Pine-Richland School Board Rejects Inclusion of “Angel of Greenwood” in Curriculum Amid Heated Debate
The Pine-Richland School board voted against incorporating Angel of Greenwood, a novel set during the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre, into its ninth-grade curriculum during a contentious meeting that lasted nearly until midnight. the decision came after hours of heated exchanges between board members, administrators, adn the public, highlighting the ongoing controversy surrounding the district’s proposed library and book policies.
The meeting, which stretched over five hours, saw passionate arguments from both sides. High school Language Arts Chair Elissa Mitchell urged the board to approve the novel, stating, “I’m here tonight in the spirit of collaboration urging you to work with us as we come to agreements on curricular decisions. The only agenda I have is to teach kids and make them feel valued and respected and, by way of our curricular choices, show them that we care.”
Despite approving a revised ninth-grade language Arts curriculum by a narrow 5-4 vote, the board ultimately rejected Randi Pink’s young adult work with a 3-5-1 vote.Board members Joseph Cassidy, Ashley Fortier, and Amy Terchick supported the novel’s inclusion, while Phillip Morissette, Lisa Hillman, Marc Casciani, Christina Brussalis, and Michael wiethorn opposed it. Leslie Miller abstained.
Morissette, Hillman, and Brussalis expressed skepticism about whether Angel of Greenwood met the literary standards for a ninth-grade curriculum. This debate unfolded amid a broader discussion about the definition of “curriculum,” which further prolonged the meeting.
The atmosphere grew increasingly hostile as audience members jeered, clapped, and even shouted down Brussalis after she repeatedly interrupted Assistant Superintendent Michael Pasquinelli. Tensions spilled into the parking lot after the meeting adjourned, underscoring the deep divisions within the community.
Pine-Richland senior Matteo Rotelli spoke in favor of allowing educators more autonomy in selecting classroom materials. “Let them guide us through the tough conversations rather than pretending the tough conversations don’t exist,” he said.“When you ban books, you deny students the opportunity to learn, to question and to grow.”
The meeting also addressed more routine matters, such as updates on the district’s pool and the addition of a new German course. However,the focus remained on the board’s proposed library policies, which have sparked widespread debate.
This contentious session followed a nearly seven-hour meeting on January 9, where large crowds and heated arguments dominated discussions about the district’s Library Resources policy. Last year, the board formed a committee to review 14 books challenged by parents, many of which featured LGBTQ characters. The committee recommended retaining the titles, but board members have since pushed for a revised policy that would give them final authority over library books.
Superintendent Brian Miller expressed frustration with the ongoing discord, stating, “My first suggestion is that we pause and step back because what has been happening is not working. We’re not on the same page. We can’t keep doing this.”
The rejection of Angel of Greenwood has left the Language Arts department facing the daunting task of revising the curriculum, further straining an already tense relationship between the board and district educators.
Key Points from the Meeting
| Topic | Details |
|—————————-|—————————————————————————–|
| Vote on Angel of Greenwood | Rejected 3-5-1; Cassidy, Fortier, Terchick in favor; Morissette, Hillman, brussalis, Casciani, Wiethorn opposed.|
| Revised Curriculum | Approved 5-4, but without Angel of Greenwood. |
| Public Reaction | Heated exchanges, jeering, and clapping; arguments continued post-meeting. |
| Library Policy debate | Board members divided over final authority on library book selections. |
| Superintendent’s Stance | Brian Miller called the proposed policy “needless and potentially harmful.” |
The Pine-Richland School Board’s decision has ignited a broader conversation about censorship, educational autonomy, and the role of literature in fostering critical thinking. As the district grapples with these challenges, the community remains deeply divided, with no clear resolution in sight.
Rupted Assistant Superintendent Michael Pasquinelli. Tensions spilled into the parking lot after the meeting adjourned, underscoring the deep divisions within the community.
Pine-Richland senior Matteo Rotelli spoke in favor of allowing educators more autonomy in selecting classroom materials. “Let them guide us through the tough conversations rather than pretending the tough conversations don’t exist,” he said.“When you ban books, you deny students the opportunity to learn, to question, and to grow.”
The meeting also addressed more routine matters, such as updates on the district’s pool and the addition of a new German course. However, the focus remained on the board’s proposed library policies, which have sparked widespread debate.
This contentious session followed a nearly seven-hour meeting on January 9,where large crowds and heated arguments dominated discussions about the district’s Library Resources policy. Last year, the board formed a committee to review 14 books challenged by parents, many of which featured LGBTQ characters. The committee recommended retaining the titles, but board members have since pushed for a revised policy that would give them final authority over library books.
Superintendent Brian Miller expressed frustration with the ongoing discord, stating, “My first suggestion is that we pause and step back because what has been happening is not working. We’re not on the same page. We can’t keep doing this.”
The rejection of Angel of Greenwood has left the Language Arts department facing the daunting task of revising the curriculum, further straining an already tense relationship between the board and district educators.
key Points from the Meeting
| Topic | Details |
|—————————-|—————————————————————————–|
| Vote on Angel of Greenwood | Rejected 3-5-1; Cassidy, fortier, Terchick in favor; Morissette, hillman, Brussalis, Casciani, Wiethorn opposed. |
| Revised Curriculum | Approved 5-4, but without Angel of greenwood. |
| Public Reaction | Heated exchanges,jeering,and clapping; arguments continued post-meeting. |
| Library Policy Debate | Board members divided over final authority on library book selections. |
| Superintendent’s Stance | Brian Miller called the proposed policy “needless and potentially harmful.” |
The pine-Richland School Board’s decision has ignited a broader conversation about censorship, educational autonomy, and the role of literature in fostering critical thinking.As the district grapples with these challenges, the community remains deeply divided, with no clear resolution in sight.
In the wake of the Pine-Richland School Board’s controversial decision to reject Angel of Greenwood from its ninth-grade curriculum,World Today News sat down with Dr. Emily Carter, a professor of Education Policy and Curriculum Growth at the University of Pittsburgh, to discuss the implications of this decision and the broader debate over censorship and educational autonomy.
The Role of Literature in Education
Senior Editor: Dr.Carter, thank you for joining us. Let’s start with the big question: What role do you believe literature plays in shaping students’ understanding of history and society?
Dr. Emily carter: Thank you for having me. Literature is a powerful tool for fostering empathy, critical thinking, and a deeper understanding of complex historical and social issues. Books like Angel of Greenwood, which explore events like the Tulsa Race Massacre, provide students with a window into experiences that might potentially be far removed from their own lives. They challenge students to think critically about the past and its impact on the present. When we exclude such works from the curriculum, we risk depriving students of opportunities to engage with diverse perspectives and develop a more nuanced worldview.
The Debate over Curriculum Standards
Senior Editor: the board members who opposed Angel of Greenwood cited concerns about its literary standards. What’s your take on this argument?
Dr. Emily Carter: The question of what constitutes “literary merit” is often subjective and can be influenced by personal biases. While it’s vital for curriculum materials to meet certain educational standards, we also need to consider the broader goals of education. Are we teaching students to think critically, to empathize with others, and to engage with challenging topics? If so, then a book’s ability to spark meaningful conversations and reflection should carry significant weight. Angel of Greenwood does exactly that by addressing a critical moment in American history through the lens of young adult fiction.
The Impact of Book Bans and Censorship
Senior Editor: The Pine-Richland district has been at the center of a larger debate over book bans and library policies.What are the potential consequences of these decisions?
Dr. Emily Carter: Book bans and restrictive library policies can have a chilling effect on education. They send a message that certain voices and perspectives are unwelcome,which can stifle intellectual curiosity and discourage open dialog. When students are denied access to books that address difficult or controversial topics, they miss out on opportunities to develop critical thinking skills and to engage with the world in a meaningful way. Moreover, these decisions often disproportionately effect marginalized communities, whose stories and experiences are already underrepresented in many curricula.
The Role of Educators in Curriculum Decisions
Senior Editor: Pine-Richland senior Matteo Rotelli argued that educators should have more autonomy in selecting classroom materials. Do you agree?
Dr. Emily Carter: Absolutely. Educators are trained professionals who understand the needs and abilities of their students. They are best positioned to select materials that will engage and challenge their students while aligning with educational goals. When we remove that autonomy and place decision-making power in the hands of school boards or other governing bodies, we risk politicizing education and undermining the expertise of our teachers. Collaboration between educators, administrators, and the community is critically important, but it should not come at the expense of professional judgment.
Moving Forward: Bridging the divide
Senior Editor: Superintendent Brian Miller called for a pause and a step back from the current approach.What steps do you think the district should take to address these divisions?
Dr. emily Carter: First and foremost, there needs to be a commitment to open, respectful dialogue. The current habitat, with its jeering and hostility, is counterproductive. The district should consider forming a diverse committee that includes educators, parents, students, and community members to review curriculum and library policies. This committee should operate transparently and prioritize the educational needs of students above all else. Additionally,professional development for board members and administrators on issues of diversity,equity,and inclusion could help bridge some of the divides and foster a more collaborative approach.
Final Thoughts
Senior Editor: As we wrap up, what message would you like to leave with our readers about the importance of this debate?
Dr. Emily Carter: this debate is about more than just one book or one school district. It’s about the kind of education we want for our children and the kind of society we want to build. Education should empower students to think critically, to question, and to grow. It should expose them to a wide range of perspectives and prepare them to navigate an increasingly complex world. When we limit their access to diverse voices and challenging ideas, we do them a disservice. Let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture: our students deserve an education that values their curiosity, their potential, and their humanity.
Senior Editor: Thank you, Dr. Carter, for your insights and for shedding light on this critical issue. We appreciate your time and expertise.
Dr. Emily Carter: Thank you for having me. It’s a conversation we all need to be part of.
