WLCSC School Board Racism

In November 2020, the school board elected its only person of color, Dr. Yue Yin. Since then, we’ve seen escalating acts of racism on the part of the other School Board members and WLCSC administration. We’ve documented a few of those incidents below.

Throughout the 2021 board meetings, Dr. Yin was the only board member called by her first name (Yue) more often than her title (Dr. Yin) (data available here). Additionally, when she was called by her first name, it was often a mispronunciation of her name (yoo-ee, rather than yoo-er, the correct pronunciation). While there may be no ill intent on the part of board members, a fundamental aspect of cultural awareness and respect is pronouncing people’s names correctly. However, when community members called for then Board President Karpick to apologize, and call Dr. Yin by her full title in future board meetings, Karpick responded: "I believe an apology would be disingenuous."

During the November 2021 board meeting, there was an exchange where Board Member Yin asked CFO Steve Ohlhaut if the board could take a look at survey results regarding an agenda item at the next meeting. While Dr. Yin was asking this question, now Board President Witt interrupted asking if Dr. Yin did not "trust" how the CFO was representing the results of the survey. Then Board President Karpick agreed with now Board President Witt that questioning whether Board Member Yin "believed" the CFO was a "legitimate question." Dr. Yin explained that it is not a trust issue. As she does quantitative research, she simply wanted to look at the survey results, such as response rate and patterns. Ms. Witt asserted that the survey results were in the board packet that board members receive before meetings, saying “It was in our board docs, actually … It’s all in the board documents, like all of it.” Mr. Karpick confirmed this fact, stating “it is all in the school board documents”. This led Dr. Yin to apologize, “If it is there, I must have missed it, I apologize, Steve.”

We later requested the board packet via APRA, and we were able to confirm that the survey results were in fact not in the board packet.

The exchange is extremely uncomfortable to watch, and it’s unclear why now Board President Witt questioned Board Member Yin’s intentions so aggressively. Additionally, we’ve confirmed that the survey results were in fact not in the board packet, so why was Board Member Witt so confrontational and adamant about the fact that it was, and why did Board President Karpick confirm? When community members called for then Board President Karpick and now Board President Witt to apologize, both of them did not take the opportunity to apologize. When Board member Yin brought this example up as a reason not to elect Witt as board president for 2020, no other board commented on this example of Witt’s behavior and all of the other board members decided to go ahead and elect Witt, despite incorrectly shaming Dr. Yin for not reading the board packet.  

During the December board meeting, we saw yet another condescending, rude exchange from Mr. Karpick at the end of the meeting.

Then Board President Karpick ignored our and many others’ concerns about the way Dr. Yin was treated at the November meeting.

After the meeting, two community members, Wenbin Yu and Erin Moon-Walker, tried to speak with Alan Karpick about the November board meeting exchange.

Erin states, "I heard Alan say he wasn't even sure what document Wenbin was referencing. And when I stated to Alan that Daniel Afolabi had submitted a records request, and that the document was not included in the board packet, Alan said he would have to refer me to their attorney. Alan gave what I felt were non-answers to Wenbin's reasonable questions."

Is this how our board responds to community concerns now? Simple questions are referred to lawyers? Is this why Bob Reiling is paid $300,000+ a year?

And the treatment of Dr. Yin only continued to get worse. At the end of the board meeting, there was yet another condescending exchange. Before the board adjourned the meeting, Dr. Yin asked to speak. From Dacia Mumford’s summary of the meeting, “Yin said that she appreciates Springer’s summary of the search process…however she wanted to clarify that she wasn’t aware that steps were being taken after their last meeting to reject one of the candidates and make a written offer to the other. She shared that when the contract was posted, it was the first time that she saw it. She expressed her desire for all school board members to be informed before these actions are taken. To prepare for the contract writing, she had collected superintendent salary data. When she asked about the contract, she was told that only the school board officers were involved. If she had known, she would have requested to be included in writing the contract. She wants more clarity and transparency ahead of time. Karpick responded that she was in the meeting the whole time and that the other 6 board members all understood the process …Yin said that her not understanding the process is possibly because she is a new member and said that she isn’t complaining about the school board officers, but hopes that they will give more clarification in the future. Karpick responded directly to Yin saying: “we have another board member that has been on the board as long as you have and seems to be able to find that other information out.””

We are completely disheartened by this exchange. Is this really how we want our elected officials treating those who are new to the board? Let’s not forget that Dr. Yin had the most votes of any candidate in the 2020 school board election. Is this not exactly the point of bringing in new people to a team? Dr. Yin has the privilege of bringing fresh eyes to the way the board operates, and she’s able to inform the board of when their policies are unclear. The board should have been grateful for her expressing her opinions on the process, rather than condescendingly shutting her down, implying that she’s at fault for being unable to understand the process. Not to mention, her requests mirror many of those made by the community Though she’s a board member, she was not informed of the final candidate ahead of the acceptance/rejection letters going out, nor was she given the opportunity to review the superintendent contract before it was released to the public. So, to be clear, the board officers’ current stance is that not only does the community not get a say on certain things, neither do elected board members.

We hoped to see a genuine apology from Mr. Karpick and Ms. Witt at the January board meeting, and we hoped that the board officers take concrete steps to ensure that they are creating a safe, equitable space for board members, particularly those of color.

However, the treatment of Dr. Yin only worsened.

At a special board meeting in December, each of the board members besides Dr. Yin behaved in a - we do not use this word lightly - racist way.

At the board meeting, board officers told Dr. Yin she could not make her comment because she spoke to the process of the superintendent search, rather than the candidate himself. Yet other board members’ comments, including comments about the superintendent search, were allowed.

Amy Austin: “I think we’ve had an excellent process, I think we have followed the guidelines set out by everyone from the federal government down to the Indiana State School Board Association”

Alan Karpick: “I would like to thank Administrator Assistance for their help in the process as well. It was an exhaustive process. It started back in the first week of May when Dr. Killion did not want to renew his contract. We’ve been very fortunate to have good leadership, good direction throughout the entire process. We’ve had 17 people who applied of which 9 were sitting superintendents.”

Karen Springer: “I was also going to extend thanks to the superintendent search consulting firm of Administrator Assistance. They served us well. Our process was very professional and comprehensive.”

Or is it that only positive comments about the superintendent search were allowed?

Board officers also said that Dr. Yin was not allowed to make comments because she had made similar remarks at previous meetings. Had other board members not given positive feedback about the search process previously? Or, again, is it that only positive comments are allowed to be repeated?

For those of you who do not believe this is racism, we would like you to think long and hard about the treatment of Asians in our community. We would like you to think about how the WLCSC administration took 2 weeks to respond to community members asking for a statement against anti-Asian violence. We would like you to think about how the school board’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee initially included no adult Asian members, despite our district being 23% Asian. We would like you to think about how Asian members of this community were treated during their public comments at the previous special board meeting versus white members of the community. We would like you to think about how Dr. Yin was the only board member to be addressed by her (incorrectly pronounced) first name more than her full title until the community spoke out about it. This is how racism persists. Excusing action after action until it's normalized.

Yue Yin received 3,277 votes in the school board election. That’s one thousand more votes than the next candidate. The biggest difference between two consecutive candidates otherwise? 458. This community stands behind Dr. Yin.