The Mahomet-Seymour School Board voted in favor, 5-1, of updates to
three board policies related to diversity, equity and inclusion on
Monday, Dec. 14.
Board member Jeremy Henrichs voted no, Colleen Schultz said “present”
and Merle Giles, Meghan Hennesy, Ken Keefe, Lori Larson and Max McComb
voted yes.
Policy 1:10 deals with the school district’s legal status, stating its
vision to provide an “efficient system of high-quality public
educational institutions and services in order to achieve the
educational development of all persons to the limits of their
capabilities.”
The update to the policy included: “The District is committed to
providing a diverse, inclusive, and equitable learning environment
that supports all persons.”
Policy 3:10 focuses on the district’s goals and objectives. The update
to the policy included, “Create a diverse, inclusive, and equitable
learning environment that supports all students.”
Policy 6:10 lays out the district’s educational philosophy and
objectives. The update includes:
“Students benefit from a diverse, inclusive, and equitable learning
environment that promotes the social-emotional learning of all
students with an emphasis on sex, race/ethnicity, disability,
socioeconomic status, national origin, religion, and genetic
information.”
Henrichs, who voted against a board-level diversity committee, asked
if the district would be in legal peril by adopting the updates.
“If we don’t meet these objectives, in other words, if a teacher or a
staff member says something that is perceived as not equitable, or
maybe hurtful to somebody in some way, are they in some sort of peril
as far as, you know, loss of job benefits without pay?” he asked.
Henrichs asked “who determines what’s equitable,” and “who determines
what’s inclusive?
“By being inclusive for one subset of individuals you might exclude
another subset of individuals,” he said.
Henrichs said that he agrees that the goals for the district are good,
but he thinks that the language within the policy puts the district
“at jeopardy.”
Superintendent Lindsey Hall said that there are policies already in
place that cover the same purposes, including policy 7:10 that states,
in part: “Equal educational and extracurricular opportunities shall be
availalbe for all students without regard to color, race, nationality,
religion, sex, sexual orientation, ancestry, age, physical or mental
disability, gender identity, status of being homeless, imigration
status, order of protection status or potential marital or parental
status, including pregnancy. Further, the District will not knowingly
enter into agreements with any entity of any individual that
discriminates against students on the basis of sex or any other
protected status, except that the District remain viewpoint neutral
when granting access to school facilities under School Board policy
8:20, Community Use of School Facilities. Any student may file a
discrimination grievance by using the Uniform Grievance Procedure.”
Students and staff are also able to file complaints under Title IX or
under the district’s harassment or equal educational opportunities
policy.
“In my opinion, this doesn’t create more of that, I think it affirms
the board’s position to preserving that,” Hall said.
“We’re also going through and providing a lot of professional
development and training for our staff, hopefully to provide a
foundation for what these things look like in our school district.”
Henrichs said that his concern is if the district is not meeting the
objectives that they would be subject to a consent decree.
Hall said that can happen even without the policy or a statement on diversity.
Schultz, who has been in favor of a board-level diversity committee
that will listen to the community and help facilitate conversation on
how the district can work towards equality objectives, asked how the
policy changes how the district will approach the topics procedurally.
“This is also a board statement; the policies are what guide the
board,” Hall said. “These three policies happen to be more of a
philosophy or goal statement, they affirm a philosophy, they affirm
goals that we have. There are things we’ve heard over the last six
months that we do need to do differently in our district. So, this
could reflect that.”
Hall said that the district had devoted a lot of resources into five
town halls to discuss diversity and provided professional development
opportunities for staff last fall.
“Things look different going forward,” Hall said. “We’re always
working on this and we should be.”
After the vote was taken, Hall said that board members had a month to
voice their concerns or ask questions about the policy changes, and no
one reached out.
“I don’t say that to shut down communication is in this venue but I
might have been able to answer some more questions ahead of time,” she
said.
Schultz said that she feels like the actions stated had already been
completed, and she didn’t get information on how a policy would change
things for the future.
Larson, who paused prior to voting yes, said that she believes “all is all.”
“I’m not opposed to that,” Schultz said. “I believe all is all, too. I
just want to make sure what we do accomplishes what it is that we want
to do.
“I certainly support diversity and equity. I just keep reflecting back
on the students I heard talk about how they’ve been hurting. And I’m
just wondering, what we can do that’s going to change that and make
things better. And that’s what I want to strive for. “
Henrichs said that he feels like “the diversity industry is a billion
dollar industry” that has been doing “this for decades.”
“They’ve got nothing to show for it,” Henrichs said. “So, to me it’s
just a bunch of fluff. And, honestly, I don’t see how it improves our
students’ lives and how to improve our teachers’ lives.
“I’m not sure what it has to do with education. But I struggle with
the whole concept in general along with I think there’s potential
perils for the district legally if you don’t live up to your objectives. And I don’t know, I can’t support it.”
