School Committee Decides to Defend Banner

The Cranston School Committee voted 4-3 to defend the prayer banner painted on the auditorium wall at Cranston High School West and a similar one at Bain Middle School after listening to hours of emotional testimony in a crowded auditorium at Western Hills Middle School last night.

The deciding vote, cast by School Committee Chairman Andrea Iannazzi, was the culmination of exhausting testimony that ranged from discussions of the Columbine shooting, 9/11, swastikas and burning flags to Mother Teresa, the crucifixion and To Kill a Mockingbird.

Hidden among biblical references and admonishment of state-sponsored religion was the dirty little secret that the Cranston School District faces a $6.1 million budget deficit, and is in the midst of a repayment plan with the city at a cost of $1.4 million per year.

Despite this, the school board has decided to stand its ground and defend the banner which has caused controversy for its use of the intro “Our heavenly father” and the ending “Amen” against a possible lawsuit by the Rhode Island chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

“Swastikas offend me,” said School Committee member Frank Lombardi, “Burning of flags offend me, but a positive moral message that a child can choose or not choose to read certainly does not offend me.”

Current students are not required to recite or read the prayer.

David Bradley, Cranston West class of 1963, the author of the prayer, spoke about its origins.  He said he was tasked to write the prayer and the creed as a student council member in 1960 at the request of his advisor and the school administration.

“My prayer is non-denominational,” he said, referring to the body of the prayer which espouses moral values such as doing your best, being honest, kind and helpful and valuing friendship and sportsmanship, “It was constructed that way to offend no one.”

Jessica Ahlquist, a Cranston West sophomore who has become the face of the movement to take down the banner, disagreed.

“In America we have the choice to believe or not to believe,” said Ahlquist, “I believe that having this prayer in a public school filled with all different beliefs endorses a specific religion.  I and many of my friends and others feel this is discriminating against us.”

Ahlquist, who also served on the banner subcommittee, noted that the city’s lawyer had told the committee that in these cases it’s rare for the prayer to be kept.

Bradley said he would be “angry” and “disappointed” if the banner were to be taken down.

“We’re aspiring to a higher being,” he said. “When you lose that you lose your way.”

Others in the audience took a similar tone.

Lisa French, a Cranston resident, was perhaps the most energetic speaker of the night in support of the banner.

“To the atheists present,” she said, “You’re entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong you are.”  

She spoke about 9/11 and the rise in Church attendance, then warned the School Committee in a raised voice that their vote may affect them later. “On judgment day you will be judged when you stand before almighty God.”

After, she returned to her seat to a chorus of applause.

A majority of the people in the room were supporters of the banner.  Inside the auditorium there was a palpable sense of discord between those who wore the blue signs that read “KEEP ORIGNIAL BANNER” and the identified atheists who sat in a corner of the room.

The dialogue of the issue has grown particularly tense and aggressive on online message boards of articles relating to the issue.  One speaker, Debbie Tomlins, noted that death threats were made against the anonymous person who tipped off the ACLU about the banner.

“It’s been hard for me to believe that from one prayer painted on the wall at Cranston West and a similar message at Bain Middle School, that all of this has taken place,” said Tomlins. “This media coverage, tempers flaring, name calling, police escorts; it’s out of control.”

The school committee had brought in three Cranston police officers to stand guard at the back of the auditorium.

“A lot of us have those WWJD bracelets,” said School Committee member Stephanie Culhane, addressing the open opposition between the two sides. “Think about it. What would he do if he sat here tonight and listened to you passing judgment on either myself or other people sitting here or people whose views differ from yours?”

She reminded the residents that the school district has cut 220 full-time employees, the gifted program, sports programs and the music program in order to pay back the $6.1 million deficit and balance its budget. But now, the school district faces the possibility of an expensive lawsuit against the ACLU.

“So many of you have written to us and said please don’t make our taxes go up,” said Culhane. “But then you sit here today and say it’s ok to take that Foxwoods gamble on the possibility that we may win this case. If we lose we will have to pay back the ACLU fees, then what will happen, where will you all be?”

Culhane said her vote against defending the banner is not against the message of the banner, but against the cost of defending the case against the ACLU.

“Our financial house on the School Committee is built on sand right now,” Culhane said. “The winds are blowing and the floods are here, and we cannot afford any more debt to incur.”

School Committee members Janice Ruggieri and Steven Bloom also voted against defending the banner.

“I am not willing to spend a penny on anything other than education right now,” Ruggieri said.

Bloom, who is Jewish, noted that none of the prayer books at his synagogue included the term “our heavenly father.”  He said that he was not offended by the banner, but that there has been a cultural shift toward tolerance that has occurred since the ‘60s when this banner was written.

“We’ve learned to be more tolerant of other people,” said Bloom, who invoked Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird to express the fact that even the most underrepresented population deserves to be respected.

“It’s not fair that the majority get bullied out of something that they believe is important. But at the same time, we need to find a balance for even if it’s one person who’s offended by it,” Bloom said.

Committee members Michael Traficante and Frank Lombardi, both Catholic, stood firmly in support of defending the banner.

Lombardi, who kept the over three pages of speakers to a maximum of three minutes speaking time, asserted that it was his “God-given right to take as long as [he] wants.”

He admitted that if the district were to lose this case that they will have to pay for it, but that upholding the morality of the student population was an important part of his job and therefore would be supporting the “non-denominational” prayer.

Traficante reiterated that point.  He said the banner in his opinion is not discriminatory.

“It’s our obligation to protect the moral fabric of our students,” Traficante said.  “And that banner does that.”

With the committee tied at 3-3, it was up to School Committee chairman Andrea Iannazzi to break the tie. She chose to defend the banner. Loud applause echoed through the room.

“This country was founded not on freedom from religion, but on freedom of religion,” she said. “Each person has the ability to practice whatever religion they want, that does not mean they have freedom from religions being practiced.”

She said that the banner was an important part of history in Cranston and that the city “stands for the code of being and the morals that are expressed in that banner.”

Perhaps lost in all of this is the views of the students at Cranston West. Two students — Jessica Ahlquist and Eric Borrelli — represented each side eloquently, but were far from representing the views of the entire school.

Jonathan Delfuso, a junior at Cranston West said the banner was never really an issue until these meetings to decide its fate got underway.

“90% of the students didn’t even notice the banner before this began,” said Delfuso, who noted that in order to see it you have to look up at a part of the wall that is often hard to see.

“I think a lot of it is semantics,” he said.