Board statement defends February immigration‑response policy; public speakers call for safety and condemn rhetoric

Board member Kevin read a prepared statement defending a policy the Norwich Board of Education adopted on Feb. 11 intended to protect students from federal immigration enforcement actions on school premises.

The statement said the policy requires verification of legal authority and purpose by local law enforcement and legal counsel before permitting external enforcement access to students or staff. Kevin said the policy “reaffirms their commitment to providing a safe and inclusive educational environment for all students irrespective of their immigration status” and described opposition to the policy as “a fundamental misunderstanding of both the law and the purpose of the policy itself.” He said the policy does not instruct schools to act unlawfully but to follow the law and protect students’ constitutional rights.

During the public‑comment period multiple speakers addressed the board. Kristen Talley, who identified herself as a Connecticut public school teacher, said she condemned what she called “dehumanizing hate speech” and accused some prior remarks entered into the public record of maligning students and families. Christine Pahan, who said she is a school social worker, urged the board to consider the fear immigrant families experience and said giving families information about rights and resources does not constitute illegal assistance. Deborah Johnson, speaking as a social worker, referenced the National Association of Social Workers code of ethics and said social workers have a duty to provide culturally competent services to immigrant families, including ensuring they know relevant laws and access to appropriate support. Resident Enoch Petit said the board owed the community an apology for comments that hurt people.

Why it matters: speakers linked the board’s policy and public remarks to student safety and attendance, citing research that enforcement uncertainty increases absenteeism and trauma. The board’s written statement reiterates that schools must follow state and federal law while adopting steps to ensure students are not intimidated or denied access to education.

Discussion vs. decision: the meeting agenda included a reading of the board’s prepared statement and public comment; no new formal board action on the policy was taken during the session recorded in the transcript. The Feb. 11 adoption of the policy was referenced as the prior formal action.

What the statement and speakers said on the record are summarized here; direct quotes are attributed to the speakers who spoke on the record during the meeting.