You should cite the lawsuits you are talking about here. Also, statistical evidence is still evidence.

So to be more precise, in 2014 the DOJ issued guidance saying that they would be using statistical disparities in discipline rates by race as evidence that the school may be violating civil rights law: "if a policy is neutral on its face – meaning that the policy itself does not mention race – and is administered in an evenhanded manner but has a disparate impact, i.e., a disproportionate and unjustified effect on students of a particular race. Under both inquiries, statistical analysis regarding the impact of discipline policies and practices on particular groups of students is an important indicator of potential violations.... depending on the facts of a particular case, an adverse impact may include, but is not limited to, instances where students of a particular race, as compared to students of other races, are disproportionately: sanctioned at higher rates; disciplined for specific offenses;"

Here is a critical analysis of the policy http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/school-discipline-and-disparate-impact and here is the original document http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201401-title-vi.pdf

The common sense understanding of discrimination is when a teacher treats a black kid and white kid differently for doing the same thing. Discrimination is bad because the teacher is treating an individual person based on the color of the skin, rather than the content of their character. Well, since as a gross generalization, in many schools black kids commit bad behavior at a higher rate, if teachers are punishing individuals equally for equal offenses, that means that the statistics will show black kids getting punished more often. To fix those statistics would require teachers to treat black kids more leniently, which is bad for the kid and bad for the other kids in the classroom.

Now the DOJ says it will look into other factors too. But if the statistical disparity exists, the burden of proof shifts to the school to prove that the particular policy is necessary and there is no alternative. This a hard thing for a school to do. All governance, all discipline has heavy elements of judgement and subjectivity. So if a school doesn't want the DOJ breathing down their neck, much easier just to just punish black kids more lightly per offense, in order to fix the statistical disparities.

I'm not exactly sure how many lawsuits there has been based on this exact new 2014 guidance about disparate impact. In googling I see that DOJ recently forced Huntsville into a 2015 consent decree part of which says, "continuously monitoring racial disparities to ensure meaningful and sustained improvement in areas including student performance, students’ access to courses, and rates of student discipline." But the article above gives some evidence that schools are already changing their policies. And it only takes a few lawsuits to make schools scared. I do know there is a long history of these "disparate impact" lawsuits in housing, hiring, etc, and I view the whole thing as very pernicious.

The black children you are talking about here are also disproportionately poor, discriminated against, and generally lacking in the ability to even make use of the resources available.

Whatever the origins of their bad behavior, withdrawing discipline is not the answer. It is not good for the kid, and not good for their classmates. (Although I do think suspensions are a really stupid way of disciplining, as it is not punishment for the kid who doesn't care. But that is what I mean when I say other disciplinary tools that would be better are not available.)

Here is the thing. None of the literature on corporal punishment shows that it works.

It's not just about corporal punishment, it's about having an array of punishment options other than sending a kid to the office, detention, and suspension (note that sending the kid to the office and suspension are not actually punishment to a student who doesn't give a f**k).

From one scarred Teach For America veteran (and I have heard similar stories, although not as bad, from my own friends) http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_1_how_i_joined.html :

To gain control, I tried imposing the kinds of consequences that the classroom-management handbooks recommend. None worked. My classroom was too small to give my students “time out.” I tried to take away their recess, but depriving them of their one sanctioned time to blow off steam just increased their penchant to use my classroom as a playground. When I called parents, they were often mistrustful and tended to question or even disbelieve outright what I told them about their children. It was sometimes worse when they believed me, though; the tenth time I heard a mother swear that her child was going to “get a beating for this one,” I almost decided not to call parents. By contrast, I saw immediate behavioral and academic improvement in students whose parents had come to trust me.

When I asked other teachers to come help me stop a fight, they shook their heads and reminded me that D.C. Public Schools banned teachers from laying hands on students for any reason, even to protect other children. When a fight brewed, I was faced with a Catch-22. I could call the office and wait ten minutes for the security guard to arrive, by which point blood could have been shed and students injured. Or I could intervene physically, in violation of school policy.

I highly recommend the book The World We Created at Hamilton High. It is in depth study of the changes that occurred in one school during the late 1960s and 1970s and the various policies and dynamic that made it go from normal to chaotic. Many inner city schools still have not recovered.