Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Comment Dei topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident criticizes DEI and staff comments during public comment at Oyster River meeting

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A public commenter at the April 16 Oyster River Coop School District meeting criticized diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) work and cited staff comments she called racist, urging the board to disavow such remarks and focus on academics.

During the public-comment period at the April 16 Oyster River Coop School District meeting, a resident criticized the district’s DEI-related work and cited past staff remarks as evidence that the program had been harmful and divisive.

The resident said she opposed outside federal involvement in local schools but argued that DEI efforts had been "very partisan" and "divisive." She told the board she believed the policies "have not been effective" and described them as "identity politics" that place people into categories on the basis of skin color.

The commenter referenced national coverage of past staff remarks and said those comments were "racist". She recounted excerpts she said had come from a senior staff member and said, "this skin color people are not okay," adding that another quoted title she referenced told a group "this skin color and this gender need to wash their blanking legs." She called those statements "terribly, terribly embarrassing" and said the board should have publicly rejected them at the time.

The resident also said an academic study (she identified Rutgers University) supported her view and offered to provide details, and urged the board to "leave the partisanship and division away" and focus on instruction in math and science.

The remarks occurred during the public-comment portion of the meeting. The board did not record an on-the-record response to the commenter during the remainder of the meeting.

Ending: The comment was part of the evening’s public-comment period; no formal action or board statement followed at the April 16 session.