Many recent letters debating the school budget advocate for “fiscal responsibility.” This obfuscates the power structure underlying all political decisions, even local ones — the power to inflict harm on some groups to the benefit of others. All political debates require clarity of terms, so let’s be clear: supporting the mayor’s school budget and its drastic cuts will disproportionately harm some of our least powerful community members. Those who benefit are the wealthiest and most powerful in our community, who disproportionately reap the economic benefits of capital and infrastructure projects while being spared an override vote.

Meanwhile, Smith College's recent commitment to make a one-time gift of $500,000 to the city is appreciated, but is also insufficient, particularly in light of Smith's $8.8 million unrestricted operating fiscal margin in 2023. Citing “fiscal responsibility” insults our intelligence. We all know there is not enough money to go around and harm to our community is inevitable. Given this, on whom will our politicians choose to inflict harm? Will they provide bold and creative solutions to allocate harm equitably among those best equipped to bear it, while advocating for change on Beacon Hill and at Smith? Or will they cower behind “fiscal responsibility” and place the greatest burden on kids and the tireless educators on whom they depend?

I applaud the School Committee and my Ward 3 Councilor for “irresponsibly” voting to promote equity and do the least harm to schools. Will the supposedly progressive mayor and other councilors do the same?

Tyler Barnett

Northampton