USA Today - 31.10.2019

NEWS USA TODAY z THURSDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2019 z 7A

Vice President/Local News and Audience Development: Amalie Nash

Vice President & Executive Editor/Investigations: Chris Davis

President, USA TODAY NETWORK Marketing Solutions: Kevin Gentzel

Gannett Company Interim

Chief Operating Officer

BARBARA WALL

USA TODAY Publisher

President, USA TODAY NETWORK

MARIBEL PEREZ WADSWORTH

Executive Editor/News: Jeff Taylor

Executive Editor/Audience: Patty Michalski

Editorial Page Editor: Bill Sternberg

USA TODAY

Editor in Chief

NICOLE CARROLL

“USA TODAY hopes to serve as a forum for better understanding and unity to help make the USA truly one nation.” – Allen H. Neuharth, Founder, Sept. 15, 1982

OPINION

MIKE THOMPSON/USA TODAY NETWORK

Marlon Anderson, an African Amer-

ican school security guard in Wiscon-

sin who uttered the N-word in his own

defense and got fired for it under the

school’s zero-tolerance policy, was

reinstated last week. The school board

president asked district officials to re-

scind his termination after more than

1,000 students staged a walkout.

The reversal is good news for Ander-

son, as well as for rationality and rea-

son. Hopefully, administrators actually

listened to the students they are sup-

posed to serve and realized that more

students were hurt by the callous firing

of a dedicated school employee than by

hearing an adult tell an angry student

to stop calling him the racial slur.

If we’re going to find ways to respond

more reasonably to such matters — the

subtleties of race, hateful words and

hate speech — then we have to under-

stand where we’ve gone wrong.

What should the principal who en-

forced the zero-tolerance policy have

done? A more reasonable response

might have been to let it go. After all, it’s

hard to make a case that either the bel-

ligerent boy or Anderson committed a

hate crime against the other. But high

school administrators know the risks of

making decisions based on logic rather

than policy. They are under constant

scrutiny, and everyone remembers ev-

ery decision and measures its fairness

against every other decision.

What happens if in the future, a

white student or teacher at that school

uses the N-word? Reasonable people

would say such a case is different and

context is everything, but zero-toler-

ance polices about language — as sim-

plistic and tiresome as they are — exist

as a shield to protect educators from

accusations of bias and favoritism.

It has got to feel queasy to be a white

educator passing judgment on African

American students or staff about using

the N-word. But, queasy or not, some-

times we find ourselves compelled to

make such judgments.

White teacher’s experience

In 1992, during my first year as a

teacher and basketball coach, a mid-

dle-age African American school bus

driver threw my team and me off his

bus and refused to drive us to our play-

off game because some of the guys

were casually using the N-word with

each other. The driver seemed most

contemptuous of me for letting them

use it. I had allowed these African

American teenagers that freedom be-

cause, as a white man, I did not believe

myself in a position to regulate it. But as

far as the driver was concerned, my si-

lence had endorsed the offensive word.

I apologized to him and huddled out-

side with the team and found my own

moral authority representing the driv-

er. “You don’t know what he’s been

through,” I told the guys. “He doesn’t

want to hear that word and you ought to

respect that. There are people who are

hurt by that word.”

They apologized to the driver and sat

in silence while we rode to the game.

Since then, I have tried to hold onto

the moral authority I realized that day. I

think about that driver and the respect

he deserved. I imagine how he might

feel and what he might say. I don’t think

he would have wanted Marlon Ander-

son fired. I think he would have sympa-

thized with Anderson and understood

that outrage and urgency had forced

that word out of his mouth.

I hope we can get beyond the fear

and outrage of incidents like this one. I

hope educators can find ways to turn

discomfort into educational opportuni-

ties, without students having to walk

out of class to prompt us.

Respect trumps race

Last year, a student at the school

where I teach posted ugly racist mes-

sages, including the N-word, online.

The student is a Chicana, and those

messages sparked outrage. African

American students felt attacked. La-

tino students felt judged for the actions

of one. Our administrators, who are Af-

rican American, did not want to expel

the student. They thought the school

had an obligation to try to enlighten

her, and they saw an opportunity to

teach all our students about hate

speech, the perils of the internet and

the power of humility and forgiveness.

I thought they were right, though I

wondered whether I could respond that

way if I were the principal. Perhaps the

administrator’s race shouldn’t matter.

I’m not sure what that bus driver would

say about it. Many of our African Amer-

ican students complained to me and

another white teacher about what they

considered a weak response to the rac-

ist rant. We listened and encouraged

them to express their outrage in con-

structive ways and promised to help

them be heard.

Ironic? That African American stu-

dents complained to white teachers

about what they considered the racial

insensitivity of African American ad-

ministrators? Maybe not so ironic at all.

They knew us, trusted us and knew

that we respected them as people, and

maybe that matters more than any-

thing. I think there are no perfect pol-

icies for addressing these questions,

but if we are willing to know, respect

and listen to each other, and have the

courage to assert our decency, then we

can somehow work things out.

Larry Strauss, a high school English

teacher in South Los Angeles, is a mem-

ber of USA TODAY’s Board of Contrib-

utors and the author of“Students First

and Other Lies” and, on audio, “Now’s

the Time” (narrated by Kim Fields).

Zero tolerance in

schools = zero sense

Who am I to police my

black students’ speech?

Larry Strauss

WANT TO COMMENT?Have Your Say at

[email protected], @usatodayopinion on

Twitter and facbook.com/usatodayopinion. Com-

ments are edited for length and clarity. Content

submitted to USA TODAY may appear in print,

digital or other forms. For letters, include name,

address and phone number. Letters may be mailed

to 7950 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, VA, 22108.

President Donald Trump and his de-
fenders have spent the past few weeks
attacking the process by which an im-
peachment inquiry has unfolded in the
House of Representatives. They have
not done themselves any favors.
They have impugned the integrity of
witnesses. They have engaged in pub-
licity stunts, like when several dozen
House members stormed the secure
hearing room where depositions are
heard, some of them violating security
protocols by bringing cellphones into
the facility.
And their protests of Democratic
“secrecy” rang hollow because Repub-
licans on three committees — including
13 of the stormers — have been allowed
in to participate.
The Trump administration, mean-
while, has defied subpoenas and with-
held witnesses, while arguing that the
House impeachment inquiry isn’t le-
gitimate without a vote to formally
launch one.
Now they are going to get that vote,
something House Speaker Nancy Pelo-
si should have scheduled weeks ago.
Better late than never, we suppose. The
resolution coming before the House as
early as todaywould move the im-
peachment process to open hearings
and create ground rules very much like
those the Republicans adopted in
President Bill Clinton’s impeachment
hearings in 1998.
With attacks on the process falter-
ing, Trump suggests he’ll begin to
mount a more substantive defense of
his actions. “I’d rather go into the de-
tails of the case rather than process,” he
told reporters. “Process is good. But I
think we ought to look at the case.”
Yes, we should, Mr. President.
The details that have come out so far
are damning. They confirm virtually
every element of the whistleblower
complaint that triggered the impeach-
ment inquiry. Witnesses have said that
duly appropriated military aid to Uk-
raine, as well as a personal meeting be-
tween Trump and the Ukrainian presi-
dent, were made contingent on that
country launching an investigation
into Democratic presidential candidate
Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
Those are very serious accusations
that the president abused his power by
subordinating national security to his
personal political interest in digging up
dirt on a potential rival.
A credible defense on the substance
would involve providing a legitimate
rationale for why the nearly $400 mil-
lion in security aid was withheld. It

would also mean finding credible wit-

nesses to counter the ones who have

come forward.

Yet no sooner had Trump said it was

time to look at the substance of the im-

peachment inquiry than he reverted to

petty personal attacks.

He called one witness, Army Lt. Col.

Alexander Vindman, a “Never Trum-

per” — a term generally applied to Re-

publicans and independent conserva-

tives who oppose him. Unlike previous

witnesses, Vindman was cleared and

listening in on Trump’s call with Uk-

raine President Volodymyr Zelensky on

July 25, and he offered a firsthand ac-

count to House investigators Tuesday.

In as much as Trump has called Never

Trumpers “human scum,” the logical

inference is that the president is calling

Vindman human scum.

That’s pretty harsh for someone who

has made military service his career,

who is a combat veteran of Iraq, who

was awarded a Purple Heart after al-

most being killed by a roadside bomb,

and who was chosen for the honor of

serving as a uniformed staff member of

the National Security Council.

Some of Trump’s enablers have

pointed to Vindman’s heritage as a Uk-

rainian whose family fled to America

when he was 3 years old in 1979. Former

Rep. Sean Duffy of Wisconsin even sug-

gested that Vindman did not have

America’s interest at heart but rather

those of Ukraine. That comes close to

questioning the patriotism and loyalty

of someone who has served the United

States of America with extraordinary

distinction.

Enough is enough. Stop the charac-

ter assassinations. Call off the stupid

stunts. Face the facts, which provide

ample reasons for elevating the im-

peachment inquiry to the next level.

TODAY'S DEBATE: THE PRESIDENCY

Our view: Evidence justifies

escalating impeachment inquiry

Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman

arrives on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.

SHAWN THEW/EPA-EFE

Elections have consequences. The
same goes for Republicans as it goes for
Democrats. Our Founding Fathers en-
visioned divisive days like today. How-
ever, they did not envision that once
the votes were counted and the Amer-
ican people had spoken, that a political
party would refuse to accept the out-
come of an election.
For nearly three years, House Demo-
crats have been relentless in their quest
to subvert the will of the American peo-
ple by trying to invalidate the election
of 2016 by any means necessary.
Undeterred by the failure of the
Mueller report, the House Democrats
have decided to further dispense with
constitutional and legal procedures for
impeachment. Their closed-door cha-
rade best illustrates their irrational ha-
tred of President Donald Trump.
America is different from other na-
tions in part because for almost
250 years, the hallmark of our judicial
system has been to guarantee our citi-
zens the right of due process.
So far, instead of following the pro-
cedures laid out by every Congress
since America’s founding, House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided her
megaphone is more important than the
rule the law. House Democrats have
beeninterviewing witnesses in secret,

operating behind closed doors, selec-

tively leaking information to their allies

in the mainstream news media, all with

zero transparency and accountability

to the American people.

These actions look more nakedly po-

litical by the day, while the president of

the United States has had no opportu-

nity to meaningfully participate or con-

front allegations through this flawed

and abnormal process.

And don’t forget, this is taking the

place of important work on behalf of

the American people, like passing the

United States-Mexico-Canada Agree-

ment trade agreement, reducing tax

and regulatory burdens on American

small businesses, addressing violence

in our nation’s major cities and fixing

our broken immigration system.

In 13 months, Americans will again

have the opportunity to decide who

they want to lead this country in our

democratic elections. Americans, not

Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff, will de-

cide for themselves at the ballot box.

That’s how our system works. It is not a

system where you get a participation

trophy or where everyone gets their

way. In politics, like football, sore losers

don’t get another bite at the apple.

Matt Whitaker is the former acting

U.S. Attorney General. Jeff Landry is

Louisiana Attorney General.

Opposing view:Democrats are

trying to invalidate 2016 results

Matt Whitaker and Jeff Landry