I remember June 26, 2015, clearly. I was glued to the TV, anxiously awaiting the outcome of a monumental Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage: Obergefell v. Hodges. Monitoring the Supreme Court wasn’t one of my usual 10-year-old pastimes — my interest was rooted in my own and many other people’s right to marry.
One of the clearest images of that day was a rainbow flag: a symbol that cemented itself as a hallmark of joy and acceptance. Each color has a rich meaning — red for life, orange for healing, yellow for sunlight, green for nature, indigo for serenity and purple for spirit. It’s a symbol of pride — one that flies across the nation, a triumphant North Star for my community to look up at and know that the harm and pain we have suffered has not been futile. Modern iterations such as the progress pride flag also recognize people of color, transgender people and those lost to the AIDS crisis. These flags symbolize inclusion and recognition: actions we have been historically denied.
Despite the passage of a proclamation in support of the LGBTQ+ community, members of the San Mateo Union High School District’s Board of Trustees compared our flag to a sports flag, meant to advertise and attract. Completely devoid of the history and symbolism the pride flag holds, this comparison trivializes and mocks the meaning of the rainbow flag, distracting from its hard-earned legitimacy. Additionally, Trustee Robert Griffin compared the rainbow flag to the Confederate flag. The implication that the Confederate flag, a symbol of vitriol and hatred, is comparable to the rainbow flag, is grossly negligent and harmful. The comments made at the May 20 Board meeting are insensitive and disappointing. However, I am unsurprised. Our district lacks comprehensive, inclusive LGBTQ+ sex education. Dozens upon dozens of documented instances of on-campus homophobia and transphobia have been reported online. Students have been harassed and invalidated time and time again. Administrators have failed to take sufficient action.
The Trustees’ comments defied the Board’s previous commitments to equality and allyship. This past October, it took a Grand Jury report to urge administrators into action following a slew of racist acts. To support Black and Brown students and faculty is to support LGBTQ+ Black and Brown students and faculty; the intersectionality of these identities must not be overlooked. The Board has made declarations of support toward Black and Brown community members, and the comments made comparing the Confederate flag to the pride flag fly in the face of their previous commitment to allyship.
“Administrators have failed to take sufficient action”
The state of California has incorporated the pride flag into the month of June since 2019 without issue, in accordance with U.S. Flag Code.
The logic of the Board’s initial decision doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Trustees Robert Griffin and Peter Hanley both cited precedent as reasoning to avoid allowing the rainbow flag to fly.
“If we give one group recognition by flying a flag we have to give every group recognition by flying a flag,” Griffin said in the May 20 Board meeting. “Or we will be hard-pressed to defend our position.”
Policy can easily be enacted to prevent Griffin and Hanley’s fear of public expression via the flagpole from becoming reality. The Board itself agendized the discussion of the flag along with the proclamation, rather than an outside group calling it to the Board’s attention. The city of San Jose’s flag policy outlines that requests to fly flags other than State and U.S. flags must be raised internally, by a council member or the Mayor. If we replicate this policy on a Board level, excessive public expression and requests will not be an issue. If anything, it proves to us that online outreach and community organizing is effective.
During the special meeting on June 4, I heard about concerned emails Trustees received from the community more than future steps to support LGBTQ+ students on campus. The action taken on the Board’s part to reverse their initial decision through an emergency meeting is damage control.
I appreciate Board Trustees Greg Land’s, Ligia Andrade Zúñiga’s and Linda Lees Dwyer’s steps to alleviate the harm of the May 20 statements. Their defense of the motion to fly the flag and examination of flag code and precedence legitimized and supported those who spoke during public comment. Griffin’s apology and rescission of his original vote was a promising step.
However, the 4-1 vote to raise the pride flag at district sites is not the end. The homophobia, transphobia and queerphobia that runs rampant on campus cannot be dismissed with a simple proclamation. Policy changes can include LGBTQ+ inclusive sex education, LGBTQ+ history, improved responses to bigotry on campus and improved access to mental health resources. San Mateo Pride Center offers to work with administration toward acceptance and improved campus atmospheres.
It is vital that students feel safe reporting and seeking justice in cases of harassment and abuse. While flying the flag is a visible commitment to allyship, it is just the be- ginning of a long journey toward supporting the LGBTQ+ community.
