow trustees publicly, not less. I hope they write opinion pieces, explain difficult votes and share their philosophies about education. When they believe I am wrong, I hope they say so publicly and explain why. Imagine if all five trustees regularly shared their reasoning in writing. Parents and taxpayers would better understand Board decisions. They would also see something healthy: reasonable people can look at the same problem and reach different conclusions.

Five trustees expressing different opinions is not evidence that a district is divided. It can be evidence that representative government is working.

Education involves deeply held questions about students, taxpayer dollars, classrooms, parents, educators and what we expect from graduates. We should not expect universal agreement, and disagreement shouldn’t be pushed behind closed doors. We should bring those disagreements into the light.

Justice Louis Brandeis famously wrote of "more speech, not enforced silence." That principle remains deeply valuable today.

I will continue to write and identify myself honestly as President of the NJUHSD Board of Trustees. When I speak on behalf of the Board, I will make that clear too. More importantly, I hope my fellow trustees, parents, teachers, students and community members will speak more as well.

The answer to disagreement in a free society is not less speech, it’s more speech, better arguments, greater transparency and a public willing to listen to one another. That tradition is much older than any of us serving on this Board, and it’s one worth preserving.