Parents, civil-rights attorney press Columbus County board over alleged slur at Williams Township School

Several parents and an attorney urged the Columbus County Board of Education on May 12 to take further action after they say a substitute teacher at Williams Township School used racially offensive language in a classroom. Speakers said district responses so far — including reassigning one child to another school and arranging counseling — fall short and that families are pursuing legal remedies.

Morgan Cribb, identified at the meeting as president of the Williams Township PTO, said she spoke “as a voice for the 765 small hearts and minds that deserve safety.” She defended the school staff and said the teacher involved, “Miss Iris,” worked under an on‑call contract and “has not been suspended or terminated,” and that she had personal ties to many students at the school. Cribb said the controversy had “single handedly turned our school into a target” and that media involvement and protests had increased risk to students.

John C. Barnett of Civil Rights of North Carolina told the board he has been assisting two families whose daughters reported hearing the word “monkey” in class. Barnett said the families had exhausted attempts at local resolution and that a demand letter had been sent to the district’s attorney. He criticized the district for transporting one child to another school and for paying for two counselors for a student, saying the remedy should be accountability: “In order to kill cancer, you have to take, take take the cancer and address it with chemotherapy. The cancer is the teacher.” He said further demonstrations and press conferences were possible.

Other parents described the effect on their children. Sharnissa McCray, who identified herself as a Williams Township parent, said her daughter “has never been suspended from school” and said the district had failed to assure the child’s mental‑health stability while the substitute remained at the school. Miriam McCoy, mother of another student involved, said that after an earlier meeting in February she received no follow‑up calls and described the situation as “not about someone losing their job… it’s just about what’s right and what’s wrong.”

Board chair and staff cautioned speakers about student privacy rules earlier in the meeting; director of school operations Mr. Phipps reminded the room of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and asked commenters to avoid naming students during public comment. The board did not announce any disciplinary findings or personnel actions during the public portion of the meeting; after public comment the board said it would “take them under advisement.” The meeting later moved to a closed session under the state open‑meetings statute for privileged matters.

The speakers asked for clearer, transparent next steps from the district and indicated they were pursuing outside legal review; one attorney said a demand letter had been issued. The board did not vote on policy changes or personnel actions during the May 12 open session.

Provenance: public comments began at the May 12 board meeting’s public‑comment period and ended when the chair closed the public comments portion of the meeting.