“The Words Mentioned”
Discussion: Christopher McInnis Email – October 26, 2021
23.1 Let’s talk about the claim made by the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Christopher McInnis and Jacqueline Ravazzolo who stated, “The words you mentioned in your email material were never expressed to Mrs. Ravazzolo during the investigation.”
23.2 As previously indicated in their purposefully ambiguous response, which was carefully thought out and aimed to avoid pinning Jacqueline Ravazzolo down to any exact explanation of what transpired between her and the applicant.
23.3 The wording of the response from the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Christopher McInnis and Jacqueline Ravazzolo leaves it open-ended so that they can subsequently edit it and add or remove memories of events or remarks as necessary.
23.4 The parent’s email which asks for details on the applicant’s interactions with Jacqueline Ravazzolo contains more than 2,500 words. However, the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Christopher McInnis and Jacqueline Ravazzolo purposefully chose not to provide any information on the “words” that “were never mentioned” by their son in the parent’s email.
23.5 Keep in mind that it took 20 days for the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Christopher McInnis and Jacqueline Ravazzolo to formulate this imprecise response to the parents request for more information. Why was it so long?
23.6 Was it possible that the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Christopher McInnis and Jacqueline Ravazzolo all hoped the parents would walk away and forget about everything? Giving them time to attempt to come up with a best case scenario response in the event that families opted to take their issue further. Purposefully using this standard stall and delay tactic that is used by many Ontario schools.
23.7 It is clear from their statements that a 12-year-old Black child/student is being accused of lying by the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Christopher McInnis and Jacqueline Ravazzolo. They are expressing openly but also subtly inferring that the applicant’s account of the events “were never expressed” and as a result of the applicant’s unwillingness to be forthcoming and transparent about what actually happened between him and Jacqueline Ravazzolo.
23.8 The DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Christopher McInnis and Jacqueline Ravazzolo are grown adults are attempting to throw a 12-year-old Black child/student under the bus in an attempt to protect Jacqueline Ravazzolo and her career from her own racist actions.
23.9 Let’s carefully consider the relationship between a 12-year-old Black child/student and a grown adult Jacqueline Ravazzolo.
- (1) The 12-year-old Black child/student and the vice principal, Jacqueline Ravazzolo at the time of this racist interaction, had never met or spoken before. They have never previously engaged in any sort of interaction.
- (2) Because the applicant is only 12 year old child/student and didn’t understand what Anti-Black Racism was or that Jacqueline Ravazzolo was using it against him. The child/student had no motivation to fabricate this racist account of events against her.
- (3) It wasn’t until the applicant got home and explained to his parents what Jacqueline Ravazzolo did that it became clear that the Caucasian female had handled the situation and their Black child in a very biased manner that didn’t favor their child and certainly supported the Caucasian bully Marcus behavior.
- (4) Jacqueline Ravazzolo seems to be implying that during the 12-year-old Black child/students 8-minute walk home from school. He took 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 never providing any kind of justification or motivation for the 12-year-old Black child/student’s exceedingly comprehensive and thorough account of what happened.
23.10 There is absolutely no motivation for the 12-year-old applicant to fabricate this account of what happened and then tell his parents a lie.
23.11 The DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Christopher McInnis and Jacqueline Ravazzolo are challenged to attempt and explain why a 12-year-old child/student would suddenly decide to randomly weave this sophisticated web of lies onto a total stranger and what he gains from it?
23.12 The DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Christopher McInnis and Jacqueline Ravazzolo want everyone to believe;
- that a Black 12-year-old child/student began plotting racist lies against Jacqueline Ravazzolo on his way home from school,
- he swore vengeance upon Jacqueline Ravazzolo despite the fact that he had never met or talked to her before that day,
- despite him willfully and voluntarily “offered to apologize for his own actions” to his Caucasian bully Marcus after being told “You are worthless” and “You should kill yourself,”
23.13 What does sound far more realistic and true is that;
- Jacqueline Ravazzolo acted inappropriately and racist towards a Black 12-year-old child/student.
- Jacqueline Ravazzolo favored a Caucasian bully student named Marcus.
- FACT – Jacqueline Ravazzolo guilted a Black 12-year-old child/student into apologizing to Marcus, a smiling Caucasian bully.
- FACT – Why Jacqueline Ravazzolo never forced Marcus, the smiling Caucasian bully, to apologize to the Black 12-year-old child/student for his racist, nasty, and hurtful “You are worthless” and “You should kill yourself” words against him.
- FACT – Jacqueline Ravazzolo questioned and grilled a Black 12-year-old child/student in an open hallway, in full view of students and DSBN staff passing by, while the same Caucasian Bully called Marcus had the privacy and quiet of her office.
- FACT – To safeguard her image and career with the DSBN. In an email from the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Christopher McInnis and Jacqueline Ravazzolo essentially labelled the Black 12-year-old child/student a liar, saying, “The comments (said by the applicant) that you described in your email were never expressed to Ravazzolo during the investigation.”
- FACT – Jacqueline Ravazzolo provides the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Christopher McInnis with a very convenient and limited recollection of events in order to avoid being tied down to any particular timeline of what was said and done during her interactions with the Black 12-year-old child/student.
- FACT – The applicant only apologized to his racist bully Marcus because he did not want Jacqueline Ravazzolo to think he was the bad kid.
23.14 Reviewing the facts to this point, does the applicant, a Black 12-year-old child/student sound more like he was concerned with get vengeance or a child/student who was more concerned with being accepted and liked by his peer Jacqueline Ravazzolo?
23.16 Is the applicant’s honest recollection of Jacqueline Ravazzolo’s behavior so bizarre, outlandish and suspicious that it cannot be true?
23.17 Is it so difficult to assume that Jacqueline Ravazzolo would prefer the Caucasian Marcus over the Black applicant? Consider her clear facts and her behavior during her “investigation.”
- FACT – Jacqueline Ravazzolo DECIDED NOT TO USE THE CLASS INTERCOM system to ask the teacher Kevin Maddalena to please send the apllicant down to her office.
- FACT – Instead Jacqueline Ravazzolo thought it was better to show up at the applicant’s classroom and bring him out into in the open common hallway.
- FACT – The applicant got up and walked out to the hallway with Mrs. Ravazzolo with Kevin Maddalena following behind.
- FACT – When the applicant, Jacqueline Ravazzolo and Kevin Maddalena made it into the hallway. Kevin Maddalena stated “When your done E* you can come back in” and then Kevin Maddalena returned to his class.
- FACT – Jacqueline Ravazzolo interrogated a Black 12-year-old child/student in an open school hallway, in front of students and DSBN staff as they passed by, giving the passerbyes the impression that the Black child/student had to have done something so wrong in his classroom that the situation had to be escalated to the point where the vice principal had to intervene and remove the Black child/student from his class to be disciplined/warned.
- FACT – Jacqueline Ravazzolo granted the Caucasian bully Marcus the privilege of a secluded and quiet environment in her office to explain his side events.
- FACT – Jacqueline Ravazzolo did not even honored the Black 12 year old child/ student’s rights to diginity when she escorted him to her office, after guilting him into an apology to his repeated Caucasian and smiling bully Marcus.
- FACT – As the application was guilted into apologizing to his bully Marcus. He had to apologize in an open area of the office where everyone in the office, including the secretary and a random female individual could hear the applicant apologize.
- FACT – Jacqueline Ravazzolo could not be bothered to allow the applicant enter the spare room and close the door for privacy. Instead, he was humiliated in front of office personnel and a stranger female who was waiting in the office.
- FACT – Jacqueline Ravazzolo never forced Marcus, the smiling Caucasian bully to apologize to the Black 12-year-old child/student for his nasty and hurtful “You are useless” and “You should kill yourself” statements directed at him.
- FACT – Jacqueline Ravazzolo never instructed the Caucasian bully Marcus to stop smiling while the applicant apologized, which was there because he was happy to know that he had just succeeded in getting away with his behavior toward the applicant.
- FACT – Jacqueline Ravazzolo abandoned, if any, efforts to impose any form of discipline or correctional behavior on Marcus for his racist, hateful, and hurtful statements of “You are worthless” and “You should kill yourself” against a Black 12-year-old child/student because he suddenly, unexpectedly and conveniently transferred to a new school.
23.18 These facts are unarguable and it is apparent that Jacqueline Ravazzolo was not concerned with how the applicant felt about what transpired, nor did she care about understanding the repercussions of her and Marcus discriminatory behavior could have impacted applicant.
23.19 Does anyone not see how irrational a 12-year-old child/student would have to be to plan this complex job-ending assassination of a vice principal? Is it really possible that the applicant was so furious with Jacqueline Ravazzolo — who as she said, willfully and voluntarily on his own “offered to apologize for his own actions.”
23.20 Why would the applicant possibly be so upset with Jacqueline Ravazzolo if he willfully and voluntarily on his own “offered to apologize for his own actions?” After all, he voluntarily made an apology and he was not required to. The applicant “offered” to apologize, as Jacqueline Ravazzolo suggests. And as a result of it now a 12-year-old child/student began randomly hatching plans to harm Jacqueline Ravazzolo career?
23.21 The applicant was upset with the Caucasian bully Marcus and not Jacqueline Ravazzolo, the vice principal, who he had just met and who appeared to be cooperating with him according to her own words.
23.22 You see, nothing that Jacqueline Ravazzolo claimed in her lies makes ANY logic or sense. According to Jacqueline Ravazzolo the applicant had to be so irate about something (apologizing?) that he brought about this whole extremely well planned controversy regarding her racist actions, that he had no understanding was racist at the time.
23.23 Because, in Jacqueline Ravazzolo’s own account of the events, absolutely nothing that happened would suggest for ANY REASON the applicant would be mad at her, much less so enraged and irate that he planned a complex scheme to ruin Jacqueline Ravazzolo’s reputation and career in the course of his eight-minute walk home.