The Narrative
Dear Narrators:
The narrative on the Fenty-Gray race is being written now, and it is
being based largely on two falsehoods that were at the core of the Fenty
campaign. The first falsehood is that Chancellor Rhee’s effort to
drive experienced teachers out of the DC school system, on the
assumption that older teachers were the primary problem with an
ineffective urban educational system, represented “educational reform.”
Rhee became a national symbol of educational reform and, at least in the
national press, the success of her methods was unquestioned. Therefore,
the narrative goes, if the children in DC schools demonstrated against
her when she fired and replaced some of their favorite teachers, if the
parents of children in DC schools judged that they didn’t like her
methods and her attitude toward them, then those opponents didn’t care
about education itself. In the local and national press, it became a
racial narrative; in fact, it became a racist narrative. Black people,
who didn’t value education and who didn’t want their children to be
better educated, voted against Fenty because they were angry that Rhee
was improving their schools.
That this foolish argument should gain any traction is astonishing,
but it has become the dominant story in the local and national press.
Because both the political left and the political right have accepted
the top-down, autocratic model of “educational reform” as valid,
press accounts from both the left and the right have characterized
public resistance to it as evidence of the self-destructiveness of a
backward race, and public comments on those articles in both the liberal
and conservative press have made the argument explicitly.
Here are a few typical articles from across the political spectrum:
Mona Charen, syndicated columnist, “DC Voters Betray Their Kids,”
http://townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2010/09/17/dc_voters_betray_their_kids
Linda Chavez, syndicated columnist, “Washington’s
Racially Polarized Election,” http://townhall.com/columnists/LindaChavez/2010/09/17/washingtons_racially_polarized_election
Jennifer Rubin, “Who Will Get Michelle Rhee?” Commentary,
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/358981
Seyward Darby, “What Will Happen to DC Schools If
Michelle Rhee Leaves?” The New Republic, http://tinyurl.com/26nwvyv
Howard Kurtz, “The Mayor, DC, and Race,” The
Washington Post, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/howard-kurtz/2010/09/the_mayor_dc_and_race.html
Ben Smith, “Teacher’s Union Helped Unseat Fenty,”
Politico, http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0910/Teachers_union_helped_unseat_Fenty.html
Michael Lomax, “Is DC Mayor Adrian Fenty’s Loss a
National Defeat for Education Reform?” The Root, http://tinyurl.com/26gpdjd
Ian Urbina, “Washington Mayor’s Loss May Imperil
School Reform,” New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/us/16fenty.html?_r=1&ref=michelle_rhee
Andrew Rotherham, “Fenty’s Loss in DC: A Blow to
Education Reform?” Time Magazine, http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2019395,00.html
Alan Greenblatt, “Fenty Lesson: Mayors May Pass on
School Reform,” NPR, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129887515
Natalie Hopkinson in The Atlantic, http://tinyurl.com/2euhukd,
has written the most accurate analysis in the national press, probably
because she’s a mother who had school-aged children in Washington, and
therefore was watching the local schools closely. “There is pushback
against the movement to treat public institutions and the precious
people in them like factories. And when the impacted public is treated
as an obstacle and not a partner to urban reform, it gives the whole
effort [a] colonial and paternalistic smell,” she writes.
The second false narrative being advanced is that, merely because of
their ages, Fenty represented the future and Gray the past. Forward
looking people, those who want progress and improvement, will of course
support the younger candidate. Therefore, people who supported Gray don’t
want Washington to progress; they want to return to everything bad that
has ever happened in DC politics in the past. Marion Barry has become
the symbol of this argument. Barry endorsed and campaigned for Adrian
Fenty against Linda Cropp in 2006, which wasn’t supposed to reflect on
Fenty in any way. But, since in the last month of this year’s primary
campaign Barry endorsed Vincent Gray against Adrian Fenty, the narrative
now supposedly stamps Gray indelibly as a tool of a corrupt past. This
was a major argument of the Fenty campaign. It didn’t convince and
impress the electorate; it’s not worthy of being revived now to
explain Gray’s victory. It’s merely a continuation of the campaign,
a way to discredit Gray and make it harder for him to govern and for
Fenty’s supporters to accept him.
Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com
###############
Last week’s primary election was the most costly in DC history. For
example, in the last report filed with the office of Campaign finance
prior to the September 14 primary (that is, the eight-day preprimary
election report filed September 7), the Fenty 2010 Committee indicated
that it had raised a total of $4,917,864 — the most that any political
candidate has ever raised in the District. The Gray for Mayor Committee,
in its September 7 report, indicated that it had total receipts of
$1,757,345.
The latest vote tabulation report from the DC Board of Elections and
Ethics (September 17, 2010), indicates that Vincent Gray received 66,526
votes (54.33 percent) to Adrian Fenty’s 54,424 votes (44.45 percent).
This report includes votes at all 143 precincts and the early voting
centers. It does not include absentee and special ballots, which are
still being received and processed by the BOEE. Doing the math, Fenty
spent $90.36 for each vote he received, compared to Gray, who spent
$26.11 per vote.
###############
Has the DCPS Graduation Rate Gone Up or Down?
We Need to Know
Erich Martel, ehmartel at starpower dot net
Reports of graduation rate increases fail to take into account the
shortcuts that bypass course standards. The introduction of Credit
Recovery courses and their dramatic expansion courses along with the
expansion of summer school courses — both with lax attendance
enforcement — produced growing numbers of diplomas that represented
shortcuts around course standards, rather than their mastery. By thus
devaluing incentive and motivation in the process of learning at the
same time that teachers are blamed for students’ failure to reach
targeted benchmarks, many students are deprived of the opportunity to
learn responsibility. In some high schools, teachers estimated that over
50 percent of the graduates needed one or more Credit Recovery courses
or summer school courses to complete their graduation requirements.
Since the public does not know how many students needed Credit
Recovery courses to receive diplomas, I sent the following request to
Chancellor Michelle Rhee: post the numbers of high school graduates
broken down by individual high school and by numbers of diplomas
requiring credit recovery courses and those that didn’t for the past
two years. After I corrected some inaccuracies in a report on the DC
schools, the editor of the Fordham Institute’s Education Gadfly
E-journal suggested that I write an editorial addressing what he termed
the “scam” of credit recovery: http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/index.cfm?issue=599&edition=N#a6419
I sent the following E-mail request with my editorial to Chancellor
Michelle Rhee. “Below is an invited editorial (“‘A’ for Effort
Shouldn’t Count: Just Say No to Credit Recovery”) that I wrote on
the DCPS Credit Recovery Program for the Fordham Institute’s Education
Gadfly, a weekly E-magazine (September 16). As you know, I have
testified before the DC council on the credit recovery program. Since
the credit recovery program allows students to receive graduation
credits for courses required for graduation (the high school diploma)
without any possibility of meeting the content standards of the courses,
students who needed credit recovery classes to graduate received what
are really second class diplomas. I am requesting that you post on the
DCPS web site the numbers of high school graduates in June 2009 and in
2010 and, separately, in August 2009 and in August 2010, by each
individual high school, by year and month of graduation. Please
disaggregate the numbers for each of the four to show the following
categories: 1) students receiving a diploma without credit recovery
courses; 2) special education students receiving a diploma without DCPS
credit recovery courses; 3) students receiving a diploma with credit
recovery courses; and 4) special education students receiving a diploma
with credit recovery courses.”
###############
It’s been a little over one week since the American Federation of
Teachers (AFT) Executive Council held a hearing on the administratorship
of the Washington Teachers’ Union (WTU) under the leadership of “holdover”
union president George Parker, whose constitutional term ended June 30.
George Parker refused to hold elections in mid-May of this year, as
required by the WTU Constitution, and has failed to cooperate with
members of the election committee and now with AFT’s President Randi
Weingarten. As a result of Parker’s refusal to hold elections, the AFT
on September 17 issued a decision and order that they will now take over
the WTU after a recent US District court battle and September 10 hearing
held by the AFT Executive Council [http://www.dcpswatch.com/wtu/100917.pdf].
Never in the history of the WTU has an administratorship been
required for the purposes of conducting a timely union election of
officers. The last time the AFT (WTU’s parent organization) was forced
to assume control of the WTU was in 2003 after a scandal occurred when
former union president, Barbara Bullock stole five million dollars from
the WTU. Now that the AFT has assumed control for a second time, expect
that a timely election of union officers will soon be held. In the
September 17 decision from AFT’s Executive Council, it says: “In
conclusion we find that the WTU members have a right to move forward as
promptly as possible with an election for their WTU officers. Any
further delay would be a violation of the members’ rights that amounts
to irreparable injury. Clear cut principles of union democracy and the
members’ rights to elect their leaders require AFT to step in. It is a
positive development that WTU has recognized that the AFT should run
this election. However, under these circumstances, an AFT
administratorship is the only remedy that will ensure that the WTU
members are allowed to participate in a fair and democratic internal
election.” AFT has installed Al Squire, Southern Regional Director as
the Administrator.
As a result of this takeover, the AFT has ordered the following
actions: 1) effective on this day (September 17) an administratorship
for purposes of conducting the WTU internal elections shall be
implemented. 2) Pursuant to Article VI, Section 15(d) of the AFT
Constitution, the Administrator under the direction of the AFT President
or her designee, “will be authorized to . . . take such actions as are
necessary to protect the interests of the membership” in the conduct
of the WTU internal election. 3) In light of the fact that the AFT and
WTU constitutions, as well as federal labor law, have been violated by
the delay in the conduct of the WTU’s internal elections, the
Administrator shall have the authority, where necessary to perform his
election duties, to suspend the provisions of the WTU Constitution and
Bylaws. 4) The WTU shall notify DCPS that AFT or its agents shall be
provided access to the schools and the union bulletin boards for the
purposes of carrying out the internal election. WTU shall also notify
DCPS that AFT should be provided access to membership records. 5) The
WTU shall provide AFT the necessary information and records in order to
develop the voter eligibility lists, including the challenged ballot
list for employees who are not on the current membership list but were
on the June 30th list. 6) The WTU shall restore the pay and release time
status of the General Vice President, Nathan Saunders, forthwith. 7)
Consistent with the provisions of the AF Constitution in Article VI,
Section 15(e), the administratorship shall be concluded with the
internal election has been concluded and the officers installed.
After four months of waiting for union elections to be held, DC
teachers and school personnel can finally look forward to voting for a
new slate of officers. Our union elections are an important first step
in removing “holdover” union president George Parker so that we can
get on with building and maintaining an active union and working on
behalf of teachers, students and schools. We can do better.
###############
On September 17, American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the DC
Teachers Union parent organization, issued a decision and order
addressing offenses by WTU “holdover” President George Parker, and
the “appearance of political retaliation.” Parker’s term ended
June 30 and he has fought efforts to have an election. Brazenly, Parker
hijacked the WTU election committee then AFT’s efforts, and colluded
with DCPS Chancellor Rhee to stop upcoming internal elections. George
Parker, Michelle Rhee, and Kaya Henderson, Rhee’s Deputy Chancellor,
blocked AFT from having a union election by jointly banning AFT
officials from access to DC teachers. An earlier AFT order, dated August
4, which noted the “appearance of political retaliation” against me
as the WTU General Vice President and a declared presidential candidate
of WTU, resurfaced once again with more evidence. Uncontested sworn
testimony in the District Court for the District of Columbia’s
companion case, WTU v. AFT, evidences “the Office of the
Chancellor” (Rhee and Henderson) manipulating DCPS resources for
Parker in the upcoming election. My salary as an elected union officer
has been reduced to zero, and I was positioned for a Rhee and Henderson
ambush. In addition, my leave of absence to serve as an elected union
official was not renewed by Parker — a new provision of the teachers’
contract — benefiting Parker. Rhee and Henderson quickly ordered my
reentry into HD Woodson Senior High School (DCPS) under the specific
threat of an immediate termination if I failed to report (September 3).
It is important to note that being terminated from DC public schools
would make me ineligible for union election purposes. In the meantime,
Parker spends the union’s treasury with boundless personal messages to
teachers’ homes including trinkets, posters, and ornaments, while Rhee
and Henderson hide and further handcuff me as a viable opponent. The
September 17 AFT order rejected Parker’s deceptive arguments, demanded
he inform Rhee and Henderson to release me from DCPS and restore my
salary forthwith, and also suspends WTU’s Constitution for election
purposes.
DCPS, an agency supposedly with numerous budget restraints, holds me
political prisoner while schools like Shadd Special Education Center,
now the subject of a new lawsuit against Rhee and DCPS, cry for help
against overcrowded classes. Other schools requests for resources and
support have fallen on deaf ears at the central administration. Rhee
purports: “all my decisions are for the best interest of children not
adults,” while her spending of DCPS dollars on political hobbling is
unconscionable. Which teachers at HD Woodson will lose their jobs in the
upcoming fall equalization when there are one too many teachers at HD
Woodson SHS? Teachers should be furious about having their jobs
jeopardized once again so that Parker can improve his chances of keeping
his. The DC city council and parents must hold Rhee and her
administration accountable and demand an audit to convert those dollars
into student resources. As for Parker, voting is how teachers can voice
their opinion of his complete ineffectiveness against teacher
terminations, abandoning job rights, and breaching democratic principles
and practices while colluding with Fenty and Rhee.
###############
Our City Needs a Consensus Builder and a
Unifying Transparent Leader
Mai Abdul Rahman, Spotlightoneducation@yahoo.com
City leaders may usher in change convinced of the obviousness of the
reforms they seek and without a concerted district-wide effort to
involve and engage constituents of the value added and risk involved
when each initiative is introduced. Accordingly, the general public is
inclined to judge the new reform policies depending on their personal
political inclinations and philosophy or by measuring the reform based
on outcome (such as personal traits, governance style, or number of
teachers fired or the increase in number of unemployed).
Fenty governed our city like a lone runner determined to reach his
goal, willing to step, jump, and push anyone in his way instead of
governing this city as a leader willing to build consensus for his
reforms and engage his citizens and legislators as partners. As a
result, his administration was measured by the same qualities and
actions he publicly demonstrated primarily on how he implemented city
reforms — how many people he fired and how distant and aloof his
constituents perceived him to be as a leader. In addition institutional
transformative change radically alters the organizational landscape. It
involves a new set of goals and reforms that impact the fabric of the
public sector. Change — which is not easy in any circumstance — is
more difficult to employ, maintain, and engender support for, especially
when leaders are not prepared to engage their public, are unable to
articulate their vision, and cannot clearly define and outline an
implementation plan. Fenty from the outset was hesitant to disclose
details of his city reforms, and accordingly his reforms were judged by
his constituents based on the leadership qualities he displayed.
Although Fenty may have had the right concept, he lacked critical
leadership qualities to sell his vision of change beyond photo ops and
newspaper articles. He failed to publicly articulate his reform vision
and plans, and was perceived to be unwilling to explain, engage and
build support for his reforms.
After Fenty’s reign our city needs a city leader willing to build a
trusting relationship with legislators and constituents. Above all our
city needs a consensus builder who understands the value of engaging
every city agency and school forced to implement reforms with little
institutional understanding and support during the last three years. We
need a leader willing to consider and evaluate the many reforms
initiated by the Fenty administration, able to embrace the good reforms
implemented while clearly articulating a vision that is well understood
along with a well defined implementation plan that identifies the risks
and costs involved. We need a leader who understands the value of civic
engagement — a transparent unifying public servant — not a fighting
lone marathon runner who may have meant well but was perceived to be too
distant and out of touch with his constituents.
###############
How Fenty Viewed the Public, and Vice Versa
Marc Borbely, borbely@fixourschools.net
One of the emerging establishment explanations for Fenty’s loss
appears to be that even though he did great things, his personality was
flawed. “Fenty lost because, while people liked his policies, they
disliked his persona more. . . . Because people felt that he didn’t
care about them, his policy successes simply didn’t matter in the
voting booth,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/17/AR2010091702550.html.
The subtext of course is that blacks voted against Fenty because of his
personality — because they felt left out — of city jobs, of the
inside circle of power, of the city’s future.
I was one of eight people, including parents and former teachers, who
sued the mayor and the schools Chancellor in 2007, in February 2008,
because Fenty and Rhee were refusing to release any proposed schools
budget information before holding their annual hearing on that proposed
budget. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503467.html.
Fenty and Rhee, through Peter Nickles, argued that with the mayoral
takeover, the public no longer had the same rights to information about
the public schools. Some on the council who supported Fenty said it had
been the involvement of the public, under the school board, that
prevented positive change from happening. Better to have one person
making decisions behind closed doors.
Did those of us who saw ourselves as fighting to improve our public
schools feel “left out”? Yes. But this wasn’t just about Fenty’s
personality. It was about his view of what it meant to be mayor: you
elect me; I do the best I can; after four years, you decide if it was
good enough. There’s another approach: you elect me, and then we work
together, as much as possible, to improve this city. I’ll probably
make decisions you won’t like, but I promise to at least listen to
those directly affected, and honestly consider what you’re saying,
first. That’s what I want (and demand) from my next mayor. Maybe
others who supported Gray over Fenty do, too.
###############
Preparing to Become the Next DC Mayor
Alvin C. Frost, alvincfrost@msn.com
Congratulations to all winners in the September 14 DC primary.
Washington, DC, is one, extremely important, step closer to determining
who will become the next mayor of the District of Columbia government.
There are two very important processes which must be completed before
you are sworn in on Sunday, January 2, 2011: 1) discuss and agree on
what both you and the public can determine as the most important issues
that need to be addressed over your term, and; 2) you must form an
administration that is reflective of the city and responsible toward the
resolution, amelioration, or mediation of the many ills of the city, in
addition to building upon the city’s strengths. There are many, and
great, problems, but there are also many, and great, strengths within
the people, the government, and the city. Ignore any of these important
considerations at your peril.
Once you are sworn in, the healing must begin, as the people, the
government and the city are all fractured, fragmented, and distrustful
of each other, and. sometimes, even, themselves. There is really no
benefit to portraying the issues as “us” versus “them.” It is a
simplistic approach to very complicating issues, relationships, and
resources. One of the most unfortunate results of the imposition of the
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority, commonly referred to as the Control Board, and the creation
of the independent Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), has
been that the executive and financial branches have often operated as
though they were two separate DC governments, and not one. There can not
be a lasting creation of the One Government ideal without eliminating
this organizational dichotomy, or schism.
One approach toward healing this breach would be for the incoming
mayor and the Chief Financial Officer to sit down and to begin working
toward an agreed upon approach and strategy to working together on some
critical issues, such as: 1) creation of financial and operational
management reports that merge budget, financial, and operational data to
create effective performance measurement reports that will highlight the
cost of all services, along with the efficiency and effectiveness of
each service; 2) merging data and operational results to reflect
realistic information on all procurement and payment activities; 3)
eliminating the “shadow” budget office that has been set up by the
current administration to question official budget data and analysis
prepared by the OCFO; 4) requiring agency directors to accept the
official financial reports prepared by the OCFO, which merely report the
results of Executive branch decisions, activities, and operational
results, and 5) requiring agency directors to testify before the DC
council, as required, instead of ignoring the legal oversight
responsibility that the DC council must fulfill, to the DC government,
the people, and the US government.
Of course, there are many more disconnects which must be healed, but
these are five major breaches that must be brought under control if the
District government is to become more unified so that it can put its
best foot forward. If these issues are not dealt with, the possibility
to effectively solve even more important issues, such as: 1)
Jobs/Training, 2) Housing/Utilities, 3) Health/Hunger/Nutrition, 4)
Crime/Criminal Justice, 5) Education/Training, 6) Poverty/Welfare, 7)
Transportation/Metro, 8) Infrastructure/Roads, 9) Voting Representation,
10) Legal and Fiscal Autonomy, and 11) the Economy will continue to be
compromised, with our most vulnerable citizens put at an unacceptable
level of risk. One City is possible, but it will require developing One
Government in order to have a realistic chance of success.
###############
The reason Vincent Gray won this election was economics of the most
basic kind. School reform turned job security on its head. District
employees were wary of another Fenty term and the risk that it might
prompt him to expand his more radical approaches and layoffs. Employees,
in any company, dread upheaval even if it promises new opportunities.
In the election 126,000 people voted, or 34 percent of eligible
voters. The District employs approximately 32,000 employees. No doubt a
large number of these employees live in the District and, since most
District jobs are middle income, the highest concentration of these
workers likely live in wards that went heavily to Gray. District
employees, plus friends and family, make up a sizable voting bloc and
enough to swing an election. District civil servants have a powerful
incentive to vote in any mayoral race. And in this race, they had no
incentive to vote for Fenty.
Gray’s campaign was unimpressive on the issues, but it was
masterful, old school politics. He capitalized on the job and benefit
insecurities of District employees to win their vote. The unions turned
to Gray. District employees clearly believe Gray, in the end, will keep
the balance sheet in their favor. Gray never discouraged this thinking.
I have lived long enough to know that winning candidates can be
better than their campaigns. I have that hope for Gray. In 1991, when I
worked as a reporter in Connecticut, former US Sen. Lowell Weicker was
running for governor. The state didn’t have an income tax but was
growing broke from sales tax revenues. During his campaign, Weicker
refused to tell whether he would support an income tax. He won and
shortly after taking office sought an income tax, which was approved by
the legislature. There was a massive protest rally at the State Capitol,
unlike anything the state had seen. Weicker did not seek reelection and
probably would have lost had he done so, but he did what was needed. So
did Fenty with the schools. That’s what leadership is about and now
its Gray’s turn. I wish him the best.
###############
Fenty’s Campaign and Fenty’s Leadership
James Treworgy, jamietre@gmail.com
Fenty’s stunning downfall last Tuesday is simply a reflection of
his leadership style, and the reasons why it doesn’t work. While Fenty’s
backers defended his arrogance and lack of due process as a necessary
evil in order to “get things done,” it was much more than that. It
was the calling card of a man who thought that he always knew what was
right, and didn’t need anyone else’s input or guidance. Well, he was
wrong about how to win an election, even as his trusted advisers warned
him, and most pundits publicly scratched their heads for months. For
those who would lament his departure, perhaps this will shed some light
on how he could also have been wrong about the best way to run a city.
###############
Washington Post
Endorsements
Were of Little Value to Primary Candidates
Mai Abdul Rahman, spotlightoneducation@yahoo.com
One of the most interesting aspect of the 2010 DC primary results is
how little influence the Washington Post’s endorsements have
been, both to Mayor Adrian Fenty and DC council chair candidate Vince
Orange. Most critically, the Washington Post offered daily
stories promoting Fenty’s agenda that were completely ignored by most
Washingtonians.
On August 1, The Washington Post, enthusiastically and very
early in the campaign, endorsed Mayor Fenty, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073003145.html.
This was no surprise, since for more than four years the Post has
spent a lot of the paper’s ink promoting Mayor Fenty’s agenda. But
what is surprising is the fact that in the last sixty days alone the Washington
Post published more than a hundred articles and expanded countless
of man hours recounting Fenty’s accomplishments to remind DC voters
why they should stay steadfast in their support of the mayor.
By contrast, the Washington Post’s endorsement of Vince
Orange for DC council chair was restrained, with this headline, “Vincent
Orange Is Best Qualified to Face the City’s Challenges as DC Council
Chair,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/08/AR2010080802476.html
Regardless, both candidates gained little from these endorsements.
###############
A Theory of Why So Many Blacks Voted for
Vincent Gray
Bryce A. Suderow, streetstories@juno.com
I have a theory of why most blacks in DC voted for Gray. 1) When
Fenty appointed Michelle Rhee, a Korean, to run the schools, many blacks
were outraged. Some referred to her as “that white lady” and others
imply as “that lady.” Although they could certainly remember
Michelle Obama’s name, somehow the recall of Rhee’s name eluded
them. 2) When Fenty fired black teachers, many in the black community
reacted with anger, identifying with the skin color of those fired. 3)
When Fenty did not visit black churches and other black community
organizations, Marion-Barry style, many blacks felt ignored and soon
convinced themselves that Fenty preferred the company of whites; indeed
he certainly was “acting white.” 4) Blacks saw their population in
DC dwindling to 55 percent, and felt they were losing control of “Chocolate
City.” Surely Fenty was participating in “The Plan,” the secret
plan that was meant to take the city away from blacks and give it to
whites. Striking back at whites through voting against Fenty seemed a
logical response.
For these reasons the blacks who voted for Gray have condemned many
of their school-age children to illiteracy, poverty, and a dead-end
existence, at the least. At the worst, some of these kids will be gunned
down on the street. I doubt Gray’s black supporters will ever accept
blame for what they’ve done to their own kids. In coming months and
years they will moan about another “lost generation” of kids and
blame it on white racism. And white liberals living in the District,
always eager to accept blame for everything, will engage in self
flagellation.
Hey, it’s a District thing.
###############
In response to Mr. McKay’s hope that Chief Lanier “goes,” [themail,
September 15], I would hope that Mr. Gray gives serious thought to
retaining her. Chief Lanier, in my view, believes in law enforcement
which means enforcement of all the laws that pertain to this community.
No person or group should expect to have some sort of immunity from
compliance with the law simply because their self-imposed circumstances
potentially expose them to the reach of other laws, federal, or local.
I would remind themail’s readers, and Mr. McKay specifically, that
even though many persons believed at one time that Black drug dealers
were forced into the drug trade because “the Man” supposedly denied
them other legitimate sources of business opportunities (recall Rayful
Edmond), prosecution of these “entrepreneurs” proceeded nonetheless,
and rightfully so.
There is no legitimate reason to allow law breakers, irrespective of
national origin, an exemption from compliance with the law. Period. To
the extent that Chief Lanier subscribes to equal enforcement of the law
without regard to race, ethnicity, national origin, etc., as she
in my mind has during the Fenty administration, Mr. Gray should give
serious consideration to retaining her for his administration. Bottom
line: Chief Lanier has done a very good to excellent — not perfect —
job and I feel the city is safer for her efforts.
###############
CLASSIFIEDS — EVENTS
The Upcoming Midterms, September 21
Patricia Bitondo, pbitondo@aol.com
Jeanne Cummings, Assistant Managing Editor in charge of Politico’s Enterprise,
returns to the Woman’s National Democratic Club podium to give us the
latest information on the November elections. She has covered politics
at every level, from state and local governments to five presidential
campaigns. She is a regular panelist on Washington Week with Gwen Ifill,
Hardball with Chris Matthews, The Diane Rehm Show, and Inside Washington
with Gordon Peterson. She was a moderator at one of the Democratic
primary debates between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In 2009, her
appearances were included in submissions by PBS and CNN that secured
Peabody Awards for both networks. At the Wall Street Journal,
she won the 2000 Aldo Beckman Memorial Award, the highest honor for
daily White House correspondents, for her coverage of the Clinton
Administration. She also earned a journalism award at the WSJ for
her part in covering the Enron scandal and its connection to the Bush
Administration. In recent years, her focus has been on tracking money
and politics.
At the Woman’s National Democratic Club, 1526 New Hampshire Avenue,
NW, Tuesday, September 21. Bar opens at 11:30 a.m., lunch at 12:15 p.m.
Price: members $25, nonmembers $30. Reserve with pfitzgerald@democraticwoman.org
or 232-7363 or register at https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5880/p/salsa/event/common/public/?event_KEY=19167
###############
National Building Museum Events, September 25
Johanna Weber, jweber@nbm.org
September 25, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m., Construction Watch Tour: Woodley
Wardman. Woodley Wardman is a residential condominium in the Woodley
Park neighborhood of Washington, DC. Bill Bonstra, FAIA, LEED AP, and
Jennifer Marca, AIA, LEED AP, of Bonstra | Haresign Architects, lead a
tour of this 53,000-square-foot project that features a seven-story
tower carefully placed behind four renovated historic rowhouses. $25,
members only. Prepaid registration required. Register for events at http://www.nbm.org.
###############
themail@dcwatch is an E-mail discussion forum that is published every
Wednesday and Sunday. To change the E-mail address for your subscription
to themail, use the Update Profile/Email address link below in the
E-mail edition. To unsubscribe, use the Safe Unsubscribe link in the
E-mail edition. An archive of all past issues is available at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail.
All postings should be submitted to themail@dcwatch.com, and should
be about life, government, or politics in the District of Columbia in
one way or another. All postings must be signed in order to be printed,
and messages should be reasonably short — one or two brief paragraphs
would be ideal — so that as many messages as possible can be put into
each mailing.
