Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ai Harassment Titleix topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges board to correct public record, launch investigations after AI‑generated sexualized images targeted students
Summary
During public comment Audrey Greenberg said the district "failed" to protect students and criticized the administration's communications about AI‑generated sexualized images; the policy committee said the administration is reviewing administrative regulations and may engage outside consultants.
A Radnor resident used the public‑comment period at the May 26 board meeting to press the district for clearer accountability after AI‑generated sexualized images circulated involving students. Audrey Greenberg told the board, "Radnor was given a test, a very serious one, and Radnor failed," and she urged the district to explain why a Title IX investigation was not launched.
Greenberg criticized the district's public statements for focusing on off‑campus conduct, police constraints and third‑party platforms rather than acknowledging mistakes and correcting the public record. "Accountability means telling the truth about what happened, what the district got wrong, and how it will ensure it won't happen again," she said, calling for clear corrective steps.
Policy committee chair (Miss Lau) told the board the administration had delivered an update on the accompanying administrative regulations and that the committee requested a formal presentation and further review. "I thought this was an important first step by our administration," she said, adding that the district is considering engaging outside consultants and continuing the review over the summer to update student‑conduct handbooks and practices.
The public commenter's core demands — a corrected public record and an explanation about the absence of a Title IX process — were not answered with a definitive factual account during the meeting; the board said administrative review and committee work were underway.
Provenance: Public comment took place near the start of the meeting; committee and administration responses appeared during subsequent committee reports and the policy committee update.
