The Hardyston Board of Education passed the first reading of a new school climate survey policy at its July 8th meeting - but not before cutting out two powerful words: equity and inclusivity.
Board member Tony Alfano admitted he was the one who removed the terms, saying:
“I took that out because I didn’t like it. My equity and inclusion is to include two students in each school to be part of the survey.”
To those unfamiliar with how the terms are used in education, that might sound like a practical simplification. But as board member Nick Demsak pointed out, equity isn’t about politics - it’s about ensuring every child gets the support they need to succeed, even if that support looks different from student to student.
“Equity means students get treated the same as everybody else,” Demsak explained. “Inclusivity means they feel accepted and invited in to participate… I don’t understand why that’s bad.”
Demsak made a motion to restore the original language, but it failed 4-3. The revised version of the policy - stripped of “equity” and “inclusivity” - passed its first reading.
And that decision raised eyebrows, because the survey is meant to ask students about their experiences in school. Leaving out terms that speak directly to fairness and belonging undermines the survey’s very purpose.
Complicating matters further was the question of cost. The policy encourages the board to “first endeavor” to use an independent third-party vendor. Some board members questioned the financial impact of that clause, and whether it could obligate the district to spend money it hadn’t budgeted.
Board President Donna Carey claimed that free third-party vendors existed - but when asked to provide examples, she was unable to name any during the meeting.
“You’re making a policy that now forces the district to do something,” one board member said, “but you’re saying the vendor should do it for free?”
This isn’t just a policy drafting issue - it’s a values issue. Words like “equity” and “inclusivity” may carry political weight in national debates, but in a school setting, they’re really about basic human decency. Is a student being treated fairly? Do they feel like they belong? Are we creating an environment where every child has the opportunity to thrive?
There’s still time to revise the policy before its second reading and final vote. But unless the board grounds its decisions in the lived reality of students, rather than assumptions and word discomfort, the final product may end up measuring very little - and meaning even less.