San Rafael Saga: Supporting Principles
San Rafael Elementary School parents have left signs like this one all about the school property. Photo: Doug Forbes
AUGUST 28, 2022
UPDATED: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
Physicists Charles Riborg Mann and George Ransom Twiss posed a hypothetical with which many of us are familiar. “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Mann and Twiss eventually concluded that sound itself does not exist if we do not hear it. With this in mind, perhaps we should also ask ourselves whether principles exist if we do not express them.
What are principles? Are they static? Fluid? Worthy of the weight we attach to them? After all, we deeply flawed humans devised the concept of principles.
With this in mind, it would be pure conjecture if we decided that a public school principal exerted his true principles to a person who surreptitiously recorded him. Or would it? If such a recording never surfaced, Mann and Twiss would argue that the principal’s principles never existed.
All of us make statements or take actions while we think nobody is looking… or recording. But in this Digital Age of “GOTCHA,” are those statements nonetheless our truths when someone does capture them? Are they our principles? Are they fully formed beliefs that we choose to not publicly declare or defend for one reason or another?
And why don’t we declare them and defend them? Why don’t we own them? Because doing so would jeopardize our livelihoods? Because doing so would expose the personas we craft to disguise the actual persons we are?
When someone like Mr. Trump exposes his principles without fear of consequence, he is roundly chastised. Yet, his conviction was praiseworthy for 74 million Americans. And, yes, it was also unpardonable for 81 million others.
When Pasadena’s San Rafael Elementary School principal Rudy Ramirez exposed a sprinkling of his apparent principles to the greater Los Angeles community, amid circumstances unbeknownst to him, he subsequently sowed similar division. If he had done so in a private conversation with himself in front of a bedroom mirror, would regional division exist? The answer is… hmm.
The bottom line here is that the job, if not career, of a popular San Rafael Elementary School principal hangs in the balance following his use of hate speech.
Ramirez used racist and sexist language after Pasadena police emotionally capsized, cuffed and detained his head custodian, all of which was fueled by an unidentified neighbor’s wildly inaccurate 911 call. The neighbor told police dispatch that a 20 or 30-something, tall, female, white suspect with a couple of bags scaled the school fence and “it did not look good.”
The facts are that a 40-sonmething, average-sized, male, Hispanic head custodian keyed into the school to work overtime on a Sunday morning.
Nonetheless, Pasadena Interim City Manager Cynthia Kurtz and Interim Police Chief Jason Clawson wholly supported their police response in an August 18 public statement, four days after the incident.
The same day that Kurtz and Clawson cleared themselves of any nefarious response, Mayor Victor Gordo went a step further.
Gordo issued a public letter in which he word-whipped Ramirez for inflammatory, racist, denigrating comments. Gordo said an apology would not suffice, thereby applying untoward pressure on Superintendent Brian McDonald to exact sweeping action — Ramirez must seemingly go.
A modest clutch of former and current parents agreed with Gordo. They said they had borne witness to Ramirez’s proverbial falling tree. They had previously accused and reported the principal for racist, sexist, otherwise derogatory acts. This new chapter was not news to them.
On the other hand, at least 400 other persons have asserted that Ramirez’s tree is deeply rooted in goodness. They maintained that his momentary lapse was well-grounded, thanks to his Mexican heritage, overflowing historic precedent, an incongruous police response, petty school parents and a torrent of unjust if not astigmatic comments, courtesy of Gordo.
According to a letter from these parents to Gordo, McDonald and the school board, they said, “We understand that a small group of parents is requesting Mr. Ramirez be removed from his position. Doing so would add another layer of tragedy to an already tragic situation.”
Why do these parents believe that a smaller group is less worthy?
For years, I’ve investigated a now high-profile story wherein a relatively small cluster of women claimed they had been raped and otherwise assaulted by a globally known person. That person has an army of people defending him. Does his army make the smaller suite of victims less worthy of our consideration?
Is one child less worthy than 1o? Is one school with 400 students less or more worthy than another with 200 or 600? Is one principal less or more worthy than another?
According to the parents who support Ramirez, maybe so.
The parents said the “dedication and work [Ramirez] has put into the school” has made “it one of the best in Pasadena.” What exactly does “best” mean? And do other principals not afford dedication and work? Yes, Ramirez was principal of the year three years ago. However, that recognition has rotated through myriad district principals year over year.
Without attending the other schools and perhaps simply basing one’s judgment on questionable testing or a handful of social media reviews or anecdotal offerings, how does one quantify how one district school is better than another?
And what about the investment by the teachers — the unsung purveyors of memorable, formative educational experiences? And while the teachers may also want to support Ramirez, they do have mouths to feed and bills to pay.
Invoking the word “best” is not only subjective, it’s also arguably divisive.
The parents’ letter said, “Without him [Ramirez], we know the school will falter.” Again, what does that say about the teachers? How does one know the school will falter? Weighting one person so heavily is quite often a recipe for unwelcome, self-fulfilling prophecy.
Most importantly, while the adults scrap it out with each other, it’s the children who have the most to lose.
I mentioned my investigative reporting related to one person whom millions worshiped. As I began to unearth this person’s egregious acts, the threads began to shed. This person has since resigned under extremely dubious circumstances, including potential felony charges.
Hero worship is precarious business.
By no means does Ramirez even come close to this person’s dereliction. The question is, what happens when we put all of our eggs in one basket and that one basket breaks?
We should listen over and again to the points Ramirez made referencing white people.
And then, all of us should take 100 steps back and determine what would have happened if he himself were white and he had made equally charged statements about non-whites or lesser than whites. Would the same 400 parents write a very different letter or the very same one?
Would the mayor, the police, the security detail, the district and the media react in the same manner?
And what if Ramirez made no mention of race whatsoever but thoroughly excoriated the police instead? Incidentally, Ramirez did not do so.
While hypotheticals are not solutions, they are informative in the way they shape our responses, our biases, our humanity, our ability to hear the falling tree in the thick forest.
We live in a time when adults often dictate by way of dichotomy. Tribalism reigns supreme. Every challenge is diluted into an either-or paradigm. You’re with us or against us. You’re wrong about everything. I’m right about everything and I don’t have time to show you how ignorant you are — you just are.
The truth is, we can and should hold more than one truth at once. We should hold singularities to be suspicious. We, ourselves, are infinite pieces and parts of a greater sum of infinite pieces and parts.
For instance, a summer camp killed my child due to grossly negligent, outrageous circumstances. I hold many beliefs at once. I don’t believe that all camps are that camp. I do believe that camps can afford beneficial experiences. I also believe, however, that we should hold all camps accountable for harm. And, I also believe that camps should be subject to sensible oversight measures that protect our most precious cargo.
More broadly, a beloved, effective leader with a past steeped in oppression can exude racist and sexist intonations. A police officer can effectuate monstrous acts on the job, return home as a loving parent and occasionally crusade for social justice. A mayor whose parents immigrated from a poor, Mexican farm town can unilaterally support police despite a spate of brutality while publicly chastising a Mexican principal for his dubious speech recorded via dubious means.
Why did Gordo say he felt “it’s imperative to address the actions of San Rafael Elementary School Principal Rudy Ramirez” instead of making a broad statement about harmony to quell the unrest?
Gordo said, “It is our collective responsibility to act professionally and work together to resolve issues.” If so, then why did Gordo not work together with anyone other than the police before making this statement? Why did Gordo choose to exclude input from McDonald and other stakeholders before dishing his public excoriation?
Parents whom I spoken with and wo wish to remain unnamed for this article believed that Gordo actually assigned greater value to the opinions of the police than he did to the opinions of the public school district or the very constituents that perhaps voted for him.
In his letter, Gordo said, “On behalf of my constituents, I have a difficult time accepting his [Ramirez’s] apology.” Based upon this statement, Gordo apparently assumed that all of his constituents agreed with him.
Elected officials may forget that they do not exist without a voter majority, not an all-abiding constituency. You can vote for someone and still disagree with plenty of their principles.
The people are Gordo’s boss, not the other way around. After all, a scant 18,ooo people voted for him, a fraction of the eligible voting public. That said, Pasadena has historically struggled with voter indifference.
Gordo said, “As leaders we need to set an example for the students and young persons in our community.” According to many San Rafael parents, however, Gordo did not set the example he requires.
Gordo said, “We should always denounce hate and racism whenever and wherever we encounter it.” It is not certain whether this includes race-induced responses by the Pasadena police well beyond this incident.
Gordo said, “Principal Ramirez made very derogatory racial remarks that were caught on camera.” Yes, they were caught on camera by a private security contractor without two-party consent.
It is possible that the city leveraged covertly acquired video by a private security detail instead of questioning why tthat video was recorded and shared with the police in the first place. It is also possible that releasing the video of Ramirez deflected from the manner by which police responded.
Gordo said, “As a leader, mentor and supervisor, [Ramirez] is held to a higher standard, and should be held accountable for the impact his behavior has caused.” If leaders should be held accountable, we must determine whether police officers, dispatchers, neighbors and city employees are leaders who lodge erroneous reports.
Gordo said, “There is no place in our society for these types of statements, and certainly not in Pasadena.” But is there a place in Pasadena for errant police responses and hyperbolic responses. We have seen this story before. And where it involves a tony neighborhood like the mayor’s or many others scattered throughout the city, divisions among class exist in the same quantity as those of race.
Furthermore, the mayor’s statement did not mention the affects on the custodian, nor the struggles of a progressive public school in the tony, white neighborhood.
Nearly 400 school parents said Gordo’s comments about Ramirez’s comments were a “distraction from the central issue: Did the police racially profile the custodian?” But these parents did not acknowledge that the police responders included two apparent Hispanic officers, one Black officer. Also, the 911 caller said the suspect was white.
Was the custodian racially profiled or were the police merely errant in their handling of the situation? How will we ever know the truth?
The supportive parents accused the city of “lack of nuanced judgment.” Because there were no children present on a Sunday, the parents contend that the mayor’s use of the word “children” was misleading and fear mongering. The mayor did not say the children were at school. However, children do attend school-related activities on weekends.
The parents said the focus has now shifted to Ramirez, “while the Police Department has yet to publicly apologize to our beloved custodian, who feared for his life that day. The focus has shifted from the neighbor who may have made a false statement with bad intentions.”
By making these statements in the manner that they are made, aren’t the parents now fear-mongering by stating the neighbor “may have” been ill-intended? The police did apologize to the custodian — twice. While hearts are understandably broken and emotions run high, details do matter.
These parents also said that Ramirez is “one of the most dedicated and supportive principals who works long hours, knows the families and all children by name, even years after they leave, and stands up for his staff.”
But are other principals not as worthy? Are they not as committed as Ramirez is? How do we know? What should we expect of our principals and their principles? Yes, Ramirez is human and fallible, as we all are. But are all of us making the statements he made? Should all of us start recording each other to keep our thoughts, our principles and, perhaps, our principals in check?
Perhaps we should record the mayor at all times so we can hear his dialoging with police and City Managers. Perhaps we should demand that police keep their body cams on at all times so that we can hear their discussions beyond the moments they respond to dispatches. Perhaps we should demand that California Metro Patrol and its owner Joseph Perez be recorded at all times so we can better understand what would motivate them to record private conversations without consent. Perhaps all parents should be recorded to hear their moments of trial and tribulation.
And perhaps we should record our children at all times too, so their private lives become fodder for public debate. Sadly, social media is readymade for adults to do just that.
Is this who we are and what we want — to watch all of the trees fall in the forest — and hear them too?