Questions surround suspension of RSHS student accused of making anonymous comments

ROCKINGHAM — The family of a Richmond Senior High School student has lingering questions and concerns over the disciplinary process that involved their son’s suspension.

On Dec. 8, in a Honors English classroom, an anonymous group chat on a class Slido poll featured multiple comments that were racial and inappropriate in nature.

“I hate all blacks,” “I really hate black people,” “I’m an Alabama n word and I wanna be free,” I hate them watermelon munchers,” “Fur das land des Dritten Reiches werden wir alle ungereinigten Juden und alle inhen Verpflichteten Anhanger saubon” (For the county of the Third Reich, we will slaughter all unpurified Jews and all loyal supporters), along with other statements calling students monkeys, gay or other inappropriate terms were made over the span of six minutes. Multiple accounts under various fake names made these comments, and it appears that some students were impersonating other students in their comments.

A week later, on Dec. 15, 15 minutes before Winter Break, one student was pulled out of class by Assistant Principal Alan Parker and singled out for two of the aforementioned statements and a few other similar but more innocuous comments. The student has stated that he was interrogated by Parker and his teacher in the hallway, and he that he was accused of saying comments that he didn’t make. The student admitted to making the comment regarding watermelon, but denied making any other inappropriate comments. He also stated that he was told to “shut up” during this exchange.

“They didn’t question him, they accused him,” his father said. “He has maintained his innocence [from the totality of the accusations.]…All I’m asking for is a fair shake and he was not given a fair shake.”

The student was given a slip of paper that informed him that his out of school suspension would take place on Dec. 16 and 17, two days over Winter Break. That referral stated that the offense was discrimination and it indicted the student of making multiple comments under multiple different usernames.

The referral stated that this incident was reported on Dec. 15 by the teacher, not Dec. 8, a whole week after the initial incident. When the student returned on Jan. 3 from break, everything resumed as normal for a day and a half. The student was subsequently told that they hadn’t served their suspension and would need to miss three days that differed from what was stated on the referral slip.

The family remains convinced that the slip of paper was already completed and finalized before there was a chance for a proper hearing, and while the student had admitted to only making one of the comments, is essentially being punished for his honesty when placed under questioning. The family feels that their son was placed in a compromising question and wasn’t afforded the opportunity for impartiality.

The family maintains that their son was accused of making far worse statements that what he admitted to and were concerned this punishment would remain on his record. Additionally, the family has no idea why only one student was blamed for the incident, and how exactly the teacher singled out one particular student.

“The punishment is excessive, the due process stinks,” stated the father. “[My son] admitted the comment that he made and that’s going to stick, but all these other comments?”

“Minor violations of the Code of Student Conduct are those less severe infractions involving a lower degree of dangerousness and harm,” states RCS Policy Code 4302. “Examples of minor violations include the use of inappropriate or disrespectful language, noncompliance with a staff directive, dress code violations and minor physical altercations that do not involve a weapon or an injury.” Serious violations include those that threaten to substantially disrupt the educational environment and may result in long-term suspension. It’s unclear why the student was allowed to return to the school if this was considered a minor or major violation.

Under 4302 R-1 Code of Student Conduct, the offense of ‘discrimination’ is not listed in the RCS Code of Conduct Matrix. It’s unclear if the charge would fall under a level 1 or level 2 violation, and why the student was accused of an offense that does not exist under RCS policy listed on the school website.

In a recording of a meeting on Jan. 5 between the family and Principal Butler shared with the Daily Journal, Butler acknowledges that it wasn’t one person making the comments and they haven’t been able to pinpoint any other suspects.

“This is a recipe for disaster,” Butler said about the online messaging. “Why?” he asked the student. “Because we were trying to be funny,” the student responds, adding that he didn’t know the specific names of any of the other involved-students although he guesses that it was about half of the class who was making these sort of messages.

“If you don’t don’t know who all these individual people are, it’s even more dangerous when you’re online,” Butler explains. “You don’t even know who’re you’re talking to its even worse. They could bait you into saying anything.” Butler explained something that can be an attempt to be joking can actually prove to be inappropriate and offensive.

Butler adds that he doesn’t want to scapegoat one student for the whole incident, but he only has one name to go off of at this time. “No sir, I was not the only one,” the student told the principal, reiterating that he has been accused mostly of comments that he didn’t make.

The meeting ends with Butler explaining to the student that he needs to be smart and learn from it. “There was also a lot of other kids that were wrong,” the father states. “He’s honest and he’s taking accountable for what he said. I don’t think this should be over.”

“IT is hoping to trace it back to the right laptop that was used,” Butler states. “It was on phones, it was anonymous,” the student responds. “Well that is going to make it more difficult,” Butler responds.

It remains unclear how the entire investigation into the incident was complete and written up without the any knowledge of how the evidence against the student was gathered.

Second meeting regarding the incident

Five days later, the father and a grandmother return to the school seeking a grievance form, the written referral of the incident and to meet with Butler again.

It’s the father’s understanding that his son’s actions were considered a Level 2 “major violation” that could have potentially been considered ‘Harassment – Racial’ and given 1-10 days of OSS. Or, the punishment could fit a Level 1 violation of inappropriate language that would justify a parent contact and up to two days of ISS or OSS. Butler responded that he feels the alleged statements were more than just inappropriate language and that three days of OSS fit the alleged offense. Again, the charge levied against the student is not listed on the RCS Code of Conduct, hence the confusion.

Following some more back and forth, the father incorrectly asserts that Butler had previously threatened that his son would not be able to graduate due to the suspension. This is false based on the recording; Butler merely stated that if a student qualifies under the extenuating circumstances policy, proper documentation is required, which the family had failed to alert the school system of in any sort of timely fashion.

In a recording shared with the Daily Journal, following the father’s line of questioning, Butler then yells “Ugghh” extremely loudly and either throws or slams something that causes a huge bang directly outside the RSHS main office.

Shaken, both of the family members exclaim that “Mr. Butler just threw something.” “Oh he just dropped a book bag,” states an unidentified person on the recording. Based on audio evidence, such an assertion seems implausible.

“Is everybody good?” asks Parker to the family members following the disturbance in the hallway.

The father again reiterates that under the school policy, wouldn’t the suitable punishment for his son be considered a minor violation, and also queries how the teacher is only charging his son when the statements were all anonymous.

“If I would have handled it, it would have been 10 days,” Parker states, adding that he felt offended by the alleged comments. “Mr. Butler gave him more leeway than I would have.” He also asserts that the student told him he made all of the comments he was accused of, which the student and father deny.

Following this meeting with school personnel, the family is given a copy of the referral that states that the incident was assigned by Butler on Jan. 5, which puzzled the family since their son was formally charged with the incident on Dec. 15.

“How was it assigned 20 days after it was already placed in my son’s jacket?” asks the father. “I think everything was already typed up and written. It was done before they pulled him out of class. My question is ‘Why did they pick him?’”

In a meeting between family members and Superintendent Dr. Joe Ferrell, the father laid out their frustration with how this process played out and their belief that the actions of both Butler and Parker seem to have escalated the situation, along with what they believe to have been improperly followed protocol.

“I agree with you 100%, this is a mess,” Dr. Ferrell said to the father in a recording shared with the Daily Journal, regarding the improper dates filled out on the slip, the curious timeline and method of the disciplinary procedure and exactly how only one student was targeted. “There’s so much about this that is just inaccurate. There’s no arguing that.” Dr. Ferrell stated that there are discrepancies by the school system in this incident that he can’t defend.

A request for further comment from the school system regarding details in this story received the following message. “…Anything I share with you in response to your questions would violate student privacy laws. Therefore, I am unable to comment,” share the superintendent in an email, adding that personnel laws prevent him from commenting on any questions related to employees. “If you have questions related to student discipline policies and procedures, we are always willing to respond/comment.”

A few months removed from this incident, the family has stated that all charges have been dropped besides a ‘misuse of school technology’ offense. That charge also states that the student started the online comment chain, which he has denied, but has decided not to fight.

To support the Richmond County Daily Journal, subscribe at https://www.yourdailyjournal.com/subscribe or 910-817-3111.

Reach Matthew Sasser at 910-817-2671 or [email protected] to suggest a correction.