Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
The debate about revising the school resource officer (SRO) law passed last year has become complicated, political but not practical.
The law was tweaked last year to restrict the times school resource officers can use prone holds that restrict breathing or speaking. The law allowed use of the hold only if those students present an imminent threat of injury or death. The law provided penalties against officers for violations, and several jurisdictions ended contracts for SROs with schools fearing increased legal liability under the law.
Also, last year, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison issued an advisory opinion saying the new law did not change current legal interpretation of in what circumstances officers could restrain students. Some SROs then returned to schools, but both Democrats and Republicans suggested the Legislature this year could tweak the law to satisfy concerns.
That’s not been easy.
Opponents of changing the law again say last year’s tweak protects students and particularly students of color, where research shows they endure a disproportionate share of discipline in schools. The proponents of the restrictions want the law to specify cases in which the holds can be used, while police groups and others would like to see officers given more flexibility.
Khulia Pringle, a parent who helped pass the tighter student restraint laws last year, in a report on Minnesota Public Radio, sees this year’s debate as “the powers that be want the community to understand that somehow resource officers cannot do their jobs without being able to use tactics that restrict the airways of children.”
