The Brookings School District has publicly apologized to new graduate Miles Livermont for illegally seizing the eagle feather he wore to graduation last Sunday:
A statement from Brookings School District Superintendent Klint Willert released Tuesday afternoon says:
“On behalf of the Brookings School District, I want to offer a sincere apology for events that transpired at the graduation ceremony for the class of 2019.
“After Miles Livermont, a graduating senior, was observed with an eagle feather attached to his graduation mortarboard, high school staff and administration requested the feather be removed. The practice of preventing modifications to mortarboards or graduation gowns has been a long-held practice of the Brookings School District. Following the request by district officials, Miles removed the feather from his mortarboard. After an unsuccessful attempt to contact his parents to hold the feather, Miles proceeded to ask a high school staff member to hold the feather for safe keeping until the conclusion of the graduation ceremony.
“As the ceremony was beginning, Miles’ parents realized the feather was not attached to the mortarboard. They then located the feather and attached the sacred object to the mortarboard for the graduation ceremony. Miles fully participated in the remainder of the graduation ceremony with the sacred feather attached to his mortarboard. He was awarded his diploma along with over 190 other graduates.
“The Brookings School District honors and respects the significance of the sacred eagle feather and pledges to equally respect the law which protects tribal regalia and objects of cultural significance to be worn at a school honoring or graduation ceremony. The School District regrets the misapplication of its longstanding practice of denying modified mortarboards and gowns at graduation. Looking forward, the district will take the necessary steps to ensure students are allowed to express pride in their tribal heritage at future school honorings and graduation ceremonies. Specifically, we extend our apology to Miles and his entire family and have scheduled a meeting with the family to discuss this matter further.
“On behalf of all involved in this matter from the Brookings School District, I offer my sincere and heartfelt apology. We know that graduation often marks the final experience in our school district for students and, unfortunately, Miles last experience was not as joyous as it might have been. For that, we are truly sorry” [Jill Fier, “School District Apologizes for Feather Removal,” Brookings Register, 2019.05.29].
“Request” doesn’t sound like what Miles Livermont and his mom, Tasiyagnunpa Livermont Barondeau, experienced. The school officials “insisted” Livermont remove the feather, despite his explanation of the state law protecting his right to wear tribal regalia at graduation.
This violation of state law didn’t come from some lower-level teacher or counselor. The top man at Brookings High School, principal Paul von Fischer, illegally confiscated the feather, in apparent and inexcusable ignorance of SDCL 13-1-66. But Livermont says he sees no racism or bigotry in von Fischer’s error:
Livermont said von Fischer also personally apologized to him during a meeting Wednesday morning, although he said the public apology coming from someone not involved with the incident felt sort of like “a parent apologizing for their son.”
But he also wanted to call out a rumor that von Fischer had forcefully taken the feather from him as false.
“He’s helped me in my academic career,” he said. “He’s not a racist or a bigot. He was just trying to enforce a school policy, and he infringed on state law” [Trevor Mitchell, “Brookings School District Apologizes for Taking Feather from Student at Graduation,” that Sioux Falls paper, 2019.05.29].
Principal von Fischer may not need cultural diversity training, but he does need to read Dakota Free Press to stay on top of Legislative changes affecting school policy.
Miles Livermont is my hero. Everyone learned from his and his parents courage in standing up for their culture and rights. And he showed graciousness in accepting the apology. And Superintendent Willert did the right thing in extending the school district’s apology, too. I know it may seem to be like a parent apologizing for a child, but it’s really not. It really is the responsibility of the school district, school board and ultimately the Superintendent to make sure policies are up to date, and that everyone understands them.
I too appreciate the honorable way Miles Livermont and his family handled this illegal affront. I’m willing to give credit to the Brookings school district for the direct offender delivering a personal apology to Mr. Livermont while the highest official issued an apparently sincere and well written public apology.
That’s how you do it, for both sides. No glossing over, no minimizing. Adults standing up and being adults.
Well shoot. I agree with debbo. That’s twice now. I don’t know how to feel.
L’il Rhyan’s Freudian slip made Porter smile. He meant to say, “I don’t know what to feel.” Many of us know that he/she doesn’t know how to feel aka unfeeling.
It’s just the promotion of ignorance. More multicultural nonsense based here on the dire liberal need to respect all superstitions equally. Get real if humanity started accepting they are adaptive biological beings and nothing more, no Big G in any way, shape or form, no hunting god either never was never will be, maybe we’d start to embrace and appreciate each other for what we really are and how we came to be with no concern for skin color, minor differences in dna, with minor concern over cultural differences (often originating from our ignorant social beginnings). But not only must these ignorances be tolerated but elevated, lest god forbid someone be offended. Well I’m offended, offended in the year 2019 atheist liberals won’t start speaking some truth about what humanity really is cause they’ve got to respectfully bow to every culture when what’s going on around us is simply the incredible adaption of the human animal. Take your religions and your unbounded tolerance and …. well. Grow up!!! Graduate from Kindergarten. No feathers allowed!!! No holy bibles. No Koran. Education especially should not be a place of ignorance don’t get me started on Noem and her signs. Think about that though, what are we, and how we came to be here. You were a fish, then a bird, all that as humanity formed, but now it’s critical a certain young human we call Native American get to put a feather in his cap. It’s absurd and ludicrous.
That’s selfish. Happy Camper is offended that liberals elevate tolerance but wants liberals to tolerate and even praise the way he believes.
HC, that’s funny! “Get real if humanity started accepting they are adaptive biological beings and nothing more, no Big G in any way, shape or form, no hunting god either never was never will be.”
Everyone should just adopt your nonbelief system and we’d all live happily ever after.
😄😄😄😄😄😄
Memo to Ryan, hit yer knees and be grateful Ms Debbo graces DFP with her presence and learned perspectives.
I think so Deb. Obviously I’m exaggerating for effect (slightly). Heidelberger told the agnostics to get off the fence and stand for something. Well, if a person embraces science, then they have to be logical at every turn. In my view culture is minor, just an outgrowth of powerful evolutionary forces, so it’s fine to appreciate them to some extent, but put them into perspective for what they are in the greater understanding of what humanity is, and in that sense we are all very much alike. People make way too much out of trivial cultural matters. Of course don’t try to offend someone, but culture is just culture. A sort of mirage, or a layer of top skin above us all being the same, although without a doubt it can be very separating and dangerous in the minds of those who prioritize it at the top, which is why I think in the long run science (not faith) will bring people together.
Without culture or respect for it, you are Donald Trump.
After all these years living in South Dakota there is one thing that always hold trued, all racism can be explained away and when racist acts are covered up we can all hold hands and sing happy songs.
HC, I think you realize I was being sarcastic. Culture is valuable, though it should never become a system to exclude or rate human beings. It sounds like we both agree on that.
Culture is the source of beauty, art, food and other things powerfully valuable to human existence. I would not want to live without it.
As social animals humans naturally come together and develop culture because that is also part of our nature. Culture binds us together and creates safety in an often unsafe world.
I would never diminish the value of culture. The variety is a beautiful and educational thing.
Back a few years ago, when Steven Tyler was a judge on American Idol, he adopted the style of wearing feathers in his hair. For about a year it was cool for people to wear feathers. Granted, these weren’t eagle feathers and didn’t hold any particular cultural significance, at least none that I heard about. My sweatie did this for about a year, so I learned about how they did this, which, I believe, was somewhat like how they do extensions. At any rate, there are cultural reasons and style reasons to wear feathers. From his comment, I’m not sure if happy camper would ban feathers that are a stylistic statement or ones that are a cultural statement.
A state law has been broken and yet no punishment has been meted out.
Why have a law if it can’t be enforced?
Hear, hear Roger Cornelius. Is it not a real law? Is it only a law for show? Is it just a “white man’s law” which means nothing in practice? I’m watching “DEADWOOD: The Movie”. The language of the law is beautiful but the application of the law hasn’t changed in 150 years. (Charlie Utter is grudznick, isn’t he?)
I’m not here to ban anybody’s feathers, but years ago some 7th graders started attaching clothespins to their shoelaces, then everyone in school felt the need to do the same. Human beings are a weird bunch. Often, in many ways, I can agree with Deb, except for her lifetime devotion to the great white bearded father, which actually she never crams down your throat. Roger does seem to see race as a real, more distinctive thing while I tend to agree with Lawrence Diggs just colors of the rainbow. Well, different colors because humanity spread to different parts of the world, adjusted skin pigmentation, blah blah blah. That science thing.
“Roger does seem to see race as a real, more distinctive thing.”
Based on experience HC. He’s been hit in the face with it enough times to recognize that how real Roger sees skin color irrelevant. It’s how often others see it.
So it’s interesting to hear Diggs say people hold on to the concept of race, even when it oppresses them. Perception is reality sort of thing. I was always curious about those white lines (referenced in his talk) painted across the roads of cattle states and assumed it was like the adult elephants who don’t understand they can easily pull out the small stake they have been tied since infancy. To Diggs those barriers don’t exist. Ted Talk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2GP76n8G1w
I have neither the time nor inclination to discuss why race matters except to say I’m glad we are aren’t all white with the same culture and traditions.
I have never been oppressed or suppressed and neither has anyone in my family. We were taught at early age not to allow people of any color to abuse or shame us.
I’m happy that Lawrence Diggs can have such an attitude in a state that routinely demonstrates its racism.
Pigmentation and cultural differences are a realty whether anyone wants to accept it or not.
I am not white, I am of the Oneida Tribe of Indians and of the Lakota Sioux Tribe, there is no denying that nor would I want it any different.
Only a racist or supremely ignorant individual would claim that POC are oppressing themselves.
Debbo
Friday night at the Vicki Powers Family Park in north Rapid City someone took it upon themselves to graffiti children’s playground equipment with anti-Indian and Nazi swastikas.
It is likely one of those people that don’t see color lines.
I hope that Brookings School District is sued in state court for a blatant violation of state law and in Federal Court under a Section 1983 action (civil rights) under the theories of the violation and that it could be repeated. Today I saw the Heard Museum’s display on the Indian internment camps for children to rub the Indian out of them. This crime went on for over 50 years at about 400 boarding schools. South Dakota NEEDS an Indian children internment (boarding school) museum — so we don’t forget. They haven’t forgot. Most in the majority apparently have or don’t care.
https://heard.org/exhibits/boardingschool/
Roger, they probably don’t.
John, I agree. White Americans would be better people if they had a healthy dose of humility.
Way at the top, Donald makes a good point about schools, chain of command, and public relations. It’s reasonable for the superintendent to handle the apology and speak for the district publicly. The superintendent has discretion to allow the principal to issue a statement as well, but I can understand making sure that the message is relayed by the appropriate spokesperson. Having that message come from the very top person makes the apology even more significant—rather like having the President himself apologize for an error committed by a department Secretary or some other subordinate.
Donald is also right that the superintendent bears at least equal responsibility for failing to make sure his HS principal was not fully briefed on the law affecting graduation.
Thinking about Hap’s critique: it’s funny that, as the secular humanist and agnostic-razzer in the room, I’m able to justify the tribal regalia policy purely from the perspective of respecting sovereign nations in our midst, without any reference to endorsement of spirituality or superstition.
Cory
If the young Mr. Livermont can be so graciously accept the school superintendent’s apology there is no reason I shouldn’t accept it as well.
It continues to amaze me that a law has been broken, but apparently there are no consequences for breaking that law. Why bother?
I appreciate your point, Roger: The Brookings School District broke the law. They quickly rectified the situation, as Miles got his feather and walked across the stage, but that’s like saying I was speeding but slowed down after the officer flashed his cherries at me, so I shouldn’t get a ticket.
Does Miles have to press charges to exact some punishment on the school?
“Does Miles have to press charges to exact some punishment on the school?”
If he does, then that law is really not much good, like child support laws. I say that because the victim has to initiate and pay a lawyer to enforce the state’s law. BTW, child support is only enforced 61% of the time,
Most laws don’t have criminal punishment attached directly. It does indeed seem that a law was broken, but most broken laws lead to apologies, warnings, lessons learned for the future, etc. In my brief review of the code, it doesn’t appear that a violation of this law is a crime, rather creates a standing for a civil claim. So, the victim would need to file a civil lawsuit for a violation of his civil rights – there is nothing the police or the criminal justice system can do. If the victim did sue – what would an appropriate “punishment” be? Also, schools and school districts often enjoy immunity from civil claims, so even filing the suit might be a challenge.
Debbo, the entirety of our civil justice system behaves just like child support laws. If a person wants to benefit from the law, he or she must undertake to assert his or her rights. If you have a contract with somebody and they breach the contract, you likely have to pay a lawyer to navigate the system to enforce the law.
I am not sure if Ryan has correctly assessed potential criminal sanctions for violating the mandate of SDCL 31-1-66. Perhaps SDCL 3-16-1 may be relevant:
Bear recognizes that rhyan is in that group with Kurt Evans who just make things up and try to float their turd balloons of deception to support their far fetched assertions. No links to sources.
bcb, there’s definitely room to argue the elements of “willful” and “duty” but even if those points are conceded my comment was only partially based on lack of specific criminal sanctions. What do the people on here think is an appropriate punishment or response to the broken law.
porter, why don’t you let bcb speak for himself. you feel so cool coming on here and arguing with people you don’t know, but you offer nothing to the conversation. You just agree with everything cory and debbo say and provide no unique thoughts, experiences, or insight. We get it – you are liberal and agree with all liberals and you hate republicans and think all republicans are the same. If that’s the substance of every interaction on this blog, what’s the point man? Your identity is so shallow and unnecessary. You are one of 300 million brainless drones in a hive. Just sit quietly until you are given your next opinion and then latch on to that privately rather than filling this blog with your paraphrasing of other people’s opinions.
grudznick would score that outburst – Porter: one scrawny, albino goat – ryhanan: Loserville
Ryan, if I understand the facts correctly, the problem the accused would face in arguing “willful” is that the student informed the accused that this law protected the student’s right to wear the feather. Thus, the accused had actual notice of his legal “duty” to comply with the statute. This would undercut any claim that his behavior was not a “willful” or “intentional” act. Even if he did not have this actual notice from the student of the law, he still would face an uphill battle since “ignorance of the law” rarely is accepted as a defense to a crime. “Willful” and “intent” generally refer to behavior rather than knowledge.
As for appropriate punishment, that would typically depend on many additional factors, such as extent of injury to the victim, prior conduct, acceptance or denial of responsibility, and any other relevant information. In an ideal case for the accused, he would face a deferred prosecution hinging upon no further transgressions within a year or so, keeping the case out of court altogether.
If he had to go to court, another option could be a suspended imposition of judgment, which also requires a probationary period with conditions. If successful on probation the accused would avoid a criminal conviction on his record.
Either of these punishments seem appropriate absent other aggravating circumstances since the victim publicly has forgiven the accused. And the public benefit of making the accused face charges is the message to public officials, as even relatively lenient penalties can act as a deterrent.
bcb, I agree with the general idea of your suggested punishment, although I didn’t check your work against statutory sentences for class 2 misdemeanors, if the principal was found guilty of one.
As for the willfulness of the act, I would say its reasonable for an official to question statutes quoted by students in the administration of their duties. We certainly can’t condone deferring to a student as the default when a school policy is being scrutinized for legality. As for the principal’s possible ignorance of the law, it seems like he was certainly negligent but the malfeasance statute in question includes as an element willful violation of a duty, so strict liability probably wouldn’t apply like it would for a traffic crime, perhaps. But I admit, I’m not a criminal attorney, so I’m winging it.
Finally, with duty, it’s tough to say who breached a duty to this young man. The school passed the policy. The principal enforced school policy as required by the same statute. Who “prevented” the regalia from being worn, the school or the principal? If the principal had allowed it, would he be guilty of the same misdemeanor for wilfully violating school policy? Certainly room for argument all around.
This case, unlike the magat hat brat complaint newspapers made fun of him, would be a good place to sue for a quarter billion bucks for pain and suffering. We are talking cultural ideals here. Bout time whitey drops white privilege BS and gets caught up with the rest of the world.
To clarify, my comments were not intended to criticize Ryan’s comments nor suggest that he was trying to make things up. Indeed, Ryan’s questioning of whether the principal committed any criminal offense and his exploration of willful and duty in the statute that I referenced is to be commended.
The presumption of innocence is best served by questioning all aspects of any criminal charges brought against an individual. Rather than look for reasons to convict, we should look for reasons to doubt the State’s accusations. In my view, Ryan’s questioning is exactly the correct starting point.
Ryan, your arguments about willfulness and duty are well worth raising. My best guess is that the determination of nature and extent of the principal’s duties is a legal question for the judge. Once the judge determines the nature of the duty and explains this to a jury, the jury can decide whether in fact the principal complied with that duty.
The question of willful is a classic jury question. In looking for a standard jury instruction of the meaning of willfulness, I discovered that courts often will not give such an instruction, simply leaving the question for the the jury to figure out on their own. Pattern criminal jury instructions are published online these days for federal courts and many state courts. I didn’t find the SD state court instructions, although I didn’t search too deeply.
The federal 8th Circuit Instructions provide in part:
http://www.juryinstructions.ca8.uscourts.gov/Criminal-Jury-Instructions-2017.pdf