Re: Guest Editorial of February 17, 2010

 A change of attitude is definitely in order regarding the guest commentary of Lafe Tolliver about the lawsuit of Johnnye Warnsley vs. TPS claiming racial discrimination. It is inflammatory and untrue.

Here is my perspective:

A review committee was created to make a decision on which candidate was to be hired. It was composed of teachers, a union steward, a student, a representative of the community (me) and a lawyer who oversaw the proceedings to ensure all prepared questions were asked of each candidate in the same way, that there was no discussion among the committee and that all paperwork was returned to the school after the vote took place.

The candidates had appropriate education credentials and offered varying responses to the questions – yes, they knew the complexities of the position and, yes, they could do the job. The compelling difference, in my opinion, was ATTITUDE! The candidate who was hired wanted to do the job! Her presentation was clear with good eye contact and included handouts outlining her goals and the plans to reach them. She created optimism for me and the body language of other members gave me the sense they shared my feelings. She was outstanding.

As a resident by choice of the Scott district for most of my life, I approached this task with an open mind and made a decision that I continue to feel was the best. The characterization of racism is inappropriate and not the truth.

Sincerely, 

Carol Dunn

Lafe Tolliver
Thursday, March 04, 2010
11:15 AM

Ms. Dunn: You obviously have a very vivid imagination when you read. No where in my February guest opinion did I state that racism was the reason for the treatment of Ms. Warnsley. I think that you are just under conviction due to the fact that is was...but I did not so state. Re-read my article without your rose colored glasses on and e mail when you can underline my stating that she was a victim of racial discrimination. Why you would play the race card is beyond me. By the way, the board settled the case. I wonder why they would settle such a case if there was nothing to it? Hmmmm. Just wondering out loud why Ms. Dunn is in such a snit about this issue. Could it be that Ms. Dunn is under conviction as to the shabby treatment of Ms. Warnsley. Just wondering. By the way Ms. Dunn, the fact that you had such an august committee does not negate the fact that discrimination (I did not say race) can occur or did occur.Note: there are discriminations besides the use of race. If you felt so strongly against Ms. Warnsley, you should have told the school board and their legal counsel to fight her case to the death...but you apparently did not and the powers that be, folded their table and paid her. Note: you do not pay on dubious or incredible claims. For the record Ms. Dunn...the lack of eye contact and handouts do not doom an applicant. You can do better than that. As a resident of the Scott district, I commend you for your involvement. Lastly, the fact that Ms. Warnsley applied for the job, to you, indicated that she did not want the job? Odd logic but you are entitled to it. I guess Ms. Warnsley was just going through the motions for the job and you defaulted to body language shown from the other members to make your decision as to her sincerity and interest. Interesting.

Copyright © 2010 by [The Sojourner's Truth]. All rights reserved.
Revised: 07/20/10 18:24:57 -0700.

More Articles....

Unheeded Cautions

AKA’s Celebrate Founders’ Day – 102 Years of Service

Second Annual Minority Business Enterprise Electrical Summit
 

Back to Home Page