Meet Alexis Dawson: Toronto District School Board trustee and recent Code of Conduct violator in the curious case of the keffiyeh fundraiser complaint.
Is she a danger to Toronto's Jewish community?
Let me introduce you to my former school trustee, Alexis Dawson. In 2022, she ran for Toronto District School Board trustee in Ward 9 and won the seat. At the time, she wrote, “I know parents/guardians are burnt out, and are relying on the public school system.” Was she going to help them be a little less burnt out by doing a great job of representing all parents and guardians with children in TDSB schools in her ward? If so, she has failed the Jewish community.
The Rawlinson affair
Last summer, several Jewish families at my daughter’s former elementary school, Rawlinson Community School, met with the school principal to discuss why so little attention had been given to antisemitic incidents at the school, even though ample attention was directed towards other forms of prejudice and discrimination. Realizing the need for antisemitism education at the school, one of the parents secured a TDSB Innovation Grant to provide two antisemitism workshops for parents. The suggested provider, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies, is a TDSB partner and, unsurprisingly, elicited no objection from any TDSB staff.
As Gili Zemer, the parent who secured the TDSB funding, and I wrote about here, a small group of noisy parents tried to scuttle the events, claiming that FSWC was an inappropriate provider. As we subsequently learned from the Executive Superintendent, Jack Nigro, the school administrators found no substance to the claims of the cancel-hungry parents who detested FSWC simply because it is a Zionist organization. That’s right. FSWC doesn’t think Israel should be destroyed to free Palestine. Go figure.
Of course, the small anti-Zionist crew that had gone into full mobilization, haranguing the parent council co-chairs (who eventually both resigned), the principal, the superintendent, and yes, Alexis Dawson, our school trustee, could not demand that antisemitism education be cancelled since that would look, well, antisemitic, and that isn’t a good look even in this day and age. So, a change of service providers would have to suffice. This seemed like a reasonable enough idea to Trustee Dawson and to the superintendent, Erin Altosaar, who has since been reassigned to a new post. After all, why go with a longstanding TDSB partner who has a stellar reputation in the province and the country when you could get a provider that would make less than a dozen committed anti-Zionists happy? Trustee Dawson believed that would be a win-win solution.
Unimpressed with the verdict, the mainstream Jewish community at Rawlinson wrote a letter to the principal, the superintendent, and, yes, to Trustee Dawson too. The letter was signed by 102 parents and guardians and requested that the workshops proceed with FSWC as planned. One-hundred-plus signatories—that’s an order of magnitude greater than the number of parents who wanted to scuttle the planned workshops. The letter was delivered a few days before the first workshop was scheduled to occur. For the parents who worked hard on a response and who were feeling burnt out and dejected, the lack of response from Trustee Dawson and the superintendent was a slap in the face. They left us hanging and it was only thanks to our principal who dared to say, screw it, we’re going ahead with it, that the workshop went ahead.
After the first workshop, a small group of Jewish parents, including Gili and me, who had worked hard on the letter, met with Trustee Dawson on March 28, 2024, to explain how her lack of response adversely affected the Jewish community at Rawlinson. But Dawson was not about to take responsibility for her actions. She repeatedly noted that it was the principal’s call and not the jurisdiction of the trustee to rule on such matters. (Remember this for later!) Never mind, though, that she did rule, by indicating that a new provider should be found. Never mind that she snubbed the Jewish community by failing to respond to our carefully crafted letter.
And never mind that when I wrote my detailed and highly personal letter to trustees in June explaining why they should vote against an anti-hate strategy that invokes the dangerous and incoherent notion of anti-Palestinian racism, she offered no reply and then voted in favour of the atrocious strategy.
Until a couple of days ago, I thought Trustee Dawson was simply not firing on all cylinders. In our meeting, the issue of “Jewish division”1 came up as a couple of the cancel-culture parents were anti-Zionist Jews. Again go figure! We explained that they did not represent mainstream Jewry, the vast majority of whom are proudly Zionist. Instead of “getting it”, to our amazement, she expressed her bewilderment over the divisions in the Jewish community. Why didn’t we all see eye to eye? After all, don’t all Blacks, all women, and all homosexuals, for example, see eye to eye on everything?
It was a deeply offensive statement, and we were all flabbergasted by it, but it was also so ludicrous that we all assumed it reflected a lack of, shall we say, cognitive reflection on her part. This perception was reinforced when we nevertheless accepted her suggestion and offered to meet with the opposing Jewish families, only to be told that she couldn’t endorse that since it would violate their anonymity. When we replied that we were willing to respond to their arguments or concerns so that they could remain anonymous, that too was deemed infeasible. So, while she was fine with telling us that she couldn’t understand the reasons for “Jewish division” she was not about to do a single helpful thing to resolve it.
An integrity violator is born
As I said, until a couple of days ago, I thought Trustee Dawson was simply not firing on all cylinders and, accordingly, I gave her the benefit of the doubt. However, I have now learned from this report that Michael Maynard, the TDSB’s Integrity Commissioner, and Ellen Fry, an investigator in the Office of the Integrity Commissioner, found Alexis Dawson guilty of violating section 6.1(a) of the Code of Conduct. This section of the Code states that “Members of the Board shall serve and be seen to serve their school communities in a constructive, respectful, conscientious and diligent manner.”
So why was Trustee Dawson found guilty of misconduct? On March 20th, a week before we met with her to discuss how she snubbed the Jewish community, she was virtually present at a board meeting2 in which two TDSB high school students from different schools spoke about their negative experiences with one of their principals. The students wanted to raise money for Gaza by selling keffiyehs and sending the funds to Islamic Relief Canada. However, according to the students, one of their principals objected to the plan and claimed that the keffiyeh was a symbol of terrorism. The students requested that an appeal process be implemented since they did not get the approval they desired.
According to one of the students, “the denial of the fundraiser and the ability to sell the keffiyeh contributes to anti-Palestinian racism.”3 The other student complained that there was a power imbalance between the principal and the students and appealed to the trustees to “review this policy and our situation with an anti-oppressive equity lens. There is a stark power imbalance between the students and our Principal. We require an appeal process because there is a power imbalance.”
The students’ statements would have given anyone good reason to proceed skeptically. Let’s begin with the basics. Not only did these students neglect to mention the fact that “the humanitarian crisis in Gaza”, which already in October of last year they claimed, “had taken the lives of approximately 8,000 people” (p. 11), was triggered by a genocidal attack on Israelis by Hamas, a terrorist organization which the majority of Gazan Arabs strongly support, but they also failed to acknowledge that the keffiyeh, nowadays, is a symbol of armed resistance against Israel and Israelis. It has been that way since Yasser Arafat made it the iconic image of “Palestinian resistance”.
As Arafat stated in 1970, “Our basic aim is to liberate the land from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. We are not concerned with what took place in June 1967 or in eliminating the consequences of the June war. The Palestinian revolution's basic concern is the uprooting of the Zionist entity from our land and liberating it."4 Perhaps that explains why he walked away from generous peace deals. So, yeah, the keffiyeh is the symbol par excellence of anti-Zionism—that hip, wearable icon that captures the aspiration of Arabs in Judea and Samaria to destroy Israel, the only Jewish state.
That is, it was all that until this past year, when along with the movement to “globalize the intifada”, it became an international symbol of armed resistance against Jews worldwide, including the Jewish children who attend TDSB schools. Now it’s not just a symbol of violent “resistance” against Israel and Israelis, it’s a symbol of violent resistance against anyone who believes that Israel has a right to exist. Me, my wife and my children, for instance.
And do you know who else likes to don a keffiyeh now and then? That’s right… Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas architect of the genocidal attacks on Israelis on October 7th, 2023—the same attacks that unleashed a wave of antisemitism across the Western world not seen since the Holocaust.
So, yes, selling keffiyehs at TDSB schools for whatever reason is positively inconsistent with the aim of creating a safe and inclusive space for all children. Presumably, all is meant to include Jewish children, or am I mistaken? The principal who said no to this cockamamie plan was correct. A sensible trustee, even with only the most minimal prerequisite knowledge of current geopolitical events would know this much.
Now if selling keffiyehs weren’t an indication that this might not be consistent with TDSB anti-hate principles, the students’ justification for an appeal process might have given Trustee Dawson reason to pause and take a measured approach in her clarification questioning. After all, the students do not seem to understand that not all power imbalances are examples of oppression or bias. They seem to lack the basic understanding that school principals have decision-making authority that students don’t have. That’s not oppression, kids.
And it didn’t stop there. Before Trustee Dawson questioned the students, they had already gone full tilt on race victimology, pointing out how the system oppresses students with black and brown skin. As one of the students explained:
Historically, there are groups of students who have been marginalized within the TDSB. These groups are also underrepresented within administrative and executive levels which means that the bias of the dominant group will influence decision-making. The TDSB Equity Policy acknowledges these barriers. For Black and brown students, this means that they will continue to be marginalized and disadvantaged by a policy that has no appeals for decisions made at the school level by Principals. When a Principal decides to shut down a student fundraiser, it is up to the students to ask why. When we were told that this decision was made to protect students, the question is, which students? From the perspective of Black and brown students, the message is that other students’ comfort are more valued than our identities.
I would also like to ask you a question: have you ever heard of the phrase “Speak truth to power”? As Black and brown students who have been trying to convince our school's administration of the harms that perpetuating stereotypes can have. We speak truth and reality to those in power. But without the will of the powerful, such as you who are Trustees, we will forever be stuck speaking truth to power. Will anybody listen? Does student voice really matter at the TDSB?
When the student asks which students will be protected by the principal’s decision, I would like to provide the answer that one of the adults in the room should have given. The obvious answer is Jewish and/or Zionist students, regardless of whether they’re black, brown, white, pink, or green. However, the correct answer is all students because no student benefits from having a symbol of eliminationist hatred dressed up as something to be celebrated brought into their schools.
As for speaking truth to power, perhaps these students require a lesson in the perils of overconfidence. They seem to think they are downtrodden purveyors of truth when in fact, they are victims of their self-deception. They could grow out of it but not with trustees like Alexis Dawson, who followed up their self-congratulatory statements by pumping up their egos even more:
Thank you. And through the chair, firstly I would like to commend students for coming out today to speak to us, to “speak truth to power”. I really respect your decision to come and speak to us and your words are very powerful and well noted by Trustees.
From there, it only got worse. Trustee Dawson asked the students what comments the principal had made about the keffiyeh and one replied that the principal said it was a terrorism symbol that “could be associated with Neo-Nazis.” I find this hard to believe. But rather than turning up the doubt meter, almost farcically, Dawson then asks, “Did the Principal provide TDSB-approved resources to substantiate those claims? Was there any research provided to you, or was that a personal opinion, to your knowledge?” I am sure most principals keep a folder of research on their desks documenting the link between the keffiyeh and terrorism just for when such situations arise. Seriously, what kind of question is that? Oh right, the kind for which you already know the answer.
Not missing an opportunity, the other student then replies that “the Principal said she had seen those comments on a Facebook comment section, and that that is what influenced her opinion, which we thought was very unprofessional” (p. 14). Uh, okay. Again, a highly dubious answer is provided, yet Dawson without any reservation, replies, Okay, that is very troubling to me. Have you accessed the Human Rights Process at all in complaining about those comments, or have there been any recourse in addressing them at all?” WTF?
You can see by now why Trustee Dawson landed in hot water. Her comments assume that the students’ accounts are veridical and she shows no interest whatsoever in finding out the principal’s account before making a judgment. She just pats the students on the back and encourages them to lodge a human rights complaint against the principal.
The kicker came at the end when she asked the students if they had spoken to anyone else, and guess what? They had spoken to “a number of Superintendents.” In fact, the students clarified in response to a question from Trustee Sriskandarajah that they not only met with superintendents but also with Executive Superintendent, Jack Nigro. These powerholders, however, upheld the principal’s decision and the fundraiser was denied. In other words, the students fully availed themselves of the TDSB appeal process they now claimed was lacking. The problem wasn’t that there was no appeal process. The problem was that the process didn’t yield the outcome they wanted.
The judgment
The Commisioner’’s report stated,
Trustee Dawson went beyond the bounds of clarification when she said ʺOk, that is very troubling to me. Have you accessed our Human Rights Process at all in complaining about those comments, or have [sic] there been any recourse in addressing them at all?ʺ and when after hearing that the students were planning to access this process, responded ʺOkay wonderful, thank youʺ.
When Trustee Dawson said this, her words would not reasonably be interpreted as merely seeking clarification of the process experienced by the students. On the contrary, her words would reasonably be interpreted as expressing the view that the Principalʹs statements were grounds to make a human rights complaint, and hence as communicating a negative judgment by Trustee Dawson concerning the conduct of the Principal.
In the view of the Integrity Commissioner, by saying these words Trustee Dawson failed to fulfill her responsibility under section 6.10(a) to treat the Principal respectfully.
A basic element of respect is to try to understand both sides of an issue before forming a view about whether either side is right or wrong. Doing so is particularly important in this context, given that the proposed project relates to the situation in Gaza, which is well known to be complex and contentious, with strong opinions on both sides. (p. 7)
In my view, the commissioner’s judgment is uncontroversial. It speaks to the facts of the case. However, as the report goes on to state, “the Integrity Commissioner believes that Trustee Dawson’s breach is a result of her in-the-moment reaction to information respecting an emotional and highly divisive issue. Accordingly, it is the Integrity Commissioner’s view that consideration of this report and a finding shall serve as a sufficient warning and a teachable moment to the Respondent and other Trustees to be mindful of their comments made in reaction to such moments” (p 9).
This part I find objectionable. While Dawson’s “heat-of-the-moment” response might exculpate her from intentional wrongdoing towards the principal in question, it does not address why Dawson would have been so caught up in the heat of the moment. Were all the other Trustees similarly moved? Did the statements of the two students merit a heat-of-the-moment response? I don’t think so. Rather, I think Trustee Dawson revealed where her sympathies lie. When two students want to sell keffiyehs to raise money for Islamic Relief Canada to send to Gaza, she asks no critical questions, but when the Jewish community at a school in her ward ask her for understanding in hosting an educational workshop on antisemitism following multiple antisemitic acts carried out again in her ward, she snubs the community. There was certainly no heat-of-the-moment empathy toward us. Indeed, there was no reply whatsoever. We had to reach out to her to explain how her snub affected us and, even then, we got little in the way of empathy.
What there was, it is now clear, is hypocrisy. We were told the decision was the principal’s to make, full stop. But for these two Muslim students, the decision of the principal, superintendent and even executive superintendent was insufficient. Trustee Dawson certainly showed disrespect to the principal in question, but I think she also showed disrespect to Superintendent Jennifer Chan and Executive Superintendent Jack Nigro who, as one of the students claimed, had heard their case. More generally, Trustee Dawson appears to have shown disrespect to the TDSB appeals process.
Now why is that? Could it be that her commitment to woke ideology has led her to identify with who she perceives as oppressed and to feel distance from those she views as oppressors? I don’t know. What I do know is that before she was a trustee, she was a co-chair of the School Advisory Council at Rawlinson and her co-chair, Kate Gatto, was one of the anti-Zionist parents who protested against the FSWC antisemitism workshops. So perhaps just as Trustee Dawson felt empathetic warmth toward the students who wanted to sell keffiyehs at TDSB schools while Israeli children were still being held hostage in Gaza by Hamas terrorists, she might have felt coolness towards the Jewish community at one of her schools who were sticking up for themselves rather than caving to the poorly articulated grievance drivel of a few anti-Zionist whiners, including her former co-chair. This is merely a hypothesis, but one that seems to garner increasing support over time.
I also question the Integrity Commissioner’s “heat-of-the-moment” attribution because in her questioning she revealed that she had already met with these students before the board meeting. As she stated, “I know we've had these conversations privately, but just for the benefit of Trustees, I wondered if you could reiterate the name of the organization, that the country is matching donations” (p. 14, italics added). She knew what was coming and was prepared for the students’ delegation. This foreknowledge fully discredits the heat-of-the-moment ascription and I cannot understand why the Integrity Commissioner overlooked it.
The pending decision
The Integrity Commissioner doesn’t know what the Jewish community had to go through and how Trustee Dawson contributed to the problem. Had he known this “context,” perhaps he would have decided to do more than make it a teachable moment.
But the decision regarding Trustee Dawson is now with the Board and they have the following options:
If the Board determines that the Trustee has breached the Board’s Code of Conduct, the Board may impose one or more of the following sanctions:
a) Censure of the Trustee.
b) Barring the Trustee from attending all or part of a meeting of the Board or a meeting of a committee of the Board.
c) Barring the member from sitting on one or more committees of the Board, or the period of time specified by the Board.
The Board must resist the attraction of action inertia, find Trustee Dawson in breach of the Board’s Code of Conduct and choose one of the available forms of sanction. As for Trustee Dawson, she should remember that she is there to serve all members of her ward’s community and, yes, that even includes Zionist Jews.
No, not as in Abrahamic arithmetic.
The full meeting is available at the following URL and the relevant portion starts at 13 minutes in: https://pub-tdsb.escribemeetings.com/Players/ISIStandAlonePlayer.aspx?Id=58698979-adff-4424-b94f-e0931fb32603
Maynard, M. L., & Fry, E. (July 2, 2024). Untitled [referring to TDSB Code of Conduct Investigation Report for Complaint IC-31135-0424], p. 12, Integrity Commissioner Office for the Toronto District School Board.
Gilbert, M. (1998). Israel: a history. Doubleday. p. 418.