In a stunning display that should concern every Jericho resident, Board Vice President Jill Citron brazenly declared at the February 11th Board of Education meeting that the board could do “whatever they want” regarding the Cantiague Elementary School renaming—while simultaneously admitting to actively soliciting positive feedback for the meeting. Even more troubling? Not a single opposing viewpoint was presented during public comments, a statistical impossibility given the documented community opposition and numerous concerns raised in recent weeks.
Manufactured Consent: The Manipulation of Public Voice
The choreographed presentation of exclusively positive feedback at tonight’s meeting stretches credibility beyond its breaking point. With significant documented opposition to the renaming proposal—including public petitions, community discussions, and voiced concerns about both process and cultural preservation—the complete absence of opposing viewpoints can only be explained by selective curation of public comment.
Citron’s admission of soliciting positive feedback isn’t just concerning—it’s a glaring red flag that exposes how public discourse is being manipulated. This revelation raises serious questions:
-
- Where are the numerous voices of opposition that have been documented in recent weeks?
-
- How were public comments selected and screened?
-
- Why was only one side of this significant community debate represented?
“Whatever They Want”: The Alarming Dismissal of Proper Governance
Citron’s cavalier statement about the board’s authority to act without policy reveals a dangerous disregard for proper governance procedures. This isn’t just administrative overreach—it’s a direct challenge to the principles of democratic oversight and community involvement in public education.
Erasing History: The Cultural Cost of Hasty Action
The rush to eliminate the name “Cantiague” represents more than just procedural misconduct—it threatens to erase a vital piece of Long Island’s indigenous heritage. The name, dating back to 1648 and derived from the Algonquian term “Ciscascata” or “Cantiag,” stands as one of our community’s few remaining connections to its Native American history. The casual dismissal of this cultural heritage through a manipulated process adds insult to injury.
Pattern of Control
Tonight’s events fit into a broader pattern of concerning behavior:
-
- The immediate advancement of the renaming proposal without proper vetting
-
- The selective presentation of public feedback
-
- The dismissal of policy requirements
-
- The rush to eliminate a historically significant name
Breakdown of Democratic Process
The manipulation evident in tonight’s meeting represents a fundamental breakdown in democratic governance:
-
- Orchestrated public feedback that excludes opposing views
-
- Admission of soliciting specific viewpoints by a board official
-
- Dismissal of proper policy procedures
-
- Lack of transparent process for public input
Community Call to Action
The community must respond to this clear manipulation of public process:
-
- Demand immediate transparency about the selection of public comments
-
- Call for an investigation into the solicitation of feedback by board leadership
-
- Require the establishment of clear policies for school naming decisions
-
- Insist on a new, unmanipulated public comment period
Time for Accountability
Tonight’s revelations demand immediate action. The admission of soliciting positive feedback, combined with the impossibly one-sided presentation of public comment, exposes a process that has been manipulated to achieve a predetermined outcome. This isn’t governance—it’s theater, and our community deserves better.
The integrity of public education governance requires more than rubber-stamp approval and manufactured consent. It demands honest dialogue, genuine community input, and respect for both proper procedure and cultural heritage. The events of February 11th demonstrate how far we’ve strayed from these essential principles.
