Talk about your "school to prison pipeline"!

In South Carolina, the line between discipline and criminal penalty has become so blurred as to be rendered close to meaningless.

One of the many appalling aspects of the violence perpetrated by "Officer Slam" at Spring Valley High in South Carolina was the fact that the first student was being arrested in the first place. What was her crime? Resisting arrest? But then, why was there an arrest to be resisted in the first place?

Turns out that the crime was "disturbing schools." And the law that creates the crime is deeply disturbing in and of itself.



Disturbing Schools Law for South Carolina

SECTION 12. Section 16-17-420 of the 1976 Code

(A) It shall be unlawful:

(1) For any person willfully or unnecessarily (a) to interfere with or to

disturb in any way or in any place the students or teachers of any school or

college in this State, (b) to loiter about such school or college premises or

(c) to act in an obnoxious manner thereon; or (2) For any person to (a)

enter upon any such school or college premises or (b) loiter around the

premises, except on business, without the permission of the principal or

president in charge.

(B) Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty

of a misdemeanor and, on conviction thereof, shall pay a fine of not more

than one thousand dollars or be imprisoned in the county jail for not more

than ninety days.

(C) The summary courts are vested with jurisdiction to hear and dispose of cases involving a violation of this section. If the person is a child as defined by Section 63-19-20, jurisdiction must remain vested in

the Family Court." (emphasis mine)

In other words, ANY time a student publicly disputes a directive from the teacher, they could technically be arrested on the charge of "disturbing schools."

Apparently there are seven other states with "disturbing schools" laws on the books.

But there's a difference.

Look at the language of Maine's "disturbing schools" law, for example.



A person who enters the property of a public or private school or another place of instruction during or out of school hours, while the teacher or student is present, and willfully interrupts or disturbs the teacher or student by loud speaking, rude or indecent behavior, signs or gestures, or engages in hostile, aggressive or threatening behavior toward a student, teacher, administrator or other staff member, or willfully interrupts a school by prowling about the building, making noises, throwing missiles at the schoolhouse or disturbing the school, commits a civil offense and shall forfeit not less than $200 nor more than $500. (emphasis mine)

So Maine's law is talking about OUTSIDE INTRUSION into a school. Very different from internal disciplinary matters!

And actually, the South Carolina law kind of looks like that might have been the original intent as well, given the language on "entering" and "loitering." In which case, you'd think it would be an easy fix, right?

But no. This is South Carolina we're talking about, and they like the law the way it is.

In 2006, a constitutional challenge was brought against the law, on First Amendment grounds. The law was upheld.

In 2011, a bill was introduced to make sensible clarifying changes, including adding the text "It is unlawful for a person who is not a student to wilfully interfere with, disrupt, or disturb the normal operations of a school or college in this State."

The bill died without a hearing.

Meanwhile, even the National Association of School Resource Officers says that school discipline is not the role of the school resource officer.

But if you define your school-discipline situations as crimes... well, then all bets are off.

As they are in South Carolina, where a girl who's recently been uprooted into foster care can be slammed to the floor for the CRIME (God help us) of refusing to surrender her cell phone to the teacher.

The student's attorney is raising objections to the law. The rest of us should be too.

Loudly.