Monthly Archives: July 2021

CONCORD New Hampshire's Republican lawmakers have inserted, and the governor has signed, a state budget that prohibits the teaching of so-called "divisive concepts" related to race and gender by public schools, state agencies and contractors. But whatexactly does that mean?

Though the term divisive concepts no longer appears in the language attached to thetwo-year $13.5 billion statebudget, many of its themes are repackaged into several lines oflegislation beginningon page 154 ofthe 220-page bill, according to civil rights groups and educators.

One of the central problems with this bill is its ambiguity in what constitutes a banned so-called divisive concept,' said Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire. One part of the bill aims to permit workplace sensitivity training while other portions of the bill ban speech aimed at addressing unconscious racism in the workplace. Similarly, one part of the bill purports to protect academic freedom while another portion bans the teaching on so-called divisive concepts. Frankly, the bill is indecipherable and internally contradictory.

More in education: US Supreme Court to hear Maine religious school tuition case

The biggest area of concern for opponents of the budget language areits potential impacts on education. The law allows for teachers found in violation to be brought before the state Board of Education for disciplinary proceedings and potential loss of their educators credentials. Guidance on how the provision of the law will be enforced is still being formulated at the state department of education, as well as in the state attorney generals office, according to numerous sources interviewed for this story.

(The budget) comes across draconianbecause if a teacher violates it, they can be hauled in front of the state board and lose their license over a law that is confusing to say the least, said Oyster River Superintendent James Morse, a former member of Republican Gov. ChrisSununu's Advisory Council on Diversity and Inclusion. Morsewas among 10 members who recently resigned from the councilin protest over the "divisive concepts."

Its a fundamental affront to academic freedom in teaching in terms of teachers making decisions on how they apply the curriculum set by the school board, he continued.

Morse said the budget language is an intrusion into local education matters, where school boards set their districts'curriculums, such asteaching American history andincluding racist elements that plague the nation's past and present.

'Systemic racism does exist in NH': Diversity council members quit over 'damaging' budget

Megan Tuttle, president of National Education Association of New Hampshire, said the budget allows potential bad-faith complaints to the Department of Education or attorney general that could put teachers livelihoods at risk. She did not rule out the possibility of mounting a legal challenge on behalf of member teachers.

What educators are trying to do is be honest in education, but because our profession has been politicized to this point, its concerning to say the least, Tuttle said. History always has different views, but the historical facts dont change. (Teaching history) now runs the risk of losing the critical thinking piece if we are unable to teach history in its truest form.

Bissonnette, of ACLU-NH, said educators and other public employees will be inclined to self-censor and not engage on topics of race, out of fear of being the subject of a complaint.

This is the real danger of the bill and it may very well be the point of it namely, to cause people to censor themselves in having important conversations on race, Bissonnette said.

Ben Vihstadt, spokesperson for Sununu, said the purpose of the languageis to give parents greater ability to report cases of discrimination against their child to the state. He reiteratedthe term "divisive concepts" does not appear anywhere in the budget language.

The governor has always acknowledged that elements of racism exist in our communities, Vihstadt said. Nothing in this budget prevents schools from teaching any aspect of American history, such as teaching about racism, sexism, slavery, or implicit bias, as long as those discussions are done without prejudice or discrimination against any student."

Republican state Sen. Jeb Bradley, the Senate majority leader, amendedthe original "divisive concepts" language contained in House Bill 544 to make it more palatable to the Senate and governor in the state budget. He pointed to the amendedlegislation'sspecific language stating the provisions of the budget are, not to be construed as prohibiting academic discussion and exploration on historic and present issues of race and discrimination.

Rep. Meuse: With his signature, Sununu owns worst budget in NH history

The legislation is crystal clear, Bradley said. People are trying to create an alternate narrative that this is censorship, that it tries to discourage conversations of past racism, current racism or prohibit anti-bias training. It does none of that, and anyone making those assertions either hasnt read the legislation or is willfully misrepresenting it.

The notion of divisive concepts was introduced by New Hampshire House Republicans in House Bill 544, which defined as divisive assertions that New Hampshire or the United States were"fundamentally racist or sexist" or that "by virtue of his or her race or sex, members of any race are inherently racist or are inherently inclined to oppress others, or that members of a sex are inherently sexist or inclined to oppress others."

The bill, originally touted by House Republicans, prohibited the propagation by public employees, private businesses and current and prospective state contractors of these so-called divisive concepts, including, an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously, and an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.

House Bill 544 was tabled in the current legislative session. However, members of the the governor's Council on Diversity and Inclusion,the Manchester chapter of the NAACP and the state teachers union believe many similar themes from HB 544 found their way into HB2, the state budget.

The language of this bill is scary, its scary for educators, public employees; all of us who want to have, who need to have, deep conversations about the issues really affecting New Hampshire, said state Rep. Jim Maggiore, D-North Hampton, who resigned in protest from the governor's Council on Diversity and Inclusion. Were not just talking about race, ability, gender and sexual orientation; its everything that touches our lives. (With this budget), what weve said is were going to put a gag order, and put up a time limit on history, and only talk about a historical context that is undefined.

Sununu previously saidthe diversity council was entering a "transition period." He accused the ACLU of "trying to insert politics" into the council's work. ACLU-NH Executive Director Devon Chaffee has said publicly the mass resignation was started by others.

Previously: Sununu signs NH's $13.5B budget with abortion restrictions, ban on 'divisive concepts

Sen. Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, introduced the amended language in the budget to the Senate. He saidthe new language serves only to enhance the states existing anti-discrimination law. The language in the budget now only applies to public employees, such as state workers, educators and law enforcement officers after numerous private businesses came out against HB 544.

Bradley points to language that states the budget, declares that practices of discrimination against any New Hampshire inhabitants because of age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin are a matter of state concern, that discrimination based on these characteristics not only threatens the rights and proper privileges of New Hampshire inhabitants but menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state.

The budget strengthens anti-discrimination laws, its a very different approach than HB 544, Bradley said. It prevents the kind of training and teaching, that by virtue of a persons characteristics at birth, anyone is superior or inferior to another person, or one group of people is oppressive; thats what the budget says.

The state budget also contains language stating educators cannot teach, That people of one age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others equally and/or without regard to age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin, in part. It also allows public employees to opt out any trainings where these components would be purportedly taught without fear of being disciplined.

Opponents of the budget language say these components makethe entire section of it contradictory. They believe the budget language was construed in a similar vein to legislation adopted in other states in that have recently passed provisions against teaching public school students so-called critical race theory, a law school theory examining how racism is institutionalized in American law.

Superintendent Morse of Oyster Riverrejected the notion that critical race theory is being taught in any of the state's public school districts. He said he believes this language in the budget will be ultimately litigated in court.

Superintendent Morse: NH's 'divisive concepts' bill designed to hide and deny racism and prejudice

Its a collegiate legal theory that has nothing to do with K through 12 education.Weve been teaching diversity and equity in our curriculum for at least five years, Morse said. Do we want to live in a world where we dont address the significant social issues of the day where there are all kinds of examples of racism, sexual bias and gender discrimination happening? How do we change that? We do it through education that gives students a foundation by teaching from our history.

Vihstadt, Sununus spokesperson, said the governor would have preferred not to have language around so-called divisive concepts included in the budget, but did not want to veto the entire budget over its inclusion.

The governor believes that it should have been taken up as a standalone bill, but he chose not to veto an entire state budget and risk shutting down government because this was the route the legislature chose to take, Vihastadt said. The governor has always discouraged non-budgetary items from being included in the budget. Unfortunately, every legislature over the past three decades have always added non-budgetary items to the process.

Numerous stakeholders aren't buying what Bradley and Sununu are selling in the way they portray the language of the law.

JerriAnne Boggis, executive director of the Black Heritage Trail of New Hampshire, said the budget is an affront to democratic values.

The Black Heritage Trail of New Hampshire is displeased by the passing of a state budget and bill that impedes the ability for New Hampshire's citizens to engage in open and honest conversations about racism and other forms of systemic oppression, Boggis said in a statement. It silences the voices of many people in our state, banning from public schools and state agencies specific types of conversations about histories of inequality and their continuing legacy. This is a step backwards, not a step forward.

James McKim, president of the Manchester NAACP, called the inclusion of non-fiscal items such as the modified divisive concepts language, the abortion ban after 24 weeks and school voucher program, disturbing, surprising and disappointing.

He said the budget language makes New Hampshire unwelcoming for young people looking to start their careers here, especially younger people of color, for a state with one of the oldest populations in the country.

We really need to continue the dialogue if we are to get past the divisions we face in our country today, McKim said. Having these honest conversations will not deepen our divisions, it will only help heal them.

Go here to see the original:

'Divisive concepts' ban is NH law. Will it affect the way teachers do their jobs? - Seacoastonline.com

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Author of the article:

The further we go out into the future . . . the more we see the influence of the choices that we make today. K. Hayhoe, climate scientist

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The extreme heat were suffering through is not just a single, exceptional weather event. This is our new reality. Across the West, temperature records have been smashed, lives have been lost, utilities stretched to the limit, and the livelihoods of people, farmers in particular, who are dependent on the weather, are at risk.

In February 2020, provincial government released the report, Albertas Climate Future, which was prepared by climate scientists, that shows our province is warming faster than other parts of the world. It stated; Projected changes will profoundly impact Albertas natural environment, and have the potential to affect agriculture, infrastructure, and natural resources, as well as the health and welfare of Albertans.

Is the dire situation, predicted in this report, and which were now experiencing, finally enough to change the minds of those Strathcona County councillors who have willingly supported the destruction of prime farmland and natural areas? Areas that will become more precious as severe heat becomes the norm.

Council cannot continue to operate in a vacuum, deaf to the greater climate crisis. Attitudes like those voiced by Ward 4 Coun. Bill Tonita who claims theres lots of land out here so destroying prime farmland is of little consequence is just not acceptable. Even more outrageous was his bizarre suggestion that a huge development like Bremner will somehow minimize our impact on the environment. New developments, including Cambrian, will tax limited resources even further.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Its long past time for Strathcona County council to start thinking on a much larger scale, to recognize that we are all part of something bigger. Councillors are elected to act as stewards, responsible for protecting the interests of Strathcona County residents. That duty of stewardship extends to protecting the countys valuable natural resources and proving that we are part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Since these questions cannot be asked in council chambers, Ill ask councillors here:

How do you justify supporting the destruction of farmland and natural areas and putting water sources at risk? Do you believe that Strathcona County can operate in isolation and ignore its global responsibility to protect the rare resources we are so fortunate to have in this county? Are you willing to gamble with the futures of our children and grandchildren? Are you willing to be remembered as someone who ignored science and squandered what is irreplaceable when you might have made the right choice instead? And are you willing to gamble that voters will agree with you?

Lois Gordon, Bremner

I appreciate Braids overview of Albertas financial situation and how it poses some headwinds for Jason Kenny as he prepares for the next election while grappling with various political problems.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

I would suggest, however, that the greatest impediment for Kenny to win the next election, is himself.

There are multiple reasons why Kenny has the lowest approval rating of all the premiers in Canada, most of which lead back to his actions.

A time of crisis usually lays bare a leaders motivation and competency. Kennys lack of transparency on the issue of the environment and coal mining; questionable tactics involving agreements with our doctors who were risking their lives during the height of the pandemic; and of course, the double standards regarding social gatherings and travel exhibited by those who drafted the restrictions, all are part of a pattern that strikes me as self-serving and high handed.

As a citizen of Alberta, the provinces fiscal situation is not my greatest concern, it is whether I trust the Premier to act in the best interest of all of us, and not just those in office.

Douglas Campbell, Sherwood Park

To local MP Garnett Genuis,

In your latest mail-out, your three defining issues to confront include, and I quote, in part: There have been more attacks on Canadas freedom of speech in the last three years.

As a recent resident of your constituency (previously from BC), the only other party I have ever heard utter this same complaint is the Christian Heritage Party (CHP), led by Rod Taylor, who resided in the same town as us, Smithers BC. Coincidently, their main platforms are very similar to yours. That is, the family as defined in traditional terms (male and female) which excludes same-sex marriages, extreme financial restraint, a shyness for social programs, and an abhorrence of homosexuality, to name a few.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

But back to the matter of free speech. Im a senior who has enjoyed a life-long environment of democracy in this country. I know of no other country that has a level of permissiveness when it comes to expressing ones ideas. Yes, there have been times when some people have crossed this line, most notable in my mind being the Holocaust denier James Keegstra, coincidently also from Alberta.

What puzzles me, then, if freedom of speech in Canada is one of your three main concerns as our MP, specifically to what topic or subject do you feel that people are being muzzled? Because, I cant think of anything that as a member of parliament or anyone else, for that matter, that you couldnt say in public or in parliament.

And MP Genuis, as I said previously, please be very specific in your examples because other than outright slander, lies or demeaning a particular group of people or nationality of people, I cant think of anything where I feel more freedom of speech is required in this country.

Brian Burrill, Sherwood Park

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Read the rest here:

Letters to the Editor - Friday, July 9 - Sherwood Park News

Lately it has become more alarmingly frightening as to what is happening in our country. At 71, I wouldnt have dreamed of seeing what Im seeing, even ten or fifteen years ago, let alone forty or fifty years ago. It is saddening and angering to think what my children and grandchildren will be faced with as a result of the conduct and decisions that have been made in recent years. It is frightening to think that the values and character of some of our fellow Americans could decline so far from those Christian and American values that have made America a bastion of freedom and the greatest nation on earth.

How did we get to this point? How can parents explain to their children that its OK for boys to use the girls bathroom, or for girls to be in the Boy Scouts? How do we justify the fairness in over-powering males competing against females from the insane notion that the male identifies as a female? How do we justify as parents and Christians that its OK for our schools to be teaching our adolescent children sex practices or gender preferences?

I remember the racial strife and ugliness of the hatred of racism in the 50s and 60s. I remember the words of Dr. King and the wisdom of his words on the content of character over the color of skin. How have we gotten to the point now where color trumps character, values and abilities? How, after two and a half centuries as a nation, have we become the antithesis of his words? How can organizations and individuals speak the vile hatred of telling children that because they were born white, they are inherently racist? How do parents explain to their children the justification of even espousing such hateful and racist philosophy?

Growing up I remember being told by my parents, my school teachers, my Sunday School teachers, my coaches, my scout leaders that if youre honest and have a good heart and you work hard, you have a good chance of living a good life. You reap what you sew was a biblical reminder for life. Now, we are pounded daily by the media and press and some politicians with the lie that everyone should have the same outcome, the same result, regardless of how much effort one puts into a goal. How does a parent tell their child, that even though their child worked hard and gave 100 % effort on a project, but others did not, that everyone will receive the same reward regardless?

When viewing the carnage and lawlessness of the rioters in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis and other cities in America, how do we explain to our youth that those criminals will go unpunished because the politicians justified and allowed such violence, but our youth are expected to obey the law? How do we go about teaching our children that they are expected to follow the rules and obey the law, while watching criminals go free and even get rewarded for their actions and crimes? How do we help our children to understand that we are a sovereign nation under a rule of law, and a constitution that is the envy of all free nation on planet earth? How can we do that when we have politicians who are allowing millions of foreign citizens to illegally cross our borders and reap as many if not more benefits than that of American citizens? How do we explain to our children why its OK to despise police officers but admire gangsters, law breakers and criminals?

Many folks my age remember learning about the concepts of spending and saving. Even as children we were taught that you can spend some, but you have to save some too. Spending more than you make leads to disaster. How have our politicians gotten to where we are now, with a $30 trillion dollar deficit. How have we allowed our politicians to turn us from the most economically responsible nation on earth into the most bankrupt debtor nation? What will our grandchildren ask years from now when they will live the life of American paupers because of our current fiscal irresponsibility?

It is becoming more and more difficult for American citizens and parents to find the truth in what is being shown on television news, newspapers and other sources of information. TV news stations have their agenda that is now linked to their political preference rather than in reporting the news, the facts, the truth. Newspapers pay for Associated Press articles that are strewn with misinformation, deceit, and threads of socialist-driven ideologies. The internet is filled with slants on the truth and the dissemination of philosophical and political propaganda. So where are parents and citizens to go that they might help their children to understand the realities and truths of what is happening to us as a people, as a nation?

What has happened to our faith as Christians in America? Why have we allowed that God be taken out of schools, out of court houses out of sporting events? How can we explain to our children that its OK to pray at the dinner table or at bedtime, but pretty much nowhere else? How can we expect for God to watch over us when we have allowed Him to be taken out of most everything in daily public life?

I think maybe that our American forefathers are looking down on their descendants with sadness and disdain for what has become of our country. Even members of the more recent greatest generation would be appalled at what we have allowed ourselves to become. Im sure they would be disheartened to know what condition America is now in! I hope, I pray for the sake of generations to come, that reversing this downward spiral is not too late!

Read more from the original source:

What has happened to us in America | Journal-news | journal-news.net - Martinsburg Journal

While talking with Wyoming historian Phil Roberts about my forthcoming book on politics in the West, I was startled when he said, Ive been studying the Wyoming Constitution for years. Yet Im starting to revise my opinion of it. Its actually more progressive than we think.

I told Phil to stop putting Jim Beam in his coffee.

Intrigued, I explored his premise. Not only did I agree with Roberts but discovered that like Wyoming, four other states had written or rewritten their constitutions in 1889: North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Idaho. These 89ers, as I call them, infused progressive ideas into their founding documents.

Their vision was both Republican in party and republican in philosophy, no mean feat in that era of clashing ideals and aspirations. The delegates were generally conservative; they respected tradition and free enterprise while recognizing that the Gilded Age had given too much to too few. As a result, egalitarianism and pragmatism were the bywords.

These constitutions were modestly populist, suspicious of corporations, wildly pro-agriculture, enthusiastic about commonweal republican virtues and mostly pro-suffrage. While narrowly inclusive by modern standards excluding American Indians, Asian Americans and Mormons these constitutions were considered a model of amplitude by 19th-century benchmarks. They curtailed child labor and instead promoted affordable public education. They looked out for the working stiff and clamped down on railroads and irrigation companies to prevent monopolies. The secret ballot found favor shortly after statehood. Over the years, the 89ers accepted the odd duck and unconventional: Hutterites, Mennonites, syncretic New Age communes, white supremacists, doomsday cults and Jewish colonies. The five constitutions enshrined an explicitly central-planning concept significant in arid states: state ownership of running water.

Heres the paradox of the matter: The republicanism of the 89er constitutions bears little resemblance to present-day Republicanism, yet the two are often conflated. The 89ers all began as part of the 1861 Dakota Territory, and this new addition to the nation exuded small r republican ideals, necessarily differentiated from the big R Republican party.

As historian Jon Lauck wrote in Prairie Republic: The Political Culture of Dakota Territory, 1879-1889 (Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 2010), The republicanism I find to be a powerful current in Dakota Territory relates the political ideology with roots in ancient Greece and Rome and early modern Italy and England. If you were unfamiliar with what republicanism meant in 1861, Lauck continued, think of the general political principles of Thomas Jefferson, not the specific platform of Ronald Reagan.

In short, the historical values of inclusivity in these states constitutions do not square with the values of the current political narrative.

Another fallacy in the political story line is that the Great Plains and Northern Rockies have always been largely Republican (Montana excepted), pro business and conservative.

When I asked retired U.S. Sen. Alan Simpson, a Wyoming Republican, about this perceived GOP dominance, he balked. Well, we can forget that notion. The longest-serving U.S. Senator in Wyoming history was a Democrat, Joseph OMahoney. He was in office for over 20 years, Simpson said. Look at Ed Herschler [another Democrat and the] only three-term governor we had. And he was just what we needed. We do not have a history of being a Republican-only state.

Historian Marshall Damgaard possesses an encyclopedic knowledge of the Great Plains political past, particularly his native South Dakota. He summed up the states narrative this way: Many people, even South Dakota residents, perceive that this state has, politically, always been a dependable (read: boring) conservative bastion. The historical record screams otherwise.

A 2019 Gallup poll identified all of the 89er states as highly conservative, with Wyoming and South Dakota among the most conservative states in the nation. In 2020, all the 89ers voted for Donald Trump, with Wyoming leading the nation at 70.4% to the incumbent.

Irate citizens wave copies of their states constitutions at public meetings, declaring them ignored repositories of unerring and selectively conservative wisdom. Such displays are common in movement conservatism. The trend has been around since the Great Depression, gained momentum with Barry Goldwater around 1964 and took off under the neoliberal economic policies of the Reagan era. It advocated for minimal government, corporations and individualism and against welfare, regulation and unions. Later, anti-abortion, gun rights and a chauvinistic American exceptionalism became part of the platform. This version of conservatism, however, does not reflect these states founding documents. Nor did it find solid footing in the Great Plains and Northern Rockies until the late 20th century.

To understand this turn, we need to move beyond political labels. In 1889, liberal was a term of esteem, regardless of political affiliation. In the tradition of Edmund Burke, liberal was synonymous for generous and, up to a point, inclusive. Defending the idea of womens suffrage, at the Wyoming constitutional convention, John Hoyt asked for the support of a body of men so intelligent, so high minded, so liberal as those who compose this convention.

Conservative carried some of the same connotations as todays meaning. It meant cautious or prudent and encouraged following historical or judicial precedent. Henry B. Blackwell, co-founder of the national Republican Party and an advocate for womens suffrage, spoke to the Montana constitutional convention. He pitched a very simple and conservative proposition. Give women the vote. Why? Because it embraced the principles of equality found in the U.S. Constitution. Conservative did not mean, however, anti-government, either federal or state. It did not mean exclusivity. Unlike liberal, conservative could infer negativity. Democrat James W. Reid told his fellow delegates at the Idaho convention that the press saw him as overly conservative and thus a mossback, or in other words, a stuck-up-to-the hubs feudalist.

Republicans took progressive stances on a range of issues debated at the 1889 conventions, and they did not turn away from the progressive label an umbrella term for anyone hoping to make economic or social progress. Loyalty mattered. Party schisms notwithstanding, the GOP of the Great Plains and Northern Rockies had not drifted far from the party of Lincoln. Members were unionists, first and foremost; many of the 89er conventioneers had either served in the Union Army or had relatives who had. The GOP craved state autonomy and wanted to run its own affairs, but, given the memory of the Civil War, delegates were suspicious of extreme state sovereignty. This rejection of radical states rights theory made them relatively progressive by modern standards. The Republicans of the 89er era gave credence to security, especially relating to safety and stability. They were attached to the business community and wanted minimal taxation, but accepted taxes as necessary for proper governance. They subscribed to the gold standard and advocated for protective tariffs to safeguard domestic industry and investment. But they werent so besotted with the bottom line as to ignore the darker sides of the Gilded Ages laissez faire economic policies. Two years before, Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Act, subjecting rail roads to federal regulation. In 1890, Congress further restricted monopolies with the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

The GOP of most Western territories had progressive opinions about labor, womens rights and religion. They censured indentured servitude and child labor while protecting workers. In Montana, delegates expanded liability law in favor of injured workers. Womens suffrage sparked some of the most passionate debate. The delegates attitudes were inconsistent when it came to other forms of inclusivity, especially concerning equal treatment for American Indians and religious freedom. Their take on religion seems progressive but was traditional. Chalk part of this up to the Enabling Act of 1889, the federal legislation that made these states possible. The Enabling Act mandated that a perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured. Freedom of worship has deep roots in American history. While faiths besides Christianity were acceptable in the abstract, Christian sects proved problematic. South Dakota wrestled with anti-Catholic prejudice. The Idaho convention had a donnybrook over Mormonism.

If a core tenant of modern conservatism has been limited government, then these states face charges of ideological treason. The 1889 conventioneers did not subscribe to the adage that government is best when it governs least. They understood the potentials of state government and expanded its powers, passed laws that encouraged growth and beefed up their bills of rights. In 1889, a period of economic, demographic and social upheaval, change wasnt about to be kept in a cage. Idaho Falls has had a city-owned electric utility since 1900. North Dakota has the only government-owned general service bank in the nation. The legislature in Bismarck established the Bank of North Dakota in 1919 to promote agriculture and commerce.

If one definition of socialism is government control of the means of production, then the Bank of North Dakota is Exhibit A. In 1932, North Dakota passed an anti-corporation farm law that still stands. In 1932, voters put Franklin D. Roosevelt in the White House. Out of 242 counties in the 89er states, only four voted against Roosevelt. North Dakota gave him a clean sweep. In 1980, South Dakota bought a failing railroad.

If the Northern Rockies and Plains have always been conservative, explain this: from 1913 to 1989, Montana only elected one Republican to a seat in the U.S. Senate for a single term. At the turn of the 20th century these states, particularly in the Great Plains, voted for Republicans, Democrats, Populists, Socialists and Progressives. After World War II, the 89ers sent some of the most storied Democrats all centrists of the era to Washington: Mike Mansfield, Frank Church, and Gale McGee. In 1986, North Dakota sent Democrat Kent Conrad to Washington for a 26-year stint as U.S. senator. A similar pattern applies to governorships. Between 1945 and 2010, a healthy 26 out of 69 governors have been Democrats.

Economics played an outsized role in taking us where we are today. The 89er delegates laid the foundation for a series of single-driver extractive economies. They gave agriculture and mining every political and statutory advantage. State universities offered few urban-oriented classes in subjects like architecture. By focusing on utilitarian, commodity-oriented education, the delegates etched in stone the demise of the family farmer. Large-scale farming and mining techniques, better plant genetics and abandoning the mule for a John Deere all changes encouraged by land grant universities did not foster what Wendell Berry calls self-determining local economies. It killed them.

Delegates gave cities a bad deal. Cities were associated with industrial corruption and moral decline, charges which were sometimes accurate. Conventioneers restricted urban power, especially the ability to tax. Yet they overdid it. Even in 1889 cities were revenue and job creation machines. The delegates reliance on rural nostalgia for public policy led to problems. If your creation story and source of revenue continues to be rooted in extractives and agriculture, youre in for a struggle. Commodities live and die according to the forces of innovation. The folks on the producing end, whether miners, ranchers or farmers, end up victims when technological innovation dictates a smaller workforce.

Subsequently, all 89ers have made some effort in addressing this state of affairs. Some are doing better than others. In 1974, Wyoming started a mineral trust fund but then used the money as a moat to keep change out. If the bills are paid, why bother diversifying the economy or examining core beliefs? South Dakotas former Gov. Bill Janklow fundamentally altered the states economic landscape by changing banking laws in the 1980s. Sioux Falls became the credit card processing capital of the country. The rest of the state remains in thrall to commodity agriculture.

North Dakota has made a three-pronged attempt to reprioritize its values. After the 1997 Grand Forks flood, the state formed a partnership with the federal government that led Grand Forks to become a leading drone research center. It monetized proceeds from Bakken oil production by sticking revenues into the Legacy Fund, now worth $8.2 billion. Finally, Doug Burgum, now governor but also founder of Great Plains software, led by example. He showed how to leverage agriculture to foster information technology. The second-largest Microsoft campus is in Fargo. Yet outside of the cities and the counties of the Bakken shale, North Dakotas population declines.

Despite Idahos conservative reputation, historic struggles between Mormon and Gentile, contention between the timber and mining economy of the north versus the agricultural south, and other areas of conflict forced the state to hammer out a form of pluralism. While commodities are still critical, Idaho recognized that cities create economic vitality. Look at Boise. Its the only capital of the 89ers to harness its connections to the federal and state government to build an enviable economy. Boise is at the center of Idahos science and technology economy; semiconductors accounted for 69% of Idahos exports in 2019; double that of agriculture, mining, chemical and paper products exports combined.

This brings us to the outlier: Montana. It alone took the bull by the horns. For most of its existence, extractives drove Montanas economy and captured the legislature in Helena. The Anaconda Company didnt just produce copper; it had hundreds of subsidiaries in related industries. By 1930, it controlled eight Montana newspapers. It became a multinational corporation and owned the worlds largest copper mine in Chile. When the Chilean government nationalized the mine in 1971, Anaconda, already unsteady from weak prices, was doomed, although it took 10 years for the swan song. Its decline cost thousands of Montana jobs. This contributed to the decision to call a constitutional convention.

In 1972, Montana had enough confidence to rewrite its constitution, unafraid of losing its essential core. In doing so, it codified a court-ordered balancing of apportionment even if it did favor urban districts and eased restrictions on cities. Delegates reinforced equal protection, strengthened government transparency requirements and bolstered individual privacy rights. Yet, they were chary of extremes. While affirming the right to bear arms, the delegates refused to make gun registration or licensing unconstitutional. Nor did they declare abortion a violation of the constitution. But they were not so timid as to back away from preserving Montanas landscape. The constitutional rewrite acknowledged the fundamental value of nature as more than its commodities, obliging the state and citizens to maintain a clean and healthful environment. The 1972 constitution rekindled the flame of those egalitarian ideals set forth in Helena in 1889 by crafting a constitution that reflected transformations in the state and planned for the future.

Change is coming. In many ways, it is already here. To understand what aspects of these older values fit into our present context, we need to examine key narratives in agriculture, commodities, cities and their relationship to state and federal government.

This will not be easy, but other regions have undergone similar transitions. In 1849, Ohio produced more corn than any other state; most residents were farmers. By the early 1900s, most Ohio residents lived in urban areas and worked outside of agriculture. Realizing these changes, Ohio created multiple identities. Now it has four cities with over 250,000 people; it has 137 colleges and universities, including 14 four-year research universities and seven medical schools. It has 10 ports with access to the ocean. Its companies produced $112 billion worth of manufacturing goods in 2018. Hell, it even has the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. It is still the 10th-largest corn producer.

The 89ers have to let go of commodities the way Pittsburgh let go of steel. Mills still pour steel within shouting distance of the confluence of the Monongahela, Allegheny and Ohio Rivers, although none within city limits. The Steelers still pack their stadium. Yet advanced manufacturing, healthcare and information technology drive the economy. Many people in the Northern Rockies and Great Plains are reluctant to see this happen, largely because they know nothing else. We have to invent our future. In the end, it is about the dignity of meaningful and rewarding employment.

This author champions a fundamentally conservative ideal: If people want economically viable, small to medium-sized communities, if they want stability and a societal model that permits the inclusion of responsible citizens of all stripes the values embodied in all these state constitutions then extractive industries must be seen as the icing on the cake, not the cake itself. When commodity extraction is perpetuated through political means as critical to the communitys existence, an economic roller coaster with social consequences, like rural population loss, is inevitable.

These states need a realistic conversation about what constitutes acceptable partnerships with government. The regions endorsement of Donald Trump highlights voters devotion to conservative values that, due to their lack of agility, are ineffective against the greater forces that threaten to topple them: technology, climate change, a pandemic and foreign economic competition to name a few.

Instead of Democrat or Republican, think about the values of 1889. Circa 2021, Republicans in these states embrace a scorched-earth policy toward government oversight. The 89er constitutional delegates were no fans of Washington, but they understood banishing it would lead to fiscal calamity. The current GOP stance on the role of government would be utterly alien to the signers of these state constitutions.

Lastly, integrity was a central 89er value. Its ultimate expression is in freedom of conscience. This ideal permitted people of all faiths and beliefs to live amid mountains and plains. There have been a few sorry exceptions, like Montanas 1918 Sedition Law. It criminalized any negative statement about the government. Repeal came three years later. Yet freedom of conscience has fallen out of favor. Trending to the apex is loyalty, which is morphing into its ugly stepchild, obedience. Whoever packaged loyalty and obedience and sold it as freedom may be a marketing genius, but it is authoritarianism the ultimate anti-89ers value in disguise. The 89er states remain unable to reckon their cultural identity, a rural exceptionalism linked to commodity production, rooted in republicanism, with the multicultural, pluralistic society of our future. This seemingly unreconcilable split must be resolved.

This article first appeared in the Summer 2021 issue of Montana The Magazine of Western History. Thank you to the magazine for allowing WyoFile to reprint here.

Read this article:

The surprising liberalism of Wyomings Constitution - WyoFile

In journalism you are taught to get the who, what, where, when, why and how. With so many avenues to get information in todays world I began thinking about those questions and a few things recently made me realize that for todays newspapers, the biggest question we need to answer is why?

At a recent meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Planning Commission, there were several why questions broached. Why was the setback for permanent structures 20 feet? Why was the maximum height of a fence six feet?

Building Official Randy Adams could answer the who (previous board), the when (the 1980s) and most of the questions can be answered by looking at minutes except the why.

We try to cover as many board meetings in person (or via Zoom now) as we can because of the why? We can get a copy of the minutes that tells us what motions were made by city councils, county commissioners, fair board, school board and others. But to answer the why you have to be there in person to hear the discussion.

I cannot answer why the setbacks are where they are or what is magical about a 6-foot high fence (except somewhere someone said 6 feet because most municipalities have that maximum height). Had I been covering the meeting in which the setbacks were set I could answer the why.

Most minutes cover action by the boards or councils, they do not often cover the why? But everyone wants to know the why or they should.

Think of a young child. What is their favorite question thats right it is why? Why is that? Because we all have a curious nature to understand the things around us, why is the sky blue, why is grass green, why is the alphabet in the order it is in, why do I have to brush my teeth, why do I have go to bed early and on and on.

Most of us never lose that curious nature, including BAPC board members who were asking why last month.

With the why answered we would know the importance of the setbacks and the limit on fence height.

When you look at the hundreds of bills approved by the Wyoming Legislature this year, that prompts a lot of whys.

We were able to answer some of those.

When people go and look at the statute on the Slayer Rule, they will see that the Wyoming Legislature approved changes in 2021. It does not state why the change was made in the statute.

You can easily find the why in this newspaper as we chronicled the struggles of Mel and Darr Lea Walker and their hope that new legislation would prevent others from having to go through what they are with Mels daughters belongings after her death.

With boards, councils and commissions approving new fiscal year budgets, people can see the numbers and how they change, but newspapers answer why they change, why did revenue drop or increase, why are there more expenses in some departments.

This past Sunday we celebrated the 245th anniversary of the writing of the Declaration of Independence. What followed that declaration was the Revolutionary War and eventually our Constitution and our First Amendment granting freedom of speech, press and religion.

Freedom of the press, because our founding fathers understood it was important for journalists to be free to discover and most importantly to report the who, what, where, when, how and especially the why.

It matters what our government does, but it also matters why they do what they do.

Why? Because it holds them accountable and strives to ensure that the government remains (in the words of President Abraham Lincoln) of the people, by the people, for the people.

Also, because since the innocence of our youth we have been demanding why.

-- Karla Pomeroy

Read the original:

The News Editorial: It's all about the why - Northern Wyoming Daily News Worland Wyoming