By Nikita Bondale
SACRAMENTO, CA— For 180 days of the year, children wake up bright and early in the morning and make their way to school. Though each day is different, the students’ expectations remain the same: learn about various subjects and interact with friends and administrators in a respectful manner. Unfortunately, expectations of respectful conversations do not always match with reality.
Sacramento County Unified School District (SCUSD) has recently become increasingly aware of issues regarding racism and discrimination in their schools. In June 2021, two recent graduates from Kit Carson International Academy revealed a recording they had taken of their tenured high school Spanish teacher, Katherine Sanders.
In this recording, the teacher used racist slurs, specifically the “n-word,” and tried to compare it to the “f-word,” saying how “it used to be a nasty ugly word. And now it’s like the word (n-word) which everybody says or (n-word).”
The use of this word and the subsequent justification by the teacher is extremely inappropriate, especially in a school zone. Young students hearing this offensive slur felt unsafe and uncomfortable in a place that is supposed to foster a safe environment, open communication, and inclusivity. This undoubtedly stunts their educational journey and, since they tend to model their behavior off of their elders at that age, this causes them to have negative role models at a very young age, ultimately affecting their personalities as they grow up.
Though this teacher was eventually fired from the school, the district did not take any further actions to investigate or reach out to her students for further support. Unfortunately, this was only one of several instances in SCUSD where educators or students have used discriminatory language or performed racist acts like writing derogatory slurs on a vice principal’s parking spot at West Campus High School.
After observing these racist acts, the school district has finally taken action. A KCRA3 article describes how SCUSD has created one “race and equity liaison” position to not only look into those previous cases but to prevent future instances of discrimination, for the entire school district. They have appointed attorney Mark Harris, a local civil rights activist, to this role.
But how much will this really help? After all, those two students from Kit Carson International Academy only felt comfortable stepping forward after they graduated; they had not trusted the school officials enough to tell them before.
Because of that lack of support when it was most needed, I do not think students will want to confide in this “equity liaison” officer, nor do I think it will be successful in deterring actions of racism moving forward. Because of that, I support the opinion of Lorreen Pryor, the President and CEO of the Black Youth Leadership Project.
Pryor believes that “the root of the issue still needs to be addressed. She argues that there are no direct resources in tackling racism at schools.” I agree completely, as this liaison position is just another indirect attempt at combating an issue that would be more effectively addressed in a direct manner. Schools should introduce new programs such as those aimed at educating young children about racism and increasing new counseling services to help victims of discrimination.
In fact, many teachers in Sacramento schools also disagree with how little the district has done. SCUSD teacher Erin Leone reached out via email to the Sacramento Bee following Harris’ appointment in which she demanded that there be “demonstrable changes to address and disrupt the racist culture within the district.” She asserted that the Superintendent and his administration had mishandled racial incidents in the area.
Schools are expected to have distinct cultures of inclusivity and kindness. However, just as Leone stated, the reality is much grimmer with many schools having racist and discriminatory environments due to inaction by district officials. In order to sufficiently fix this atmosphere, a simple liaison position is not enough: more direct actions must be taken by the Sacramento County Unified School District.
Let’s face it, whatever is done concerning racism is never ever going to be enough.
Can’t think of a much more insensitive comment.
Really?
I’ve experienced a lot more “insensitive” comments (and actions), based upon my own skin color. And witnessed it, as well.
But it doesn’t fit the narrative that’s pushed.
Read the article David, the institutions confronted the issues and took actions but the author writes it’s “not enough”.
Think about it – for at least the last five years, probably longer, if you use the n-word, you are most likely to be fired. Has that solved the problem?
A question: Did she actually use the “n-word” or just describe it as the “n-word”?
Too bad that we can’t have skits like this, anymore:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuEBBwJdjhQ
But this is back in the day when SNL was actually ground-breaking (and funny). Though it had some periodic resurgences.
Hell, they’ve even gone-after John Cleese, in regard to Fawlty Towers (and “The Germans” episode). Probably the funniest “sit-com” ever created.
That sounds like a great step, but of course some will say it’s not enough.
I wonder what Mr. Harris would think of S.F. school board member Collins’ previous comments in regard to Asians.
https://www.kqed.org/news/11896759/sf-school-board-member-alison-collins-defends-herself-against-recall-effort
If I’m not mistaken, the school board had to pay for its own costs, regarding the lawsuit brought by Collins.
I found this as I was typing the comment:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/S-F-school-district-won-t-try-to-recoup-16497775.php#:~:text=Collins'%20lawsuit%20sought%20%2472%20million,board%20member%20in%20punitive%20damages.
Here’s more information regarding the actual comment.
This is not unlike the “progressive” argument. Personally, I don’t think the comment itself warrants a recall, though it’s likely viewed as offensive.
However, the “renaming” of Lincoln High (and other schools) warrants a recall, as does the elimination of merit-based enrollments. Oh, and covering-up the mural at Washington High, though I don’t know whose decision that was.
And not focusing on the re-opening of schools, or so I’ve heard.
But keep in mind that this is not just one “teacher”. She’s on the board of education.
My advice? Get your kids out of SF public schools. Sacramento’s schools, as well.
Move to Roseville, if you can’t afford a private school.
https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Alison-Collins-San-Francisco-school-Asians-tweets-16038855.php
“In fact, many teachers in Sacramento schools also disagree with how little the district has done. SCUSD teacher Erin Leone reached out via email to the Sacramento Bee following Harris’ appointment in which she demanded that there be “demonstrable changes to address and disrupt the racist culture within the district.” She asserted that the Superintendent and his administration had mishandled racial incidents in the area.”
Why would you say it’s a great step and what do you think the step actually does?
Though honestly, I’d wonder why a Spanish teacher is bringing-up “either” word. Was she trying to translate into Spanish, perhaps? (I doubt that.)
News flash: It’s still a nasty, ugly word. And actually, both are.
Do I actually have more sense than some teachers – despite my postings on here?
Disturbing on many levels.
I don’t believe I once had those expectations about learning or respect, I just went to get it over with and friends made school somewhat tolerable.
The “recording” link doesn’t take you to the recording, and the “Katherine Sanders” link says nothing about the person — both links take you to a story from a local TV news station.
There have certainly been societal changes in who “can” use the word in what circumstances and in what context it is nasty ugly. So that is true.
I had to really think about this sentence. If you fill in the n-word and read the sentence makes no sense. I *think* what they are actually saying here may be two ‘forms’ of the word, one that ends with ‘-ah’ and one that ends with ‘-er’. Then it at least reads sensically, though I’m not really sure why she added the last n-word word and says it out loud. But why was the same substitution, “(n-word)”, used to describe both words (if my assumption is correct) when it renders the sentence not understandable? I’ve never heard the “-ah” version described as “the n-word”.
Well it was dumb and out of touch with modern norms. I watched the TV news clip. The one snippet of the recording of the teacher was the one sentence with no context. To me the teacher sounded older and possibly grew up at a time that the word was considered ‘nasty ugly’ by everyone and not used frequently by black people when addressing each other like it is today (by some black people and in modern music). Today, unless one is black or in a particular tiny in-crowd, it is not acceptable to even utter the word. Decades ago it was ‘ok’ to use the word without having to say (n-word) to have a discussion about the word (usually how ugly it was), but never, ever to call someone or a group of people that slur.
From the tone of her sentence in the one clip, she clearly wasn’t calling anyone the n-word, which would have been ‘nasty ugly’. She was describing the changes in acceptability of the word and saying something about the two forms of the word – though with no context it’s difficult to say what. I think what she was saying is that it used to be unacceptable to use the word in describing someone except as a slur, now it is used between some black people as a term of endearment, and now there’s this other form of it . . . what she apparently didn’t comprehend is that nowadays you aren’t supposed to even say the word if you are not black yourself.
I mean let’s compare to “k*ke”. Also a nasty ugly word, but not something that you can’t say if you are describing the use of the word, not something I’m offended just hearing, not referred to commonly as the ‘the k-word’. But if someone were to call me or a fellow Jew that word, that’s not OK and those is fightin’ words. I’ve also never heard it as a term of endearment between Jews to claim the word back. But the mere utterance of the sound by a non-Jew doesn’t cause the utterer to be struck by lighting. Maybe some Jews reading this will disagree, but I don’t think we can say the words have the same rules. They are different words with different rules attached, and those rules have changed over time.
I believe the woman’s point, if I interpreted it corrected from the evidence given, was correct. Her mistake seemed to be that she may not have realized you can no longer say the word out loud in public even in discussing the word. She may have been naive, old school, or just slipped up. What tripped her may have been trying to figure out how to bring up both forms of the word and their context without saying them and substuting n-word for both, which would have make her discussion as nonsensical as the sentence in this article that tried that same.
Point being: she clearly didn’t call anyone the n-word, or use the n-word to describe a group of people, both of which would clearly have been firing offenses. Do we really need to fire this woman for saying this word in the context of discussing the use of the word over time? I know it’s not ‘ok’ in modern times, but just because it’s not OK, does that raise this to a firing offense?
But it wasn’t used as a slur.
Did they? That always seems assumed. I would not have felt unsafe if a teacher were describing the use of the word “k*ke”. I would have felt glad it was being discussed openly and someone cared enough to bring up racist words and racism against Jews at all.
Does it?
What age? This article never describes what age these students were. “Kit Carson International Academy” doesn’t help either as to what grade level this was. And do they model elder’s behavior? I don’t recall modeling my behavior off my teachers at any age. They weren’t my role models, my parents and my friends were.
Are you calling this woman a role model? If our teachers did something stupid, we didn’t copy them, we laughed at them. The logic here is not ringing true for me.
A very young age? So these were elementary school kids? That doesn’t really square with the fact it said the recording was done by kids who had graduated, so either they were in high school or this happened a decade or more ago. I’m totally confused on this.
I don’t think so. If a racial slur were used against them, that indeed could really sting. I don’t see that here.
The TV clip said she wasn’t fired yet.
The TV clip said they were investigating, and a ‘neutral third party’ would decide the teacher’s fate.
Such as?
Actual words not given, because . . . what? I’ve cited this before in other articles. We aren’t adults that can handle the horrors of . . . words? I think we are. I don’t want journalists deciding what is ‘derogatory’ or what words we can read. I want to determine that for myself how derogatory the words were based on reporting of what was written.
I thought you said they’d taken action.
How does anyone ‘prevent future instances of discrimination’?
The entire district. That’s quite a lot to put on someone’s shoulders.
Why would an attorney take a school district job, and how does ‘activism’ factor in on the resume qualifications?
That’s what I was asking.
Is that why?
That I agree with. I recently read an article on these ‘equity’ positions being created in all levels of education. It’s a thriving new career opportunity. At some colleges the payroll for these positions alone is in the millions. The article authors also tried to get data, anywhere, to show these positions made any difference that could be measured. Nope. The reason for these positions seemed to be to show the school was ‘doing something’.
Direct?
Racism is in people’s rotted hearts, and can’t be educated away. Can you ‘teach racism away’ to young children? They most likely learn this at home, so I doubt ‘anti-racism’ education is an answer, so much as the continued and growing unacceptability of racism in society as a whole. I’m not sure if specific counselors are needed for this or if there is a lack of counselors in general. Last I heard there was a huge shortage of qualified counselors.
That sounds like a tall order for a school administration. I’m not sure ‘direct actions’ as listed are any more effective than hiring more equity liaisons. Again, racism comes from rotted hearts. School administrators can initiate best practices, but no one can create an atmosphere of perfect racial harmony when imperfect people teach, imperfect people administer, and imperfect people attend as students.
Back to the original point: my opinion is that violations of the use of language should have punishments that are relative to how that language was used. In this case, with the information given, the teacher did not slur any person or group of people in the context in which she uttered the word/words. Had she slurred a person or group of people, she clearly should be fired.
The context in which the word was used appears to be a discussion about the use of the word. Using the word was stupid. My stance is this isn’t a firing offense. An appropriate punishment would include: a talking to about not ever uttering the word in the classroom again, making sure the teacher clearly understood modern norms for uttering the word(s), a probation period, issuing an apology in writing to each of the students in that class, and working with the principal or similar in talking to current students about her understanding of what she did wrong (last year?, 15 years ago?, really not clear).
Zero tolerance is a lame policy. Isn’t zero tolerance what those seeking criminal justice reform want to get away from (such as mandatory minimums and three strikes)? Why, then, is the punishment for any language-crime involving a racial bad-word the same, no matter the context?
So, I read about half of your unusually-lengthy, thoughtful analysis before I realized that you just don’t “get it”.
We don’t have time for this “nonsense”. We want to keep it simple, and we “already-know” that there’s clearly bad-guys (and gals). In other words, racists and anti-racists. (Oh, and no one other than “whites” have the ability to be racist, due to all that privilege and what-not.)
In other words, “get her, as you did with Mr. Pickles”. 🙂 In any case, it’s a lot more “fun”, that way. And builds “team-cohesiveness”.
Skimming through your comments, I think I like this quote, best of all. And, it’s still one of the clearest-memories I have, regarding a couple of teachers:
Now baseball, basketball, and football players are entirely-different (or at least, that’s what I recall being told). Not to mention some of those in the entertainment industry, politics, or business world.
I only hope that I’ve lived my life as “honorably” as some of them have. 🙂
Here’s another “rule” for you. (Again, I don’t make up these rules, I’m just an observer.) But from what I’ve observed, Jewish people are pretty-much lumped in with “white” people, these days.
The only “mileage” that Jewish people still retain (in regard to persecution) is in regard to WWII, some 70 years ago. That’s the reason that the comments form the local Iman hardly raised an eyebrow. It takes an actual attack on a synagogue, to get anyone’s attention (which sadly, periodically occurs).
And Asians are also lumped-in, with “white” people. (See comment from S.F. school board member Collins.)
Pretty soon, everyone will be lumped in with white people. “I have a dream . . .”