Angelica Ramos
Contributing Writer
MONTGOMERY COUNTY- The Hate Speech Policy for MCPS has been in the works since the summer of 2024, when the issue was brought to the school board’s attention as being a problem affecting students in schools in the county.
Through talks with lawyers, teachers, parents, students and other organizations throughout the county, Superintendent Dr. Bernard Bragen, Jr. and the team writing and drafting the policy took that feedback and created the draft presented to the school board Jan. 7, 2025. The purpose of the presentation was to get board members’ thoughts and suggested edits to better improve the draft before being brought back to the board during their next scheduled meeting for approval.
“Thank you for your ongoing work on this, Dr. Bragen,” Vice Chair Laura Purcell said. “I’m really excited that this is something that – it’s been worked on diligently for several months. I appreciate Miss [board member Penny] Franklin’s initiation of it and I think it will help reaffirm some of the commitment that we have to inclusivity that we discussed earlier in this meeting.”
The current draft of the policy states MCPS strives to provide a safe space for all of its students and their learning and that hate speech is not only deeply harmful, but also disruptive.
The policy, currently, defines hate speech as, “any form of expression that threatens, abuses, bullies, or intimidates individuals or groups based on ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, or any other characteristic protected by law (examples include the use of stereotypes, slurs, and/or statements promoting bias, such as the N-word, antisemitic comments, etc.)”
This definition was a topic for debate during the discussion of the first read due to advice from the lawyers consulted in writing this and potential perspective of those exposed to this policy. One of the issues with the definition addressed was whether or not to include examples of hate speech in parentheses or discard the parentheses examples all together.
“My understanding from the attorneys,” Board member Steven Rountree commented, “and also at the Virginia School Board Association meeting, sitting in on a hate speech section there, is that having a list of terms is ill advised due to the fact that it is not – it doesn’t take care or it doesn’t cover all terms, and therefore people can think that those are the terms that are specific to the policy. Additionally, it may be useful to include disparages against groups in that paragraph, not necessarily just threatens, abuses, bullies but also derogatory statements that are disparaging towards a specific group.”
Other board members think that listing examples would be needed for clarification purposes or to help prohibit the behavior from continuing.
“So, with the conversation with the attorney,” Franklin said, “I can understand why you don’t want to create a list in the policy, but when – during education that we do around hate speech folks need to know exactly what we’re talking about because if not it’ll continue.”
Other edits regarding the policy are that some board members think there needs to be clearer disciplinary action for those who may potentially falsely accuse others of violating this policy as well as action for those who take it past just hate speech and go towards violence and physical action. Other concerns were holding faculty and staff accountable for reporting these potential violations even if they were told something may have happened to a student and discerning the intention behind hate speech if a student is potentially unaware something is or isn’t considered hate speech.
The current draft will be reworked with the edits given in mind and presented again at the next school board meeting for approval or disapproval.