House Bill 655 would prohibit the use of American Indian mascots in North Carolina public schools, including traditional public schools and charter schools. It directs the State Advisory Council on Indian Education to include in its annual report a definition of what counts as an American Indian mascot and a list of public schools using such mascots. The State Board of Education would then review those findings, decide whether it agrees, and, if it does, notify the affected school unit and require the mascot to be changed to a non-American Indian mascot within two years.
The bill also gives school administrators and state officials enforcement responsibilities. For traditional public school units, the superintendent must ensure compliance, may allow local authorities one year to begin the change process, and may ultimately select a new mascot if no action is taken. If a superintendent willfully fails to comply and the mascot remains after two years, state funds for that superintendent’s salary could be withheld until compliance is achieved. For charter schools, the State Board would have similar authority to determine noncompliance and withhold a per-pupil equivalent amount tied to the superintendent’s salary in the local district where the charter is located.
HB655 would amend several sections of Chapter 115C of the North Carolina General Statutes to create a statewide prohibition on American Indian mascots in public schools and to establish a reporting-and-enforcement process. It would expand the duties of the State Advisory Council on Indian Education, the State Board of Education, superintendents, and charter school oversight authorities, while creating potential financial penalties for willful noncompliance. The bill applies beginning with the 2025-2026 school year and would affect any public school or charter school currently using an American Indian mascot.
There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so no direct public sentiment can be measured from hearings or floor action. Based on the bill’s text, the measure appears to be framed as a corrective policy aimed at eliminating mascots considered offensive to American Indian communities, suggesting support from sponsors for cultural sensitivity and school policy change. The absence of transcripts or votes means there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill’s introduction and referral.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between cultural respect and local control over school identity, since the bill would override existing school and board decisions about mascots. Another likely issue is enforcement: the bill gives state officials authority to force mascot changes and impose financial consequences on superintendents and charter schools if they are found to willfully refuse compliance. The bill also leaves key terms to be defined by the State Advisory Council on Indian Education, which could create disagreement over what counts as an American Indian mascot and which schools are covered.