The Memory of James: The Lincoln-Sudbury Murder Time Forgot (Part 3)

How a murder on LSRHS campus became lost to time...and why current students should remember it.

As we’ve discussed in previous posts in the series ‘The Memory of James’, Lincoln-Sudbury has always been a hotbed for student activism and protest.

However, in recent memory, LS’ administration has tried to trample on these rights. I know because my brother, Antonio Fontes, had his rights to protest quashed by Bella Wong, LS’ former principal/superintendent. My mother, Katina Fontes, got the ACLU involved, and Wong decided to back down before the case blew up.

I decided to ask my brother a little more about this event.

On December 5th, 2014, after the murders of Michael Brown and Eric Gardner, a Black Lives Matter protest began on campus at Lincoln-Sudbury. My brother witnessed the first half of what appeared to be a peaceful demonstration. However, tensions rose after he returned to class. Other students began to counterprotest the BLM protestors by spitting on them and throwing objects.

Campus security was called to the scene.

Now, I wasn’t present. Yet, I can speculate about what went down based on my understanding of LS and its culture. The counterprotest will been a small, minor affair. It’s likely also that they were provocative—at fault in any altercation. After all, they appeared to be purely for the excuse to harass other students.

In an ideal world, there would be consequences for any aggressive behavior towards other students, especially during a demonstration organized to raise awareness of the countless murders of innocent Black and Brown people by police.

Instead of consequences, then-superintendent Bella Wong issued a declaration to all staff, students, and parents. It essentially banned any form of demonstration on campus, including for BLM. Any “coordinated” in-school demonstrations were prohibited for the rest of December.

When my mother read this, she was in shock. The first amendment has been legislated within schools many, many times.

My brother was — and he will admit this — an edgy Libertarian teen who liked a little thing called ‘freedom’. So, he came up with a plan: come to school with duct tape on his mouth - a clear protest against the school’s banning of all protests.

“I didn’t like the banning of protest,” he said, “It was poetic.”

Now, you might think, in this political climate, that this was some shocking new idea. However, students had previously practiced this many times for the National Day of Silence organized by GLSEN, or the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. These previous demonstrations were conceived as a way to show how queer voices are silenced in media and society.

Antonio explained that it didn’t take long for somebody to pull him aside for his stunt. While coming out of the cafeteria in the morning, a female admin beckoned him into an area around North House.

The room was grey, and had a table in the center.

“Yeah, it’s giving interrogation vibes,” I said on the phone as he told me this story.

With the tape still on his mouth, he was sat across from a campus security officer.

“Who are you?” said the officer. Antonio remained silent, with the tape still on his mouth. The officer handed him a Post-It note to write down his information. Antonio wrote, Why do you want to know?

“We need to know if you’re a student here,” the officer responded.

Antonio handed over his student ID to comply with the officer.

“Why the tape?” asked the officer. Antonio wrote his reasoning — protesting the banning of protests — on the Post-It.

“We cannot allow the tape because protests are banned for the foreseeable future,” the officer replied. Antonio stayed silent. “You have two options: take the tape off, or keep it on and go home.”

Antonio stayed steadfast. He wasn’t planning on removing the tape.

“I see in your record that you’ve missed a couple of days of school…” the officer continued. He implied that this would be revealed to our parents. Antonio had not mentioned his attendance record, and all the days away from school were due to illness, not skipping. The officer was probably not used to dealing with a goody two-shoes like my brother. Typically, at LS, anyone missing classes is probably skipping to go smoke weed.

But this type of tactic, from my time at Revere, is very common with administrators. They call it ‘leverage’ in the biz.

Unfortunately, this type of intimidation worked on my brother. He had a test to get to, so he ultimately complied, and removed the tape from his mouth. The officer let him go, and he walked off to class.

After the incident, my mother sent the following email:

Dear Ms. Wong and School Committee Members:

This past weekend my son shared with me an email sent to students from Ms. Wong regarding the events of the previous week and guidelines established in response for the remainder of the month of December. These guidelines included the following:

· Students and adults co-coordinating community building activities will be promoted

· Student-initiated in school demonstrations will not be permitted.

· Student dress evoking imagery of either perpetrator or victim akin to what occurred in Ferguson or Staten Island will not be permitted.

While I appreciate the desire on the part of Ms. Wong to show sensitivity to students negatively affected by the events both nationally and within the school boundaries last week, I am deeply disturbed by attempts on the part of the administration to in any way limit the first amendment rights of Lincoln-Sudbury students. The administration is restricting the rights of the many for the actions and discomfort of the few and this is not the standard set by the Supreme Court as an acceptable motive for impeding student free speech and expression. Specifically, a blanket limitation on clothing supporting a specific social or political movement clearly violates the decision made by the court in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969; 393 U.S. 503). In the majority opinion of this case, Justice Abe Fortas states:

In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.

On Monday my son was told that “symbols” expressing frustration with Ms. Wong’s guidelines were not permitted in the school because they might upset other students. This was relayed to him when he placed a piece of tape over his mouth to protest Sunday night's email. He ultimately made the decision to remove that tape rather than be sent home when a campus aide was brought in to speak with him. I do not begrudge his decision, but I certainly do not appreciate the school strong-arming him into giving up his rights.

While I am clearly unhappy with the actions of Ms. Wong on constitutional grounds, it is particularly upsetting in light of the long standing school culture of trust and freedom that has long existed within the walls of LSRHS. Students have NOT traditionally been placed on short leashes, but rather been given the space and freedom to make their own decisions. Good choices have been encouraged and this freedom has always come with the understanding that negative actions will have consequences. In this spirit, any inappropriate actions last week on the part of specific students should have been dealt with individually, not collectively with a ban on free speech.

I did not immediately write to complain because I wanted to allow the administration time to amend its policies and/or further clarify these policies within the parameters of free speech. This has not happened. I also wanted to give students the opportunity to take action on their own, for this is an opportunity to learn and grow. Some have taken non-violent action, but have also been discouraged with threats of sanctions by school administrators - tactics that work all too well on the young. It appears that at this point in time tensions have quelled in the school, but this has come at the expense of students trying to assert their first amendment rights. My son, for one, feels torn. He wants to take further action to remove the newly instituted policies but is not sure how to proceed and clearly the school is not encouraging him to stand up for his beliefs. He is also disappointed with his school – one that he has, until now, always loved and respected. Thus despite the seemingly positive end result, the means by which it was reached is, in my opinion, shocking and embarrassing. I expected more from LS.

Sincerely,

Katina Fontes

Bella Wong’s response?

Dear Ms. Fontes,

Thank you for taking the time to write and share your concerns. Yes, students generally have a right to assemble and exercise free speech in school. But I may and should put fair restrictions in place to protect school safety and protect against general disruption to teaching and learning. The restrictions are temporary as you have noted and they apply to only certain modes of expression. I am happy to meet with your son if he'd like to express his concerns to me directly.

Regards,

Bella Wong

Aha! There was only ONE MONTH scheduled of no free speech on campus. Makes sense.

My mother, a graceful woman, replied, after contacting the ACLU:

Dear Ms. Wong,

While I respect your right to administrate and manage the school environment, the first amendment does not make mention of “temporary” restrictions. Restrictions on civil liberties are restrictions regardless of the amount of time they are in place. First amendment restrictions must show that the students protesting are in some way disruptive – the fear of disruption from those outside the protest is not enough to warrant restriction.

As I mentioned in my previous email, I am most disturbed by your restrictions on dress and symbols of disagreement with the administration – I truly believe you have overstepped your boundaries on this issue. Fear of discomfort on the part of other students is an illegitimate reason for this restriction and a complete violation of civil liberties, temporary or not. Temporary restrictions on civil liberties should be limited to extreme cases of chaos or disorder – such as those found during civil war – not as a means of quashing disagreement with the power structure.

My son is a bit ambivalent at this point in regard to how or if to proceed. If he did decide to meet with you, I fail to see how a good talking to will help him better understand your decision. He has discussed his disagreement with your policies with both myself, an educator, and his father, an attorney, and we are in full agreement with his perspective on the issue.

When he was spoken with earlier in the week by school staff, it was made clear to him that the administration does not value his view. During this conversation he was asked “what makes you think you know better than Ms. Wong?” This clearly indicated to him that he was going to be treated like a child and not as an independent thinker.

At this point I am writing on my own behalf as a taxpayer and parent of both a student and former student at LS. My son is free to make his own decisions and may even at some point come to accept your policies. I, however, will not.

I have attached a document from the ACLU for your review. Please note under #1 where it quotes the Massachusetts Free Expression Act:

The right of students to freedom of expression in the public schools of the commonwealth shall not be abridged, provided that such right shall not cause any disruption or disorder within the school. Freedom of expression shall include, without limitation, the rights and responsibilities of students, collectively and individually (a) to express their views through speech and symbols, (b) to write, publish and disseminate their views, (c) to assemble peaceably on school property for the purpose of expressing their opinions. (Emphasis added)

I view LS as a unique high school with a unique environment of trust and freedom. I am proud of our school and its progressive nature. The high school is the main reason my family moved to Sudbury. I would hate for the actions of one administration to stain or change this environment.

Sincerely,

Katina Fontes

---

The case was ultimately picked up by the local press. However, I think it is significant that there was little description of the inciting incidents.

Here’s an excerpt from a 2014 Boston Globe article detailing the issue:

Student activism has raised tension at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School, where a Dec. 5 protest inside the school became heated. In response, school officials announced a temporary ban on demonstrations and on clothing "evoking imagery of either perpetrator or victim akin to what occurred in Ferguson or Staten Island.''

That drew a response from the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, which last week asked the school to rescind the policies.

"Kids ought to be commended for being thoughtful and concerned and wanting to do something about important issues,'' said Sarah Wunsch, deputy legal director for ACLU of Massachusetts. "Instead of being commended, they are being slapped down.''

Wunsch said the ACLU is also investigating a complaint from a student who attempted to protest the new policies by placing duct tape over his mouth while at school. Antonio Fontes, a senior, was told to remove the duct tape or else be sent home, said his mother, Katina Fontes.

"What happened to this student who was silently expressing himself and the censorship of speech is truly awful," Wunsch said.

The school department did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

Unfortunate that the circumstances surrounding my brother’s interrogation by campus police were not relayed adequately in the reports.

Here’s another excerpt from another 2014 Boston Globe article:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts has accused Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School officials of violating students’ free speech rights by prohibiting them from initiating in-school demonstrations and from wearing clothing with imagery associated with protests of recent shootings of unarmed black men by white police officers.

Superintendent Bella Wong put the policies in place after tensions rose during a protest inside the school on Dec. 5. About 100 students engaged in the demonstration related to grand jury decisions in the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., and Eric Garner in New York City.

“Students ought to be commended when they get involved in the issues of the day but this school has reacted exactly the opposite,’’ said Sarah Wunsch, deputy legal director for the state ALCU chapter. “If people take their rights seriously and get involved, that’s been slammed down very forcefully at Lincoln-Sudbury.’’

Why do I mention this clear violation of civil liberties at LS in reference to the Odgren/Alenson Case?

Because since this murder has been all but erased from the institution’s memory, it means that students are less likely to be involved in any student activism based on the rising tide of school violence and shootings.

If students don’t know that such a tragic event happened right on the campus where they stand, what would encourage students to sympathize with the students in other communities who feel unsafe daily, concerned about gun violence or intense student altercations?

I believe continuing to address the Odgren case at LS is useful, even this many years later. It could be the gateway to empathy for violence going on elsewhere.

But LS always wants to avoid tough subjects. They don’t want to deal with the Odgren Case. They don’t want to deal with protests on campus. They don’t want to deal with legal battles with the ACLU. They don’t want to deal with sexual assault reports. They don’t want disruption in any form.

What, then, do they actually want to do as an institution?

Before I came back from my teaching abroad, I didn’t know schools like Charlestown High or Revere High even existed.

I was in my own little bubble.

I thought my dad sharing stories about how “rough” Cambridge Public Schools used to be were just that—stories. He was probably embellishing the past, and, in any case, things must have moved on for the better since Cambridge in the 70s.

I was in a new era, a new generation, and LS was a “different kind of place”.

But unfortunately, I had not yet realized that LS being different meant that other school districts were going through the same traumas of poverty. Over and over and over again.

And of course, as we’ve explored in this series, LS wasn’t all that different anyway - even there, in the relative safety of suburbia -you could find violence, racism, and an administration lacking the wherewithal to deal with these issues responsibly.

Will continue in Part 4!