Residents and staff urge Beaverton board to address antisemitism, question district investigation

Several speakers at the Oct. 14 Beaverton School Board meeting urged the board to take clearer, faster steps to address antisemitism and the district’s response to recent complaints.

Public commenters said they and members of Jewish and other communities feel targeted by staff social-media posts and by campus climate they described as hostile. Marcus Berger, a Beaverton resident, said teachers and board members “have allowed personal politics to take precedence over the safety of Jewish students.” He called for balanced classroom treatment of complex geopolitical issues and for accountability when he said board members or staff associate with extremist political groups.

Makai Schrammerhorn, who identified himself as a member of the Oregon State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, criticized a district-commissioned investigation and said it failed to “ask the obvious question” about what happens when leaders normalize antisemitic tropes. He said the report reduced Jewish fear to “policy disagreement.” Nick Nair read social-media posts he said were authored by a Beaverton educator and described them as hostile and dehumanizing toward Jews and Israelis. Ben Schubert and other commenters named additional social-media material they said had been publicly accessible to students.

Jenny Mackie, a district resident, urged the board to review its members’ public communications and cited board policy that asks board members to avoid actions that “undermine the credibility of the board or create a hostile environment.” She said statements by elected officials—even when labeled personal—can be perceived as reflecting district values.

A retired teacher who identified himself as Jewish said the social-media activity made him feel “targeted and unsafe” and implored the board and administration to “stand strongly against antisemitism and for your Jewish teachers and students.” Several speakers emphasized that acknowledging the safety concerns of Palestinian students does not negate concerns about antisemitism and urged the board to find ways to hold “hard conversations” while protecting all students.

Board members did not take formal action during the public-comment period. Several board members later said they heard the comments and affirmed that personnel, student-safety and complaint investigations should proceed through appropriate administrative channels. No board member reported a motion, vote or change of policy at the Oct. 14 meeting that directly addressed the complaints raised during public comment.

The speakers called on the board to clarify how it will respond to reports of harassment, whether the district will re-open or supplement prior investigations, and how the board will enforce its communications and ethics policies where public statements by a board member or staff are alleged to harm students’ sense of safety.