Michael Hicks’ letter to UA Dean of Social and Behavioral Sciences, and my conversation with Hicks.

by David Safier

 On Friday, I sent an email to each of the TUSD Board Members concerning Michael Hicks' statement on a radio show comparing TUSD middle school students attending a UA Mexican-American Studies course to the alleged sexual abuse at Penn State. You can read the text of my letter at the end of the post.

That same day, Michael Hicks sent me an email response:

Thank you for your email.
I had concerns about how the statement I made was interpreted by the public.  I'm attaching a copy of a letter that I sent to the Dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences.

Thank you again

I'm including a pdf of the letter Hicks wrote to Dr. John P. Jones, Dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, as an attachment.

Hicks also called me — I included my phone number in the email I sent to the Board. I wasn't home, so he left a message inviting me to call him back if I had any further questions.

I called him this afternoon. The phone call ended when, after a 10-15 minute conversation, Hicks decided he didn't want to talk with me anymore and hung up.

My summary of the phone conversation is going to take awhile. If you're interested, you can read it below the fold.

I began the phone conversation with Hicks by telling him I write on Blog for Arizona — I didn't want to conduct an interview under false pretenses — to which he replied, "Oh, you're a blogger." He didn't know that. I asked if I could record the conversation, even though I didn't have to ask. By Arizona law I can record a conversation without asking. He asked me not to, and I complied.

I began by asking Hicks if he believed any harm would come to the TUSD students who attended the UA Mexican-American Studies class. His reply was, that's not the point he was trying to make. His point was UA is a public university, the kids are 12 and 13 years old, very impressionable, and he was concerned what the TUSD students were being told ,especially since the press weren't allowed in the classroom. Having a closed session with children, he said, where the public is not invited, is an issue. He also objected to the discussion the students had with the press beforehand. He felt the children were being used for an agenda.

In the next few minutes, he made a number of statements which were variations on that theme.

I asked Hicks if he thought there was a possibility any harm would come to the TUSD students in the classroom. He told me not to put words in his mouth, that he had never said that. I reminded him the letter he wrote to Dr. Jones states, "The comment that I made about our students being taken behind closed doors was rooted in my concern for their safety and welfare." He didn't try to clarify the difference between "harm" and "concern for their welfare and safety." Instead he went back to his statement about how wrong it was to take young students behind closed doors where the public wasn't invited.

When I brought up his comparison during the radio interview of the TUSD students in the UA classroom with the alleged sexual harrassment incidents at Penn State, he absolutely didn't want to go there.

For those not familiar with Hicks' radio interview on the Garrett Lewis radio show on KNST, Hicks talked about the children being taken "behind closed doors" by "adult, college age students . . . to be taught or to get educated or to be — I don't know." He followed with:

"For me, I'm like, you know what? You know, Penn State? You know, what's going on behind these closed doors with our children? Children!

Hicks said he had discussed the Penn State comment as much as he planned to in the letter to Dr. Jones and was going to hang up if I continued on that subject. But we continued anyway. I asked how a situation with young students in a classroom can be compared to what happened at Penn State. He replied, people at Penn State knew about the sexual incidents and didn't report them for years, right? I said, the incidents were alleged, not yet proven, but yes, it looks like people knew about the incidents of sexual abuse and didn't report them (In fact, there was some reporting, but it wasn't adequate, so Hicks is basically right on that count). That, to Hicks, seemed to prove the TUSD students could have been physically abused in a classroom with a prof and a number of students present, and it's possible we wouldn't hear about it. That, he said, was why he thought the press should have been there.

Remember, earlier in the conversation, Hicks said I was putting words in his mouth when I asked if he thought any harm could have come to the students in the classroom. Now he was saying, in essence, yes, the students could have been physcially harmed and, like Penn State, it's possible no one would have reported it.

I pushed a little farther and asked about this portion of his letter to Dr. Jones:

"I apologize for choosing to use Penn State in my comments about this concern. I understand how that can be interpreted as insensitive and inappropriate." [boldface added]

I said I'm not sure there is a question of interpretation relating to his Penn State comments. They clearly compared the UA situation to Penn State. Did he feel he went a bit too far during the radio show and actually said something that was "insensitive and inappropriate," not just something "that can be interpreted as insensitive and inappropriate"?

That question went farther than Hicks was willing to go. Soon after, he hung up. That was the end of the conversation.

There's one more passage in Hicks' letter to Dr. Jones I want to comment about, even though it didn't come up before our phone conversation abruptly ended. Hicks wrote:

"I never intended for my comment to suggest that anything that happened at Penn State is happening at the University of Arizona."

I would say, that was exactly what Hicks intended when he made the statement on the radio, and the only question is whether he thinks he went too far, which is possible in the heat of the moment, or whether he thinks what he said was fine, but someone could mistakenly interpret the statement as insensitive and inappropriate. Hicks seems to think the latter is true.

Hicks' letter is one of those non-apology apologies which are so common in politics: "I didn't say anything wrong, but if someone misunderstood my intentions, I apologize for that." It may satisfy Dr. Jones. We'll see. It may satisfy the TUSD Board, which has remained mum on the issue (and with my letter and Salomón Baldenegro's op ed in Thursday's Star, it's hard for me to imagine any of them aren't aware of what Hicks said). We'll see if the Board members are satisfied.

The apology doesn't satisfy me. But even if I thought the wording of the apology was adequate, Hicks cannot simply make a private response to a public statement and say, That's the end of it. Since Hicks made the statement in public, on a popular radio show, he needs to make a public apology — one which, I hope, will be stronger than his letter.

Below is the email I sent to all the Board members Friday:

 To All TUSD Governing Board Members:

Because I have not heard or read any comments from TUSD Board members concerning Michael Hicks' highly inappropriate statement comparing the treatment of TUSD students at the University of Arizona to the alleged sexual abuse at Penn State, I am writing all members of the Board asking you to respond publicly to Mr. Hicks’ statement. At the very least, Mr. Hicks needs to make a public apology to the TUSD students as well as UA students and faculty members who were included in his allegation. I also believe the Board should formally condemn his statements in the strongest possible terms.

In his February 9 op ed in the Star, Salomón Baldenegro gave an accurate representation of what happened at University of Arizona on the day some suspended Wakefield Middle School students and a few other TUSD students went to UA, attended a Teach-In, then attended a Mexican-American Studies class. He also accurately transcribed what Michael Hicks said February 2 on Garrett Lewis’ Morning Ritual Interviews on KNST:

"While there (at the UA), the director of the Mexican American Studies program indicated that these children were going into their classrooms, with their adult, you know, college students, behind closed doors, and no one was allowed to go into the classes, to either get taught or educated or to be … I don't know. For me, I'm like, you know what? Penn State? You know, what's going on behind closed doors with our children?"

The entire interview is on KNST’s website if you want to listen to it:

The portion Baldenegro quoted begins around the 7:30 minute mark.

For Mr. Hicks to make an unwarranted comparison between TUSD students attending a UA class and the alleged sexual abuse at Penn State is beneath contempt. As a retired school teacher, I know how seriously schools take allegations of sexual abuse. It is not an accusation which should be made lightly, or for personal or political motives. When students are sexually abused, they are likely to suffer serious physical and psychological harm which can affect them their entire lives. When adults are falsely accused of sexually abusing a minor, their personal and professional lives can be ruined.

If Mr. Hicks has any reason to believe physical harm of a sexual nature may have occurred in the UA Mexican-American Studies classroom, it is his duty to report his suspicions to the proper authorities. If, as is more likely, he used his position as a TUSD Board member to hurl baseless allegations and cast aspersions on the UA students and faculty members who took the TUSD students under their wings that day, he must retract the statements, which were broadcast over airwaves of a popular radio station, to partially undo the harm he has done. Every student and faculty member who was implicated in his false insinuation deserves a formal, public apology.

This is not about agreeing or disagreeing with Mr. Hicks' opinion of TUSD’s Mexican-Studies curriculum. I disagree with his position, but that has never moved me to make a formal complaint like this. By hurling his unwarranted, possibly slanderous allegations, Mr. Hicks has crossed the line from holding opinions and casting votes, which are within his rights as a citizen and Board member, to making harmful, life-altering accusations to score points against people he considers his enemies. That kind of behavior must not be tolerated by the TUSD Board.

Sincerely,

David Safier