Palomar College Board Removes Anti‑Racism Policy

Palomar College Board Removes Anti‑Racism Policy — A Step Backwards or Course Correction?

In October 2025, Palomar Community College’s governing board voted to remove its formal anti‑racism policy, provoking outcry from students, faculty members, and community stakeholders. The vote, decided by a 4–2 margin, came after months of debate, legal cautioning, and political pressure.

This decision is more than a procedural change: it raises fundamental questions about how institutions commit to equity, how free speech and legal risk intersect, and what symbolic (vs. structural) policies mean in real life.

In this post, we’ll explore (1) what the Palomar policy was, (2) what arguments were offered for its removal, (3) the responses from the campus community, and (4) the broader implications for higher education, equity, and institutional integrity.

What Was the Anti‑Racism Policy?

The anti‑racism policy adopted in 2021 affirmed Palomar College’s commitment to racial equity, denouncing all forms of racism and white supremacy, and declared that the institution would work to dismantle structural or systemic inequities.

It also emphasized the role of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) initiatives — linking them to student success, retention, and reducing bias.

This policy was framed not merely as a declarative statement, but as a guiding principle for institutional action: hiring practices, curriculum design, pedagogy, and the audit of systemic barriers on campus.

In parallel, the college had developed a “2020 Antiracist Framework” as part of its DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility, Antiracism) office’s work. That framework included action items such as auditing classroom climate, hiring more diverse faculty, offering professional development on anti‑racism, and focusing on equity in retention and success.

So, removing the board policy represents a recasting of the college’s formal commitments at the highest governance level.

Why the Board Decided to Remove It

During the board meeting, supporters of removal offered several arguments. Some of them include:

Legal risk and liability concerns
Board President Jacqueline Kaiser asserted that having such a policy on record “sets us up … as kind of a red flag,” potentially exposing the college to litigation.
She claimed the board had consulted counsel whose advice “we can’t share” to justify deletion.
Redundancy or “performative” nature
Trustee Yvette Acosta, who supported removal, argued that the college already had non‑discrimination, equal opportunity, and Title IX policies that legally prohibit racism or discrimination, thus suggesting the anti‑racism policy was symbolic rather than substantive. She characterized the specific board policy as “performative.”
Desire for a more flexible or revised policy
Some trustees, such as Roberto Rodriguez, proposed a compromise: create a subcommittee to rework and refine the policy rather than outright removal. He argued that elimination should not have been the only option.
Concerns about impracticality or political backlash
Kaiser mentioned that rescinding the policy wouldn’t preclude addressing racism through other avenues, but the body as framed was “problematic.”
She also cited examples of universities and corporations that had scaled back DEI or anti‑racism statements (e.g. University of Florida, Amazon) as rationale for aligning with external trends.

In short, the board’s case rested on legal caution, desire for a less exposed posture, and belief that existing legal protections suffice, rather than the ambitious, proactive framing of the 2021 policy.

Reaction from Students, Faculty, and Community

The response was swift and loud.

Public opposition
All speakers who addressed the board urged retention of the policy. One student warned that erasing the language of anti‑racism would erode trust between the college and its most vulnerable populations; a professor lamented that removing such language signals that the lived experiences of marginalized individuals “do not exist.”
Faculty and Senate statements
The Palomar Faculty Senate had long endorsed anti‑racism commitments, integrating equity and inclusive practices in curriculum and governance. Many faculty and departmental groups also issued solidarity statements condemning racism and supporting institutional antiracism work.
Concerns over signal vs. substance
Critics argued that removing the policy sends a dangerous symbolic message: that the institution is retreating from equity goals. In particular, several opined that if formal acknowledgment is rescinded, then grievances based on racism or inequity may lose institutional grounding.
Backlash over paired decisions
This board decision came amid related actions, such as rescinding a land acknowledgment statement that recognized Indigenous communities on whose land the college sits. The board had previously dropped that acknowledgement from the meeting agenda, citing meeting focus and autonomy over agendas. Many saw the anti‑racism policy removal as part of a broader rollback of symbolic commitments to marginalized communities.
Calls for a reworking
Some trustees opposed deletion and pushed for a subcommittee to revise, not eliminate, the policy. However, the board majority declined that path in the vote, only later directing a committee to “address concerns” (without clarity on scope or timeline).

In effect, the board severed the policy while leaving open a vague promise of future revision.

The Stakes: Beyond Symbolism

Why does this matter? On its surface, a board policy is symbolic. But symbols and formal commitments do carry weight — especially in academia, where mission, culture, and trust are at stake. Below are some of the deeper implications.

1. Institutional accountability

A formal policy signals what the institution holds itself to, and provides a basis for accountability. Removing it without clear replacement weakens the framework for demanding systemic change.
Without a board-level commitment, efforts in hiring, curriculum, student support, or anti‑bias training might lose institutional backing or be deprioritized.

2. Legal defensibility vs. proactive posture

The board’s legal caution is not without merit: policies invoking race-conscious commitments can raise liability concerns under certain federal or state constraints. But purely defensive posture runs the risk of retreating into the minimal legal baseline rather than pushing positive change.
Some institutions strike the balance by crafting carefully worded but principled policies that withstand scrutiny and still commit to equity.

3. Signal to students and community

Students from historically marginalized groups often watch whether institutions live up to their public commitments. Revoking the language of anti‑racism may breed skepticism, distrust, or disengagement.
For faculty and staff who rely on institutional support for equity work, such shifts may feel like a political headwind rather than a supportive environment.

4. Slippery slope in rollback of commitments

The removal occurs amid other actions seen as symbolic retreats (like dropping the land acknowledgment). This raises concern of a broader rollback of equity and inclusion commitments campus‑wide.
It also aligns with national trends: some institutions and corporations have retrenched on DEI/anti‑racism commitments in response to political backlash or funding pressures.

5. The need for structural over performative

One of the criticisms of the original policy was that it was “performative.” That is, strong language without sufficient mechanism to guarantee sustained change.
But the better alternative is not removal — it is reform. Institutions should aim to tie language to metrics, review accountability, resource allocation, and enforcement.

What Could Come Next?

Given the vote, what are plausible paths forward — and what should stakeholders watch for?

Subcommittee revisions
The board authorized creation of a subcommittee to “address concerns.” The content, scope, and processes of this committee will matter. Will it reintroduce robust language — or a diluted version that avoids legal risk?
Pushback in accreditation, grants, or external expectations
Colleges often rely on external accreditation bodies, state funding, and federal compliance. Removal of anti‑racism language may raise questions in those forums. Stakeholders might leverage these bodies to insist on some formal equity commitment.
Grassroots pressure and institutional culture work
Students, faculty, alumni, and community organizations may mobilize pressure (petitions, protests, open letters) to shape the revision or demand a stronger replacement policy.
Incremental policy insertion elsewhere
Even without a board-level policy, departments, the faculty senate, or administrative units may embed anti‑racism and equity language into curriculum, program review, hiring practices, or institutional strategic plans.
Legal challenges or advocacy
Those concerned may engage in legal or advocacy challenges — for instance, arguing that removal violates principles of civil rights or equitable treatment. But this tends to be costly and uncertain; stronger is to prevent the removal from becoming the new norm.

Concluding Reflections

The decision by Palomar College’s board to remove its anti‑racism policy is a dramatic pivot in institutional direction — one that risks eroding trust, weakening accountability, and sending a signal of retreat from equity goals. Yet it also opens a contest: will the college rebuild with stronger, more resilient commitments — or will this mark a step back in the name of “neutrality”?

Policy language alone does not make equity real. But language combined with structure, accountability, resource commitment, and cultural investment is indispensable. The task now falls to students, faculty, community members, and administrators to demand a replacement that is not only legally sound, but also morally clear and practically enforceable.