The New York Times - USA (2020-08-03)

A20 MONDAY, AUGUST 3, 2020

N

TO THE EDITOR:

In “Perpetuating Segregation With

‘Pods’” (Op-Ed, July 23), Clara

Totenberg Green warns about the

worsening of inequities as schools

remain closed and parents with the

means to do so organize small

learning groups for their children.

No schooling plans in the time of

the coronavirus are going to solve

racism or the disparity between

rich and poor. Alluding to white

supremacy won’t help either.

All parents will do what is best

for their own children, especially in

a crisis. As poor — and, therefore,

many minority — parents have

fewer resources to help their chil-

dren, the state should come in to

address the inequity. Providing

computers, internet access and

money for day care would help,

since we failed to address the

Covid-19 virus in time for school to

reopen.

Facing the systematic racism in

society means changing laws and

policies that disadvantage minority

groups. Help addicts and young

people rather than lock them up.

Train the police to defuse situa-

tions rather than threaten violence.

Ensure fair elections. Provide

health care for the sick and work-

ing poor. And so on.

SUMTER COLEMAN

BIRMINGHAM, ALA.

TO THE EDITOR:

I share the concerns noted in your

Op-Ed. My 45 years’ experience as

an educator convinces me that

every time more children with

greater needs end up concentrated

in the same learning envi-

ronments, educational progress

suffers.

But let’s use this special moment

in our history to have some neces-

sary, tough conversations and

build some critical community

bridges. As far as the learning

pods are concerned, perhaps prin-

cipals and teachers can make

proactive calls today to those

parents forming such pods and ask

if they are willing to add some

low-income kids, even if their

parents can’t contribute much.

Find low-income parents willing to

participate in this arrangement.

Don’t be afraid to try something

bold; these children need you to be

strong. Even if only one pod takes

you up on your request, it will have

been worth the effort.

LONNIE PALMER

PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLA.

TO THE EDITOR:

I am a public elementary school-

teacher in Minnesota. Last spring,

I struggled to connect with my

students online; it was so hard for

them to get the help they needed.

They don’t yet have the skills to

reach out electronically when they

don’t understand.

This fall, I plan to keep my Zoom

room open all the time during

school hours. I’m going to encour-

age kids to stay there with me,

with cameras and audio off maybe,

but just a click away from expert

help.

Parents who have the resources

to form pods but don’t want to

perpetuate racism can reach out to

their schools and volunteer to be a

“go to” in such a virtual space.

They could be the encouragers/

tech support/problem explainers

that a lot of kids were missing

when they were trying to learn

from home. (It would be a great

thing for college students looking

for a way to make a difference,

too.)

Are there still other problems?

Sure. But this would be one way

for people of privilege and means

to support the success of all stu-

dents while still supporting their

students.

MICHELLE MARTIN

NORTHFIELD, MINN.

TO THE EDITOR:

Education must be part of the

discussion on racial justice.

We need to rethink schooling

that isn’t based on an agricultural

era calendar, an industrial era

delivery system, inadequate

teacher training and a skimpy

curriculum that no longer ad-

dresses the whole child living in

today’s multiracial, multicultural

world.

The Covid virus has forced us to

appreciate how important public

education is to our democracy and

our economic success. Shouldn’t

we respond with an education

system that is in tune with the

times?

MARY BILLS

RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIF.

Do Learning Pods Endanger Equality?

LETTERS

TO THE EDITOR:

Re “The Battle for Biden,” by Mi-

chelle Cottle (Sunday Review, July

26), about how Joe Biden’s “gov-

erning vision is shaping up” and all

the people looking to influence the

candidate’s agenda:

The biggest election battle is

likely to be over a fair, open, con-

flict-free process. Who’s safeguard-

ing the ability of the Postal Service

to deliver absentee ballot applica-

tions in a timely manner, and to

return the completed ballots like-

wise? Who is safeguarding the

electorate against intimidation at

the polls?

Should we expect uninvited

armed militia at our polling sta-

tions? Who is working to guaran-

tee a free flow of information un-

muddied by meddlers intent on

retaining the status quo?

It’s up to us to do everything

necessary for the nation to freely

make an educated, unadulterated

election choice.

PAM SLOANE

OLD GREENWICH, CONN.

TO THE EDITOR:

In “American Catastrophe Through

German Eyes” (column, July 25),

Roger Cohen rightly raises the

alarm about the prospect that

President Trump will concoct a

pretext for invoking a “ ‘state of

emergency’ if he does not like the

November election result.”

Mr. Trump has been utterly

unsubtle about suggesting that if

he’s defeated at the polls he’ll not

step aside, on the notion fully fabri-

cated in advance that he has been

the victim of voter fraud.

The Democrats need to say here

and now that so transparently a

self-serving claim of that kind

cannot be credited. Now. Not after

the fact.

The president and his enablers

have to be made to understand

that their attempts at the subver-

sion of democratic processes will

be exposed before they can be

implemented.

Because after the fact there will

be no turning back.

PAUL BETZ, CHAPEL HILL, N.C.

To Ensure That Our Election Is Fair and Open

THIS ELECTIONis in danger of being stol-
en. By Donald Trump.
Trump is a win-at-all-costs kind of op-
erator. For him, the rules are like rubber,
not fixed but bendable. All structures —
laws, conventions, norms — exist for oth-
ers, those not slick and sly enough to
evade them, those not craven enough to
break them.
Trump is showing anyone who is will-
ing to see it, in every way possible, that
he is willing to do anything to win re-elec-
tion, and will cry foul if he doesn’t, a sce-
nario that could cause an unprecedented
national crisis.
Trump has been on a rampage over
voting by mail. Last week he tweeted:
“With Universal Mail-In Voting (not
Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020
will be the most INACCURATE &
FRAUDULENT Election in history. It
will be a great embarrassment to the
USA. Delay the Election until people
can properly, securely and safely
vote???”
Setting aside the fact that Trump has
no power to delay the election, he is
clearly seeking to undermine the legiti-
macy of the outcome should he lose. If

he wins, he’ll say he did so in spite of

fraud, and if he loses, he’ll claim he did

so because of it.

In Trump’s world, he is never to

blame for failure. He is the best, the

greatest ever, like no one has ever seen

before. He doesn’t fail. In reality, his life

is chock-full of failure.

At the same time Trump is attacking

voting by mail, he is undermining the

mechanism by which it would be done:

the United States Postal Service. This is

fueling concerns by many that the Post-

al Service is being damaged precisely

because of Trump opposition to mail-in

voting.

As Barack Obama said in his eulogy

for John Lewis:

“But even as we sit here, there are

those in power who are doing their

darnedest to discourage people from

voting by closing polling locations, and

targeting minorities and students with

restrictive I.D. laws, and attacking our

voting rights with surgical precision,

even undermining the Postal Service in

the run-up to an election that is going to

be dependent on mailed-in ballots so

people don’t get sick.”

Trump is afraid of what the data say:

according to a May Gallup poll, 83 per-

cent of Democrats would favor their

state allowing all voters to vote by mail

or absentee ballot in this year’s presi-

dential election, while only 40 percent of

Republicans would.

Trump wants to suppress the votes of

those opposed to him because he fears

there won't be enough votes in support

of him.

Polls now consistently show him los-

ing to Joe Biden, not only nationally but

also in battleground states.

These polls aren’t enough to lock in a

victory for Biden, but they have been

enough to rattle Trump.

A couple of weeks ago, Trump even

suggested in an interview with Fox

News’s Chris Wallace that he may not

accept the election results in November,

saying, “I think mail-in voting is going

to rig the election, I really do.” When

Wallace pressed and asked specifically

if Trump was suggesting that he might

not accept the election results, Trump

said, “I have to see.”

For months now people have been

gaming out what will happen if Trump

lost the election, doesn’t concede and re-

fuses to leave the White House.

One concern is that he might view the

results as invalid and challenge the elec-

tion in court, which could lead to pro-

tracted litigation.

Trump hinted at the prospect of litiga-

tion last week, when he said he wanted

to know the winner of the election on

election night, adding, “I don’t want to

see that take place in a week after Nov.

3, or a month or, frankly, with litigation

and everything else that can happen,

years.”

This could happen. We should put

nothing past this man. The words “far-

fetched” and “outlandish” don’t exist in

the Trump universe.

This is a man who, during the last

election, invited assistance from Russia.

Since taking office, he has repeatedly

doubted or refused to accept his own in-

telligence services’ conclusion about

Russian interference in that election. He

has met privately with Putin without the

world knowing fully what was dis-

cussed. He has instituted policies favor-

able to Russia. He was even impeached

over issues surrounding the assistance

from Russia.

And yet, he has said that he would ac-

cept assistance from foreign govern-

ments again. And yet, when it was re-

ported that there was some intelligence

that Russia may have placed a bounty

on our troops, Trump refused to con-

demn that and said that he didn’t even

raise the topic in a discussion with

Putin.

All of this was unfathomable just a

few years ago, and now it’s the reality

we are all living. There are no norms un-

der Trump but the consistently abhor-

rent.

Put nothing past Trump, not even the

destruction of the American electoral

process. 0

CHARLES M. BLOW

Trump Forecasts His Own Fraud

In the president’s world,

he is never to blame

for failure.

Representative Louie Gohmert, Republican of Texas, is not

the first member of Congress to test positive for Covid-19. At
least 14 lawmakers, hailing from both parties and both
chambers, are known to have either tested or been pre-

sumed positive for the coronavirus.

But something about the diagnosis of Mr. Gohmert, who
has belligerently flouted public health recommendations

such as mask wearing and social distancing, prompted a
convulsion of rage on Capitol Hill.

From maintenance workers to legislative aides, em-
ployees came forward with anonymous accounts of how the

patchwork of precautions — each lawmaker’s office oper-
ates with its own rules — and cavalier behavior by some

members was endangering the thousands of people who
keep the Capitol complex running. In addition to the law-

makers and members of their staff who have been infected,
around 90 workers in support roles such as the Capitol Po-
lice and the Architect of the Capitol, are known to have con-

tracted the virus.

Many lawmakers are approaching the pandemic with
appropriate seriousness: running skeleton crews in their of-

fices, encouraging masks and following social distancing
guidelines.

Others are not. Some are ignoring public health advice
for political reasons, while others seem to believe the virus

cannot touch them. Representative Clay Higgins, Republi-
can of Louisiana, told CNN that wearing a mask was “part of

the dehumanization of the children of God.”
This sort of denial leads to unnecessary tragedy, as was

driven home by the death of Herman Cain. The former pizza
magnate and Republican presidential candidate tested pos-

itive for Covid-19 nine days after attending President
Trump’s June 20 campaign rally in Tulsa, Okla. — where he

was shown in a number of photos sitting close to other at-
tendees without a mask.

Elected officials have a particular responsibility both to
model responsible behavior during this pandemic and to

take extra precautions so they don’t become super spread-
ers. Put another way, when a lawmaker behaves like a “ding

dong,” as one Republican aide said of Mr. Gohmert, he puts
everyone at risk.

The danger extends far beyond Capitol Hill. Members
of Congress have an essential and unusually public, mobile

job. In any given week, hundreds of members jet back and
forth across the country, some to coronavirus hot spots.

In response to the Gohmert news, congressional lead-
ers reminded members of the safety protocols already in

place. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, went further, tight-
ening the rules on mask wearing to require face coverings

on the chamber floor and inside the House office buildings.
(Mask wearing has been mandatory in committee hearings

since mid-June.) Those who fail to comply can be denied en-
try or removed by security.

This is a welcome step. But that may not be enough. Mr.

Gohmert’s experience has led to renewed calls by members

and staff workers to implement a testing regimen on the

Hill. That’s an important next step.

In May, as Congress was figuring out how to safely get

back up and running, the idea of testing members was con-

sidered as one possible piece of the puzzle. The White House

offered to provide 1,000 rapid-response tests and machines

for processing.

Leadership in both chambers rejected the offer. “Our

country’s testing capacities are continuing to scale up na-

tionwide and Congress wants to keep directing resources to

the front-line facilities where they can do the most good the

most quickly,” read a joint statement from Ms. Pelosi and

Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader.

Neither leader has changed their position in the inter-

vening months. Mr. McConnell, who has declined to impose

mask requirements for the Senate, continues to maintain

that the current protocols are working.

Understandably, neither leader wants

members to look as though they are af-

fording themselves privileges still not

available in most workplaces.

But Congress is not an ordinary

workplace. As the attending physician

for the House noted in June, “The Con-

gress has unique risks in that individu-

als attending the Congress do not repre-

sent a gathering of regional citizens but an intra-National

assembly of individuals traveling from areas of variable dis-

ease activity to assemble in Washington, D.C.”

Senator Roy Blunt, the Missouri Republican, recently

characterized lawmakers, with all their traveling, “the per-

fect petri dish for how you spread a disease.”

Testing skeptics also cite the logistical challenges of set-

ting up such a testing program. Who would get tested? Just

members? How often would they be tested? Would it be

mandatory? How would it be enforced?

Working out these details would of course be challeng-

ing, and no system would eliminate risk entirely. But one

cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

This spring, the House minority leader, Kevin McCar-

thy, looked into a preliminary testing plan. One suggestion

from the experts he consulted was to focus on members and

staff members scheduled to participate in hearings or other

meetings requiring prolonged contact with others. Likewise,

Hill employees who face a higher risk of exposure probably

ought to be prioritized.

More ambitious plans include testing members every

week or two, before they fly back to their home districts.

Congress members are influential figures, and in this

time of crisis they ought to be leading by example. By taking

steps to protect themselves, their staff members and their

constituents, lawmakers can send a signal about the seri-

ousness of this situation to a confused and weary public.

Congress, Test Thyself

EDITORIAL

Lawmakers are

essential

workers. They

should protect

themselves and

the other people

who work on

Capitol Hill.

Representative Louie Gohmert at the Capitol in March. He tested positive for the coronavirus last week.

MICHAEL REYNOLDS/EPA, VIA SHUTTERSTOCK