No resolution on violence at South Philly

by Helen Gym on Feb 24 2010

It’s hard to look at the findings of the District’s independent investigation into the December 3 violence at South Philadelphia High School without significant shock and outrage. After all, this was an incident in which more than two dozen Asian immigrant students were assaulted throughout the day in multiple attacks, which sent 13 youth to the hospital at a school with a history of violence overall and against Asian immigrant students in particular.

Yet nearly three months after the Dec. 3 violence, we have a report that – while providing some insight – mostly sets us right back where we were before: with glaring discrepancies between accounts of student victims and witnesses and findings that appear to absolve the District of any accountability. The investigation was based on interviews with only a fraction of student victims and witnesses and contains innuendos and reliance on rumors that serve only to distract from the main question: could the school/District have done anything differently to avoid or minimize the attacks?

A Frightening Analysis

The report confirms in detail widespread violence on Dec. 3, violence that began first thing in the morning and was well known to school administration.

Before 9 a.m. a student was attacked in a classroom. (Prior testimony indicated that more than a dozen students had rushed into a classroom as part of an attack on an Asian student and had, among other things, thrown a desk on top of him). By mid-morning there was a “surge” of 30-40 students whose “probable . . . intent was not benevolent” into a hallway while school staff frantically moved Asian students into classrooms. Security footage documented a “wave of 60-70 students” in the lunchroom hallway “surging forward” toward an attack on a small group of Asian students. School police detained three to five students who had dragged an Asian girl down the stairwell by her hair. After school, about a dozen Asian students were attacked by 20-40 students with more than 100 onlookers surrounding them.

And yet, at no point does the report question the actions of school officials. Officials escorted students to the lunchroom, ignoring the students' expressed fears of going there and where they were subsequently attacked. The officials escorted them outside where large crowds had gathered, again ignoring students' expressed fears of leaving the school -- and despite the fact that school officials “had the sense that the crowds on Broad Street were not only larger than normal, but were not dispersing quickly."

It doesn’t question why the principal would send home a letter to families the next day making no mention of the repeated in-school assaults and instead characterizing the violence as simply: “As you may have heard in the news, an incident occurred at dismissal, outside of South Philadelphia High School on Thursday, December 3, 2009.”

Nor does it ask why District officials continued to mischaracterize the events of the day in public statements; Regional Superintendent Michael Silverman referred to the December 3rd violence as a “blip”  and School Safety Chief James Golden said there was only a “minor incident” with no injuries. 

Perhaps more surprising, the report indicates that the accusation that Asian students had attacked a "crippled/disabled" African American student the day before was based on hearsay. Judge Giles could not confirm whether the African American student was a victim or was a part of an attack on Asian students that left one Asian student "unconscious." Superintedent Arlene Ackerman made this explosive allegation in her first remarks. The allegation heightened racial tension, fueled suspicion and was widely interpreted as justification for the Dec. 3 violence.

Instead, the report essentially absolves the District and school leadership of any responsibility. In fact, the report seems to imply that if we were to revisit that day on Dec. 3, the administration of SPHS could have made the exact same choices.

When pressed on why his findings didn’t address school responsibility, Judge James Giles said he didn’t believe in “Monday-morning quarter-backing.”  Let's be clear: This was an incident which garnered national and international expressions of concern, where more than a dozen students were sent to the emergency room, and which sparked a boycott by more than 50 Asian students who feared for their safety after more than a year of relentless harassment. You darn well do Monday-morning quarterbacking, slow motion replay, and every possible investigation and review to see how things could and should have turned out differently. Any suggestion otherwise is a frightening analysis.

At best, an inadequate investigation

There are many areas where the report falls short :

• No review of the history of violence at SPHS
  For more than a year, students and community advocates documented dozens of incidents of harassment and assaults on Asian immigrant students at the school. Yet, Judge Giles said he was directed to limit his investigation to only two days, Dec. 2 and Dec. 3. Only three sentences in the report reference prior violence at the school. The investigation also ignored documented efforts by students and community advocates to implement critical changes to address racially motivated violence at the school.

• Limited interviews
  The investigation only involved a fraction of the student victims and neglected the majority of victims, as well as other witnesses, school staff and community advocates who were at the scene on Dec. 3. In a number of instances, those individuals who were interviewed expressed concern that they were denied a chance to tell their full stories and were cut off when they attempted to do so.

• Limited attention to racial bias
  While the investigation acknowledged the role of race in the assaults and harassment against Asian immigrant students, it does not recognize racial bias in the failure of the District to respond to that harassment and communicate with families and students. In particular, it does not note how the on-going harassment of Asian immigrant students and the school’s failure to respond creates a hostile climate for Asian immigrant youth at South Philly.

• Innuendos and rumors as deflection
  I was particularly troubled by the use of innuendo and rumor to suggest that the events of Dec. 3rd may have been gang-related. Two pages are devoted to references to gang activity despite the fact that no credible evidence was presented other than the suggestion that group activity is "reminiscent of a street gang conflict." In any investigation, it’s essential that innuendos, gossip, and rumors be addressed and put to rest. It's troubling that a stereotype of urban youth is so casually deployed in this report to deflect attention away from school accountability.

Without a full understanding of the problems and mistakes made at the school, it’s not surprising the recommendations in the report are mostly punitive to students, don’t address harassment or racial bias, don't address staff and administration missteps, and are at times petty (no hoodies, for example). The recommendations don’t address how to build a positive school environment or work with school staff and students to address the climate and interpersonal dynamics of the school.

Selective outrage and “moving forward”

Finally, there is the selective outrage of Superintendent Arlene Ackerman who railed against the mob violence on Center City residents less than a week ago.  Yesterday, upon the release of the report, the Superintendent was all too eager to acccept the findings and the recommendations of the investigation as a way to close the chapter on Dec. 3. She declared:

No one would like to move forward more than the students, families, and advocates who have been addressing the violence and failures at South Philadelphia High School for more than a year. Unfortunately, a report like this is further proof why the District continues to repeat the mistakes of its past.