Board asks staff to clarify grooming intent vs. boundary violations and add explicit examples

Board members asked staff to clarify a drafting passage that lists examples of grooming behaviors and whether the listed examples require an intent to groom to be prohibited. Some members said the current phrasing might limit the policy's reach by tying every example to intent; staff told the board the examples could represent grooming when accompanied by intent but could also be inappropriate even without grooming intent.

Members also asked staff to add more explicit language to the examples. General Counsel Aka agreed that groping and massaging should be named, and several members pushed to include the terms hypersexualization and adultification and to clarify "preferential treatment" as conduct that can increase a staff member's access to a student. Aka said the policy committee would consider rewording those sections and adding examples to improve clarity.