UGDSB Case Study – Short Version

When I sent the email that kicked this whole thing off my intention was to find out how much, if any, racism was actually happening in the Upper Grand District School board. I have worked at the Upper Grand board and I understand the already robust training that staff go through. In the June 16 meeting when asked “exactly how much racism is there in our board and what data do we have about it?”  they say that they have a little bit of anecdotal data about racism in the board  (1:17:54 https://vimeo.com/430410503/d05d91e481 This link works.). How can a little bit of anecdotal data equal the statement made on their website.  Here are the statements:

Source Website (open the ‘Anti-Racism’ tab)

What I uncovered while trying to address this issue was nothing short of shocking. From board trustees lying to other trustees about me to blatant racist statements from Upper Grand Staff made during public meetings. This is a short version of a much longer documentary of me trying to solve a problem about racism and racist statements with the Upper Grand District School Board.

They say they have a responsibility to “identify and describe racism and oppression and then work to dismantle it.”  I identified clearly racist statements made by board members and trustees. I had very clear concerns and I articulated them correctly to the appropriate people at the upper grand district school board. I was totally shut down from being able to address any real issues. I could barely get simple questions like ‘what is the working definition of racism that the board is using to generate policy and plans?’ answered never mind addressing the core issues I was trying to discuss with them. It was very frustrating.

I am presenting this as a case study on my first hand experience with problem solving a disturbing issue on racism with the Upper Grand District School Board.  I will try to be as brief as possible. It will be told with Email screenshots, public meetings and other media. The emails have had personal information removed.

I have broken this story down into it’s major parts and will describe the short version of events below.

What was I trying to address specifically when contacting the superintendent of education.

1. Concerned about the board violating the education act section 169.1 a.1
   
2. Concerned about critical race theory being used in creation of policy or plans
3. Concerned about use of racial slurs by Upper Grand District School Board Staff in presentation to board Trustees (“Any system created by white folks is inherently racist because it was created by white people.” – June 16 trustee meeting). I made a formal complaint to HR about the conduct of the staff who did this. I have removed that info from these emails. See note below.
4. Trustees are violating their code of conduct and are not being held accountable by their board
5. Trustees are using racist slurs in UGDSB emails and will not answer questions about their meaning.

Items of concern that were addressed

1. Complaint to HR regarding racist language used during public meeting was taken by the superintendent in charge of that. I have not heard of an update. She said it would be addressed in the fall, yet the staff member continues to work at the board office during the summer months.

How could you say to a child of any race “Any system built by <your race> is inherently racist because it was built by <your race>.”  Fundamentally I believe that no child should be judged by their skin colour. Having a board of education openly state that about white people during a board meeting to trustees was jarring.

You can listen for yourself here

I clipped the short clip from the longer source video of the UGDSB presenting to it’s elected Board of Trustees. It is from 1:34:40 of the original source video.
(Update: September 9 2020 – The Upper Grand District School Board has removed the original video of the presentation to the board of trustees. I wonder why. Thankfully, i saved it.  You can watch the whole thing here.)

Here is the transcription:

We’ll build a learning plan. Part of that is based on the work we’ve already been doing (over the past year).  What we want to do is make sure we’re grounding the new policies in critical race theory. And so we’ll be giving folks some training to make sure that everyone understands what the language says. 

Briefly what critical race theory was developed by lawyers. What it says is that we understand that race is a social construct. And the systems we are working in presently in education, they were specifically talking about law, but it’s the same application that because the systems were all developed by folks who were white that they are inherently racist. (in that)

I think people get really confused when we talk about racism often and defensive is that they often look at racism based on an individual. We’re not talking here about individual acts of racism because we may not see that. We may not see that. What we’re looking at is how the system itself, the overarching structures and practices and procedures and policies are racist.

If anyone has heard of Dr. Kendi he wrote a book based on critical race theory that’s called how to be an anti-racist. In the book he says that policies are never neutral. Nothing is ever neutral. It’s either explicitly anti-racist or it’s upholding white supremacy and therefore racist. Folks get confused because they think there is a middle ground for neutrality and there’s not. That’s the language that’s going to be part of the plan. Making sure folks understand that.”

Notable things about this.

1. Education Lead at UGDSB states that they will do training to make sure everyone understands the language.
2. She states clearly that individual acts of racism are not seen (we may not see that). That backs up the data from earlier in the presentation about the lack of evidence of racism in the UGDSB
3. During the June 16 meeting they did not come up with any examples of racism in the UGDSB. What policies or procedures were racist? They identified one situation where a teacher at a high school expressed concern over a student’s lack of bathing / personal care. He was told that was racist. From a child protections stand point (family and children’s services) lack of access to personal care is a potential custody concern. Racism?
4. She references Dr. Kendi and states that no policies are neutral. They are either actively anti-racist or they are upholding white supremacy and are therefore racist.
5. She AGAIN states this is part of the plan after confirming that there is no wiggle room on these racist statements from the board. What is specifically anti-racist about lunch time or recess? Or are they inherently racist because they are part of a system built by white people?

After watching the video this is the response I sent back (text of all emails with links are below the emails. short emails i didn’t bother with, but let me know if you want me to add it):

Hello Cheryl,

Thank you for providing the link. It is very informative.

Here it is again for easy reference.

https://vimeo.com/430410503/d05d91e481

I have watched through and made notes. I do have many more questions now than I had at the beginning of this. These are my preliminary questions that I’d like answered before we sit down to chat. So I’m fully prepared. Thank you for understanding. 

The most concerning time during the meeting is during 1:32:34 – 1:35ish when Collinda was discussing what theories the new inclusivity and equity policies were based on.  She said the following (emphasis mine):

“We’ll build a learning plan. Part of that is based on the work we’ve already been doing (over the past year).  What we want to do is make sure we’re grounding the new policies in critical race theory. And so we’ll be giving folks some training to make sure that everyone understands what the language says. 

Briefly what critical race theory was developed by lawyers. What it says is that we understand that race is a social construct. And the systems we are working in presently in education, they were specifically talking about law, but it’s the same application that because the systems were all developed by folks who were white that they are inherently racist. (in that)

I think people get really confused when we talk about racism often and defensive is that they often look at racism based on an individual. We’re not talking here about individual acts of racism because we may not see that. We may not see that. What we’re looking at is how the system itself, the overarching structures and practices and procedures and policies are racist.

If anyone has heard of Dr. Kendi he wrote a book based on critical race theory that’s called how to be an anti-racist. In the book he says that policies are never neutral. Nothing is ever neutral. It’s either explicitly anti-racist or it’s upholding white supremacy and therefore racist. Folks get confused because they think there is a middle ground for neutrality and there’s not. That’s the language that’s going to be part of the plan. Making sure folks understand that.”

I have many questions. Here they are. 

1. What theory or school of thought was our inclusion and equity policy based on prior to this new critical race theory policy being adopted?  

2. Who / what body approved critical race theory as the foundation to base the new inclusivity and equity policies on? What process did it go through to replace the old policy? I would like to contact that team if possible. Please include email to the work group. 

3. What does it mean for the board to “understand that race is a social construct?”  Please include links and as much detail as possible.

4. hat does it mean when the board says that “systems built by white people are inherently racist because they are built by white people?” To be clear, in the email I received that included the link to this meeting Cheryl’s final line is “The UGDSB stands by its statement.”

5. Further playing this statement out – Does that mean that a project completed by a white person is inherently racist because it was completed by a white person in the board’s view? What about a team of white people? How big does the product have to be before it’s racist? Is a team of white people capable of creating a non-racist / non white supremacist upholding product or is that tainted with white supremacy as well?  

6. What, in the board‘s opinion, is an acceptable number of white people working on a project before it is seen as “upholding white supremacy.” I’m wondering about both students and teachers here. Is the number the same for teams of white students as it is for white teachers or administrators in the board’s eyes or is it different? If it’s different can you provide the board’s rationale.

7. What, in the board’s opinion, is the makeup of a well balanced team to avoid upholding white supremacy in our new policies? Is this formula in place for the equity and diversity team tasked with creating these new policies? Is this formula successful at removing the upholding of white supremacy within systems that white people develop? What criteria is it measured by? Please share as much information as you can.

8. If the board believes, as stated,  that “nothing is neutral, either something is anti racist or it’s upholding white supremacy and therefore racist” (1:34:29) how does the board view lunch time? How about recess?  How are math and music lessons upholding white supremacy in the board‘s eyes specifically? How about the teachers’ break room? Is that upholding white supremacy in the board’s eyes? This is important because there is clearly no wiggle room in the board’s view.  In the next line Collinda says “Folks get confused because they think there is a middle ground for neutrality and there’s not.”  These are important questions that need answers as the timeline for implementation is September 2020.

9. This policy necessitates making hiring about skin colour and race. How is the board preparing to deal with that in the short term? If the answer is ‘training’ please see the next question.

10. What kind of training broadly will help a “white woman” (to use the speaker’s words) hire in a way that is acceptable to these new policies and to regulation 274 which mandates ‘blind’ hiring to remove bias + seniority status (1:23:25min). Please provide links to the proposed training to be used in preparing for September 2020.

11. Is it mandatory that the people doing the training be non-white? As Cheryl stated the people leading this initiative must not look like her nor like trustee Foley (1:24:06).  Is that a standard the board can set for engaging with subcontracting training? Can the ownership of the business be white, or must the business that is engaged with also be owned by POC? What about the parent company?  What board policy governs this and can you please provide me with a copy?

12. As a board of education how can you educate children with critical race theory as a starting point for policy?  At 1:03:00 Collinda states that 93% of the UGDSB staff identify as white.  I’m not sure of the exact makeup of the student population but we live in a population that is majority white. Does the board believe it is responsible to teach those children that any system that white people build is inherently racist? 

13. The stated goal of the equity and inclusivity policy is to end all forms of racism (3:20). Does the board believe critical race theory is the best available option for achieving that goal? Please provide rationale that this will be successful at ending all forms of racism and please provide alternatives considered and their reasons for removal /why they could not achieve success.

14. How can the board stand by the statement that racism is systematically rooted in our board and community without clear examples from both?  In the presentation at 1:33:30 Colinda states that we may not see individual acts of racism.  Twice.  When she talks about what racism the board is talking about she says it’s not individual acts of racism it’s systemic and gives a vague list of how the structures, practices, procedures, and policies are racist but never gives an example. At no point in the presentation is an example of systemic racism in the policies of UGDSB given. No UGDSB policy was pointed to during the meeting that was racist at all. At 1:17:00 Trustee Benny (sp?) – Asks directly “do we have any data of any kind of racism in our schools?”  The response is at 1:19:09 – “we have a little bit of anecdotal from a diversity survey that was done. We do not have a lot of substantial data on specific incidents of racism. We have suspension and expulsion data on and if there were incidents of racism or hate crimes, we have that. That stat is less than 5.  that info comes to that trustee each year.” So how can the board release a statement that claims systemic racism in every facet of Canadian systems, including the board and not have one concrete example to share with the trustees on June 16 2020?

These are the preliminary questions I have before we have our meeting. Thank you for taking the time. I appreciate that at the beginning of the meeting it was clearly stated that all voices would be heard and respected. Really looking forward to the answers. When is a good time and date for you to meet?

Thanks!

Mark

The reason these were preliminary questions is because I wanted to talk about the violation of the education act and how discriminating against one race is necessarily discriminating against all races. I think my argument was lost on everyone. I was never able to articulate it to anyone listening and never got a response to the argument itself. If you want to read a detailed back and forth you can read it here ***add link to the long version***.

Suffice it to say for the purposes of this page there was a lot of email back and forth. Ultimately a board trustee lied about me to the other trustees. You can read that story here ***add link to trustee story***, the superintendent of education responsible for this admitted that they do not have working definitions for terms used liberally in the equity and inclusion plan document.  She did not address my concerns about the violation of the education act. She did not address my concerns about the use of critical race theory in development of board training plans for teachers and administrators. She did not address my concerns with regards to the training or the procurement of the training. We did not address ‘no neutral policies.’  You can read a much more detailed outline here.

The equity and inclusion planning document for 2019 – 2022 is vastly different than the 2017  – 2019 version. I compare them here. ***add link to document comparison***

Cheryl’s Response

At this point I still have concerns about:

1. The equity plan using language that is citing critical race theory. I don’t have any indication on an update about this and have no indication that i should expect one.
2. Critical race theory being used in training of teachers and administrators as stated by Cheryl during our meeting
3. How is it not seen as racist to say that all systems built by <any race> are inherently racist because they were built by <any race>? How can a board of education ‘stand by’ that statement?
4. During the June 16 meeting the education curriculum lead clearly states that the language of critical race theory will be used in developing the next equity plan.

After the email correspondence I had was less than successful at having my concerns addressed in a meaningful way, I reached out to Martha Rogers again. Here is that email.

If you want to see the Chair of the Board story line click here.

I reached out to Martha Rogers one last time. These are those emails.

Hello Amy,

In response Dr. Rogers sent:

In response I sent:

That was the last communication i’ve had with any leadership from the Upper Grand District School Board.  Do you agree with Dr. Rogers? Do you believe any of my concerns have been addressed? I will show you what the chair of the board of trustees refused to deal with.

Fundamentally I do not feel like any of my concerns have been addressed. I haven’t heard an update from the school board about their policies being updated or removal of undefined words. I haven’t heard anything about the other concerns. With regard to the trustee situation, my main complaint was not dealt with at all. It was as if i had made a complaint about an email i shouldn’t have been copied in.

I do not feel like my concerns were taken seriously by this board despite my best effort to articulate my concerns clearly. I am concerned they are still violating the education act by moving forward in this direction.

Update September 12 2020

I have. Thank you. Best to tell staff to ignore him.

— Cheryl Van Ooteghem (@Cvanoote) September 12, 2020