Seth Boyden teacher accused of removing student's hijab during class

Newtown, not Newton. If your craftsmanship can’t avoid a typo when exploiting a tragedy, it’s hardly worth the effort.


Tall_Mocha said:

 UTTER BS. For this to have happened, the child would have had to tell the teacher she was wearing this in place of her hijab. The teacher did MORE than make a request. She even mentioned that while attempting to remove the hood she saw hair and stopped immediately . Bottom line is, she should have kept her hands to herself . 

 but that is the problem, teacher didn't know she was wearing the hoodie as a hijab.....


In watching the video Spontaneous posted (https://rumble.com/vnktof-nj-hijab-story-mothers-facebook-live-session-she-deleted.html), both sides may be telling the same truth -- but with a critical difference in POV.

The girl's pink hijab in the video appears almost like a larger one-piece that covers the body and head, but I think is a separate scarf that is blending in with the color of the blouse.  Its very possible the teacher, who was probably trying to manage 20 masked 7-year-olds, and connect with their eyes, might quickly/distractedly interpret that hijab and matching blouse to be a hoodie. So here's each person's point of view:

  • Teacher POV: Teacher interprets hijab+blouse as a hoodie and can't see child's eyes very well between mask and hijab. Tells student to take down her hood. Child asks why? Teacher (seeing it as a hoodie) says you're not allowed to wear a hood in school. (Teacher touches "hood" to push it back). Student says "Oh no, that's my hijab".  Teacher says "Oh, oh! Put it back on" (as indicated by the child from 2:40-3:30 in the video). In the teacher's embarrassment, the teacher may have tried to quickly make up for her mistake by soothing the girl and giving her a compliment along the lines of "Don't worry, I like your hair/your hair looked fine". (The worst possible choice for an attempted soothing/compliment in this case).

  • Child POV: Child is wearing a hijab and matching blouse, which is not a hoodie: Child hears teacher tell her to take down her hijab (hood). She asks why? Hears teacher tells her her her hood (hijab) is not allowed in school. (Teacher touches hijab to push it back). Then the child says "Oh no, that's my hijab". Teacher says "Oh, oh! Put it back on! Don't worry, I like your hair/your hair looked fine'".

The child has no idea that the teacher thought it was a hoodie and not a hijab. Which results in the teacher's moment of incorrect classification of type of clothing becoming a story that, from the (accurate) POV that the child was wearing a hijab and not a hoodie, intent becomes easily misinterpreted. 

Thus, the parent hearing this story could easily interpret that chain of events as the teacher having an intent that was so disrespectful of their religion, that she was trying to lure their child away from their beliefs.


I dunno. Can't imagine mistaking a hijab for a hoodie. They're quite different.


DaveSchmidt said:

Newtown, not Newton. If your craftsmanship can’t avoid a typo when exploiting a tragedy, it’s hardly worth the effort.

 out of that miasma of crapola, that's what you chose to pick on?


The head covering in the video is not blocking anyone's view of the child's eyes.  If one accepts the attorney's version of what happened that day, the child is wearing different clothes in the video than she was wearing in class.


According to Muhammad's posts on Instagram and Facebook, the teacher told the student that her hair was beautiful and "she did not have to wear hijab to school anymore." This is a teacher who has taught for 30 years and no doubt has had numerous students who wore hijabs, and yet she chose this one student to tell that she doesn't have to wear a hijab anymore?  

By all means, if in fact she said it, fire her, and probably bring a hate crime action action her. But are we to believe that she really said it?  It's a stretch.


dave said:

Seems like the child was too young to say the hoodie was her hijab, which would have prevented a lot of ensuing miscommunication.  The teacher would need x-ray vision to know what was on or not on under the hoodie. Additionally, the child could have been wearing a hoodie rather than a hijab because she encountered bullying about wearing a hijab.  I don't think there should be any dress codes at this level of dress.  

 With your proposal, students who do not have to wear a hijab would be allowed to keep their hoods up in classs,  blocking  their faces and their mouths. Is this what you're proposing. 


sprout said:

In watching the video Spontaneous posted (https://rumble.com/vnktof-nj-hijab-story-mothers-facebook-live-session-she-deleted.html), both sides may be telling the same truth -- but with a critical difference in POV.

The girl's pink hijab in the video appears almost like a larger one-piece that covers the body and head, but I think is a separate scarf that is blending in with the color of the blouse.  Its very possible the teacher, who was probably trying to manage 20 masked 7-year-olds, and connect with their eyes, might quickly/distractedly interpret that hijab and matching blouse to be a hoodie. So here's each person's point of view:

  • Teacher POV: Teacher interprets hijab+blouse as a hoodie and can't see child's eyes very well between mask and hijab. Tells student to take down her hood. Child asks why? Teacher (seeing it as a hoodie) says you're not allowed to wear a hood in school. (Teacher touches "hood" to push it back). Student says "Oh no, that's my hijab".  Teacher says "Oh, oh! Put it back on" (as indicated by the child from 2:40-3:30 in the video). In the teacher's embarrassment, the teacher may have tried to quickly make up for her mistake by soothing the girl and giving her a compliment along the lines of "Don't worry, I like your hair/your hair looked fine". (The worst possible choice for an attempted soothing/compliment in this case).

  • Child POV: Child is wearing a hijab and matching blouse, which is not a hoodie: Child hears teacher tell her to take down her hijab (hood). She asks why? Hears teacher tells her her her hood (hijab) is not allowed in school. (Teacher touches hijab to push it back). Then the child says "Oh no, that's my hijab". Teacher says "Oh, oh! Put it back on! Don't worry, I like your hair/your hair looked fine'".

The child has no idea that the teacher thought it was a hoodie and not a hijab. Which results in the teacher's moment of incorrect classification of type of clothing becoming a story that, from the (accurate) POV that the child was wearing a hijab and not a hoodie, intent becomes easily misinterpreted. 

Thus, the parent hearing this story could easily interpret that chain of events as the teacher having an intent that was so disrespectful of their religion, that she was trying to lure their child away from their beliefs.

 And lets add the third point of view... Mommy's.  This should be worth.... say.... $150k. Hence the GoFundMe.


drummerboy said:

out of that miasma of crapola, that's what you chose to pick on?

Yup. You address individual commenters your way, and I address them my way.


cramer said:

According to Muhammad's posts on Instagram and Facebook, the teacher told the student that her hair was beautiful and "she did not have to wear hijab to school anymore." This is a teacher who has taught for 30 years and no doubt has had numerous students who wore hijabs, and yet she chose this one student to tell that she doesn't have to wear a hijab anymore?  

By all means, if in fact she said it, fire her, and probably bring a hate crime action action her. But are we to believe that she really said it?  It's a stretch.

I could see it as a child's misinterpretation of a teacher saying you are not allowed to wear a hood (for a hoodie) up in school.


sprout - What the child said was posted as gospel on Muhammads's Instagram and Facebook page. A teacher's career and life have been ruined - they will never be the same, regardless of the outcome. You may well be right, but it doesn't help Ms. Herman get her life back. She has asked Muhammad to remove her post and clarify what happened, but Muhammad hasn't done so. 


And the CCR has also convicted without the facts.  Shameful.


cramer said:

sprout - What the child said was posted as gospel on Muhammads's Instagram and Facebook page. A teacher's career and life have been ruined - they will never be the same, regardless of the outcome. You may well be right, but it doesn't help Ms. Herman get her life back. She has asked Muhammad to remove her post and clarify what happened, but Muhammad hasn't done so. 

Understood. There are some things that can be repaired, and others that cannot be easily undone. But we have to go from here, not from a time last week when the mom could have clarified with the school/teacher what actually happened before this was posted.

Addressing the issue going forward, including clarifying the post, is likely to work better if everyone is able to understand the other's misinterpretations rather than accuse each other of ill intent. My hypothesis is that human mistakes were made by the teacher (interpreting a loose hijab and blouse to be a hoodie) and by the student (interpreting the teacher saying the hood of a hoodie was not allowed to be worn in school, as meaning her hijab was not allowed, since that's what she was wearing).

I don't think ascribing negative intent/beliefs to the teacher's mistake is accurate, and I also don't think ascribing the negative intent to the family ("the child was lying and the mom was trying to profit off of that lie") is accurate either. 

If either of those beliefs of negative intent are maintained, the result seems more likely to be lawsuits than restorative practices.


sbenois said:

And the CCR has also convicted without the facts.  Shameful.

I sent a pm to Nancy Gagnier saying that it was very disappointing that she joined in the condemnation of Ms. Herman without hearing Ms. Herman's side of the story or waiting for an investigation. No response. 


So, we will end up losing another teacher and driving another nail into the coffin containing public schools.  If I was that teacher, even if I prevailed, I think I would quit.

All for what would appear to be a misunderstanding that was immediately brought to the attention of the court of public outrage du jour.


joan_crystal said:

The head covering in the video is not blocking anyone's view of the child's eyes.  If one accepts the attorney's version of what happened that day, the child is wearing different clothes in the video than she was wearing in class.

Perhaps the head covering can be adjusted to be loosened and tightened, and the hijab may have loosened during lunch/recess and by placing a mask off and on. Then the child sat down in her chair, and the seat pushed up on the back of the hijab, somewhat shifting it forward so it comes down further over the child's forehead as she looks down at her work on her desk. 

It seems possible that in trying to get many masked kids paying attention after coming in on a cool fall day, several might have come in wearing sweatshirts with hoods, and the teacher walked through the seats to get them settled and have them take their hoods off, and makes a split-second misinterpretation of a hijab as a hoodie.

Either that or the child was lying to cover up that she was not wearing her hijab. 

But from the video of the child's experience, I interpret it as a 7-yr-old's embellishment of a story and filling in missing pieces of her understanding from her limited point of view. My own kids would give off a very different type of body language if they were telling a story to cover their own mistake (i.e., if the student had purposely not worn her hijab at that time).


so was it actually a hoodie or was it actually a hijab


jmitw said:

so was it actually a hoodie or was it actually a hijab

We don't know yet. 

My guess is that it was a loose and pushed forward hijab, that due to a matching blouse and the student being obscured by the desk, chair, and mask (plus the regular distractions of a classroom) the teacher accidentally momentarily interpreted it to be a hoodie.


Ibtihaj is at Point A and the teacher and lawyer are at Point Z and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  Both stories probably contain some truths and misperceptions.


After watching that Facebook live video, I have to say that Ibtihaj's claim that the girl was traumatized is a bit overblown. She seemed pretty happy about the whole thing.


yahooyahoo said:

Ibtihaj is at Point A and the teacher and lawyer are at Point Z and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  Both stories probably contain some truths and misperceptions.

 Has the CCR moved to de-escalate this situation?  Surely an organization that works to defuse racial tensions would seek to de-escalate situations and would work to distinguish between mistakes versus actions born out of genuine bias.


October 12, 2021

Good Afternoon South Orange & Maplewood School District Community,

As you may be aware, over the past several days, our District has been the focus of heavy media scrutiny on both the local and national levels, due to the alleged actions of a staff member. Our Central Office as well as Seth Boyden’s main office have been flooded with hundreds of calls and we have received over 2,000 emails, a majority of which have been from parties outside of our community and New Jersey.

The overarching tone of these correspondences condemn the alleged actions of the staff member and strongly advocate for adverse personnel action. However, some of the correspondences have been threatening, disrespectful, and vulgar in nature.

The values of our District and community have always centered around diversity, equity and respect regarding our differences. Our goal is to be inclusive and to provide an environment of safety where both our students and staff can thrive irrespective of their race, gender, religious affiliation, sexual identity, or socioeconomic status.

Although the nature of the allegations can cause an emotional response, we want to request for patience and civility during this time. The harsh and threatening comments received towards the Seth Boyden school, staff and District as a whole is concerning. Our staff should not be afraid to come to school or feel a heightened sense of concern for their personal safety due to threats from others. We are hopeful and all agree that the alleged actions of one employee should not condemn an entire community.

Over the last few days, I have personally visited Seth Boyden multiple times to offer support and was deeply moved to see the school community moving forward with a sense of positive purpose. Regarding our process when dealing with an issue or crisis such as the alleged actions previously mentioned, we have kept our local elected leaders abreast of our plan of action and appreciate their support. I have also had multiple conversations with our Board of Education President and other Elected Officials regarding their palpable concern for the wellbeing of our students and staff.

As we teach our children and students, social media, while a great technological tool, is one that must be leveraged responsibly. In our statement last week we communicated, “social media is not a reliable forum for due process and the staff member(s) involved are entitled to due process before any action is taken and we must abide by our legal obligations to keep personnel and student matters confidential.” In light of all of this, we want to thank the SOMSD community for supporting the concept of due process and civility while respectfully sharing your concerns.

In particular, Seth Boyden Elementary School is an environment that has traditionally been dedicated to maintaining a culture of wellness, diversity, and safety that creates a positive environment for its students to succeed on campus and in their personal lives. Daily, their dedicated administrators, staff, students and parents strive to uphold these values and improve our community. We want to specifically thank Seth Boyden’s administrators and staff for ensuring that in the midst of what has been a challenging few days our students continued to receive an exemplary education and were safeguarded from external factors.

To that point, pursuant to our Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Maplewood Police Department (MPD), we have been directed to pause our internal investigation into the alleged actions as the Prosecutor’s Office and MPD lead their own inquiry. As a reminder, while the District cannot comment on matters involving personnel or staff, the community can be assured that all necessary measures have been taken to remedy the immediate situation within the purview of the District’s power, while this matter is being investigated. Our ultimate hope is that a fair and just outcome would arise from this formal review for all parties involved.

In closing, we as educators (and parents ourselves) understand that these types of allegations can spark conversations with our children at home. These are not always easy or comfortable discussions but can be invaluable ‘teachable moments’ for us all. To that end, please review the resources below that you may find useful as you discuss this situation with your child(ren) and family.



tjohn said:

yahooyahoo said:

Ibtihaj is at Point A and the teacher and lawyer are at Point Z and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  Both stories probably contain some truths and misperceptions.

 Has the CCR moved to de-escalate this situation?  Surely an organization that works to defuse racial tensions would seek to de-escalate situations and would work to distinguish between mistakes versus actions born out of genuine bias.

 What has the CCR done to de-escalate the threats against Seth Boyden, the staff and the District, as mentioned in Dr. Taylor's  letter?  

Nothing. 


cramer said:

 With your proposal, students who do not have to wear a hijab would be allowed to keep their hoods up in classs,  blocking  their faces and their mouths. Is this what you're proposing. 

 If this is an acceptable replacement to a hijab for whatever reason, I have no problem with it. "Propose" is a bit strong, though.  Hijabs are much more fashionable, IMO.


With each passing day of no charges, the truth becomes more and more obvious. And the copy & paste from social media isn't helping the accuser's side. Ironically, if anyone gets a payday from all this, it's going to be the falsely accused teacher -- the allegations make zero sense. 


Like most, I have no idea what happened here. However, I'm not sure why SOMSD is pausing their investigation and putting everything into the hands of the MPD and Prosecutor's office. The police are there to determine if a criminal act occurred. The district has a much broader scope, which would include taking action if something inappropriate, yet not criminal, occurred.

We're talking about one circumstance on a single day with numerous (albeit young) known witnesses. This doesn't require massive investigatory resources and I see no reason why concurrent investigations can't take place. Maybe years of experience with the district have turned me into a cynic, but this seems like a preemptive move to back away from whatever result they believe is in the offing.



chalmers said:

Like most, I have no idea what happened here. However, I'm not sure why SOMSD is pausing their investigation and putting everything into the hands of the MPD and Prosecutor's office. The police are there to determine if a criminal act occurred. The district has a much broader scope, which would include taking action if something inappropriate, yet not criminal, occurred.

We're talking about one circumstance on a single day with numerous (albeit young) known witnesses. This doesn't require massive investigatory resources and I see no reason why concurrent investigations can't take place. Maybe years of experience with the district have turned me into a cynic, but this seems like a preemptive move to back away from whatever result they believe is in the offing.

 The reason it was turned over to the police is because of the threats to the teacher, the school, the town, by people on social media. This has become a nightmare for the teacher and the school. I personally think they should shut down in person schooling, go back to remote learning until this situation is figured out.


Jaytee said:

chalmers said:

Like most, I have no idea what happened here. However, I'm not sure why SOMSD is pausing their investigation and putting everything into the hands of the MPD and Prosecutor's office. The police are there to determine if a criminal act occurred. The district has a much broader scope, which would include taking action if something inappropriate, yet not criminal, occurred.

We're talking about one circumstance on a single day with numerous (albeit young) known witnesses. This doesn't require massive investigatory resources and I see no reason why concurrent investigations can't take place. Maybe years of experience with the district have turned me into a cynic, but this seems like a preemptive move to back away from whatever result they believe is in the offing.

 The reason it was turned over to the police is because of the threats to the teacher, the school, the town, by people on social media. This has become a nightmare for the teacher and the school. I personally think they should shut down in person schooling, go back to remote learning until this situation is figured out.

Certainly the police should be involved, both to investigate if anything criminal occurred and to protect the teacher and anyone else being threatened. I don't know why the district has to drop its investigation though. Proving criminality is a high bar. If the police/prosecutor rule against filing charges, is that it? Or does SOMSD then restart its investigation to determine if something noncriminal, but inappropriate occurred? If so, what was the point of the pause? 


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.