Orange County school board work session debates adding ‘acts of hate’ language and restoring restitution in student code

The Orange County School Board met in a June 10 work session to review proposed edits to policy JIC, the district’s student code of conduct, focusing on two contested items: a new definition for “acts of hate” and reintroducing restitution as a disciplinary response for property loss or damage.

Board members and staff said the changes reflect community concerns raised after several high-profile incidents this year. John Pomerini, the district’s general counsel, told the board his office will “be on the side of the kids’ amendment rights” and that legal review is required before any act-of-hate charge is filed.

The draft language presented to the board would define an act of hate as an act or intent to act to cause physical injury, emotional suffering or property damage when a victim is targeted “because of hostility to the race, color, religion, age, national origin, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, genetic information, language spoken, or homelessness.” Staff said any charge under that category must be reviewed by the OCPS Office of Legal Services before moving forward.

Board discussion centered on two questions: whether the “acts of hate” language should exist as its own disciplinary offense or serve as an enhancement that raises the level of an underlying offense (for example, bumping vandalism from one level to a higher level when it is shown to be hate-related), and how to avoid chilling protected student speech. Pomerini and other staff repeatedly said the district must balance disciplinary goals with constitutional limits on student speech and that the legal standard requires more than the mere fact someone was offended.

Several board members supported keeping a clear notice in the draft policy that hate-related findings must be reviewed by legal staff and reported to state authorities as required. Members who opposed a standalone offense favored treating bias-motivated conduct as an enhancement to existing offenses so that the district would only apply higher penalties when that bias could be demonstrated.

On restitution, staff showed language defining restitution as a monetary obligation that remains on a student’s record until paid and said payment plans or alternative forms of restitution can be arranged with the school principal. Board members pressed for clarity about enforcement and equity. Dr. Vasquez, the superintendent, emphasized that the district added an explicit reference to alternatives — such as after-school community service, tutoring or structured restorative practices — because families may not be able to pay and because some students’ disabilities could affect culpability.

Restorative practices were discussed at length. District staff said every school has personnel trained in restorative practices and that the approach is often effective in reducing repeat incidents when participants voluntarily engage. Staff also noted restorative practices are less commonly used for the most serious (level 4) offenses because of power imbalances between victims and perpetrators.

No formal vote or policy adoption occurred at the work session. Board members asked staff to revise the draft: keep the parent-notification wording that defines acts of hate and requires legal review; add text explaining that a finding of a hate-related act can enhance the level of an underlying offense; clarify that restitution in the current draft applies to theft or damage to property but that payment plans and alternative, non‑monetary restitution options (examples cited by the board included community service and tutoring) must be available; and insert a brief statement noting the district must report hate-related incidents to the state as required by rule. Staff said a rule-development workshop on the policy is scheduled for the following Tuesday.

The work session closed with staff directed to return a revised draft that (1) preserves legal review language, (2) explicitly lists alternative forms of restitution as examples, and (3) explains how a hate-related finding affects the disciplinary level and reporting obligations. The board indicated it wanted the revisions ready for the next rule-development meeting so the district can finalize language before the start of the next school year.