SAN MARCOS — Almost four years after Palomar College adopted an anti-racism board policy developed with student and faculty input, the board of trustees decided to roll it back, citing potential legal risks to the college.
Board Policy 3000 was adopted in early 2021 in the months following the murder of George Floyd, during a time of national reckoning for many educational institutions regarding systemic racism. It outlines several commitments by the college to create a safe and equitable campus for students, staff and faculty of all backgrounds.
Specifically, the policy states that the community college will take action against racism and White supremacy, represent and support historically underrepresented students, staff and faculty; and support Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts, among other efforts.
Despite widespread pushback from the campus community, a board majority of trustees —Yvette Acosta, Jacqueline Kaiser, and Holly Hamilton-Bleakley —agreed in a 3-2 vote to remove BP 3000 at an Oct. 14 meeting.
Trustees Judy Patacsil and Robert Rodriguez said they could not support its removal, arguing that removing the policy without more in-depth community discussion is wrong.
“The message that we’re sending to our students by simply deleting this is going to be devastating,” said Rodriguez. “This was a policy that really reflected the values of the campus community as a whole, and to have three individuals, or four individuals, or even five individuals change a policy like that, to the opposition of the campus community … I think that’s detrimental.”
As part of the vote, the board also agreed to create a subcommittee to discuss other options for addressing the concerns that prompted the policy.
Acosta, who brought the item to the board, argued that the anti-racism policy is unnecessary because other anti-discrimination protections exist at the college, state and federal levels. She added that Palomar should focus more on academic achievement rather than ideology.
“This is actually just performative. No other college in California has a board policy on racism,” Acosta said. “BP 3000 adds symbolic language without adding measurable benefit to our students. It duplicates existing protections and risks, shifting our focus from concrete student outcomes to ideological statements.”
The decision came amid a broader national pushback against programs related to DEI or race. Since the start of the year, the Department of Education under the Trump administration has pressured K-12 schools and colleges to remove DEI and “race-based” programs and policies.
Trustees who voted in favor said they are worried that in its current form, the policy raises a “red flag” that could lead to adverse legal outcomes for the district.
“Racism is evil. I believe that, and we must combat it whenever we encounter it. Having said all of those things, I am concerned that BP 3000 is not the best tool for that goal. This policy does contain language that opens up the district to some significant potential liability, and that’s just the fact of the matter,” Hamilton-Bleakley said.
Several students, faculty and staff, and community members urged the board not to remove the policy, saying that doing so would erode trust among students and ultimately harm the campus.
“Any fathoming of the removal or deletion of any of our anti-racism policies … that is racist. It is pompous, it is blatant, it is disrespectful, and I cannot put enough emphasis on how beneficial BP 3000 and [Administrative Procedure] 3000 is to the students who actually need it,” said Associated Student Government (ASG) Secretary Timothy Swan.
“Deleting this policy sends a message — intentional or not — that safety, equality, and belonging are no longer priorities at this institution,” said ASG VP of Finance Jaren Harris.
Some questioned the board’s intention behind this policy removal, noting that the same three-person majority also voted earlier this year to end the land acknowledgment practice at the beginning of board meetings.
Communication and speech professor Holland Smith emphasized that words matter, and said removing this board policy would result in marginalized groups on campus feeling less seen and protected.
“How can we talk about these issues if we keep erasing the words that name them? We’ve already removed the land acknowledgement, now we’re being asked to delete the language of equity and anti-racism,” Smith said.
Trustee Patacsil urged the board to table the decision to explore other options, such as adjusting the policy or at least seeking more community input.
Student trustee Ariel Fridman also supported this, saying that the sudden removal of the racism policy without further discussion is widely opposed on the campus by students and staff. Fridman ultimately cast an advisory vote in favor of removing the policy and establishing a subcommittee.
“Not a single person was in support of its removal,” Fridman said. “As a student, I fear the implications of removing the anti-racism policy will have impacts far beyond what you might expect.”
