Disturbing schools law bashed, defended in SC House hearing

Supporters and opponents testified on a S.C. House bill Thursday that would put an end to students being arrested for disturbing schools.

The bill would exempt students in school from a controversial disturbing schools law that critics say unfairly criminalizes students and supporters say is a necessary tool for law enforcement working in schools.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Mia McLeod, D-Richland, said she wants to return the law to its original intent: to protect students from outside agitators.

The legislation, which received its first hearing Thursday, is a response to a Richland County Sheriff’s Deputy forcibly removing a Spring Valley High School student from her desk after she refused to put away her phone. The student was charged with disturbing schools. The charges are pending. The deputy was fired and a federal investigation is underway.

The Spring Valley incident sparked outcry from Richland 2 parents who say black students are more harshly punished than white students. The State found some evidence to support the parents’ perception. Black students in Richland 2 and statewide are three times more likely to be suspended or expelled than white students.

Testifying before a House Judiciary panel, the bill’s supporters said it would correct an unfair law that criminalizes students for normal misbehavior and would slow the so-called “school-to-prison pipeline.”

“If it's not a crime in the street, it shouldn't be a crime in the classroom,” said James Flowers, a former SLED agent who is running for Richland County sheriff.

Aleksandra Chauhan, a Richland County assistant public defender, said she has seen students “charged with disturbing schools for things like throwing a soda can in the cafeteria when they're upset.”

That kind of behavior, Chauhan said, should not be considered criminal. She also encouraged lawmakers to consider the lasting impacts of youth entering the criminal justice system.

“Once they are in the criminal system, they stay in the criminal system.”

Representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Malcolm X Center for Self Determination in Greenville spoke in support of the bill, saying law enforcement should not have the right to arrest students for whatever offenses they deem criminal.

But opposing the bill, some law enforcement and legal professionals said the disturbing schools law gives law enforcement a needed tool for addressing criminal behavior in the classroom.

Agreeing with the law’s critics that the disturbing schools definition should be clarified, a S.C. Sheriff’s Association representative defended the law, saying it sometimes saves students from more serious charges.

In a letter to the panel, S.C. Sheriffs’ Association executive director Jarrod Bruder said an officer sometimes will use the law “as his means for arrest because it is a lesser offense than, say, disorderly conduct or assault and battery (when fighting occurs). This often allows the student’s charge to be handled in Family Court rather than resulting in a permanent charge on the student’s criminal record.”

Solicitor Barry Barnette of Spartanburg and Cherokee counties said a lack of adequate discipline has led to unruly students and the need for the disturbing schools law.

“There's kids that will not obey the rules. You've got to have discretion for that officer or that person.”

One lawmaker said the burden for correcting student behavior must start with parents.

“What about the burden that parents or guardians have?" asked state Rep. Chris Murphy, R-Dorchester. “Sometimes we have to quit blaming the schools. The burden in my opinion and at my house is on mama and daddy."

The House panel decided not to vote on the bill to give time to address some of the concerns raised in the hearing.

The panel will hold another hearing Thursday, said state Rep. David Weeks, D-Sumter, the panel’s chairman.

The delay curbs the bill’s chances of becoming law this year, making it unlikely to make it through committee and pass the House before a May 1 deadline. After May 1, legislation requires a two-thirds vote to be considered by the other chamber.

This story was originally published April 21, 2016 at 2:12 PM with the headline "Disturbing schools law bashed, defended in SC House hearing."