My final endorsements for Board of Education (Zimmerman, Stewart, and Montoya)

                                                                                           Rita Montoya -- At-Large

                                                                 Laura Stewart -- District 4

 

My Final Endorsements for Montgomery County MD Board of Education and other contests on the MoCo ballot

In election years, many of my friends and acquaintances, knowing my involvement in local elective politics, particularly regarding the Board of Education, ask my opinion as to who would be the best choices.[1]

For the reasons that follow, I am endorsing Natalie Zimmerman for the District 2 seat, Laura Stewart for the District 4 seat, and Rita Montoya for the At-Large seat, as I did in the primary election last spring, and for the same reasons I noted then. 

     My other recommendations for other contests and ballot questions follow the BOE discussion.

BACKGROUND:  In 1996, in the aftermath of Bill Clinton’s reelection as president, right-wing anti-LGBTQ+ political operative Ralph Reed said, “I would rather have a thousand school board members than one president and no school board members."  The right-wing has targeted Montgomery County in the past, without success.  

We are a progressive community when it comes to LGBTQ+ matters, including caring for and embracing all of our students.  In last May’s primary election, three of the seven seats were before the voters.  The three incumbents, all of whom were standing for reelection, have been strong supporters of these progressive policies.  But because of administrative problems in MCPS having nothing to do with pro-LGBTQ+ policies, those incumbents were challenged by candidates who shared those policies, but believed that new BOE board members would provide more effective oversight of other aspects of MCPS administration.  The teachers’ union, MCEA, endorsed those challengers, while the union representing MCPS support staff (SEIU Local 500) endorsed the incumbents.  Last spring, I endorsed the MCEA-endorsed challengers for the reasons I set forth in an April 2024 blogpost.  IMPORTANT REMINDER: While the District candidates must live in those districts, everyone in the County may vote in all three contests.)

HERE ARE MY CHOICES FOR THE BOARD OF EDUCATION

District 2:  Natalie Zimmerman.  This is the most important race, because the incumbent hardly campaigned and, as a result, did not make the run-off. After participating in a Zoom meeting with Ms. Zimmerman, I am even more confident that she would be a very important, useful addition to the BOE, bringing the vital perspectives of an experienced elementary school teacher. 

          The candidate who came in second to Ms. Zimmerman in the primary was Brenda Diaz.  Ms. Diaz is a far-right candidate who advocates for policies on vaccines endorsed by RFK, Jr., who she cited as the source of her views during a podcast interview last spring.  Her views on LGBTQ+ matters are out of the mainstream in Montgomery County, and she is being actively supported by the local Republican Party which is all-in for Donald Trump and other right-wing candidates.  For details on these serious concerns, including the audio of her embrace of RFK, Jr.'s views on vaccines published last spring on the I Hate Politics Podcast, see this blogpost.  Also, the largest contributor to her campaign is the Campaign Committee of Bethany Mandel, who ran unsuccessfully in the primary for the District 4 seat.  See public document here.  (To find it, just type “Diaz, Brenda M. Friends for” in the top right-hand box, click search, and go to the 8/27/2024 Campaign Statement).  For convenience, below is a screen shot of the pertinent page.

Ms. Mandel, who came in a distant third out of three candidates for the District 4 seat in the primary, is a very extreme figure.  Here is what I reported

District 4 candidate Bethany Mandel . . . declined to respond the Metro DC PFLAG questionnaire, which typically is a sure sign that she is not supportive of LGBTQ+ students. In campaign forums, Ms. Mandel has vigorously expressed her opposition to the MCPS storybook policy regarding opt-out, and goes further, attacking what she refers to as "woke" approaches to education.  She has six children, and home-schools those who are school age; she has no experience with MCPS.  In one forum, she said that she wants MCPS to follow her advice about education because her children will someday have to deal with children who have graduated from MCPS.  Ms. Mandel, who has the support of the right-wing Moms for Liberty was active in the 2023 Moms for Liberty rally in Philadelphia featuring Donald Trump and Ron De Santis, and is a fairly well-known commentator in right-wing circles, as recently documented here. 

District 4:  Laura Stewart. I am confident that the best choice for the District 4 seat is Laura Stewart.  This is not because I have any specific criticism of Ms. Evans (who has done good work as a BOE member), other than being part of a BOE that has been unable to provide the administrative oversight that might well have avoided things like the Beidleman Scandal.  But we do need a fresh start, and Ms. Stewart provides an energy that would be very helpful to the Board, and make it more effective.  Ms. Stewart's years of MCPS and PTSA advocacy, both at the local and state levels, have shown energy, wisdom, and commitment, which led to her endorsement by the MCEA and a range of other groups.  I have been particularly impressed with her dogged, public advocacy in support of sound BOE/MCPS policies that have been under attack from outside right-wing advocacy groups.  Along with former BOE member Jill Ortman-Fouse, Ms. Stewart spearheaded the effort to mobilize people to back MCPS when it was under attack, and, to be frank, MCPS was not doing a very good job explaining the wisdom of its policy.  The letter signed by more than 3,000 residents of Montgomery County helped to turn the tide of public opinion when demonstrations in front of MCPS headquarters threatened to monopolize the conversation.  Similarly, her participation in drafting and signing the above-referenced Guest Commentary in Maryland Matters ("We can't opt out of diversity in our schools and communities") helped advance the discussion, and dispelled, I believe, some of the misconceptions that were creeping into local media.  Again, we would be well-served by either candidate, but I strongly believe that a well-qualified non-incumbent would be the better choice going forward.

At-Large:  Rita Montoya.  Like District 4 incumbent Shebra Evans, At-Large incumbent Lynne Harris is very well-qualified and supports policies I support. But fresh infusion of new people would be useful. On balance, I believe that Ms. Montoya would be the better choice.  She has useful personal and professional experiences as a PTA president, parent of elementary school children, juvenile public defender, and work with underserved communities, and thus could add useful perspectives to the BOE. 

OTHER MATTERS ON THE BALLOT:

No one who knows me will be surprised by my other endorsements, but here they are:

President & Vice President:  Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz.

Senator: Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks.  Election of her opponent, former Governor Larry Hogan, would most certainly give control of the Senate to Donald Trump’s minions in the Senate and allow them to make it virtually impossible for a President Harris to effectively govern.  This is enough to counsel in favor of voting for County Executive Alsobrooks.

           Moreover, Hogan’s attempt to portray himself as a moderate who would stand up to Donald Trump is disingenuous.  Yes, Hogan has made his opposition to Trump as a human being repeatedly; but Hogan’s advertisements (funded by Mitch McConnell committees and other big money interests) avoid the fact that the only reasons he ever looked like a moderate was that the Democratic super-majority in the General Assembly overrode his vetoes; and even when he did not veto good legislation, he typically let such legislation go into law without his signature, because he knew the Democrats would override him if he vetoed it.  For Hogan to say that he has always been in favor of a woman’s right to choose is, to put it mildly, utterly disingenuous. And, of course, his recent campaign mailer headline that he would vote to reinstate Roe v. Wade is disingenuous since a Senate under Republican control would never allow such a measure to be voted upon. 

          Alsobrooks, in contrast, has been an effective States Attorney and County Executive, and is a competent mainstream Democrat.  The recent attacks on her by Hogan seeking to paint her as a reckless, hypocritical tax evader are unfair and misleading.  In fact, both tax breaks were legitimate when they originated. As to the first, once her grandmother no longer lived in the DC home, the tax break was no longer applicable.  As to the second, the legitimate tax break on the townhouse she purchased ceased to be appliable once she moved out and bought a new home -- and did not use the same tax break on the more expensive home, somthing that actually cost her money. These two errors are being corrected. See here.  It is noteworthy that the Washington Post -- which is notorious for often endorsing the most conservative candidate it can stomach -- endorsed Alsobrooks.

Congress, District 8:  Representative Jamie Raskin.  He is a national treasure, and we are proud and grateful to have him.

Congress, District 6:  April McClean Delaney.  I do not live in District 6, but much of it is in Montgomery County.  The bottom line is that it is essential that a Democrat keeps that seat (particularly when the Republican candidate is very right-wing), so that the House of Representative can flip to the Democrats.  Without Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress, the Republicans will be able to paralyze a Harris-Walz administration or, in the event of a Trump-Vance administration, accelerate the damage such a presidential right would entail.

Judges and Ballot Questions.   See the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee Sample Ballot, whose recommendations I endorse. https://mcdcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/mcdcc-sample-ballot-2024-v20.pdf

 

Four sitting Montgomery County Circuit judges won both the Democratic and Republican primaries, so they are running unopposed in the general election.  And three state appellate judges face the voters regarding their continuation in office.  The Montgomery County Democratic endorses all the judges.

Question 1 is a proposed amendment to the Maryland Constitution which would enshrine reproductive freedom.  State statutory law currently does so, but this would make the protections even stronger, an important thing in light of the current membership of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Please vote YES (FOR) on Question 1.

Question A is an attempt by the Republican Party of Montgomery County to amend the County Charter to bar a County Executive from election to more than two consecutive terms in office. (Currently the limit is three consecutive terms.)  This is a blatant attempt to subvert the will of the voters. See here.  Please vote NO (AGAINST) on Question A.

---

[1] This is where I am coming from on MCPS issues: I have been involved in MCPS matters since 1984, when I was co-president of the Rosemary Hills Primary School PTA, working for needed resources for this magnet integration school. Later, I was public affairs director for the Gifted and Talented Association of Montgomery County, working to secure appropriate education for students and seeking ways to widen the net with respect to GT identification and opportunities; I subsequently, as a PTSA Board member at Richard Montgomery High School, worked to protect needed resources for the Blair, Richard Montgomery, Takoma Park, and Eastern signature secondary schools. Beginning in 2002, after my children graduated from MCPS, I became active in working to secure appropriate health education and other MCPS policies regarding LGBT+ issues, and continue in this area (in which MCPS has made great progress) to this day.

UPDATED Endorsements for Montgomery County MD Board of Education and other contests on the MoCo ballot

In election years, many of my friends and acquaintances, knowing my involvement in local elective politics, particularly regarding the Board of Education, ask my opinion as to who would be the best choices.[1]

For the reasons that follow, I am endorsing Natalie Zimmerman for the District 2 seat and Laura Stewart for the District 4 seat.  I have not yet decided who to endorse for the At-Large seat, but as I note below, either candidate would be a good choice.  I urge people who want to get a better sense of the candidates to attend the League of Women Voters BOE Candidate Forum on Wednesday, October 9, at 7:00pm at 15 West Gude Drive, Rockville. 

     My other recommendations for other contests and ballot questions follow the BOE discussion.

BACKGROUND:  In 1996, in the aftermath of Bill Clinton’s reelection as president, right-wing anti-LGBTQ+ political operative Ralph Reed said, “I would rather have a thousand school board members than one president and no school board members."  The right-wing has targeted Montgomery County in the past, without success.  

We are a progressive community when it comes to LGBTQ+ matters, including caring for and embracing all of our students.  In last May’s primary election, three of the seven seats were before the voters.  The three incumbents, all of whom were standing for reelection, have been strong supporters of these progressive policies.  But because of administrative problems in MCPS having nothing to do with pro-LGBTQ+ policies, those incumbents were challenged by candidates who shared those policies, but believed that new BOE board members would provide more effective oversight of other aspects of MCPS administration.  The teachers’ union, MCEA, endorsed those challengers, while the union representing MCPS support staff (SEIU Local 500) endorsed the incumbents.  Last spring, I endorsed the MCEA-endorsed challengers for the reasons I set forth in an April 2024 blogpost.  IMPORTANT REMINDER: While the District candidates must live in those districts, everyone in the County may vote in all three contests.)

HERE ARE MY CHOICES FOR THE BOARD OF EDUCATION

District 2:  Natalie Zimmerman.  This is the most important race, because the incumbent hardly campaigned and, as a result, did not make the run-off. After participating in a Zoom meeting with Ms. Zimmerman, I am even more confident that she would be a very important, useful addition to the BOE, bringing the vital perspectives of an experienced elementary school teacher. 

          The candidate who came in second to Ms. Zimmerman in the primary was Brenda Diaz.  Ms. Diaz is a far-right candidate who advocates for policies on vaccines endorsed by RFK, Jr., who she cited as the source of her views during a podcast interview last spring.  Her views on LGBTQ+ matters are out of the mainstream in Montgomery County, and she is being actively supported by the local Republican Party which is all-in for Donald Trump and other right-wing candidates.  For details on these serious concerns, see this blogpost.  Also, the largest contributor to her campaign is the Campaign Committee of Bethany Mandel, who ran unsuccessfully in the primary for the District 4 seat.  See public document here.  (To find it, just type “Diaz, Brenda M. Friends for” in the top right-hand box, click search, and go to the 8/27/2024 Campaign Statement).  For convenience, below is a screen shot of the pertinent page.

Ms. Mandel, who came in a distant third out of three candidates for the District 4 seat in the primary, is a very extreme figure.  Here is what I reported on her last spring (see footnote 2 of this hyperlink:

District 4 candidate Bethany Mandel . . . declined to respond the Metro DC PFLAG questionnaire, which typically is a sure sign that she is not supportive of LGBTQ+ students. In campaign forums, Ms. Mandel has vigorously expressed her opposition to the MCPS storybook policy regarding opt-out, and goes further, attacking what she refers to as "woke" approaches to education.  She has six children, and home-schools those who are school age; she has no experience with MCPS.  In one forum, she said that she wants MCPS to follow her advice about education because her children will someday have to deal with children who have graduated from MCPS.  Ms. Mandel, who has the support of the right-wing Moms for Liberty was active in the 2023 Moms for Liberty rally in Philadelphia featuring Donald Trump and Ron De Santis, and is a fairly well-known commentator in right-wing circles, as recently documented here. 

District 4:  Laura Stewart. I am confident that the best choice for the District 4 seat is Laura Stewart.  This is not because I have any specific criticism of Ms. Evans (who has done good work as a BOE member), other than being part of a BOE that has been unable to provide the administrative oversight that might well have avoided things like the Beidleman Scandal.  But we do need a fresh start, and Ms. Stewart provides an energy that would be very helpful to the Board, and make it more effective.  Ms. Stewart's years of MCPS and PTSA advocacy, both at the local and state levels, have shown energy, wisdom, and commitment, which led to her endorsement by the MCEA and a range of other groups.  I have been particularly impressed with her dogged, public advocacy in support of sound BOE/MCPS policies that have been under attack from outside right-wing advocacy groups.  Along with former BOE member Jill Ortman-Fouse, Ms. Stewart spearheaded the effort to mobilize people to back MCPS when it was under attack, and, to be frank, MCPS was not doing a very good job explaining the wisdom of its policy.  The letter signed by more than 3,000 residents of Montgomery County helped to turn the tide of public opinion when demonstrations in front of MCPS headquarters threatened to monopolize the conversation.  Similarly, her participation in drafting and signing the above-referenced Guest Commentary in Maryland Matters ("We can't opt out of diversity in our schools and communities") helped advance the discussion, and dispelled, I believe, some of the misconceptions that were creeping into local media.  Again, we would be well-served by either candidate, but I strongly believe that a well-qualified non-incumbent would be the better choice going forward.

At-Large:  I have not yet decided which candidate to endorse.  OCTOBER 13 UPDATE: AFTER THE OCTOBER 9 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS FORUM I DECIDED TO VOTE, AND I ENDORSE, RITA MONTOYA.  SEE https://davidfishback.blogspot.com/2024/10/my-final-endorsements-for-board-of.html  I am not sure about this contest.  Like District 4 incumbent Shebra Evans, At-Large incumbent Lynne Harris is very well-qualified and supports policies I support. But fresh infusion of new people would be useful. I endorsed challenger Rita Montoya in the primary because, in large part, I wanted the General Election choice to be between two candidates with whom I basically agree on policy, and Ms. Harris’ incumbent status put her in the best position to make it to November).  The At-Large contest in the primary included candidates who were far less friendly to LGBTQ+ interests and some were quite hostile. I am not going to endorse for the general election until I hear what Ms. Harris and Ms. Montoya have to say at the October 9 League of Women Voters Candidate Forum, 15 West Gude Drive, Rockville MD at 7:30pm.  Registration is not required.

OTHER MATTERS ON THE BALLOT:

No one who knows me will be surprised by my other endorsements, but here they are:

President & Vice President:  Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz.

Senator: Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks.  Election of her opponent, former Governor Larry Hogan, would most certainly give control of the Senate to Donald Trump’s minions in the Senate and allow them to make it virtually impossible for a President Harris to effectively govern.  This is enough to counsel in favor of voting for County Executive Alsobrooks.

           Moreover, Hogan’s attempt to portray himself as a moderate who would stand up to Donald Trump is disingenuous.  Yes, Hogan has made his opposition to Trump as a human being repeatedly; but Hogan’s advertisements (funded by Mitch McConnell committees and other big money interests) avoid the fact that the only reasons he ever looked like a moderate was that the Democratic super-majority in the General Assembly overrode his vetoes; and even when he did not veto good legislation, he typically let such legislation go into law without his signature, because he knew the Democrats would override him if he vetoed it.  For Hogan to say that he has always been in favor of a woman’s right to choose is, to put it mildly, utterly disingenuous. And, of course, his recent campaign mailer headline that he would vote to reinstate Roe v. Wade is disingenuous since a Senate under Republican control would never allow such a measure to be voted upon. 

          Alsobrooks, in contrast, has been an effective States Attorney and County Executive, and is a competent mainstream Democrat.  The recent attacks on her by Hogan seeking to paint her as a reckless, hypocritical tax evader are unfair and misleading.  In fact, both tax breaks were legitimate when they originated. As to the first, once her grandmother no longer lived in the DC home, the tax break was no longer applicable.  As to the second, the legitimate tax break on the townhouse she purchased ceased to be appliable once she moved out and bought a new home -- and did not use the same tax break on the more expensive home, somthing that actually cost her money. These two errors are being corrected. See here.  It is noteworthy that the Washington Post -- which is notorious for often endorsing the most conservative candidate it can stomach -- endorsed Alsobrooks.

Congress, District 8:  Representative Jamie Raskin.  He is a national treasure, and we are proud and grateful to have him.

Congress, District 6:  April McClean Delaney.  I do not live in District 6, but much of it is in Montgomery County.  The bottom line is that it is essential that a Democrat keeps that seat (particularly when the Republican candidate is very right-wing), so that the House of Representative can flip to the Democrats.  Without Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress, the Republicans will be able to paralyze a Harris-Walz administration or, in the event of a Trump-Vance administration, accelerate the damage such a presidential right would entail.

Judges and Ballot Questions.   See the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee Sample Ballot, whose recommendations I endorse. https://mcdcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/mcdcc-sample-ballot-2024-v20.pdf

 

Four sitting Montgomery County Circuit judges won both the Democratic and Republican primaries, so they are running unopposed in the general election.  And three state appellate judges face the voters regarding their continuation in office.  The Montgomery County Democratic endorses all the judges.

Question 1 is a proposed amendment to the Maryland Constitution which would enshrine reproductive freedom.  State statutory law currently does so, but this would make the protections even stronger, an important thing in light of the current membership of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Please vote YES on Question 1.

Question A is an attempt by the Republican Party of Montgomery County to amend the County Charter to bar a County Executive from election to more than two consecutive terms in office. (Currently the limit is three consecutive terms.)  This is a blatant attempt to subvert the will of the voters. See here.  Please vote NO on Question A.

---

[1] This is where I am coming from on MCPS issues: I have been involved in MCPS matters since 1984, when I was co-president of the Rosemary Hills Primary School PTA, working for needed resources for this magnet integration school. Later, I was public affairs director for the Gifted and Talented Association of Montgomery County, working to secure appropriate education for students and seeking ways to widen the net with respect to GT identification and opportunities; I subsequently, as a PTSA Board member at Richard Montgomery High School, worked to protect needed resources for the Blair, Richard Montgomery, Takoma Park, and Eastern signature secondary schools. Beginning in 2002, after my children graduated from MCPS, I became active in working to secure appropriate health education and other MCPS policies regarding LGBT+ issues, and continue in this area (in which MCPS has made great progress) to this day.

  

Things to know about Board of Education District 2 Candidate Brenda Diaz.

     

[Oct. 14, 2024 NOTE:  FOR MORE DETAILS, SEE https://davidfishback.blogspot.com/2024/10/my-final-endorsements-for-board-of.html]

There are three BOE seats up for election this autumn:  District 2, District 4, and At-Large.  Every voter in the County may cast votes in all three races.  While way down-ballot, these elections are vital to our community's future.

1.  VACCINE DENIAL:  Every Montgomery County MD voter should know that Board of Education District 2 candidate Brenda Diaz is a follower of RFK Jr.'s approach to vaccines. Listen to her own words in Sunil Dasgupta's May 10, 2024, I Hate Politics Podcast, at 11:01 to 15:34. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djYYTfvjqJs.  After Ms. Diaz challenges the use of Covid vaccines, Professor Dasgupta notes, at 13:36, "But vaccines have saved lives."  Ms. Diaz responds that that is "old data."  Professor Dasgupta then asks where she gets her information.  Ms. Diaz says "I like RFK, Jr." and goes on to discuss him at length.  This three-minute exchange is breathtaking, and is worth listening to.

2.  LGBTQ+ MATTERS:  In the District 2 primary, candidates who support the MCPS storybook policy (incumbent Rebecca Smondrowski and challenger Natalie Zimmerman) received 68% of the votes.  Ms. Zimmerman received 49%, Ms. Smondrowski 19%; Ms. Diaz is on the general election ballot because she came in second, with 22%.  I endorsed Ms. Zimmerman for the District 2 seat even before the I Hate Politics Podcast.  See https://davidfishback.blogspot.com/2024/04/endorsements-of-laura-stewart-natalie.html  In that endorsement, I noted Ms. Diaz's response to the Metro DC PFLAG candidate questionnaire asking about "Don't Say Gay" laws like those in Florida, in which she asserted that Pete Buttigieg's criticism of the Florida law was "disingenous,"  That for me was a red flag.  Here is the question and the relevant part of her answer:

5.   ATTEMPTS TO BAR DISCUSSION OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR GENDER EXPRESSION.

 Background

 In some parts of the country, laws and regulations have been enacted to prohibit public schools from discussing or even mentioning sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.  See, for example,  What You Need to Know about Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” and “Don’t Say They” Laws, Book Bans, and Other Curricula Restrictions, published in 2023 by the National Education Association, the Florida Education Association, and the American Federation of Teachers;  and 'Don't Say Gay' bill would limit discussion of sexuality and gender in Florida schools, reported by National Public Radio in 2022. 

In 2022, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg succintly explained the implication of such laws and regulations.

Question:  What is your view of these efforts?  What do you think of Secretary Buttigieg’s perspective?   

Here is the portion of Ms. Diaz's response I cited in my endorsement blogpost:  "In the interview, Secretary Buttigieg mentioned that a student would be restricted from sharing about his family life with his classroom peers during morning meeting. I believe he was disingenuous when he used that as an example of what this bill aims to do."

The entire questionnaire and her answers may be found here.  

The text and subtext to most of Ms. Diaz's  answers were an attack on MCPS's storybook policy, which has been attacked by right-wing groups like Moms For Liberty.   Efforts seeking to block the MCPS policy were rejected by both the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, although the plaintiffs are now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse those courts. See https://davidfishback.blogspot.com/2024/09/becket-fund-for-religious-liberty-asks.html

For those not familiar with the issues raised by these attacks on the MCPS policy, please read https://marylandmatters.org/2023/07/11/commentary-we-cant-opt-out-of-diversity-in-our-schools-and-communities/

3.  MONTGOMERY COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY FORMAL SUPPORT OF MS. DIAZ:  It is also noteworthy that the Montgomery County Republican Party, breaking with longstanding traditions of political parties not being formally involved in the non-partisan Board of Education elections, is urging its followers to work and vote for Ms. Diaz. https://www.mcgop.com/newsletter?page=3   This endorsement is consistent with the Party's endorsement of Donald Trump, who has embraced the support of RFK, Jr. 

ReplyForward Add reaction

 

Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Asks the U.S. Supreme Court to Force MCPS to Marginalize LGBTQ+ People.

 This morning’s Washington Post reports that the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, and the Montgomery County Board of Education to include, without parental “opt-outs," certain storybooks in the MCPS elementary school English Language Arts (ELA) curriculum – storybooks which, while not addressing details of sexual orientation or gender identity, do recognize the presence in our community people who are not cisgender or straight.

 

The Becket Fund petition is based on the erroneous proposition that there is no difference at all between the MCPS Family Life and Human Sexuality Curriculum on matters of sexuality – for which there have always been parental opt-outs – and the English Language Arts storybooks at issue in this case.  But as was demonstrated back in July 2023 in a Maryland Matters Guest Commentary, “[w]hile an opt-out option is mandated by Maryland law for instruction on human sexuality . . . the storybooks at issue do not involve sex. As one MCPS parent explained in testimony before the Board of Education, ‘The book ‘Prince and Knight’ is no more about gay sex than ‘Cinderella’ and ‘Snow White’ are about heterosexual sex.’” 

 

This conflation of the teaching of human sexuality in health education classes with the simple recognition that not all families in our community are made up solely of straight, cisgender people is an attempt to marginalize or negate the existence of such people in our community.  This attempt was rejected by the lower courts.  They were correct.  The Constitution of the United States does not require such marginalization. 

For a more comprehensive justification for the MCPS policy, including the lack of an "opt-out" and an explanation of additional dangers posed by the Becket Fund approach, please read the July 2023 Maryland Matters piece at https://marylandmatters.org/2023/07/11/commentary-we-cant-opt-out-of-diversity-in-our-schools-and-communities/

Labor on the Bimah at Temple Emanuel

 

Labor on the Bimah at Temple Emanuel -- August 30, 2024

We at Temple Emanuel (Kensington MD) were proud to celebrate Labor on the Bimah on the Friday before Labor Day.

Here is the introduction of our speaker, Labor Law Attorney (and long-time member of the Temple) Matthew Clash-Drexler, followed by the text of his presentation:

 

It is fitting that the Union for Reform Judaism proclaims the Shabbat before Labor Day as a time to focus on the importance of the American Labor Movement.

 

From its earliest beginnings in response to the imbalance of power caused by industrialization, Jewish Americans were key to the Labor Movement’s development, beginning with Samuel Gompers.  In 1864, at the age of 14, Gompers joined the local Cigar Workers Union in New York, and in 1886, 22 years later, became President of the American Federation of Labor, where he served for almost 40 years. 

 

The great Unions of the 20^th Century, such as the International Ladies Garment Workers and the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, were filled with active Jewish members, including their presidents, David Dubinsky and Sidney Hillman.  Those Unions were instrumental in achieving the advances of the New Deal, which set the stage for the emergence of the greatest, most prosperous working class in the history of the world.  So much so, that President Roosevelt was deciding whether to designate Harry Truman as his VP nominee, he told to aides to first “Clear it with Sidney.”  Hillman.

 

Jewish labor leaders were instrumental in fostering the alliances between progressive unions and the burgeoning Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s.  And as more and more Jews entered the so-called “professional classes” following World War II, Jews continued to be active in the labor movement, notably as lawyers, such as Arthur J. Goldberg (who later ascended to the Supreme Court), and Joseph L. Rauh, who became as well-known as a Civil Rights lawyer as he was as a union-side labor lawyer.

 

So that is why we are so fortunate to have as our speaker this evening Matt Clash-Drexler, who has in the 21 Century, devoted his career to carrying on the tradition of Arthur Goldberg and Joe Rauh.

 

Matt, his wife Sara, and their children Noah and Elianna have been members of Temple Emanuel since 2006.  He has served as a member of our Board of Trustees.  And many of you know him from his important role in the Mizmor L'Shabbat Band, adding Ruach to so many of our Shabbat Services. 

 

Tonight, we have asked him to share with us his perspectives on his many years as a union-side attorney, working for progress in our society – advancing our principles of Tikkun Olam, repairing the world.

 

 

 Matt's presentation:

 

I am honored and thrilled to be speaking tonight at Labor on the Bimah, which brings together two important pillars of my life—Judaism and the labor movement. Thank you to Temple Emanuel and to Rabbi Adam, Cantor Lindsay, and David for continuing this tradition and centering workers and unions on this upcoming Labor Day.

 

In thinking about my remarks for tonight, I wanted to start with the Labor Day holiday itself.

 

Labor Day was declared a national holiday in 1894; at that point, 30 states had already recognized a labor day. It began as a result of a push by unions for recognition of the sacrifices and battles that workers and unions had fought and won.

 

In many ways, Labor Day has become a Havdalah of sorts for our country. It serves as the separation between summer and the rest of the year. It is a day of rest to be spent not in the factory or staring at a computer screen but with our families and friends at picnics and parades and protests.

 

Labor Day is not the first but is one of the many examples of the ways in which organized labor, through its hard, long-fought, and dangerous fight for better working conditions and decent pay has bestowed benefits on the entire country.

 

And that really is the message for my talk tonight – the way that the fight of organized labor is really the fight for the soul of our nation.

 

Let’s start with what we all have witnessed over the last few years. As we have all seen, there has been a major resurgence in interest and support for labor unions.

 

Unions have recently scored big victories in a variety of industries. Following a strike, auto workers obtained massive gains in wages and benefits; Screen writers went out on a 5-month strike that won them a massive new contract providing for wage increases, increases in the size of writing teams, and better residuals for streaming services; and the threat of a strike in Las Vegas by hospitality workers resulted in more than a 30% wage increase over 5 years. We have also seen a massive increase in union organizing activity from baristas at starbucks to factory workers at Amazon.

But it’s not all good news: The percentage of workers who belong to a union plunged to its lowest level on record in 2022. Despite the headline grabbing organized labor strikes and unionization votes, U.S. union membership rates fell to just 10% of the workforce.

What is clear across the country. While workers want unions, a broken legal system undermines those efforts at every turn

 With unions at just 10%, I have realized that many in our community – even as progressive as we often believe we are - really have no understanding of what a labor union is.

I can’t tell you the number of times that I’m told in progressive circles that “Labor Unions aren’t needed anymore.” Let me explain just how wrong that is.

Under federal labor law, when workers form a union, what the workers are agreeing to is to deal directly with their employer not on a one-to-one or individual basis but instead exclusively between the employer and the union.

The idea that employees can only address their concerns with the employer through the union rather than directly might sound foreign, but underlying this model is the recognition that there is power in numbers and in collective action.

We have all seen and experienced this in our own lives. Here at Temple Emanuel – we have participated in marches – demanding thru a collective voice that the government respond to the will of the people. We have seen it in our personal experiences – working thru the PTA to raise awareness of concerns in the school system. And I have certainly seen it in my family – where my children have recognized that joining forces together gives them a power to get what they are after.

What is different about those examples is that there is no obligation for the government to sit down and listen; there is no obligation for the school board to engage with the PTA, and – while my kids might not know it – no obligation for parents to bargain with them over their demands.

Federal labor law creates that obligation. And creates this awesome – and I really mean that – moment when workers get to sit at the same table with their supervisors and negotiate as equals. Whether the negotiations are on behalf of hotel workers, casino dealers, teachers, public safety employees, domestic workers, and athletes, it is hard to put into words the impact and power these workers obtain from being at the same table as management.

Just like our own individual experiences about the power of collective action, the data shows that where there are unions and a unionized workforce, those employees see significant improvements with studies showing that unionized workers see a wage premium of around 10-15 percent.

And, just like with the gift of labor day, the positive effects of unions are not limited to union workers. When unions successfully negotiate, nonunion firms in competition with unionized workplaces may choose to raise wages, change hiring practices, or improve their workplace environment to attract workers.

We have seen examples of this in just the past few years

-   I mentioned earlier, the UAW strike against the Big 3 automakers

-   The contract that resulted from the UAW strikes obtained an immediate          11% raise and subsequent increases of nearly 30% over the remainder           of the contract

The benefits though did not stop with the unionized workforce

-  As a result of those gains, nonunion automakers in the US announced          significant raises for their US factory workers within weeks of the                    resolution of the strike

Similarly unions seek improvement in working conditions not only at the bargaining table but also through legislation:

           -  It was not long ago that we heard the chant of fight for $15, a fight for at                   least a $15 minimum wage. That was a union campaign. And that                           campaign has in large part been won with many jurisdictions – including                 Maryland and DC raising their minimum wage not only to $15 but                             exceeding that (with Maryland at $17/hour for large employers)

            - These gains impact the entire workforce

   - I should note that one of the major initiatives that is being advanced by labor and pro-labor groups in connection with tonight’s labor on the bimah program is the creation of a more equitable tax code. For instance, here in Maryland, groups like Jews United for Justice are part of a broad coalition to move Maryland away from its regressive tax system to one where those with the resources bear more of the burden. You can read more about it on the Jews United for Justice website.

 

Given the breadth of unions’ impact, it should come as no surprise that there is a direct link between the rates of union membership and levels of income inequality. When union membership was at its peak in the 1950s with nearly a third of the workforce in unions, overall income inequality was at its lowest and was continuing to fall.

What has happened since then is a sharp decline in union membership and, with that decline, came massive income inequality. While the economy as a whole has prospered, middle- and low-income households have experienced stagnating wages, rising income volatility, and reduced intergenerational mobility.

Because unions improve the well-being of middle-class workers in ways that directly combat these negative trends, there are powerful forces who have skewed the laws to prevent unions from achieving those goals.

While you have all heard about the organizing campaigns at starbucks and Amazon, what you might not have heard are the lengths that those companies have gone to thwart the will of their workers.

Let’s look first at Starbucks. In August of 2021, workers in Buffalo launched an organizing drive, initiated by 49 brave baristas. Since then, workers at 415 other stores have unionized as well. In response, Starbucks has spent what is reported as nearly a quarter of a billion dollars to fight their own workers. They have held what are called captive audience meetings; threatened workers with the loss of benefits; interrogated workers about their support for the union; they have fired workers who are leaders in the organizing campaign; they have shuttered stores, reduced hours, made it harder for workers to get shifts. In the three years that has followed since the baristas won the right to unionize, the baristas have yet to negotiate a single collective bargaining agreement or contract at any of its stores.

This story is repeated over and over again by employer after employer. For example, Amazon workers successfully organized in April of 2022 but they still don’t have a contract. Indeed, it was just yesterday – 2 and a half years after the election – that the National Labor Relations Board rejected Amazon’s challenges to that election.

It is because of stories like these that unions and their supporters are pushing for updates in the labor laws through legislation like the Protecting the Right to Organize or PRO Act to establish mechanisms – such as binding arbitration – to ensure that employers cannot violate labor law with the goal of eroding support through fear and intimidation and instead must conclude a contract with the union. I urge all of you to learn more about the Act and work with unions for its passage.

That was the dark and gloomy part of this talk. I want to end by going back to the amazing work that unions have achieved and talk about  one of the highlights of my labor career, which was my work representing the United States Women’s National Soccer Team Players Association – the union representing the incredible athletes on the team both as part of the equal pay lawsuit and at the bargaining table to address their employer’s sexist treatment of its female athletes.

This story shows again not only how workers organizing together can achieve important improvements in their own working conditions but how those gains spread out to others.

From the formation of the US National team in the 1980s, there have been two constants. First, the US Women’s National Team is simply the best, most successful team in the world having won 4 world cups and 5 olympic gold medals (including just recently in Paris). The second constant is that, notwithstanding that success, the US Soccer Federation – the employer of both the men’s and women’s national teams – had consistently provided lower pay, lesser benefits, poor playing conditions, and inferior working conditions to the women’s team. Indeed, the team’s first jerseys were hand-me-downs from the men’s team. Even though the two teams play the same game, on the same field, using the same rules, US Soccer paid the men’s team more when they won and even when they lost. The men were guaranteed to play on grass fields where the women were relegated to unsafe artificial turf fields. If you want to see the danger of those fields, google images from the World Cup played in Canada that took place exclusively on turf fields. The men’s team had more staffing and support – more doctors, more physical therapists, better equipment; the men flew on charter flights, while the women flew commercial.

During negotiations in 2016, US Soccer told the players that “market realities” meant that the players were not entitled to equal treatment. US Soccer made this statement even though there own data showed that because of the popularity of the women’s team, it was Women’s National Team that was generating more revenue for US Soccer than the men.  Let me say that again – the Women were generating more revenue for the employer than the men but still the market realities meant that they did not deserve equal pay.

What followed was the courage of the women on the team to stand up to their employer and file a lawsuit to end the discriminatory treatment by US Soccer.

From 2018 until 2022, in the courtroom and at the bargaining team, I had the privilege to represent the union in this struggle. And, just as the women’s national team always does, they won and achieved a contract that truly does provide for equal pay and treatment:  the teams receive the same amounts when they win, when they participate in tournaments, and as a share of the marketing revenue that US Soccer makes off of their images. They are guaranteed equal staffing, equal playing conditions, equal travel resources.

Getting to stand on the field, when the union signed the collective bargaining agreement was a career highlight but what was probably the most moving part of this story is when I met Camila Garcia later that night at the party to celebrate the signing of the CBA, which occurred a few months after the settlement of the equal pay lawsuit was announced. Camila is a former soccer player from Chile. She told me that she had been in a long fight with the legislature in Chile to create a truly professional women’s soccer league and that time and time again, their efforts for equality were denied. Camila told me that literally the day after the lawsuit settlement was announced, she received a call from the president of their legislature that the time had come to make it happen. And just a month later, the legislature passed the bill, making Camila’s work a reality.

And that really is the power of organized labor. The power that through collective action massive and enduring change can follow.

Thank you again to Cantor Lindsay and to David for sponsoring this important evening. Shabbat shalom.

Cantor Lindsay Kanter, Temple Community Social Action Council (CSAC) member David Fishback, past General Counsel of the Service Employees International Union (and now federal judge) Nicole Berner, Matt Clash-Drexler, CSAC member Candace Groudine, retired UAW economist Steve Beckman, and Rachel Ritvo

ReplyForward Add reaction