Honorable Board Members of School District 91:

Good day Honorable Members and thank you for receiving my previous letter, considering it, and responding in a courteous and timely manner. I appreciate the important and difficult work of your undertakings, and hope that you and your families had a restful and Merry Christmas. 

However, I do have concerns related to your December 19th written response ("Concert moved to comply with B.C. law," Lakes District 亚洲天堂, this edition), which was not mentioned in your December 16th online Meeting Minutes.

I am happy that the Board has agreed that 鈥楥hristian鈥� themed Christmas Carols do not constitute as imparting 鈥榬eligious dogma or creed鈥�. Likewise, I enjoyed reading that the Board firmly believes in the BC School Act mandate in that 鈥渁ll schools and Provincial schools must be conducted on strictly secular and non-sectarian principles.鈥� (Division 2, Section 76.1). However, while the Board claims to endorse this mandate, its decision to dismiss my concerns demonstrates clear bias and sectarian behavior on behalf of the Board.

This demonstration is apparent in the Board鈥檚 declaration 鈥渢hat events in public schools must respect the diversity of beliefs represented in the community and avoid promoting or prioritizing a single religious perspective.鈥�. However, the Board should be aware, as the Superintendent has been in contact with numerous Francois Lake Elementary School (FLES) parents and staff, that 鈥楥hristian based鈥� Christmas Carols were not the sole focus at the FLES Christmas concert. Thus, it is clear that anti-religious beliefs appeal to the Board and take precedence over Christian beliefs, especially when celebrating a nationally recognized Christian holiday. Consequentially, only the Christian components of the FLES Christmas Concert were targeted and cancelled by administration.

The Board further argues that their decision 鈥渆nsures that all students feel welcomed and included, regardless of their faith or family backgrounds鈥�. Apparently, this statement applies to everyone, except Christian students. The Board should be aware that secular principles of inclusion do not operate on the premise of exclusion; you cannot offer everyone a seat at the table and then exclude someone because you take offence to their religion.

Exclusion on the basis of religion is in fact a form of harassment, which is discussed in the Board鈥檚 own Bylaw 406.5 which states, 鈥淭he Board also recognizes that harassment is discrimination and is against the law, and therefore, will not be tolerated.鈥�. It is ironic and disconcerting that the Board is in contravention of its own policy, and in effect, is breaking the law to maintain an arbitrary decision made by the acting Superintendent.

Furthermore, in effort to safeguard the Board鈥檚 sectarian, biased, and short sighted decision, the Board has made reference to their own appeal bylaw 500.2, which gives examples of complaints that 鈥榮ignificantly affect the education, health, or safety of the student鈥�. The Board should be aware that the listed examples are obviously incomplete, as few examples are cited. Accordingly, the Board does not consider the emotional and morale well-being of the students, staff, and parents of FLES to have a 鈥榮ignificant impact鈥� on the 鈥榦verall鈥� learning environment, and thus, dismissed my appeal.

Therefore, I am curious to know what secular apparatus the Board utilizes to measure emotional and morale distress and what threshold they deem to be 鈥榮ignificant鈥�.  Apparently, there is a very high threshold when Christian beliefs are a source of discussion, and a low threshold when considering everyone else. If no such apparatus exists, how can the Board favor one person鈥檚 emotional distress as being more valid than another鈥檚? As illustrated, the Board鈥檚 identification with one anonymous individual鈥檚 complaint undermines the entire emotional and morale well-being of the staff, students, and families of FLES. Just to be clear, this is what catering to sectarian beliefs looks like.

Lastly, the Board should realize that they are also in contravention of their own policy in regards to code of conduct. Policy No. 502.1 illustrates this point with the statement that the 鈥淏C Human Rights Code which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, gender identification/expression, or sexual orientation as perceived by others鈥� has not been followed. Favoritism that caters to the whims of an anonymous person to cancel 鈥榬eligious鈥� Christmas carols is, in fact, discriminatory. Again, one does not include all by excluding some.

Regardless, I appreciate the Board鈥檚 honest and informative response to my concerns. Without any doubt, the Board has clearly illustrated its anti-religious bias and its inability to proceed in a non-sectarian fashion. Likewise, it has clearly demonstrated that it does not understand the principles of secularism. Honorable Board Members, if you cannot adhere to your own policies and mandates, please resign and allow others the opportunity to fulfill these duties.  In this manner, perhaps all children will be tolerated and encouraged to sing in Christmas concerts for years to come. Moving forward, hopefully they will sing songs of their own choosing, and not our Superintendent鈥檚.

Respectfully,

Kristopher Shively

亚洲天堂 Lake