In March, state Rep. John Torbett, a Republican from Gaston, sponsored House Bill 247, which would open the door to stiffer penalties for public school students who commit classroom infractions.

The bill is counterintuitive during a period when youth advocates are calling for restorative justice measures to reduce students’ contact with the criminal justice system. Yet, the bill passed the House on a 66-49 vote without any Democratic support and is awaiting action in the Senate. 

An analysis of the bill by the General Assembly’s legislative analysis division determined that the legislation would, among other things, require school boards to consult with local law enforcement agencies, along with teachers, school administrators, and parents when adopting student conduct policies.

But more important, the bill would allow four types of school infractions to be punishable by stiffer penalties, including long-term suspension. These include inappropriate language, noncompliance, dress code violations, and minor physical altercations.

Critics say that if the bill is signed into law, it will disproportionately impact Black and Brown students, who already account for a disparate rate of school complaints, and any increase in suspensions could exacerbate both drop-out rates and the school-to-prison pipeline. 

“These are all minor, vague, and subjective ‘infractions’ that will be used to disproportionately place Black and Latinx students on long-term suspension, disrupting their education while fueling the school-to-prison pipeline,” Tyler Whittenberg, the chief counsel for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, said in a press release last week. 

Whittenberg pointed to the SCSJ’s annual Racial Equity Report Cards that show Black and Latinx students are already more likely to be suspended than their white classmates are. 

“Part of making sure these students are safe from racial bias and discrimination begins with keeping safeguards in place that minimize the likelihood of inequitable treatment,” Whittenberg added. “Long-term suspensions, especially for minor infractions like those outlined in HB 247, delay and undermine the process of identifying and addressing the root cause of legitimate behavioral issues while placing an unreasonable burden on working families. This is a step in the wrong direction for a state where most people would rather walk toward equity.”

Torbett, the bill’s sponsor, did not respond to interview requests last week from the INDY.

Durham County school board member Natalie Beyer told the INDY that she shares the concerns expressed by the SCSJ regarding the bill. 

“At a time of growing concerns about disproportionalities in school discipline nationally, it is imperative to be transparent about these disparities and bring school and community leaders together to eliminate the school to prison pipeline,” Beyer wrote in an email to the INDY. “Progressive school districts in North Carolina are revising policies to focus on restorative practices and equity as we work to make improvements. HB 247 is not a reflection of those best practices.”

Beyer added that she is also “concerned about the proposed requirement to involve law enforcement officers in setting school discipline policies because in some districts young people are criminalized by school resource officers.”

The on-campus presence of school resource officers (SRO) from the sheriff’s office, contracted by Durham Public Schools, was a major concern for members of the Youth Justice Project (YJP), a student-led initiative to implement change in the county school system. 

As previously reported by the INDY during the George Floyd protests in Durham last summer, YJP members say that a central part of their mission is to dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline. 

The presence of SROs on public school campuses, the student activists say, increases the likelihood of students ending up in juvenile court and students under the age of 18 being charged as adults for classroom altercations. 

Former YJP member Aissa Dearing wrote a petition letter last summer that circulated on social media and was forwarded to the county’s school board members. 

In the letter, Dearing said school funding for SROs would be put to better use by hiring “more school psychologists, more guidance counselors, school nurses, therapists, and substance abuse specialists instead of members of law enforcement to create a safe school climate.”

Dearing added that the school system “should have more appropriate disciplinary techniques (that include restorative practice centers), that are more equipped to handle any school issues than any intervention from law enforcement.”

“In extreme situations, it is then that schools should ask for peacekeeping intervention,” she said.

The SCSJ report made public in March found that nearly 30 percent of juvenile court referrals statewide came from schools in 2019-2020. 

The report also found that 49 percent of all juvenile complaints were filed against Black students even though they make up a quarter of the North Carolina public school population.

The report notes that the criminalization of youthful misbehavior has immediate and long-term consequences. The report’s authors point to studies that show young people who come into contact with the criminal justice system are more likely to commit other crimes and become ensnared and hobbled by the criminal system for the rest of their lives.

The authors also note another grim reality: a child’s involvement with the court system will likely impede their access to quality-of-life benefits including education, employment, housing, public benefits, and voting rights, along with other sources of opportunity and support.

Durham County school board member Frederick Ravin III wondered why the bill was written in such a divisive manner and asked what was the goal of the proposed legislation.

“Is there a goal and intentionality behind splitting communities apart?” he asked in an email to the INDY. “Is there a goal to figure [out] another way to increase the amount of damage inflicted upon communities by expanding the [school-to-prison] pipeline system?”

Ravin added that, “These types of bills would make more sense if [the] change agents admitted that their goal is to sabotage the work and efforts that communities invest in by improving living conditions and quality of life standards overall.”

Follow Durham Staff Writer Thomasi McDonald on Twitter or send an email to [email protected].

Support independent local journalism. Join the INDY Press Club to help us keep fearless watchdog reporting and essential arts and culture coverage viable in the Triangle.