Note: This article is on the “Winter Community Tree” discussed in December 2011.
December was a month of controversy for Aragon students. Passions were ignited, sides were taken, and a “Winter Community Tree” was covered in toilet paper.
Despite the controversy and rumor surrounding the “Winter Community Tree” Leadership put up last year, the actual story is pretty straightforward. A group of Leadership students—none of whom identified themselves as Christian—put up what they called a “Winter Community Tree” in an attempt to foster holiday spirit. The majority of the school saw this tree as what it really was—a Christmas tree. Offended by the justifiably exclusionary symbol, the non-Christian and secular communities expressed their discomfort with the tree. After a week of argument, the tree was still standing. Tempers began to cool, though no concrete resolution was ever reached. Finally, on the last day of break, a student, or a group of students, broke into the school and threw toilet paper all over the tree, put up a menorah and a hung a sign that read “Happy Chanukah” on the tree.
While Aragon’s ever-present apathy has shrouded and diluted the whole business of the tree, neither side feels as if the other side has proven themselves as entirely justified in their argument. Leadership failed to anticipate the reaction to the tree, the administration failed to represent the entire school, and the opposition failed to present their opinions judiciously. But ultimately, the lack of resolution comes down to each sides’ inability to understand the others’ complaints.
In Leadership’s pro-tree point of view, the tree had two purposes: to promote holiday spirit, and to promote the “Toys for Tots” drive. Almost everyone agrees that Leadership had good intentions. And if good intentions were not enough to justify the tree, Leadership checked with the administration before putting up the tree and Ms. Kurtz approved it. So to say that Leadership acted out of ignorance or with disregard to the maintenance of a secular public school would not be entirely fair. Furthermore, both the administration and Leadership acted in accordance to a ruling made by The Supreme Court in 1984 in the Lynch vs Donnelly case, which reclassified Christmas Trees as secular, non-Christian commercial symbols, and announced them as fit to be displayed in government institutions such as public schools.
The other, anti-tree side also had a variety of justified arguments. After reflecting, one can see that what was initially perceived as an “overreaction” by some can be seen as a passionate response to an unjust action by others. The minorities at Aragon, seeing what they regarded as a Christian symbol in their school, were perfectly justified in their responses. Minorities with a history of discrimination are justified in their objections to even the smallest sign of movement down what could prove to be a slippery slope, and it’s perfectly feasible to see the tree as a gateway into something larger. And while The Supreme Court protects the tree, the opposing side’s right to speak their mind about it is protected by the Constitution itself.
What is not protected by the Constitution, however, is a blatant, ill-inspired act of vandalism. No matter what its motive was, the TPing of the tree was a decision that utterly lacked judgment. While no one knows the why the tree was TPed, no motive can possibly justify it.
If the TPing was intended purely as a joke, then the prankster made two phenomenally ignorant mistakes—they simultaneously insulted Leadership’s efforts and incriminated the Jewish community with their inflammatory use of a menorah and a “Happy Chanukah” sign. To see a piece of Jewish heritage being represented next to an act of vandalism, and to see Chanukah being associated with a tree draped in toilet paper was deeply upsetting. Poor judgment unintentionally sent an offensive message to Leadership, the Jewish community, and the Christians who saw the tree as evocative as the Christmas season.
If the TPing of the tree was an attack on it by those who opposed it, then it is shocking to see what methods they resorted to in their protest. Rather than use a civil, organized forum to protest the tree, they resorted to a petty attack on the tree itself. If they were protesting the existence of a religious object in a public school, then they were wildly hypocritical as they put up blatantly religious references to the Jewish holiday of Chanukah. If it was an attempt to discredit the tree itself, any legitimacy the TPers could claim to have was destroyed with each roll of toilet paper draped over the tree’s controversial branches.
Now many will question what the point is of dwelling on this argument; both sides said their fair share, the Outlook covered the story, and the tree was taken down with the New Year. But the fact of the matter is that we left the debacle open ended with no solution, and no guideline for avoiding a similar situation in the future. While Leadership did offer individual apologies to those who felt personally offended by the tree, there was no agreement between sides as to how to avoid a future conflict such as this one.
Obviously, the Administration did not competently judge how the student body would react to the tree. Perhaps Leadership needs a better way to judge what reactions will be before pursuing public projects such as the tree.
We are left with a resolution that feels incomplete. Was the tree a mistake? Is the reaction it received only indicative of our school, or does it represent how the rest of the nation would react to a similar event? It raises the question as to how far one should go to avoid conflict in their actions as well as their reactions to those of others.
At the end of the day, the only clear fact is how unclear the “Winter Community Tree” debacle really was.
