Monday, April 24, 2023

Amid Expulsion Vote In House, Tennessee Sen Quietly Names April ‘Confederate History Month’
Tennessee state capitol building front exterior in Nashville, with wind blowing the US state flag outside on a partly cloudy day.

By Daniel Feller
April 23, 2023 

This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published at The Conversation.

The ghost of the Confederacy hangs heavily over the Tennessee Legislature.

Justin Jones, one of two Black members expelled from the state’s House of Representatives in April 2023, had run afoul of House leadership before. In 2019, as a private citizen, he was arrested following his actions in protesting a bust in the state capitol honoring Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Confederate general and later Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

While the expulsion of Jones and his colleague, Justin J. Pearson, riveted the nation’s attention, a curious and related event in the Legislature’s other branch, the Tennessee Senate, passed nearly unnoticed.

On Feb. 3, 2023, two state senators issued a formal proclamation commemorating April 2023 as and encouraging “all Tennesseans to increase their knowledge of this momentous era in the history of this State.”

One of the signers is Senate Speaker Randy McNally, who is also the state’s lieutenant governor; the other is Sen. Mark Pody from Lebanon. Though not considered in legislative session and not listed on the Legislature’s website, the proclamation holds an official stature: It was issued on Senate stationery and stamped with the Tennessee state seal.


The proclamation’s wording closely follows that of a proclamation issued by Virginia’s Gov. Robert McDonnell in April 2010, with one striking exception. McDonnell’s proclamation in final form included a paragraph, inserted after protests to an earlier version, stating “that it is important for all Virginians to understand that the institution of slavery led to this war.”

The Tennessee proclamation, which includes eight introductory clauses celebrating “the cause of Southern liberty,” says nothing of slavery at all. Rather, it declares that Confederates conducted “a four-year heroic struggle for states’ rights, individual freedom, local government control, and a determined struggle for deeply held beliefs.”

A proclamation of the Tennessee Senate declares April 2023 Confederate History Month. Tennessee State Senate, CC BY-ND


Safeguarding slavery

As we historians of the Civil War have tirelessly pointed out, the documentary record speaks clearly of the motive behind that “heroic struggle.”

Both official proceedings and private utterances prove abundantly that there was only one reason to secede from the United States and create a new Confederacy. That was to safeguard racial slavery from the threat posed by the election of an antislavery Northerner, Abraham Lincoln, as president of the United States.

Tennessee seceded later than other states, after the Confederate firing on Fort Sumter. Lincoln’s responding call for troops made plain that there would be a war and that Tennessee, like other fence-sitting Upper South states, would have to choose sides.

The record of the state’s reasons is easy to find, and would have been available to the authors of the recent proclamation. In 2021, the University of Tennessee Press published “Tennessee Secedes: A Documentary History.” It shows that in Tennessee, as elsewhere, the protection of slavery was the sole motive for secession.

In 1861, Gov. Isham Harris convened the state’s Legislature with a message denouncing the North’s “systematic, wanton, and long continued agitation of the slavery question,” crowned by the insulting election of a president who “asserted the equality of the black with the white race.”


Harris went on:

“To evade the issue thus forced upon us at this time, without the fullest security for our rights, is, in my opinion, fatal to the institution of slavery forever. The time has arrived when the people of the South must prepare either to abandon or to fortify and maintain it. Abandon it, we cannot, interwoven as it is with our wealth, prosperity and domestic happiness.”

In all the deliberations that followed, no cause or grievance but slavery was mentioned.

Yet these basic facts go unacknowledged in a proclamation that boldly declares that knowledge of Confederate history is “vital to understanding who we are and what we are.”

Other omissions in the proclamation are equally curious.

Tennessee’s role in the Confederacy was uniquely conflicted. Thousands of citizens, especially in mountainous East Tennessee, opposed secession. Ignoring “local government control,” the state suppressed their dissent by force.

Some 50,000 Tennesseans, white and Black, spurned the Confederacy and fought for the United States – more than from any other Confederate state. The proclamation silently erases not only their struggle and sacrifice but their very existence.

‘Be not deceived by names’


Whether the Confederacy should be celebrated or condemned depends inescapably on point of view.

The proclamation casts the Confederacy in the mode of the American Revolution. The picture it paints is of a noble, if unsuccessful, attempt to erect a new self-governing independent nation – ignoring the fact that the institution of human slavery was at its center, as the Confederate constitution made clear.

Broadside announcing the sale of an enslaved man named Dick and an enslaved girl named Lydia in Cross Plains, Tenn., dated June 18, 1857. 
Heritage Art/Heritage Images via Getty Images

Yet from another perspective, the Confederacy was nothing more than an armed mass rebellion against a legitimately elected government.


It was, ironically, a famous Tennessean, President Andrew Jackson, who had warned would-be seceders in an official proclamation in 1832: “Be not deceived by names. Disunion by armed force is treason. Are you really ready to incur its guilt?”

Lincoln labeled the Confederacy an “insurrection” within the United States itself, which the government and loyal citizens had not only a right but a duty to put down.


In words that echo today, Lincoln also observed that if the United States won its battle against forcible dismemberment, “it will then have been proved that, among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case, and pay the cost.”

Celebrating insurrection


The old adage that the victors write history is true at least to this extent. Generally the American Revolutionaries are deemed patriot heroes rather than rebels and traitors because they won their war, and because the course of subsequent history appears to have vindicated their cause.

Yet many Confederate acolytes, the proclamation’s sponsors among them, seem to have difficulty confronting what the Confederacy actually stood for. Hence, citizens serving in government – who upon entering their offices take a solemn oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution and begin their daily sessions by pledging allegiance to “one Nation indivisible” – chose to officially exalt a failed attempt to overthrow that Constitution and dismember the nation that it bound together.

Under a statute enacted in 2021, Tennessee public school teachers are barred from using instructional materials “promoting or advocating the violent overthrow of the United States government.”

No such prohibition applies to state legislators.

Daniel Feller is an Emeritus Professor of History at University of Tennessee

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Armadillo invasion: Why the creatures are rapidly moving north

Illustration: Brendan Lynch/Axios

Watch out, northerners: The armadillos are coming.

What's happening: The scaly critters have slowly but steadily expanded north from Texas for over a hundred years. Now their movement is rapidly accelerating.

  • Armadillo sightings in North Carolina are on the rise and the state's Wildlife Resources Commission is trying to determine the extent of their range, Axios Raleigh co-author Zachery Eanes reports.

Zoom in: The mammals have been spotted recently as far north as Missouri, southern Illinois, Iowa and up to North Carolina, according to David Mizejewski, a naturalist at the National Wildlife Federation.

  • "The predictions are that with the current climate conditions, they're going to keep expanding and they might even get up all the way into New England," Mizejewski told Axios.

The big picture: Climate change will expand the footprint of many species. But others won't be able to evolve and adapt fast enough to keep pace.

  • "What we're seeing with climate change is that some species are able to expand their range — or at a minimum move their range northward," Mizejewski says.

Zoom out: Nine-banded armadillos, the only species of the animal found in the U.S., typically live in the southeastern part of the country. The species was found no further north than Texas in the mid-19th century.

  • But their range has been expanding continually northward since the 1900s — and they haven't reached the full extent of their possible range, according to the NWF. One study predicted they could eventually reach Massachusetts.
  • "The fact that our average temperatures are going up because of climate change has been the main reason why they've been able to expand north," Mizejewski said.

There are other factors that contribute to armadillos' growing range.

  • Nine-banded armadillos have a generalist diet. The creatures mostly eat insects, but they're not picky.
  • Humans have also likely eliminated many potential predators.

Reality check: The northward migration is likely limited by the severity of cold weather, which the species does not have a strong tolerance for, according to the University of Michigan's animal diversity program.

  • But as winter seasons become milder, nine-banded armadillos can continue their migration.
  • The species can survive for short periods of severe cold by staying in a burrow for several days.
  • They haven't migrated into desert regions like New Mexico and other western states due to limited rainfall and sources of water, researchers say.

Congress has clashed with Supreme Court justices over ethics in the past

Ron Elving, NPR
April 22, 2023 

The Supreme Court's legitimacy is once again being called into question after news broke that Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose 20 years of lavish trips paid for by a billionaire Republican donor.
Jacquelyn Martin/AP

When Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin this week asked the chief justice of the Supreme Court to give the committee an update on the ethics of the court, he spoke of "a steady stream of revelations regarding Justices falling short" of ethical standards.

Durbin did not mention the shortcomings of any justice in particular.

He did not have to.

Everyone old enough to read a newspaper or understand a newscast knows Durbin's letter was prompted by media reports on Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, the longest-serving member of the current court, who took the oath in 1991.

Public media is independent, community-supported media for the public good.

The high heat on the high court comes in the wake of an investigation by ProPublica spotlighting Thomas' long and beneficial friendship with Harlan Crow, a billionaire Republican megadonor and activist. Among the benefits cited: vacations around the world valued at approximately $500,000.

Thomas has been spotty, at best, in disclosing these gifts and other transactions, in some cases in apparent violation of Supreme Court rules. He has said that unnamed colleagues told him this was OK because it was just "personal hospitality" and he will comply with more stringent rules in the future.

Thomas has long been regarded as the court's anchor on the right, so it is not surprising to hear a cadre of outspoken progressives in Congress urge Thomas to resign or call for his impeachment.

But even some voices on the right have objected, suggesting Thomas needs to do more to clear the air. Longtime Fox News contributor Juan Williams, whose career has also included years at NPR and The Washington Post, has said his "old friend" Thomas needs to dispel "the smell of financial corruption."

Thomas reports renew focus on Supreme Court ethics

Durbin's request for John Roberts to testify is not the first time the chief justice has had to tackle the question of how ethics standards apply to his court. For years, he has defended the high court's exemption of itself from the ethics rules governing the rest of the federal judiciary (and others in the federal power structure).

He addressed the issue in his 2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, calling the code for lower courts a good "starting point" but saying he saw "no reason" for the Supreme Court to be held to that code. He said his fellow justices looked to multiple sources of guidance and that there were certain "ethical considerations unique to the Supreme Court."

However Roberts' statement might have been received in 2011, it is clearly less satisfactory now. As Durbin wrote in his invitation to Roberts this week, "problems were already apparent back in 2011, and the Court's decade-long failure to address them has contributed to a crisis of public confidence."
When it comes to the Supreme Court, the threat of impeachment is not an easy weapon

In defending the court's current ethics, Roberts can always throw down the ultimate gauntlet of impeachment: If Congress is not satisfied with the court's self-policing, let it use the tool provided in the Constitution — impeachment.

Of course, Roberts is well aware that no Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached and removed by Congress. Samuel Chase of Maryland, appointed by George Washington in 1796, was impeached by the House in 1804. Supporters of Thomas Jefferson, president at the time, accused Chase of bias and partisan behavior — largely because of his demeanor and biting opinions. But when the Senate held a trial in 1805 and acquitted him, Chase returned to the high court and served until his death in 1811.

But if impeachment is impractical, some prominent members of Congress have managed to express their unhappiness with prominent members of the court. They have employed something more like moral pressure — such as was brought to bear against Justices Abe Fortas and William O. Douglas.
Moral pressure has been deployed by Congress in the past

Fortas was first named to the court in 1965 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, whom he helped in a contested Senate election in Texas in 1948. While Fortas was considered a legendary legal intellect of his time, his close relationship with Johnson soon came under scrutiny

.
Former Associate Justice Abe Fortas of the Supreme Court poses in his judicial robes in Washington D.C., June 26, 1968.

Charles Tasnadi/AP

In 1968, Johnson named Fortas to succeed Chief Justice Earl Warren, who was retiring. At his confirmation hearing to be chief justice, details of his close relationship with Johnson were revealed. As a sitting justice, he sat in on meetings at the White House, discussed secret court deliberations with Johnson and lobbied members of the Senate who opposed the war in Vietnam on the president's behalf.

The panel also learned that he had received a privately-funded stipend to teach at American University, equivalent to about 40 percent of his Court salary. The stipend was supported by a variety of business officials raising concerns of a conflict of interest. The GOP also had hopes their party would win the White House in the fall and a Republican could name a chief justice of their own.

Ultimately, a Republican-led filibuster stalled his confirmation and Fortas asked Johnson to withdraw his nomination.

Meanwhile, Fortas was being pilloried for his association with Louis Wolfson, an imprisoned financier, for whom he had worked as a consultant to Wolfson's family foundation. But Fortas was being paid for that work at a time when Wolfson had come under scrutiny for securities fraud, and some Democrats joined Republicans in calling on Fortas to resign from the Court entirely. Fortas did that in May 1969, allowing the newly sworn-in President Richard Nixon to name a replacement for him.

Fortas may not have needed to resign, but told friends he did not want to force an impeachment proceeding. According to biographer Laura Kalman, Fortas hoped his departure would lower the temperature of debate about the court.


Justice Douglas: an exception to many rules

Douglas, another exceptionally brainy justice with strong liberal credentials, had been antagonizing opponents for three decades before Fortas' resignation. Douglas had been named to the Court by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939, helping cement pro-Roosevelt control over the one branch of government that had defied him. Douglas would serve on the Court for 36 years, which is still the record, and write more opinions than any other justice in history.

Douglas built a record over the years that marked him as perhaps the most liberal justice in the court's history. He originated the thinking about "emanations" and "penumbras" of rights that established a Constitutional right to privacy in his Griswold decision (1962) and formed the basis years later for the landmark Roe v Wade decision on abortion in 1973 and the Obergefehl decision legalizing same-sex marriage (2015).

The first effort to impeach Douglas arose in the 1950s after he issued an order that temporarily halted the execution of Jules and Ethel Rosenberg, who had been convicted of passing key information about the atomic bomb to agents of the Soviet Union. Douglas' stay was overturned by the full court, and the impeachment effort faded.

But in the late 1960s, Douglas was pursued again by members of Congress upset with his lifestyle and cultural interests as well as his judicial rulings. One of his chief antagonists was a Republican congressman from Michigan named Gerald R. Ford, who would later be Nixon's vice president and then his successor.

Ford found useful ammunition in some of Douglas' efforts to make money, in part to meet obligations from his three divorces. Douglas wrote more than 30 books, but he was also drawing an income from the Parvin Foundation, run by a Las Vegas casino owner-operator. This prompted Ford to accuse Douglas of consorting with both Communists and organized crime figures.

The hearings began in April 1970 in the House Judiciary Committee, where Ford in particular went after Douglas for publishing in Playboy and for defending foreign films some considered pornographic.

While they generated considerable coverage at the time, the hearings did not build much momentum among the committee members and no formal vote was taken. In a letter to Fortas, Douglas described himself as frustrated with "staying around and being obnoxious" but unwilling to resign and let Nixon appoint his successor.

In 1974, however, Douglas was incapacitated by a stroke and eventually persuaded to retire the following year. He and his fourth wife were honored at the White House by Ford, by then the president, who said he hoped "bygones would be bygones."

Douglas had been just 40 years old when first appointed to the Court, one of the five youngest ever to serve. Thomas was just a year older at 41. As it stands now, he still needs to serve until 2029 to surpass Douglas' length of service.

Copyright 2023 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.
Opinion
The American war on books

A prominent feature of the assault on freedom of thought and expression in the US is the race to ban books.


Belén Fernández
Al Jazeera columnist
Published On 23 Apr 2023
A student reads a pamphlet during a meeting of a book club discussing books banned in Texas school districts at the University Branch Library in Sugar Land, Texas, on April 15, 2023
 [File:Callaghan O'Hare/Reuters]


Once upon a time, George W Bush – former governor of Texas, 43rd United States president and accused war criminal – made a worrying observation: “Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?”

Bush did have a point; after all, that question is indeed rarely asked, at least not by people with a command of English grammar. And yet it is a question that increasingly comes to mind these days, and particularly today on World Book Day, as the US state of Texas leads the country in a book-banning frenzy.

According to the literary and free expression advocacy organisation PEN America, between July 1, 2021, and March 31, 2022, a total of 1,586 book bans took place in school libraries and classrooms across 26 US states. Texas was at the vanguard with 713 bans, followed by Pennsylvania with 456, Florida with 204 and Oklahoma with 43.

Heavily targeted for removal were books featuring LGBTQIA+ themes and characters as well as texts dealing with structural racism in US society – actions that naturally only reinforce the bigoted and malevolent foundations of the so-called “land of the free”.

To be sure, book bans are nothing new and have been around in America since the 1600s. In the 19th century, anti-slavery books were banned in the US South. And in Germany, the Nazis banned Albert Einstein’s Relativity: The Special and the General Theory among numerous other titles.

Despite the dubious success rate of book bans, which ultimately depends on how one defines “success”, the feverish rage they have been known to generate can certainly serve as a handy distraction for actual societal problems.

Take the case of Llano County, situated northwest of the Texas capital of Austin, where local officials are currently deciding whether to completely shut down the public library system after a federal judge recently ordered 17 banned titles returned to the shelves.

The titles include They Called Themselves the KKK: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group by Susan Campbell Bartoletti, which won the Excellence in Nonfiction for Young Adults award from the Young Adult Library Services Association in 2011.

Also on the list are Jazz Jennings’s book Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen and Robie H Harris’s It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health.

Then there’s a children’s book series by Jane Bexley comprising such subversive titles as Larry the Farting Leprechaun, Freddie the Farting Snowman and Harvey the Heart Had Too Many Farts.

Which brings us to the following point: In a country plagued by racism, discrimination, socioeconomic inequality, homelessness, depression and addiction, a gas-afflicted snowman should be the least of anyone’s worries.

Mass shootings have become a daily occurrence in the US, and, just last May, an 18-year-old gunman killed 19 children and two adults at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, southwest of Llano County.

Give me a farting leprechaun over an assault rifle any day.


Obviously, the presence of any given book on a library shelf does not mean that even a tiny fraction of the population will actually read it. This is especially true in the present era of total digital distraction – another societally destructive trend that will not be solved by, you know, shuttering libraries.

But the Llano County showdown is emblematic of the general assault on any lingering sense of community in the US, where the bipartisan ruling elite directly profits from the divide-and-conquer approach and the obliteration of any notion of communal solidarity.

The resulting individual isolation and dismantling of empathy, in turn, helps cultivate a national landscape that is more conducive to mass shootings and the like.

But back to farting leprechauns.

I myself spent much of my youth in Texas and have delightful memories of the Austin Public Library, of pre-internet summers spent among stacks of books and of the satisfying sound of the librarian stamping the book checkout cards with a tool I can’t even recall the name of.

Granted, I also engaged in youthful activities like shooting beer cans off fence posts with my parents’ friend’s pistol and learning in school about why it was so great for my country to be bombing people in the Middle East in Operation Desert Storm, waged by the father of the man who would subsequently ask whether our children was learning.

Fast forward three decades, and the US continues to devote much of its time and money to destroying other countries. Lest Americans start to connect the dots as to why a country with such incredible resources can’t provide affordable housing, healthcare or education, the powers that be pursue a simultaneous domestic assault on freedom of thought and expression – one manifestation of which is the race to ban books.

And things are only going downhill.

The Republican-led Texas House of Representatives is currently making headway on a bill to ban materials containing sexually explicit content in public school libraries – an initiative that has also garnered significant support from Democrats

And in Missouri, the state House recently voted to cut all funding for public libraries in its proposed annual budget.

According to a March press release from the American Library Association (ALA), “a record 2,571 unique titles were targeted for censorship” in the US in 2022, which constituted a 38 percent increase over 2021. The ALA noted that the “vast majority were written by or about members of the LGBTQIA+ community and people of color”.

It goes without saying that a society that bans books has a lot to hide. And as we mark World Book Day this year, it is worth reflecting on the fact that you cannot hide systemic rot behind the cover of a banned book.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.


Belén Fernández
Al Jazeera columnist
Belén Fernández is the author of Inside Siglo XXI: Locked Up in Mexico’s Largest Immigration Center (OR Books, 2022), Checkpoint Zipolite: Quarantine in a Small Place (OR Books, 2021), Exile: Rejecting America and Finding the World (OR Books, 2019), Martyrs Never Die: Travels through South Lebanon (Warscapes, 2016), and The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work (Verso, 2011). She is a contributing editor at Jacobin Magazine, and has written for the New York Times, the London Review of Books blog, Current Affairs, and Middle East Eye, among numerous other publications.

Pulitzer Prize-winning poet pens a letter to a local school board


In southwest Michigan, the school board of the Brandywine Community Schools district was recently flipped from a liberal to conservative majority in local elections. The new members had voiced their intent to restrict how teachers can address issues including race, racism and other important subjects, leading hundreds of alumni, teachers, former administrators and others to bind together in opposition. Members of the opposition have shown up at school board meetings and are advocating against changes that would limit what students can learn.

One of the vocal graduates of Brandywine High School is Diane Seuss, an American poet and educator whose book titled “frank: sonnets” won the 2022 Pulitzer Prize for poetry as well as the National Book Critics Circle Award for Poetry. Seuss grew up in Michigan and attended public schools, later studying at Kalamazoo College, where she earned a bachelor’s degree, and Western Michigan University, where she received a master’s degree in social work. She returned to Kalamazoo in 1988 to teach English, which she did until 2016. She has been a visiting professor at the University of Michigan and Washington University in St. Louis while writing numerous books of poetry and publishing poems in a variety of journals. In 2021, she received the John Updike Award from the American Academy of Arts and Letters.

The following is an open letter that Seuss wrote to the school board about her experiences at Brandywine High School, urging them to think twice about imposing restrictive learning policies.

To the Brandywine Public Schools Board of Education:
I am a 1974 graduate of Brandywine Public High School. My sister graduated in 1969, and ultimately became a Hospice nurse. My father was Director of Guidance at BHS in the early to mid-1960s, when he died at age 36 of a rare illness, likely attained during his service in the Navy during World War II. My mother went to college after he died. Once she graduated, she was hired to teach in the English Department at Brandywine, where she remained until her retirement. Given this family history, I feel some responsibility for speaking up at this important time in Brandywine’s educational development.
During the years of my dad’s illness, and after his death, we received vital support from the Brandywine family. And yes, it was a family. I’m sure people had a diversity of political and religious points of view, but those differences were not at the forefront of the conversations and friendships. I cannot imagine how our family would have remained as intact as it was and is without that cohesive network that kept us grounded. From what I understand, Brandywine now has a fine faculty and administration that continues in the tradition I have described. The community is lucky to have such impressive human resources.
I feel sadness and anger, then, that members of the school board are now jumping on the bandwagon of recent trends in bringing conservative religious and political dogma into educational decision-making, planning to sift through libraries and teacher’s curricular plans to rid them of what these board members consider dangerous ideas. These plans threaten to create unnecessary conflict between the board and the staff and administration. They represent a lack of understanding of the purpose and power of education, and why a free exchange of ideas is imperative to a healthy school system, and they communicate a lack of trust in educated and experienced teachers, librarians, and administrators.
After I graduated from Brandywine, I attended Kalamazoo College, and received my Masters from Western Michigan University. I ended up teaching at both WMU and “K,” and in fact was Writer in Residence at K for 30 years. I have written poems since my first typing class when I was a freshman at BHS. Learning to type came easy, and freed up my imagination, in that I could move ideas from my brain to the page very quickly. I never had my mom in class, but I had her at home. At school, I had wonderful teachers who supported my creativity, even though I wasn’t a “typical” student. That bedrock led to my own teaching career, and to my publication of five books of poems. Last year, my fifth book received several national and international awards, including the Pulitzer Prize. I am one of three poets from Michigan, the only female, and the only poet who continued living in Michigan, to have received the Pulitzer.
And here’s the thing: I don’t believe any of my accomplishments would have happened without my time at Brandywine. Books were freely available in the library. Challenging books. Even controversial books. My mom taught some of them in her classrooms, and kept those students who might have otherwise checked out engaged in discussions of literature to which they could relate, or even about which they could argue. My theater teacher encouraged me to do some acting. He directed plays that the community attended in droves. They were plays that brought crucial historical and emotional issues into the light. For instance, we did Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, on the Salem witch trials, in which people who may have lived differently, or thought differently, or expressed themselves differently from the norm, were put on trial and, in many cases, executed. I learned from my involvement in Jim’s plays that I was capable of working hard and of expressing myself in ways that could matter to others. I learned empathy, and the price one can pay for having a controversial point of view. I gained confidence. I experienced excellence.
I urge the school board to think long and hard before turning Brandywine into a school system without freedom of thought and freedom of expression. You risk alienating hard-working professionals who are, in fact, experts in their fields. You risk shutting down the imaginations and intellectual adventurousness of the students. A surefire way to turn off students to their own educations is to control them into submission. If you fear what is now being tagged “Critical Race Theory,” make very sure you understand what it means. I suggest you not get your information from conspiracy-laden websites, but from unbiased experts. I have never seen CRT taught outside of college courses. Middle or high school history text books that offer a unit on slavery in the United States, and the issues that led to the Civil War, are not engaging in CRT. They are attending to historical reality. I remember stumbling through the construction site that was to become Brandywine Public High School with my dad, holding his hand. He had such hopes, such excitement for what that building could offer its future students. I wish he was still here to write his own letter to you. I’m sure it would be wiser and kinder than mine. What I know is that the school board has the power to extend or destroy his legacy. I wish you wisdom in your decision-making.
With hope, and warm regards,
Diane Seuss Professor of English, Emerita Kalamazoo College
Valerie Strauss is an education writer who authors The Answer Sheet blog. She came to The Washington Post as an assistant foreign editor for Asia in 1987 and weekend foreign desk editor after working for Reuters as national security editor and a military/foreign affairs reporter on Capitol Hill. She also previously worked at UPI and the LA Times.  Twitter

Poet Tanya Holtland laments the toll of environmental apathy


Each day during the month of April, KUOW is highlighting the work of Seattle-based poets for National Poetry Month. In this series curated by Seattle Civic Poet and Ten Thousand Things host Shin Yu Pai, you'll find a selection of poems for the mind, heart, senses, and soul.

In her Ballard-based poem "Golden Gardens," Tanya Holtland contemplates environmental pollution and its impacts on non-human species and future generations.

Tanya Holtland is a poet and writer. She is author of the chapbook Inner River (Drop Leaf Press, 2016). Her eco-poetry collection Requisite (Platypus Press, 2020) was a finalist for the Broken River Prize and nominated for the 2021 Forward Prize for Best First Collection. Her work surrounds the intersections of memory, ecology, healing, design, and matriarchy.

Golden Gardens


feathered
underwing of the newborn


seagull has only just begun
to rot, by its first meal


filter,
dead cigarette at the tongue


mother feeds
her and I,


also deadened, dis—
believe


the symphony
preceding change


is surely all these symptoms
not us not


seeing the seals, turtles
not the coyote, wren, or deer


not the fox, salmon, frog
not the orcas, not the worms


not the whales, not the bees
not the waters, not these


losses
of meaning


or dawn can seem to rise
to meet the insatiable


distance between
the earth and us—


capable, loving, longing
conflicted in all our glory—


we, the only ones
who can tell and be told a lie


Shin Yu Pai
HOST, TEN THOUSAND THINGS

Shin Yu Pai is the current Civic Poet for The City of Seattle (2023-24) and host of KUOW's podcast Ten Thousand Things (formerly The Blue Suit). She is an award-winning writer and visual artist based in Seattle.