Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy Revisions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pitt County Schools attorney urges policy language changes as public commenters press to retain diversity commitment
Summary
At its May meeting, the Pitt County Schools board heard public comment opposing the proposed rescission of Policy 17-05, “Commitment to Diversity,” while the board attorney said policy language should be revised to align with recent federal guidance to avoid risking federal funding.
Pitt County Schools’ Board of Education on May (date not specified) heard public comment opposing the proposed rescission of Policy 17-05, titled “Commitment to Diversity,” and received a first reading of recommended policy-language revisions after the board attorney warned that current wording could invite federal scrutiny and jeopardize federal funding.
The concern drew multiple speakers at public expression. Deborah Jackson, a career educator and Greenville resident, said the 2015 policy adoption was “a commitment to the community, to children, and to our world and future,” adding, “A commitment is something that you hold on to even when it's hard.”
The board attorney, identified in meeting remarks as Hudson, said the proposed revisions are to align district policy language with federal guidance, including recent U.S. Department of Education “Dear Colleague” letters, and noted the recommendation came from the North Carolina School Boards Association. “I will note that nearly $30,000,000 in federal funding is at stake,” Hudson told the board, and described the proposals as a first reading that would return for a second reading unless further updates are submitted.
Other public commenters urged the board to retain diversity-related commitments. Michael Tan, a parent and public speaker, said: “DEI is how we get together as Americans,” and urged the board to keep diversity, equity and inclusion practices in hiring and curriculum.
Board members acknowledged the public comments and the tension between local commitments and the need to avoid jeopardizing federal funding. Hudson asked members to communicate any suggested language changes to his office before June so proposed revisions can be finalized for a subsequent reading.
No final policy votes were taken at the meeting; Hudson characterized the presentation as a first reading and asked for any board-suggested edits ahead of the next step.
The board will continue the policy review process, with revised language expected back to the board for a second reading at a future meeting.
