Abstract
The following case portrays administrator, faculty, and student responses to a race-related incident that occurred in a predominantly White, wealthy, suburban high school. Reports of the story took off in news outlets and on social media; but the events did not end there. The scenario underscores the challenges involved in school and district leadership during emotionally intense, divisive periods of heightened public scrutiny about racism. Questions and case analyses challenge readers to identify opportunities for social justice leadership in response to racism and in the face of pressure to minimize events and consequences. Teaching notes are also included to assist readers in unpacking how to model social justice leadership in the face of complex and competing stakeholder perspectives.
Case Narrative
Racist speech and harassment in schools are not uncommon. Although a lived reality for many students of color, these incidents are often viewed by educators and leaders as anomalies (Khalifa, Jennings, Briscoe, Oleszweski, & Abdi, 2014). Because of these differences in experience and perception, educational leaders—who are overwhelmingly White in the United States—are often caught off-guard when complaints of racism surface (Bonilla-Silva, 2006; Lewis, 2001; Sun, Ishmael, & Gooden, 2014).
Mountain High, the school in this case, was no different (all names are pseudonyms to protect vulnerable individuals). Mountain High was well respected, with one of the highest Advanced Placement exam pass rates in the nation and above-average graduation rates. The school served a suburban community that prided itself on being socially mobile and highly educated. There were approximately 2,500 students in Grades 10 to 12. Students were predominantly White (93% of the student body) and middle- to upper-middle class. Among more than 100 teachers in the school, there was one teacher of color; all five administrators were White men. The local culture was dominated by a conservative religion with significant financial, political, and ideological influence.
How school leaders responded to racism at Mountain High illustrates the politics of disparate stakeholder perspectives. In addition to heightened emotions from the sensitive nature of the incident, racial conflict presented educational leaders with complex problems without clear solutions.
An Incident at Mountain High
The Spirit Assembly was an annual highlight for Mountain High students. One Friday each spring, the event pitted grade levels against each other in various competitions. Traditionally, each grade wore a different school color: red, white, or black. Because the assembly was loud and wild, most teachers stayed in their classrooms while it occurred. Ms. Cannon, an English teacher at Mountain High, had recently completed an administrative internship at the school (in addition to her classroom teaching) and was looking forward to a break from those extra responsibilities. Still, she felt obligated to make an appearance at the assembly before sneaking back to her classroom. When the festivities ended, sophomores, mostly dressed in red, filed into Ms. Cannon’s classroom, still chattering.
Unbeknownst to Ms. Cannon, during the assembly a White male student, dressed in white like other juniors, had worn a white pillowcase over his head. With holes cut out for eyes, the pillowcase resembled Ku Klux Klan hoods. The student, later identified as Mike, gesticulated at others with Nazi-inspired salutes. Louis, a biracial Black student, was a target of this taunting. Although several adults were present in the assembly, it was unclear whether any of them had noticed Mike; no one intervened to remove the hood or interrupt him.
After the assembly, Louis reported the incident to the school principal, Mr. Walls. After Louis left the office, Mr. Walls suspended Mike for the rest of the day, but never followed up with Louis or publicly addressed the situation with faculty or students. Thus, that night, Louis, unaware of the suspension, wrote a frustrated blog post about his experience and his school’s apparent apathy. He sent his blog to news outlets and to school district administration.
Few teachers, including Ms. Cannon, knew anything had happened. That changed once local media outlets picked up Louis’ blog. Headlines such as “Racist Incident at Mountain High” and “Mountain High Student Calls KKK Prank Racist” ran in local newspapers and on television. When teachers and students returned to school on Monday morning, the halls were abuzz with talk of the incident.
Due to Ms. Cannon’s former role as an administrative intern, several teachers approached her hoping for inside information from school leadership. Unfortunately, she felt as lost as everyone else. Mr. Walls had never been a great communicator. He saw himself as a benevolent leader and generally avoided conflict. Still, Ms. Cannon was surprised he had not sent a faculty email or made an announcement, as he had done with disruptive behavior in the past. Ms. Cannon went to Mr. Walls’ office to further inquire about the incident. He evaded the topic, insisting it was against school policy to discuss student discipline.
The next day, media coverage intensified and was spreading nationally. Reporters camped out in front of the school, asking students questions as they entered and exited the building. Tensions and rumors worsened when a text message spread among students containing a photo of a Klansman in full garb saluting a burning cross above the caption “Mountain High Pride.” The students responsible for the text were speedily apprehended and suspended for several weeks. Ms. Cannon asked Mr. Walls why these students had received more severe punishments than Mike, the student who had worn the hood. The principal replied that Mike had not realized the significance of his actions, whereas those sending the texts “should have known better.”
As the controversy continued at Mountain High, things heated up online. Anonymous comments on Louis’ blog became increasingly hostile, including threats on Louis’ life and liberal use of racial epithets. The n-word was repeatedly used in angry posts on an unauthorized Facebook page for Mountain High. These comments also exposed an underground White supremacist organization in the community. School administrators did not pursue these online issues.
District Response
It became evident Mr. Walls was trying to ignore the incident and media presence as if nothing was out of the ordinary. Many teachers approved of his handling of Mike’s behavior and of the text messages. Thus, when district administration got involved, many teachers angrily criticized district leaders and media reports for “blowing things out of proportion.”
As soon as district leaders received Louis’ email directing them to his blog, the superintendent, Dr. Marshall, took action. Although Dr. Marshall was White and a member of the community’s dominant culture and religion, he identified as an advocate for social justice due to his previous career as a civil rights attorney. He launched an investigation into the incident between Mike and Louis.
Ten days after the Spirit Bowl assembly, teachers received an email informing them of a mandatory faculty meeting wherein Dr. Marshall would discuss the district’s investigation. Ms. Cannon arrived for the meeting 5 min before the scheduled time. Uncharacteristically, the room was already packed. The tense atmosphere buzzed with nervous murmurs until the superintendent entered, trailed by several members of his cabinet.
With a glance around the room, Dr. Marshall began, “As of this morning, Mr. Walls has been placed on paid administrative leave.” A collective gasp arose. Dr. Marshall continued,
Our investigation has revealed a history of ignored racial incidents at Mountain High, and I won’t stand for it. Racial discrimination is something I’ve fought against my entire career. I won’t allow it at any school in my district. I won’t be satisfied until I have removed it root and branch from this school.
He recounted several examples that community members and parents had shared with district leaders since Louis’ story had broken. From these reports, Dr. Marshall had concluded that the racialized hazing at the Spirit Assembly was not an isolated incident. He pointed to longstanding inadequate responses from Mr. Walls. Sure enough, newspapers began reporting additional harassment complaints involving Mountain High that had gone unresolved.
Subsequently, Ms. Cannon was informed that district leaders wanted to visit every class to speak to students, and would be coming to hers soon. The next morning, Dr. Marshall walked into Ms. Cannon’s classroom and addressed the students. He explained that Mr. Walls had been placed on leave, and that prejudice in any form was wrong and unacceptable. He stated that he would not ignore reports of discrimination. Students argued that Mike’s hood at the Spirit Assembly had been a joke and that no harm had been intended. Some students wept, claiming the superintendent was publicly humiliating them by making them “look like racists” on the news. Parents were also incensed by “unnecessary” disruptions they felt Dr. Marshall had caused by placing the principal on leave.
Expressing feelings similar to students’ and parents’, most teachers at Mountain High complained behind closed doors, despite being outwardly compliant. Ms. Cannon was openly supportive of Dr. Marshall, which cost her the friendship of several colleagues. Many teachers had enjoyed working for Mr. Walls and felt he should not have been placed on leave for mishandling what they insisted was a single overblown incident. Rather than address this resistance, Dr. Marshall retreated to district offices, ceasing communication as media reports became more critical of his decisions.
After another week, things settled down at Mountain High. District officials who had been overseeing the school left the building, as did news reporters. Mr. Walls ended the district’s investigation by retiring. A well-liked, retired principal replaced him for the remainder of the school year. No one ever addressed the incident again with Mountain High students, nor were concerns of broader discrimination ever discussed.
At the end of the year, the district contracted a national civil rights organization to offer voluntary sensitivity training to district employees. Fewer than 30 individuals attended, including just seven from Mountain High. The district left findings from their investigation unaddressed; they did not develop policies regarding school-related text messages or social media activity. The following fall, a young Latino man replaced Mr. Walls as principal. Mountain High returned to business as usual.
Discussion
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 9% of all reported, racially motivated hate crimes in 2012 occurred on school or college campuses (FBI, 2012). Yet K-12 school leaders have struggled to respond quickly and comprehensively to campus “hate crimes” (see Basu, 2015; Huffington Post, 2013; Moore, 2013; Sun et al., 2014; Xia, 2013), many of which go unreported to federal authorities (Wilson, 2014). One dimension of this struggle is a lack of consistency in leadership awareness and preparation. It is unlikely that leaders across Mountain High and the district knew about or accessed myriad resources that exist to support them through responding to racism (e.g., Campbell, 2015; Goldberg, 2001; Gooden & Dantley, 2012; Horsford, 2014; Horsford, Grosland, & Gunn, 2011; Vilson, 2012; Willoughby, 2012).
In addition to leaders’ knowledge base, educators within the same organization may have competing interpretations of and approaches to racial conflict, as evident at Mountain High. These tensions in beliefs relate to how systems of Whiteness, racial histories in the United States, and desires to defend individual morality cause strong defensive reactions to racism accusations (Applebaum, 2010; Dickar, 2008; Leonardo & Porter, 2010; Lin, 2007; Pollock, 2004; Vaught, 2011). White educators often de-racialize or deny issues of systemic racism (Yoon, 2012; Bonilla-Silva, 2006; Buehler, 2012; Pollock, 2004; Thompson, 2003; Young, 2011). Therefore, another challenge of responding to racial conflict is that educational leaders may have to convince colleagues and community members that racism even exists (Ambrosio, 2013; Harris, 1993; Lewis, 2001).
Conclusion
This case provides a much-needed example of leadership during racial conflict, allowing school leaders and students to analyze these issues with the benefit of hindsight (Fossey & Crow, 2011). In particular, this case illustrates varied perceptions that impede a shared understanding of racism and its significance for a school community. Powerful White discourses of intention and innocence resulted in the community’s criticism of leaders attempting to enact social justice. Dr. Marshall’s decision to directly confront racism resulted in pushback that led him to withdraw from communications. School leaders need tools and networks to develop and sustain social justice vision during crisis (Santamaria & Santamaria, 2012).
These nuances highlight the need for leadership preparation programs where students can develop and practice strategies to implement social justice principles and practices, including critical self-reflection and communication. Traditional leadership theory is inadequate for addressing complex social, historical, and personal challenges of conflict resulting from discrimination and disparate perspectives. Applied critical leadership, Critical Race Theory, and theories of “othering” in social context address the structural and sometimes invisible factors that might influence leadership decisions during racial conflict (Borrero, Yeh, Cruz, & Suda, 2012; Parker & Villalpando, 2007; Santamaria & Santamaria, 2012). These critical perspectives provide guiding principles for leadership practices that respond to, and might proactively prevent, incidents like the one at Mountain High.
Teaching Notes
The case above underscores challenges involved in levels of leadership decision-making during emotionally intense periods of heightened public scrutiny. These teaching notes challenge readers to unpack how to model social justice leadership in the face of tremendous counter-pressure.
Activities
The following activities are intended to prompt reflection, dialogue, and modeling of skills and actions that leaders may need when responding to racial conflict in schools.
Explore how to build a strong school climate by providing learning opportunities to increase awareness of racism.
Role-play an administrator’s interactions following the assembly. Model how you would talk to teachers; Mike, the student who wore the hood; Louis, the target of racial harassment and blogger; a parent coming forward about her child’s previous experiences with racism at school; or students in classes after the principal is placed on leave.
Identify ways to conduct a field activity—such as an equity audit (Skrla, McKenzie, & Scheurich, 2009)—with students, parents, and teachers to identify underlying social justice issues in your school and community. Discuss strategies to use audit results to address and remedy underlying issues.
Create a follow-up plan for implementing long-term change at Mountain High. Include leadership selection and placement for the school; how to conduct training district-wide; and other human resources and policy options to ensure effective, long-lasting change.
Discussion Questions
The following questions should be used to further consider aspects of the case above.
In a school like Mountain High, with high levels of academic achievement and a positive perception in the community it serves, it may be difficult to disrupt the status quo to address issues of social justice. How would a critical leader begin conversations about social justice? What kind of preparation would a leader need to do so?
In the heat of the Mountain High investigation, the individual experiences of Mike and Louis faded into the background. Louis, in particular, became a target online. What do you imagine it was like for Louis or Mike to continue attending Mountain High during and after the turmoil?
Critical Race Theory claims that history matters in the construction of race and racialized meaning, rejecting ahistoricism. How did the historical and social context of Mountain High seem to impact the decision-making of school leaders?
Dr. Marshall took action in the name of social justice and was perceived negatively by many stakeholders. When and how should leaders move ahead with what they are convinced is right, even if their decisions are not supported by teachers and community stakeholders? What could school or district leaders have done differently at Mountain High to build support against social injustice within their community?
At the end of the school year, only seven Mountain High teachers attended the sensitivity training. When school began the following year, Mountain High returned to business as usual with a new principal. How could a critical leader negotiate a sustained transformation for social justice?
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.