Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Expression Dei topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Speakers urge Pitt County board to protect DEI policies while others call for votes on anti‑DEI language
Summary
Multiple speakers during public expression urged the board either to remove anti‑DEI language from board materials and vote publicly, or to retain diversity, equity and inclusion protections for students, including LGBT protections and pregnant students.
During the meeting’s public‑expression period, several members of the public urged the Pitt County Schools Board to take a public position on proposed changes to district diversity, equity and inclusion policies.
Mike Tan, co‑chair of 5051 Greenville, told the board his group wants the board to remove anti‑DEI language from the consent agenda and vote on it publicly so voters know who supports students. He said organizers had seen “workarounds” to state anti‑DEI rules and urged the board to be explicit about where it stands.
“...I would hope that you would remove the anti DEI language off the consent agenda and vote on it, so that the public will know who supports our kids,” Mike Tan said.
Other speakers urged the board to keep DEI protections. Tricia Warkow told the board, “We cannot take away these DEI policies, we cannot take away the protections for our LGBT students.” Nicole Cole, who identified herself as a Marine Corps veteran, warned that removing policies that protect pregnant students and other groups would harm children and minority students.
Representatives of Moms for Liberty also addressed the board. Julie Andrews, speaking for the group, described a parental‑rights initiative tied to a national commemoration and urged parental engagement in curriculum discussions.
Speakers repeatedly framed their comments as defending students and urged the board to consider constitutional and statutory obligations. One speaker referenced Article I, Section 15 of the North Carolina Constitution, which says the people have a right to the privilege of education and that the State must guard and maintain that right. Board members did not reply to the public comments during the meeting; the chair reminded speakers that the board listens but does not respond during public expression.
Speakers and board members also raised related operational concerns — for example, one parent asked for improvements to middle‑school testing schedules and another urged completion of pay increases for classified staff.
The public comment period concluded before the board moved to consent agenda items and other business.
