Profiles in Cowardice

 Ben Franklin famously told a citizen in 1787 that the Constitutional Convention had fashioned “a Republic, if you can keep it.”

Nearly nine years ago, Republican politicians, having just lost to Obama/Biden in the Electoral College, floated the idea of, in the future, choosing electors by Congressional District. If that had been done in 2012, Romney/Ryan would have won the Electoral College, even though they lost the popular vote by 3.5 million votes. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/retaining-popular-legitimacy/2013/01/28/eaf15e24-673c-11e2-889b-f23c246aa446_story.html

This idea quickly faded, presumably because Republican politicians were capable of shame and had some respect for majority rule. They chose to keep our democratic republic. 

Four years later, in 2016, Republican nominee Donald Trump won the Electoral College, even though he lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election  (This was the third consecutive presidential election in which the popular vote was won by the Democratic candidate.)  

Having tasted the blood of minority victory, Republicans the got upset in 2020, when they lost the popular vote by 7 million and lost the Electoral College. So now they want to subvert the possibility of majority rule by voter suppression activities and allowing gerrymandered Republican state legislatures to overturn the popular will. 

In other words, they no longer care about keeping a democratic republic. 

And now two nominally Democratic Senators stand in the way of enacting federal legislation which could protect majority rule.  Senators Manchin and Sinema need to look into their consciences and their souls and decide whether they want to go down in history as the two Democratic Senators who were, in effect, collaborators with an opposition party gone mad.  

Similarly, the handful of Republican Senators who were once considered principled states-persons who, when necessary, would put principle above party, must decide whether they wish to go down in history as characters in a sequel to Senator John F. Kennedy's book, this one to be entitled Profiles in Cowardice. 

General Clark was wrong, and the Maryland General Assembly was right, on gerrymandering

On December 4, 2021, retired General Wesley Clark published an opinion piece the Washington Post urging the Democratic-controlled Maryland General Assembly to refrain from gerrymandering its Congressional districts, notwithstanding larger scale gerrymandering going on Republican states around the country.  I wrote a letter to the Editor taking exception to Gen. Clark's suggestion:

Like the proverbial generals who are always fighting the last war, retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark urged Maryland to lead on resisting gerrymandering in the upcoming redistricting. But Gen. Clark is fighting a war that was lost on June 27, 2019. On that date, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the court would not step in to stop partisan gerrymandering, no matter how coarse. 

Sixty years ago, the Supreme Court saved democracy in America by fashioning the one-person, one-vote standard for legislative and congressional districts. This time, the court declined to act to save American democracy. With the coarsest congressional gerrymandering now occurring in large red states such as Texas, Ohio and Florida, for Gen. Clark to urge that relatively small, blue Maryland act as if the court had set legally enforceable standards of fairness is akin to unilateral disarmament. One would think Gen. Clark, as a former NATO supreme commander, would understand the risks of unilateral disarmament.

David S. Fishback, Olney

On December 12, it was published, along with three similar letters. See here.  

I am proud of the members of the Maryland General Assembly who successfully chose not to unilaterally disarm.

Standing up and fighting back

 

STANDING UP AND FIGHTING BACK

A report on the front page of the Nov. 17 Metro Section in the Washington Post reminds us that when parents and students stand up to the “book burners,” Board of Education members discover their backbones – or are given important positive reinforcement to continue to engage in thoughtful educational practices.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../dcf77f24-46e4-11ec...

This story came just days after a Nov. 14 national news article in the Post carried a disturbing headline (“Conservative school board wins may dampen racial equity efforts”). But the news in that article also reminds us that when parents and students refuse to be beaten down by the screaming, progress can continue.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../conservative-school.../

The Nov. 14 article recognized that while in most recent school board elections “conservatives” lost, “many observers argue that the victories these conservative candidates did notch, and the intense heat the races generated, will have ramifications nationwide.”

But only if we do not stand up to them. The Nov. 14 article closes with this description of what occurred in a town in Connecticut:

“In 2020, the seaside community of Guilford, Conn., reckoned with the murder of Floyd by a White police officer in Minneapolis by implementing more diverse perspectives into the school curriculum and changing the school’s nickname, the Indians.

“As this was unfolding, some students expressed confusion and frustration talking to their parents about the complex issues around race, gender and history that were being addressed in the classroom, said Guilford resident Arnold Skretta, an attorney who was not on the school board at the time.

“Educators and the school board emphasized to families that critical race theory was not being taught in the classroom, but some parents and officials didn’t believe them, accusing the district in a Zoom forum of trying to make people of color feel more welcome ‘at the expense of White Judeo-Christians,’ Skretta said.

“’At that point, it was blatant, overt racism,’” said Skretta, 42.

“Five conservatives were already running for the school board, having ousted three more traditional Republican school board members in the GOP primary in September. Skretta had tracked their rise and joined a group of Democratic and independents to run against them.

“The conservatives drew national interest and money to their race, appearing on Fox News several times, but last week, they lost by 2-to-1 margins.

“Skretta credited high turnout and said he could not have won without significant voter engagement. He hoped that could be a blueprint for races elsewhere.

“’What happened here in Guilford is the consequence of a town getting engaged,’ he said. ‘Democrats can’t let the right wing weaponize school boards.”’

When we stand up, we win. If we cower or give up, we will lose – as will our children and grandchildren

Beware of any "conventional wisdom" that Glenn Youngkin is a harbinger of a kinder and gentler Republican Party than the Party of Trump

 

        Before the "conventional wisdom" solidifies into a trope that Glenn Youngkin is the future of the Republican Party because he is "conservative" without being Trumpy, let's remember the core of each man's campaign for their first political office.

        Trump launched his campaign by asserting the lie -- with all its racist overtones -- that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.  In so doing, he brought into the Republican mainstream the proposition that "real" Americans -- i.e., White Americans --  were under threat from a Black person in the Oval Office who was not a true American.  Trump kicked over the rocks which previously had covered up so much racism, based not just on hate, but also on fear of displacement.

        Youngkin based so much of his campaign on another lie, a lie which went directly to a racist appeal based on hatred and fear:  That "Critical Race Theory" was being taught in the public schools and that it endangered White children because it would make them feel bad and, inferentially, would embolden non-White children to hate White children. https://davidfishback.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-critical-race-theory-controversy.html It was a lie on both counts, and someone as educated and worldly as multi-millionaire former Carlyle Group CEO Youngkin had to know this.  But he was perfectly willing to demagogue the issue to achieve power.  

         So let us not forget that Glenn Youngkin as a politician is essentially a Donald Trump with better manners.  Playing on racial fears of White Americans has been a tactic -- often a successful tactic -- with a long and sordid history in the American story.  And it has always been a destructive tactic, which brought us to Civil War in the mid-1800s and, until the mid-1960s, wiped out most of what Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass hoped to achieve at the end of that war.  The Republican Party strategy now is to win and maintain power by destroying the Second Reconstruction begun with the mid-20th Century Civil Rights Movement.  

        Glenn Youngkin is not only part and parcel of that strategy, but is a dangerous practitioner of it.  And perhaps more dangerous than Trump, because he is not so transparent. 

        Do not be fooled by what may become a media trope of "moderation" in the coming weeks and months.  

2007 Bethesda Magazine: "Minority Retort- How did so few people create such a ruckus over the county's new sex-ed curriculum?"

 

For comparison with the article on LGBTQ+ matters in the Nov.-Dec. 2021 edition of Bethesda Magazine at pp. 156-162 (See here), take a look at its  instructive article by Eugene Meyer in its Sept./Oct. 2007 edition, discussing Attorney John Garza (who is suing MCPS in the litigation referenced in the new article) and his organization, Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum.  As far as I can determine, it was never posted on-line, but below are the pages from the print edition, followed by links to a transcript of the News Talk program referenced several times in Mr. Meyer's article (and my comments on the article, sent to some of my Teachthefacts.org friends:

"Minority Retort" from Bethesda Magazine (Sept./Oct. 2007) on the Montgomery County Health Education Controversy

Here are links to the transcript of the New Talk discussion I had with John Garza in May 2007, courtesy of Teachthefacts.org, Jim Kennedy, and Chris Grewell.
http://vigilance.teachthefacts.org/2007/05/newstalk-transcript-first-part.html

http://vigilance.teachthefacts.org/2007/05/newstalk-transcript-second-part.html

Sent: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:21 pm
Subject: Bethesda Magazine

All:

            On Sunday, the Sept/Oct. issue of Bethesda Magazine hit the newstands in Montgomery County.  In it, there is an article by Eugene Meyer entitled "Minority Retort:  How did so few people create such a ruckus over the county's new sex-ed curriculum?"   The article will not likely be on line until November, so I think there would be a serious copyright problems if it were to be posted on public web sites.  (The magazine is only 3 years old, and I suspect they would be very sensitive to such issues.  I know I would be were I its publisher.)

            The article has a pretty accurate description, as far as it goes, of what has been going on the last few years.  I see a few errors, but none are significant to our litigation concerns.  If you are interested in the atmospherics, however, read on.

             1.  While Meyer says I am 60, that is not yet true. I will not be 60 until mid-autumn. Sixty, hmmm. Well, as Satchel Paige said, "Age is mind over matter. If you don't mind, it don't matter."

             2.  John Garza is quoted as saying that I told him I am proud of my son who went to Princeton. A calumny. One of my sons went to Yale (and then Harvard Graduate School of Education), the other went to Penn -- Princeton's arch-rival. Should I demand a correction? :)

               3.  The Scopes Trial was in 1925, not 1924.  1924 is only an interesting date for Washingtonians because it is the only year a Washington baseball team won the World Series.  Perhaps that is what Meyer was thinking about.

              4.  Meyer also reports that Garza told him that he changed his mind about his suggestion that we have lunch and discuss our theological differences, saying that "I dont want to waste his time if he [Fishback] thinks he's going to save me." I found that curious, because I wrote to Garza saying I would be happy to continue our chat, as long as he did not think he was going to save ME. I have no illusions about changing John Garza's mind and heart, but it is always useful to learn other more about other people's perspectives.

              5.  The article quotes Garza as e-mailing the following to Meyer:  “I want to correct something David F. said a while ago.  God has never talked to me.”   Here, in fact, is the direct quote from the e-mail I sent to Meyer describing our post-NewTalk chat on May 1 (which I cc’ed to Garza): “John told me after the program that he personally does not care what individuals do with their lives, but for him, ‘If God tells me to walk on the left side of the road, I walk on the left side of the road.’  (John, if I have that quote wrong, please correct me.)”

 If Garza felt the need to clarify, fine.  But  he did not deny the quote and he did not have the courtesy to copy me with the e-mail.  Of course, this is typical of CRC tactics.  On March 29, 2007, I sent a letter to the State BOE in support of the MCPS decision and providing information on the AMA/AAP/APA positions on matters of sexual orientation – a letter I cc’ed to Garza.  Garza responded to Meyer,  but did not cc me.  I only found out about the letter several weeks later when it showed up on the CRC website.  I mentioned this to Garza after the NewsTalk show, and he blamed it on his secretary.  (This is lawyer talk for “the dog ate my homework.”)

              Of course, the theological exchanges I had with Garza are irrelevant to the litigation issues. 

               6.  As interesting as the main article is, I would principally recommend reading the side-bar interview with a health education teacher at B-CC High School. I am glad we have such teachers.

David

The Critical Race Theory "Controversy"

 

In recent months, right-wing groups have attacked the alleged use in our schools of "Critical Race Theory," using it as a cudgel to inflame people and to prevent the teaching of basic historical facts and to suppress discussion of the significance of those facts. This is part of an effort to agitate and excite its base to get them to the polls and school board meetings in support of their issues more broadly.  They assert that Critical Race Theory is a doctrine that people  “should view everything through the lens of race and then pit them against one another.”[1] 

 

But this is NOT what Critical Race Theory is.  Rather, it is  a framework which seeks to understand the impact of race in America. It is a graduate level academic construct focusing on the proposition that, from the beginning of the European migration to what is now the United States, racism has been so intertwined with American law and society that they cannot easily be disentangled. Critical Race theorists have drawn such conclusions based on their assessment of historical and current facts. Nowhere is Critical Race Theory taught as the official core doctrine of American history in our primary and secondary schools; but, one would hope that the kinds of facts that underly it are presented in an age-appropriate manner.

 

Kendall Thomas is the co-editor of Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement.  He observes that the theory maintains that racism “does not have to define our future if we have the will and the courage to reckon with it.”  Rather than encouragingWhite people to feel guilty, Thomas explains, Critical Race Theorists aim to shift focus away from individual people’s bad actions  and toward how systems uphold racial disparities. Thomas concludes that “Critical race theory is an effort really to move beyond the focus on [simply] finding fault by impugning [people’s] racist” animus and the like, and instead looking “at the ways in which racial inequality is embedded in structures in ways of which we are very often unaware.”[2]     Nevertheless, right-wing groups incorrectly assert that “Critical Race Theory” is a doctrine which asserts that all White people are inherently, unavoidably, and irretrievably racist, and that this doctrine threatens to take over education in our country.[3] They lump the theory together with the historical facts surrounding  race in America. They oppose mention in our classrooms of historical facts and current conditions that might make White children feel bad.  Their goal is to suppress uncomfortable facts about our shared history.   Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said that “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”  But the attack on “Critical Race Theory” is an effort to impose a whitewashed version of America, by suppressing discussion of relevant facts.   There are a variety of theories that seek to make sense out of the facts. One may be summarized by Chief Justice Roberts’  2007 statement that "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race"[4] ; this is a proposition that past evils are totally a thing of the past, that any legacies of human slavery in America have zero impact on our society today.    Recent attacks on “Critical Race Theory” are, at best, nothing more than attempts to ensconce “Roberts RaceTheory” as the official doctrine of American education, holding as irrelevant any possible impact of human  slavery and its legacy on 21st Century America.  At worst - and most of the time they are “at worst” – they are attempts to whitewash the facts of our history. For example, that is precisely what the recent Texas law limiting what may be taught in their public schools does.   In Texas, teaching of some relevant facts is permitted, but discussion of the implication of those facts is effectively prohibited by, for example, barring discussion of The 1619 Project.[5]   What our schools should do is to teach the relevant historical facts — the bad and the ugly, not just the “good” — so that students can draw their own conclusions. Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat its errors.  Students need the factual bases and critical thinking skills to draw their own conclusions. That is education, not indoctrination.   William Faulkner wrote decades ago, “The past is not dead.  It is not even past.”  We need to face honestly whether or how much this is the case as we grapple with American human slavery and its impacts.      [1] https://dcist.com/story/21/09/29/mcauliffe-youngkin-spar-over-vaccine-mandates-education-policy-final-gubernatorial-debate/   [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/05/29/critical-race-theory-bans-schools/   [3] https://secured.heritage.org/critical-race-theory-ebook-offer/?utm_campaign=crtebook&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_content=criticalracetheory_1   [4] https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/04/race-and-the-supreme-court-what-the-schuette-decision-reveals-about-how-we-talk-about-race.html   [5] https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/HB03979F.pdf#navpanes=0   at  pp. 5-6: Teachers may not “make part of a course the concept that:  . . . . (ix) the advent of slavery in the territory that is now the United States constituted the true founding of the United States; or  (x) with respect to their relationship to American values, slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of,  or failures to live up to, the authentic founding principles of the United States, which include liberty and equality;  and (C) require an understanding of The 1619 Project.” (This is the same statute that scared school staff in South Lakes, Texas, to suggest that books on the Holocaust could not be in  school libraries unless there were books that presented “the other side” of the “controversy.”  Presumably, the same would  apply to books teaching the actual facts of Reconstruction and its aftermath – somehow requiring that something like D.W.  Griffith’s infamous film, Birth of a Nation should be presented as “alternative (albeit false) facts” to provide balanced teaching.) Attachments area

Kulanu Services at Temple Emanuel, 2000-2021

Kulanu Services at Temple Emanuel, 2000 through 2021 

June 11, 2021: Kulanu Shabbat (Guest Speaker, Evan Glass, Member-at-Large, Montgomery County Council: My Journey, Our Journeys, and Using the Political Process to Achieve Progress.) https://davidfishback.blogspot.com/2021/05/evan-glass-to-speak-at-temple-emanuel.html

June 12, 2020: Kulanu Shabbat (Guest Speaker, Nicolle Campa, President, Metro DC Chapter of PFLAG: The Importance of Family in the Struggle for Equal Rights and Community Embrace and presentations by Youth Advisor Devorah Stavisky and Students Eli Herman, Quinn Spence, Kayden Reff, and Autumn Cook) 

June 7, 2019: Kulanu Shabbat (Guest Speaker, Ellen Kahn, Director of the Human Rights Campaign’s Children, Youth, and Families Program: Where are we now, where are we going?)

Sept. 16, 2016: Kulanu Shabbat (with Temple Community Social Action Commission) Comfort Cases for Children in Foster Care: Rob Scheer, founder of Comfort Cases. 

April 15, 2016: Kulanu Shabbat Mike Fishback, Intent and Impact) https://davidfishback.blogspot.com/2016/04/intent-and-impact.html

March 27, 2015: Kulanu Shabbat Building Community by Sharing Our Stories: David Fishback, Sara Cytron, Glenn Northern, Nat Rasmussen, Marti Teitlebaum & Tim Zwerdling 

Oct. 4, 2013: Kulanu Shabbat Dr. Dana Beyer, Executive Director, Gender Rights Maryland, Jewish Values and Transgender Equality 

Jan. 2013: Co-Sponsor MLK Service Jonathan Jayes-Green (speaking about the Maryland Dream Act and the Maryland Civil Marriage Equality Act) 

Oct. 26, 2012: Kulanu Shabbat Jewish Values and Civil Marriage Equality, guest speaker State Senator Richard Madaleno 

Feb. 10, 2012: Kulanu Shabbat Celebrating Our Temple’s Rich Diversity: Sara Cytron, Lisa Feldman, Glenn Northern, and Tim Zwerdling 

April 1, 2011: Kulanu Shabbat Captain Michael Rankin (USN, Ret.), Retired Navy psychiatrist and openly gay advocate for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and Board Member, Union for Reform Judaism 

June 11, 2010: Kulanu Shabbat Delegate Heather Mizeur 

June 12, 2009: Kulanu Shabbat Rabbi Sarah Meytin, Jewish Community Relations Council, Issues of Human Rights 

Feb. 8, 2008: Kulanu Shabbat Delegate Anne Kaiser: Civil Marriage Is A Civil Right: A Gay Jewish View in Annapolis 

Jan. 2007: Co-Sponsor of MLK Service Patricia Corbett, Community Outreach Director, Metro DC PFLAG 

Sept. 15, 2006: Kulanu Shabbat Dan Furmansky, Executive Director of Equality Maryland, Equal Rights for Gays and Lesbians: A Jewish Perspective 

May 22, 2005 Temple Emanuel Celebrates Lag B’Omer: A Celebration of Life and Jewish Survival GLBT in the Family: Response & Embrace 

Feb. 27, 2004: Kulanu Shabbat Rabbi Leila Gal Berner, Values, Tradition and Challenges: A Jewish Approach to Sexual Ethics.  Also presentations from Temple members Ellen Mann (Karch), Bobbi Fishback, and Mike Fishback 

Nov. 16, 2001: Shabbat Service A Vital Part of Our Jewish Community: Embracing a Diversity of Sexual and Gender Identities, Ken Carroll and Stephanie Handel of Bet Mishpachah 

Oct. 18, 2001 Lee Walzer, Homophobia and Anti-Semitism, Temple Social Issues Committee co-sponsored with Bet Mishpacha Social Action Committee and Jews United for Justice 

May 19, 2000: Shabbat Service Gay and Jewish: Issues and Reflections. Rabbi Stone and Catherine Tuerk, Past President of PFLAG and PFLAG Member Hannah Lipman