Well over 100 Newporters show up at their school committee meeting to successfully fight for the District's DEI policy

"Looking at everyone who turned out tonight, I hope this sends a message to our school department about what matters most to our students, our families, and our community."

The agenda item sounded innocuous — “Request to rescind Policy 1050 - Student Excellence and Success (Mr. Dring)” — but Newporters paying attention realized that the policy under threat of being rescinded by the Newport School Committee was a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policy passed in November 2024.

It’s unclear exactly why the policy was initially planned to be rescinded, though several explanations were offered throughout the evening. Committee Chair James Dring put the item on the agenda and seemingly had the support of Committee Members Rebecca Bolan, Elizabeth Cullen, and Robert Leary, but by the time it came to a vote, all that support seemed to evaporate, except for Committee Member Leary, who steadfastly voted against the policy to the end.

Why did the committee reverse course on rescinding the policy? It may have had to do with the more than 100 people who showed up in support of the policy, angry that the School Committee would waste time on an effort that would only serve to make Newport Schools less diverse, less equitable, and less inclusive.

Here’s the video:

The following are highlights for the meeting, edited for clarity:

Chair James Dring: I want to give everybody some background on it. In the fall, this policy was passed by a 4-3 vote. During the discussion, people on the school committee asked, “Has this been reviewed by our legal department, by our attorney Billy Conley?”

The answer was no, which is highly unusual. I was on the policy subcommittee. Before Billy was here, we had Neil Galvin. He sat in on our meetings a lot. Billy sat in on meetings. If our attorney wasn’t there and we had questions or the policy was being changed, they would review it. So we asked if that had been done. The answer was no. So, it did pass by a 4-3 vote, and I believe Dr. Flowers said we could always send it back after it passes for review. If there’s a problem, we’ll bring it back. That’s exactly what we did. We sent the policy to legal in December. About a month later, I got it back after our last meeting. There are some issues with it. I brought it back to the meeting tonight to discuss, in an open meeting, what the problems and issues are.

Again, it is highly unusual. I mean, if we had a policy about planting trees at Rogers High School, it would be reviewed by our attorney. It was not. So again, that’s what I did. I brought it back. Let me read to his conclusion. I don’t think many people here have read the memo. It’s 15 pages long. It’s pretty extensive. I’m just going to read the conclusion, which is one part.

“Policy 1050 is various policies contained in one policy. It inevitably relates to, without referencing or aligning itself to various preexisting Newport Public School policies. Each requirement or mandate imposed by Policy 1050 does not relate to an existing NPS policy and should be separated and considered individually, as possible amendments to those preexisting Newport Public School policies. Prudence suggests that the policy be placed in abeyance while the committee engages in this process.

“Consequently, due consideration can be given to all amendments as it relates to compliance with applicable federal and state law and regulations. Additionally, due consideration can be given to the cost and capacity of the Newport Public Schools to comply with each reqirement or mandate proposed by policy 1015.”

So basically, if this motion passes tonight, this policy will be held in abeyance. It will go back to the policy subcommittee, which Ms. Winslow chairs. Mrs. Cullen is on the committee. There are also members of the community on that committee. They’ll go over it, review it, work with Mr. Conley and come up with another policy or adjust this policy to comply with Mr. Conley’s issues that he come up with in the memo. Then it comes back to us and we’ll have an open meeting. We’ll discuss it and have a vote to approve it, deny it, or send it back.

But one of the most important things that I don’t think anybody’s really thought about is - I look around in this room, and everybody in this room is here, my guess, because of this policy. You’re all passionate about it. When this goes back to the policy subcommittee, it is an open meeting just like this. Everyone in this room can go to that meeting and have input. So maybe this is a positive thing. If there’s issues in here you don’t like, every single person who’s here can sit down at the table -it’s upstairs in the library - and have input into this policy.

Mr. Conley will be there, or he’ll at least be in a situation to review it, and then that policy returns to us again, and we vote on it. That’s how the process works. It is not the basis of the policy as much as the process wasn’t followed as it was in the past. It was never reviewed. When it was finally reviewed, we had issues, and as Chair, if I get a 15-page memo saying there are issues with this, we need to fix this. If I just say, “No, we’re not even going to talk about it; I’m not doing my job.” So that’s what I’d like to say. I know everybody else on this committee has issues.

---

Dr. Sandra Flowers: Interestingly, a policy has brought out such a big crowd, which is good. Hearing the chairman mention that he is looking for it to be held in “abeyance,” the item on the agenda is to “rescind,” and that, I’m pretty sure, is what has upset many people because rescind would be to pull it back [or] remove it, and that is not how this happens. I’ve been on the policy subcommittee most of the time, and I’ve been on the school committee. We call the policy manual a living document, which is an understatement. We are constantly reviewing and sending things back to HR for certain ones, for the teachers, and for everyone in the system, as well as input from representatives of the public who serve on the policy subcommittee.

I am glad that Mr. Dring clarified why it’s on the agenda because of my reaction. I’ve shared this with a few people, and I hope this is not a knee-jerk reaction to the noise coming out of the Oval Office in Washington, DC, because so many things are being pulled back. I think a lot of people are afraid that if we use those words - diversity, equity, and inclusion - that we are being un-American or something of that sort. I hope that is not what anyone here would ever feel.

If we were listening, and I know everyone was listening to the presentations about the reading levels of the different schools - you saw everything that’s going on in our school system trying to address the needs of our very diverse population, diverse in many, different ways, and to include everyone in our decision making and also to provide equity. We didn’t say equality - equitable opportunities for everyone.

That’s what this is about. Admittedly, this policy is verbose, to say the least. I always feel that some of these could be simplified, but that’s the way legal things are. Our attorney has provided considerable input about this. I think I’m being generous and considerable because that’s his expertise.

My concern is that we might forget why we have this kind of policy. It’s a beginning. It can be edited, worded, or any of a number of other things. But if we mean what we say, if we mean “all our students,” as stated in the mission statement that’s read at every one of our meetings, and for heaven’s sake, we’re celebrating Black History Month. We have Hispanic Heritage Month in another part of the year and have all the different cultures here.

I certainly hope that the people who were genuinely concerned reach out to us and say, “Don’t get rid of this,” because that’s what “rescind” would mean - to remove that policy that will protect what we are trying to do and what we want our young people to be exposed to. We have to keep it there and work on it. All that accountability data we saw talks about how we want to provide equity - that is, raising the bar for all our students and ourselves, too - and how everyone can reach the heights at which every one of our students is capable.

I, for one, will not say to “rescind” or even “in abeyance.” I say send it back to the policy committee. It’ll take a while, but there will be progress.

---

Rebecca Bolan: I was chair when this came through, and I had concerns back then about making sure that we had done our due diligence in terms of checking it out with legal, and that did not happen. I went back to the minutes today to check, and in those minutes, it says that Mrs. Boatwright said, "Let’s just pass it tonight and then send it to legal." That’s why I did not vote for it; I wanted it to go through legal. That’s all.

---

Attorney William Conley Jr.: As the Chair mentioned a few moments ago when you review Policy 1050 on student emphasis and success, the amount of effort, hard work, and passion that went into this comprehensive policy are unquestionable. Not to oversimplify, but policy guides the committee and the District on a course of action. That’s what all our policies are. For public schools, for this committee, that policy should be written around Title 16. The general laws around the BEP - basic education program - should be considered. It should be guided by applicable federal regulations that impact those principles and looked at for consistency with existing policies. Those policies can be amended or adopted in a way, or this policy can adopted in a way that essentially creates consistency throughout all our policies.

A legal review would do that. It would take advantage of all the hard work that has been put into this and provide guidance that takes that policy and turns it into guidance, into a course of action that is consistent with all those principles. That’s how I see participating in providing a legal review for the subcommittee.

---

Stephanie Winslow: The Newport School Committee is responsible for bringing this policy to life and holding the superintendent accountable. We are the policymaking body.

I want to clarify things that were said earlier. There is no one process to write a policy. Every situation is different. Always has been. A legal review is not a requirement; it’s a recommendation. Whether we want to change that or not? We can do that. But in 2023, we had a legal review of this policy; candidly, it was a costly, frustrating, and wasteful experience. It strained our relationship with Conley Law. So, we moved forward using other District policies as our guide.

It was reviewed by education professionals at Salve. It was reviewed by attuned education partners who helped craft our strategic plan, community partners, and stakeholders, some of whom are lawyers. In the meantime, a dozen other policies have been reviewed, passed, and written in these last two years, and no one asked, "Has this been reviewed by legal?"

Despite what some people want to say now, that you just meant to rewrite instead of rescind, it’s obvious, to me anyway, that the intention was not - because we saw an effort to block passage of this on a technicality in November - a request for an opinion from the attorney that outlines all of the ways this policy won’t work, which I was blindsided by as the chair of the policy subcommittee - and an explicitly worded motion to rescind on the agenda.

All last summer, I mentioned to the Newport School Committee at every meeting that we were working on this. As stated previously, it is a public meeting. Anyone could have come and joined the process. Then, we went through two readings, and it was passed.

The policy subcommittees are open to considering amendments on the condition that Conley Law provides actual policy language - not just another opinion - and that the school committee members who have concerns engage in that process to express their concerns and provide substantive solutions. What is the alternative to achieving that goal if you don’t like something? Define it for us - for consideration.

It would be a great exercise for us to collaborate and find answers that benefit our students because, again, we are the policymaking body. The policy subcommittee ensures that policies are periodically reviewed and written when required, and our lawyers help when we have questions and need guidance.

We just sat through another presentation of the RC scores that again showed us what we’re doing and that our non-discrimination policies are not working. It was hoped, by me and many of the students and people who worked on this, that an equity policy would define how not to discriminate, how to meet students” needs, and how to bring our families into the fold. Instead of being supported, this policy was targeted. Looking at everyone who turned out tonight, I hope this sends a message to our school department about what matters most to our students, families, and community.

Audience: Cheers.

---

Elizabeth Cullen: I want this to work and believe in having a DEI. The first problem with this policy, as written and passed hastily last fall, is that it’s called Philosophy, Student Excellence, and Success. That, to me, is fuzzy. That’s a cloud over the whole concept of what we’re trying to achieve here. We’re trying to achieve a data-driven, clear, concise, and actionable equitable policy.

I read this and kept thinking, "This sounds good, and I believe in what’s in this document. However, as a policy, how will we make it work for our students?" It’s just words right now. The subcommittee I suggested would help make it workable for our students. It has to be a constant exchange of information. This is a very complex, timely topic. Regarding the school committee being the better the subcommittee on this policy, No. This needs a concentrated effort to be implemented so it can help our kids. I don’t think this as written is that.

Audience: Boos.

---

The motion to amend the item and send the policy back to the subcommittee without rescinding it or holding it abeyance passed 5-2, with Committee Members Dring and Leary voting against it.

It was time for public comment before the committee moved on to a full vote. No one spoke in favor of rescinding the policy or keeping it in abeyance.

Public Comment

Daniel Cano Restrepo: I’m a Newport resident and I’ve served as the executive director for our local LGBTQ+ nonprofit Newport Pride. Today I’m here as a citizen and a member of this community to speak on Policy 1050. I understand that there might be an intention to update this policy, and I appreciate the desire to ensure it is the best it can be. However, I want the school committee to understand the potential impact of rescinding this policy, especially with the current political climate. Policy 1050 represents years of work and community input and is vital for protecting the equitable education of our diverse student body.

Rescinding it, even to revise it, can create fear, uncertainty, and a sense that our District is stepping backward on its commitment to inclusivity. This is why it’s so important for the community to show up and demonstrate their support - as you can see - not just for the policy itself but for the values it represents. We must clearly communicate that Newport values every student, regardless of their background or identity. I urge the school committee to consider the message they send by rescinding this policy. Instead, work together to amend and improve it, ensuring that any changes strengthen rather than weaken its core equity and student success principles. You have a community behind you, so let’s make use of the community.

Chair Dring: Just so everybody knows, there is no motion to rescind or hold in abeyance. The motion is simply to send it back to the policy committee.

---

Patrick Wygant: I’m a teacher over at Rogers. Good evening. I defend Policy 1050, the student excellence and success policy, and explain why it should remain intact rather than be rescinded or fragmented. First, let’s acknowledge that the criticism of Policy 1050 is too big, broad, redundant, or contradictory. We see overlap between [this policy and many other policies.]. The truth is, many of our District policies span multiple pages and address interconnected themes. For example, Policy 1710 - Parental involvement, is also quite extensive.

Length alone should not disqualify policy, especially when its scope and the complexity of the issues it addresses are best managed under a single cohesive framework. Second, Policy 1050 provides a unique and comprehensive outlook that integrates academic achievement, resource allocation, social-emotional support, and restorative disciplinary measures. It ensures that every student is afforded the same opportunity for excellence regardless of background. If we break 1050 into smaller pieces, we risk scattering that single, unified vision into separate silos. In practical terms, parents and staff would search through four or five separate documents to understand how we handle college readiness, mental health, and student support all at once.

Third, t1050 has a built-in accountability mechanism that requires annual reporting on student growth, discipline data, and other success benchmarks. This transparent reporting keeps us honest about how well we serve our students. Splitting the policy into pieces might dilute this accountability and produce confusion about where certain metrics are reported or who is responsible.

Finally, we must recognize that all policies in some way overlap or restate our district’s principles, whether it’s our mission statement, Policy 1000, or our statement of philosophy, Policy 1200. Policy 1050 is not uniquely guilty of overlap, redundancy, length, or how comprehensive it is. We have kept each of the other policies precisely because they bring a unique focus to the different facets of our work. While researching for this meeting, I found it difficult to track down and decode more than 20 policies behind the district’s website. This makes it difficult for parents, families, community members, and teachers to keep track of policy. 1050 helps to eliminate some of that confusion by establishing a comprehensive framework in one place.

This policy plays a critical role by combining our commitment to academic excellence and student support. It supports modern educational priorities and acts as a holistic and consistent reference point. This is not our only lengthy or multifaceted policy. Splitting it up risks disjointing a deliberately comprehensive policy, like our policy 1710.

Its value lies in integrating and updating curriculum, accountability, and student wellness. Policy 1050 reflects modern best practices for student success and continuous improvement. I urge the committee to vote against rescinding or breaking up Policy 1050. Let’s keep it intact as our clear, forward-thinking blueprint for ensuring every Newport student has the support, resources, and opportunities they need to thrive.

---

Jennifer Weiffenbach: My son goes here under the NACTC program. I’m going to quote someone here from a great movement. “The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when it applies to one group or one person and it applies differently to a different group or a different person.” That’s not how it works or should work, but sadly, sometimes it is. I like Dr. Flowers’s comment that these documents should be fluid, growing, and organic because the times change and kids change—the population statistics change. I wonder how this will affect kids who need extra assistance while it’s in abeyance or review. Is there going to be a change, or are we going to stay the same? You’re shaking your head.

Chair James Dring: There is no motion on the floor to put the policy into abeyance. The motion is to send it back, possibly reworking it with Mr. Conley.

---

Hayne McDermott: I’m a transgender Newport resident and a leader of a local Girl Scout troop, several scouts of which are students at the Newport Public Schools. I’m here to express my support for keeping Policy 1050, Student Excellence and Success, as this policy supports an equitable approach to education and recognizes the importance of providing for the social and emotional health of all students and their families, especially historically marginalized communities. I have scouts in my troop who are queer, Latina, and come from all economic backgrounds. When I see them after school and, they already have smiles on their face because they spent the day in a classroom where they were welcomed and supported as their full selves, where the curriculum reflected their cultures and communities, where bullying and microaggressions were not tolerated, and teachers can recognize students” unique struggles and know how to best support them due to their training under this policy. This policy keeps a supportive and engaging learning environment possible, and it protects my kids” wellbeings.

---

Angela Lima: I want to thank this committee for giving this some thorough thought. I also want to commend committee member Stephanie Winslow. To my understanding, this policy has been crafted and talked about for at least four years.

A motion was made that the policy would not be rescinded but would be sent to the subcommittee. My next question is, how long will that be stuck in the subcommittee? I recognize that as an attempt to kill certain movements and initiatives. I agree with Committee Member Winslow. If the problem is that there are not enough teeth or legal language, why can’t we get the legal language?

Chair Dring: That’s what we’re doing. I would like to clarify that if the motion on the table fails, Policy 1050 will remain exactly the same. If it passes, it goes to the policy subcommittee. There is no motion on the floor to remove this policy.

Audience: But there was.

Chair James Dring: Yes. There was, there is no longer.

Audience: That’s why we’re here.

---

Karen Conway: My daughter is a junior at Rogers, and my son graduated last year and is now at St. John’s in New York City. And is well-prepared and doing very well.

The folks around us are worried about timing and whether this will go on for how long because this is a perfect way for the policy to be stalled again. From my understanding, the school committee does not send policy to lawyers. I’m concerned about why this one specifically - it sure seems political.

Even today, school committee members ask why schools are rated one or two stars. Policy 1050 is where we need to start because 1050 assures equitable access to resources in this educational setting. This accessibility is essential for fostering an environment where all students can strive, regardless of their background. Every kid needs to have equal access to educational resources and opportunities. This equity is crucial for closing the achievement gap that you’re complaining about, and promotes social mobility. I implore you to pass this and stop making it a political football.

---

Dr. Kimberly Behan: I’m a professor at Salva University and I’m currently the President of the Newport Public Ed Foundation. When I heard that we were going to rescind this policy, I did a little research. I want to read you a mission statement from the Rhode Island Department of Education Educators of Color.

“Our mission, because this is a partnership between all of us, is to create structural changes to eliminate disparities and uphold our core values of Anti-Racism, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, Empowerment, and the Health and Safety of all students, families, educators and staff. We will ensure, through continuous reflection and improvement, that systematic and instructional practices are equitable, student-centered, and culturally responsive. We will provide clear guidance and be intentional about minimizing barriers, ensuring equal representation at every level, and the development of student, family, community, educator and administrator talents, while maintaining high expectations for all Rhode Island stakeholders.

“We are committed to identifying and developing solutions for equity gaps and we envision that Rhode Island educators and students, particularly those of color and their families, have equal access to a safe, supportive, inclusive, and culturally sensitive learning environment that provides rigorous and relevant educational, real world experiences, strengthening relationships and partnerships between all Rhode Island stakeholders.”

They’re doing the work. It’s long overdue. We know it. You know it, too. The question is, are you with us?

My question to you tonight is, why were you even considering rescinding this? It’s a local policy that is trying to ensure exactly what the Department of Education is already committed to. Right up the street, you have a local university whose education department’s mission is to train culturally responsive and anti-racist future educators. We have a disconnect tonight, so I will go back to the original question. Are you with us?

---

Bethany Peterson: I live here in Newport. I’m a small business owner. I don’t have children, but I hope to someday have children in this school District, so I care about the future of our school department. I am here to voice my opinion on exactly what everyone has said - the use of the word "rescind" and "abeyance." It sounds like there’s been four comprehensive years put into this, and frankly, what a waste of time to send it back and try to amend it. If we’ve spent five years on it, why don’t we start thinking about solutions for other things? It sounds like we’re talking a lot about this and that and whatever - can we be solution-focused? Can we take what we have and work with it? Everything everyone has said makes sense to me, and I also don’t appreciate being continually reminded that "rescind" has been taken off the agenda.

We’re here to voice our opinions and we’ll use our three minutes. I live here. I’m allowed to speak, and I think it’s important that you hear us regardless of if that motion was changed. When everyone stands up and claps for what we’re saying, please don’t shake your heads. You’re here to represent us, okay? We live here, and we’re voicing what we want done, so please consider the voices of all of us. Listen to what your community is saying because it sounds like we have some opinions you may not hear. Thank you, Stephanie Winslow.

---

Cassian Weiffenbach: I’m not someone at my school who has ever been known for public speaking or addressing large groups. I’m a very private, and I choose to live my life that way. I’m a transgender student at Rogers High School, and your actions and your decision, even using the word "rescind," are threatening things at this school that have been in place for decades and for a reason. This policy puts into words things that these students, the students at my school, the students I go to class with every single day, the students I eat lunch with, the students I talk to - all need this.

This is protecting so much for so many people. Your decision to use the word "rescind," in and of itself, shows you are not speaking for our community. I believe that what she said was very, very true. You are not representing our community, and I am very disappointed with this committee. It is not professional to say that, and it is not mature to say that, but I’m going to come up here, and I’m going to be immature. I’m sorry.

---

Amy Machado: I want to tell you you are mature. That was amazing. Thank you.

First, I would like to thank Stephanie Winslow for all her hard work in this policy. It is not a mess; it is not fuzzy. It is what we need. Thank you so much for all of your work. I’m not interested in giving a charitable reading about why we’re here tonight. Jim Dring wants to kill this policy, guys. Let’s be real. He can use the words abeyance or rescind. That’s a distinction without a difference. I believe the reason he doesn’t want this policy is that, in 2024, he said, in this committee room, when talking about our absentee rates, honest to God, that we’ve moved beyond institutional racism. So, let’s be real. He wants the policy to go back to the committee so he can kill it.

Beth Cullen doesn’t like this policy because Stephanie Winslow wrote it, and Bobby Leary is against it because Bobby Leary is Bobby Leary. I sat in these chambers when he called our children criminals and thugs.

Robert Leary: Thank you very much.

Amy Machado: this policy must stay in effect even if it goes back to the committee for amendments.

I would like to hear from everyone who will be voting - and be specific - about what they don’t like about this policy.

Jim, I was really disheartened that you opened the meeting talking about your last time on the policy subcommittee when Stephanie wrote this policy. You quit that policy subcommittee, along with Bobby. You were not there when this policy was created. And please tell me that as a committee, you are not spending money on an attorney when we discuss planting trees at Rogers High School.

---

The next speaker, whose name I didn’t catch, spoke mostly in Spanish. Her explanation for why she was speaking in Spanish gets to the heart of DEI policies.

Speaker: We are talking about equity. Do you see equity over here? I don’t see this policy in Spanish. [Some of] the parents here speak Spanish, and they don’t know what you guys are talking about, so I will speak in Spanish.

---

Rebekah Rosen-Gomez: I’m the executive director of Conexion Latina Newport. I’m not a resident of Newport, but I worked in Newport Public Schools doing family outreach for many years. Good evening school committee members, thank you for having us. Well, you’re not having us. We all came, but we’re glad because our input, we hope, will influence your decisions tonight because these fine people voted for many of you. I think we all agree that Policy 1050 states that all we want for all of our students is to have academic excellence and career readiness once they graduate.

Our demographics show that 34.5% of our students are white, 38% are Hispanic, and 10% are black. The balance of our students are Native American, Pacific Islander, Asian, et cetera. We also have several multilanguage learners, members of the LGBTQ community, and students who have IEPs and 504s. There is no majority here. Everybody is diverse and deserves equity because they all need what they need to achieve academic excellence and career readiness.

The ways outlined in Policy 1050 - Providing leadership accountability, high-quality instruction, student mental health, social-emotional wellbeing, family and community engagement, and commitments to continued improvement are the way to get there. There is no reason to change any of that. It’s already there.

Who’s going to ensure equity during the time that the policy is being re-debated? How long is it going to be in the subcommittee? Has anybody thought that the federal government is attacking DEI? Our lawyer here has stated that it needs to comply with federal and State law. What happens when that goes away and it’s still sitting in subcommittee? It goes in the shredder, and Newport no longer receives any money? We need to protect our children. I appreciate that you have moved this from "rescind," although I still have a problem with the word, and the fact that you all approved the item to be put on the agenda to be rescinded is a problem for me and many of the people in this room. The fact that a lawyer didn’t look at the policy if that is part of the process of a policy coming to the school committee, is another problem for me and should be a problem for all of us. Thank you for your time tonight. I hope that you take our comments into account. I applaud you, Stephanie, and all of you in attendance.

---

Carrie Cassidy: I came out tonight specifically because of the word "rescind" in regard to this policy, and I came to urge you to reconsider the decision to rescind it, considering that it includes language for diversity, equity, and inclusion. This policy was implemented at a critical moment when schools nationwide were addressing systemic inequities and striving to create a more inclusive, welcoming environment for all students.

Rescinding it now would reverse the important progress you’ve made and send a message that the needs of marginalized students are less important. Maintaining diversity, equity, and inclusion is vital to ensuring that every student feels respected, supported, and empowered to succeed in a diverse learning community.

I was going to request that rather than rescind the policy in its entirety, leaving the district with no language to protect the needs of our students, you consider sending it to your subcommittee for review, update the language, have the new language reviewed by the attorney, and then vote to replace the current policy with the updated language. However, if the committee had chosen to rescind the language, my request would have been to explain to the community the part of the policy with which you disagree - equity, diversity, or inclusion.

---

The motion to send the policy to the policy subcommittee for review passed 6-1, with only Committee Member Leary voting against it. The policy stays in effect, neither rescinded nor held in abeyance.