Jacqueline Ravazzolo
K.1 The definition of racial profiling provided by the Ontario Human Rights Commission is as followed.
K.2 Racial profiling is a form of stereotyping based on preconceived ideas about a person’s character. It is discriminatory for decisions to be based on presumed characteristics instead of unbiased assessments of a person’s behavior. The definition of racial profiling used by the Ontario Human Rights Commission is any action undertaken for so called reasons of safety, security or public protection,
K.2 Racial profiling is a form of stereotyping based on preconceived ideas about a person’s character. It is discriminatory for decisions to be based on presumed characteristics instead of unbiased assessments of a person’s behavior. The definition of racial profiling used by the Ontario Human Rights Commission is any action undertaken for so called reasons of safety, security or public protection,
- that relies on stereotypes about race
- color
- ethnicity
- ancestry
- religion
- or place of origin
- or a combination of these
- rather than on a reasonable suspicion
- to single out an individual for greater scrutiny or different treatment
Racial profiling is different from criminal profiling.
- Racial profiling: is based on stereotypical assumptions because of one’s race, color, ethnicity, etc.
- Criminal profiling: on the other hand, relies on actual behavior or on information about suspected activity by someone who meets the description of a specific individual.
Stereotyping becomes a particular concern when people act on their stereotypical views in a way that affects others. This is what leads to profiling. Although anyone can experience profiling, racialized persons are primarily affected.
Typically but not always, profiling is carried out by persons in positions of authority, and can occur in many contexts involving safety, security and public protection issues. Some examples of profiling presented during the inquiry include:
- law enforcement official assumes someone is more likely to have committed a crime because he is African Canadian;
- school personnel treat a Latino child’s behavior as an infraction under its zero tolerance policy while the same action by another child might be seen as normal “kids’play.”
- a private security guard follows a shopper because she believes the shopper is more likely to steal from the store;
- an employer wants a stricter security clearance for a Muslim employee after September 11th;
- a bar refuses to serve Aboriginal patrons because of an assumption that they will get drunk and rowdy;
- a criminal justice system official refuses bail to a Latin American person because of a belief that people from her country are violent;
- and a landlord asks a Chinese student to move out because she believes that the tenant will expose her to SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) even though the tenant has not been to any hospitals, facilities or countries associated with a high risk of SARS.
- Example: An employee’s computer is monitored because he was born in Egypt and is therefore suspected to be a security risk. The computers of other employees are not monitored like this. The employee is fired because he was found to have been visiting non-work related sites during business hours. Although his actions may have broken a work rule about computer use, this only came to light as a result of racial profiling. Thus, this would be discriminatory.
Read Article : Ontario Human Rights Commission:- What Is Racial Profiling (Fact Sheet)
Read Article: Ontario Human Rights Commission – What Is Discrimination
K.3 Now, let’s quickly examine the established pattern of racism and discrimination involving Jacqueline Ravazzolo that resulted always in very unfavorable outcomes for the applicant.
Incident One
Discussion: – PART 20 –
Caucasian Bully Marcus – Encounter Three
Timeline: September 27, 2021
K.4 On September 27, 2021 Jacqueline Ravazzolo discriminatorily profiled the Black applicant; in her mind she portrayed him as an unruly and/or aggressive Black child/student who she believed had clearly violated the rights of a Caucasian bully named Marcus.
K.5 Before even hearing the Black applicant’s account of events, Jacqueline Ravazzolo chose to believe and trust the Caucasian bully Marcus’s skewed version of events.
K.6 During the discussion between the applicant and Jacqueline Ravazzolo about the encounter. Jacqueline Ravazzolo heard the Black applicant starting to recount how the bully Marcus told him—that “you are worthless”—at this point she immediately and purposely interrupted him and stopped him from going into further details about what had really happened.
K.7 Jacqueline Ravazzolo intentionally stopped the conversation before more incriminating evidence was told to her, which denied the applicant the chance to elaborate more on what really transpired that day and over the previous two weeks during which time the applicant was taunted, teased, harassment and bullying by the Caucasian bully Marcus.
K.8 At that point, Jacqueline Ravazzolo made the decision to allow her prejudiced beliefs and stereotype as justification for the use of the Government of Ontario and the DSBN Progressive Discipline practice to be applied ONLY against the applicant/victim rather than the Caucasian bully Marcus.
K.9 It’s evident that Jacqueline Ravazzolo was racial profiling the applicant, enforcing the Progressive Discipline policy of the DSBN and the Government of Ontario against the Black applicant, while she implied her expectation and guilt him with her “good kid” scenario which eventually resulted in the applicant apologizing to his Caucasian bully Marcus.
Read Article: Government Of Ontario – Bullying – We Can All Help Stop It
K.10 Jacqueline Ravazzolo deliberately marginalized all of the Black applicant/victims recollection of interactions with the Caucasian bully Marcus because she racial profiled him. And the next day, when calling into question her racist behavior by the applicant’s parents. She began to deny that the conversation between her and the applicant had ever taken place in an effort to save her own reputation and job. Without a doubt, Jacqueline Ravazzolo chose to spare the Caucasian bully Marcus of any Progressive Discipline. Whereas the victim of the Caucasian bully Marcus behavior was not so fortunate!
Incident Two
Discussion: – PART 31 –
The Sudden Insertion of the Kevin Maddalena
November 08, 2022
K.11 Recall that Kevin Maddalena was not included in the original conversation when Christopher McInnis recounted the aforementioned circumstances of September 27, 2021. Where Jacqueline Ravazzolo deliberately embarrassed and guilted the applicant in the schools hallway as students and staff observed as they passed by.
K.12 Allowing passersby to also racially profile and stereotype the Black applicant as being so bad and it being so serious that the vice-principal needed to actually come to his classroom to address his behavior.
K.13 Or the image was perceived as being that the Black applicant was so misbehaved and refused to go to the office, again resulting in the vice principal having to physically visit his classroom to deal with his misbehavior.
K.14 Christopher McInnis stated “After discussing the incident with (ONLY) Jacqueline Ravazzolo, it was handled in the normal conflict resolution manner.” Which clearly indicates that Christopher McInnis did not speak with Kevin Maddalena, who will later show up as a new and unexpected supporting witness of behalf of Jacqueline Ravazzolo.
K.15 And when Jacqueline Ravazzolo decided she better revise her story because it was beginning not to make sense. She enlisted/hired Kevin Maddalena to falsely include himself into the conversation from over a year earlier.
K.16 Kevin Maddalena than received numerous emails from the parents in regards to sudden appearance and he ignored every single email. He had remained totally silent for over a year and then suddenly and unexpectedly. Kevin Maddalena was now willing to share his account of what happened on September 27, 2022, but ONLY through his legal representation Mary Anne Gage in defense of his superior Jacqueline Ravazzolo.
Incident Three
Discussion: – PART 42 and 43 –
Another Jacqueline Ravazzolo – Encounter Two “GIVE ME YOUR PHONE!”
October 6, 2022
K.17 Remember that Jacqueline Ravazzolo walked outside to ONLY hunt and single out the Black applicant from their group of four. She tried to ONLY intimidate and bully the applicant in an attempt to unlawfully take his phone, while after delivering a demanding threat for him to go to the office as punishment/ reprisal for refusing to comply with her bias and illegal demands to hand over his phone.
K.18 Remember at this very same time there is a Caucasian female student in their group of four who has her phone out and is using it in plan site. And yet again Jacqueline Ravazzolo was ONLY focused on enforcing “her rules” upon the Black 12-year-old child/student.
K.19 It is clear that Jacqueline Ravazzolo had tunnel vision/racial profiling/discriminating against the Black applicant as the Caucasian female student from their group of four stood there with her phone in hand, without fear.
Incident Four
Discussion: – PART 42 –
Jacqueline Ravazzolo’s Companion and Ally
K.20 When the applicant returned to class, Jacqueline Ravazzolo yet AGAIN went to his classroom and for some strange reason AGAIN sought the assistance of her companion and ally Kevin Maddalena. And with her approval, Kevin Maddalena now attempted to ALSO intimidate the applicant into submission with his bias opinion on the situation that was in support for superior Jacqueline Ravazzolo.
K.21 Again like Jacqueline Ravazzolo’s September 27, 2021 hallway encounter. Kevin Maddalena choose to hover over the applicant, embarrassing and humiliated him in front of his entire class and friends as he was being singled out as a Black troublemaker despite there being three other Caucasian students on their phones outside during the same time.
K.22 This sequence of events is very intriguing because it shows that there is a pattern of Jacqueline Ravazzolo and Kevin Maddalena conspiring to be working in tandem to enforce Jacqueline Ravazzolo unjustifiable, unlawful and racial profiling behavior against the applicant.
Incident Five
Discussion: – PART 47 –
“Your son is no longer welcome at my school until I
have had the opportunity to hear from him myself.”
October 6, 2022
K.23 And once more, one of the applicant’s good friends who also happen to be Autistic is the focus and target of the Caucasian bully Hunter. There bully Hunter appears to be developing a pattern of picking on the applicants friends who are either racialized looking or now who a little more unique than other students.
K.24 And when the French teacher E. Bourke failed to step in, twice and put an end to the aggressive and demeaning actions of the Caucasian bully Hunter towards the applicants close friend, the applicant finally decided he needed to intervene.
K.25 Having witnessed all three of the physical altercations that bully Hunter had been involved in the day before; the applicant knew at the time that the bully Hunter had no problem using violence to make his point.
K.26 As the bully Hunter proceed to bump his chest against the applicant, the applicant remembered his own previous encounters with the bully Hunter, including the time he assaulted his best friend R*** and the previous time the bully Hunter repeatedly kicked him in the back and ass.
K.27 The applicant instantly reacted in fear of bully Hunter and his aggressive behavior by grabbing the front of his shirt and pinned him against the wall while hitting him in the side.
K.28 As Hunter has no problem displayed all the characteristics of aggression and had again intentionally made first physical contact with the applicant, the applicant believed that the bully Hunter posed a real physical threat to both himself and his friend, the Autistic student.
K.29 And despite Jacqueline Ravazzolo not giving the parents their agreed upon opportunity to speak with their son about the situation and forwarding an “email the school” that night about what they learned happened from their son’s perspective.
- 47.1 “The older female indicated that she was interested in the applicant’s interpretation of the event. The father told her that he will talk with his son when he gets home from work and that he will email the school tonight with what he learns.”
- 47.2 “Although the father’s refusal to engage in conversation with her greatly irritated her, she eventually had to accept his recommendation?”
K.30 And after Jacqueline Ravazzolo had discussed with each individual classmate that same day about what happened. Where the students in the applicants class basically exonerated him of any wrongdoing. Even expressing gratitude and praise for him.
K.31 With the backing of the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki and Mary Anne Gage, Jacqueline Ravazzolo had no desire to follow the evidence that she obtained and unjustly and illegally suspended/expelled the applicant for 12 days later that afternoon.
K.32 Again it is evident that Jacqueline Ravazzolo was racial profiling the applicant and was enforcing the Progressive Discipline policy of the DSBN and the Government of Ontario while she allowed the repeated bully Hunter, like Marcus to walk away without any form of Progressive Discipline being enforced upon them.
K.33 And let us note that the suspension would have gone on far longer than 12 days, if it were not for the parents confronting Kevin Maddalena about his biased opinions and unprofessional actions of lying and gossiping to the applicant classmates about the applicant’s private matters.
K.34 This is when, and ONLY when the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki and Mary Anne Gage abruptly and strangely now decided they needed to send the applicant an invitation to resume his studies at school. – PART 52 –
K.35 So again we know the DSBN and its culture are racist, as has been established beyond any doubt as the Director of Education himself, Warren Hoshizaki stated this. The only question that remains is, was Jacqueline Ravazzolo’s behavior of racial profiling part of the racist culture? Of course it is!
K.36 Studies have proven that Black students offenses get more attention than offenses that included a Caucasian student. Research has proven Black male students “were more likely to be seen as trouble makers and their misbehavior more severe, than Caucasian counterparts for exactly the same behavior”
K.37 “Researchers led by Yale professor Walter Gilliam showed 135 educators videos of children in a classroom setting. Each video had a black boy and girl, and a white boy and girl. The teachers were told the following:
K.38 We are interested in learning about how teachers detect challenging behavior in the classroom. Sometimes this involves seeing behavior before it becomes problematic. The video segments you are about to view are of preschoolers engaging in various activities. Some clips may or may not contain challenging behaviors. Your job is to press the enter key on the external keypad every time you see a behavior that could become a potential challenge.
K.39 While the teachers were asked to detect “challenging behavior”, no such behavior existed in any of the videos. Yet when asked which children required the most attention, 42% of the teachers identified the black boy.
K.40 The participants conscious appraisal of whom they believed required the most attention closely mirrored the independent results of an eye-tracking technology used by the research team, which noted that preschool teachers “show a tendency to more closely observe black students, and especially boys, when challenging behaviors are expected.”
Read Article: Teachers Implicit Bias Against Black Students Starts In Preschool Study Finds
K.41 A second study followed the same protocol and asked teachers whether they thought the misbehavior was part of a pattern and whether they could imagine themselves suspending the student in the future.
K.42 The researchers randomly assigned names to the files, suggesting in some cases that the student was black (with a name such as DeShawn or Darnell) and in other cases that the student was white (with a name such as Greg or Jake).
K.43 Across both studies, the researchers found that racial stereotypes shaped teachers’ responses not after the first infraction but rather after the second. Teachers felt more troubled by a second infraction they believed was committed by a black student rather than by a white student.
Read Article: Teachers More Likely To Label Black Students As Troublemakers
K.44 It alleges to have uncovered evidence of racial bias among a sample of school principals and assistant principals. African-American middle-school and high-school boys were more likely to be seen as troublemakers, and their misbehavior more severe, than Caucasian counterparts for exactly the same behavior, researchers found.
Read Article: Black Children Are More Likely To Be Disciplined Than White Kids For The Same Behavior
K.45 RACIAL STEREOTYPES – Across both studies, racial stereotypes shaped teachers’ responses not after the first infraction but rather after the second. Teachers felt more troubled by a second infraction they believed was committed by a black student rather than by a white student.
K.46 In fact, the stereotype of black students as troublemakers led teachers to want to discipline black students more harshly than white students after two infractions. They were more likely to see the misbehavior as part of a pattern, and to imagine themselves suspending that student in the future.
Read Article: Teachers More Likely To Label Black Students As Troublemakers Stanford Research Shows
K.47 White principals, in particular, showed signs of discrimination: They were 9 percentage points less likely to respond to emails from a parent whose name suggested they were Black. Their behavior shapes national trends, as nearly four in five public school principals are white.
K.48 Principals — just like teachers, just like everyone else — have the potential to harbor explicit or implicit racial biases that impact how they run their schools said Francis Pearman, a Stanford University professor whose own work has shown a link between bias in a community and test score gaps in schools…
K.49 Recent studies have documented many other kinds of bias against Black students in schools. Black students are suspended for longer periods of time, even when involved in the same incident as white students. Black children are less likely to be referred to gifted and talented programs. They are less likely to receive the same special education services that white students do.
Read Article:Principals Show Bias In Responses To Black Parents New Study Finds
K.50 These numerous articles merely serve to confirm the evidence and conviction that Jacqueline Ravazzolo repeatedly and shamelessly stereotyped and engaged in racial profiling of the applicant while he was a student at Connaught Public School. That she blatantly preferred the Caucasian bullies, Marcus and Hunter over a Black applicant/victim.
K.51 Could anyone honestly believe that the racist and discriminatory acts of someone like Warren Hoshizaki, who worked at the DSBN for almost 20 years and discriminated against and targeted the racialized public, would not eventually have an impact on employees like Jacqueline Ravazzolo, and believe that they then would not start to target racialized students themselves?
K.52 Upon being exposed for her bigotry and racist acts, Jacqueline Ravazzolo opted to hide and allowed Mary Anne Gage to represent and speak for her with an evasive and vaguely worded account of her interactions with the applicant, because she, Jacqueline Ravazzolo was clearly terrified to even discuss the matter with the parents.
K.53 Jacqueline Ravazzolo also tried to avoid being held accountable for her racist and discriminatory behavior by enlisted Kevin Maddalena to help her fabricate a new timeline of events, over a year after the September 27, 2021 incident.
K.54 Similar to Jacqueline Ravazzolo, after Kevin Maddalena made these new claims, he too also declined to speak with the parents about his new and surprising involvement/role in the new September 27, 2021 timeline as he was also clearly terrified to even discuss the matter with the parents.
K.55 At this time Kevin Maddalena, follow the lead of his companion and ally Jacqueline Ravazzolo and also decided to authorize Mary Anne Gage as his legally designated spokesperson while he hid from the parents and their questions.
K.56 At that point Jacqueline Ravazzolo and Kevin Maddalena both attempted to discredit the applicant and portray him as trying to abuse the system by falsely accusing Jacqueline Ravazzolo of racist behavior. Despite both Jacqueline Ravazzolo and Mary Anne Gage stated he had absolutely no reason to be upset with Jacqueline Ravazzolo. – PART 24 –
From: Mary Anne Gage maryanne.gage@dsbn.org
Dated: November 08, 2021
“When asked how the situation can be resolved, your son offered to apologize for his own actions…”
“Ravazzolo also shared with you that your son handled the situation really well…”
K.57 Warren Hoshizaki, Mary Anne Gage, Jacqueline Ravazzolo and Kevin Maddalena were now desperately tried to pit their Caucasian skin tones, professional titles, reputations, social standings and ages against that of a12-year-old Black child/student credibility.
K.58 It is now essentially time for the HRTO to demand an explanation from Jacqueline Ravazzolo regarding her unwillingness to carry out impartial investigations, offer logical solutions that would have benefited the applicant instead of the Caucasian bullies, and—above all—why she asked Kevin Maddalena to flagrantly lie in order to shield his her from a 12-year-old Black child/students claims of racism?
K.59 The DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Mary Anne Gage and Jacqueline Ravazzolo have routinely abused and disobeying the rules and guidelines that the DSBN and the Ontario Government have set for these types of situations. And once more, it appeared to be a convenient means of rewarding bullies who are Caucasian.
K.60 Jacqueline Ravazzolo and the racist, discriminating DSBN culture obviously knew they were wronging the applicant, which is why they made such a strong efforts to conceal, reject and ignore the families concerns about her behavior.
K.61 The DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Mary Anne Gage and Jacqueline Ravazzolo’s treatment of the applicant and his family is obviously against everything that the DSBN and their employee s claim to be against. Like Warren Hoshizaki and Mary Anne Gage, Jacqueline Ravazzolo put a lot of effort into making sure the applicant’s parents concerns were met with skepticism, doubt and silence.
K.62 Jacqueline Ravazzolo must endure financial consequences that will force her to act in compliance with her legal duties and in a fair and unbiased manner when concerns are brought forward about racism being directed at a child/student by a racist DSBN employee(s) or student(s). This also includes herself!
K.63 Jacqueline Ravazzolo was more than happy to remain silent while asking a willing and eager Kevin Maddalena to take the unethical and illegal steps to lie so as to portray a Black child/student as a bitter, vindictive 12-year-old boy as a liar, that during an 8-minute walk home from school. Made the decision to manufacture and start a bogus vendetta against her by piecing together an incredibly intricate and detailed account of what happened using what as she implies must be bogus facts. Despite Jacqueline Ravazzolo never providing any kind of justification or motivation for the 12-year-old Black child/student’s to create such an exceedingly comprehensive and thorough account of what happened.
K.64 Instead Jacqueline Ravazzolo did offer that the applicant “Handling the situation very well” and “When asked how the situation can be resolved, your son offered to apologize for his own actions.”
K.65 It is clear that the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Mary Anne Gage, Jacqueline Ravazzolo and Kevin Maddalena worked in alliance more than once to try and keep the applicant out of school and out of Kevin Maddalena classroom. Making the environment so unbearable and uncomfortable for the applicant that he might rather stay home or transfer to another school.
K.66 Now continuing with the Policy/Program Memorandum 128 – The provincial code of conduct and school board codes of conduct – Safety – in regards to Jacqueline Ravazzolo.
Safety
K.67 – engage in bullying behaviors / engage in hate propaganda and other forms of behavior motivated by hate or bias – Jacqueline Ravazzolo encouraged bullying against the applicant by allowing the Caucasian bullies to walk away without any progressive discipline, it only encouraged their bullying behaviors. And only continued to reinforce that the DSBN talking point against hate propaganda and other forms of bullying behavior were just that, talking point and were not enforceable.
K.68 – inflict or encourage others to inflict bodily harm on another person – Jacqueline Ravazzolo was clearly not concerned about the issue of Marcus suggestion to the applicant to inflict/encourage bodily harm on himself! As she allowed the Caucasian bully Marcus to walk away without any repercussions after telling the applicant he should kill himself because he was worthless!
Principals
K.69 It is clear as vice-principal and later principal Jacqueline Ravazzolo leadership role was that to only protect her reputation, her Caucasian skin tone, professional title, social standing by trying to destroy the credibility of a 12-year-old Black child/student in an act of retaliation for calling out her racist behavior.
- Jacqueline Ravazzolo did not demonstrating care for the school community and a commitment to student achievement and well-being in a safe, inclusive, and accepting learning environment.
- Jacqueline Ravazzolo refused to hold everyone under their authority accountable for their own behavior and actions.
- Jacqueline Ravazzolo only empowering Caucasian bullies to be “positive” leaders in their school and community by allowing them to walk way without any Progressive Discipline.
- And Jacqueline Ravazzolo refused to communicate at all with the parents and instead decided to hide behind Mary Anne Gage when giving a statement because she was clearly terrified to even discuss the matter with the parents
K.70 Teachers and other school staff
K.71 It is clear that Jacqueline Ravazzolo is required to fulfill these certain set of expectations held by the Government of Ontario and the DSBN. And she did not!
K.72 And because of this, it is imperative that Jacqueline Ravazzolo realizes that her deliberate ignorance and discriminatory behavior toward the applicant and his family cannot be justified. That among other things, her prejudiced acts resulted in physical harm, emotional suffering, rage and frustration in the Black child/student and his family.
K.73 Jacqueline Ravazzolo cannot be absolved of her responsibility for her failing to properly and fairly addressing the abuse, neglect and harm that the applicant and his family endured at her doing.
K.74 And from the start like many employees do at the DSBN, as it appears to be unwritten standard policy. Jacqueline Ravazzolo has continued to remand silent and refused to discuss her behavior with the applicants parents. She has been evasive in her limited responses through her legal representation Mary Anne Gage. And has chosen to totally ignore the parents concerns about their son being mistreated and bullied by her and Caucasian students while in the DSBN’s care.
K.75 Jacqueline Ravazzolo must face severe financial penalties from the HRTO that clearly show her and everyone else in the DSBN and its racist culture that these types of intentional acts are unacceptable and will not be allowed in any way against any student who is racialized and their parents.
K.76 The HRTO must send the message that remaining silent in the face of concerns and questions by parents about the wellbeing and safety of their children in the course of interacting with DSBN employees, is unacceptable and goes against the steadfast commitment the DSBN and its employees are constantly encouraging for open communication between the DSBN and parents on their website, updates and emails.
K.77 That parents have a legal right to know who has access to their children. And that a complete and accurate breakdown with honest explanation is given to them where there is a negative interaction between a school employee and their child(ren). That refusing to remain silent and NOT communicating regularly and meaningfully with all members of their school community is not an option!
K.78 And that if a school board and/or employees continue to practice these unsettling behaviors of remaining silent on these types of matters. It will draw a negative inference towards the employees and the school board with the HRTO when making any order. The HRTO must let school boards and their e employees know that silence is not a defense, nor is it a form of protection from being held accountable for inappropriate and racist behavior.