Disturbing schools law is too vague
The U.S. Justice Department recently weighed in on a lawsuit challenging South Carolina’s “disturbing schools” law. The American Civil Liberties Union, which is challenging the law, claims that the statute contributes to the “school to prison pipeline,” which unfairly affects minorities and students with disabilities.
This legal battle should be unnecessary. The Legislature could end the dispute by revising the vague and often misused law.
Lawmakers had a chance to do that this year after an incident at a Richland County high school where a student was snatched from her desk by a sheriff’s deputy, flipped backward and tossed across the floor after she refused to put away her cell phone. The incident gained national attention after a fellow student recorded the incident on her cell phone and posted it online.
Unfortunately, efforts to reform the law failed. But lawmakers now have a chance to take up the measure as one of their first items of business next year.
Richland County officials already have taken steps to ensure that law enforcement officials do not use excessive force in school discipline cases. Sheriff Leon Lott immediately fired the deputy involved in the cell phone incident, saying the video made him want to “throw up.”
Lott’s department also reached a settlement with the Justice Department to provide annual training for deputies who work in more than 60 schools on de-escalating situations, avoiding bias and interacting properly with disabled students. The county also agreed to create an advisory group that includes students and parents and to hire outside consultants approved by the DOJ to ensure compliance with the agreement.
The state Board of Education also has issued a formal proposal to change the law. The plan calls for better training for educators and law enforcement officers who work in schools as resource officers statewide.
Training would include pointers on how to deal with tense situations with students so they do not become physical or result in unnecessary arrests.
The proposed rule changes also include new definitions of misconduct regarding various offenses. Under the proposal, possession of a cell phone in violation of school policy would be considered the lowest level offense. A student would have to be involved in criminal activity with a cell phone before a resource officer could intervene.
The new regulations will go to the General Assembly for approval when lawmakers return to Columbia in January, and we hope they waste no time in taking up this important issue.
Incidents of “disturbing schools” are far from rare. Over the past five years, nearly 9,000 students have been referred to the Department of Juvenile Justice for such incidents, which often include misdemeanor criminal charges.
As the law is written, students can be charged if they “interfere with or ... disturb in any way or in any place the students or teachers of any school” or if they “act in an obnoxious manner.”
Clearly that law leaves far too much to individual interpretation. One student might be sent to after-school suspension for being “obnoxious” while another student who committed the same offense might face a $1,000 fine and 90 days in jail.
The law needs to be made more specific. And, as part of the reform process, teachers and administrators need better training and more resources in maintaining discipline in the classroom so that resource officers can be called in only as a last resort.
This story was originally published December 7, 2016 at 4:31 PM with the headline "Disturbing schools law is too vague."