January 8, 2007
J.
Alvin Wilbanks, Superintendent
Gwinnet
County Public Schools
437 Old Peachtree RD NW
Suwanee, GA 30024-2978
Dear
Superintendent Wilbanks:
Six months have not passed since our General Counsel last wrote
you about the apparent discriminatory treatment of a black male teacher at Chavez High.
Now I write you about the apparent discriminatory treatment of another teacher in Gwinnett County, this time a black female at Gleason Elementary,
Ms. Jolanda Salome. Ms. Salome has shared with me very disturbing commentary
about her alleged treatment by Gleason’s administrative team. It would
appear that, although the student population at the school has undergone a transition to approximately ninety percent black,
the largely white administrative team has yet to grasp that change has occurred and still apparently operates as if Gwinnett
County and, hence, Gleason Elementary, have made no such transition. The year
is 2007, not 1960. Integration has occurred, and the times, they have a-changed. Modern American sensibilities, by and large, have adjusted well to the new racial
mix in politics, culture, and even education. Sadly, it seems that Gleason’s
administrative team, led by Principal Glen Denning, continues to operate from an exclusionary mindset, especially when it
involves Ms. Salome. Although she has received satisfactory marks for her teaching
ability and for her extracurricular engagement with the students, Principal Denning and his administrators have apparently
focused on her attire, a matter that should be of slight consequence in the grand scheme of things but that has apparently
acquired greater significance considering the manner in which Gleason’s administration has apparently targeted it.
Let me encapsulate what Ms. Salome has related to me. On October 13, 2006, a student appeared at Ms. Salome’s door with a note from Assistant Principal Ridgeway requesting
Ms. Salome’s attendance at a meeting with Principal Denning. During the
meeting, Ms. Salome was told that her “personal attire” was offensive to some of the other staff members at Gleason. According to Ms. Salome, most of the other staff members had not even greeted her
since she started teaching at Gleason; therefore, she thought and still thinks that for them to complain about her “personal
attire” to her supervisors prior to mentioning anything to her is inappropriate.
In fact, Ms. Salome says that she does not agree with some of the other staff members’ “personal attire,”
but that, since it is her personal opinion, she has kept her thoughts to herself. She
did, however, after that meeting, write the following statement to Principal Denning and Assistant Principal Ridgeway: “The Core Essential for the month is individuality, which simply means that
we are all different, and it’s OK to be different because if we all looked the same and behaved the same there wouldn’t
be any progression. I am different and I love having my own identity which makes
me the great woman I am today. I have never worn a mini-skirt or skirt that shows
my legs in an inappropriate way, even with my boots. If my attire needs to be
changed in any way, then I feel that the entire school’s attire needs to be changed.
I don’t think that slippers, shorts or hats (visors) are appropriate; however staff members wear them.” Clearly, Ms. Salome possesses a mature outlook on the matter. She has self-assurance and comprehends the notion of appropriateness of clothing in a professional setting. She notes that one’s personal opinion is simply that, one’s personal opinion,
and she has refrained from trying to enforce hers on her peers. That, of course,
has apparently not been reciprocated, and I am concerned about this alleged snitching on her by her peers. That Principal Denning and Assistant Principal Ridgeway would apparently place so much stock in what the
unnamed other staff members snitch about Ms. Salome’s “personal attire” bothers me. Do these unnamed other staff members have greater sway over the principal than does Ms. Salome? It would appear that they do, and why do they? Is it because
of their race? Plus, why would these unnamed other staff members feel compelled
to run to the principal and complain about their personal opinion concerning Ms. Salome’s “personal attire”
and not go to the source with their personal opinion? It causes me, logically,
to conclude that these unnamed other staff members really do not like the black woman inside the clothes, not the clothes
themselves.
Assistant Principal Ridgeway, on October 16, 2006, replied to Ms.
Salome’s response to the meeting, writing: “Thank you for sharing
your thoughts concerning our meeting. We are positive that you make every effort
to dress professionally each day. I wanted to follow up on one item in your email. Staff members may wear hats or visors on the playground during recess or on special
event days such as Field Day. Our staff will not be wearing hats in the building. Staff members may wear head coverings such as scarfs [sic]. The handbook is being updated to make this clarification. If
you notice a dress code violation, you can bring it Dr. Denning’s attention [sic].” I find it amazing that, considering the importance of instructing children in schools, that such weight
would be placed on the “wearing [of] hats in the building.” Surely,
it would be much more productive to spend time tweaking instructional delivery models rather than the teacher handbook about
the faculty’s ability to wear “hats in the building.” Also,
the second sentence bothers me in that it can be read as having a double meaning. It
could mean that the administration at Gleason understands that Ms. Salome dresses “professionally each day” even
though the administration felt obliged to discuss with her the fact that unnamed other staff members had complained about
her “personal attire.” The implication is that Ms. Salome should
not be worried about that meeting on October
13, 2006, and that is the notion that she took from Assistant Principal Ridgeway’s
sentence. The sentence could, on the other hand, be an admonition that Ms. Salome
should heed what was said to her in that meeting about her “personal attire” and dress differently so that the
unnamed other staff members would not be further offended by Ms. Salome’s clothes.
As you will see, the latter meaning was intended.
Eight days later, Ms. Salome received another e-mail from Assistant
Principal Ridgeway, who wrote: “On October 23, you wore a skirt that does
not abide by dress code standards. Please refrain from wearing skirts with high
slits. Several staff members and students contacted the Adm. Team concerning
the attire. The Adm. Team is in agreement that the skirt violated the dress code.” I cannot believe that Gleason’s administration would engage in this kind of
behavior, namely, allowing unnamed other staff members to affect the administration’s treatment of a teacher whom the
unnamed other staff members have apparently decided dresses in a manner that they dislike.
What about staff camaraderie? This transpired in October. The school year ends in May. Does the Gleason administration
actually think it acceptable for Ms. Salome to have to endure nearly six months of treading on egg shells so as to keep the
unnamed other staff members happy? This creates a hostile working environment
for Ms. Salome, and she should not have to be expected to endure such covert scrutiny from colleagues who apparently have
neither the courage nor the class to interact with her one-on-one about their perceived problem with her “personal attire.” And, perhaps I just am out of touch with what happens in elementary schools in Georgia in 2007, but when did
elementary school students earn the right to be able to “contact” an elementary school’s “Adm. Team
concerning the attire” of an adult employee at an elementary school? Frankly,
I cannot believe that an elementary school student would find anything objectionable about any staff member’s “personal
attire,” that is, of course, unless unnamed other staff members possibly put them up to contacting the “Adm. Team.” If such is the case, and it very well might, those unnamed other staff members should
have charges brought against them with the Professional Standards Commission. With
that in mind, I formally request that you instigate a formal investigation of what occurred with the unnamed students. They should never be empowered to make complaints about their personal feelings about
a teacher’s “personal attire.” How could they possibly be in
any position to make such personal feelings as to the appropriateness of an adult’s “personal attire” other
than to say it is “pretty” or “ugly”? I believe that
if students did make complaints, they were merely parroting what they overheard the unnamed other staff members say.
Upon receipt of the e-mail from Assistant Principal Ridgeway, Ms.
Salome went to her and lodged an informal complain that she believed that Assistant Principal Ridgeway was “picking
on” her. Ms. Salome shared that many co-workers at Gleason wear skirts
that are very short, some the height of the split in the skirt the administration found improper that Ms. Salome had worn. Assistant Principal Ridgeway, according to Ms. Salome, declined to judge the other
staff members’ skirts, but insisted that Ms. Salome’s was inappropriate.
Ms. Salome then requested a grievance form, but was told that she would have to obtain one from Principal Denning whom
she then went to see. He told Ms. Salome that he had seen her skirt and found
it to be very short, and she says that she restated her belief that she was being “picked on.” In order to arrive at a better understanding of what he found appropriate in her attire, she inquired whether
the sweat suit she was wearing at the time was okay. He said that he found it
to be okay, but that she would have to speak with Assistant Principal Ridgeway, the “ladies AP,” for the final
word. Ms. Salome returned to the “ladies AP” who said that the sweat
suit was inappropriate. This caused Ms. Salome to burst into tears because just
the previous day, Assistant Principal Sparks had mentioned that “nice” sweat suits would be acceptable. Ms. Salome reiterated that she felt “picked on” and that the “ladies AP,” Assistant
Principal Ridgeway, with whom Ms. Salome was speaking, had never spoken positively with her.
Not only do I find the insistent, apparently negative dialogue between Ms. Salome and Assistant Principal Ridgeway
calculated and callous, but I also find Principal Denning’s abdication of authority in the matter of Ms. Salome’s
“personal attire” troubling. How is it that the building level supervisor
would consider Ms. Salome’s sweat suit acceptable and tell her so, but allow an underling to negate his opinion? Why is Principal Denning in charge of that school? Why
is he even there? It would appear that Assistant Principal Ridgeway holds sway,
so why pay Principal Denning just to occupy space?
Does Principal Denning earn his pay as Assistant Principal Ridgeway’s
enforcer? He certainly can write a mean-spirited e-mail. Consider this one, referenced “Maintaining Excellence,” that he sent on December 16, 2006,
to Gleason’s staff: “Any organization, large or small, is going to
have employees who make bad choices or who exercise poor judgment (of course, I’m not referring to the occasional small
mistakes we all make from time to time). Bad choices and poor judgment are not
well-received by fellow employees who are giving 100% of their time and effort in trying to maintain a healthy and productive
environment for quality work and student learning. Please know that when employees
make bad choices in their behavior or exercise poor judgment, it is not ignored by the administrative team. Such incidents are documented and corrective actions are taken. Corrective
actions are confidential, so it may not be readily apparent that anything is being done, but please trust that things are
being done when inappropriate actions occur. Gleason has a tradition of excellence,
and you can rest assured that the administrative team will always work diligently to preserve our tradition of excellence. To all those I referred to above who give 100% in maintaining a healthy and productive
environment, thank you for your continued efforts in preserving excellence at Gleason.”
What this implies is that the unnamed other staff members who have been complaining about Ms. Salome’s “personal
attire” to the administration have intensified their complaints. Apparently,
no longer content to be told on the sly by Gleason’s administration that the object of their snitching, Ms. Salome,
has been called to the office and chastised, they apparently seek a public demonstration of their power. It would seem that Principal Denning’s e-mail serves this purpose.
He borders on abject apology for not being able to be more overt with his handling of those “employees who make
bad choices or who exercise poor judgment[.]” All he can do, since confidentiality
in personnel matters exists, is reassure the snitches: “Please know that
when employees make bad choices in their behavior or exercise poor judgment, it is not ignored by the administrative team. Such incidents are documented and corrective actions are taken.” Two days later, he placed Ms. Salome on a Professional Development Plan (PDP) ostensibly because of her
“personal attire.”
Principal Denning had Ms. Salome called into a meeting on December 18, 2006,
in which three females other than Ms. Salome were also present. He inquired as
to Ms. Salome’s plans for next year, and, upon hearing of her intention to return to Gleason, he told Ms. Salome, as
she has related to me, that she should “find another place to work” because Gleason is “not the place”
for her. Ms. Salome states: “Robert
[Denning] stated that Gleason and Gwinnett are conservative places and that I do not fit in.
I was then given a PDP and told to read it.” This PDP, marked as
a “Required Plan for Specific Needs Development,” lists two “Specific Objectives for Improvement.” Ms. Salome immediately objected to the first objective, “Works cooperatively
with school administrators, special support personnel, colleagues, and parents.”
She assures me that she does work cooperatively within the school and that only one specific instance of a problem
with a student and his mother was used for justification of the inclusion of this objective on the PDP. Ms. Salome writes: “I was told that a teacher saw me
reprimanding a student and waving my finger in the child’s face and being very rude to the child. I was also told that Gleason is not the best place for me and that I am not following directions. I was accused of doing what I want to do. I
was also accused of displaying negative behavior to the staff and that others are no longer interested in working at a school
where I am a part of. Other staff members do not want that type of reputation,
teachers who have been here for over 20 years. I was accused of displaying a
negative attitude and that my words may come out in a rude or inappropriate manner.”
What I discern from Ms. Salome’s commentary about the PDP conference, other than the patent reliance on hearsay
from unnamed other staff members apparently too cowardly to approach Ms. Salome in a collegial manner to share their concerns
about her by Gleason’s administrative team for justification of Ms. Salome’s placement on the PDP, is that she
has been targeted by older female employees as being too vibrant, too youthful for their tastes. Perhaps these older veterans of the school have become too calcified in their routine to understand that
younger colleagues have a vitality that has not been sapped by years of engaging in the same old thing day in and day out. Plus, I would guess that a certain amount of feminine jealousy accounts for these
aged staff members’ complaints about Ms. Salome’s “personal attire” and professional demeanor. (The second objective deals with Ms. Salome’s “personal attire”
– “Dress in a professional manner that is appropriate for the local school environment.”) How else can you explain the intense emphasis on Ms. Salome’s clothing?
It is the commentary in “Activities
and Time Line” that is very informative about the actual nature of the complaint against Ms. Salome. For the first objective, Principal Denning writes, “Display a positive attitude about J.K. [sic]
Gleason
Elementary School through your words, tone of voice, and your body language.” Is there
a rubric that Ms. Salome should follow? One was not provided on the PDP. Does some machine exist that will assist her in affecting “a positive attitude”
via “words, tone of voice, body language”? That machine was not indicated
on the PDP. Is there some device by which Gleason’s administrators will
be able to gauge Ms. Salome’s “display”? There is no mention
of any such device on the PDP. Principal Denning does, however, indicate the
“Criteria for Measurement of Progress” on the PDP: “Compliance
with the Objectives and Activities listed above will be monitored on an ongoing basis by the administrative team.” Who will be the final arbiter of these attributes of Ms. Salome’s being? An older white man who has shown his penchant for derogation of Ms. Salome based on
the complaints of unnamed staff members who are apparently so enamored of their own sense of self-worth that they would not
deign approach Ms. Salome, their colleague, with helpful, professional hints that would have made her employment at Gleason
meaningful and less stressful?
I would hope not, especially considering what he writes in “Activities
and Time Line” for that second objective dealing with Ms. Salome’s clothing.
He writes: “Wear appropriate and professional attire at all times. As referenced in the October 24, 2006 [sic] Weekly Update, professional attire needs to conform
with Standard 10: Professional Conduct from The Code of Ethics for Educators
from the Georgia Processional [sic] Standards Commission. Standard 10 reads as
follows: Professional Conduct – An educator should demonstrate conduct
that follows generally recognized professional standards. Unethical conduct is
any conduct that impairs the certificate holder’s ability to function professionally in his or her employment position
or a pattern of behavior or conduct that is detrimental to the health, welfare, discipline, or morals of students. Clothing that does not cover cleavage or reveals too much of one’s legs, or is too tight is a distraction
to students, parents, and fellow staff members and thus ‘impairs the certificate holder’s ability to function
professionally . . . and is detrimental to the welfare of students.’ [sic]”
I find Principal Denning’s lack of quotation marks telling. It would
seem that he wants it to read as if Standard 10 of the Professional Standards Commission’s Code of Ethics includes the
remarks about clothing, but the Code does not. I cannot believe that a professional
educator would even pen something as sexist as this. The Middle Ages ended around
five hundred years ago, and items such as chastity belts have long fallen into disuse.
Gleason is an elementary school, not a convent. Ms. Salome does not wear
clothing that allows her breasts to hang out for all to see; however, her clothing does not reach up to her collarbone either. I have encountered a number of women who, because of nature’s blessing, are
possessed of amply-sized breasts which, even if constrained by a brassiere and covered up to the neck with a blouse, still
protrude. And, just how “much of one’s legs” is too “much”
to reveal? Might a woman’s ankles show?
Perhaps the Gwinnett administration would be more comfortable mandating that its female staff members wear burkas that
cover their bodies from head to toe just as the mullahs of the Taliban used to force the women of Afghanistan to do.
Gwinnett County, of course, is not Afghanistan, and Principal Denning
is merely an elementary school principal as well as a mere man who, it would appear, is concentrating too intently on Ms.
Salome’s breasts and legs. For instance, in the first meeting that Principal
Denning held with Ms. Salome about her colleagues’ complaints about her “personal attire,” she writes that
he “stated that he thinks that I look nice and that other staff members are jealous of the way that I dress and that
if the school had a contest I would win first prize.” She continues: “He also mentioned that people are assuming that I make more money or that he
(the principal) may be giving me more money because of the nice clothing that I wear.”
Apparently, Principal Denning knew what the problem was at the very onset. The
older female staff members are apparently envious of Ms. Salome’s looks and, because of this envy, went on the attack. By allegedly accusing Principal Denning of giving Ms. Salome more money to buy her
stylish clothes, these unnamed other staff members were evidently implying some sort of sexual connection between him and
Ms. Salome.
In that meeting, Ms. Salome inquired of Assistant Principal Ridgeway,
after Principal Salome had made his comments, as to what she thought would be appropriate clothing to wear. Assistant Principal Ridgeway suggested that Ms. Salome wear something like she, Assistant Principal Ridgeway,
was wearing – khaki pants with an over-sized blouse. Upon hearing this
suggestion, Ms. Salome replied that she is “not a khaki or overall type of girl” and that she does not own “clothing
like that.” Assistant Principal Ridgeway asked why Ms. Salome would wear
“nice clothes to work with children.” Ms. Salome says that she explained
that “these are the clothes that I own and that these clothes are considered professional to me and that I never had
a problem with my clothing before during my seven years of teaching.” It
seemed obvious to Ms. Salome that these administrators were disrespecting her cultural background based on her clothing. All the emphasis on making her dress like the white teachers indicated to her and
indicates to me that the white administrators at Gleason were unwilling to recognize Ms. Salome’s diversity. In fact, Ms. Salome told me that Principal Denning made an incendiary statement that apparently betrays
his feelings about diversity. She says that at a faculty meeting he stated that
“due to the high number of free lunches [at Gleason this school year], generally our test scores are going to go down.” If this is the case, it seems logical to understand that Principal Denning was referring
to the increased number of non-white students at the school this year, and his alleged comment about “free lunch”
implies that he possesses the opinion that non-whites will not do as well on tests as whites, thus implying that non-whites
are not as intelligent as whites. Why would Principal Denning feel comfortable
enough to make such a statement – if he did indeed make this statement – to
a staff that includes educated black adults teaching at a predominantly minority school?
On December 18, 2006, after being called into the meeting to sign the PDP,
Ms. Salome called ADA/Equity Compliance Coordinator Linda Waters to share what had been happening at Gleason. Coordinator Waters’ response was, “What do you want me to do?” Ms. Salome explained that she had called because, after obtaining the info from the Gwinnett County Schools
Handbook, she saw mention that, if an employee feels as if he/she has been harassed, that employee should call Coordinator
Waters who replied that she understood what the Handbook said and asked Ms. Salome again, “What do you want me to do?” They discussed whether Coordinator Waters should call Principal Denning before or
after the holidays and whether Ms. Salome had spoken with Principal Denning prior to contacting Coordinator Waters who, apparently
to conclude the conversation, told Ms. Salome that she was required to sign the PDP and that, if “things did not work
out at Gleason,” then Ms. Salome would be unable to work at any other school in Gwinnett. Of what assistance was this to Ms. Salome? She felt that Coordinator
Waters was unhelpful and seemed to be on the side of Gleason’s administration.
Ms Salome wrote to me: “The website mentioned to call immediately
and that an investigation will be conducted immediately; however, nothing of that nature was ever mentioned to me.” Why would the Gwinnett School System have this proviso on its website for employees
to believe that assistance would be forthcoming in a harassment case? Is it just
window dressing so as to comply with federal laws without really intending to do a thing about harassment of employees by
administrators? Ms. Salome tells me that a meeting was held among Principal Denning,
Coordinator Waters, and herself in which Ms. Salome’s complaints were aired. In
that meeting, according to Ms. Salome, Principal Denning made the comment that Ms. Salome was dressed as if she had just had
sex with someone. Ms. Salome says that Coordinator Waters, a woman, appeared
to find nothing inappropriate or unprofessional with what Principal Denning said. I,
however, do, and this letter serves to alert you to my disgust at Principal Denning and his administrative team’s apparently
blatant harassment of Ms. Salome because of her race and at your Central Office administrators apparently intentional decision
to ignore Ms. Salome’s properly filed complaint.
I encourage you to rescind Ms. Salome’s PDP and to have Principal
Denning offer her a formal apology as well as reassurance that she will no longer be subjected to harassment because of her
culture. I have seen the “personal attire” that Ms. Salome wears
to school and have found it quite acceptable for a professional setting. Instead
of vilifying her for her fashion sense, Gleason’s administration should celebrate her vibrancy, thus the diversity at
the school. During this time of celebration in recognition of the great gains
in racial equality made through the exertions of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., it seems completely appropriate that
the Gwinnett County School System make a very clear statement that it does indeed value diversity. Otherwise, this is just another example of how the Gwinnett County School System continues to lag far behind
other more enlightened school systems in their embrace of all races and cultures. The
population shift in Gwinnett cannot be ignored, even in insular institutions like Gleason Elementary where, apparently, the
white administrators who used to hold sway over white children have yet to grasp that the white children are no longer predominant
there and that new methods of discourse must be developed so that an alleged incident like this involving Ms. Salome will
not recur.
Respectfully,
John R. A. Trotter, Ed.D.,J.D.
Copy: Ms. Jolanda Salome, Teacher
Mr. J. Anderson Ramay, Jr.,
Esq.
Gwinnett County
Branch of NAACP, Unit #566