LAWRENCE, Kan. – Lawrence school officials decided to “hit the pause button” on a plan to include unintentional “microaggressions” in the district’s anti-discrimination and harassment policy amid public backlash.

A policy committee began a review of the district’s discrimination and harassment policy after students submitted a petition to the school board in March calling for a ban on the Confederate flag. A Free State High School student affixed the flag to his pick-up and drove it to school for a week before officials forced him to stop this spring, the Lawrence Journal-World reports.

MORE NEWS: Know These Before Moving From Cyprus To The UK

“The idea to include micro-aggressions stemmed from a discussion the committee had with the three Free State students who wrote the petition,” according to the news site. “Free State graduate Maame Britwum, who was one of the students involved, said she thinks including micro-aggressions in district policy will help make all students more aware of behavior that shows racial or other bias.”

“I think it’s not something that a lot of people know about unless they seek out to learn more about race relations especially,” Britwum said. “…I wouldn’t expect most students to go out of their way to learn about this, because it’s not something that happens to them, but for the students that it does happen to, they’d have something in the books to say that this is a form of harassment.”

The board’s proposed policy would prohibit students and staff from displaying offensive symbols or committing microaggressions, which the proposed policy defines as “subtle but offensive comments or actions directed at a minority or other non-dominant group that are often unintentional or unconsciously reinforce a stereotype,” according to Red Alert Politics.

“Any student or employee who violates the Discrimination and Harassment policy is subject to disciplinary action” that can include firing or expulsion,” Lawrence Public Schools communications director Julie Boyle told the news site.

The Topeka Capital-Journal’s editorial board penned an opinion last month explaining why the addition of microaggressions to the district’s antidiscrimination and harassment policy is problematic.

From the Capital-Journal:

The definition of “microaggression” provided by the policy advisory committee is full of words that can be interpreted in multiple ways, like “subtle” and “offensive.” It also contains words that make culpability impossible to determine, like “unintentional” and “unconscious.” To understand how malleable the concept is, consider a microaggression recently cited by administrators of the University of California system: “America is the land of opportunity.”

Microaggressions are inherently more difficult to detect than overt intolerance or cruelty — especially for the aggressor. This presents two questions for USD 497. Who will be the arbiter of what’s offensive? How will teachers and administrators punish students for “unintentionally” or “unconsciously” offending someone?

The president of the Lawrence Board of Education, Vanessa Sanburn, acknowledges that administrators will have to be taught how to enforce the microaggression policy: “I do think this change is important, but I think that it won’t be helpful if we don’t do a good job of helping prepare principals to be able to enforce it appropriately.” Considering the subjectivity of the “offenses” in question, it would be helpful to know what “appropriate” enforcement looks like.

MORE NEWS: How to prepare for face-to-face classes

The editorial pointed out that statements like “America is the land of opportunity” is considered a microaggression against minorities by the University of California. Others have suggested that simply asking a minority student where they’re from is offensive.

Most folks who commented on both the Capital-Journal editorial and the Journal-World coverage seem to agree with the news site’s stance in calling for the board to leave out microaggressions.

“There are organizations that define eye-rolling as an act of violence,” Bob Smith wrote. “Where does it all end?”

“I’m not opposed (to) giving school administrators more discretion to disallow symbols on school grounds if they’re disruptive or discriminatory,” Ginny Blum added. “I’m less enthusiastic about a microaggression policy.

“If I eat lunch in front of a Muslim student during Ramadan when they’re fasting, or have a (BLT) sandwich on Yon Kippur I don’t want to hear that’s an aggressive posture,” she added. “I think it’s subjective to the point of being divisive.”

The community sentiment apparently convinced school officials to rethink the policy, though superintendent Kyle Hayden insists nothing in particular prompted administrators to delay the policy’s scheduled debuet before the board at the end of June.

Officials just want to look at the policy more closely and collect more input, he said.

“So that’s what they decided to do – to just kind of hit the pause button and allow that process to happen,” Hayden said. “I think it’s just a matter of getting more input and having more eyes on it prior to there being any more public board discussion.”

“I could see it maybe not getting to the board until October or early November,” Hayden said.