Wrongful Termination Sparks Needed Zero-Tolerance Policy Overview [EDITORIAL]

As Marlon Anderson prepares to head back to the Madison School District for work, his initial firing should be an example of how the Madison zero-tolerance policy against racial slurs in teaching environments should be considered within the right context. We believe that Anderson should have never been fired for using the ‘N-word’ as a teaching tool to a fellow African American young male student. The students, especially those involved with the Black Student Union, at Madison West High School, rightfully petitioned for Anderson’s job back, demonstrating the power of unity within their school and ethnic community.   

Anderson’s son Noah was one of the leading students to speak out against his firing and how the policy should be changed. Thousands of students, according to Anderson, walked out of class and protested for days until his job was reinstated.  

According to the Madison School District, at least seven employees, which all were white, lost their jobs due to using racial slurs since the zero-tolerance policy took place last year. In Anderson’s case, the slur was used in a teaching context and was used between two persons who belong to the same minority group.

We believe that, although the ‘N-word’ has a negative history, it is important to take demographics into consideration when the word is being used. African-American groups have reclaimed this derogatory word, and although used inappropriately by the student towards Anderson, the exchange was between both men who are African-American. Who is to say that this word, that belongs to this demographic, cannot be used it in teaching references, in order to relate better to provide clarity? 

Zero-tolerance policies make anyone who speaks the word at fault, instead of considering the ways the term can be used. Banning a word altogether does not address the problematic history of it nor does it give into context of situations. This makes zero-tolerance policies counter-intuitive. Zero-tolerance policies do not promote inclusiveness, diverseness and punishes those who use controversial terms among their diverse groups. As Anderson stated, the zero-tolerance policy is lazy.  

During this time, Anderson not only lost wages but also benefits and health insurance over a wrongful firing. Anderson and his family should receive back-pay and be reimbursed any health-related expenses acquired during the time of his firing. As the school board reviews the policy to Anderson’s firing, it should act as a reminder of cultural differences and how institutions should practice equity rather than equality. Schools should strive for equitable policies that cater to diverse backgrounds instead of annexing solutions altogether. Anderson should also be allowed to deliberate with the school board regarding its zero-tolerance policy. Meaningful changes are brought about when people from diverse backgrounds with lived experience, contribute to society. Anderson’s involvement should make him a key voice in the overview of the policy. 

This editorial was based on a discussion by a JAMS 504 editorial board.