Duval County Public Schools considers removing DEI language from its policies, no decision made yet
Cami Sams, the district's Executive Director of Policy and Compliance, said she does not want to risk losing federal dollars for the continuation of DEI practices.
'I don't know if we can predict when that will impact us or when these policies will be reviewed, but I do think that for us as a district, that's something we do have to look at,' Sams told board members.
The Policy Handbook Review Committee shared this agenda packet (see below).
PUBLISHED - May 28, 2025, Policy Handbook Review Committee - REVISED4 - GC by ActionNewsJax on Scribd
The lines of red text that are marked through signal the proposed removal of a policy.
This was done so by Sams.
Some of her suggestions include removing the equity policy, eliminating cultural considerations when creating curriculum, and scrapping language that prohibits racial, gender, and age discrimination.
Sams reiterated to members that this is only an attempt to be compliant with the federal executive order.
'We wanted to bring this policy forward to the board because the law has updated,' she told members.
Board members spent hours discussing how the policies in the handbook could be reworded for compliance but still incorporate language that is fair and welcoming.
Board Members Darryl Willie and Reginald Blount tossed around the idea of swapping out the word 'diverse' for words like 'broad' or 'multi-talented.'
'It's important to figure out some word that explains to the public that we do want you if you're a veteran, or if you're coming from somewhere else, or if you have a different background,' Willie said.
Board Chair Charlotte Joyce, though, believes the district will continue to use fair practices in hiring because discrimination is already illegal.
[DOWNLOAD: Free Action News Jax app for alerts as news breaks]
'We're not really looking at your ethnicity, we're not looking at your gender, we're not factoring those things into consideration,' Joyce said.
Board Member Melody Bolduc told her colleagues that she is for diversity, too. But feels like it is forced when the DEI language is included in policy.
'I don't want it engineered. I'd like it to happen natural,' Bolduc said.
[SIGN UP: Action News Jax Daily Headlines Newsletter]
DCPS spokesperson Dr. Tracy Pierce said that this conversation is just the first of many as the board continues to iron out the details of what this policy revision could look like.
'After today's conversation, we'll take all of that input back and our team will kind of rewrite the policy and try to get it to a point where the board will have its debate and arrive at final language that they can agree on,' he said.
Pierce encourages people to stay up to date with the board's meeting agendas as he expects more conversations about DEI through June.
Click here to download the free Action News Jax news and weather apps, click here to download the Action News Jax Now app for your smart TV and click here to stream Action News Jax live.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
10 hours ago
- The Hill
Why Columbia gave in to Trump's extortion
On July 23, Columbia University entered into a resolution agreement with the federal government to settle claims that it didn't do enough to prevent harassment of Jewish students. Columbia promised to pay $200 million in fines, plus $21 million to settle employment discrimination claims. It also agreed to a raft of policy changes, pledging to further support Jewish students, to comply with laws banning consideration of race in admissions and hiring, to provide the government with admissions data and disciplinary information about international students, to ensure its Middle Eastern Studies programs are 'comprehensive and balanced' and to roll back DEI efforts. In return, the government agreed to close multiple civil rights investigations, release most of the $400 million in previously frozen research funding and consider future grant proposals from Columbia 'without disfavored treatment.' Earlier this month, Paramount agreed to pay $16 million to settle President Trump's claims about prejudicial editing of a CBS News '60 Minutes' interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. Though many legal experts considered the suit baseless, Paramount executives feared it might become an obstacle to a multi-billion dollar sale of the company requiring approval by the Federal Trade Commission. That approval finally came, in a two-to-one vote, on July 24. In March, Paul Weiss, one of the country's top law firms, agreed to represent clients without regard to their political affiliation and perform $40 million in pro bono work for causes supported by Trump in return for termination of a manifestly illegal and financially crippling executive order restricting the firm's security clearances and barring its lawyers from federal buildings. The firm's offense? Primarily that it had a former partner who, while serving as a Manhattan prosecutor, had overseen the criminal investigation into Trump and then written a book urging his prosecution. These three cases demonstrate that, even in long-established democracies, a leader willing to ignore legal constraints and social norms ' has the cards,' as Trump would say, to settle personal scores with his long list of enemies, using one pretext or another. Columbia, Paramount and Paul Weiss could have all chosen to fight the Trump administration in court. Confronted with demands restricting its autonomy and authority, Harvard decided to sue. Rupert Murdoch, owner of the Wall Street Journal, seems inclined to fight Trump's lawsuit over his newspaper's reporting on Trump's birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein. Faced with executive orders similar to the one directed at Paul Weiss, four other law firms chose to litigate rather than capitulate. But Columbia lacks Harvard's resources. The Wall Street Journal is not for sale. The law firms that sued did not confront as grave a risk to their billings as Paul Weiss and the eight other firms who struck similar deals. Critics have praised those choosing to fight and pilloried those choosing to settle. It is worth noting, however, that lawsuits can turn into settlements and settlements can collapse into lawsuits. Also, in these three cases, those deciding to fight cannot be made whole. Lawsuits can stop some administration tactics but cannot stop them all. Suing may prompt Trump to double down on penalties, but may also serve as a bargaining chip in settlement talks. And settlements, especially with the Trump administration, can serve as the prelude to more demands. As Claire Shipman, Columbia's interim president, put it, 'The desire for a simple narrative: capitulation versus courage, or talking versus fighting' ignores the reality 'that real-life situations are deeply complex.' No tactic will immunize a university, media corporation or law firm from a government willing to color this far outside the lines. And individual institutions have no pathway to protect the rule of law against a government willing to ignore it. Columbia's settlement does set a dangerous precedent. As Joseph Slaughter, a Columbia faculty member, stated, the agreement normalizes 'political interference in teaching, research and the pursuit of truth.' The administration is already using the settlement as a template for negotiations with other universities, including Harvard, Cornell, Duke, Northwestern and Brown. In our view, Columbia — which cannot survive as a research university without substantial funding from the federal government — had little choice but to cut a deal. Harvard may yet come to the same conclusion. It has won some short-term victories and will likely win more. But even if the university wins every case it brings, it cannot compel the government to award it future grants, issue visas to foreign nationals seeking to study or work at Harvard or block every perversely creative form of intimidation the administration dreams up. So even when it loses in court, the Trump administration still wins. Its goal is not just to intimidate its direct targets, but the sectors the targets represent: higher education, the media and law firms. These are the mainstays of the civil society of any democracy. Not coincidentally, they also house many of the president's most visible critics. Colleges and universities that care about their research funding, or fear the burdens of trumped-up civil rights investigations, must think twice about pursuing any action likely to incur the administration's ire. For this reason, many of them are already engaging in ' anticipatory obedience ' — terminating DEI programs, mandating tougher punishments for campus protesters and shying away from public statements on sensitive issues. As U.S. District Judge Richard Leon wrote when striking down Trump's executive order against the law firm WilmerHale, 'the order shouts through a bullhorn: If you take on causes disfavored by President Trump, you will be punished!' Law firms are listening, and even though those that sue are winning, a growing number are declining to take cases likely to upset the Justice Department, which is on the verge of becoming on a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization. And as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression has observed, Paramount's settlement in the '60 Minutes' case sends a 'chilling message to journalists everywhere.' Authoritarian governments routinely seek to undermine civil society, but strong popular opposition can force a change in behavior. Most Americans disapprove of Trump's assault on higher education and the legal system, but they can do more to make their voices heard — in the organizations they support, with their elected representatives and, of course, at the ballot box.
Axios
10 hours ago
- Axios
What to do when you're a Trump target, corporate edition
In an instant, a company can get caught in the crosshairs of a Truth Social post from President Trump, and suddenly that business is on the hook for changing its flagship product, brand name, supply chain — or else. Why it matters: These posts can throw businesses off course by threatening their revenue streams and confusing their employees and customers. The big picture: Business leaders have developed coping strategies in response. Here's what works (and what doesn't): Don't lash out. Companies are a lot more careful about being publicly critical of this administration. Do meet privately. The savviest CEOs "don't humiliate Trump, they talk with him privately," says Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor at the Yale School of Management. Also helpful: Saying nice things about the president publicly. Do something that looks like appeasement. Get out in front of the White House by taking steps to please Trump — ditching DEI, announcing new factories or making approving statements. "Giving the White House a win on something has forever been a good strategy," says Michael Robinson, CEO of the Montgomery Strategies Group, a strategic communications and public affairs firm. And it is particularly true in this administration. "Let them take the victory lap," he says. Where it stands: Trump has made a habit of front-running corporate announcements or forcing the hand of some of America's largest companies, whether on social media or through sweeping proclamations and executive orders. He's declared the arrival of cane-sugar Coca-Cola, demanded the Washington Commanders change their name and taken credit for Apple's re-shoring announcement. "Every company is just one Truth Social post away from being thrown into the political crosshairs," Robinson tells Axios. "I've known three generations of CEOs. This is the toughest administration to work with," Sonnenfeld says. Between the lines: There's been building frustration and resentment among businesses, particularly over how erratically tariff policy has unfolded, according to a senior consultant who asked to be anonymous because the consultant represents multiple companies at the White House. There's a growing belief that negotiations with the administration don't hinge on business imperatives, but are instead "all about quid pro quo." "There's very little policy or substantive discussions happening, two issues that matter most for many businesses." Friction point: The transactional, deal-making nature of this administration is chipping away at corporate reputation and trust. For example, CBS says the decision to end " The Colbert Show" can be attributed to financials. Others say it's actually a way to appease the administration — and regulators — ahead of its parent company's merger with Skydance Media. Reality check: This isn't a new strategy — companies have long tried to please the White House. Administrations have picked winners and losers before — the Biden administration favored labor unions, for example, and put roadblocks up in front of the crypto industry. The other side: The only factor guiding the President is what's in the best interest of Americans, says Kush Desai, a White House spokesman. "The Administration is working hand in glove with the private sector to deliver for the American people. American companies voluntarily dropping artificial ingredients, ending racist DEI policies, and investing in American manufacturing is reflective of how this close cooperation is delivering mutually beneficial wins." Zoom out: It's one thing for a president to make asks of companies, but this has been going further — with a White House delving into minutiae and issuing explicit threats. That's particularly challenging for small companies, says Peter Cohan, a management professor at Babson College who has been interviewing executives on how they're dealing with tariffs. "Most businesses can't get to the White House."
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
Incoming CBS owner promises Trump's FCC it will review ‘complaints of bias' at news network and eliminate DEI policies
Skydance Media, the production company that will soon take over Paramount, told the Trump administration this week that it would eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies and hire an ombudsman to review 'complaints of bias' at CBS News once its $8.4 billion merger is complete. In a pair of letters to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr this week, Skydance's general counsel Kyoko McKinnon noted that while Skydance 'does not have DEI programs in place today,' the company confirmed that the New Paramount would not establish any similar practices in the future. Following President Donald Trump's executive orders earlier this year calling for the eradication of diversity and equity policies, Carr launched investigations into media conglomerates Disney – which owns ABC News – and Comcast, the parent company of NBC News, over their DEI hiring and editorial initiatives. Trump's hand-picked FCC chief, meanwhile, has also said that his agency would block any media mergers and acquisitions if the companies involved had diversity policies in place. 'Any businesses that are looking for FCC approval, I would encourage them to get busy ending any sort of their invidious forms of DEI discrimination,' he told Bloomberg in March. 'If there's businesses out there that are still promoting invidious forms of DEI discrimination, I really don't see a path forward where the FCC could reach the conclusion that approving the transaction is going to be in the public interest.' McKinnon additionally told Carr that Skydance would hire an ombudsman for at least two years, noting that the person would report directly to the president of the New Paramount and 'receive and evaluate any complaints of bias or other concerns involving CBS.' The letter added that the company's executive leadership would 'carefully consider any such complaints in overseeing CBS's news programming.' This pledge comes weeks after Paramount settled a lawsuit brought by Trump alleging 'election interference' due to the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris. Even though the network denied the president's claims of 'deceptive' editing and called the lawsuit 'meritless,' Paramount paid Trump $16 million amid the pending merger, sparking accusations of bribery from Democratic lawmakers, free press organizations and CBS employees. 'New Paramount's new management will ensure that the company's array of news and entertainment programming embodies a diversity of viewpoints across the political and ideological spectrum,' McKinnon also noted, echoing similar promises Skydance CEO David Ellison made to Carr in a meeting this month. Ellison, the son of billionaire and Trump ally Larry Ellison, urged Carr to approve the merger and 'promptly grant' Paramount's request to transfer control of its broadcast licenses to Skydance. He further vowed that CBS would be 'unbiased' under the new corporate leadership. 'Relatedly, we discussed Skydance's commitment to unbiased journalism and its embrace of diverse viewpoints, principles that will ensure CBS's editorial decision-making reflects the varied ideological perspectives of American viewers,' Ellison's lawyer wrote in a regulatory filing. The meeting between Ellison and Carr took place days before Paramount and CBS announced that they had canceled outspoken Trump critic Stephen Colbert's late-night show, leading to further speculation that the demise of The Late Show was not a 'purely financial decision' and may have been politically motivated. Paramount has insisted that the cancellation was due solely to the dwindling ad revenues for late-night television and the high production costs of Colbert's show, though many CBS staffers feel it is actually 'part and parcel of the Trump shakedown settlement.' Regardless of whether Colbert's cancellation was a move to appease Trump or not, both the president and Carr have gloated over the decision. 'I absolutely love that Colbert got fired,' Trump declared on Friday. 'His talent was even less than his ratings.' Carr, meanwhile, tweeted on Tuesday that the 'partisan left's ritualist wailing and gnashing of teeth over Colbert is quite revealing,' adding that 'they're acting like they're losing a loyal DNC spokesperson.' Later on in the day, the president repeated his claim that he had struck a secret side deal with Skydance to give him up to $20 million more in pro-Trump advertising and PSAs as part of the 60 Minutes settlement. A group of liberal senators is investigating whether Ellison made any such promises to Trump. Paramount has denied knowledge of that backdoor arrangement, asserting that its payoff to Trump "does not include PSAs or anything related to PSAs.' Solve the daily Crossword
