Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Policy Harassment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board questions wording of harassment policy in first reading; legal counsel cites statute
Summary
During a first reading of district policy 103 on harassment, board members asked how the policy defines "sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive" conduct and whether use of a slur would meet that standard; district legal counsel said the language mirrors state statute and that determinations are fact-driven.
Saucon Valley School District board members on Jan. 28 discussed the first reading of Policy 103, the district's anti-harassment policy, raising questions about the policy's threshold language and how investigations would be conducted.
Board member Vivian Demko asked for a clear definition of "sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive," and whether use of an explicit slur would qualify under that standard. A staff member identified in the meeting as district legal counsel responded that the policy language is taken directly from the statute and that the word "or" in the policy is intentional for certain types of discrimination, while an "and" standard applies in some Title IX contexts. The counsel said a single use of a racial slur "could meet that definition" but emphasized that investigators must assess the "totality of the investigation."
Discussion clarified that the policy's definitions are statute-driven and that the district's investigative process would determine whether specific conduct met the statutory threshold. The board approved the first reading of the policy by voice vote; members called for clarity and relied on counsel's explanation that the district must follow the statutory wording.
The policy was moved and seconded for first reading and advanced with no recorded roll-call tally in the meeting transcript; the action was procedural and did not change district practice until a final vote at a future meeting.
