Public commenters urge reconsideration of DEI and transgender protocols; board members offer clarifications
Loading...
Summary
During public comment at the March 12 Woodbridge Board meeting, speakers criticized current DEI and transgender-related school policies and cited legal settlements; board members responded with procedural clarifications and reminders about opt-out rights for sex education.
Two members of the public used the board's comment period to raise concerns about district approaches to diversity, equity and inclusion and procedures related to transgender students.
Paul Lund, a resident and self-described student-at-heart, criticized academic outcomes and raised concerns about mental-health trends among youth before turning to questions about DEI and sex-education curriculum. He asked why the district had changed a staff title (referring to "Mr. Ali") and urged transparency around DEI spending. Lund also asserted that some sex-education programs increase sexual activity, citing national data as part of a broader critique of curriculum choices. The board president ended Lund's allotted five-minute comment when his time expired.
A second commenter, Gerald Maglio of the Dolores Turco Foundation, urged the board to rescind what he cited as "policy 57 56," arguing the policy permits schools to provide confidential services to transgender students without parental notification and that it requires staff to be knowledgeable about transition-related supports. Maglio described the policy language he read aloud and cited out-of-state legal settlements involving school staff and gender-identity disputes as reasons for caution. He told the board such policies may conflict with teachers' religious rights and asked the board to consult legal counsel as needed.
Board members responded during and after the comments with procedural and factual clarifications. One board member noted parents have the option to opt their children out of certain sex-education instruction and described sex ed as public-health based. Another board member spoke in defense of a staff member referenced in public remarks, praising that person's professionalism and contribution to students. The board did not take immediate policy action during the meeting; public speakers asked for further review and for clarity on policy and spending.
The meeting record shows several distinct claims were made from the public podium (about curriculum effects, confidentiality protections, and legal risk); the board's responses focused on available parental opt-out rights and on staff appreciation, and the president enforced the five-minute public comment limit. Any formal review or policy change would require future agenda action and possible committee or legal staff consultation.
