Details

Written by: Joanne Wallenstein

Published: 03 September 2026

Created: 03 September 2026

Last Updated: 04 September 2026

Hits: 768

The Scarsdale School Board Nominating Committee (SBNC) is inviting residents to become part of a long-standing community tradition that helps shape the future of our schools. Being a part of SBNC is one of the most effective ways Scarsdale residents can impact the quality of our schools with a limited time commitment. Strong community involvement in the school board nominating process helps to ensure we get the highest quality of candidates for the Board of Education.

Formed in 1965, the SBNC is a non-partisan committee that identifies and endorses candidates for the Scarsdale Board of Education. Thirty members, drawn equally from the five elementary school neighborhoods, work together each year to recruit, interview, and recommend highly qualified candidates for the community to vote on in May.

Why join the SBNC?

Members play an active role in selecting Board of Education candidates, build connections across the community, and participate in a thoughtful process that has guided Scarsdale schools for decades. In 2024, Scarsdale residents voted to allow non-citizens to join the SBNC, ensuring that more voices can be part of this important process.

SBNC Membership details

All residents who are qualified voters, defined as a person at least 18 years of age, and a resident of Scarsdale for at least 30 days prior to the petition deadline of October 23, 2026, and interested in maintaining the excellence of Scarsdale schools are strongly
urged to consider running for an SBNC position.

Members serve three years on the SBNC, followed by two years on the Administrative Committee.

Open seats this year:

1 from each Edgewood, Fox Meadow and Quaker Ridge. And 3 in Greenacres.

How to run:

Interested residents should complete two forms by October 23, 2026 at 5pm: email the SBNC biographical form to sbncelection@gmail.com and mail/drop off the candidate petition form to the address at the top of the petition.

Election Day:

Wednesday, December 2, 2026 (snow dates: December 7 or 9). Voting will take place at Scarsdale Middle School from 7:00–11:00 AM and 3:00–9:00 PM.

For more information, visit scarsdalesbnc.org or email sbncelection@gmail.com.

We look forward to your participation and questions.
June (Xun) Deng and Jenny Simon Tabak
Election Co-Chairs, SBNC

Details

Written by: Mayra Kirkendall Rodriguez

Published: 23 August 2026

Created: 23 August 2026

Last Updated: 23 August 2026

Hits: 2863

(This is the opinion of Mayra Kirkendall Rodriguez)

The Scarsdale District revised these proposed guidelines once already, under public pressure and public comment. It changed almost nothing that matters. It is unclear what these proposed guidelines are trying to solve. Unfortunately, the guidelines will threaten students’ free-speech rights and achieve no educational objectives.

Scarsdale prides itself on academic excellence, civic engagement, and producing students who think critically about the world. It is very unfortunate that the Scarsdale School District is advancing guidelines that would do the opposite—chilling student expression, empowering administrators and teachers with unchecked discretion, and exposing the District to exactly the kind of legal controversy the policy claims to prevent.

The proposed “Guidelines for Student Expression at School-Sponsored Activities” were first floated in response to community pressure following a period of heightened tension. That origin story was itself a warning sign. Policies written under duress, to placate unhappy parents and to project the appearance of action, rarely bring good results. They tend to be simultaneously overreaching and insufficiently protective.

The District has since circulated a formal revision, “Revision 1,” dated June 26, 2026.” Residents submitted detailed comments on the original draft, identifying specific constitutional defects and offering specific fixes. Revision 1 is the District’s answer to that public process—and with one minor exception, it changes nothing of substance. The vague standards, the absence of an appeals process, the missing religious-expression protections: all of it survived, untouched, into the version now before the Board. A district that revises a policy and leaves every core legal defect in place has not shown that it is listening. It has shown that the outcome was decided before the comment period opened.

The Core Problem: Vagueness by Design

Read the proposed guidelines carefully. Students may not engage in speech or wear attire that could “reasonably be expected to create disruption, division, or controversy within the school community.” That single phrase is doing an enormous amount of work—and none of it is constitutionally defensible.

The U.S. Supreme Court established the governing standard more than half a century ago in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate. A school may restrict student expression only when it causes—or is forecast to cause—a substantial and material disruption to school operations. Not discomfort. Not controversy. Not the hurt feelings of a parent who called the principal. Disruption.

The Scarsdale guidelines do not meet that standard. The word “controversial” has no legal meaning. “Division” describes virtually every substantive idea ever expressed in a democracy. Under this framework, a student wearing a Black Lives Matter or IDF t-shirt, a pro-life pin, a MAGA hat, or a keffiyeh could all theoretically be silenced—because someone, somewhere, in our community might find each of those symbols divisive. That is not a Scarsdale education. That is enforced silence.

One Standard for Six Different Kinds of Speech

Revision 1 adds something new: a formal definition of “school-sponsored activities” that lumps together school-reviewed publications like the yearbook and newspaper, scripted theatrical productions, athletic contests, graduation and assembly speeches, dances and proms, and graded classroom assignments—and applies the same single standard to all of them.

That is not a technical detail. Courts have never treated these as one category, because they aren’t one category. A school has broad editorial authority over a yearbook it publishes and a play it stages—that is curricular speech the District produces. A grade on a classroom assignment is an academic evaluation, governed by pedagogical judgment, not by whether the content is “divisive.” But what a student wears to prom, or says in the stands at a football game, is private student expression at a school-sponsored event—governed by Tinker, not by the District’s editorial discretion. Collapsing all six into a single standard is not a simplification; it is a legal error, and Revision 1 now states that error in black and white, in an official definitions section, where it can be quoted back to the District in litigation.

A Hunting License for Selective Enforcement

Perhaps the most dangerous provision is this: adults supervising school-sponsored activities “have the authority to set and communicate reasonable expectations for student expression that may not be explicitly outlined in the dress code or other printed guidelines.” In plain English, any coach, aide, or administrator can invent a speech rule on the spot, at any event, for any reason, with no written standard to answer to.

Revision 1’s only response to this was to add a single sentence requiring that such expectations “should be communicated in advance to students.” That is a paperwork fix, not a legal one. It tells a student when an arbitrary rule will be sprung on them; it does nothing to prevent one adult from banning an Israeli flag while another waves through a Palestinian one, or vice versa. There is still no neutral, written standard governing what any supervisor may decide counts as impermissible expression. Research on school discipline consistently demonstrates that vague, discretionary rules are applied unequally across racial and ethnic lines. “Neutral” enforcement of a subjective standard—announced in advance or not—is not neutral at all.

The guidelines still provide no appeals process. A student removed from graduation, perhaps the most significant ceremony of their young life—still has no written right to a hearing, no designated person to appeal to, no timeline for review. Stripping a student of participation in a public, educationally significant event without due process is not just unfair. It may be unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Prior Restraint: The Most Disfavored Form of Censorship

The guidelines’ reference to “unauthorized speech” deserves scrutiny. That word—unauthorized—implies that students must obtain permission before expressing a viewpoint. This is prior restraint, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly described as the most presumptively unconstitutional form of censorship in American law. This language survived Revision 1 unchanged, in the very sentence that is now also grammatically garbled—which should have triggered alarms during legal review the first time, and should trigger louder ones now.

The American Civil Liberties Union and New York Civil Liberties Union actively monitor school district speech policies across New York. Language in these proposed guidelines will attract their attention. Scarsdale Village is already facing a NYCLU lawsuit. Adding another is not a theoretical risk.

What the Guidelines Still Omit

The proposal would prohibit speech that “denigrates others” based on religion—which is appropriate. Yet it still provides no affirmative protection for sincere religious expression. Under the Free Exercise Clause and the Equal Access Act, public schools cannot treat religious student expression less favorably than comparable secular expression. If a student’s Star of David, kippah, hijab, or cross is deemed “controversial” in the current climate—and given Scarsdale’s recent tensions, that is entirely plausible—the guidelines as written would permit administrators to restrict it. That would be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination based on religion, and it would contradict every value these guidelines claim to uphold. Revision 1 had a chance to add this protection. It did not.

No One Has Said What Problem This Solves

Ask yourself a basic question before supporting any policy this sweeping: what, specifically, is the Scarsdale School District responding to? The District has not published an incident count, a breakdown by category, or any data showing what happened, how often, or where. “Rising tension” is not a metric. Without a stated problem and evidence of its scope, there is no way for residents—or a court—to judge whether these guidelines are a proportionate response to anything, or whether they would even address whatever the actual problem is. A policy this broad, adopted without a documented basis, is not evidence-based governance. It is a guess dressed up as a solution, and it leaves the District unable to defend the guidelines’ scope if challenged, because it never established what the guidelines were supposed to fix.

The Chilling Effect Is Already Here

We do not need to wait for litigation to see the harm. Students in this district are already censoring themselves. They cannot predict what a teacher or principal will decide is “divisive.” They have watched adults in Scarsdale attempt to pressure colleges into rescinding admission offers over student expression. The proposed guidelines would formalize that atmosphere of fear, giving it official sanction and bureaucratic teeth.

A school where students are afraid to speak is not the excellent one Scarsdale residents move here for. It is a silent one.

What Should Be Done Instead

None of this means the District should ignore genuine harassment, threats, or disruption. Those behaviors are already prohibited—by the existing Scarsdale school code of conduct #5300, by state law, and by the constitutional standards that hold up in court.

We do not need these guidelines. And if most Scarsdale residents really want them, the District should narrow them drastically. Replace “divisive,” “controversial,” and “unauthorized” with the Tinker standard. Separate curricular speech (yearbooks, plays, graded work) from private student expression (prom, sporting events) and apply the correct standard to each, instead of one standard to all six. Add a meaningful appeals process. Commission an independent constitutional review by outside counsel with First Amendment expertise—not the same team that may have drafted this document. Track incidents of antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism, and other bias by category and report the data to the Board, so responses are evidence-based rather than reactive. And train any staff asked to enforce these rules so that enforcement is documented, consistent, and defensible.

None of these fixes were made between the original draft and Revision 1. There is no reason to assume they will be made before final adoption unless the Board says so, in writing, now.

Scarsdale students deserve a school that models the values it teaches—that ideas are tested through argument, not silenced by authority; that free expression is not a threat to our community but the foundation of it; and that the answer to speech someone dislikes is more speech, not enforced silence.

These guidelines, revised once and still broken in every way that matters, are the wrong answer to a problem the District has not defined. I urge the Scarsdale Board of Education to request the Scarsdale School District withdraw these guidelines.

Mayra Kirkendall-Rodríguez is a financial risk consultant and 15-year Scarsdale resident.

Details

Written by: Joanne Wallenstein

Published: 06 August 2026

Created: 06 August 2026

Last Updated: 06 August 2026

Hits: 1025

Catherine Road culvert replacement: Photo Credit: Jonathan MarkA large stormwater improvement project is in the works!

The Village of Scarsdale’s utility contractor, Morano Brothers Corp., is in the process of replacing two box culverts on Catherine Road between Mamaroneck Road and Kelwynne Road.

A press release from the Village explains:

Catherine Road will be permanently closed between Quaker Center and Kelwynne Road for these critical stormwater improvements. The project, funded through a FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant, is intended to improve stormwater capacity through the replacement of the existing culverts. This specific closure is for the southern culvert replacement, which is anticipated to continue through mid-August. Work is expected to take place from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday, weather permitting. Unless unforeseen circumstances arise, no weekend or nighttime work is expected. During construction, traffic will follow posted detours around Catherine Road.

Following the completion of the first culvert replacement, the second replacement will begin which will necessitate a closure of Catherine Road between Quaker Center and Mamaroneck Road. As this project progresses to the fall months, the Village will work closely with the Scarsdale School District to minimize impacts on drop-offs and pick-ups. Please contact the Village Engineer’s office should you have any questions or concerns by phone at 914-722-1106 or email at engineering@scarsdale.gov.

Details

Written by: Joanne Wallenstein

Published: 19 July 2026

Created: 19 July 2026

Last Updated: 19 July 2026

Hits: 1661

Rebecca Maça Skolnik, aged 91, passed away peacefully on Thursday, July 16th, following a brief illness. Just five days short of her 92nd birthday, Becky lived a long, adventurous life that spanned continents, countries, cities, and many loving generations of her family.

Born in Izmir, Turkey on July 21st, 1934, Becky spent her early adulthood working as a translator for NATO before arriving in the United States as part of the first class of the Wien International Scholars Program at Brandeis University. She met future husband Edward Skolnik at a student mixer, and the two married in 1960. They moved to Edgemont in 1969, where they raised three daughters, Leslie Anne, Deborah Jeanne, and Emily Suzanne of blessed memory. Rebecca spent over 30 years as an administrative assistant in the Scarsdale School District before retiring at 86 years old.

She is predeceased by her parents Reuben and Esther Maça; sisters Linda and Fortune; husband Edward, and daughter Emily. She is survived by her brother Izak Maça of Istanbul; daughter Leslie Brill and granddaughter Violet Brill of Mamaroneck; and daughter Deborah Skolnik, son-in-law TP Enders, and granddaughters Clara and Genie Enders of Scarsdale.

Her family will fondly remember Becky’s phenomenal Turkish cooking, loyal Jeopardy! viewership, and love of The New Yorker and summers in Montauk. Her life serves as a testament to the bliss found in trying new things while never forgetting your roots. The family extends its sincere thanks to the team at Bayberry Care Center for taking such excellent care of Rebecca in her final months.