Editorials from around New York

Recent editorials of statewide and national interest from New York’s newspapers:

The Niagara Gazette on a constitutional convention in New York.

April 9

As the 2016 Legislature approaches its adjournment it was inevitable that we would hear talk of the need for another constitutional convention. The scandal-riddled atmosphere of Albany, too often known for its dysfunction instead of accomplishments in dealing with state government matters, has sparked interest to take a closer look at the State Constitution and its impact on all New Yorkers.

For the record, the last time such a convention was held (1967) Robert F. Kennedy was a U.S. senator from New York and Lyndon B. Johnson was president. Later, several proposed changes to the constitution were submitted for voter approval and each was defeated. In 1997, voters rejected the mere suggestion of having a convention. They were urged on by an odd coalition of environmentalists, conservative activists, and labor unions. At that time, the Senate and Assembly leaders joined forces with the opponents.

Under the present constitution, Empire State residents are afforded an opportunity every 20 years to decide whether another such session should be convened.

Now appears an appropriate time - some reform groups call it urgent - in the wake of a shameful period in New York history when the state’s two top government leaders are facing prison terms for their crimes of corruption. How much their deplorable behavior and selfish actions have eroded the public trust has yet to be fully measured, but certainly it has been damaged extensively. Suffice to say, however, that significant change is needed to restore that confidence.

It would be understandable if many New Yorkers had mixed feelings about the vote for another convention to be held in 2017. Some familiar with the previous gatherings question how it would be controlled. As Barbara Bartoletti of the League of Women Voters cautions, the process of selecting delegates is crucial. If it’s not carefully structured, it could easily prove another monumental waste of time and money. “It needs to be clear that no one group will dominate the event. And it will be important to preclude any possibility that campaign funds will be used to influence the outcome.” It needs to be “less of an insider, and more of a people’s convention,” Bartoletti adds.

In the current format, state lawmakers are allowed to serve as convention delegates. That should end. What’s not needed at this point is a fox-in-charge-of-the-chicken-coup approach. Earlier conventions seemed to come up short because as delegates the lawmakers were more concerned with protecting their own turf. To compound matters the lawmakers then were double dipping, adding to their $79,500 salary and pension benefits.

Unless the proper guidelines are adopted and the needs carefully studied, a future constitutional convention is destined to fail.

___

Online:

https://bit.ly/20zyW8S

The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle on education standards in New York.

April 9

Every three years, a random group of 15-year-olds from across the United States takes a test called the Programme for International Student Assessment, or PISA. The results are useful for determining how the U.S. is preparing its youth to succeed in an increasingly global economy.

If you are a parent in America, you should probably take a look at the latest scores.

No matter how great of an education you think your child is getting, he or she is almost certainly trailing behind kids living in Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Switzerland, Finland, Poland, Canada, Germany, Australia and 18 other countries where, according to Pew Research Center, young people did “significantly” better on the PISA math test than those in the U.S. New York’s math proficiency rate was 30 percent, compared to 72 percent in Shanghai. Science scores were not much rosier. While PISA comparisons are not perfect, the U.S. is undeniably failing to keep up with a large portion of the developed world.

That is why most of the heated arguments over opting in or out of standardized tests are missing the point. All of our schools, including yours, need to achieve much higher standards. And - since American students have been required to take standardized tests for more more than a decade - we also know which schools will need to stretch the farthest to get there. But it is simply a matter of degrees. Every parent needs to understand that an “A’’ in your neighborhood could translate into a “C’’ in Japan.

The way to change that is threefold:

Set higher national achievement goals.

Find ways to help students meet those goals.

Check to see if students are successful in doing so.

Common Core sets higher national goals. Are they high enough? What should we be doing to get there? And how will we know we have arrived?

Those are the questions parents, educators and policymakers should be steadfastly focused on. Instead, a bungled roll out of Common Core has us stuck, for the second year in a row, in an emotional debate over whether students should take this week’s assessments.

That’s not to say we aren’t making strides in education. There are plenty. For example, the New York state budget includes a nice chunk of change, $9.4 million, to further develop community schools in the city of Rochester. This acknowledges the fact that teachers and administrators cannot be solely responsible for the educational outcomes of students living in poverty and experiencing different types of trauma. By reaching beyond the classroom to provide health and social services to students and families, we might finally close the gap between urban and suburban students.

But, even if that works brilliantly, it will only level the region’s scores, which would all look lower in, let’s say, the Swiss Alps.

Whether you are choosing to opt your child out, or in, has little consequence if neither path makes your child a globally competent learner.

___

Online:

https://on.rocne.ws/1MrMPUj

The Wall Street Journal on the Federal Communications Commission’s proposed internet rules.

April 11

The Federal Communications Commission promised that managing the Internet like an 1890s railroad wouldn’t result in a crush of new “net neutrality” regulations, but this claim keeps hitting the firewall of reality: Now the commission is proposing privacy rules that dump decades of successful policy and don’t apply to the tech companies that profit off Web habits.

The FCC recently passed new rules for how Internet-service providers collect customer data. In all but a few cases, consumers would be required to consent, or “opt-in,” for a broadband company to use or share preferences to, say, sell targeted ads. The agency said in a fact sheet: “When consumers sign up for Internet service, they shouldn’t have to sign away their right to privacy.”

That sounds great, though this isn’t the FCC’s job, or at least not until recently. For decades the Federal Trade Commission managed such consumer protection, but the FCC phished this authority last year when it reclassified Internet providers as “common carriers” as part of imposing net neutrality. Yet instead of applying the FTC’s privacy approach - which focuses on punishing deceptive or unfair practices - the FCC would default to barring nearly all uses of viewer preferences.

This matters because consumers are usually willing to trade some data - not a Social Security number, but past purchases - for better and more tailored experiences, as Amazon and Google have shown. Customers who prefer to stay off the grid can almost always opt out of collection, but now that minority will dictate innovation for everyone else.

Speaking of Amazon and Google, the rule doesn’t cover tech giants, as Google managed to win a last-minute exemption to net neutrality for so-called “edge providers,” even though their business model includes snapping up information on everything you buy. These companies are apparently too big to regulate. As a Moody’s report put it, allowing such companies to stay regulated by the less meddlesome FTC would offer “a distinct competitive advantage” in online advertising, not that Silicon Valley needs it.

The FCC says cable companies deserve special punishment because it’s easier to switch websites than to rip out your connection. But the average Internet user moves among six devices and connects everywhere from cell service to coffee shop Wi-Fi, as a February report from Georgia Tech points out. A provider catches a fraction of these interactions, and that number is dwindling as some 70% of Internet traffic will be encrypted by the end of the year. It’s harder to escape Google, which handles roughly 70% of Internet searches. Is Ask Jeeves still around?

Google, Netflix and others have blown up the way Americans watch television, which makes it more bizarre that the FCC is trying to block the cable industry from competing with the companies that reinvented it. But a legal challenge to the net-neutrality rules that spawned this episode is awaiting a ruling at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Perhaps the court will notice the arbitrary rules rolling out of the commission since it clinched control of the Internet.

___

Online:

https://on.wsj.com/1T2e9HK

The Utica Observer-Dispatch on the death of former football player for the New Orleans Saints Will Smith.

April 12

The tragic death of football great Will Smith certainly is a huge loss to his family, the NFL and Ohio State, his alma mater. But much of the pain is felt right here in the Utica community because big as Smith was, he never outgrew the love he held for his hometown and the people who showed him the way.

Smith, a 2000 Thomas R. Proctor High School graduate and Pro Bowl defensive end who won a national championship with Ohio State and a Super Bowl with the New Orleans Saints, was shot and killed Saturday night in New Orleans in what appears to be a road rage incident. He was 34. A 28-year-old suspect is in custody, charged with second-degree murder.

Smith became one of the NFL’s best and the roots for that were put down right here in Utica by a no-nonsense grandmother who kept him on the right path in a tough Cornhill neighborhood. Smith was born in Queens and his grandmother, the late Nancy Smith, moved him and his sister to Utica after their mother died of breast cancer. That was in 1991. The streets were tough, but Grandma was tougher, and though she knew little about sports, she figured they’d keep him busy and out of trouble. And they did.

But Smith wasn’t one-dimensional. When he wasn’t giving opponents fits on the gridiron, he was playing with the Proctor High concert band. And the care and commitment he was taught at home manifested itself in the band’s trumpet section, where he helped an immigrant student learn the basics of English through the common bond of music.

Andrey Andronovich had studied music in his native Belorussia, but knew no English. He sat next to Smith and using music as the common denominator, Smith laid down some English basics to help his seatmate adjust.

“He keeps an English/Russian dictionary nearby, and I help him use it to learn new words as we go along,” Smith, then a sophomore, said in a 1998 O-D interview.

Smith was the O-D’s All-Mohawk Valley Football Player of the Year in 1998. He was inducted into the Greater Utica Sports Hall of Fame in 2007, and he will be inducted into the New Orleans Saints Hall of Fame later this year.

He also had been scheduled to appear Thursday for the eighth straight year at his Where There’s a Will, There’s a Way Foundation’s annual Evening of All-Stars, a dinner honoring the Observer-Dispatch’s 2015 All-Mohawk Valley Football Team. For years, Smith and his foundation have funded a youth football camp and clinic at Proctor.

To be sure, Smith’s loss is devastating. His accomplishments are to be admired, but beyond that, Will Smith should be remembered as a role model for young people in every corner of this community. He was a champion on and off the field, a Utican who loved his city and its people. And despite remarkable success, he never forgot where he came from.

“I just want to give back to the community,” he said after he started his foundation to help local kids. “I will never forget this is where it started.”

Neither will we.

___

Online:

https://bit.ly/1V1jfYf

The New York Times on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s response to former President Bill Clinton’s 1994 crime bill.

April 12

In 1992, Bill Clinton ran on the promise of “two for the price of one”: If he was elected, Americans would also get Hillary Clinton, lawyer and activist Democrat, working for them in the White House.

Mrs. Clinton advocated for some of the most significant initiatives of her husband’s presidency, which were most often the product of compromise in a divided Congress. Indeed, many Democrats revere Mr. Clinton as the leader who brought the party back from the political wilderness by eschewing ideological purity in favor of a more incremental, politically centrist philosophy.

That legacy and experience lies at the heart of Mrs. Clinton’s approach as “a progressive who gets things done.” And the 1994 crime bill, which has emerged as a hot-button issue in the current campaign, is a good example in both its substance and the style of the Clinton manner of policy making.

The crime bill was a bipartisan legislative response to a surge in murders and other violent crimes linked to the drug trade that affected all Americans, but especially minority communities. The multipart legislation created programs to keep small-time drug offenders out of prison, financed drug treatment programs and put more cops on the streets in troubled communities. It also included a ban on certain types of assault weapons long sought by gun-control advocates, which has since expired. It played a part in reducing crime rates, but it also contributed to a rise in the prison population- of both violent criminals and low-level offenders - though it wasn’t solely responsible for the phenomenon known as mass incarceration.

Mrs. Clinton has said she regrets her past statements promoting the crime bill as a way to bring “to heel” the era’s young “super-predators.” Bill Clinton has reflected on the crime bill’s legacy, and expressed regret at the havoc that harsher punishments and stricter sentences created in poor and minority communities.

It’s puzzling that Mrs. Clinton hasn’t addressed in detail the trade-offs and the consequences, good and bad, of that legislation. That’s a problem, because even though Bernie Sanders voted for the crime bill (it contained certain provisions he supported), some of his supporters view the bill as the type of compromise that they reject.

Mr. Sanders’s durability in this race is due in part to young, idealistic Democrats who weren’t born before or don’t remember the partisan battles of the 1990s. Indeed, 2016’s newest voters only know the Obama-era Congress, and its near-constant state of confrontation. On the crime bill, as on the Iraq war, trade deals and gay marriage, some young critics view Mrs. Clinton’s changes in position as politically convenient or unprincipled. The way to reach those voters is to acknowledge their objections and better explain what it takes to move an agenda through a hostile Congress.

Lately, the Clinton campaign and these critics seem to be talking - or shouting -past each other, with Mr. Clinton implying that Black Lives Matter protesters were not interested in the truth. This, of course, further alienates young voters, who may well embrace a different version of the truth about that legislation.

Mrs. Clinton’s record as a senator is one of pragmatism, reflecting temperamental and philosophical differences with Mr. Sanders, whose reluctance to compromise contributes to his limited legislative record. She should take this opportunity to spell out what she would do with Congress to address mass incarceration as president.

Young skeptics may not agree with her approach, but at least they would better understand why the Democratic Party acted as it did, and how its leaders aim to respond to their concerns. That’s as important for uniting Democrats now as it was in the 1990s.

___

Online:

https://nyti.ms/1VUW4xQ