Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy 0012 Dei topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carmel Central board holds first reading of revised DEI policy amid heated public comments
Summary
Trustees submitted revisions to policy 0012 (equity, inclusion and diversity) for a first read and drew extended public comment urging preservation of protections and better clarity on the policy framework; trustees asked the policy committee and legal counsel for more detail before a vote.
The Carmel Central School District Board of Education submitted revisions to policy 0012, titled equity, inclusion and diversity in education, for a first reading on May 6, prompting extensive public comment and a sustained trustee discussion about legal guidance and which state framework the policy should follow. Trustee Jesse Curzio, speaking during the first‑read discussion, asked the policy committee to clarify whether the policy aligns with the New York State culturally responsive and sustaining education framework or with other DEI frameworks previously discussed, and offered to forward the two frameworks and associated legal guidance to the committee for review.
Community speakers urged the board to preserve and strengthen DEI protections. Mike Falloon, a parent and longtime district resident, told the board he supported keeping both the current policy and the proposed additions, saying the policy ‘‘pertains to diversity, equity and inclusion and seeks to protect Carmel staff and students from racism, discrimination and marginalization.’’ Abigail Lyons, speaking in the second public comment period, urged trustees to choose words carefully and said that dismissive language discourages Spanish‑speaking families from participating: ‘‘Please stop dismissing my community,’’ she said.
Trustees acknowledged the sensitivity and complexity of the topic. Trustee Curzio said the board had received legal guidance on proposed language intended to align the policy with the NYSED culturally responsive framework and recommended that specific guidance be shared with the policy committee so trustees and the public can better compare frameworks. Trustee Wise and others noted that legal counsel reviewed the policy language; President Orser said legal helped refine language but distinguished between legal review and a formal legal recommendation. Trustee Douglas and others emphasized the board’s intent to protect students and to address inequities while balancing concerns raised by community members.
The policy remains at first read; the board did not vote on final adoption. Trustees requested additional information and asked the policy committee to bring comparative materials and the legal guidance to a future meeting so that language and intent can be clarified before a formal vote.
