Anti-Black Racism in the Ontario Public School System: Problematizing the Labeling of Young Black Students as Troublemakers

Abstract

This paper examines anti-Black racism in the Ontario public school system. Using the West-Hill Catholic Elementary School (a pseudonym) as a case study, it foregrounds the selective application of punishments inflicted upon Black students, including those often motivated by racist perceptions on the part of teachers, principals, and School Boards. Using the theories of biological determinism¹ and the culture of poverty² as conceptual frameworks, this paper investigates the factors to which school authorities attribute violent behavior on the part of Black students. This paper provides recommendations aimed at mitigating anti-Black racism in the Ontario public school system.

Plain Language Summary

Selective Punishment in the Ontario Public School System

This paper examines serial cases of anti-Black racism, in particular incidents involving selective punishment within the Ontario public school system under the pretext of discouraging violent behaviour. Using the arrest of a four-year-old Black student at the West-Hill Catholic Elementary School, allegedly for violent behaviour, as a case study, in addition to data from the Toronto District School Board, the paper examines the theory of biological determinism, which is often used to represent Black students as intrinsically prone to violence. Also investigated is the culture of poverty hypothesis that attributes such behaviour on the part of Black students to environmental factors, such as family structure, upbringing and ethics. Drawing on academic publications, this paper argues that race plays a central role in determining who gets rewarded in the Ontario public school system and who gets punished for displaying behaviour construed, by school authorities, as a threat to the school environment. Black racism, in its many modalities, remains an enduring problem, one that requires a broad range of correctives, including changes to teacher education programs, professional development for teachers and school administrators, and the recruitment of Black parents as allies. It would also require non-racist policies to address knee-jerk reactions that have transformed some public schools in Ontario into bootcamps where ‘refractory’ students are punished with a view to discouraging their classmates from displaying conduct deemed to contravene established regulations.

Introduction

Anti-Black racism in the Ontario public school system (OPSS) as evinced in the selective application of punishments inflicted upon Black students represents a perennial problem (Oloo, 2023; Sanders et al., 2022). Calls to address this matter, once and for all, are often framed as pretexts by disgruntled Black parents to breathe new life into accusations of racism within the OPSS (Antony & Antony, 2022; Maynard, 2020). In a general meeting of the Equity Policy Community Advisory Committee of the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), it was noted that “[i]n 2016, out of all the students suspended, 36.8% were Blacks. In 2019, the number dropped to 32.7% [.] [While] Black students make-up only 11% of the student population. . . . [they] are more likely to be suspended than other students (p. 2). In a report issued in 2017 to 2018 by the TDSB, entitled “Caring and Safe School Report,” it was noted that “Black students. . . were disproportionately high in the [number of] suspensions/ expulsions (36.2% in 2016-17 and 34.3% in 2017-18) . . . [compared to White students]” (Zheng, 2019, p. 7). Using critical discourse analysis ³ , this paper investigates anti-Black racism in the OPSS by referencing, among other things, the arrest by Waterloo police officers of a 4-year-old Black pupil in November 2021 following a call initiated by the school authorities at West-Hill Catholic Elementary School (Bueckert, 2022; see Duhatschek, 2022).

This paper examines anti-Black racism, focusing on the selective punishment of Black students within the OPSS. Using the theories of biological determinism and the culture of poverty (Clarke et al., 2019), it investigates the factors to which school authorities attribute delinquent behavior on the part of Black students, namely biology and dysfunctional families. Lastly, it discusses the impact of anti-racism on Black students and provides strategies for combating this persistent problem.

The objectives of this paper are threefold; firstly, to challenge the deep-seated stereotypical assumption that Black student behavior is influenced by genetic defects; secondly, to contest the notion that the kind of “violent” behavior typically found among Black students is exclusive to children from broken homes and communities, where anarchy is a fact of life, where fathers abandon newly-born children, and destitute mothers fight a losing battle to raise angry, defiant sons (Dei, 2008b; Dei et al., 1997; Henry, 1993); thirdly, to contribute my expertise to the debate on the experiences of Black students who feel singled out for punishment and who perceive the school environment as a modern-day bootcamp replete with first sergeants who punish recruits for even the slightest infraction of rules and procedures.

Anti-Black Racism in Ontario’s Public School System: The Story of a Four-Year-Old Black Student Arrested for “Violent” Behavior

Clarke et al. (2019) define anti-Black racism as a “pervasive, overarching climate of attitudes, beliefs, institutional practices, and policies that are embedded in Canada’s White supremacist history and culture that denigrate people of African descent [;] . . . it is manifested [, moreover,] in various forms of structural violence and racialized inequities in multiple social systems, including education, . . . and criminal justice” (Clarke et al., 2019, p. 44). According to Maynard (2020), “for many Black students, [anti-Black racism renders] schools [as] places where they experience degradation, harm, and psychological violence . . . [because of] heightened surveillance, and arbitrary and often extreme punishment for any perceived disobedience” (para. 4).

On November 29, 2021, the West-Hill Police Service (a pseudonym) responded to a call from the West-Hill Catholic Elementary School regarding a “[Black] student in crisis who was said to be acting violently. . . Officers . . . de-escalate[d] the student’s behavior, contacted a family member and drove the child home” (Duhatschek, 2022, para. 2). According to the West-Hill Catholic District School Board (WCDSB), schools under its authority have a “series of scenarios” (Duhatschek, 2022, para. 7) used to determine when police intervention is necessary. The Board did not elaborate on these “scenarios,” nor did it provide details regarding what it meant by the student was “acting violently” (Duhatschek, 2022, para. 2). When questioned about the number of times the school has called in the police requesting an intervention, the WCDSB chief managing officer, Mr. Jeremy Locke (a pseudonym), replied, “schools rely on a chart that outlines a range of responses from reporting an incident online, to calling a student’s parents, to bringing in officers” (Duhatschek, 2022, para. 27). According to Mr. Locke, “the board does not track exactly how often police are called to schools, but it’s safe to say there are several calls for service from schools per week” (Duhatschek, 2022, para. 28).

Mr. Locke’s equivocation regarding the number of times the police attended similar calls to deal with similar events at the school is what Walcott calls “the White lie” (cited in Satzewich, 2017, p. 3). Towing the official line, Mr. Shewchuk resorted to “whitespeak” (Knight, 2019, p. 161), featuring, among other things, a patina of defensive politeness characteristically used by White people in authority when disavowing an action considered outside the norms of society. By adopting “whitespeak,” not only did Mr. Locke deny personal culpability; he excused the actions of the school and the WCDSB.

A search of the WCDSB website aimed at establishing grounds for calling the police to deal with “violent” students yielded little information:

If the student is between the ages of twelve and seventeen, it is the responsibility of the investigating police officer to inform the student about the nature of the charges, of their rights; specifically, the right to talk with a lawyer, the right to talk with their parents/guardian or any other adult relative or adult who may be of assistance to them, the right to have the adult he or she talked to present during the interview with the police, and to give the standard cautions. If the student is over the age of eighteen, it is the responsibility of the police officer to inform the student about the nature of the charges, of their adult rights and to give the standard cautions (Section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). (Waterloo District School Board, 2019, p. 10)

Nowhere in the Board’s policy does it state that the school or the WCDSB may call upon the police to arrest or detain a four-year-old student. Additionally, a review of “Section 7 of the Police Protocol,” which permits the school principal to “contact the police and request their attendance at the school” (Waterloo District School Board, 2019, p. 10) found no provisions bearing on this point.

The misapplication of punishment along racial lines has been documented by the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), however. The 2020 TDSB Annual Report reveals that “Indigenous students . . . had the highest probability of being suspended. [Next were] Blacks [,]

. . . who represented 12% of the student [body] yet made up [31%] of suspensions” (Junor, 2020, para. 9). According to the TDSB Caring and Safety School Report 2017 to 2018, “Black students, who accounted for 11% of the TDSB student population in the 2016-17 school year, were disproportionately high in suspensions/expulsions (36.2% in 2016-17 and 34.3% in 2017-18)” (p. 7). According to Zheng and De Jesus (2017), “between 2011-12 and 2015-16, there were 307 expulsions issued to TDSB students in total. . . . Black students, as self-identified in the Board’s Student and Parent Census data, accounted for almost half of the expulsions” (p. 3).

According to the Black Legal Action Centre (BLAC), Black students are punished excessively compared with their (White) peers. According to Jody Yaa Dunn, the BLAC Anti-Black Racism and Justice Programs manager, “Black students . . . fac[e] suspension at much higher rates than their White counterparts” (McAllister, 2021, para. 3). Moreover, 42% of Black students have been suspended at least once in secondary school, compared to just 18% of White students (McAllister, 2021, para. 4). These sources confirm what studies have shown for decades: where discipline is concerned, Black students receive differential treatment compared to their White counterparts (Gateri & Richards, 2021; Milne & Aurini, 2017).

Race: Overview

In The Souls of Black Folk, William Edward Burghardt Du Bois predicts that the 20th century will be plagued by “the problem of the color line” (Du Bois, 1994, p. v).

What Du Bois means here is that in countries dominated by White elites, and particularly the United States (US), racial hatred and racist laws will undermine efforts to build a just and equitable post-racial world—a world where all people would, regardless of their color, be treated equally and possess equal rights in accord with the Preamble to the US Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [human beings] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Within the context of the Ontario public school system, Du Bois’ premonition could not have been farther from the truth. The term “race” was coined by William Dunbar in 1508 and exploited by colonial and religious establishments to promote a racial binary that would justify the abuse of non-Europeans (Satzewich, 2017), particularly plantation slaves who were denied a share of the wealth derived from their labor (Satzewich, 2017). According to Weber, race denotes the “common identity of groups based on heredity and endogamous relations conjugal groups” (Satzewich, 2017, p. 5). As a concept, racial heredity suggests that behavior is influenced by genetic makeup. Depending on the miscreant’s genetic profile, rehabilitation may, or may not, be possible. Based on this calculus, certain behaviors displayed by Black students may be viewed as immutable in which case it is imperative that they be identified, isolated, and punished.

Dei rejects the tenets of biological determinism, in particular the correlation between race and the behavior of Black students. According to Dei (2008a), while race remains an artificial construct, a socio-political term grounded in White supremacy, it nonetheless has implications for the education of Black students. Critical Black scholars who assume the role of academic evangelists to raise social awareness about anti-Black racism are labeled “trouble seekers” and “peace disturbers” (Dei, 2008b, p. xiii), punished, and forced to abandon their convictions to appease public opinion. The knowledge of the punishment awaiting scholars who are critical of the public schools forces other (Black) scholars to adopt silence, a convenient and painless approach to avoid discussions on anti-Black racism.

According to Dei (2013), one of the key purposes of biological determinism is to “maintain the hegemonies of [white] privilege” (p. 5), an entrenched approach aimed at exploiting racial difference to promote “the continuous persecution of [black students]” (p. 5). Associating race with behavior, not oppression in the school system, allows teachers to subject Black students to anti-Black racism. For example, conduct exhibited by Black students at odds with dominant expectations is attributed to low “intelligence, [an] inferior mind . . . and criminality” (Dei, 2013, p. 5).

According to Daniel (2009), race is a fluid concept; it changes with time, thus rendering the ascription of race to behavior problematic. Daniel (2009) opines that Whiteness, a golden measure against which all behaviors are measured in White-dominated societies and settings, affords teachers and principals the flexibility, however contemptible, to use race, that is, distinct features of Blackness and (colonial) stereotypes, as grounds to punish Black students. The public school system mirrors conservative European values. Schools are sites aimed at upholding “existing social and cultural hierarchies and divisions” (Daniel, 2009, p. 178), often pushing punishments to maintain the status quo. Anti-Black racism entrenches or reinscribes deficit thinking on the part of teachers, some of whom draw their knowledge of Black children, especially boys, from urban legends and media representations (Daniel, 2009). Ill-equipped teachers who are unwilling or afraid to de-escalate “tension” (Daniel, 2009, p. 177) in the classroom apply or call for punishment.

Jones (2001) defines race as “a social classification in [a] race-conscious society that conditions most aspects of our daily life experiences and results in profound differences in life chances” (p. 300). According to Jones (2001), race affords Whites prerogatives, among them the belief that Whites are exceptional and, thus, should be afforded opportunities and provided protection compared with their Black counterparts. Race, a socially imposed identity, remains a key determinant in singling out what and whose behavior authorities consider a deviation from “civilized” norms (A. Lewis, 2003) that should be sanctioned.

Anti-Black Racism: Legitimizing Differential Treatment on the Basis of Science

Theories are essential to understanding how school authorities perceive their Black students and react to their conduct. According to Satzewich (2017), theories describe “how the world works and offer explanations for patterns of behavior” (p. 3). The theory of biological determinism rests on the tenuous assumption that biology is the key determinant of fate, that is, what one becomes is dictated by one’s genetic makeup with little or no influence on the part of the society in which one lives. Biological determinism has its origin in the work Cesare Lombroso (1835—1909), an Italian anthropologist, later recognized as the “father” of (modern) criminology. Writes Lombroso:

criminality, . . . [is a] psychobiological condition: an expression of degeneration, a sort of regression along the phylogenetic scale, and an arrest at an early stage of evolution. Degeneration affected criminals especially, the “born delinquent” whose development had stopped at an early stage, making them the most “atavistic” types of human being. (Mazzarello, 2011, p. 97)

According to Lombroso, there exists a correlation between the mechanics of the human brain and “abnormality,” that is, behaviors that are inconsistent with established norms and practices. Lombroso calls the latter “atavism,” that is, a “throwback . . . to early phases of evolution” (Mazzarello, 2011, p. 98). Violence, Lombroso opines, is genetic and can manifest itself in the initial stages of life (Sirogiovanni, 2017). He further argues that “children [can display] . . . unbelievable degrees of cruelty, cheating and aggression (Sirogiovanni, 2017, p. 174). To curb human aggression, which he believed to be a threat to social order and public safety, Lombroso recommended using punishment to remodify behavior (Mazzarello, 2011). For biological determinists, violent behavior was no biproduct of bad parenting but, rather, an inherent predisposition (Satzewich, 2017). Despite widespread and enduring criticism of biological determinism as grounded in racial bias (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Philippe Rushton & Jensen, 2003; P. J. Rushton, 1994; J. P. Rushton & Jensen, 2005; Sirogiovanni, 2017; Tucker, 2002), it continues to attract a following among many in authority, who see it as a means of taming the proverbial beast within the miscreant, in our case a 4-year-old Black student. Through the lens of biological determinism, the behavior of this individual could only be grounded in race—thus is crime geneticized.

Lewontin’s explanation of the theory of biological determinism is useful in that it simplifies what is apparently a complicated and controversial theory the central premises of which, though discredited, still have credence among White supremacist scholars. According to Lewontin (1982), biological determinism presupposes that “natural and intrinsic inequalities between individual human beings at birth are determinative of [their behavior and temperament]” (p. 153). If I understand Lewontin correctly, behavioral differences in Black and White students, for example, may be directly traced to differences in their genetic composition. Accordingly, he would attribute a violent act on the part of a Black student, triggered by an occurrence of anti-Black racism, to his biological mechanics, which cause him to lash out impulsively, and therefore uncontrollably, against authority.

In synchrony with a White-supremacist ideology, biological determinism cites the “human genome” as both reason and justification for racial hierarchies while signifying the Black student as “atavistic,” thoughtless, and incapable of civilized conduct, thus rationalizing punishment, when necessary, to suppress delinquent behavior (Lewontin, 1982). Moreover, driving all aberrant social behavior on the part of the Black student, and in particular males, “is an extra Y chromosome . . . [which] magnifies . . . [the] tendency to aggressiveness beyond the normal bounds” (pp. 157–158).

For those subscribing to biological determinism, acts of violence by Black students are “both natural and unavoidable” (p. 158). Incorporating tropes to express racial and cultural stereotypes, for example, the violent and uncontrollable Black man, biological determinism is drawn upon to construct Black violence as “genetically fixed and [, thus possessing] unchangeable properties” (Lewontin, 1982, p. 158). Teachers who give credence to this theory use it as a raison d’être to single out “violent” Black students for punishment, citing the school’s zero tolerance policy, all the while invoking plausible deniability and/or presenting anti-Black racism as a figment of the Black imagination. In 2020, a Peel District School Report revealed that Black students were considered dangerous compared to their White counterparts. The term dangerous not only frames Black students as a threat but also portrays them as criminals. Not even Black students “as young as 5-years of age” (Chadha et al., 2020, p. 11) were immune from this stereotype. The report further states that while Black students received punishments for certain offenses, their White counterparts were cautioned and let go “without . . . consequences (Chadha et al., 2020, p. 10; see Hope et al., 2015) for the same or similar infractions.

The Culture of Poverty: Assigning Blame to Black Parents for the “Misdemeanours” of Their Children

Unlike biological determinism, the culture of poverty theory attributes personal behavior to factors related to the family and the greater community. The theory clears the school of responsibility regarding Black students’ behaviors considered as infractions to school regulations. The culture of poverty framework portrays the Black family and community as lacking the necessary attributes to raise successful and law-abiding children. Even more ominous is the fact that the theory attributes, for example, Black students’ cognitive development and/or academic performance to Black families, especially single parents.

According to O. Lewis (1966), family, cultural and community values influence human behavior. Moreover, “by the time [they] are six or seven, [children born into deprived communities and families have] . . . absorb[ed] the basic attitudes and values of th[at] subculture [and] . . . are psychologically unready to [obey authority]” (p. 21), a view shared by Sowell (1981), who argues that “the goals and values of [Black families] have never centered on [discipline]” (p. 266).

According to O. Lewis (1966), the social consequences stemming from the “culture of poverty” are present in “households headed by women” (p. 20):

The family in the culture of poverty does not cherish childhood. . . . Initiation into sex comes early. With the instability of consensual marriage, the family tends to be mother-centered and tied more closely to the mother’s extended family. The female head of the house is given to authoritarian rule. . . . The [child] who grows up in this culture has a strong feeling of fatalism, helplessness, dependence, and inferiority. (p. 23)

The “culture of poverty” theory has been criticized for reproducing stereotypes (Gorski, 2005; Ladson-Billings, 2007; Vossoughi & Rodela, 2020), for dismissing the “sociopolitical context of schooling” (Gorski, 2005, p. 2), for absolving school authorities for the conduct of students, and for “blam[ing] [Black parents] for the [conduct of their children] (Gorski, 2005, p. 8). By focusing on Black mothers, the theory promotes the narrative that Black families are dysfunctional, that is, they are headed, largely, by mothers who are overwhelmed with the task of raising sons in the absence of fathers. In addition, Black fathers are framed as irresponsible, as viewing procreation as their primary purpose in life (Satzewich, 2017).

As a White-supremacist hypothesis, the culture of poverty theory fails to address the impact of “race, gender, and class domination” (Crenshaw, 1991, p. 1246) on Black mothers. Setting aside the interlocking weight of oppression and stereotypes that confronts Black mothers, the theory questions the maternal and parental abilities of Black mothers, further perpetuating pejorative stereotypes. Grounded in European theorists’ biased conceptions of Black cultures and mothers, the theory decenters the historical and contemporary struggles of Black mothers in racist societies where state institutions and government policies limit their agency and present Black matriarchs, through the medium of corporate and academic research, as architects of the growing destitution and chaos afflicting Black families and children (Lee & Williams, 2001).

The media coverage of our 4-year-old “miscreant” pupil, however well intentioned, did not help matters. Buried in the language of social justice, replete with condemning the school and privileging the mother’s voice, were undertones of racial and cultural stereotypes, in particular that of the Black family headed by the “welfare mothe[r]” (Henry, 1993, p. 209), living off the generosity of Canadians, yet unable to raise children, all the while residing in racial and cultural ghettoes populated by “criminals, [who are] irresponsible, unreliable, violent and . . . [highly motivated] “ (Gorski, 2005, p. 9).

Labeling a 4-year-old pupil as violent may very well dash any hope he may have of “obtain[ing] desired life outcomes” (Levin as cited in James, 2012, p. 465) while engendering a distrust of authority. And when the authorities responsible are among those whom he trusts and respects, “learning and educational engagement [come to pose even greater challenges]” (p. 465). Furthermore, being Black and labeled “violent” is a “risk-inducing construct” (p. 465). And internalizing the school’s perception of who he is leads to learning how “to fight physically [to feel safe at school and] on the streets” (Payne as cited in Gorski, 2005, p. 8).

Anti-Black Racism: Impact on Black Students

As in any social setting, words spoken in a school environment have consequences, particularly for disadvantaged students. For most people, and especially children, words are not empty signifiers; they carry meanings that are not without significance. Labeling a 4-year-old as “violent” and/or “a child in crisis” raises all kinds of questions in the mind of a child who very likely doesn’t understand what such descriptors mean: Why were the police called to remove him from his friends? Why was he driven home in a police cruiser, a vehicle he associates, I can only assume, with criminals? And why the disapproving glance from his teacher and the shock written large on the faces of friends? Moreover, the boy’s ordeal has consequences: he loses his innocence; he begins to notice he is different; he adopts a confrontational approach to discipline.

Labeling a Black student as “violent” and “in crisis” means keeping him under constant surveillance in anticipation that he may display behavior a teacher may consider a threat to the safety of others. Surveillance may also incite further rebellious behavior on the part of the student, thereby marking another step along the path to dropping out of school (Allen, 1996; James, 2011, 2012). Little wonder then that in the minds of Black students who are subjected to labeling, the school constitutes a hostile and oppressive environment (Lewis, 2003).

Within such a milieu the Black student may internalize anti-Black labels, resulting in low self-esteem, even self-hatred. Responding to a question by a Ms. Sullivan, a teacher employed at a primary school located in Southern California (Lewis, 2003, p. 8), enquiring what he was going to do with his life after school, “Rodney, an African American fourth-grader” (Lewis, 2003, p. 54) replied that “[h]e wanted to go to college but first he had to go to prison” (Lewis, 2003, p. 54). Pressed for details, the child said, matter-of-factly, “All Black men go to prison” (Lewis, 2003, p. 54). Rodney’s responses to well-meaning questions elucidate the anti-Black experience endemic in some public-school systems.

Among Black students, anti-Black racism can also foster a sense of marginalization that can take disparate forms, for example, being “excluded . . . from [the] resources [Black students] need to succeed” (Venzant Chambers & McCready, 2011, p. 1354). In the mainstream public school system, race remains a significant factor in determining who receives support, especially where quality education is concerned (Calliste, 1996; Dei et al., 1997; James, 2005, 2011; James & Brathwaite, 1996). According to Dei et al. (1997), Black students are underserved by the public education system. All too often school counselors advise Black parents to enroll children in vocational or technical programs, thus freeing overworked teachers of hard-to-manage Black students. Directed into vocational or technical programs, euphemistically labeled the “applied education stream,” these students become disaffected; they begin to dislike school and soon progress to contemplating dropping out, and in so doing dimming their prospects of a stable and better life.

In the OPSS, the specter of a racial “Iron Curtain”—a feeling of marginalization that forces Black students to stay within their racial group or attend schools preponderantly Black—is all too real. Owing to the rising cost of housing, particularly in the Greater Toronto Area, schools have been divided along racial and class lines (Johnson, 2013), posing serious implications for Black students. Simply by attending “urban schools,” a codeword for schools located in crime-ridden ghettoes, Black students receive far fewer learning resources and less support vis-a-vis their White counterparts residing in wealthy communities such as Forest Hill, Leaside or Rosedale that are served by well-equipped schools staffed by highly professional teachers capable of giving them a “better shot” at life.

Punishing Black students based on “middle class . . . norms” (Venzant Chambers & McCready, 2011, p. 1353) and a limited understating of Black culture, history, and family life, works to create tension between Black students and teachers. Feeling victimized because subjected to what is, or is perceived to be, unjust punishment, the Black student begins to challenge the authority of teachers, thus undermining his interest in education. On the other side of the coin, fearing accusations of racism, some teachers, whether in the interest of self-preservation or preserving peace in the classroom, elect to leave the “rebellious” or “violent” student to his own devices, regardless of the consequences for academic advancement or (James, 2011) for future work opportunities (Turcotte, 2020).

Black students who are labeled “violent” often fall victim to the phenomenon of deviance amplification, that is, they act out based on how they are perceived by school authorities (Hope et al., 2015; Leban & Masterson, 2022; Wiley & Esbensen, 2016). Marginalized and at the same time eager to be desired, these students form deviant fraternities, that is, groups made up of “bad boys,” thus setting themselves against those of their peers whom they view as “wheedlers,” that is, teachers’ pets and the teacher(s) whose authority they call into question (Venzant Chambers & McCready, 2011; see Dei et al., 1997).

Ignored or punished for deviant behavior, embittered students come not only to despise education and teachers but also to view the school as a battlefield and persons in authority, particularly those who label them and subject them to punishment, as “enemies.” After being expelled and/or dropping out of school, these students are targeted by the police; some end up as “wards” of the state. Writes White:

In 2000, Canada’s rate of youth incarceration was among the highest in the Western world, at 17.64 per 10,000. Today, it’s 3.79 . . . The proportion of whites among youth in secure detention, the most restrictive form of youth custody, declined to 28 per cent from 39 per cent between 2006 and 2016. Over the same period, the rate remained flat for Indigenous prisoners, at about 10 percent, and increased to 21 percent from 19 percent for Black inmates (White, 2021, para. 6–7).

According to Owusu-Bempah et al. (2021), Black youth who are released from prison with minimum education and skills “earn less than their peers . . . “result[ing] in greater poverty [and frustration]” (pp. 3–4). Dropping out of school is a precursor to engaging in crime and a stint in prison. Prison is a chapter in the lives of Black dropouts who find doors slammed in their faces, especially in a knowledge and skills-based economy, pushing them deeper into a life of crime and recidivism. They end up back in prison, further fueling anti-Black racism and racial stereotypes.

The Way Forward

The dearth of courses on African Canadian history in teacher education programs is reflected in the inability of teachers to address anti-Black racism in the classroom and in the education system more generally. Unable or unwilling to confront a problem some teachers assume to lie within the bailiwick of school administrations, they often feign ignorance on matters pertaining to anti-racism, multicultural education, and inclusion, further complicating efforts, however symbolic, to combat anti-racism. This refractory attitude on the part of some teachers has not facilitated efforts to create a welcoming environment for Black students (P. R. Solomon et al., 2005; R. P. Solomon & Levine-Rasky, 1996). A subsection of teachers, R. P. Solomon and Levine-Rasky (1996) argue, frame antiracist education in the narrowest terms. The following remarks highlight how some teachers view anti-racist education:

I haven’t learned much about the term, but antiracism to me would mean that someone tries not to be racist, but not necessarily becoming multicultural . . . You would not have to let your bias show, even though you may not necessarily believe in multiculturalism. (R. P. Solomon & Levine-Rasky, 1996, p. 342)

The racial and cultural illiteracy and insensitivity displayed by certain teachers adds urgency to reviewing teacher education programs available in Ontario. Courses framed around multicultural education with a sprinkle of Black history can hardly suffice to eradicate anti-Black racism among a subset of teachers and school authorities. Rather than confront their bigoted views, some teachers have become adept at navigating around a minefield of racist innuendo by adopting neutral language that enables them to deny allegations of anti-Black racism (Satzewich, 2017).

The deficits in teacher education programs offered at Ontario universities could be addressed by introducing courses focusing on the Black experience in Canada as interpreted by Black authors. Moreover, as part of their professional development, teachers, principals, and members of School Boards could be required to complete course work and/or workshops focusing on combatting anti-Black racism by, among other things developing a language, in addition to techniques of anti-racism”. Fighting racism becomes easy when parents and students come to view school authorities as allies in the fight to ensure every child has the best possible education.

In order to promote inclusivity, a sine qua non for equal educational opportunities, teachers must reach out to the Black student in distress. This would represent the first step in establishing a caring relationship, in the absence of which it is impossible to understand the student and thereby pre-empt disruptive behavior on his part. In this new relationship the student comes to see the teacher as a resource; the teacher senses the student’s potential and the need to develop it.

On another note, parent-teacher meetings must represent something more than symbolic invitations to Black parents to be lectured on their children’s behavior and to rationalize the punishment meted out to them. These meetings, which the author believes to be essential, especially where defusing conduct viewed as disruptive or violent is concerned, must be a meeting of minds aimed at addressing problems bedeviling students in distress. It is the opinion of this author that had the WCDSB reported the behavior of our 4-year-old student directly to the parents, the two parties, working together, could have arrived at a satisfactory solution, thereby avoiding police involvement and all that followed. And those who believe that Black students, even in their early formative years, represent a menace to society, and therefore warrant punishment, would have had the rug pulled out from under them.

While the Ontario “government’s pledge to invest $3.8 billion over 10 years to implement the Roadmap to Wellness, . . . and a connected mental health and addictions system to serve Ontarians of all ages” (Ontario Expanding Mental Health Services for Children and Youth, 2021) is commendable, for critics, including the author, no mention is made of what portion of this funding is to be earmarked for schools to address mental health problems, one of the consequences of anti-Black racism borne, directly or indirectly, by Black students.

To address mental health problems stemming from anti-Black racism, the Ontario government, Education Ministry, and the schools will need to adopt a proactive approach aimed at educating parents as to how Black students experience racism and arbitrary punishment. A good starting point would be for the government to provide the requisite funding to investigate the dynamics driving anti-Black racism within the school system. Next, a series of studies might be conducted on selective punishments. The results would enable policymakers and school authorities to better understand the lived experience of the victims of anti-Black racism, both students and parents, as a primary step to developing remedial policies.

In addition, the Ontario government and Education Ministry might allocate more resources to reducing teacher workloads, which means hiring more teachers and reducing class sizes. More resources would also enable school boards to recruit “more social work, mental health, child and youth work[ers]. . . [and] . . . educational and behavioral [experts]” (Duhatschek, 2022, para. 18–19) with a view to helping students in “crisis.” This would relieve teachers of the burden of having to manage students with behavioral challenges, thus freeing up time to educate their charges.

Many schools in Ontario are experiencing systemic problems; some are in crisis. Budget cuts, along with large class sizes, hard-to-manage students, and increasing workloads, account for mounting frustration among teachers. At the same time, students are experiencing mental health and behavioral problems at an increasing rate. Addressing these problems will require higher levels of government funding than are currently available in order to hire “more social work, mental health, child and youth work[ers]. . . [and] . . . educational and behavioral [experts]” (Duhatschek, 2022, para. 18–19) to help students in “crisis.” This approach will reduce the burden currently borne by teachers of having to manage students with mental and behavioral challenges.

Conclusion

Singling out Black students for punishment without cause fuels anti-Black racism in the OPSS. Turning Black students into proverbial Black monsters to slay reinforces the deep-seated belief that Black students are innately violent. Feeling targeted, Black students live their lives shouldering the weight of anticipating who is to be next in line for punishment, a concern that should never be a preoccupation for any student. It is now time for all peoples, Black, White, Indigenous, Asian, . . . to unite in debunking this phenomenon. In the context of public school systems, this might be achieved by setting aside preconceived beliefs about Black students, in particular that they are prone to violence and pose a threat to public order. Then can begin the task of abolishing the many practices that work to marginalize and oppress Black students, including arbitrary and excessive punishments and streaming into applied/general educational programs, thereby limiting their prospects for higher education. Creating a racist-free school environment, however arduous, is possible provided the political will exists and the can-do spirit that has thus far powered Canada along her journey to build a kind and just society will ultimately prevail.