Student tells board a classroom handout caused racial harm; board limits handout’s use to instructional staff only

A high school student and several parents asked the School District 5 board on June 8 to acknowledge racial harm after unapproved classroom material was shown in a Dutch High School class. The board later moved to limit the material’s distribution.

Student Aviana Thorp testified she felt “uncomfortable, confused, and hurt” after a class assignment included language and descriptions she described as stereotypes and racist. Thorp said she received no clear apology or explanation afterward and asked the board to ensure students’ concerns are taken seriously.

“My concern has always been the students,” said Brenda Thorp, Aviana’s parent, during public participation. She asked for a classroom-level acknowledgement and apology explaining the material was not approved and did not meet district standards; she also asked for communications to parents and safeguards to prevent unapproved materials from being used.

Courtney Thomas, political director for the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina and a district alumna, told the board that while the material may have been offensive, the administrative response (investigation and teacher conversation) followed regulation 43-170 and that courtious expansion of relief could risk censorship beyond what the regulation allows. Thomas urged contextual classroom discussion rather than preemptive removal of materials that are otherwise part of state‑approved texts.

After public comment, the board clarified its authority: it can limit supplemental, unapproved classroom materials and set distribution rules, but it does not have jurisdiction to remove state‑approved texts. The board then voted 4–2 to approve a motion restricting the disputed “Harlem language” handout so that instructional staff may use it only in relation to approved curriculum; the motion prevents copying, posting, or broad distribution of the handout by staff to students outside the approved curricular context.

Board members and speakers at the meeting discussed other remedies—such as classroom-level apologies and clearer communications to families—but several board members noted such responses fall to school administrators and teachers rather than the board itself. The ACLU speaker and other commenters urged care in applying regulation 43-170 so that academic context and free-expression concerns are not inadvertently curtailed.

Outcome and next steps: the board’s motion focuses on restricting distribution of the supplemental handout. Parents and students who asked for direct apologies or district-level accountability said they will continue to press for clearer communications and classroom-level acknowledgement. The district administration said it had reviewed the material internally and removed the supplemental handout when concerns were raised.

Speakers quoted or relied on are included in the meeting roster and the district’s public records for the June 8 meeting.