Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Ads topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Clayton district to reconsider Anti-Defamation League partnership during public comment
Summary
Four public speakers at the Clayton School District board meeting asked the district to reconsider or avoid a partnership with the Anti-Defamation League, saying the organization’s history and reporting tools raise concerns for free speech and classroom instruction. Board members did not act on the comments during the meeting.
Four residents urged the Clayton School District board on Wednesday to reconsider a proposed or potential partnership with the Anti-Defamation League, saying the organization’s approach to incident reporting and its political positions could chill classroom discussion and lead to surveillance-like dynamics in schools.
“My name is Sarah. I'm a resident of Clayton and I'm also a former Clayton student, K through 12,” the first speaker said. She told the board she had worked in other districts as an instructional coach and warned that “the ADL presents itself as an anti-hate and inclusive organization, but it is in fact deeply biased and political.” She added that the organization’s definition of antisemitism “craftily includes this idea that criticism of Israel … is antisemitic.”
A second speaker, identified as Jess and described as a Clayton High School alumnus, said education about antisemitism had been central to her college studies and recounted a trip-for-credit Holocaust-education program. She told the board the ADL has a history of surveillance in protests and alleged the organization advised law enforcement at the 2017 Charlottesville rallies to document and undercover-monitor counterprotesters; she urged the district to consider alternatives for antisemitism training.
Maxine, a St. Louis resident who said she is Jewish and works for the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, also spoke in support of antisemitism education but urged a “collective liberation” framework and alternatives to the ADL’s curriculum. “The ADL has a long history of actually targeting groups that speak up for civil rights of all kinds,” she said.
Michael Berg, who said he is part of Jewish Voice for Peace, told the board the ADL opposes his group because it criticizes political Zionism; he characterized the ADL as a political lobby and criticized its responses to public incidents. “The ADL claims to be a civil rights organization, but it is not,” he said.
Board members thanked the speakers and said the district would follow up by email, noting the district does not respond to public comments during the meeting. The superintendent said staff would respond to commenters after the meeting.
The board did not vote on any policy or contract related to the ADL at Wednesday’s meeting. Speakers asked the board to consider alternative training providers and to assess any reporting tools for their impact on student free speech and teacher employment risk.
The account above reports commenters’ statements and attributions as made during public comment; the district did not confirm the factual claims presented by speakers during the meeting.
