A Vale parent’s report on public records she pried loose from the Vale School District accuses administrators and the local teachers union of banning words they deem offensive in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion.
April Johnson, a Vale resident and former substitute teacher, for the last couple of years has battled the Vale School District over what she believes is a war on the word Christmas in public schools.
She recently wrote a scathing report based on a trove of public records released to her earlier this year by the Vale School District. She sent the report to each Vale School Board member, posted it to Facebook, sent copies to local newspapers and to people in the community who requested a copy.
Johnson said in a Saturday, Nov. 23 email that the report was an “open letter putting the school district on notice” of violations of the first amendment and the district’s own policy.
Johnson’s clash with the district was sparked by the school board’s decision in March to approve a district calendar that doesn’t use the word Christmas to denote the holiday break at schools. The district instead adopted the neutral term “winter break.”
Johnson had a previous dispute in late 2022– her first skirmish with the district – when she accused school officials of violating district policy by omitting the word “Christmas” from the title of an elementary school performance and not including religious songs. The school board sided with district administrators.
In her report, Johnson called on the board to add the word Christmas to the elementary school performance and the district calendar, apologize to parents and the community and tell teachers that religious expression is “educational and legal.” Johnson shared a Tuesday, Nov. 19 email from Ryan Bates, a Vale School Board member. In the email, Bates told Johnson the board “investigated” her complaints regarding removing the word Christmas from the title of the elementary school holiday program and the district calendar. Bates wrote that the board had “unanimously” decided they did not violate any district policies.
“Your concerns related to the calendar have been considered and discussed,” he wrote.
Bates wrote that Johnson could file a formal complaint if she was not happy with the board’s decision.
Johnson said in a Sunday, Nov. 24 email that she was “disappointed” with the board’s reply. She said she submitted a formal complaint with the district.
Superintendent Alisha McBride said in April the district and the board informally agreed with the local teachers union in 2021 to remove “Christmas” from the calendar to be more “inclusive.”
Johnson said in her report that district leaders never said anything about such an informal agreement in the past. She sought three years of documents to learn more about district leaders’ deal with the teachers union.
Using the state public records law, Johnson asked in April for meeting minutes, emails, messages and memos with the words “inclusive language.”
The district’s lawyer wrote to Johnson that the cost to turn over the records would be $7,000. That included employee time to get the documents together and more than $2,000 in legal fees to review every document for sensitive student information.
McBride said in April that a keyword search identified nearly 17,000 emails that could be relevant to Johnson’s request. She said district officials didn’t know if those emails contain sensitive information such as student names or other personal information that would be exempt from public disclosure.
The district turned down Johnson’s subsequent request to waive the fee, which public agencies can do when disclosing records serves the public interest.
Malheur County District Attorney David Goldthorpe subsequently ordered the district to release the records for no more than $1,000.
Goldthorpe wrote that assessing a nearly $7,000 charge was “shocking.”
Johnson wrote in her report last month that the district and teachers union violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which provides for the right to free speech.
She wrote that schools can limit speech that causes a “substantial disruption” at schools and inhibits the rights of others. Johnson said schools can’t restrict speech because it’s “controversial, disrespectful, or upsets people.”
“Speech that interferes with the rights of others means speech that seriously threatens or harasses other people, or if it spreads false information about someone,” she wrote. Johnson said speech that’s “vulgar or obscene” is also not protected.
Those limitations do not apply to labeling the calendar “Christmas Break,” she wrote.
Elected officials who ban words that they think are offensive threaten much more than the right to free expression, she wrote.
“They menace the freedom to think and function,” Johnson wrote.
She wrote that school officials are not preparing students for life when they ban words. Instead, she wrote, educators are teaching students that they are “victims if they hear something they don’t like.”
McBride wrote in a Nov. 25 email that Johnson’s public records request did not reveal any new information. She said the records showed that her complaints had been “unfounded.”
McBride added that Johnson’s allegation that the district is “banning” the word Christmas is “simply not true.”
She said Dec. 25 is “specifically identified” as Christmas on the district’s “approved calendar.”
McBride said other districts – local and across the state do not use the word Christmas on their calendars to denote the holiday break. In documents obtained by Johnson, Andy Hally, president of the Vale Education Association, the local teachers union and Brita Scott, a consultant with Eastern Oregon UniServ and the Oregon Education Association, the state teachers union, wrote early in 2024 to the district’s board that public schools are constitutionally required to remain neutral in matters of religion.
Hally and Scott urged the district to “consider the implications of using descriptors” that, in their opinion, “restrict inclusion in school policies and to promote practices that respect religious beliefs and cultural traditions of all students and families.”
Hally and Scott wrote that while Christmas is “significant for many, it is not universally celebrated by all community members.”
The neutral term “winter break” ensures that everyone is included, they wrote.
Hally and Scott added that using “Christmas break” might be perceived as endorsing a specific religious holiday, potentially leading to legal challenges regarding the separation of church and state.
Johnson said in her five-page report that omitting the term Christmas break is not a religious-neutral approach.
“Public schools remain neutral by not mandating religious activity,” she said, “not by censoring the mere mention of religion.”
In a separate letter to the board, Hally said a couple of years ago, the question of why the calendar showed “Christmas break” was brought up to him. He said that he initially had never thought about it much. Hally wrote that, “a good point” was raised about students of diverse backgrounds in the class.
Johnson said that the break is based on a federal holiday, Christmas.
“The union is of the opinion that students who do not observe Christmas have been harmed by the mere mention of its existence, that their feelings are hurt by its existence,” she wrote.
She wrote that it took less than a week to collect the $1,000 the district charged her to produce the public records. Those who contributed told her they feel excluded by what she wrote is the censorship of the term, “Christmas break.”
“Don’t their feelings count?” she said. “Apparently, feelings are only valid if they fit into the union’s agenda of removing the mention of Christianity from schools.”
News tip? Send your information to Steven Mitchell at [email protected].
WE CAN’T DO THIS FOR FREE – The Malheur Enterprise delivers quality local journalism – fair and accurate. We depend on support through subscriptions to deliver our reports. You can read it any hour, any day with a digital subscription. Read it on your phone, your Tablet, your home computer. Click subscribe – $7.50 a month.