Vote NJ Republican? Why bother?

It's gotta be frustrating to be a Republican legislator in Trenton, for the same reason it's frustrating to elect Republicans to the New Jersey legislature; as the minority party, they are largely ignored anyway. But I always vote to elect Republican state assemblymen/women and senators for two reasons: one, I know their first solution to a problem won't be "tax somebody!" And two, they won't bend over for labor every chance they get. At least someone will be there to be the voice of reason.

If you won't hold the line on taxes - especially property taxes - and you become beholden to the NJEA, you can't be a Republican in New Jersey. You may as well be a Democrat. So, here's my problem.

I've been a school board member since 2000 - with about a three-year break during that time - on four different Morris County boards of education. In all that time, and for 10 years before, one of the NJEA's big goals has been to end districts' ability to subcontract support services (mostly non-instruction) - naturally, because it reduces their membership and income. Also during that time, board members have born the brunt of anger over property taxes. And, of course during this time, like you, every campaign season my mailbox is full of promises from Republican candidates for legislature that they're the ones who will reduce your property taxes.

So imagine my surprise to find that this year's iteration of the subcontracting law actually passed! Surprised, because in the past even enough Democrats recognized that paying more for support services would have an adverse effect on property taxes. But surprise turned to shock when I found out that Assembly bill A-4140 and its Senate version S-2303 both passed by margins indicating bi-partisan support!

Here's a partial list of the groups lined-up against this bill: NJ School Boards Association, the Garden State Coalition of Schools, the N.J. Council of County Vocational-Technical Schools, the N.J. Association of School Administrators, the N.J. Association of School Business Officials, the N.J. Business and Industry Association, the Chamber of Commerce of Southern New Jersey, the N.J. State Chamber of Commerce, the N.J. State League of Municipalities, the N.J. Association of Counties, and the N.J. Council of County Colleges (also impacted).  

But that's not the worst part.

Our Republican Assemblywoman Aura Dunn voted for the bill in the Assembly.

Our Republican Senator Anthony Bucco sponsored the bill in the Senate.

Not remotely possible, said this Republican. Then, a quick search reveals:

Bucco and Dunn earn endorsement of the NJEA in District 25 special election

Oh, look - the Labor sector is by far the largest industry contributor to Assemblymember Dunn! 

Note: Brian Bergen - a principled Republican - voted against this bill in the Assembly.

My, how times have changed. Turns out my reasons for voting Republican are a bit out-of-date; even Republicans can now be bought by labor.

If salt has lost its flavor, with what will it be salted? It is then good for nothing, but to be cast out.

I'm proud that our school board has kept property tax increases within the 2% cap. But I know that the economics say that won't last forever. Will this bill, signed into law early this month, result directly in a property tax increase? Probably not. But it's like death by 1,000 paper cuts. A protection against cost increases that we've used to good measure has been taken away. And by Republicans, no less. Republicans who will continue to brag that they never voted to increase your taxes!

I am a member of the Wharton Board of Education, but I am speaking only for myself. If you were going to vote Republican for NJ state legislature, why bother?

 

Hans Brinker for President

Over the past several months, I've been struggling with one question: how can so many people whom I know to be intelligent, compassionate, and otherwise discerning be so willing to contort logic and readily apply double-standards to support an unhinged president? There really are no secrets - all the facts are plain to anyone paying attention (although I would like to know what Putin has on him). Now that we know that he doesn't pay taxes and his so-called business empire is awash in the red, what remaining illusion of accomplishment or merit does he have left to hide behind?

There has to be an explanation for his support. And if I'm right, the explanation is almost as frightening as the remote possibility of a second Trump administration. 

According to 19th century legend, there was once a Dutch boy named Hans Brinker who lived in a city outside Amsterdam. Walking on his way to visit a friend in the country one afternoon, he paused at the sound of trickling water. Turning, he saw a small hole in a dike with a stream of water flowing from it. Reacting quickly, Hans stuck his finger in the dike to plug it. Afternoon turned to evening, then to night; cold, alone and afraid, Hans kept his finger in that dike all night. Finally, the next morning a passing minister heard poor Hans moaning and quickly got the menfolk to come patch the leak. Hans had single-handedly (fingeredly?) saved an entire city from a devastating flood.

Ironically, this story is part of a larger story published by an American, Mary Elizabeth Mapes Dodge in 1865 ("Hans Brinker, or the Silver Skates"). Mary Mapes Dodge did not visit Holland until after the book was published, and Hans Brinker does not exist in any Dutch lore - he's entirely an American invention, although the Dutch have since "adopted" him as their own. In the story, Hans is a virtuous boy who makes many other personal sacrifices for family and friends. The story has become a children's classic.

But what if, from the perspective of the people whose town he saved, Hans had been a bully, and a creep? Let's say he had sold-out his own townspeople, been disloyal to his friends and unfaithful to his family, defrauded people and avoided paying his debts. Let's say all this was known about him. Would he still have been a hero?

If the town he "saved" had been America, the answer is yes - moral character makes no difference as long as he helps me keep what I see as rightfully mine. So what if he disparages minorities, veterans, our nation's allies, women. So what if he doesn't pay taxes while pretending to be a billionaire? So what if he would leverage national security interests for his own personal, political gain - and then fire or attack the integrity of lifelong public servants who blow the whistle on him?

To those Americans, who otherwise have absolutely nothing in common with Donald Trump in the first place, he is their Hans Brinker - the solitary hero with his finger in the dike, holding back the evil forces who want to take from them what should be theirs. Take what, you ask? Apparently, in this great land of opportunity many live in fear that there is not enough life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for everyone - and you can't have any of mine.

Trump has claimed that if his Democratic opponent were elected president, "our suburbs" would be destroyed. In recent weeks, he specifically called out a 2015 Obama-era fair-housing initiative that requires local governments to address historic patterns of racial segregation.

"Your home will go down in value, and crime rates will rapidly rise," Trump said. "People have worked all their lives to get into a community, and now they're going to watch it go to hell. Not going to happen, not while I'm here." (Trump Tries To Appeal To 'Housewives' And White Suburbs)

Fear. They're still coming for our white women.

And collective societal sacrifices to minimize the impact of climate change (since it's too late to reverse it), and to fight a global pandemic pose unacceptable threats to our individual rights - despite what we know from science. Your hero single-handedly withdrew the US from a global climate agreement which merely set a goal of keeping global temperature increases below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit through commitments to voluntary reductions in carbon emissions. Only Nicaragua and Syria refused to sign initially. And what if, by everyone wearing a mask right "we could bring this epidemic under control” over the next four, six, eight weeks (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention head Robert Redfield)? "No. I want people to have a certain freedom, and I don't believe in that, no" Trump answered. "And I don't agree with the statement that if everybody would wear a mask, everything disappears." "Under control" does not mean "disappearing" - but it's a start. Dumbass.

Fear: no longer will I be able to do whatever I want, whenever I want, without regard for anyone else.

And now, it seems, there are people who object to having people who look like them dying at the hands of the police who are sworn to protect us. They object to being handcuffed, face down with a knee on their neck until they die; object to being thrown in the back of a police vehicle in handcuffs and bounced around until their neck breaks; object to being shot while sitting in their car in front of their family, or while they are sleeping. They object so much to an ongoing pattern of indifference (at best) that they protest in the streets. 

And, conveniently, protesters and rioters are lumped together as if they are the same. 

If our opponents prevail no one will be safe in our country,” Trump told conservative activists in his first speech since the Democratic National Convention ended late on Thursday.

“I’m the only thing standing between the American dream and total anarchy, madness and chaos,” Trump said.

 He urged Americans to turn back “radical left socialists and Marxists.”

“So the future of our country and indeed our civilization is at stake on Nov. 3,” he said in the speech in Arlington, Virginia, to the 2020 Council for National Policy.

Fear: turns out that Trump's finger in the dike is all that keeps "us" safe while other Americans live in justifiable fear.

And foreigners: do we even need to talk about the threat from foreigners? They are bringing in drugs, raping our women, taking our jobs, abusing our social benefits, sending us a deadly flu, taking advantage us in trade. Maybe, just maybe if we build physical walls, trade walls (tariffs), artificial walls (who's "legal," who's not) - maybe the whole world will just go away so I only have to look at people who look like me and speak like me. 

This is not America. This is evil.

This is a president who referred to countries with mostly nonwhite populations as “s---hole” countries; who made his political start with birtherism (designed to deny legitimacy to the first African American president); who continued to call for the death penalty for the Central Park Five (who were exonerated); and who began his 2016 campaign saying that Mexican immigrants are “bringing crime” and that “they’re rapists." So it’s clear Trump is doing more than using racially “insensitive” or “provocative” language. His reverence for Confederate statues and memorials is not about amorphous “heritage”; it is about a “heritage” of enslavement (not to mention treason). When he tells black and brown members of Congress born in the United States to “go back” where they came from, he is writing nonwhites out of America. (Trump’s language is racist. Period.)

Go ahead, take any of these examples apart and explain how there are two sides. But I dare you to argue the overwhelming, collective effect - no, appeal - that this president has to our dark side. The side that can justify separating children from parents, shooting people who don't comply, running over a protester in Charlottesville, deporting people who have lived and worked and raised families here for no reason other than being undocumented. And ironically, while you may hate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, you know she's right when she said "(Trump) contributed less to funding our communities (by paying taxes) than waitresses & undocumented immigrants." 

Fear: you fear the fact that the US will become ‘minority white’ in 2045. While there may be nothing you can do about it, you can re-elect Hans Brinker to keep his finger in the dike for just a while longer.

Here's my fear: many of you, I love and respect. But I fear that any rational, logical person, upon seeing the evidence, and even knowing that you are an otherwise intelligent, compassionate, and discerning person, would be unable to avoid the conclusion that really - deep down - you are just a racist living in fear. And living in fear is no way to live. And it's no way to secure the future we want for our children and grandchildren.

How I learned to love socialism (and still do)

A serious young socialist

No one wants to be labeled a dirty "socialist" these days. If "liberal" or "right-winger" isn't bad enough, socialist implies not only an extreme, but someone who has lost touch with reality to the point that they're a threat to the rest of us. In fact the Merriam's definition of socialism tells us that it's one step away from communism:

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

And nobody likes a commie!

So I say this with trepidation: socialism has been very good to me. I may even be a socialist. But it's not my fault - it all began before I was born. Let me explain.

I grew up in northeast Ohio - in the Western Reserve part of what was called the Northwest Territory by our Founding Fathers. Much of this western land was reserved specifically for New Englanders who had lost much through their service in the Revolutionary War. With Continental currency being worthless, this was a just means of compensating them for their sacrifice. Some part of that land - the "Firelands" - was set aside to Connecticut residents who's property had been torched by the British.

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 granted certain rights - and limitations - to how this land that was to become 5 states would to be governed - a charter of sorts. Among the limitations - there would be no slavery; no lands and property would be "taken from the Indians without their consent" (oh well). And schools would provide education for all. Within a year of its passage, it was contractually specified "that a section in each township be reserved for common schools."* For these and other provisions, The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 "stands alongside the Magna Carta and Declaration of Independence as a bold assertion of the rights of the individual."*

But how can this possibly be supporting the rights of the individual? Our early government took collective ownership of the land and administered the redistribution of property to a designated class of individuals (veterans). Further, what about people who wanted to educate their children privately, or at home? "Outside of New England, there was then no such thing in the United States as a system of state-supported schools of any kind."* Here we have an early example of East coast elites legislating how education is administered, and even forcing all citizens to pay for it! 

Approximately 180 years later, I was enrolled in Hinckley Elementary school in Ohio. Arguably, public education was first tried in the state of Ohio through the redistribution of property and by government edict. And I and my classmates were the beneficiaries all those years later.

Me and my comrades

Growing up, I continued to benefit from the same socialist principles - many, ironically, attributed to America's first uber-capitalist, Benjamin Franklin! He was so rich that he retired from running his printing and distribution network at the age of 42, and dedicated the rest of his life to the cause of American freedom. And socialism.

He tried to put booksellers and publishers out of business by creating the first public library - collective ownership, administration and distribution of books. And if you were thinking of providing firefighting services to your fellow citizens at the time, he took that away, too, by establishing neighborhood volunteer firefighting units. And if you wanted to protect your family and property from loss, he perfected the concept of insurance: spreading individuals' risk among many by accumulating their resources. Some of these services were, and still can be provided privately, but the concept remains: it strikes us as only logical that our standard of living is improved when wealth/resources/property are pooled and redistributed for the benefit of all.

From America Is Already Socialist, And That's a Good Thing:

In his 2019 State of the Union speech (and his personal campaigning throughout his presidency), Donald Trump proclaimed the US "will never be a socialist country." Well, newsflash:

The United States—like every other country with an advanced economy . . . is already a partly socialist country, with a mixed economy and many government programs that serve the public good.

By this definition, Social Security is a "socialist" program: it's a government-run pension system that cuts out private money managers. Medicare - a single-payer, government-run health insurance program for those over 65 - is too. Medicare-For-All would simply extend this to the rest of the population.

The minimum wage, maximum hour, and child labor laws that go back over a century are likewise "socialist" programs, in that the government intervenes in the capitalist market to require employers to meet minimum standards that might not be met in a pure, unregulated “free” market. Agricultural and energy subsidies are likewise socialist programs. I could go on and on.

So we all have some socialist in our blood, and somewhere we are all grateful for it. And we're definitely better off because of it.

The argument we're having then, is "when is socialism appropriate,

and who do we trust to administer it?" - NOT that it's a bad thing

Like most everything else, nothing is black and white - socialism isn't BAD! It's a matter of degree. Can't we all have this argument respectfully?

For my next post, I think I'll propose that any life-sustaining benefit available to some, should be available to all if we are to call ourselves a just society. But that's for another day.

* The Pioneers: The Heroic Story of the Settlers Who Brought the American Ideal West, David McCullough, 2019

My fellow Americans,

Stay proud, my friends.

From Genesis Chapter 2:

And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden; and out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the Tree of Life also in the midst of the garden, and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. And the Lord God commanded, saying "You may eat freely of every tree of the garden; but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."

Now the serpent was more subtle than any other creature that the Lord God had made, and after he had convinced the man and woman to eat of this Tree of Knowledge, the Lord God said:

cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life.

Thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you . . .

you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken;

you are dust, and to dust you shall return.

Now, I'm not sure how much of this really happened, but I am certain that the story is true. Anyone who has ever attended Sunday School, of any denomination, knows it. It tells of the origin of a much-cherished human value - that of free will. Humanity declined the simple life, and instead opted to have self-awareness instead of innocence. Adam and Eve could have lived the life of highly-developed animals in the abundant wild, but instead sought to know good from evil, innocence from shame.

It's a cruel irony that God so loves humanity that the first man and woman to experience this love are placed in a beautiful garden where their every need is met; then, at the same time, this Source of Love placed in the midst of that garden "the knowledge of good and evil," powerful enough to strip humanity of its innocence and the unlimited abundance that had been provided for it.

Fast forward several millennia, and the birth of a man-made, God-ordained Garden of Eden: the United States of America. Yes, I am comparing the USA to the Garden of Eden, as it was intended to be: a beacon - a haven for those not fortunate enough to be born into nobility and privilege, where personal initiative and hard work provided bounty to those fortunate enough to reach its shores.

Bounty, that is, for Europeans who reached its shores. Not so much for Africans. The idea of enslaving other humans is the ultimate irony to the otherwise "self-evident" natural law that "all men are created equal," enjoying the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  The arrival of the British privateer ship White Lion near Jamestown in 1619 with “20 and odd” Africans on board marked this country's original temptation, our Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, delivered right into the heart of this paradise that is America. Was God laughing when the Africans on board were traded for needed ship supplies and "marked for legalized generational enslavement*"? Or was the Source of the Universe shaking its head, saying "there they go again"?

We cannot deny: Slavery defines our national identity as much as freedom.* Too much blood has been shed over this to claim otherwise.

Tomorrow we'll celebrate the 246th anniversary of our country's independence, and still we argue about which groups are actually benefiting from the American dream, and who can claim to be an American. I am closest to Americans who claim "my ancestors came here the right way." Really? Does that make you any different from those who arrived in chains? Did they arrive here the right way? You either owned slaves, or benefited from an economic system that initially relied on slavery. And did you arrive here before or after Native Americans were decimated and pushed off their land? You either participated in that crime against humanity, or you benefited from it.

Who, then, can really claim to be here, to be Americans, "the right way"?

Slavery was a curse to American soil, and we have toiled from it all the days of our existence as a nation. The thorns and thistles of anger, misunderstanding and conflict it has brought out in us, and as best as we can tell, we'll be eating of it for as long as we're around. For out of its oppression we were sprung, and under its shadow we shall remain.

This is not a condemnation on America - not at all. It's a condemnation of us. Our generation is doing no better than generations before in realizing that

What makes us Americans is what we love.

What we love and cherish is a life of liberty and freedom to make our own way in the world; the chance to raise a family in safety and with the promise of a bright future. We love the idea that we can be who the Creator meant us to be as individuals, and to create the future we want. We love the idea that we all love these ideas, and that others have fought and died to protect them.

Too often, when confronted with a choice between supporting good or evil, we stand by while "law enforcement" kneels on a black man's neck, and find a way to justify it. We choose to hold ourselves above others by virtue of our good fortune to have been born with some privilege, or simply born here, or to have been issued papers deeming us "citizens." But privilege, color and legal status continue to mislead and misguide us into conflict. What's relevant is what we have in common; what we love, value and share. 

If you simply love freedom, and will defend your neighbor's right to their freedom, then I'm proud to call you my fellow American.

* The New Jersey Amistad Commission

I was a bystander

There's no way to go through this life without regrets. And while it's important not to dwell on them, I'm certain it's good to be able to identify them, reflect on them, and learn from them. Some may even be worth sharing. This regret of mine is worth sharing, because it may influence others, and no doubt because it will help assuage my sense of guilt. You see, I was once a bystander.

Actually, we've all been bystanders at one point or another. What makes this one tough is that I was an adult. Perhaps we can be forgiven for being bystanders as children when we witnessed someone being bullied, or otherwise shunned. I certainly do hope so, for my own sake. But as an adult, I should know wrong-doing when I see it, and respond accordingly. This is one such instance.

But first, know this: I come from a belief that the world is good. On the whole, people are good and decent and care about their neighbor. Racism, for example, is limited to a relatively small minority who tend to grab the spotlight and give fuel to those who would say it's a big problem. And if I allowed myself to, I would take comfort in knowing that I am, and my friends are, among the good people - not the bad.

And so, I go through life feeling pretty good about myself.

So one day I'm on a business trip, and as is my habit I take something to read with me to dinner out at a local diner. I take a booth in a row of booths, mine facing the door to the kitchen. Most booths are occupied, and a pleasant but business-like young waitress is serving. She comes to my table, and the familiar process of order taking, food-bringing, refill offers commences. I'm reading my book.

At some point, I become aware of the woman in the next booth, sitting with her back to me and also facing the kitchen. She is African-American, by herself, and had been seated shortly after I was. What eventually got my attention was the fact that the server had passed her booth to bring my meal. In the meantime, I didn't remember noticing woman get her drink. Come to think of it, her order hadn't been taken, either.

My meal was decent - I didn't exactly have high expectations, and they were met. The book was a good one; I had finished a chapter and thought about starting the next. Dessert?

My neighbor had summoned the waitress a few times - yes, the waitress assured her she would be with her in a moment. 

Yes, dessert - always dessert! But isn't it odd that I'm having dessert, and my neighbor hasn't gotten her meal yet?  I mean, I have no complaints about the service I'm getting.

As I get up to leave and settle the bill at the counter by the door, I notice my neighbor is already there, complaining that she had been there 30 minutes and was not served. The older woman at the counter is indignant, taking offense at the complaint. At this point, I decide to be a helpful witness.

"I was in the booth next to her, and I can tell you she's right, her service was very poor."

"YOU, sir, had best mind your own business - this does not concern you!" was the woman's response, putting me in my place.

Leaving, I wanted to catch up with the black woman in the parking lot and offer some words of support. She was gone. Slowly, it began to dawn on me what I had witnessed. But, maybe I was misreading the situation. Surely, it's 2015. And yes, it's Virginia, but even so, no one would deny a person service because of their race, much less get so indignant when they complained about it. 

I've had much time to reflect since then. And there can be no doubt that I had witnessed, over the course of about an hour, a woman being mistreated and made unwelcome because of her race. I was next to her, and I watched it, and did nothing. That makes me a bystander. And a bystander such as this is a participant on the side of the oppressor, not the victim. A bystander implicitly tells the bully/oppressor that their behavior is understandable, at best - and to be encouraged and supported, at worst. There is no in-between.

Racism is easy to spot when someone uses an epithet, or holds up a sign, "N_ _ _ _ r go home!" We have a tendency to deny believing what we are seeing, especially when it is unpleasant and goes against that tendency to give a stranger the benefit of the doubt. Because people are good, right?

Watching three cops and untold bystanders look on while another cop drives his knee in the back of a defenseless black man's neck has me screaming "Somebody DO something, he's killing that man!" Then, of course, I remember that I have been a bystander. All I had to do was invite that woman to my booth, or offer to move into hers. I still love imagining the scene that would have caused.

Many of us have a tendency to resent protesters in the streets. I mean, what do they want, anyway? The cop was suspended, then fired and charged with murder, and the 3 cops with him. It was wrong, we get it, now go home!

What they want is, they want our attention. Too many of us support these actions by accepting them. Somehow, over the course of 18+ years on the police force, Officer Derek Chauvin had concluded that brutality was an acceptable part of his job - even when confronting a nonviolent citizen suspected of a non-violent crime like trying to pass a fake $20 bill.  And somewhere in Virginia there is a woman, five years older now, who could reasonably conclude through my complacency that not serving African-Americans in her restaurant is acceptable. Even worse, other than my feeble, belated response at the counter, that African-American woman can likewise conclude that nobody really cares about that kind of injustice shown to her.

And so, to both of you: while I will never meet you again, I apologize for misleading you both. But know that I will never, ever, be a bystander again.

You see, Satan demands to sift you all like wheat, to test you,

But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail;

and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren

Luke 22:31-32

It's my privilege

Luke 11:53-54 As he said these things to them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to be terribly angry, and to draw many things out of him; lying in wait for him, and seeking to catch him in something he might say, that they might accuse him.

Naturally, I bristle whenever anyone suggests I might be the beneficiary of some "privilege." I've been able to provide for a family, do my part to put three kids through college, afford a nice home, cars and occasional vacations. But I did what I was brought up to do - go to school, study hard, take responsibility, get a job - not unlike other members of my family, my friends, neighbors. And you would normally make those assumptions about me. My dress, home, cars . . . all speak to a good middle class life.

So you can imagine my annoyance last September when I got pulled over in a neighboring town for speeding. Oh, this cop did not fool me - I knew as soon as I saw his unmarked car he was coming for me. I knew I was speeding, and in truth, was annoyed with myself because there was no need - I was on time to work. So I pulled over and waited for him to catch up with me.

Let's be contrite, I said to myself. Reached into the glove compartment for registration, proof of insurance; into my wallet for my license. Uh-oh.

"No worries." I'm clearly a law-abiding citizen on his way to work, willing to accept responsibility. He'll see I'm a well-dressed, clean-cut, professional driving a late-model car that certainly looks like it "belongs" in this upper-middle class neighborhood. And I have a perfectly good excuse for not having my license.  Hell, if he's decent he'll let me off entirely.

"Yes, officer, I know I was speeding. Hey, that road is a steep downhill, it's easy to pick up some speed if you're not paying attention, right?"

"Actually, no, it's not that steep."  No use arguing, I got a bigger problem.

"Driver's license, registration, insurance card please."

"Sure, here you go. Oh, and I took my license out of my wallet yesterday to scan it - it's back on my scanner at home, sorry about that."

Actually, this was true. But hey, he'll definitely cut me slack for that. I'm clearly a law-abiding citizen on his way to work, willing to accept responsibility. He'll see I'm a well-dressed, clean-cut, professional driving a late-model car that "belongs" in this upper-middle class neighborhood. No worries. AND, he'll no doubt notice my (fairly) good driving record.  I got everything going for me that should get me just a warning.

He eventually comes back to my car. WITH A TICKET in-hand. I'm pissed.

How to pay, court date, etc. . . . Oh, and here's a warning for not having your driver's license.

Seems like a nice cop. But I deserved only a warning. Clearly I'm a law-abiding citizen on his way to work, willing to accept responsibility. I'm a well-dressed, clean-cut, professional driving a late-model car that "belongs" in this upper-middle class neighborhood. This really should not be a problem.

If I just roll-up my window without a word, no "Thank you, officer," no "Have a nice day, officer" will he pick-up my "F- YOU" vibe? Gee I certainly hope so.

I don't deserve this. You see, I'm just a law-abiding citizen on his way to work, willing to take responsibility for his actions. I'm a well-dressed, clean-cut, professional driving a nice, clean late-model car that "belongs" in this upper-middle class neighborhood. And my driving record is actually excellent. It's not like I'm . . .

Not like I'm, what? What do I mean by "looking like" a law-abiding citizen? Or "professional"? And what if I am clean-cut, wearing a suit and tie, and my car is nice?  What does this mean?

Who am I comparing myself to? If this did not describe me, if my characterizations were not true, would I deserve any different treatment?

Let's be honest. I expect some privileges. I did what I was brought up to do - go to school, study hard, take responsibility, got a job. Raised a family, give to charities, go to church, do volunteer work. I'm clearly a law-abiding citizen.  You can see by the way I'm well-dressed, clean-cut - a respectful professional driving to work in a late-model car that certainly looks like it "belongs" in this upper-middle class neighborhood.

Hell, I'm even white!

OK, here's the truth. White privilege is the difference between the treatment I expect, and the treatment that someone unlike me - of color, unshaven, poorly dressed, driving an old car in an upper-middle class neighborhood - were to get in similar circumstances. I have expectations that I will be treated in a manner that befits my relative success in life - success that's in plain sight of everyone else to see.  And I have no right to expect, nor should I accept this.

About a month later I was talking to an African-American woman who happens to be a school board member in another town. She told me personal stories that I have always suspected were exaggerations, or misunderstandings. Like how she has had to tell her children to avoid police even if they need help, and to never make sudden moves at a traffic stop that could get them killed. How her black friend insists on taking the shortest way to work through an affluent neighborhood, despite the fact that she is stopped regularly by police and questioned for no apparent reason.

White privilege is the very real space between how I expect to be treated because of how I look, and the treatment that I find acceptable for others to expect because of how they look.

That's my white privilege.

Recognizing Equity in public education

From Equity vs. Equality: Eliminating Opportunity Gaps in Education "The third panel of the illustration .. . represents a removal of the systemic barrier, which should be the ultimate goal in creating equitable systems of education."

This week, most school boards in New Jersey will "re-organize" by swearing in new and re-elected members. As with any new year, this presents an opportunity for reflection; even if we know the roles and responsibilities of a board of education, we should be asking how we can actually contribute to the path of continuous improvement in student achievement and development.

Beyond just providing oversight of the services being provided by the local schools - through policy, budget-setting, monitoring finances, facilities upkeep - a school board is responsible to see that the schools reflect the values and vision of the community. This may be the hardest responsibility to grasp, often because the board can't put their finger on what the community values, and/or can't articulate a vision for the schools. And with input from so many stakeholders coming from various directions all at once, it can take courage to stake a position that the board has adopted together and then defend it.  So here are some guiding principles that, when applied consistently, will at least help the community understand how your board approaches controversial issues.

• Ask yourselves, Who are we likely not representing well? Then practice articulating their point of view. Every community has segments that are least-likely to be vocal about education - it could be households without children, families in disarray because of divorce or other upheavals, or recent immigrants who either aren't English-fluent or familiar with our form of public education. Just because they don't come to meetings doesn't mean you don't have a responsibility to represent them with equal fervor.
• Adopt research and data as your guide. If your conversations are informed by data and research, and these are not manipulated or used arbitrarily, skeptical stakeholders are more likely to at least respect your decisions even when they disagree.
• Invite participation and share information liberally. When our board adopted a standards-based approach to reporting student performance, it was with the participation of the teaching staff. Our board conversations were conducted in public, and the roll-out included parent information sessions. If you hold these conversations in closed committee meetings, then simply act on the recommendation of the committee, most boards will give the appearance of making decisions in a vacuum. Make your case for controversial decisions in public.

With this as a background, boards and school leaders are now facing questions of equity in their schools. Much has been written about equity (Equity-Focused Leadership Is Risky. Do It Anyway); task forces are formed to address it; lawsuits are being filed over it (New Jersey Hit with Major Lawsuit Arguing It Must End School Segregation). This can lead to defensiveness if the implication is that something about your schools is in fact inequitable. So just what is equity in the context of public education?  Here is how National School Boards Association decided to define the concept of educational equity (www.nsba.org/Advocacy/Equity):

We affirm in our actions that each student can, will, and shall learn. We recognize that based on factors including but not limited to disability, race, ethnicity, and socio-economic status, students are deprived of equitable educational opportunities.

Educational equity is the intentional allocation of resources, instruction, and opportunities according to need, requiring that discriminatory practices, prejudices, and beliefs be identified and eradicated.

Here is my idea of "low hanging fruit" for boards of education to examine when discussing how well they are upholding these values and ideals. If you decide to take these on, please do so through the lens of the three guiding principles listed above. 

Homework policy

Close your eyes and imagine, if you will, an image of the student that teachers can expect to turn in their homework on time, done correctly and with clearly genuine effort. What do they look like? Where are they doing their homework? What role is the parent playing? Now, do you think those students are well-represented by the members of the board? You may even be visualizing their own children.

Then what would that scenario look like for the students who are decidedly NOT doing their homework in that manner? How might their home life be different? Or, if it's not a matter of the home setting, how much unnecessary anxiety might homework be otherwise causing?

What if I told you that there is no research that supports homework as factor in improving student achievement - certainly not in the elementary grades. Zero. (I would refer you to John Hattie's work, Visible Learning; if your board is truly guided by evidence, this is your educational bible.)

Many homes where homework is a struggle likely fall under lower socio-economic status; but not all. In my own household, my daughters were (for the most part) the model of conscientious compliance to homework assignments. The boys - not so much. And when I started looking at their homework, much of it was, quite honestly, inane. Yet the anxiety and stress it caused was almost unbearable. I could do an entire post about what I've learned about homework - not today. But our board adopted a policy that:

• explicitly identifies research as our guide in setting policy, and the home-school partnership as a community value in the social-emotional development of our students.
• sets as basic principle that homework must "have purpose, be meaningful, and advance student progress."
• prohibits a role for homework in determining course grades, or assigning homework as punishment,
• but requires that homework be used by our teachers "for the purpose of assessing student learning, and determining the need for intervention or enrichment."

Because the only thing that truly counts is whether our students have demonstrated mastery of the learning target. And if mastery is our goal and homework does not advance mastery, what good is it doing, and at what cost for already-stressed families?

Communication policies

One hundred percent of our board members are fluent in English; one is bilingual, out of seven. We report to the state that over 50% of our students are Hispanic, and about 40% speak Spanish in the home. But until a few years ago, only state- or federal provided documents (like the FASD form) were going home in two languages. So we utilized policy as the means to require that this be changed. Now,

It is the Board's policy that whenever more than 25% of the district students are being raised in families of a community sharing a common language, the administration will present a plan to the Board that will ensure that all key materials related to student rights, performance, and achievement as well as district news, events and activities be translated in that language to facilitate full access to the educational program.

Setting policy did not make it so over night; we're still not flawless in execution, and it's more problematic than you might think. But we challenged ourselves to better represent the under-represented, were guided by what data says is true about our community, and hashed out the details in public. It's a policy that I'm most proud of our board for making. 

"Zero tolerance" policies
This comes from personal experience, not as a board member but as a parent.

Two of my three daughters fully-embraced the idea that it is good to be a good student, and a worthy goal, from an early age. That leaves one of three, who described school as "the bane of my existence." But her participation in school sports kept her engaged - until she got caught up in the school's random drug testing, and its zero tolerance impact on all school clubs and activities.

As a parent, I appreciated the family crisis that the drug testing provoked. "Vengeance (or discipline) is MINE, saith" the parent! But the zero tolerance policy was NOT a benefit to my kid, who needed those school activities as a life-line to her engagement in school.  Please, school board, I need to keep my kid engaged - don't deny her that. There are a lot of environmental, socio-economic or other family factors (as in my case) why kids may violate certain policies - let alone their adolescent brains aren't quite processing actions to consequences. Does your board represent these kids who may be experiencing trauma, putting them on the margins of ideal behavior? Most likely not. So stand up for them, and look at the effect such zero-tolerance policies could have on critical student engagement (and I'm not including some severe ones, like bringing a gun to school).

If you still want to see what other districts are doing to set an example, look no further than Morris School District, whose efforts and accomplishments have sprung from a 1971 court ruling (As Other Districts Grapple With Segregation, This One Makes Integration Work).

I encourage you to take these issues on this year, with the full cooperation of your chief school administrator, of course. While these may not be foremost on their list of priorities, what's important is that your role includes ensuring that the schools reflect the vision and values of your community.