Marlon Anderson Was Fired Because of Lazy No-Tolerance Policies [EDITORIAL]

Security guard Marlon Anderson was fired from his job at West High School in Madison earlier this month. Anderson was fired because he used the N-word while he was telling a student to not use or call him this slur.

The school was faced with backlash from students, faculty, Anderson’s family members and the community surrounding the circumstances of his termination. Anderson learned that he will be given his job back, but the problem surrounding zero-tolerance policies and context behind this racial slur remain.

Anderson referred to the zero-tolerance policy as “lazy,” and we believe this is a good way to sum up those policies. Because of policies such as these, unfair terminations and consequences are allowed to take place without looking into the specifics of every situation.

This is why Anderson was more than right to be reinstated. The school initially failed to analyze the situation and understand the context in which the word was used. Not every situation will be black and white, as plenty of gray areas exist. This situation is a perfect example of that.

Historically, the N-word has been used to oppress and humiliate the African American population. It is important for us to understand where this word comes from and how it has been used, but we also believe that people need to understand that the word has changed in recent years, and the context behind how it is used now is not always negative.

Although the word has started to become reclaimed by the African American community, it was completely inappropriate for the student to refer to Mr. Anderson in this way. He is an authority figure in the school, and students need to learn the importance of treating these figures with respect. Mr. Anderson using the word to get it across to the student that he shouldn’t be using it in this context was not inappropriate, but absolutely necessary. The word was not used by Mr. Anderson as a slur to offend or harm, but to educate and stand up for himself.

The qualities of a zero-tolerance policy sound good on paper, and a zero-tolerance policy against racial slurs should seem straightforward. But cases such as this one prove that it’s not always that simple, and we would argue that zero-tolerance policies are flawed and situations should be handled on a case-by-case basis.

In this case, it was right of Marlon Anderson to receive his job back, and he should also receive back pay for the days he was not working. There is no way to undo what the school did and how poorly they handled this situation, but these few steps would be steps in the right direction.

The school put Mr. Anderson in a scary situation. With losing his job, he lost his benefits and health insurance. He was forced to worry about his own health because of his insulin dependency, and the health of his family. The support he received from students, his own children and fellow faculty is further proof that most people can understand that zero-tolerance policies do not always need to be enforced, and in some cases they really shouldn’t be.

Companies should not be so quick to punish, as there will always be cases that demand further looking into. Zero-tolerance policies are lazy and can lead to more harm than good, as demonstrated with Marlon Anderson’s case.

This editorial was based on discussions in a JAMS 504 editorial board.