ACLU: Schools Without Police are Better Schools
Report Shows that Putting Police in Schools Harms Students, Does Not Improve Safety
It’s time to take police out of public schools.
Today, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundations in California and ACLU California Action release a comprehensive report showing that, despite school districts pouring millions of dollars into campus police programs, there is little to no credible evidence that they increase school safety and instead undermine school climate and criminalize students.
In fact, as detailed in the report, “No Police in Schools: A Vision for Safe and Supportive Schools in CA,” the latest available federal, state, and local data show that destructive school policing patterns — far more likely to target Black and Native American students and students with disabilities — annually “contribute to tens of thousands of California students being criminalized, pushed out of schools, and shunted into the juvenile justice system.” Numerous students quoted in the report talk about the siege mentality in schools with overbearing police presences.
It does not have to be this way. The report cites school districts that have greatly reduced or even eliminated campus police programs — for example in Oakland and Los Angeles Unified. Indeed, these actions freed up funding for programs that support Black student achievement and all students’ social and emotional well-being.
“The data reveal troubling trends endemic to racist and oppressive policing at large,” said Amir Whitaker, senior policy counsel with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. “Officers racially profile students of color and handcuff them as young as 8 years old.”
The major presence of police in schools is a relatively recent phenomenon. In 1970, there were only about 200 school police nationwide. Now, that number is more than 40,000, even while some critical school services are underfunded or were eliminated entirely. Schools serving large numbers of students of color are, in many cases, particularly under-supported and over-policed.
“I know none of us deserve the conditioning that occurs from being policed," said Caroline, a high school student in the Pomona Unified School District who is quoted in the report. “We are deemed a problem, we are alienated from our own communities.”
The report is the first to analyze the new California Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) data, which currently provides detailed information about police stops from the state’s 15 largest law enforcement agencies. More agencies will report data in future years.
The latest data reveals that school staff more frequently characterize behavior by Black students as being criminal, and that police impose harsher consequences on Black students during stops. For instance, despite Black students being 7.6 percent of school population, 26 percent of students stopped and 27 percent of students handcuffed. The data also show that police are called on very young children far too often; in 2019, the 15 largest law enforcement agencies alone stopped 241 children who were age 9 or younger.
The ACLU report includes several recommendations for school districts, including:
• No schools in California should have a permanent police officer.
• School staff should never call a police officer to campus unless there is an imminent danger of serious physical injury or death to a person on school property.
• Schools should not use surveillance measures — such as online monitoring software, surveillance cameras or face recognition — on students and their families because these measures replicate the same harms as law enforcement presence on campus.
“Over policing of children in our public schools has fueled the school-to-prison pipeline for too long,” said Assembly member Ash Kalra. “AB 610 is a common-sense and evidence-based next step to keep students in the classroom where they can safely learn and thrive.”
Read the report here:
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Montana Supreme CourtMay 2024
Juvenile Justice
+2 Issues
Held v. MontanaHeld v. Montana
This case pending before the Montana Supreme Court asks, among other things, whether the claims of sixteen youth plaintiffs challenging Montana energy policy present a political question under the Montana Constitution. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the claims do not present a political question and, moreover, that state courts should not wholesale adopt the federal political questions doctrine. -
Texas Supreme CourtMay 2024
Juvenile Justice
State v. OchoaState v. Ochoa
This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant’s confession following a Texas Ranger’s coercive interrogation. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant’s confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. -
Press ReleaseApr 2024
Free Speech
+2 Issues
ACLU Urges College and University Leaders to Protect Free Speech and Academic FreedomACLU Urges College and University Leaders to Protect Free Speech and Academic Freedom
NEW YORK — In response to the anti-war protests happening at colleges across the country, and the disturbing arrests that have followed, the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to leaders at both public and private universities. The letter states: “As you fashion responses to the activism of your students (and faculty and staff), it is essential that you not sacrifice principles of academic freedom and free speech that are core to the educational mission of your respected institution.” Authored by ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero and National Legal Director David Cole, the letter offers university leaders five basic guardrails to ensure freedom of speech and academic freedom are protected on campus: They must not single out particular viewpoints for censorship, discipline, or disproportionate punishment. They must protect students from targeted discriminatory harassment and violence, but may not penalize people for taking sides on the war in Gaza, even if expressed in deeply offensive terms. They can announce and enforce reasonable content-neutral time, place, or manner policies on protesting activity, but they must leave ample room for students to express themselves. These rules must be applied consistently and without regard to viewpoint. They must recognize that armed police on campus can endanger students and are a measure of last resort. They must resist the pressures placed on them by politicians seeking to exploit campus tensions. The letter also informs university leaders of relevant Supreme Court precedent: “The Supreme Court has forcefully rejected the premise that, ‘because of the acknowledged need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large.’” The letter strongly advises university leaders to be “cognizant of the history of law enforcement using inappropriate and excessive force in responding to protests, particularly against communities of color,” and that — as events of the past week have made abundantly clear — arresting peaceful protestors is likely to escalate, not calm, tensions on campus. The letter also reiterates that violence is never an acceptable protest tactic and that “physically intimidating students by blocking their movements or pursuing them aggressively is unprotected conduct, not protected speech.” -
PodcastJan 2024
Juvenile Justice
It's Time to End Solitary Confinement: Ian Manuel's StoryIt's Time to End Solitary Confinement: Ian Manuel's Story