At the heart of all challenges to societal oppressions lies a simple question: whose voices and perspectives do we focus on?

The human rights case between the Peel District School Board’s anti-discrimination leader and the board along with its director of education Peter Joshua provides a microscopic view of that key issue.

In a response obtained by the Star from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, the board and Joshua denied all allegations brought forward in March by Poleen Grewal, its associate director of instructional services and equity support services, including racism, harassment and creation of a poisonous work environment.

According to the response which was filed in May, the issue boiled down to a clash of leadership styles between Grewal who brought the complaint and Joshua, Peel board’s director of education who was named as a defendant along with the board. The board called the allegations against Joshua “at best misguided and for the most part, extremely unfair.”

In her documented reply to that response, Grewal maintained all allegations.

None of the allegations have been proven. No mediation or hearing dates have been scheduled, the tribunal said.

However, a high-profile anti-Black racism researcher named in the case found part of the board’s response that was put to him by the Star offensive.

York University professor Carl James, whose authorship of several studies has helped to quantify race-based discrimination in education in Ontario, was retained on contract by the Peel board to lead research around Black student perspectives. When he submitted a draft report, the Peel board was in the midst of a public controversy on its instructions that books such as To Kill A Mockingbird be taught with an anti-oppressional lens.

In his report, which James says was shared with Grewal before she went on medical leave related to the allegations, he asked the board to reconsider whether that text should be continued to be taught at all.

James says he had frequently heard during his research Black students bringing up how the n-word was flung at them and how it affected them. Here was a book where the n-word is repeated 19 times.

James added a post-script to his recommendations drawing the connection between his research and this text and said, “for what good are these activities if they do not ultimately change the inequitable and racism contexts in which students are required to learn and where their educational materials re-inscribe the racism.”

When Grewal returned from leave, she saw the post-script was removed from the final report. She alleges in her complaint that this was an example of Joshua silencing conversations on anti-Black racism.

The board’s response says that To Kill a Mockingbird was not part of James’ research mandate and he expressed his personal opinion without it having been part of his study and that it might be “misplaced from a research perspective.” It doesn’t deny that Joshua was involved in removing the post-script.

James said he was insulted by the statement that the post-script was merely his personal opinion.

“If you ask a researcher to look at a community of people and the researcher comes back and says, pay attention to the context. Here is what the kids say and here is the discussion you’re having around To Kill A Mockingbird,” he said in a telephone interview. “And if you say we think what is being said is irrelevant, are you willing and open to listen?”

When asked about James’ comments, Joshua referred the Star to the board’s response to the tribunal, saying: “The board’s response addresses concerns of the same nature as those raised with you by Dr. James.”

Grewal’s human rights complaint included alleged incidents that have not been made public. In one instance, Grewal alleges that when complaints of racism were brought forward against a principal at a Brampton school in the spring of 2018, the principal was simply transferred to another school without dealing with the problem of anti-Black racism.

The board denies this in its response and says that the principal was placed on temporary leave to complete training, re-assessed and then re-assigned to another school. The response also states there was no finding that the principal was racist.

In her reply to the board’s response, Grewal cites an Investigator’s Workplace Assessment Report that states the principal’s treatment of a new vice-principal who is Black constituted “on a balance of probabilities psychological bullying and harassment.” Referring to the people who made complaints about the principal, the investigator said, “It is not possible to ignore the commonality of race of these individuals (all of whom self-identify as Black) and their treatment.”

Grewal points to two South Asian principals who had allegations levied against them and says in her reply that board practice, as in those two cases, has been to demote the principal to vice-principal and train and rebuild skills. That was not done in the case of the white principal (who is now the principal at another school).

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

In some instances, it’s easy to see where the conflict lies. At one point, the board alleges that unlike the two other associate directors, Grewal “offered her perspectives concerning the way others approach their work,” and that Joshua “encouraged” her to “appreciate the different styles that leaders take.”

In her reply, Grewal said she didn’t criticize the leadership style of her colleagues, “but rather, on occasion, the absence of the equity lens in aspects of the administration of their portfolios,” referring to two senior staff who, she says, were resistant to the board’s equity and inclusion initiatives.

In other instances, the conflict is more subtle. It centres around whose opinion is put front and centre.

One of Grewal’s allegations is that she was left in the lurch after being named and criticized in the National Post and particularly in the Toronto Star for the board’s stance on teaching To Kill A Mockingbird through an anti-oppressional lens.

In its response the board outlines the steps they say they took to support her and says that Joshua along with the board chair and communications director decided “it would not be in the interest of Ms. Grewal for the Board to issue a press release” to support her.

Grewal’s reply says that when dealing with issues of equity those in positions of power should be consulting those targeted and that she should have been part of the decision making “as should members of the Black community.”

In another instance, the board says Grewal left a conference in turmoil after an emotional statement about the alleged lack of support by the board. Attendees who felt “they had been unfairly accused of not supporting Ms Grewal” broke down in tears. “Mr. Joshua and the other two Associate Directors tried to assist those in distress.”

Grewal’s reply states “what was completely ignored was the turmoil that Ms. Grewal and the Black community were experiencing.

“It comes down to whose pain warrants attention of the respondents and whose pain is ignored and/or silenced.”

This human rights case comes to light in the context of a racist remark by a Peel board trustee that has pitted the board against Black and brown community members. A trustee referred to McCrimmon Middle school, a school with predominantly Black and brown children, as “McCriminal.”

When it appeared the board did not address this internally, the Black community began protesting at the board’s public meetings. Since those meetings, at least seven Peel staff of different backgrounds have called this journalist to share their experiences at the board.

Trustee Will Davies apologized only after a report of the meeting appeared in the Star. The board acknowledged Wednesday that not issuing a public statement left Black and brown community members feeling abandoned.