Peters school board censures member accused of racist Facebook post |

Peters school board censures member accused of racist Facebook post

Megan Guza
Peters Township School Board member William Merrell

The Peters Township school board voted Monday night to publicly censure a board member accused of sharing a racist Facebook post.

William Merrell previously said he never made the Facebook post, and it happened when his account was hacked two years ago.

The post included a link to a list suggesting what would happen if all African Americans left the country and was accompanied by a racial slur. The screenshots suggest that Merrell posted the link and added his own comment of, “Crime in the Burgh would go down for sure.”

The resolution to censure Merrell passed unanimously at Monday’s regularly scheduled school board meeting.

Merrell said in an email to the Trib that he apologized for offending anyone.

He said he voted in favor of the censure against himself because “it would not be genuine for me to apologize then vote against the only action the board could legally take with a sitting board member.”

Of his apology, he said: “I did this because I care more for this district then I do about the individuals that take everything out of proportion and the lies and distortions that brought me to this point.”

Several parents spoke out at the meeting, and Merrell said some “did strike a chord,” and he saw how the posts could have been out of context of his “original meanings.”

Megan Guza is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Megan at 412-380-8519, [email protected] or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.