September 02, 2025
What the education system doesn’t want you to find out about their practices of negligence and indignity.
Mom Is Very Involved: Eroding the principle of equal value.
As you read this post, I want you to remember what I mentioned in August: “You can be confident that if there had been any evidence to support this incident, they would have suspended her.” This refers to the situation where a teacher accused my daughter of being physically threatening.
I want you to remember this, as this post shows how far they were willing to go to continue spreading their false narrative about her character.
Introducing the newly appointed VP.
In late September, the new VP initiated an investigation that resulted in a one-day suspension for our daughter, who had engaged in “inappropriate physical contact”.
Stated simply, she punched a male classmate.
While I do not condone fighting, I understand why it sometimes occurs.
The mystery lies in why the VP did not understand, and why he did not also suspend the other student involved.
Inappropriate physical contact.
It was either September 26 or 27, 2021, when our daughter attended the office, upset and asking to speak with someone.
She confessed to the VP that she punched a male student after discovering he had taken a photo of her breasts and shared it with other male students.
The VP initiated an investigation into the allegations.
The investigation.
I have summarized the VP’s notes. The changes I have made are minimal and only to support your understanding, as he used fragmented sentences. His notes are dated September 29, 2021.
Here is the summary:
Our daughter was making a TikTok video with her friend; they were just dancing. She has been the victim of cyberbullying and was being called a slut and whore. Screenshot images of her chest were taken and shown to others, prompting a question about their thoughts. Her mom knows about it. The photos taken are down her shirt. She is mad at the person. The photos were taken as screenshots, zoomed, and then shared. At lunch, while sitting in the cafeteria, she was informed about what had happened. One of the male students involved apologized, while another threatened to retaliate if she reported it. Suspension: 1 day.
Dad called to follow up on the investigation. He is upset because she did the right thing by coming to the office and reporting the incident, and she was the only one punished. I explained that we had no corroborating evidence regarding the sexual imagery. No one else saw it, except for one other student, who expressed that he did not want to be involved in the drama of the situation. Without this student’s willingness to be on the record regarding seeing the image, nothing can be done.
Where to start?
The VP’s actions, better understood as inactions, constitute differential treatment, among other issues.
I believe there is differential treatment because it is clear that all the educators involved have concluded that our daughter has poor character and consistently overlook the environmental and disability-related context of her dysregulation.
Under the Code, differential treatment becomes discrimination when treatment is “based on stereotypes of a presumed group or personal characteristics, or might perpetuate or promote the view that an individual is less capable or worthy of recognition or value as a human being or as a member of Canadian society who is equally deserving of concern, respect, and consideration.”
The next concern relates to the VP’s statement that he could not take any action because the witness did not want to go on record. This is absurd. A person is still considered a witness, even if they do not wish to be one.
The VP’s claim that there is no record of the incident is also puzzling. He created a record by interviewing the witness and documenting their conversation. He also shared his findings with her father. Every aspect of this meets the definition of having a record.
The VP deliberately labeled this incident as drama, ignoring both our daughter’s and the witness’s statements about what happened.
This minimization of our daughter’s sexualization and the redefinition of record-keeping to justify his decision to suspend her are alarming.
It frightens me that he, someone with power and authority, chose to disregard the facts in order to achieve his desired outcome, showing a lack of respect for her personal value.
Let’s pretend.
During the telephone call, the VP informed her dad that both he and the principal had seen messages exchanged between the involved male students. He said these messages did not contain any sexual imagery; they only included close-up images of her face.
It seems that the VP and principal interpreted this to mean that the photos of her breasts were never taken.
Strangely, they didn’t consider the possibility that the pictures might have been deleted or not shared with them.
Let’s pretend they are correct and only her face was photographed.
That scenario can only mean that a male classmate took a photo of her face, photoshopped it to look like her breasts, and then showed it to other students.
That is still wrong.
Definitely worse.
After the suspension, the principal told me that what happened to our daughter was worse than her reaction to it.
Yes, I agree.
My question for the principal is: Why did you allow this to happen?
I would like the principal to know that the Code states, “There is also a clear human rights duty not to condone or further a discriminatory act that has already happened. To do so would extend or continue the life of the initial discriminatory act. This duty extends to people who, while not the main actors, are drawn into a discriminatory situation through contractual relations or in other ways.”
Our daughter’s dignity and value should have been prioritized over the principal’s professional dilemma.
Value
The conversation with the VP ended with her dad stating, “he and family had come to the conclusion that the only people working in the best interest of the kids are parents. Insists that parents are a part of all convos regarding all their kids going forward.”
In response to this request, the VP diligently sought to create opportunities that would inevitably draw us into involvement, even when it wasn’t necessary.
In other words, he rendered our request insignificant, making sure we understood his authority and ability to diminish our merit in their school.
Your ADHD Advocate,