Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Policy Dei topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carmel Board Adopts Revised DEI Policy After Hours-long Debate and Several Amendments
Summary
After a multi-hour discussion and several roll-call votes, the Carmel Central School District Board adopted a revised equity, inclusion and diversity policy that includes new language affirming individuality, a title change and replacing “outcomes” with “opportunities.”
The Carmel Central School District Board of Education on June 10 adopted an amended equity, inclusion and diversity policy after extended debate and multiple roll-call votes.
Trustee John Curzio, who led much of the opposition, read a 2021 letter criticizing portions of the New York State DEI framework and moved to substitute an earlier April 4 draft of the policy; that substitution motion failed by roll call. Curzio then proposed a series of narrower amendments and read into the record excerpts from the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights letter as part of his remarks.
Board members debated specific language points for more than an hour, including whether the policy should say the district will “empower students as agents of social change,” how to define “equitable” results, and whether the district should explicitly acknowledge law-enforcement concerns. Trustee Curzio successfully moved to add a sentence to the policy’s generally accepted beliefs that "the district embraces individuality and does not believe that individuals are defined solely by their race, color, national origin, creed, religion, or ability." (Language as adopted.)
Another amendment changed a line in section 1.b. to read that the district aims to "ensure equitable educational opportunities for all students" (the board replaced the word “outcomes” with “opportunities”). The board also approved a change to the policy’s title to read, in part, "equity, inclusion, welcoming, affirming and diversity." Several proposed changes, including a motion to substitute the entire policy with the April 4 draft and a proposed law-enforcement-specific paragraph, failed in separate roll-call votes.
President Orser summarized the final step before the vote and read the three amendments into the record. The amended policy was adopted in a roll-call vote. Trustees asked the district’s legal counsel to review the final adopted text for conformity with federal law. President Orser said legal review would be requested and provided to the board.
The board characterized the adoption as a balance between following state guidance and addressing local concerns; trustees on both sides urged public engagement and said additional refinement could occur in committee or after legal review.
Next steps: the board asked legal counsel to review the adopted language and returned other, technical policy questions to the policy committee for clarification before implementation.
