I couldn't find any other way of getting this to Ms. Brown, so I am posting here. Thanks. Sorry for the length of the post. I also mention a document by Thomas Sowell. If anyone is interested, I can provide that as well. I'm interested in hearing anyone's thoughts on these issues.
Dear Lizz,
Im writing you today to share with you some of my thoughts about St. Louis race relations, education and politics. As I am probably not your typical listener, you may likely disregard much of what I have to say . And yet, I hope that you will at least make the effort to think about these things as I believe that progress is only made possible when both sides to a dialogue make the effort to understand (not necessarily agree with) the positions of the other side. Surely, with your legal background you know this to be the case even though you may not exercise it with your radio persona.
For starters where am I coming from? or what do I look like? as you are want to say.
Well, Im white, 35 years old, college educated, married with 22 month-old twins. I live in LaSalle Park (near south-side/downtown) and work in west St. Louis County. I grew up in a virtually all-white town in central Iowa and I can probably count on both hands, the number of African Americans with whom Ive had meaningful interactions or relationships. I attended public schools throughout high school and college.
Since coming to St. Louis about 4 years ago, Ive become increasingly interested in the role that race relations play in St. Louis, and remain shocked at the level of racial division that continues to exist. While this chasm is obvious to outsider and native alike, I believe that views from the outside are valuable because they come without preconceived notions and additional emotional baggage that are not easily separated from the discussions taking place now.
As a city resident and parent, Ive followed the events involving SLPS with a great deal of interest. Recently I began listening to your program during my drive to work, mainly to achieve some level of understanding about the concerns of the Black Community. Sadly, much of what I heard sounds like someone whos main interest is continuing to deepen the racial divide, rather than ensure the future of education for the children of St. Louis. It is one thing for an entertainment program to pass off such pandering as part of the show, but when the goal is to be a legitimate voice for the people and to effect change, the use of hyperbole, appeals to emotion and outright lies then only serves to undermine the mission.
This is the reason why I have to shrug off blowhards like Rush Limbaugh by thinking of them only as entertainers with little or no political substance because if I didnt I would surely go insane from the thought that right-thinking individuals could behave in such a manner. For me when the messenger goes so far off the deep end (in either direction to the left or right) then all credibility, and the message, are lost. For me, Lizz Brown is to the St. Louis Black Community what Rush Limbaugh is to the conservative party and that is not meant as a compliment.
From listening to your program, as well as following the saga in our local media and reading what posters to the stl today forums have to say, I have the following observations about the SLPS crisis.
First and foremost, the ultimate goal of this endeavor should be to educate the children of St. Louis so that they may seek greater opportunities throughout their lives.
The School Board
The actions by the School Board were indeed quick and done with very little community participation. This was certainly unfortunate, but perhaps unavoidable since there was little time for debate and grass roots efforts when the board was faced with a $50 to $90 million-dollar budget shortfall. In fact, the prior superintendent had already stated that school closings, teacher layoffs, and the loss of extracurricular activities were likely.
What is equally sad is that you and the community find yourselves backing Moore and Haas, the only two board members currently opposing the actions of the newly elected members and Hilgemann. Unfortunately these two are arguably the least mentally stable of the bunch, which again only serves to weaken the message.
The School Closings
The number of school buildings and infrastructure for St. Louis was based on a population twice as large as currently resides within the City limits. And now, even after the closing of sixteen schools, the largest number of remaining schools is still north of Delmar (44), with 17 in the central corridor, and about 30? South of I-44.
Furthermore, minority populations make up the majority of all but 3 schools in St. Louis, so even if schools in south city were closed, the impact would have still been felt mostly by black students. The closings were simply a reaction to the shift in population from north to south.
The Interim Superintendent
The hiring of Alvarez & Marsal, and their subsequent management decisions, have led to much of the criticism now being leveled at the school board. However, I feel this was an effective move on the part of the school board for the following reason: The relationships within SLPS and the Board are very political. If you accept that the education system was in need of significant change, such change would have been nearly impossible to accomplish from within. An education focused superintendent would be ill-suited for managing the administrative overhaul required and the school board would have been unable to effect the required changes through the school board meeting process. Your groups ability to disrupt the meetings has made this point very clear.
If the dirty work was to be accomplished, its easier to have it done by an outside party that is beholden to no one, and upon whom we can focus our hate, allowing the SLPS, School Board and a newly appointed Superintendent to move forward after theyre gone. (NOTE: I wrote this before McClellan's column came out to day. You know what they say about great minds
.
I see the SLPS as a sinking cruise ship at sea. Your group is arguing over who gets to be the captain and shipmates, while the real job at hand is bailing the water to save the passengers (children).
Two critical observations should be made. 1) Prior to taking their actions, the school board had very little public (or media) attendance at their meetings. 2) SLPS is one of the largest employers for African Americans living the St. Louis area. These two issues create the impression (not necessarily fact) that the reaction of the black community had more to do with lost jobs than education of their children. That perhaps the primary concern was maintaining the status quo even if that meant shortchanging the childrens education. The current actions involving the sick-out only reinforce this.
And unfortunately your actions only enforce this impression. By encouraging the school boycott, your actions sought to reduce the attendance rolls, which would have directly impacted the level of funding received by city schools. Reducing school funding can only hurt the ability of the school to educate its students.
Lately, you and your callers have been talking about the dress codes being enforced at the schools. You stipulate that the schools have been vague in telling you what the dress code is but very particular in its enforcement. If this is true, then that is a sad statement on the schools and certainly wrong. However, your responses to this problem lack effectiveness as well as logic.
In talking to one caller arguing that the dress code was unfair, you note that the babies cant afford to be buying their own clothes, that their parents have to do that for them and that it would be an additional cost. However, you also agreed with another caller in that the kids should get to decide what they wear, as form of personal expression. My question is: If the parents hold the purse strings and want their children educated, shouldnt they be getting their kids dressed in the appropriate uniform before they splurge to buy them the latest sneakers and gear?
Now we have the sick-out being staged by the teachers. I first heard of this listing to your program this morning. You stated that both union and non-union teachers were observing this as a means of voicing their disdain on various and sundry issues concerning the work environment at the SLPS. This is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed and resolved.
Your program could be a voice in doing so but instead you use the situation as a means to inflame the issue but not offer solutions. My observation is based on the manner in which you treat those who call in to present views alternative to your own.
Generally, at the first sign of dissent, you transform your home-girl persona to that of opposing counsel during cross-examination. You look for any defect or weakness in the callers logic, regardless of its relevance to the argument, and then shout them down as unknowing, irrelevant commentators on situations they know nothing about at which time they are summarily dismissed from your show. This is all fine and good if youre all about entertainment. But if you truly want to make a difference (and be credible) youve got to do better. Get to and discuss the meat of the arguments thats where the true understanding and opportunities lie. For example:
The caller with concerns about teachers attendance at the contract ratification meeting. His point was that most teachers knew of this meeting but chose not to participate. I suppose he was commenting on the apathy of teachers during the process, but then bitching about the outcomes. (see page 3 critical observations) This is probably not that critical of a piece to resolving the argument but you handle it by focusing on the issue of notification, making presumptions about how many were notified of the meeting by stating that Mary Armstrong did not obtain the necessary contact info. You dismiss him by saying he has no way of knowing how many people were notified, even though you yourself admit that unions in general have no way of achieving 100% notification. You also failed to present or misrepresented the following items:
1. You said the all the teachers were striking while the STL PD reported the number at 210, when 60-80 is typical anyway.
2. In your discussion about the need to notify all the teachers, you failed to mention that the contract for local 420 also covers the non-union teachers. Is it possible that these were some (or all) of the people not contacted for attendance at the meeting? And if so, what is the unions responsibility to contact non-union employees? Further, is that who went on sick-out today?
With so many unanswered questions, you continue undaunted in declaring that Mary Armstrong has committed a severe injustice towards the union members, when in fact there is no clear evidence at all. I wont even get into the caller who you dismissed because you were unhappy with the number of times hed listened to your program.
Enough of this stuff about you. Lets get back to the goal of educating the students. Ultimately, much of this comes down to taking personal responsibility for getting an education. With that in mind, Im attaching a document from Thomas Sowell about race, culture and equality. Its somewhat broad-ranging but it also touches on some issues that I believe are particularly relevant. Ive highlighted a few of the passages for easier reference. In my opinion, his main points relevant to this discussion are:
1. Many factors, most geographic and economic are ultimately responsible for historical inequities in education.
2. Discrimination, though despicable, is likely not the cause of educational gaps between blacks and whites.
3. Any group can succeed if they are willing to look at the good things that are available and then work to understand and use them to their benefit.
In other words, do everything we can to help kids understand that the surest way out of the poverty cycle is to drop the hate, stop making excuses, become educated and use that knowledge to make a better life. A lot of this wont happen until the parents (and other adults, like you) become more involved in sending that message to the children.
Dear Lizz,
Im writing you today to share with you some of my thoughts about St. Louis race relations, education and politics. As I am probably not your typical listener, you may likely disregard much of what I have to say . And yet, I hope that you will at least make the effort to think about these things as I believe that progress is only made possible when both sides to a dialogue make the effort to understand (not necessarily agree with) the positions of the other side. Surely, with your legal background you know this to be the case even though you may not exercise it with your radio persona.
For starters where am I coming from? or what do I look like? as you are want to say.
Well, Im white, 35 years old, college educated, married with 22 month-old twins. I live in LaSalle Park (near south-side/downtown) and work in west St. Louis County. I grew up in a virtually all-white town in central Iowa and I can probably count on both hands, the number of African Americans with whom Ive had meaningful interactions or relationships. I attended public schools throughout high school and college.
Since coming to St. Louis about 4 years ago, Ive become increasingly interested in the role that race relations play in St. Louis, and remain shocked at the level of racial division that continues to exist. While this chasm is obvious to outsider and native alike, I believe that views from the outside are valuable because they come without preconceived notions and additional emotional baggage that are not easily separated from the discussions taking place now.
As a city resident and parent, Ive followed the events involving SLPS with a great deal of interest. Recently I began listening to your program during my drive to work, mainly to achieve some level of understanding about the concerns of the Black Community. Sadly, much of what I heard sounds like someone whos main interest is continuing to deepen the racial divide, rather than ensure the future of education for the children of St. Louis. It is one thing for an entertainment program to pass off such pandering as part of the show, but when the goal is to be a legitimate voice for the people and to effect change, the use of hyperbole, appeals to emotion and outright lies then only serves to undermine the mission.
This is the reason why I have to shrug off blowhards like Rush Limbaugh by thinking of them only as entertainers with little or no political substance because if I didnt I would surely go insane from the thought that right-thinking individuals could behave in such a manner. For me when the messenger goes so far off the deep end (in either direction to the left or right) then all credibility, and the message, are lost. For me, Lizz Brown is to the St. Louis Black Community what Rush Limbaugh is to the conservative party and that is not meant as a compliment.
From listening to your program, as well as following the saga in our local media and reading what posters to the stl today forums have to say, I have the following observations about the SLPS crisis.
First and foremost, the ultimate goal of this endeavor should be to educate the children of St. Louis so that they may seek greater opportunities throughout their lives.
The School Board
The actions by the School Board were indeed quick and done with very little community participation. This was certainly unfortunate, but perhaps unavoidable since there was little time for debate and grass roots efforts when the board was faced with a $50 to $90 million-dollar budget shortfall. In fact, the prior superintendent had already stated that school closings, teacher layoffs, and the loss of extracurricular activities were likely.
What is equally sad is that you and the community find yourselves backing Moore and Haas, the only two board members currently opposing the actions of the newly elected members and Hilgemann. Unfortunately these two are arguably the least mentally stable of the bunch, which again only serves to weaken the message.
The School Closings
The number of school buildings and infrastructure for St. Louis was based on a population twice as large as currently resides within the City limits. And now, even after the closing of sixteen schools, the largest number of remaining schools is still north of Delmar (44), with 17 in the central corridor, and about 30? South of I-44.
Furthermore, minority populations make up the majority of all but 3 schools in St. Louis, so even if schools in south city were closed, the impact would have still been felt mostly by black students. The closings were simply a reaction to the shift in population from north to south.
The Interim Superintendent
The hiring of Alvarez & Marsal, and their subsequent management decisions, have led to much of the criticism now being leveled at the school board. However, I feel this was an effective move on the part of the school board for the following reason: The relationships within SLPS and the Board are very political. If you accept that the education system was in need of significant change, such change would have been nearly impossible to accomplish from within. An education focused superintendent would be ill-suited for managing the administrative overhaul required and the school board would have been unable to effect the required changes through the school board meeting process. Your groups ability to disrupt the meetings has made this point very clear.
If the dirty work was to be accomplished, its easier to have it done by an outside party that is beholden to no one, and upon whom we can focus our hate, allowing the SLPS, School Board and a newly appointed Superintendent to move forward after theyre gone. (NOTE: I wrote this before McClellan's column came out to day. You know what they say about great minds
.I see the SLPS as a sinking cruise ship at sea. Your group is arguing over who gets to be the captain and shipmates, while the real job at hand is bailing the water to save the passengers (children).
Two critical observations should be made. 1) Prior to taking their actions, the school board had very little public (or media) attendance at their meetings. 2) SLPS is one of the largest employers for African Americans living the St. Louis area. These two issues create the impression (not necessarily fact) that the reaction of the black community had more to do with lost jobs than education of their children. That perhaps the primary concern was maintaining the status quo even if that meant shortchanging the childrens education. The current actions involving the sick-out only reinforce this.
And unfortunately your actions only enforce this impression. By encouraging the school boycott, your actions sought to reduce the attendance rolls, which would have directly impacted the level of funding received by city schools. Reducing school funding can only hurt the ability of the school to educate its students.
Lately, you and your callers have been talking about the dress codes being enforced at the schools. You stipulate that the schools have been vague in telling you what the dress code is but very particular in its enforcement. If this is true, then that is a sad statement on the schools and certainly wrong. However, your responses to this problem lack effectiveness as well as logic.
In talking to one caller arguing that the dress code was unfair, you note that the babies cant afford to be buying their own clothes, that their parents have to do that for them and that it would be an additional cost. However, you also agreed with another caller in that the kids should get to decide what they wear, as form of personal expression. My question is: If the parents hold the purse strings and want their children educated, shouldnt they be getting their kids dressed in the appropriate uniform before they splurge to buy them the latest sneakers and gear?
Now we have the sick-out being staged by the teachers. I first heard of this listing to your program this morning. You stated that both union and non-union teachers were observing this as a means of voicing their disdain on various and sundry issues concerning the work environment at the SLPS. This is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed and resolved.
Your program could be a voice in doing so but instead you use the situation as a means to inflame the issue but not offer solutions. My observation is based on the manner in which you treat those who call in to present views alternative to your own.
Generally, at the first sign of dissent, you transform your home-girl persona to that of opposing counsel during cross-examination. You look for any defect or weakness in the callers logic, regardless of its relevance to the argument, and then shout them down as unknowing, irrelevant commentators on situations they know nothing about at which time they are summarily dismissed from your show. This is all fine and good if youre all about entertainment. But if you truly want to make a difference (and be credible) youve got to do better. Get to and discuss the meat of the arguments thats where the true understanding and opportunities lie. For example:
The caller with concerns about teachers attendance at the contract ratification meeting. His point was that most teachers knew of this meeting but chose not to participate. I suppose he was commenting on the apathy of teachers during the process, but then bitching about the outcomes. (see page 3 critical observations) This is probably not that critical of a piece to resolving the argument but you handle it by focusing on the issue of notification, making presumptions about how many were notified of the meeting by stating that Mary Armstrong did not obtain the necessary contact info. You dismiss him by saying he has no way of knowing how many people were notified, even though you yourself admit that unions in general have no way of achieving 100% notification. You also failed to present or misrepresented the following items:
1. You said the all the teachers were striking while the STL PD reported the number at 210, when 60-80 is typical anyway.
2. In your discussion about the need to notify all the teachers, you failed to mention that the contract for local 420 also covers the non-union teachers. Is it possible that these were some (or all) of the people not contacted for attendance at the meeting? And if so, what is the unions responsibility to contact non-union employees? Further, is that who went on sick-out today?
With so many unanswered questions, you continue undaunted in declaring that Mary Armstrong has committed a severe injustice towards the union members, when in fact there is no clear evidence at all. I wont even get into the caller who you dismissed because you were unhappy with the number of times hed listened to your program.
Enough of this stuff about you. Lets get back to the goal of educating the students. Ultimately, much of this comes down to taking personal responsibility for getting an education. With that in mind, Im attaching a document from Thomas Sowell about race, culture and equality. Its somewhat broad-ranging but it also touches on some issues that I believe are particularly relevant. Ive highlighted a few of the passages for easier reference. In my opinion, his main points relevant to this discussion are:
1. Many factors, most geographic and economic are ultimately responsible for historical inequities in education.
2. Discrimination, though despicable, is likely not the cause of educational gaps between blacks and whites.
3. Any group can succeed if they are willing to look at the good things that are available and then work to understand and use them to their benefit.
In other words, do everything we can to help kids understand that the surest way out of the poverty cycle is to drop the hate, stop making excuses, become educated and use that knowledge to make a better life. A lot of this wont happen until the parents (and other adults, like you) become more involved in sending that message to the children.
