Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the AROC MOU topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community debate over AROC MOU dominates public comment; consent calendar moves forward with exceptions
Summary
Dozens of public speakers for and against a proposed MOU with the Arab Resource and Organizing Center (AROC) urged the San Francisco Board of Education to either approve or reject the partnership. Supporters cited years of mentoring work in schools; opponents cited public statements by AROC leaders they called hateful. The consent calendar passed with recorded exceptions.
Dozens of residents, teachers and students pressed the San Francisco Board of Education on a proposed memorandum of understanding with the Arab Resource and Organizing Center (AROC) during the board’s May 22 meeting.
Opponents — including parents, a representative of the Jewish Community Relations Council and other community members — urged the board not to formalize a district partnership, saying they had found public statements by an AROC leader that they described as “hate speech” and politically divisive. “When I read online… ‘as long as you continue to be on the side of Zionism, I am going to hate you,’” said John Pritikin, citing a quote he attributed to an AROC executive director and calling the statement “pure hate speech.”
Supporters, including Jewish Voice for Peace, the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Bay Area office, longtime teachers and AROC youth, urged approval. “AROC can provide the kind of mentorship that can help Arab youth in our school district,” Ellen Brodsky of Jewish Voice for Peace told the board. A student leader said the community has “already waited three years” for the MOU and that AROC provides needed support for Arab students.
Board secretary and staff limited the comment time; the public-comment portion devoted roughly ten minutes specifically to the MOU and related remarks were folded into the consent-item discussion. At roll call on the consent calendar, the board adopted the consent items but recorded exceptions: Miss Norton announced a “no” on the first MOU under item K11; Commissioner Walton disclosed a conflict and recused himself from MOUs 9 and 10. The agenda listed a number of MOUs and contract items for the board’s routine approval.
The board did not hold a separate substantive debate or vote on the AROC MOU during open session beyond the consent-calendar procedure; public commenters asked the board to act or clarify next steps. The meeting record shows the board accepted the consent calendar as presented with the noted exceptions and recusals.
