Palm Beach County School Board adopts revisions that repeal several DEI policies after heated public comment

The Palm Beach County School Board on [date not specified in the record] adopted a package of revised policies that, in the versions approved by the board, remove or revise language connected to the district’s diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs.

The board voted to adopt revisions affecting multiple policies cited in staff materials, including policy 1.091 (audit committee language), 3.05 (equal employment opportunity policy), 6.142 (diversity in business practices), 6.143 (diversity and equitable utilization in business), 6.1434 (small business enterprise program) and 7.081 (non‑discrimination statement). Board members repeatedly considered but rejected motions to temporarily “suspend” those policies instead of adopting the staff‑recommended revisions; the suspension motions were moved by board member Mr. Ferguson and failed. Several final votes carried with Ms. Savallero and Mr. Ferguson recorded as opposed to the majority.

The votes followed extended public comment. Dozens of residents and advocates spoke during a continuous series of public comments, urging the board not to remove protections and recruitment language they said help students and small businesses from historically excluded groups. “Keeping DEI policies in place would acknowledge centuries‑long discrimination and encourage culturally responsive hiring,” said Brigitte McTigue, a retired teacher (public comment). Karen Mitroni said removing the policies would “slap the face of those in your employ” and hurt teacher recruitment. Student speakers and advocates described personal impacts: “Seeing those LGBTQ+ adults as a teenager saved my life,” said Kai Walker, a 23‑year‑old graduate and social work student.

Board members who supported the staff package framed the actions as adoption of revised policies required in some cases to comply with recent guidance or statute and as necessary clarifications. Board members who opposed the changes, most vocally Mr. Ferguson, said the rollbacks send a negative message to students and community members who benefit from recruitment and contracting priorities. He urged the board to consider suspending changes while litigation and federal guidance play out.

Legal and procedural context came up frequently on the dais. Public speakers and some board members cited a U.S. Department of Education memorandum and subsequent court actions; advocates noted a federal court injunction that temporarily enjoined enforcement of an April DOE “Dear Colleague” letter. The transcript includes staff references to specific state statutes during other policy discussions (for example, the school‑discipline discussion referenced Florida statutory language). The district’s general counsel cautioned the board about differences in rules that apply to other governing bodies (county ordinances) versus school boards.

The board’s minutes show the motions carried after roll‑call style exchanges that recorded who moved and seconded each motion and named which board members opposed them. The meeting record lists the motions as carried and notes that on several items the vote was 5‑2 with Ms. Savallero and Mr. Ferguson opposed.

What happens next: The approved policy language is the board’s adopted position; staff will post the updated policy documents and implement changes as required. Several board members and members of the public said they intend to continue engaging on these topics at future meetings.

Vote details at a glance: The meeting transcript records that each of the policy adoptions carried; motions to suspend individual policies were proposed and defeated before the adoption votes. Where the transcript records oppositions, it identifies Ms. Savallero and Mr. Ferguson as voting in opposition on multiple items.

The board adjourned after completing the adopted items.