Land Acknowledgments at Parent Council Meetings

Responding to Politicized Rituals in Volunteer Roles

As some of you may know, there has been meaningful discussion and growing momentum around the topic of Land Acknowledgements (LAs) at the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB).

Following a formal objection to the recitation of LAs at our Parent Council meetings on November 28, 2024, a group discussion ensued. I have been asked to share my recent letter sent in response to the conversation.

I do so here in the spirit of openness and thoughtful engagement, with the hope that it may offer perspective, encourage critical reflection, and ultimately serve the greater good, through truth.

I recognize and respect that not all will share my perspective. What matters is that we create a space where differing views can be expressed without fear of dismissal or coercion—especially when those views concern practices that are neither neutral nor universally embraced, and especially when linked to the education of our children.

My hope is that, moving forward, we can anchor our decisions in truth, openness, and informed consent rather than assumption or pressure.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,"
- Evelyn Beatrice Hall, The Friends of Voltaire

Good morning _____ Parent Council,

It’s hard to believe it’s been seven weeks since our last meeting. I’ve been reflecting on the discussion we had around the place of Land Acknowledgements (LAs) in our council meetings. I want to begin by saying I welcome open, respectful dialogue and believe conversations like this are essential in a free and diverse society—so thanks to all of you who were a part of that.

With that in mind, I’d like to share a few thoughts—not to impose, but to contribute to the dialogue for anyone willing to consider another perspective. If this isn’t something you’re interested in, I completely understand and trust you’ll skip this note.

To those who object to the idea of not reading LAs at our meetings, this message is for you. Please note: this is not a matter of preference—whether one prefers LAs or not—but a question of process and principle. As our chair noted, “there is no WRDSB guideline that says we are obliged to do it, it is completely up to us.”

I was disheartened to realize how the word ‘us’ was defined at our last meeting. After reflecting deeply, I was troubled by some of the responses offered: ‘You’re welcome to wait outside when they’re being read,’ or, ‘You could keep objecting at each meeting.’ Some even suggested making the acknowledgements mandatory—despite several individuals expressing sincere and principled objections to their recitation.

For a group committed to volunteerism and collaboration in support of our children’s education, I hope at least some can recognize how dismissive—and even coercive—those responses were. Forcing participation against one’s conscience is not unity. It’s a quiet form of tyranny—and I, unfortunately or fortunately, hear it loud and clear.

As we stayed well past our allotted meeting time, some of you may recall me stating that I was running late for another commitment. I was off to a study group and when I explained to them why I was late, one of the group members shared with me that he is a member of a “native band, with a territory granted to it’s members by Queen Victoria”. He expressed his disdain of LAs and commended me for what I was doing.

He explains in his own words:

“Land granted my ancestors, who lived mainly on land which is now in the United States, because they fought beside British soldiers during the revolutionary war.

The land acknowledgments that are done prior to just about every public anything are insulting to me. They may in many cases not even be historically accurate. The tribes being named in the land acknowledgments locally may have possessed the land, but they did not traditionally live on these lands. The members of the Six Nations were granted land similar to the way my band was granted land. The chief of the six nations Joseph Brant sold a portion of the land his peoples were granted in order to raise funds to build infrastructure for the people. Many would say now that he was taken advantage of in these deals. Many natives would say he took care of his people. The territory my family lives on is named in honour of Joseph Brant. The land acknowledgments to me are a reminder of how little has changed in the last century, empty words that change absolutely nothing. Except maybe to make those who recite them feel better about themselves.”

I find it insulting to our natives to suggest that they didn’t make wise and informed choices for them and the people of their time.

Joseph Brant’s wife, Catharine Brant, was a more than capable and influential woman—especially in the Mohawk and broader Haudenosaunee communities. Historical accounts suggest she was astute, politically aware, and economically active. She managed land, property, and resources and was deeply involved in community leadership. She hosted dignitaries, negotiated with colonial officials, and was respected for her intelligence and leadership—qualities that would today be associated with strong business acumen. Yet here we are—always thinking we know better for others. Will we ever learn?

Not too long after our Parent Council meeting another one of our parents messaged me, thanking me for standing up and disclosed to me that they “didn't even realize that there was an option to not say the pledge” prior to me bringing it up. They go on to say that “in the past I held my own silent protest and was happy to regularly come five minutes late if it meant to miss the pledge.”

Is this okay with any of you?

The issue here is not about whether people can read LAs. It’s about whether others must endure them even if their conscience says otherwise. If LAs are to be included, it should only follow open discussion and mutual agreement—and would still need to be accompanied by a clear statement that this is a local, voluntary choice, not a mandate – for all new members entering the council.

We must recognize the risk of normalizing political messaging in a setting that is supposed to be welcoming to all parents, regardless of their views. When we assume agreement—or present tradition as obligation—we send a message, however unintentionally, that some voices (or consciences) matter more than others.

One moment from our last meeting highlighted this more deeply than perhaps some realized. When a parent referenced the Holocaust to make a broader point, another interjected with: “We’ll, let the German speak to that”—implying that some topics are off-limits unless one holds a certain identity. Ironically, the parent being interrupted is Jewish and yet was the one who apologized (to ‘the German’). This is what happens when identity politics overtake shared understanding: we begin to police who is “allowed” to speak – we label people and place them in boxes with tight lids.

I highlight this, not to assign blame or stir division. We’re navigating these complex issues with sincerity – but these occurrences continue to happen multiple times a day in the world we all live – we’re killing each other with our words and judgments. And it must stop. We all have our own experiences to share – we have no idea where another has traveled and where they are being equipped to travel next. People have the right to speak their conscience – and we have the right to rebuke or agree with that stance or add an entirely new perspective.

This is not to say that what my conscience is saying for me to do is what’s right for you to do. As I’ve stated, those who truly believe the LAs are the right thing to do –have every right to stand for that. The LAs shouldn’t have been read in the first place and thus ought not be read at the meetings; however, if someone finds issue with this, they have every right to stand up for it - But it ought not be the other way around.

Finally, I want to address the handout shared at the last meeting. While I appreciate the intent behind it, I found the tone dismissive of those who see things differently. To imply that others are merely uninformed or self-centred for holding another view is neither accurate nor fair. Many of us oppose LAs not out of ignorance or apathy, but out of deep thought and principle—on behalf of all children, including Indigenous ones. Nonetheless, this document ultimately acknowledges that LAs often lack meaningful action and calls for sincerity and understanding—qualities I believe are better served by open dialogue than by rote recitation.

And again – even IF the positives outweighed the risks to these recitations – if it’s not done in truth – what is it for?

Our group discussion only deepened my clarity around why I object to Land Acknowledgements and why I remain even more firmly opposed to their recitation at our Parent Council meetings. It’s worth reemphasising that this practice was never formally adopted. Whether it began informally or was assumed to have consensus, it does not reflect a collective decision—and therefore, it ought to stop.

If anyone wishes to better understand why I hold this view, I’m always open to respectful conversation. I’m also welcoming to having my perspective challenged with better reasoning or clearer truth - until such a time I cannot, in good conscience, remain silent while Land Acknowledgements are spoken as if on behalf of this group.

We are here to serve the students of _____ – our children—not to carry out political gestures that lack truth, consent, or clarity of purpose.

I thank you all for your time with this.

Looking forward to seeing you on Thursday,

Cristina
519-571-4942