Eric Adams, the Democratic candidate for mayor, is sure to be elected mayor of New York City in November, succeeding Bill De Blasio. The current Mayor Bill De Blasio announced the end of testing four-year-olds for entry into gifted programs. Adams asserted his intention to keep gifted programs, but without details.
Eric Adams said on Friday that he would keep New York City’s elementary school gifted and talented program if, as expected, he wins the general election for mayor next month — a clear rebuke to Mayor Bill de Blasio, who recently announced plans to eliminate the program.
“There’s a new mayor next year, that mayor must evaluate how he’s going to deal with the gifted and talented program,” Mr. Adams, the Democratic nominee for mayor, said in an interview with CNN. “He can’t get rid of it until next year,” he added of Mr. de Blasio.
Asked directly whether he would eliminate the gifted program, Mr. Adams replied, “no I would not, I would expand the opportunities for accelerated learning.”
In another break with Mr. de Blasio, Mr. Adams said in a radio interview on Friday that he supported requiring students to receive a coronavirus vaccine to attend class — an action the mayor has steadfastly resisted over concerns it could motivate some parents to keep their children home.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Such a sad commentary about our times. Sorry, Mr. Adams is NOT the people’s candidate for Mayor.
Adams won as a “tough on crime” candidate. Don’t know much about his views on education, but do know his campaign collected millions from charter supporters.
His campaign collected millions of dollars from charter school companies usually is all we need to know about a candidate.
And as Adams won, Crime was already dropping like a rock, with NYC’s reopening. . It has dropped in June , July , August and September. A bit of a back track in the month of October. Sadly Willy Horton and fictional Welfare Queens still play well to kill good Policy. Adams was also well funded and the favorite of NYC Real Estate moguls who framed and sacked Scott Stringer (endorsed by the UFT), with false accusations of harassment.
And that you can take to the bank !
so likely he’s more the “big money wants to keep city dwellers focused on crime because, being fearful, they will be much easier to manipulate” candidate…
Eric Adams is a former police officer.
He didn’t say anything about education that was interesting or insightful. He is a walking demonstration of the absurdity of mayoral control of schools.
ciedie aech
Very much so on several issues. From development ,to subsidies, to
union labor.
what do you see as negatives about the new mayor keeping academic programs directed to gifted students, and also for protecting all students, teachers, and staff by being vaccinated????
has everyone forgotten that de Blasio cooperated with Common Core entry to schools and allowed 5 years olds who could hardly hold a pencil to take tests using computers? and those test results showed failures…of 5 year olds…. thereafter, he worked with David Coleman to expand this failed system that all reasoned educators despised???
Do you have any links to more information about that?
From what I see, I think Mayor de Blasio has been quite supportive of public schools. Is he perfect? No, but I keep looking for Democrats anywhere in the country willing to stand up to charter schools and I haven’t found anyone better, including among the most progressive (although I’d welcome any names of prominent progressives who strongly speak out instead of limiting criticism to “for-profit charters” or
so-called “unsuccessful” charters.)
My kid is older now, but I am still on local public school listserves and know parents of some younger kids and I haven’t heard any parents complain about their 5 year olds being forced to take computer-based tests during school. And I’m talking about parents who aren’t pro-testing, so if their 5 year olds would being made to take computer-based tests, I think there would be some push back.
Many years ago my kid’s public school used to have kids take tests called something like “Renzulli” during school — maybe once or twice a year that their parents didn’t know about unless their kid mentioned it and it was no big deal. I took Iowa tests myself every year.
Tests have been badly misused, but that doesn’t mean that tests have to be badly misused. “Reasoned educators” rightly opposed the misuse of standardized tests, but some good ones used other kinds of very occasional computer based testing quite well.
“allowed 5 years olds who could hardly hold a pencil to take tests using computers? and those test results showed failures…of 5 year olds…. ”
I won’t be surprised if the details of this – if this is indeed true – are quite different than what this sentence implies. But I am trying to find more information since I never heard of this being a problem in schools.
Charter expansion over the last 7 years of de Blasio’s term has been enormously slowed – it went from charters having the run of the DOE to having the DOE doing the minimum required by them by law for charters. I think those who support public schools are going to look back and see de Blasio’s term as perhaps the last Mayor who actually supported them.
On the other hand — the optimist in me hopes that Eric Adams is able to do things that Mayor de Blasio was publicly demonized for doing because he starts as someone who is supposed to be supportive of charters and gifted programs. I will be surprised if Adams keeps the gifted program that tests 4 year olds intact without changes. Adams didn’t give details of what he would do to support those programs. Even the change that de Blasio made to base it on teacher recommendations instead of tests was huge and it remains to be seen if Adams will return to 4 year olds being mass tested for “giftedness”.
Just like the optimist me hopes that Eric Adams may actually be able to reform the police department in ways that de Blasio could not. Much in the same way that Reagan’s anti-Communist profile meant he could conduct a friendly Soviet Union foreign policy that Jimmy Carter would have been excoriated and destroyed for.
Summative standardized tests are typically worse than useless. They are typically extremely invalid and used inappropriately to make decisions about kids and teachers. Diagnostic testing and formative testing, well, those CAN BE better.
Bob,
I doubt there are any summative standardized tests being given to 5 year olds in NYC. I feel as if I read something about some kind of diagnostic testing for very young elementary school kids that was supposed to take all of 2 minutes every few months or so – teachers one on one with the student or something like that.
I know nothing about NYC gifted and talented program, but I really am skeptical of what they accomplish. I live in a wealthy community where perhaps 50% of the student population could qualify for one of these programs. They have every advantage academically provided within the K-8 program without any special program other than an advanced math program in cooperation between the high school and middle school. And yet, I can point to only a handful of students that clearly excelled beyond their peers in the classroom in the years I was associated professionally with the schools. From what I have heard, these programs end up serving a select few who have the confidence and backing to navigate the admission process. That is not to say that these kids aren’t extremely hardworking, but I have no doubt that a majority of them owe thanks to the support system they already enjoy. I remember walking the halls of the last school where I worked. I was absolutely blown away by some of the artwork from the regular art classes and the furniture produced in woodshop. Over 90% of the students would be classified as minority, the vast majority falling on the bottom rungs of the socio-economic ladder. Few if any would be accepted into a special talent program without massive in-house support/guidance, but their talent (and obvious perseverance) was on display in those halls.
In NYC, students who went to regular gen eds are in middle schools with students who had 6 years of “g&t” education in which they were exclusively contained in classes or entire schools designed only for gifted children.
In NYC, students who went to regular gen eds for elementary school are in specialized and other academically selective high schools with students who received 9 years of “g&t” education in which they were exclusively contained in entire schools designed only for gifted children. They also are in classes with students who received 9 years of private education.
Walk into any classroom in a selective middle school or high school that has a mix of students who had 9 years of special gifted education and those who spent their elementary schools in their local public school and I will be surprised if you can tell the difference.
I think the NYC DOE should look back over the last 10 years at the academic performance of every student at specialized high schools who started in a gifted program at age 5 to see if all of them are hugely outperforming the other students who were in their regular gen eds. If having 6 years in which every single day at school, students were in a special class devoted to enhancing their gifts puts them at the same place academically as other students who did not have 6 years of that special g&t education, then that raises serious questions about whether identifying 4 year olds as gifted and keeping them away from supposedly non-gifted children has anything to do with addressing their education needs.
My take, for what it’s worth: There are a few (very, very, very few) children who come into the world with truly exceptional mathematical propensity–the Gausses and Ramanujans. It’s really valuable (to those kids and to everyone else) to identify those kids early and give them very different, specialized, intensive, one-on-one tutorial in mathematics. The payback will be enormous.
And there are also some kids with innate musical proclivity of a truly exceptional kind–the little Mozarts and Liszts in embryo. Same for them.
And you never know where one of these is going to be found. Ramanujan was from one of the world’s worst slums, one of the poorest of the poor. It was a freaking miracle that his genius was discovered and nurtured.
But in our culture, a kid can have perfect pitch and go through 12 years of schooling without anyone ever noticing this. That’s a problem. It should really bother people.
You should add the truly (truly) exceptional VAManujan (also known by his pseudonym, “Raj Chettypicker”) to your liszt of exceptionals.
lmao
Re: the Gausses, from The German Genius:
“[Gauss’s] relationships with his wife and sons was less than ideal and he dissuaded his boys from a career in mathematics, it was said, so that there was no risk of the Gauss name being associated with inferior work.”
!!!!
Bob,
In my experience public schools do an extremely poor job in identifying mathematically gifted students and the extremely rigid structure of mathematical education demoralizes students who see mathematics as an amazingly creative and beautiful language.
Is your experience different?
No. That is precisely my experience. And it’s not just public schools.
You probably know this brilliant essay, TE:
Click to access LockhartsLament.pdf
If I were Mayor….I would call the bluff of the g&t crowd. It would be interesting if Eric Adams had the courage to do this.
The 4 year old g&t program will – from now on – be one or two Kindergarten classes placed in the least popular elementary schools in each District. There will no longer be citywide gifted schools, period.
No more sibling preference because parents who embrace the giftedness exam should be held to their own beliefs that a child is only as gifted as his test score says. Siblings have the same shot as any other kid but no preference.
All students will be tested once at age 4. Then they will be tested again at the end of every year and if they aren’t testing gifted in that one day exam, they must leave the gifted program and students who didn’t test gifted at age 4 but did at age 5 will replace them. Students will be moved in and out of the g&t program according to their score on that exam because the parents seem to embrace that as the evidence that their child is gifted.
If that was the program, I think even the parents whose kids were in g&t programs would not support the program.
For many Pre Bloomberg decades Gifted and Talented classes were at the discretion of local school districts, not centrally determined, a return to local determinations is overdue
I agree that local district control should come back. For more things than just G&T.
I was watching the last episode of “Ted Lasso” tonight, and my screen repeatedly showed heated exchanges between FLERP and NYCPSP. When the show ended, I deleted the lengthy correspondence. This blog does not exist for personal exchanges of insults. Please just stop it.
I respectfully re-submit my request to be banned as a commenter.
Sorry, you are not banned. Ignore anyone who annoys you.
I do it all the time. So can you.
Diane,
I really enjoy watching Ted Lasso. I am definitely looking forward to next season. And I’m very sorry my posts interrupted your enjoyment of the last episode. Did you notice that the very last shot of the last episode of the season was the same as the first shot of the first episode of the season? And the hair and eyes!
(I also posted apology in a different reply below).
Absolutely, Mr. Goodman. In this and in so much else!
Off topic, but how do y’all feel about this? Seems pretty clear-cut illegal to me, but, well, Trump, amiright?
NEW — More than 300 Black churches across VA will hear from @KamalaHarris btwn Sun. and November 2 in video message that will air during morning services as part of outreach effort aimed to boost @TerryMcAuliffe.
#VAGOV
Video first obtained by CNN
https://t.co/vaefXtWqUe https://t.co/l8re0KUkN1
Dienne, why does every one of your comments seek to demean Democrats and to defend Trump, or to say there’s no difference between them? No difference on climate change? No difference on abortion? No difference on voting rights? No difference on protecting national parks from drilling?
The Virginia Governor election in a couple weeks is one where public education is on the ballot! The Republican is a privatizer and the Democrat is a strong supporter of public education. I really fear for Virginia public schools if the Democrat is defeated. It’s one of the few states remaining where charters and their supporters don’t wield tremendous influence.
Anything that Kamala Harris can legally do to make sure Virginians who care about public education vote seems like something everyone on this blog should be thrilled about. I would be more upset if the Biden/Harris White House didn’t care.
How can anyone not believe that there is no difference in whether an anti-public school or pro-public school candidate wins? And what is someone’s ulterior motive in making posts that imply that Kamala Harris is doing something “clear-cut illegal”?
Aren’t the Republicans also going to their base in evangelical churches to help the Republican win the Virginia election?
The Virginia Republican is attracting votes from moderate white parents who are terrified of “CRT” — it is incredible how successfully the right wing propaganda machine has made good ideas into something that terrifies white folks. The right wing Republican is attracting white folks who wanted schools to re-open and are angry at mask and vaccine mandates and are angry that selective public schools are expanding their admissions criteria to include students more representative of the community they serve.
If the Democrats don’t get out their base – in those churches – the far right will do in Virginia what they did in Texas.
And public schools will be the reason that Republicans win.
(And I apologize for participating in the conversation you had to delete).
I didn’t watch/read the CNN links, but if the pastors & boards of the churches decided they wanted to have these messages run in their churches, that would be up to them & pass mustard, I would surmise.
If not, & I were a member of one of these churches, then that wouldn’t be kosher, I should think.
Not from charter school companies, but from the billionaires who are passionate about charters, like Dan Loeb, hedge fund guy and former chair of the board of Success Academy.
From Bloomberg News: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-18/four-hedge-fund-titans-each-give-500-000-to-pac-for-eric-adams
As I am an old white lady, my understanding of activist black churches is rather limited, but I am under the impression that churches have played an important role in getting their members out to vote. I’m not quite sure what the problem is. Politicians have always actively supported candidates of their choice and if you are seeking the black vote, hitting the black churches seems like a no-brainer.
I’m trying to remember a time when politicians didn’t campaign in churches. What is the problem? The IRS cares because…
Certain commenters here demanded that we acknowledge that this video is completely unacceptable as all “non-partisan” right thinking people must do.
Not sure why, except that supposedly it is both morally outrageous and also probably clear-cut illegal.
Funny how I don’t remember any “demands.”
…nor “moral outrage.”
Tax-exempt status.
I still don’t get it. Having a speaker at church who is not a member who talks about political issues is illegal?
Not “issues,” but campaigns for a specific candidate, basically.
How is listening to Kamala Harris speak campaigning?
If you Google it you’ll get a sense of the issue. The IRS issues guidance.
I did. The commentary talked about churches not campaigning. I assumed that meant going out in the community representing the church and campaigning for a candidate. they were not campaigning by listening to Harris speak by video in their churches. There was no request made that they contribute to a campaign or go out and actively canvas for a candidate. I find it slightly ridiculous and an overreach for the IRS to tell churches who and what can be listened to within the walls of the church. I agree that no solicitation for a candidate or arrangements for campaigning for a candidate should be conducted. I see no reason why policies associated with a particular candidate cannot be discussed just because it is a church congregation. I am thinking that the IRS has avoided trying to adjudicate these situations for exactly these reasons. The line in the sand is not at all clear to me.
Nycpsp, retiredbutmissthekids, spedukatr
I am very disappointed in Kamala Harris—and in Biden admin for blatant breach of the Johnson amendment which per wiki “is a provision in the U.S. tax code, since 1954, that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates.” Section 501(c)(3) explicitly includes churches.
You can hear the message here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmtNwZtO6kU Absolutely a “solicitation for a candidate” being conducted by Kamala Harris in black churches.
We here routinely excoriate the loosening-to-meaninglessness of separation of church and state, for seriously good reasons. Yet we’re fine with it as long as it’s a Dem message by Biden admin in black churches? Cuz hey, done routinely in white evangelistic churches? Or because all churches supposedly flout this rule? [Not any I’ve attended, Prot or Cath, ever]. Come on, people.
I’m totally with dienne and FLERP on this one. We are paying for this. One pundit back in 2012 estimated the loss in revenues of exempting churches at $71 billion/ yr. https://theconversation.com/amid-calls-to-taxthechurches-what-and-how-much-do-us-religious-organizations-not-pay-the-taxman-164988 I’m not OK with any church endorsing candidates, period. Not OK with public funding of religious schools. Nor OK with loosely-defined/ enforced 501(c)3&4 laws that allow tax-exempt orgs to play politics.
The American Legislative Executive Council (ALEC) is a blatantly political organization that drafts legislation for rightwing legislators. Their laws oppose gun control, regulation of business, taxes on the rich, and protection of the environment. They also write legislation to support charters and vouchers and to kill unions. It is classified as a tax-exempt 501c3, a charitable organization. When Democrats complain, Republicans scream that conservative organizations are being targeted for partisan reasons.
I read the same article and others and still came away not sure what was the intention of the amendment. What I do inside my church, what I choose to listen to inside my church is nobody else’s business. If I go out on the street as a representative of my church and campaign for a candidate in the church’s name with the church’s sanctioning my action, that is wrong. What control the government has over what is said inside my church is problematic as I see it. That’s why I think I suggested we needed a debate among tax lawyers as to what that provision says.
Speduktr—your posts got me digging on the Johnson Amendment. It turns out there was already law on the books since 1934 that abolished the tax deduction for non-profit groups propagandizing or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, effectively ending their direct political action. Sen Johnson in 1954 proposed a 31-word amendment specifically banning participation or intervention in political campaigns pro or con a candidate for office. Most sources attribute his motive to restraining non-profits using McCarthyist methods against more liberal candidates like himself, tho it may have been less altruistic, more vindictive. Here’s a good 1-p summary of the history: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_johnson_amendment_fact_checking_the_narrative#
I do not support churches taking part in political action. However, I question whether internal debate discussions, speeches, speakers,… fall into that category. As you said, you would walk if your pastor gave a blatantly political speech in support of a candidate. I probably would as well but I still do not see what business it is of the IRS what goes on INSIDE my church. OUTSIDE, yes. I don’t think the amendment is clear in that area. I also find it problematic that the IRS can tell a church what they can hear inside. If a church supports a mission that is impacted by a political candidate in a positive way, I would think that internal discussions are just plain smart. No one is giving material support to the candidate, just recognizing that that candidate has a strong record/platform in support of missions the church has. I wonder if the Civil Rights movement could have taken off the way it did without the support of black churches. Does anyone really believe that they didn’t identify politicians who would support their efforts?
I am also totally opposed to churches fundraising for political purposes. That seems to me in line with non-profit exemption from taxes although, as Diane noted, there are blatant political actors who profit from nonprofit status. It could be argued that no politician should ever be allowed to speak in a religious institution. Politicians are always campaigning whether it is just building their credentials and pushing their policy positions and/or running for election at some time in the future.
bethree5,
You seem to be saying that Democrats should adhere to the strictest interpretation of every election law instead of adhering to the legal and practical application and interpretation of the law that has been accepted by the IRS.
Why? I linked to numerous articles that demonstrated that the IRS has given tacit approval to this for many decades. Manufactured outrage suddenly during a close election in Virginia where a Trump Republican wants to destroy public education?
This is all about making sure that the right wing Trump-supporting Republican candidate for Governor in Virginia – one of the very last state’s where ed reformers don’t own the state — wins and privatizes public school. (Diane’s most recent post talks about this).
Their outrage is because some right wing news source made this their daily talking points as a way to help the Trump-endorsed candidate to win and privatize public education. Those right wing news sources depend on trolls to amplify their “condemn the Democrats” message. Those trolls only feign outraged when their outrage helps defeat pro-public education Democrats during close elections against a right wing Republican who will usher in the privatizers. This is about Virginia.
Fortunately, this interpretation of the law is acceptable so far, because the IRS is terrified of crossing the Republicans.
The idea that Democrats have to follow different rules than Republicans and that any “appearance” of wrongdoing by Democrats is as bad – or worse – than Republicans blatant disregard for the law is why we are very close to become an authoritarian state. Where is the outrage about states limiting voting rights by dienne77 and FLERP!? Out of the blue, they are outraged is because Kamala Harris is doing the exact same thing Pence did because the IRS has condoned this interpretation of the law for decades?
The Democrats unilaterally deciding they must follow the very strictest interpretation of the election law and publicly flagellate and demonize one another if there is even a remote possibility that what they did could possibly be perceived as inappropriate is why we are in this mess. The Republicans and their helpful propaganda purveyors play us. Joe Lieberman is absolutely outraged that Bill Clinton had a consensual extramarital affair, but unconcerned that a Republican Independent Counsel tacitly condoned the illegal taping of his mistress. Republicans is absolutely outraged that a renewal for a wiretap on a Trump supporter with ties to Russia had an error, but unconcerned about their president using his office to extort another country to falsely smear his political opponent.
This kind of campaigning has been acceptable for decades. Asking the Democrats to unilaterally disarm and smear them as breaking the law for not unilaterally disarming is just about getting played.
How long before these same folks are calling for the arrest of Stacey Abrams for some violation of the law that only Democrats are supposed to follow? My guess is as soon as there is a close election in Georgia where smearing Stacey Abrams as a criminal is helpful to the far right.
If this was illegal, then the IRS would not wait 20 years until a Democrat does it in a close election to decide to enforce the law.
Unless this country is closer to fascism than we think.
nycpsp– To clarify: I thought Biden/ Harris were above this sort of thing– ethically. I.e., ignoring an almost-never-enforced law just because “the other side” does it regularly and with impunity. It’s not a good look for our party when this is done at the vice-presidential level. If the pastor wants to preach it from the pulpit I could care less. Or maybe invite a popular local/ regional politician to put in a plug for McAuliffe, so what. If it had ever happened in my church, I’d walk—but who am I to talk; I walked yrs ago for other reasons 😉
I agree: this kind of blurring of the church/state line goes on all the time and has increased in recent years, notably with help from SCOTUS. Who also have stuck their oar in against unions. I hate it. I see it as furthering a general distrust and cynicism toward our social and legal institutions. THIS more than anything is why we’re “in the mess we’re in.”
[p.s., as far as I know the IRS has not suddenly decided to invoke the law against the VA churches showing Harris’s endorsement.]
“It’s not a good look for our party” legitimizes right wing moral outrage propaganda machine in which a democrat acting in a perfectly acceptable way is suddenly associated with immorality or untrustworthiness or cheating because the right wing propaganda machine decided to make it an issue. If the Democrats have been successfully partnering with black churches to get out the vote in Georgia – which they have – must we start talking about how Stacey Abrams must have something morally suspect about her?
Let me clarify my position — Stacey Abrams is an upright and moral person who is not heedlessly breaking some law and any efforts to cast her as morally suspect and someone who makes the Democrats look really bad is simply amplifying right wing propaganda.
Trying to smear Stacey Abrams or Kamala Harris for doing something that is condoned by the IRS by claiming that “it is not a good look” is vague. Why isn’t this a good look? Because suddenly the same people who were fine with Pence doing this are amplifying the propaganda that this was illegal, and when the falsity of this was called out, they simply implied it was improper or immoral — “not a good look”.
It is a perfectly fine look – no one thought twice about it until the right wing outrage machine convinced people who should know better to push the false narrative that there is something morally suspect about Kamala Harris and Stacey Abrams and all the Democrats for doing this.
Sorry, but I didn’t get morally outraged that Republicans did this and neither did anyone else here. Pence’s appearances at churches was never the subject of criticism, nor was there any criticism when 2,000 church leaders preached politics from their pulpit. But now that some right wing propaganda machine is condemning it as illegal to demonize the Democratic party, we are supposed to legitimize their false narrative about how morally suspect democrats like Kamala Harris and Stacey Abrams and black church leaders in Virginia are by saying “it’s not a good look”?
This is exactly why Democrats lose. They always legitimize the right wing narrative of how their party is doing something morally suspect.
Why not just accept this is legal, Kamala Harris did it because it is legal. We need to stop using terms like “looks bad” whenever a Democrat acts like a politician. It “looks bad” for Democrats to raise money. It “looks bad” to have Stacey Abrams working with churches to get out the vote. It “looks bad” if a Democrat says something mean about a Republican. It “looks bad” if a Democrat calls out anti-vaxxers for their lies, and isn’t kowtowing to them and telling them how much they understand their fear of vaccines since they are really scary. It “looks bad” if the Democrats say that Trump voters who were specifically attracted to Trump’s racist and xenophobic smearing of non-whites are deplorable. Democrats can never win because the right wing always turns the actions of normal Democrats into something morally suspect, and then people who should know better help legitimize that narrative.
This is legal. That’s the end of it. If it wasn’t legal, the IRS would have said so decades ago.
The only reason it “looks bad” is because Republicans started a propaganda effort to make it look bad. They are very good at this, and our country is in grave danger because of it.
CRT “looks bad” (it’s anti-white). Fighting for police reform “looks bad” (it’s anti-police) Passing vaccine mandates “looks bad” (it’s anti-freedom) Raising money from rich people “looks bad” (if Democrats do it). Fighting to end the filibuster “looks bad”. No wonder the Democrats are too often scared of doing anything.
This reminds me of when Mayor de Blasio was elected and one of his first actions was to stop giving free space in school buildings to rich charters. Guess what? When de Blasio was condemned by the right wing, the Democrats and progressives – even those who supported public schools – legitimized the attacks by agreeing that what de Blasio did “looked bad”. de Blasio blocked a charter from forcing a group of severely disabled children out of their school and bus them somewhere else, and I kept looking for progressives to defend him from anti-public school privatizers attacks. Instead I heard “it looks bad” because “he didn’t do the right way”.
That’s why this stuff is important. It has an impact.
I think you may have hit on why Kamala Harris’ message was not illegal.. I don’t believe she ever said vote for so-and-so. I am too lazy to go back and check, but I believe she just urged people to vote. Get out the vote efforts are not illegal.
speduktr,
The ad is VERY carefully worded, which suggests that it was carefully vetted to make sure it remained legal.
First Kamala talks about her own church experience and how everyone has the opportunity to raise their voice. One way was to use their vote.
Then Kamala tells Virginians they have a chance to raise their voice and vote, too, in the upcoming election, which is very important.
Then Kamala says that she believes Terry McAuliffe is the leader Virginia needs and explains all the things he has done for the people of Virginia and what his future plans are.
Then Kamala says that Virginians deserve a leader who has a vision and experience, and Terry McAuliffe is such a leader.
Then Kamala reminds Virginia’s that 2020 so many Virginians turned out to vote, and helped send herself and Biden to the White House. Kamala says she knows that this year Virginians will send McAuliffe back to Richmond. (She never says “I want you to vote for McAuliffe” or anything like that, just says that she knows Virginians will send him back to Richmond).
Then Kamala reminds them that early voting has already started and this is the first year Virginians can vote on Sunday. Kamala asks them to please vote after today’s service (doesn’t say who to vote for) or to make a plan to vote by going to IWillVote.com (but Kamala again doesn’t tell them who to vote for).
Frankly, it brilliantly designed — Kamala Harris talks about how great McAuliffe is and how she knows Virginians will send him back to Richmond. Then she tells them they should go vote but not who to vote for. It was clearly designed to stay within the law while doing exactly what we want them to do – encouraging people to vote so that a pro-public education Governor wins instead of a privatizer.
For the record, I haven’t heard Democrats and progressives ever complain when the Republicans blatantly spurn the law and don’t even try to stay within these restrictions with regards to talking about candidates in churches. But suddenly a few supposedly on the left watch Fox News or some other right wing media that pronounces this blatantly illegal – it is not – and declare it morally objectionable and problematic and amplify the Republicans tired (but very successful) old trope — the Democrats demonstrate extreme moral failings and they should be better. “Should be better” means they are lacking in morality. Oh, those who repeat it may believe that they are just taking a principled stance by condemning the very bad Democrats for their supposed moral failings, but what it really does is amplify the right wing narrative that the Democrats are so lacking in morals that one shouldn’t vote for them, period.
This ad was legal. The right wing media that started this meme know it, but they love it when Democrats legitimize their propaganda about the moral failings of Democrats like Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, and black church leaders.
Remember, they got people to say that even if it is not illegal, it’s morally wrong! Not right wingers, but they got supposed Democrats to help amplify that narrative!
There is no hypocrisy in the Democratic party, because they weren’t out there attacking Pence for appearing at churches. The only hypocrisy is by those who profess to be morally outraged by Kamala who never said a word when Republicans were doing this. Most of those people are right wing Trump supporters, but there are a few who claim to be unbiased, yet were never bothered about it until the right wing propaganda machine decided Kamala broke the law and suddenly they cared. Hmmmm…..
The way to shut down the right wing propaganda machine is if every time these kinds of nasty propaganda shows up, every Democrat says “yay! This is exactly what Democrats should be doing to show that they will fight for the right things if you elect them.”
But too often, the right wing propaganda machine has their propaganda legitimized by having people who aren’t right wing conceding that the Dems were acting in an immoral, inappropriate way even when they are not.
I think the intent of the amendment was to make sure that churches were not soliciting campaign contributions or actively campaigning for a candidate, but I don’t think the amendment does a particularly good idea of laying out the restrictions. I totally understand the uncertainty expressed here.
Spedukatr– I don’t know if you read my diggings on the amendment above. It turns out its intent had nothing to do with churches at all. From the context it would appear Sen Johnson was simply p*ssed that a couple of upstart TX non-profits had the nerve to campaign against him on the taxpayer’s dime [even tho he won in a landslide]. Which the existing 1934 law allowed since it only addressed influencing legislation. Because of some technicality in the way this teeny 31-word amendment was proposed, there was no discussion, it never went into committee for examination of the ramifications etc. Churches (as nycpsp pointed out) have always politicked, picked up on the problem for them, & have periodically moved for its repeal. Or ignored it, & the IRS has mostly ignored that.
Now that I’ve read up on the amendment, I’m actually changing my opinion instead of just clarifying. Though it can be read to forbid a church from endorsing a candidate, that was not its original intent, and IRS has only used it that way 3 times (succeeding once). In 67 yrs. So definitely not a big-deal law reinforcing the separation of church and state. The background on the ’34 law amended is revealing. Both presidents Washington and Madison were concerned with the potential of NGO’s attracting financing and becoming powerful special interests pushing legislation not in the public interest, threatening democratic institutions– but could not get consensus to address it. Non-profits were traditionally involved in popularizing/ pushing legislation in the public interest going way back, but by the ‘30’s there were some pushing—and propagandizing—in the opposite direction, which triggered the law. Its intent was never about keeping politics out of non-profits, it was about keeping non-profits from influencing legislation.
Thanks for the update, bethree. I had read your previous comments but not the reference. That commentary really puts a different spin on the whole discussion. I’m not sure where it leaves us. I can’t say it changes my thinking on what would constitute interference in a campaign by a church. Frankly, I am not surprised after reading the history that the IRS has chosen to utilize the amendment so little.
bethree,
Thank you for your clarification.
It’s not a coincidence that this subject was raised by the same person who always posts right wing propaganda here.
And it worked to get you and few others to legitimize and amplify the condemnation of the Democrats as immoral, which was always the entire point of it.
Because that propaganda only works when it is legitimized by Democrats and progressives who reinforce the idea that the Democrats are doing something wrong.
The far right excels in propaganda. Even the NYT helps — today is a typical example where the Democrats are “failing” and there is no mention of any obstructionism by the Republicans. That is why Republicans keep obstructing — they know the media will always frame it as the Dems framing.
nycpsp– Even tho I get NYT online (because we have it delivered Sat-Sun), I tend to read WaPo more often these days. (They give 1/2 off to teachers)– yesterday (10/21) Eugene Robinson had a good column “Criticism of Democrats’ negotiations misses a bigger issue: Republicans’ absence from governing”
^^correction in last sentence: the dems “failing” (not “framing”)
If I remember correctly, campaigning in houses of worship was banned by something called the Johnson Amendment. Trump promised his followers that he would abolish it. I assumed he had.
Astute comment, Diane! It’s still the law!!!
So the Johnson Amendment is still law, and widely ignored.
This is from an NPR article from Feb. 2017:
“Have any churches landed in trouble for violating the Johnson Amendment?
Not really.
Despite the controversy surrounding the Johnson Amendment, the Internal Revenue Service has not been especially active in enforcing it. Since 2008, the Alliance Defending Freedom has organized “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” encouraging pastors to give explicitly political sermons in defiance of the law.
The IRS, however, has rarely moved to take away a church’s tax exemption. According to the alliance, as reported by the Washington Post, only one of more than 2,000 Christian clergy deliberately challenging the law since 2008 has been audited, and none has been punished.”
I can’t help wondering why anyone who is pro-public school would suddenly decide that black churches in Virginia were outrageously spurning the law (and want those black churches to be perceived as law-breaking) when they were oblivious for decades? Did they not notice the white churches helping Trump?
Here is more from http://www.theconversation.com Feb. 19, 2017 “How much does the Johnson Amendment curtail church freedom?”
“some churches are blatantly challenging the restriction. Every year since 2009, a Sunday in October is labeled Pulpit Freedom Sunday, and pastors around the country endorse candidates from the pulpit. According to its organizers, over 4,100 pastors have joined the movement since that date.”
….
“As far as we know, however, only one church has ever lost its exemption for violating the Johnson Amendment. In 2000 the D.C. Circuit affirmed an IRS decision to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Church of Pierce Creek after it published full-page ads in two major newspapers opposing presidential candidate Bill Clinton.
We know that the IRS attempted to impose a tax on a Catholic organization in 2004 that had criticized presidential candidate John Kerry and attempted to investigate a Christian organization that endorsed Michele Bachmann for president in 2009, but it changed its mind in the first situation and a court prevented the second on procedural grounds. ”
Suddenly when public education is on the ballot in Virginia, there is outrage about something that has been going on for decades? Seems manufactured to me.
Sounds like a way to cut down the information the black community has access to. I wonder if that amendment was passed during the height of the Civil Rights movement.
I just looked up the amendment. I don’t think it applies. The churches are not actively campaigning by watching a video by Kamala Harris. If they paraded through the streets as a church, then you might have a case. I don’t think Kamala Harris is not breaking the law by speaking to the churches. We need a few lawyers to weigh in.
If one worships money, campaigning in a house of worship is fine as long as one asks for donations.
That’s why Bernie Sanders could never get away with it but Mitt Romney can.
The Lord is my $hepherd
The Lord is my $hepherd; I $hall alway$ want.
2 He maketh me to lie down in greenback pa$ture$
3 He re$toreth my $oul: he leadeth me in the path$ of righteou$ne$$ for Ben Franklin’$ bill’$ $ake.
4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of poverty, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy wad of cash and thy accounting staff they comfort me.
5 Thou prepare$t a table before me in the presence of mine enemies [Bernie Sanders et al]: thou anointe$t my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
6 $urely goodne$$ and mercy $hall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of King Mida$ for ever.
I’m glad that you have finally acknowledged this, SomeDAM. Please send me your tithes from this day forward. Thanks. –Bob SHEPHERD
I agree with the evangelicals that Trump is an extremely religious man. He worships himself and his god Mammon.
I said “The Lord is my $hepherd”
Not “The $hepherd is my Lord”
So, “No tithes for you!!”
And besides, when God said in the ten commandments “Thou shalt not have strange gods before me”, She was almost certainly talking about you, Bob.
OK. SomeDAM. I see your point. And hers.
[…] their archived article on How to Raise a Prodigy. Eric Adams, who won the NYC Mayoral primary, has suggested he would keep the program as it is now—which seems to be more about tweaking de Blasio than any principle-driven stand on education […]