Board reviews changes to student code (policy JIC): adds 'acts of hate,' parking violations and restitution language

Orange County School Board members reviewed proposed revisions to policy JIC (student code of conduct) on May 6, which include new "acts of hate" categories, added student parking violations, and language allowing restitution for damage to school or others' property.

Policy staff explained the changes and urged legal review for the new hate‑related offenses. D'Mickey Joyner summarized additions: student parking violations were added as level 1 and level 2 offenses (first and repeated violations), restitution was added to disciplinary responses at levels 2 and 3, and a new level‑3 and level‑4 offense class, "acts of hate," was defined to cover "an act or attempt to act to cause physical injury, emotional suffering, or property damage when the victim is selected by the perpetrator based upon hostility" toward protected characteristics. Joyner noted that "All charges under the category of an act of hate must be reviewed with the OCPS Office of Legal Services for compliance with law."

Board members raised three recurring concerns: how the district will distinguish protected hateful conduct from political speech, how restitution would be implemented and tracked, and the operational burden of enforcing the new language. General Counsel said staff will apply conservative legal analysis and will treat as acts of hate only the clearest cases because of First Amendment and intent issues; as he said, "the only way we're gonna find acts of hate is if, quite frankly, it's extremely clear." Board members asked staff to clarify whether restitution applies to every level 4 offense and whether alternatives such as community service would be allowed for families who cannot pay; staff said restitution will be limited to monetary loss for damaged or stolen property and payment plans or alternative forms of restitution can be arranged with principals.

Why it matters: The policy edits are meant to give schools clearer tools for addressing bias‑motivated conduct while preserving free‑speech limits. Staff repeatedly advised legal review before labeling incidents as "acts of hate" and said some incidents remain better addressed under existing harassment, bullying, vandalism, or criminal statutes.

Details and context: Specific changes presented included: adding parking violations to Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 offense lists (pages 11, 15 and 21 as presented), inserting restitution language in disciplinary responses, adjusting dress‑code language on imagery that "states, implies, or depicts acts of hate," and renaming a section from "hate speech" to "acts of hate." Staff added that restitution "will remain on the student's district record until the restitution is paid in full" but that payment plans or alternative forms of restitution can be arranged.

Board direction and next steps: Members asked staff to return with tightened language and implementation guidance: (1) remove restitution from level‑4 offenses that carry an expulsion recommendation (staff agreed to consider this change), (2) clarify the scope of restitution and whether caps or alternative community‑service options will be available, (3) assemble sample training and guidance for staff and students on how acts of hate will be evaluated, and (4) compare other districts' approaches and return the policy to a future work session for final decision. The board did not vote on the policy at the work session.

Ending note: Staff said they will draft revised policy language and bring comparisons and clarified procedures back to the board; General Counsel said legal services will vet any charges classified as acts of hate. Members asked staff to allow time for the absent board chair and other members to review revised language before a final vote.