HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-07-07-LHRC-minTown of Lexington Human Rights Committee
Meeting Minutes for Friday,July 07,2023
Conducted in hybrid:Community center and Zoom
LHRC MEMBERS PRESENT
Christina Lin,Chair (CL);Stephanie Hsu,Vice-Chair (SH);Salvador Jaramillo (SJ);Mona D.Roy
(MDR);Amber Iqbal (AI);Larry Freeman -Lexington Public School District (LF);Melissa Interess -
Town of Lexington,Human Services (MI)
The minutes recorded by Christina Lin,LHRC Chair
1.Call to order at 2:30PM on July 07,2023 with a quorum present.
2.Input for the Letter to the LexObserver Editor:In response to the
Lexington Observer article on affirmative action on May 19,2023
(https://lexobserver.org/2023/05/19/families-in-lexington-known-for-its-top-notch-sc
hools-and-ethnic-diversity-await-the-supreme-courts-decision-on-affirmative-action/),
the LHRC had voted to draft a letter to the editor.This meeting was scheduled to take
input from all attending committee members for thoughts and ideas to be considered for
the letter.
Topics,ideas and thoughts for Letter to the Editor
1.One possible topic is addressing public discourse regarding the comments section (not the article).
a.Promote discourse and facilitation of discourse that unites/brings greater understanding
across differences.Address comments/statements that create division.
b.Can possibly use this as an opportunity to share relevant work that LHRC has done to
promote healthy public discourse.(refer to MLK 2023 discussion)
2.What is the level of responsibility of news organizations to the consequences of articles and
subsequent comments?-Divisive comments are posted on all social media platforms/public
platforms,not just LexObserver.
a.Are owners of online platforms responsible for monitoring public responses and to maintain
a level civil discourse?
b.In addition to profane language,toxic comments that are bigoted or disparage group
identities should not be left unaddressed.
c.Should those toxic comments be taken off?
3.The supreme court decision has come out.Do we need to address this?
4.Avoid commenting on affirmative action and the article itself.The topic is too nuanced and needs
an expert/authority voice.We can state that we are not going to address affirmative action as it is
1625 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE •LEXINGTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02420
too nuanced and needs an expert voice.Clarification -who are the expert voices?The assumption
that people’s lived experiences don’t give them a level of expertise
5.Community standards and public discourse.This could be referenced as something the LHRC
wants to work on but might not be enough space to explain it in 550 words.Maybe invite the
community to train/create standards for public discourse.
6.In circumstances where differing opinions are shared,it is an opportunity to bring the community
together to learn and engage in a civil discussion.
7.Address the article and comments -there were some challenging statements within the article.The
article was short and didn’t provide enough context to support a productive community
input/discourse.
8.How this is important to Lexington and citing the Discipline Disparities report -the assumption that
all students in Lexington receive equal services -link to the report.
9.We’re commenting because the article was more vulnerable to inviting divisive comments.And it
was presented as an article rather than a list of opinions.
10.There are so many perspectives that could be put into the article.Everyone has their own
voice/perspective and therefore should need.
11.Lived experiences vs.expert;
12.Some of the comments were mean-spirited,but the article was not mean-spirited.
Guidance on the Letter
1.Our message should focus on the committee’s thoughts and not regulating other people
a.Avoid preaching or sounding like we know best.
b.Avoid appearing as if we are telling LexObserver how to do their job.
2.Aim to bring the community together and be healing.
a.State the purpose and goals of the LHRC -to bring education and understanding of each
other and the community.
3.Please review the comments from the article AND to avoid further inflaming an already divisive
atmosphere.Keep the tone about sowing unity and consider being charitable.
4.Limiting response to less than 550 words (Lauren Feeney said the typical limit is 400 words,but
would consider exceptions).As a reference,the affirmative action article was ~1500 words.This
means we need a tight focus on our message in the letter.
5.Do we need a call to action?
6.Should we include a way for community members to write a response directly back to the LHRC at
the end of the editorial letter?And then,what do we do about possible responses?-(YES);assign
one LHRC committee member to respond to any written replies to the LHRC regarding the letter to
the editor.
7.Be specific to Lexington
Possible community conversation type program
A need for a Conversation (about our own community,look at our own data)about equity vs.
equality and understanding the difference and the historical context that creates the need for
equity over equality.
1625 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE •LEXINGTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02420
3.CL,SH,and SJ will draft the letter and then schedule the next meeting for
committee approval.
4.Meeting adjourned at 3:35pm
5.Next meeting to be determined.
1625 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE •LEXINGTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02420