Civics for the Befuddled

Tags

authority, boycotts, censorship, civil rights, Colorado, demonstrations, free speech, Jefferson County, law, left-wing, political agenda, protocol, radicals, right-wing, school boards, school reform, students, teachers

In September 2014, the Jefferson County (Colorado) School Board recommended review of the A.P. American History curriculum, which, it suggested, should reflect free enterprise values, as well as respect for authority and for civil rights, and avoid elements that encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife, or disregard of the law.

The proposal met with less than universal acclaim. A teacher sickout briefly closed two schools, and then hundreds of students offered a commendably balanced response, showing the spirit of free enterprise and commitment to civil rights but also engaging in civil disorder, social strife, and disregard of the law as they fled classes and demonstrated in the streets.

Public discussion, already coarsened by the anguished resignation of a veteran Superintendent and by teacher anger at a Board scheme to link pay to classroom effectiveness, descended to fourth-grade So’s Your Old Man, with catch-phrases like Right-Wing Agenda and Censorship lobbed across the schoolyard, and Will of the People and Legitimate Authority lobbed back.

The battle was even until the Board President gassed his own troops by charging that the demonstrating students were simply pawns of the teachers.

It was at this point that I, normally a liberal, but one of those bleeding-heart ones, found myself inexplicably moved by the Board’s self-inflicted injury. Wondering how I could help, I recalled my high school Civics class and found, in the attic, a textbook moldy with age but fresh with the common-sense adages that made me the model citizen I am.  With some modifications to fit the situation, I offered its wisdom to the Board, which, in gratitude, asked me to share a few examples with you:

Lesson 1: What Is a Mandate?: Lincoln and FDR went through hell to earn their mandates. School board members with controversial reform plans, elected narrowly in low-turnout elections, have a platform but not a mandate. The Laws of Politics hold that: (1) Most voters are moderates; (2) Where voter engagement and turnout are low, radicals can mobilize true-believers and win simple-issue local elections; (3) But radicals’  passion elicits an equal and opposite reaction from those previously passive. When your position is as flimsy as a tenth-grader’s absence excuse and your advantage as easily lost as his algebra homework, test the waters with care.

Assignment: To temper your enthusiasm for bomb-throwing, read Tennyson’s ‘Charge of the Light Brigade’ (‘Into the valley of death rode the 600 …’).

Lesson 2: The Value of Etiquette: Avoid unintentional offense so as to save the offense for when it is really needed. In layman’s terms, ‘Put a sock on it!’

Assignment: Read Emily Post. She may seem musty, but she is timeless.

Lesson 3: The Art of Warfare: With an understanding of the political limits within which you operate and the value of holding your tongue, you should be ready to proceed to the hard stuff.

Assignment: Read Mao Zedong on guerrilla war (‘The enemy attacks, we retreat … the enemy retreats, we attack …’ ). If taking advice from a Communist causes you discomfort, remember that, as leader of China, Mao was a fellow arch-conservative, so intolerant of social disorder, civil strife, and disregard of the law that he set up re-education camps with a curriculum that would warm your hearts.

Lesson 4: The Tortoise and the Hare: Endurance is the key, and the key to endurance is a steady pace and a calm temperament, for which reading is the ideal preparation.

Assignment: Read anything you find instructive and relaxing. However, as much as it may be your moral touchstone, avoid the Bible, which is filled with Prophets, including Jesus, who actively opposed vested authority, violated law and custom, and fomented strife in ways that no right-minded authority could tolerate.

… And Deliver Us From …

Tags

civil rights, Congress, constitution, court decision, equal protection of laws, government integrity, Justice Kennedy, law, prayer, religion, religious freedom, Supreme Court, town council, Town of Greece vs Galloway

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Greece, N.Y. Town Council’s session-opening prayer does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, reasoning that:

Such Prayer is Traditional and Serves a Higher Purpose: Congress has done it since Day One to encourage solemnity, mutual respect, rational deliberation, and commitment to the public interest.

No Faith Has Been Denigrated: The Council’s prayers do not, and must not, favor only one faith, nor denigrate other faiths (in this case, the fact that almost all prayers were Christian was a function of demographics, and specific reference to, e.g., Jesus Christ, Who Died for Our Sins was a statement of belief, not a schoolyard moment).

Dissenters Should Deal With It: As long as non-Christians or non-believers were not forced to participate in the prayer or assent to its doctrine, and did not suffer any discrimination before the Council because of their beliefs, their mere discomfort was not sufficient reason to bar the practice. After all, adults regularly have to face uncomfortable situations.

There are some weaknesses in the Court’s reasoning:

Tradition and Higher Purpose: What is (or was) traditional — slavery, the firing squad, fraternity hazing come to mind — isn’t necessarily good. And, if recent Congressional norms are any guide, asking God to intervene may tempt legislators to leave mutual respect and the public interest to A Higher Power.

No Denigration: Let’s assume I’m a Jew, petitioning for a zoning variance to add a room to my house. You say that Jesus Christ, Who Died for Our Sins is irrelevant to my case. But I can’t help wondering, especially since the Council has sponsored this declaration of faith, whether they’re thinking … And He Wouldn’t Have Died Had It Not Been for the Christ-Killing Jews. Maybe I should forget the rule of law, build the extra room, and pray that nobody notices.

Deal With It: In normal circumstances, I have a number of possible responses, not all of them polite or even peaceful, to objectionable views. But, in this environment, dissent is unwise unless I want to risk getting tossed out and denied my hope … my right … to speak directly to the Council, rather than to God, who, in any case, probably doesn’t have a clue about zoning variances.

But perhaps we’re missing the key point, which has little to do with religious freedom and a lot to do with the fairness of our political institutions and laws.

We rightly insist that government institutions and officials be impartial. This doesn’t mean they can’t apply their values to making, applying, or interpreting rules.  It’s simply that, doing so, they must not use irrelevant criteria. They must not violate anyone’s Constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

But simply being impartial is not enough. We go even further and demand that government institutions and officials avoid even the appearance of partiality. That’s why we demand that officials divest themselves of stocks or recuse themselves from a case if there is the remotest chance of conflict-of-interest. Assuring the integrity of public institutions and officials is that vital to protection of our rights.

When a government body willfully creates doubt whether it will treat a non-conformist impartially, it is violating his or her Constitutional right to the equal protection of the laws and gratuitously undermining its own integrity and effectiveness.

The religious majority — Christians in this case — may console themselves that their rights (and possibly, interests) are being protected. But rights, though impartial in their application, are designed above all to protect the minority.

Imagine the firestorm if, in a town dominated by one political party, the Council started the meeting with a solemn Invocation of Party Principles. How is an Invocation of Religious Principles — in that particular context, and especially in a country where religious affiliation may often coincide with political inclination — any different?

Without action against this subversion of lawful rights, this departure from plain political common sense, the Council president’s invitation to Parson Brown to open the next session might as well be:

                                                    Let Us Prey