The project’s progress and financial aspects were a key focus of the meeting, with the committee expressing satisfaction with the development so far.

However, the meeting took a more contentious turn when the hate speech prevention policy was brought up. The public comment section saw a diverse array of opinions from the community. Ruby Kitov, a parent, advocated for the return of Affinity spaces and enhanced curricula to address anti-Semitism and educate about the Holocaust. David Friedman, with a background as a former Assistant Attorney General, likened hate speech to poison and supported the adoption of the policy. Whereas, Hazzar Delshad Haar cautioned against rushing the policy and called for teacher input. Donna Perry also supported the policy, highlighting the necessity of mechanisms for identifying and intervening in hate incidents.

Following the public comments, the committee reviewed a revised draft of the hate speech prevention policy. The revised draft included changes in the timing of its implementation and adjustments to the examples of hate speech. Discussions revolved around the definition of hate speech, the policy’s timing, and the need for its careful crafting.

The policy’s education section proposed changes to clarify the distinction between hate speech and other forms of discrimination and bullying. The concept of a mandated reporter approach was met with concern from some members, who felt it could be at odds with the school culture and potentially create a stifling atmosphere. The necessity for clear timelines for the policy implementation and associated training was underscored.

Propositions for a hate speech prevention Advisory Group were met with mixed reactions. While the intention was to incorporate community voices to prevent bias, questions about the group’s implementation and selection process were raised. There were also suggestions for a more user-friendly and inclusive reporting mechanism for hate speech incidents. The committee sought additional feedback from the administration and other stakeholders to refine the policy further.

In addition to the hate speech policy, the committee discussed the formation of an advisory group to review new training materials and curriculum, raising questions about its composition and decision-making impact. The group’s potential structure, whether ad hoc or permanent, and the necessity for comprehensive staff training were debated.

The committee also tackled the first reading of the revised policy on the assignment of students to schools, prompting discussions about language changes and seeking the superintendent’s feedback. Financial matters were also addressed, with updates on the FY 25 budget. A positive note was the reduction in the requested funds for the Baldwin School, coupled with an increase in the overall budget due to a favorable development in the town-school partnership. The meeting concluded with the approval of the ASME contract for a 12-month driver and an open discussion of new business.