[Music] good evening everyone welcome to today's policy subcommittee meeting it is Monday March 11th our first agenda item is review and approval of the January 22nd policy review subcommittee minutes would someone like to move them thank you Andy stepen I'll take your hand as a second Andy your vote Yes Stephen yes Valerie yes and I also vote Yes now our second agenda item initially was going to be discussion of statutory changes to the student code of conduct Lisa was going to walk us through those changes she is not yet available she will be available possibly at 6:00 maybe not till 6:15 so going to uh get to that agenda item later that now brings us to discussion of draft policy on hate speech and possible vote I circulated a draft yesterday evening Stephen has since provided uh a revised draft based on the initial one uh I like the vast majority of Stevens's changes and we can discuss uh at least from my end the the one or two questions I have for him and certainly hear from you as well Andy and Valerie and anyone else who's participating at this meeting so bety could you pull up Stephen's draft sorry go ahead Andy before we start can I ask um sort of why did you decide to go ahead with drafting such a policy well we've heard tremendous feedback from the community that a hate speech policy would be beneficial so that both our uh Educators and our students have some sense of what to do on occasions where hate speech arises uh this would be a first for area districts to have a hate speech policy but it is not something that's unique to public school districts in the US uh part of my initial draft was modeled after the McFarland School District in Wisconsin uh and there are a few other school districts that have spe hate speech policies it's not uh particularly common but I do expect that a lot of districts will move in this direction because it is an area that I believe to be inadequately addressed currently and as you've probably noticed from emails we receive and public comment there are a lot of anecdotes about hate speech coming up and no one really knowing exactly what to do with it so to the extent that this can help set up a system of uh procedures that will allow for seamless processing of hate speech incidents I think that will be helpful and actually stepen had brought up uh hate speech even two years ago and we never really quite got around to it and we're getting around to it now after hearing a lot from the public but there had been some interest in this uh even a couple years back I I'll just say David I I had brought it up initially but that was before I had dove into it and I spent some time talking to Ken Stern the IH anti-Semitism definition author and some other people at the B Institute for the study of hate speech and I ended up much more ambivalent about the possible uses of hate speech policy um that said I I appreciate the job you did on this I do want to fully flush out what we have here with the subcommittee all right Natalia I just have a question what's the current like in the absence of a policy I know there have been incidences of you know swastikas and and words scribbled like what is what is the policy is it what are we trying to solve for beyond the demand from the community which I heard loud and clear too I just want to know what the standard practice is well I think that's part of the challenge that sometimes depending on one's interpretation we look at the anti-bullying policy sometimes the anti discrimination policy but those don't always neatly fit into every type of hate incident that can arise and so I think we've heard uh through a lot of anecdotes from the public that there are many incidents where we're caught somewhat flat-footed in how to respond because we don't have an existing system in place to deal with it so to the extent that creating a policy and then promulgating procedures based on that policy can help provide those types of guard rails I think that will be helpful for our community I think it also allows us the way it's drafted to track them and track the types of hate speech that occur where they occur um in a way that we don't have a mechanism for now um as as the school committee anyway I agree the reporting uh requirement from this policy I think is extremely useful because it will provide us with data points in the future to see what types of speech are occurring where they're occurring the grade levels the schools uh the ways in which they manifest themselves and that will help inform us as a committee about steps that we can take in terms of where we deploy resources or where we uh shift our potential Focus all right Betsy can you uh pull up Steven's draft uh can everyone see it I see it yes everyone else um one note Betsy the the last sentence of the first paragraph under definition while often employed I think that should be deleted uh I didn't do that previously uh and the reason for that is that it's now I think well this is something that can be discussed so that that that's sort of the discussion point that I wanted to ask about but go ahead well I think um some categories some examples that you provide David um that's true for like uh if there are if there are symbols for instance that are disseminated or made publicly visible without that don't fall into an exception that makes sense to me that the intention is not is not important um however I could see a wide range of statements that can fall into a gray area the backing up a step the difficulty I think with hate speech policy is defining hate speech specifically I think I think that's a relatively uncontroversial view um there's some areas of hate speech or hate iconography that are less difficult to pin down like hate symbology I think everyone will agree that a swasa is an example of of a hate symbol but there are there are there are speeches that will fall into into a gray zone so I think when it comes to statements I think that should rise to a higher level of scrutiny and that's why I think intentionality there matters whereas I think um with something like gestures and symbols that's that's less important that that was my reasoning anyway okay for me the reason that I'm not sure intention to provoke should matter is precisely for an example that you get into later that you added where uh members of the same group were calling one another a certain epithet and I don't think that is any better just because somebody is a member of the group and using an epithet against that group that somehow that makes it not hate speech because that still can offend other people so even if the intention is not to provoke and even if the recipient is not taking it as an insult there are still some third parties who might be present who are impacted by it and so I'm more concerned about the perception from those who are witnesses rather than the specific intent of the person who is engaging in the speech I think that the distinction would be drawn on the remediation side so if someone is not intending harm then certainly the remediation is not going to be uh perhaps as uh indicting on that individual as it would on someone who was intending harm it might be more educational of you know this use of this word can really hurt people even if you didn't mean it that way and that might be the extent of their mediation so I think that's where intent matters but I'm not sure it matters at the outset so so I I think we disagree on that one I I think when it comes to speech and epithets those can fall into for me a carve out category where they can be deployed in uh self-deprecating familiar or reappropriated manners That Could Fall outside of hate speech and that's where I think intentionality is the level of scrutiny I would apply to it to deter whether it's hate speech but but I guess what I would emphasize there is that that seems to be my subjective opinion and I wouldn't want to apply it whereas it seems easier to make the call on on uh symbols and gestures and and where where gets fuzzy for me is where I would want to decline to impose a view and where I would just offer examples instead but again this is this is just my where I become ambivalent is where I would want to withdraw from imposing a view so I sort of feel like we have to impose a view of some sort right we need to give guidance to those who are going to implement this policy um so I think the examples are helpful and I'm sort of curious why you deleted them like to to me the more examples are probably going to be helpful to um administrators because I saw that you did I saw that you you changed it just one per category and I was curious why I think um some examples are uh are not clear examples I think for some it the I think for some uh it's not an example of hate speech like which like from The River To The Sea I think in some cases that can be deployed it it can be when you take intention into account it cannot be hate speech and I think on this reasonable people can disagree I might hear it as hate speech I might think it as hate speech but I can imagine and I can see a reasonable person who feels otherwise arguing what exactly to is not intended as hate speech that it is intended as a freedom cry but that's just an example I wouldn't want to get too bogged down on that specific example it's especially heated example I think but I think the more we go into specific examples the more difficult it is to parse for me with the specific examples that I think one that would best reflect the point I was making earlier uh the nword so there are members of the African-American community that do refer to one another by that term and just because they are in the same group using it I don't think that makes it okay that doesn't that doesn't suddenly remove it from hate speech because it's an African-American using it and there are other African-Americans who would presumably be very deeply offended by hearing that uh and hate speech is not necessarily between just two people it might be said in a classroom where you have 20 people overhearing it and while the uh initial recipients might not be offended there are others who could hear it who certainly would be and I can't imagine any context other than perhaps an instructional one involving literature where use of the n-word would be remotely appropriate regardless as to who's saying it so I think that's an example where the intention of the person who's providing the statement is not as important as the potential impact on those who hear it Natalia I think this is really complicated and I think for some words it's clearcut but I would say I I see that step has taken out for example the word terrorist he has also taken out from the river to the Sea and I can say that in the current crisis I have heard people feel that both are hateful and that um other kind of within the category of terrorists being called Pro Hamas just by being at a pro Palestine that that has felt like hate speech so when people made statements you know parents and school committee saying these promass rallies that people felt that that was basically called them terrorist rallies and therefore this was terrorist and there this was hate speech and I think that would be kind of extreme some people may actually be calling this group of people terrorists and they may be hateful similarly on the from The River To The Sea a lot of people do use it as a one-state solution it's an inclusive land everybody should be there you know so but I know that people have heard it as hate speech too so I I worry I do worry and I raised this from the very first minute that you know we either have to be very specific and include all and those are going to be the terms that you use and then we need to educate the students and we need to say you can never say someone is pramas unless you know you have evidence that they are pramas that because that means you're calling them a terrorist you know like we either I feel like the examples that are borderline are going to be tough they are going to be tough and they're going to be interpreted differently um and I'll give you an example like the student who spoke um at the high school the day of racial Reckoning many parents told us that they heard that as hateful and I heard it and I thought it was not hateful and you know like what do we do without student if we had had this policy would the parents have said this is hate speech because I mean they didn't use any of these terms I mean I think they were very careful but yet you know I do worry a little bit about these gray lines I've worried all along and I wouldn't want to make it worse on the other hand and this is was my original intention of like why are the other policies failing can we figure that out and and but we should be thinking about how would this have applied to other circumstances that we've heard about and whether we would have agreed with that application or not but I have other thoughts too but I I'll stop there Sten I I guess just to respond to your comment David on the nword as an example so when I coincidentally when I visited BHS uh and their deling uh to visit the deleveled English courses I sat in on the standard and honors classes and the standard class was talking about African-American vernacular English and you know in African-American vernacular English um the nword can be used in not just a pejorative way but also in a colloquial and familiar way or a version of it can be and and when so so parsing at that finally um can lead to difficulty right it can it can lead to cases where someone is offended sure but it also can lead to cases where it's used in a way that is it can be used in a friendly and colloquial way someone could be offended but the user can be using it in a way that is not intended to offend and can be used in a way that is recognized by um by a to be non-pejorative so and I think there are a multiplicity of cases like that which is why again I think if we start to if we start to define the examples really precisely we're going to find ourselves I guess unqualified to to identify exactly which cases we're unqualified to really parse the definition of hate speech this is not this is not something that we can do so what we can do I think is to put at best is to put a number of cases that are well over the line and then Define a process by which cases that are well over the line should follow but but other than that I think we need to stay away otherwise other otherwise I don't think it's worth trying to pass the policy at all that's my position on this Valerie so I was going to reply to Natalia I mean I think the issue Natalie is that we really only have the bullying policy and it's just not adequate to address things like a swastika or um you know something of that nature where perhaps you know you can't identify you can't identify a victim or a perpet necessarily but but it needs to be something that's addressed or you know the whole class is the is the victim or it just doesn't fit neatly into the um bullying and you know CLA correct went from wrong but I believe that right now is our only um Avenue for reporting and it it just feels wholly inadequate to address hate speech we also have the discrimination and harassment so that's where most of this is being resolved under harassment and typically most districts that's what where they are doing they're reporting through harassment so if there was a swasa on a on a chalkboard that would be done through discrimination and harassment Andy may I just follow up to ask what would what would the process look like in that case where there's not an identifiable individual who was victimized by the ACT um I I think when there when so I I'll take it from two perspectives when they know for sure when there's an investigation because typically when there's some form of of of hate symbol that's been that's been found in a bathroom there's an investigation that takes place typically we're able to determine if there's a student Who's involved and a full investigation takes place very similar to what would happen with the with the bullying but it would fall under harassment and then the the repair is is is typically through a restorative practice and and education um I think when we don't know um who the perpetrator is when it's a symbol or in words or something like that it becomes a little bit more difficult but I I still would say that it's being um the repair and the response is through ed through an educational lens where there's typically a communication going out to teachers and staff and to families that something has happened this has this is what was found and this is how you know we don't stand for you know this type of behavior that kind of thing is resolved that way I I get the sense with this that we're we're going through trying to develop a protocol that will lead to some form of um of a finding and then there's some form of a a disciplinary action which I think will be challenging for us um in that you know so much of hate speech is covered under the First Amendment so um you know I I think that would be challenging I'm hearing that we do have mechanisms to address this even when it's a whole group being targeted and not an individual victim of harassment um but in that case I mean as David said we we are um getting lots of reports of things that happen and people do not feel that they are being addressed and that's the whole motivation for doing this so I'm I'm a bit puzzled here I think it well I think I think it's right I mean I I did a residency at BHS last week we met with um several student groups um they shared many um situations that they've experienced um many of our students are not reporting so we do have the incident reporting form they're not using that form they're not also not using the bullying form form so I think what's challenging is there are some mechanisms that are in place there are people who don't feel safe enough to actually utilize those mechanisms in reporting so I think some of the work that we have to do is bigger than this it's you know that people don't feel as though the response will um is the response and support is there for them to do the reporting to be clear at least my intention with this policy is not necessarily disciplinary I mean clearly there would be instances where discipline may be appropriate but I look at it more I called it remediation because I see an educational component like these are not words you should be using this is why it can be harmful not necessarily punishing but making use of it as a a teachable moment no I I I I understand your intention I do think this this with this though that we have to be concerned about what's to come on the other side of it I don't believe that every one will utilize um the policy in that way can I ask you directly Claire sure I'm asking as someone who's genuinely on the fence on this and who's gone who's swung around a few times do you think any policy is necessarily counterproductive is having a policy on hate speech the wrong way to go I I mean I I think that to be honest with you I think right now what's happening um within our schools can be covered under discrimination and harassment and through bullying if it's repeated it's going to fall under our bullying policy um we know that there can be one particular incident that will fall under harassment and we will respond to that um I think this could potentially be counterproductive I think this um it's like intent versus impact I think there's some people who will definitely be on the side of this is an opportunity for us to do come from a teaching and learning lens and use restorative practices um to do some repair um and change School culture School climate I think that's a lot of the work that we need to do but um I I just don't know that everyone will have the same intent and I do think um which is challenging I think what you've heard from our building leaders and from our community members they're looking for something that they can hold on to at times that you know there's this one step one step two step three and then we have a finding I mean even right now with some of our uh bullying you know there's there's a line in there that refers to and if warranted if it's determined that we need to go to law enforcement you know um I I just want us to be cautious that you know it can be a slippery slope but I understand um that many um folks feel as though we need to do something more it's just it's very difficult it seems to me that David wrote in more of a Resto restorative justice lens so if that were perhaps fleshed out a little bit more clear how would would that feel better to you or how I think yes but I do think if we get in we get into um Muddy Waters in in a very gray area where um we have to be careful of findings you know often times there's School removal um we have to be careful with school removal in these situations we could really open ourselves up to um to to bigger issues if there's a finding and then we decide to remove students um from school we already have that risk with the anti-bullying and discrimination so I'm not sure how this would add to it that's that's already present because I what this would because hate speech is covered under the um First Amendment no but I'm right but precisely because it's covered by the First Amendment why would there be a concern about severe disciplinary consequences if it's not done well I mean I think it's it's a judgment I think I would hope that whoever would remove students because of this it would it would make sense but um that there's the potential risk of a student being suspended inappropriately as opposed to using a restorative practice and then opening ourselves up to something larger I'm not saying it will happen but there's the potential that's there andy why would we not have that risk already under the existing policies if as as you said like the existing policies also are able to address such inst incidents I think because we're adding more criteria with this policy if we have examples of kinds of actions that would trigger a protocol in this policy that didn't exist previously we're adding new categories by which a student can uh can be penalized so then in fact the incidents like this are not covered under current policies we're we're adding them to the the list of things that somehow PSP will will be required I see your point I'm I'm I'm not sure whether that is my point I'm trying to understand what the current situation is and how writing such a policy as this would change it and I feel like I'm hearing different things I see I see I think what I'm saying if if a a student so for instance I had a student tell me um his cousin someone um ran up to him and called him a terrorist and I said well did he um report it they said no because I hadn't received anything and he said he's not going to report it but had that student reported it there would would have been an investigation it would have fallen under the harassment um protocol which is really a Bine protocol um I think um for some people based on some of the the examples that are listed there it's not that they're looking at it as if it's not only just hate speech but a hate crime again this is I just think we have to be careful because I do believe it can be a slippery slope anyone else so where are we now so that that sidebar now I'm extra lost so is this is this policy now covering something that was previously not covered I thought it was and my concern was that it was covering in a way that was very difficult very complex and the more that we tried to Define it the more we were um the more we were creating definitions that would create more problems than it would solve and so my my edits were aiming to broaden the examples in such a way as to make it clear that it was way past the line nowhere close to the line so would would trigger a protocol only if it was well over that line so Stephen I'm reading right now from the attorney general's guidance on schools must respond to hate and bias incidents involving students because hate incidents may involve bullying harassment or both bullying and harassment schools must ensure that their response complies with both the anti-bullying law and the anti- description Discrimination Act moreover even if a school determines that a hate incident does not rise to the level of bullying or harassment it should still address behavior that violates its code of conduct or other disciplinary rules among other issues a school May violate the anti-discrimination ACT if it fails to address misconduct and that misconduct continues and eventually creates or contributes to an intimidating or hostile environment and then goes on to talk about not limited by the physical boundaries of the school campus what are what are you hearing in that it seems to me that we're well within compliance we're looking to to solve an additional problem that's been sourced repeatedly by our community right I'm not I'm not sure that our our code of conduct is addressing it is addressing those that don't rise to the other two statutes exactly I agree with Val so I think this is filling an existing vacuum and we heard some concern concerns about how it might be used to meet out discipline in violation of the First Amendment but as Andy mentions that implies that this does cover some new grounds natalyia I'm I'm a little concerned with what Claire said in terms of and I've been kind of mulling it over the the sort of intent versus impact piece and I I want us to just be aware of that like do we expect that the impact will be differentially felt by our students of color because some of the words that you're saying should be included like what just so that we know that that's the like is the impact going to be differentially felt and are we okay with that that's one question the other one and and to your point Val around the intimidating and hostile environment I'm just going to give an example where I think the that we might overcorrect and create an intimidating and hostile environment for um in this case in the Palestinian sort of Israeli case for Palestinian students I can give you an example of a fifth grader being pulled by the by the principal because they were Distributing or principal thought they were Distributing bracelets of the Palestinian flag and being you know sort of Taken and consulted with you know something that is not in any way like Distributing bracelets is probably not a hateful thing but the perception and that sort of creating a intimidation for a small group of fifth graders that that is real um you know that sort of switching to that side that we in trying to protect we go over the line so I would like if we do have a policy to include some very clear guidelines of like and this is okay the high school student who spoke we expect that there will be disagreements and like like we do for the cour workk some of those gray areas that we think is okay it's okay for students to come in wearing a cafa or you know because I do worry that that we the chilling effect that you know Stephen sort of spoke to in this specific environment that we are right now could be real too so how do we balance for what absolutely what I want which is none of these incidents to be happening and also not to be scaring people to not even show up in their full identity because they fear that that will be perceived as hateful um you know and H how do we balance that and then back to what Claire said the impact that we the unintentional impact for some groups and I don't know if we we include sexual minorities but should we include you know other forms like you know there's words that people use to describe women that are derogatory in a you know sometimes women use it with themselves like should we be including those words like those are some other things to keep in mind thanks so in my initial draft yes uh sex sexual orientation is included I think Steven still has it too it's probably in the very first paragraph I was just wondering if gender identity should be there too I think it is can can you scroll up Etsy oh yeah gender identity is up there okay okay but then in the examples okay I didn't see it thanks I do see the point about where some of the specific examples can create a gray area and that we don't want to exacerbate certain situations but I do think that this policy does fill a current need because it's not clear that anti-bullying and discrimination cover every single situation I don't believe that they do when we see the reporting data on those uh topics supposedly there aren't that many instances happening and that's just very hard for me to believe because we get emailed lots of uh anecdotes about it we hear about it in public comment uh and so that tells me either what Claire is saying that perhaps students themselves are afraid to report it but their parents are not and then we and we mostly hear it from the parents Andor that there are some categories that slip through the cracks CLA I mean we have very few incidents that are being reported and but the people are being very Frank I mean as to why they're not reporting they don't feel comfortable reporting they don't want be they're afraid of retaliation I mean all of the students have indicated that so it's not that they're not sharing with their parents and their parents are coming to public har and even when we've had our listening sessions they've been really Frank about what those students are experiencing I mean we don't deny that that that there something that's happening it's just not being reported and I don't know how much more we can encourage them because they don't feel safe enough to report because of the climate say a little bit about the current reporting system can you just say a little bit about what it currently is so for in regards to bullying and and harassment each school has a document so you can go to the bullying and um page um that's on the domain website your schools listed there you click on it and you report an incident I get notified the school leader gets notified as well as um Lisa gets notified so there are three ways of us getting notified um if you just want to report an incident to the office of educational equity and student services you can report it that way or you can just report to our office and how do we know that people are Under reporting because they're scared um just in regards to what the students are saying I can only go by that and what um people are saying at public comment and what they've indicated at listening sessions that they don't feel comfortable and safe enough to report but they are reporting that all these things are actually happening and I don't deny that they're happening I mean the students were very Frank the other day when we met with them the things that are being said um but you know they don't they don't feel safe Claire because of retaliation they believe if it's inv I get that but I want to understand that a little bit more retaliation by PSB by by the other students by the student so when the student indicated to me that um his cousin was called a terrorist and he encouraged his cousin to go and and you know report it he said no I don't I don't want to deal with any retaliation but if we get off of if we get off of of Israel um Gaza right now and we're talking say about as swastika I don't think I don't get the sense that we're having that same issue with symbolism um from my understanding any type of symbol that's ever been reported has been reported investigated and there's been a response to it um there has hasn't been any thus far since I've been here I've I mean I've only been here since July but the for my understanding anytime there was um a hateful symbol um or hate speech that was something that was consider a racial slore or end or hate speech was reported so when I first got here there was something we found at a particular school that had been there literally since this the previous year and we they investigated and we it was responded to and was that then reported in what we get at school committee um I don't believe we had them the new system at that time it was very early I want to say it was September actually that took place and it was um that use the use of the nword anyone else Andy yeah I'm really glad that Val reminded us about the ago guidance because looking back at that I I actually find that quite useful in terms of um uh articulating the possible need for a policy like this one and also talking about what the scope of a policy like that would be I'd propose that like somebody go back and basically review the current draft sort of in light of that guidance um and and then we discuss this further I'm sorry for me that really clarified sort of the sort of the questions that i' I've been asking earlier in this meeting I didn't hear what you proposed that we R oh just that that somebody go back it could be David or it could could be any member of the subcommittee and and kind of um take a look at the current draft like through the lens provided by that um guidance from the ago and if it's helpful I can get a report to the committee in regards to all of our reporting data yeah I mean it would it' be really good to understand sort of uh how how we handle these incidents now um and you know whether being a little bit more explicit that we are also intending to address hate speech if it doesn't rise to the level of harassment um you know whether that would actually improve the situation on the ground sure me I think just the reporting mechanism itself would be useful so that we have an understanding of where and how hate speech is being used so even just that one element alone I think would be an improvement because right now if it sometimes filters into anti-bullying sometimes filters into anti-harassment other times doesn't come up at all then we're not really seeing that data and all we have to go on is the anecdotal evidence now I'm happy to supply that data for you thanks Claire you're very welcome would any attendees like to be heard on this Betsy could you enable the hand raising function for attendees see if any members of the public would like to participate yes I just turned that on so if they'd like to they should be able to raise their hands now thank you all right I don't see any hands up yet but give you a little longer so members of the subcommittee uh and Natalia where do you stand currently on advancing some version of the Steven draft I I'd like to hear more about the reporting I'd like to hear more about how we report and what the data is are on reporting before anything's Advanced anyone else Carolyn oh sorry Andy and then we'll go to Carolyn you know again I think I um I'd like to see language in here sort of maybe taken from the ago guidance that makes it clear why why we're doing a policy like this at all that would address the kind of questions that I had earlier caryn thanks so much I wasn't really planning to comment but this is um a great conversation and sorry this is Carol andth town meeting member in precin 16 um and I really appreciate all the thoughtfulness of all the school committee members and this is obviously tough and I don't have access to the document so I I'm only seeing what's right on my screen it did make me wonder and this is something I've always wondered about is the question when you were talking about intention and sort of colloquial language I find music I I'm a parent of two teenagers including a 15-year-old boy um who listens to Rap and R&B all different music um and words that he obviously cannot say say are used in the music and that as a parent that that worries me it worries me that a child in any situation gaming hanging out might sing along with a song and end up in a situation so I'm just curious from school committee that might not be relevant here or it might be but that's just my my feeling and experience as a a parent of something that uh worries me and is not clear and then totally separate sorry I might have sort of only half heard the end part there about reporting and I think Stephen asked for data but I think Claire you just said I think you said all incidents have been reported when we were talking about you were talking about symbols maybe I didn't hear that right um but I don't know how could we know that everything's been reported if we only know what we know and we don't know what we don't know so thank you I think what I was referring to thank you for that Carolyn I anything that's been reported we have investigated I guess that that should be the clarity um from my understanding um and specifically in regards to a symbol of swasa I know there's been some language yeah any language that's been written in a bathroom or something like that it's been covered it's yes perfect thank you so much you're very welcome and I wasn't paying close enough attention now doesn't bowling re require that there be repeated instances of targeted actions so yes but bullying it's typically repeated um but from under the Discrimination harassment if it's one event an egregious event it would be covered under harassment and under harassment that can be against unknown individuals because getting back to the earlier example of a swapa appears on the wall there isn't necessarily a specific person being targeted but clearly that's hatred toward an entire group uh so how does that get handled under either bullying or discrimination um from my understanding anytime we've had an incident like that it's you know there's an investigation if we're if they're not able to determine a person who's involved in it um they can't determine who that is it's still handled as a full School Community event where there are Communications that go home to families classrooms that's how it's been handled for my understanding Stephen um okay thanks I just want to make clear what I'd be interested in as the next step so I I see two potential paths forward one I'm interested in knowing more specifically what cases are currently covered under our existing policies where they are potential gaps in our existing policies where an where a hate speech policy might fill the Gap and what our data currently shows about hate speech incidents across PSB I think that'll inform a more targeted hate speech policy um and on that path I think that would lead either to a targeted hate speech policy or to uh a revised uh anti-discrimination or anti-bullying policy or both but I think that that to me is path a that would help us fill a gap essentially um path B I think starts with the recognition that there has been significant consistent outcry from the community for the past six months saying that there have been at least anecdotally speaking uh feeling of uh at the very least at the very least an inability to express full identities at schools and and worse um incidences of actual uh hateful speech hateful occurrences that we need to be more proactive and remediating and a policy instead of taking a more deficit filling approach can start with a A an extreme case like what I was that that's where I started with David I wanted to push your examples towards towards extreme cases to show that hate speech was something that we wanted to come down strongly against here are obvious cases of hate speech here is a process to follow we're not going to get into the matter of adjudicating the the the specificities of what is and what is not hate speech in the gray Zone because that's an impossibly difficult task that most districts are wisely declining to take up but we can at least start at a more extreme End by saying we stand against it here's our process for following it when it's a very obvious case of hate speech and we want to we want to start being more proactive by establishing a protocol so that to me seems in like another potential course of action so in that case if we want to just start by saying like we need to move forward we're recognizing Community outcry we need to start acting we can just simply move forward by defining a more extreme case in the examples and focusing on the protocol to follow follow afterwards which is where I had been headed in my draft those seem to me both both potential next steps I just wanted to share where my mind was at to possibly provide some clarity about next steps Claire do you already have the data on how many instances of hate speech there have been and by category this year Andor last year yes and I can get that to you in the next couple of days I'll put it all thanks yes Natalia I mean I'm going back to Caroline Caroline's point about the we may not have some data as as Claire said like if this you know child who was called a terrorist didn't want to to you know so there will be some big gaps and I I'm reflecting on her other point as a parent and that fear uh which I think stems from this idea that this is whatever however we frame it discipline is what we're parents will be worried about and dis and you know inqu disciplinary sort of procedures on on some children so I do wonder if there's a third kind of way to think about this and not by saying this is hate speech this is not but that really having these conversations around instances that rise up to being talked about but not you know there's fear or there's you know a student chooses not to um you know pursue some sort of official uh you know process because they are worried that their peer will be punished but open up conversations and I do think that that is really what we're talking about Cod of context values learning education like we can still be doing that around issues that matter you know I I'm sure that our students are using homophobic slays I'm sure that's happening and yet and for a student who you know we're not having these conversations as to why that's hurtful and why you know like can we create spaces around that and I think there will be debate there will be debate and you know there might be students who hear their Community use phrases like uh from The River To The Sea and and can say well in my community we use it in this sense and this is you know but I will refrain from using it because I know this is how you hear it like I do think there's a productive way or you know my parents are calling all the protesters pramas but I will not call them pramas because there is no evidence that I know that you who showed up to that actually you know are supporting a terrorist organization you know like is there a way for us to have Nuance conversations I actually think that is what people are craving for and wanting and creating a policy that actually will just lead to more discipline or more fear like that that's my the trade-off that I think is really at the heart of this like people want to talk to express themselves to share in the pain and to be able to be heard that the language you're using is hurtful and then we create a policy and I agree with Stephen we can create the extreme cases because there there is like you know a clear cut but it's around these like more nuanced gray zones that I think we either are going to shut down conversation and it's going to go sort of in like oh please do not you know parents telling their kids like don't talk or don't do this or don't show up in your full identity because you might get expelled and you're applying to college like I do think students who come from marginalized identity and international students especially I think there's going to be a hard time for them to understand uh a lot of this nuance and they may be disproportionately harmed so I'm going and but I do want to raise up you know Carolyn's Point as a parent you're scared that your your child will be punished expelled it'll go on their record parents May shut down you know conversations so H how do we how do we address these concerns in a way that's productive and I don't know if the Affinity spaces have been useful if there are joint you know like I I would like to Envision a different model than a punitive policy but maybe that's the only thing we have I'm not sure why we have this focus on punitive where are you seeing that well it said something I mean unless you say explicitly this will never be it will not go on their record like if there's a very explicit like anti there was something later on there was a sentence that you know uh discipline that it's not intended to be but unless we say that there will be no disciplinary action it is only educational like explicitly that's just what happens with policies I'm not sure we could ever say there would never be no disciplinary action I mean take under this policy not under the Discrimination you know like you could say this policy is intended for XYZ these policies are the disciplinary ones I don't know I don't know I'm not a lawyer and David obviously you can but I do think that the the fear is that it will be disciplinary we could certainly make it clear that the focus is on education that's certainly my intention so that we can have a space for these conversations so that our Educators and administrators will have some protocols that they can follow and address these situations as they arise and so that our students can feel more protected that's the intention it's not to get people in trouble but by the same token I I wouldn't be comfortable saying that there would never be an instance I'm being I'm being extreme David but I I actually am also concerned about discipline towards our our staff and our teachers like what if they go to a protest and they wear a free Palestine pin like are they going to be like taking a photograph and then disciplined for that like how do we think about that and at that protest people are chanting things that we have deemed problematic like how how like what what happens then I'm okay with taking out the most of the examples as Stephen did but beyond that I'm not seeing anywhere in this policy that people should not uh wear clothing that identifies their culture or attend rallies or be politically involved I'm not seeing that anywhere uh but to if there is a section where you feel that's implied then that's certainly not the intention no I'm saying people are already doing that and I think this is just going to add more fear like people are already doing that right and so how is this going to be so so we just have to present it very clearly as to this is not intended to like anyways maybe maybe I'm I'm not on this committee so I'm gonna stop talking but I I do think that how this is going to the impact this is going to have we should be aware of it and if people are already scared to report are already scared to be in their identities and then add this on top of it with these examples thank you for saying you'll take them out but we have to be explicit that then that's okay so that it's not vague like and I don't want to do that either I don't want to say these examples are okay because they're not okay with me personally but you know so anyways I'll stop anyone else all right so it sounds like the plan forward Claire if you could get us uh that data on hate speech incidents by category that would be very helpful so that we could have a better understanding as to uh whether the existing policies are in fact covering the areas of concern at least in so far as the incidents we're aware of that have been reported sure and then also uh to Andy's point about reviewing our existing policies for consistency with the attorney general guidelines to make sure that those are uh in alignment and then Stephen Who provided some alternate paths I think those Stephen you want to summarize those again I'm not sure I completely captured it I think it's uh just clarify the gaps in existing policies um SL provide data to show what what we're Gathering that's path One path two create a policy that covers uh more obviously extreme cases to really plant a flag that we stand against hate spe of all kinds and we're now creating a policy to show the uh some of the protocol against heat speech it could be any are there any other members of the public who would like to be heard before we move on to the next agenda item if you would please raise your virtual hand all right I don't see any so with that we now have Lisa with us thank you very much so we can move to our discussion of statutory changes to the student code of conduct and possible vote Lee I thought I'd start with sharing the language that we receive from the attorneys sure um would it be all right if I just sort of uh stepped back just a few steps and just anchored ourselves in student discipline law and uh sort of how we got to this point just very very briefly sure go ahead great um you know just in terms of anchoring ourselves in student discipline law um we have of course our individual with disabilities Education Act which is guides special education issues we're also functioning Under the Umbrella of Section 504 the American Disabilities Act there's the 14th Amendment um which guides Us in terms of due process rights for uh staff and students and then of course we have Massachusetts state laws and regulations um the school committee before my time uh developed a a comprehensive um student Cod code of conduct and um I I only had the opportunity to hear very briefly the end of of your discussion and I'm sorry I missed it it sounds very important and robust um but the philosophy that had been drafted within the student code of conduct um is very comprehensive and and may have um bearing on uh future steps uh in terms of the hate speech discussion but but um just in terms of the philosophy of the public schools of Brooklyn and and uh our expectations um for conduct uh and responsibility but back to the discipline laws there are three statutes that govern student discipline and there are different due process requirements for each so all three have been noted in our current student code of conduct but um there was a regulatory change in 2022 around action steps taken by the school that never got in incorporated into our student code of conduct so when I Was preparing for the tiered Focus monitoring review I realized that um our student code of conduct was missing the specific element that that Betsy put on the screen but before we jump to that um as a reminder 37h is disciplinary issues that pertain to the possession of drugs possession of weapons uh assault um only so only for those specific areas and 378 and a half are specific to felonies only in in and out of school and then 37 H and 3/4 is really everything else and there are due process requirements as I mentioned for all three disciplinary categories and it is around 37h and 34s where this statutory change is required and the the language had been really rather General but still very much in the ballpark and basically says that with any kind of 37 h and3 quarters offense that a principal Headmaster superintendent or any other person acting in a decision-making capacity that they must consider ways of re-engaging the student in the learning process and avoid using suspension as an immediate consequence and I think that language really speaks to our mission and vision with students that we are not a police department we are a school our students are Works in progress and so in the process of making mistakes as they grow and they learn that we consider other remedies and consequences as opposed to Jumping to out of school suspensions the statutory change decided to go further than that general statement and that is the statement that uh Betsy had put up on the screen that really says um that while you can consider a two-day emergency removal as a disciplinary consequence you must come back to a hearing and you really must look at this re-engagement process very specifically you have to consider positive behavioral interventions look differently at support models for the student um look at trauma sensitive education if that is impacting a student's behavior um and just really look at the whole child as opposed to just consequenc the child and so this language proposed by the attorneys um now amends the original language in our student code of conduct and puts this additional level of specificity because we've been going through the tiered tiered Focus monitoring review while I had noticed that this Gap existed in terms of the statutory change I also uh worked with our attorneys just to look at the overall policy in terms of is it meeting all requirements in all areas um and this was uh they had obviously worked uh collaboratively with the district previously and this was the only area where um this statutory change was recommended there were no other um language requirements so that is uh where we are and of course there's so much to talk about uh in under student discipline but for the purposes of the tier Focus monitoring review this is the amended language that is required to bring us into compliance all right any questions for Lisa Andy um thanks for that Lisa that was really helpful um my question is just uh so the the specific um changes in the redline version of the policy that we're looking at are those precisely the changes that they that the our legal council recommended yes so like that one sentence inserted at the one place and then pretty much the the statutory language copied in somewhere else exactly yep okay I mean I do wonder whether that very important point that you made before that this is specifically about 37h and 3/4s not 37h and 37h and whether since this is a something designed to be read by Ordinary People we should maybe spell that out and what what that means that this only covers things that are not drugs and violence and then the other point Potter version we don't we don't use the word Headmaster uh in in PSV so we should change that fair enough so my suggestion would be to have some clarifying language to make it clear that you know to to what this new language actually applies I'd be happy to take a stab at adding that all right anyone else okay then I move that we adopt the recommended changes to bring us into statutory compliance for the code of conduct policy is there a second Stephen seconds Stephen your vote Yes Andy yes Valerie yes and I also vote yes thank you very much Lisa thank you all right and that now brings us to a discussion of Warrant articles uh have other subcommittee members taken a look at the warrant for may wait are we not doing the um oh yes I should I should mention that we initially had docketed the art policy for today Helen would like some more time to uh work on that one so we will revisit it at a subsequent policy meeting okay just can I ask a question about that policy though why is it capital and not curriculum that's leading on that because it's building related so it's specific to Art displays on the exterior of school buildings it's okay what occurs inside school buildings is very much the decision of the principles uh individual teachers so as you know you walk into any school and you'll see a lot of student generated art it's strictly exterior that is at least the intention yes is for exterior installations thanks all right so we will now move to discussion of the town meeting warrant articles for the spring have subcommittee members had an opportunity to review the warrant articles and see whether they believe and are of relevance to the schools and if so whether we should app Pine on them formally other than our budget so there's a little bit so I went through and I only see two Warren articles of potential relevance to the school so one of them is article 10 that's the overall budget related article and within that there are 41 specific Appropriations four of which Direct pertain to the schools and those are Appropriations 38 through 41 Betsy if you have that handy and you could put that on the screen yeah let me try one sec thanks and then the second Warren article which is just a question mark it might not be relevant to schools is worn article 14 which has to do with um some changes in environmental regulations regarding where we can have energ systems placed it references side yards and front yards so it doesn't sound like it's referring to schools but I'm not 100% certain on that when I looked at that David I thought it was just residential setbacks um I uh so I am are you seeing my screen I'm on the website here for the town meeting files and it's not me try another one here there you go this one should be sufficient so it's article 10 and then if you scroll down uh Appropriations 38 through 41 explicitly address schools so this 38 and 39 so 38 is to appropriate about 4.7 million for minor Renovations and upgrades to school buildings and then 39 is2 200,000 for uh IEP accommodations then number 40 is $250,000 for a long-term capital planning study for school buildings number 41 $717,000 for classroom capacity in various schools D but is 40 the is 40 the study for Baker I don't believe so it sounds like it's more General long-term capital planning study for school buildings and plural but I think it could certainly be used in park for that okay so given that town meeting would like to provide us with monies in those four categories I think we probably do want to be heard on that uh but beyond those four Appropriations I'm not seeing anything that really relates to schools in the warrant how do others feel I agree I don't think that the Zab uh article is has enough Nexus to schools to opine on it Stephen Andy any thoughts I didn't review this I'm sorry okay Andy um and we do have a Warren article I don't know if it's listed here but um where I believe we're actually the petitioners on that one it's to do with the the P geothermal moving forward the article 97 process yes so that's for the special town meeting let me go ahead and open that so this is to do a home rule petition um so that we can um we can get the geothermal under Pierce Park and it's being done in a town meeting as part of a we're Expediting it in order to sort of get it to the legislature as quickly as possible so that they may be able to act on it before the the session ends all right so I move that we recommend to the full committee that the school committee issue statements on article one of the special town meeting and article 10 Appropriations 38 through 41 of the regular town meeting is there a second second Valerie second Stephen your vote yeah Andy yes Valerie yes and I also vote Yes all right is there any new business Natalia I was just wondering um if policy could review the policy on students who move I know it has come up a few parents have asked me um their rents are up and they might move within the district but whether they get to stay and I know in the past it was up to the superintendent but we had verbally spoken about us wanting to shift it to be parent decision as the default with the schools being able to step in if it crosses some sort of threshold is there a way that we can make a policy something like that before the school year because I know a lot of rents are July August September so we do have a draft we're looking at earlier in the year that does precisely that and we were going to get some more information from uh Administration from the office of registration I don't yet have that information but I'll follow up with them and yes we will certainly revisit that soon great any other new business all right seeing none that concludes our meeting for this evening so every thank you everyone