Opinion articles provide independent perspectives on key community issues, separate from our newsroom reporting.

Opinion

As Trump rants nationally, a NC school board considers mandating civility | Opinion

Key Takeaways
Key Takeaways

AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.

Read our AI Policy.


  • Board revisits 2016 public-comment policy to curb personal attacks and profanity.
  • Trustees debate limits, free-speech risks, and legal precedents for decorum enforcement.
  • Board paused decision; members urge either clearer rules or tolerance of robust criticism.

It is notable that the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education last updated its policy on public comment in 2016, the same year that Donald Trump won the presidency and began to coarsen the national discourse with personal insults and profanity.

Now, nine years later, when President Trump has taken to using the expletives in public and his vice president has followed suit, the board is again debating how to protect decorum during its public comment periods.

On Oct. 16, the board spent 45 minutes discussing how to require civility when members of the public address the board, which they can do for a maximum of three minutes. Watching a video of the meeting has the feel of zooming in on a 12th century theological debate on an arcane doctrine. But now, finding and renewing the delicate balance between civility and free speech is a challenge for today’s public officials.

Three seats on the seven-member board were filled in uncontested contests on Tuesday. Among those reelected, incumbent Riza Jenkins wants a tighter policy on public comments while board chairman George Griffin is on the fence. Melinda Manning, who won an open seat, thinks imposing limits on speech is “a bad look.”

The proposed new language states: “In the interest of maintaining civility and decorum and preserving the purpose of public comment to the Board of Education, speakers must refrain from personal attacks and insults directed at the Board, individual Board members, staff, or members of the general public. Profane and vulgar or abusive language will not be tolerated.”

Jenkins backs the change. “We don’t want to leave the door open for people to come in here and just start yelling expletives at us for three minutes straight,” she said. “That’s not public comment. That’s just abuse.”

Griffin asked, “Where does speech cross the line for this meeting?” He described the proposed policy update as “a slippery fix.”

Manning, a former teacher, wasn’t at the meeting, but she weighed in with an online post telling the board to take the heat or get out of the kitchen. “When you are in any leadership position, you have to be able to listen to the criticism,” she wrote. “Sometimes it will be justified, sometimes it may be utterly unhinged. It sucks. I’ve had my share of being yelled at by angry parents. But it’s part of the job.”

During the meeting, board member Barbara Fedders, a UNC law professor, said the proposed policy change would be “a First Amendment nightmare” that addresses a nonexistent problem. “People are not coming to the podium and regularly swearing at us,” she said.

Board member Rani Dasi said the new policy would prevent that. “When you don’t have any guidelines, you can be very disrupted,” she said. “You’ve got to put the boundaries there that we want to have a meeting that is respectful.”

Board member Meredith Ballew wondered where that would lead. “I don’t want to see people dragged out of here,” she said. “I don’t think that doesn’t set a good tone, either.”

The board’s lawyer, Eva Dubuisson, provided a legal basis for limiting offensive speech. “The appellate courts have told us that restricting it from personal insults, from profanity, from vulgarity, is permissible,” she said.

It may be permissible, Fedders said, but the board could be more protective of free speech. “I’m not sure the community wants us to be telling them how they should talk to us,” she said. “Speech is good. More speech is good.”

At the national level, free speech is being both debased and restricted and – in the case of Republican Congress members not holding town halls – avoided. It is encouraging to find at the school board level a debate that tries to promote civility, free speech and public comment.

The board did not make a final decision on what should be the policy, but Fedders and Manning have it right – let the people speak.

And trust that they will be more civil than the president.

Associate opinion editor Ned Barnett can be reached at 919-404-7583, or nbarnett@newsobserver.com

Get unlimited digital access
#ReadLocal

Try 1 month for $1

CLAIM OFFER