2023-07-07-LHRC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

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