St. Paul Pioneer Press, Dec. 12
Safe schools and sharp bargaining
The emergence of school violence as a potential teachers’-strike issue is an unfortunate complication as St. Paul confronts discipline problems in its schools.
The St. Paul Federation of Teachers last week filed a petition for state mediation - a required step on the route to a potential strike - as it argues for additional staff and resources to “make our schools safe.”
The situation leaves the community - and board members, including a new majority elected with union support - with the challenge of separating the degree of bargaining-table posturing from what’s happening in city schools.
In the highest-profile among recent incidents, a Central High School teacher was seriously injured and an assistant principal hurt in a lunchroom fight that resulted in charges - one a felony - against 15- and 16-year-old assailants.
It is unfortunate that the issues “are being conflated now,” Michelle Walker, the district’s chief executive officer, told us, and that it is “quite frankly the excuse that is being used for going into mediation.”
In our one-party town, we have expressed concern about how board members - particularly those propelled into office by the teachers’-union-affiliated “Caucus for Change” movement - might be unduly beholden to that powerful constituency.
As we have noted, the school district, one of the city’s largest employers, is unionized wall to wall. Of a total of 7,700 full- and part-time workers, only a couple of dozen are not represented by a union.
“Some of what’s happening may be posturing,” Board Member-Elect Mary Vanderwert acknowledges.
But ultimately, both sides will “have to be looking at what’s best for kids and come to some agreement on that.”
The situation “reflects a fundamental mistrust that exists between these two entities,” another incoming board member, Steve Marchese, told us. Willingness to strike expresses “how seriously they think about this issue.”
The union presented its school climate proposals in May. In response to a “restorative practices” proposal, the district said it would be willing to form a committee to talk about it for the next school year, Federation President Denise Rodriguez told us.
The union would rather implement school pilots than “spend the school year talking about how to create safe and equitable learning environments,” she said.
But work is taking place outside negotiations, Walker said, citing efforts on student-discipline and school-climate issues for the last 18 to 24 months that include consideration of alternatives to suspensions.
“People are saying we’re not suspending students and that students are not getting consequences for their action,” she said. Data “don’t bear that out.”
Issues of student privacy also prevent the district from discussing specific situations. That “feeds into the frustration,” Walker told us.
It’s been reported that the Dec. 4 incident at Central was the 27th time a school staff member has been assaulted in Ramsey County this year. (Another last week at a district special education program resulted in the arrest of a 13-year-old).
Such incidents have nearly doubled since last year, County Attorney John Choi said, in announcing a task force to address the situation county-wide. About half of the incidents occurred in St. Paul, the rest in the suburbs.
Some suggest that the problems are symptoms of broader race and equity issues. Issues within the community “manifest themselves in our schools,” Board Member-Elect Jon Schumacher told us.
“Having the county attorney step forward and identify this as a community issue” is meaningful, he contends. “For him to stand up and say the schools need our help is absolutely correct.”
Our conversation with Marchese, the parent of a Central student, included this observation worth noting: “We have to be careful about taking a look at just the conflicts that happen,” he said, and drawing conclusions that suggest that “district schools - high schools in particular - are not functioning, because there is a lot going on that’s positive.”
Central’s fall musical, a production of “Guys and Dolls,” went on the night of the incident and continued last weekend. It was “a phenomenal production,” Marchese told us. Students were supported in their arts program not only by the district, but by the community.
A key point.
“These are complex issues, and they do need a community response,” Schumacher said, rather than leaving the district to confront them alone.
“Some of what is happening now is that there is a larger community attention to the need to really focus” on schools, he told us. “I am optimistic about what that will bring.”
Yes, such work will require an engaged community, and one able to discern where the needs of students and adults intersect, and where they diverge.
___
The Free Press of Mankato, Dec. 12
Telling the story completely is key
South-central Minnesota is the heart of where the U.S.-Dakota War happened. Every year Dakota runners and horseback riders come to Mankato to remember the hanging of 38 Dakota here on Dec. 26, 1862.
War of any kind leaves its wrath of death and destruction on both sides, and this war was no different. Steps have been made over the years to clarify conditions that led up to the war, who was affected and how people can learn from it. Reconciliation takes a long time.
And now another battle is going on over what art, especially that dealing with Native Americans, should be exhibited in the renovated state Capitol. A panel has been formed to discuss whether certain art is still appropriate to display, including the paintings “Attack on New Ulm” and “Treaty of Traverse des Sioux.” Hearings about the public artwork have been held around the state.
Not surprisingly, there are arguments for and against keeping the paintings in the Capitol. Gwen Westerman - a Minnesota State University professor, Dakota woman and subcommittee member of the Capitol Preservation Committee - has told the panel that in the “Attack on New Ulm” the warriors’ shirtless attire isn’t correct and the nearly identical men further the stereotype “that Dakota people are a faceless menace.”
But on his blog, John LaBatte, an expert on the war who has both white and Dakota ancestors, said the depictions are accurate according to eyewitness accounts, which he includes. He wrote: “The Dakota War of 1862 was one of the most important events in Minnesota history. This event needs to be represented in the State Capitol artwork.”
Obviously, there are strong opinions on both sides about the artwork, and the challenge will be to decide what stays, what goes and how the pieces will be presented. Giving some of the pieces less prominence wouldn’t negate their importance and would make sense if it means another space could provide room for more explanation and interpretation.
The trick is not to try to change history but to accurately represent it, providing the context it needs. Sensitivity is important, but so is including relevant events that were reflected by the artists of the time period.
What would be most offensive is distilling the selections to show only one side of the conflict. Dakota art also should also be among the work displayed at the Capitol - not because it would be politically correct, but because it would provide more context and interpretation of a war that affected both sides, who were all people of Minnesota.
___
St. Cloud Times, Dec. 13
Temper gun access to stop slaughters
For a few days after Robert Lewis Dear opened fire at a Planned Parenthood Clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado, killing three people and wounding nine, America seemed on the verge of seriously discussing how to balance the Second Amendment with how it indirectly contributes to mass senseless slaughters nationwide. Daily.
Then Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik opened fire Dec. 2 on a workplace holiday party in San Bernardino, Calif., leaving 14 dead and 22 injured. Whatever chance at reasoned, much-needed discussion about firearms access was quickly drowned out by the words “Muslims,” ’’terrorism” and “ISIS.”
The ensuing investigation, always framed in terms of all things terrorism, continues to dominate the news. Worse yet, the nation is dividing itself even further thanks to Donald Trump and his fear-mongering suggestion to ban all Muslims. Sadly, too many people support that idea.
By the way, if you’re in that camp, consider this: Dear’s comments indicate his Christian beliefs played a big part in his actions. To echo a question others have raised, does that mean you now view all Christians in this nation with the same suspicion you view all Muslims?
But really that question itself is an example of what’s distracting this nation from what’s needed most: Adopting reasonable measures that retain the right to bear arms with the need to make it more difficult for people with deadly intentions to possess weapons capable of firing massive amounts of ammunition in seconds.
Some folks might interpret that to mean banning assault-style rifles with high-capacity clips. That’s worth a discussion.
Congress from 1994 to 2004 banned certain semi-automatic assault weapons and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Did it help? As a recent Los Angeles Times commentary noted, a federal study after the ban ended found fewer such weapons were found at crime scenes, but it did not reduce gun crimes or gun deaths.
Of course, in that era America was not seeing an average of at least one mass shooting a day - four or more people injured or killed in one shooting spree. Might it help now? Perhaps.
Realistically, though, complex problem problems require complex solutions, so other suggestions should be seriously discussed. Some of those worth consideration include:
- Improving background checks. There are a variety of proposals in Congress that are reasonable. A good starting point is the long-proposed plan to require background checks for all gun purchases online and at gun shows. Unfortunately, the Senate, the day after the San Bernardino shootings, rejected 50-48 this proposal for a second time. It also rejected 55-45 a proposal to prevent people on the terrorist watch list from being able to legally buy guns.
- Liability for high-capacity firearms. Another proposal in the U.S. House requires all gun owners to have liability insurance. That is undoubtedly a reach. But what about such a requirement for owning high-capacity firearms?
- More state and local control? In a 7-2 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Monday not to hear a challenge to a Chicago suburb’s ban on semi-automatic assault weapons could be a game-changer for this entire debate. The court let stand a ruling that Highland Park, Illinois, can have an ordinance state states “no person shall manufacture, sell, offer for display for sale, give, lend, transfer ownership of, acquire or possess any Assault Weapon or Large Capacity Magazine …”
Please note, the ruling involves only high-capacity firearms, and its justification lies in allowing a community to take reasonable steps to protect all residents’ safety while still allowing individuals to own guns, whether for protection or recreation.
Remember, the long-term problem America needs to solve isn’t banning one religion or even banning guns. It’s how to balance the Second Amendment with how it indirectly contributes to mass senseless slaughters nationwide. Daily.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.