When Zealots Wage War - resolving conflict and spurious attacks from unpopular decisions

School Administrator, Feb, 1997 by Bruce L. Dennis

A Superintendent's Defence Plan Against an Unwarranted and Spurious Attack

Superintendents are no strangers to controversy. We often are called upon to mediate disputes, and we are too well aware that our decisions will be unpopular to some of those affected.

In these frequently contentious times, many of us have come to rely more on our ability to resolve conflict than upon virtually any other skill.

Beginning in the spring of 1995, however, I found my school district and myself under virulent attack from two parents who questioned our educational practices, challenged us personally and professionally, and accused us of promoting Satanism in our schools. The entire episode, which regrettably continues, has been a learning experience for me and our entire community. It has tested us in ways that none of us could have imagined.

The Opening Salvo

The Bedford Central School District enrolls 3,360 students, who attend five elementary schools, Fox Lane Middle School for grades 6-8, and Fox Lane High School. We serve the communities of Bedford, Bedford Hills, Mount Kisco, and Pound Ridge--Westchester County suburbs about 40 miles from Manhattan. Our district is ethnically and socio-economically diverse. Some students come from multimillion dollar homes, while a small percentage qualify for free and reduced price lunches. We are a highly regarded, high-performing school district in one of the country's most affluent counties and long have enjoyed a positive reputation for the quality of our schools.

In late March 1995,1 was contacted by two parents who objected to a small number of fourth-grade and middle school students who were involved before and after school in playing Magic: The Gathering[R], a trading card game produced by Wizards of the Coast, a firm in Renton, Wash. Magic: The Gathering [R] is a strategic card game using mathematical principles. In simplest terms, the goal of the game is to cast spells as a means of attacking your opponent in an effort to reduce his "life total" to 0 or less. Your opponent tries to block your attacks and institutes attacks of his or her own.

The game was designed by a Ph.D. in mathematics. Like chess and bridge, it has developed a professional playing circuit, where participants can earn cash prizes. In 1996, the company's professional tour offered a combined prize purse of $1 million over a series of five tournaments.

The two parents objected to students playing the game on school property. They were accompanied by a child psychiatrist who lived outside our school district and who supported their religious objections to the game. Also present at the meeting were two school board members who were invited by the objecting parents, along with two parents whose children played the game before and after school. One of the mothers ran the voluntary fourth-grade group.

I gave everyone at the meeting a chance to express an opinion. The two complainants argued the game was dangerous because it posed a mental health hazard to young children. While I did not believe the game carried any harm to the participants, I imposed a 30-day moratorium on the game playing during which I submitted the game for review by three independent, highly regarded mental health professionals in our region (but outside the school district), including two child psychiatrists and a child psychologist. Each doctor was provided with a full set of the photographic images contained on the playing cards, provided to me by the game's producers, and a rule book governing the game's play.

I asked the doctors to answer three questions:

* Is there anything that is so disturbing or dangerous in the game's potential impact that the school should not serve as a forum for the game's play?

* Do the cards, by virtue of their content, pose a mental health hazard of any kind?

* Is there a need to restrict voluntary student participation, with parental consent, according to the children's age or developmental stage?

Unexpected Criticism

The response to my imposing a 30-day moratorium was especially interesting. Many parents whose children participated in the game vociferously disapproved of the moratorium. They accused me of selling out to those who would censor and control creative expression and of failing to maintain our schools as "hallmarks of intellectual openness and freedom."

Especially ironic was the criticism leveled at me by personal friends and professional colleagues whose children attended our schools and participated in this activity. My response was that as superintendent I could not fail to take seriously charges that we were engaged in practices that could be harmful to children. Using an analogy to allegations that our drinking water was polluted, I contended that the only prudent course would be to test the water, not blithely argue that it tasted all right so it must be pure.

Despite the criticism to which I was subjected and the irony that it came from people whose essential values I shared, the moratorium and professional review of the game turned out to be some of the wisest decisions I have ever made.