The Panel for Educational Policy voted to pass a regulation last week that sparked a heated debate over race and freedom of speech.

Chancellor’s Regulation D-210, passed with a vote of 10-2, is an “anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policy governing the conduct of the elected and appointed members of the Community and Citywide Education Councils and establishes a procedure for the filing and resolution of complaints of violation of this regulation,” the Department of Education notice reads.

It states that CEC members who violate the regulation may be subject to suspension or removal and that they may be prohibited from serving on any councils in the future.

New DOE policy for education councils

Any behavior that “creates or would foreseeably create a risk of disruption within the district or school community” or act in a way “contrary to the best interest of the New York City school district” could lead to removal.

“Council members are expected to be exemplary role models on the councils and communities in which they serve, and to fulfill their responsibilities in a way that respects the rights of all parents and students they serve,” regulation D-210 states.

Many parents agreed that some disciplinary procedures must be in place to deal with instances of harrassment or discrimination but argued that the regulation was vague and undemocratic. They expressed concern over subjectivity and a “purge” of those with opposing viewpoints.

The night before the vote, Dec. 20, the Citywide Council on High Schools passed a resolution calling on D-210 to be tabled.

The CCHS resolution detailed how CECs are governing bodies of the school districts and an “autonomous conduit to address DOE issues … without fear of removal.” It stated that the regulation would “undermine democratically elected Council Members.” The CCHS concluded that D-210 would “thwart criticism from duly elected council members by fear of disciplinary action and/or removal.” It demanded the legislation be tabled until the new administration and Chancellor David Banks could review it.

“I would like to emphasize that our council members who voted in favor of our resolution last night are not against having an anti-discrimination or anti-harassment policy nor are we against accountability,” said CCHS president Karen Wang in the PEP forum.

“Codes of conduct are a necessary component in ensuring civility in public discourse today. However, we believe a clear set of standards and accountability should be applied equally. Unfortunately, D-210 does not do that and is flawed as written.”

She continued that the regulation would “discourage and silence” parent advocates, adding that the rush to pass it was disheartening. Wang said she was a victim of discrimination but called for the regulation to be tabled until there was more specificity.

Irene Dougherty, a parent leader and Queens Presidents’ Council member, also spoke at the PEP meeting saying, “I agree that there should be strict guidelines regarding any discriminatory or harassing behavior by CEC members or towards CEC members. I do however disagree with the proposed process. CEC members this year were elected by the parents, not appointed by the DOE. Their removal from office, if deemed necessary … should be decided by the parent voices that elected them.” She continued, “The communication and execution of this meeting tonight, particularly in regards to this proposition, is an insult to my intelligence. First off, the meeting date, [Dec. 21], right before a major holiday and right before a school break when many parents have already left with their children to go elsewhere.” She said links were not made easily available and that she felt “as if the wool is being made over my eyes … This proposal will silence our parents.”

READ: How to Start a Blog in 2022: A Guide To Domain & Hosting Registration

Deborah Dillingham, one of the two PEP members who voted no, said she also faced bullying throughout her time serving on parent boards and her initial reaction was to support the regulation but later decided, “The current proposal is too broad and could easily be misused and abused,” she said.