San Francisco’s School Board Recall May Be Just the Beginning

Published in World Journal
(China) on 18 February 2022
by Liu Yuxin (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Eric Berman. Edited by Michelle Bisson.
San Francisco’s recent special election results were no surprise: An overwhelming majority of San Franciscans voted to oust three members of the city’s school board.

The recall was successful due to a number of factors including the individual behavior of the board members, racial dynamics, and traditional politics. The recalled members’ conduct was the primary factor in the recall’s success. These arrogant and clueless board members turned a blind eye to the public. Racial dynamics also influenced the recall; the attempt to change the current admissions process at the city’s prestigious Lowell High School blatantly targeted Asian American students, prompting a backlash from San Francisco’s Chinese community, whose members fought back in support of their right to education. And the campaign to oust the school board members took advantage of power politics, as conservative backers seized the opportunity to make generous financial contributions to the recall campaign.

San Francisco has long been a hub of progressive thought, yet San Franciscans recalled three progressive school board members in one fell swoop. And the vote was not even close; three-quarters of those who voted supported the recall. In addition, if the other four board members had been eligible for recall, all seven would have been on the chopping block. The overwhelming support for the recall in a city as liberal as San Francisco points to something more significant: voters believe that progressives have gone too far left, too quickly. If progressives become too radical, voters may respond by moving toward the center or the right, leading to conflict or even a schism within the Democratic Party.

The leader of the recall effort, Siva Raj, said he has always been proud to call himself a progressive. So when he realized what the progressive school board officials had been doing during the pandemic, he was shocked to find out that he was comparatively old-fashioned. Instead of responding to the demands of parents, board members busied themselves with renaming schools and attempting to cancel and replace Lowell’s current admissions process. Raj felt the “progressive” tenets of the school board were at odds with his own values.

What happened in San Francisco is a wake-up call to Democratic strategists, especially in a midterm election year.

From time to time, we hear about the renaming of sports teams, schools, buildings and streets in various places. Renaming schools may undoubtedly be one way to make social progress assuming the process is based on a comprehensive understanding of history, relies on rational discussion and seeks to find common ground among various groups. However, if one group sees renaming as an opportunity to advance its own ideology while it disregards the views of the community, such efforts only sow division and stir up hostility. How can this be considered progress?

Recently, the use of affirmative action in high school and college admissions has once again attracted public attention. The controversy over admissions at Lowell is just part of a national debate over affirmative action, which touches on the nature and function of education, and involves the history and interests of different ethnic groups. Fair discussion and policy adjustments are necessary to make substantive progress on this issue. However, the San Francisco school board unilaterally attempted to abolish Lowell’s current admissions system without adequately notifying the community and the government. The board’s action gave the members of the Asian American community sufficient reason to believe they were being unfairly targeted and that the board was catering to specific ethnic groups at their expense.

The school board’s attempt to rename schools and alter Lowell’s admissions process certainly incurred the public’s wrath. But this anger has been brewing for some time now, and it’s not limited to San Francisco’s high schools.

The death of George Floyd — who died after a white police officer knelt on his neck — ignited a debate over excessive use of force by police. In San Francisco and around the country, people demanded that cities defund their police departments and use the money to pay reparations to African Americans. Americans certainly need to reexamine police use of force as it affects all ethnic groups. However, while crime continues to increase, it may not be appropriate to cut police budgets and lay off police officers. Doing so may lead people to suspect cities are prioritizing certain political agendas over public safety.

Government and society as a whole are indeed responsible for protecting society’s most vulnerable. But San Francisco’s government has been widely denounced for its failure to deal with homelessness in the city and public drug abuse. The city has allocated funds to spread awareness of the issue, but the problem remains. As more and more homeless people and drug addicts pour into the city, many blame progressives for overly tolerant policies and overly lenient law enforcement they believe are causing the influx of problems.

In a public statement following the special election, San Francisco Mayor London Breed acknowledged that the recall results sent a “clear message.” Breed emphasized that San Franciscans have an incredible vision for the city, but they must deal with the issues at hand while they lay the foundation for the future. While her statement is an attempt to appease voters, how can it not also be viewed as a warning to the progressives on city’s board of supervisors? They may have an excellent vision for San Francisco, but the reality is that San Francisco is in dire straits.

In liberal San Francisco, we are seeing the political pendulum swing from far left back toward the center. Is this a sign of things to come in the U.S.? We will have to wait and see.





罷免教委成功 或只是開始

劉玉昕 2022-02-18 02:11

舊金山特別選舉,果不出所料,三教委被掃地出門。

罷免成功,有多重因素。個人方面:掌權者傲慢顢頇,視民意為無物;族裔方面,洛威爾招生改制「族裔針對性」太露骨,華人奮起維權;傳統政爭角力:保守派金主藉機使力慷慨解囊 。

但向以自由進步為傲的金山,選民以四分之三的壓倒優勢,一舉罷免三進步派(若非任期限制,七名教委將全部列罷免名單),有更深遠的指標意義:在選民眼中,進步派已進步得太遠、太快了。當進步演變成激進,鐘擺就可能蓄勢回落,這意味著民主黨自身的分化乃至分裂。

罷免發起人Siva Raj說,她一直都相信自己是進步派,並以此為傲,直到發現教委大員置疫情中家長訴求於不顧,忙於推行更名改制,她才驚訝意識到,自己落伍了。但如此進步,完全違背了她的價值理念。

這是個信號,在中期選舉之年,足以讓民主黨策略家們警覺。

各地更名事件時有所聞,從球隊到學校、從建築到街道。更名可以是進步,如果是基於對歷史更全面認識和理性討論,在不同群體中求得共識。但若只是為推行個人意識形態主張,未獲社區理解,更名只會挑起新的分裂和敵視,無進步可言。

從高中到大學,教育平權近來重新引起關注,洛威爾改制,是全美平權大討論的個案之一。平權之爭觸及教育的功能和本質,關涉族裔的歷史和權益,需有一場公正辯論和政策調整。但在社區、政府尚未準備好情況下,教委強推改制,讓華裔有足夠理由相信,是針對他們而來,為迎合某些族裔而拿華裔當犧牲品。

更名改制,點燃了人們的憤怒,但憤怒的積聚由來已久,不限於校園。

佛洛伊德遭白人警壓頸致死,引發對警察過分用武的爭議,金山及全美出現削減警察經費的籲求,要求省下經費補償非裔。警察武力影響每個族群,確有檢討必要,但在犯罪續增之時砍經費裁警察,未必合宜;人們懷疑,特定政治議程被置於民眾安危之上了。

保護弱勢,是政府和全社會職責。但金山對遊民、街頭吸毒的處理一直為人詬病。有撥款有宣傳,但沒有解決問題;包容接納有餘、嚴格執法不足,一直被指是吸引更多遊民癮士源源湧入金山的原因,人們將其歸咎於進步派頭上。

布里德承認,罷免傳達了「明確訊息」,舊金山是相信偉大願景的城市,但為實現遠景,須先把眼前事做好。這是安撫選民,但何嘗不是提醒市議會進步派:理想很豐滿,但現實很骨感。

金山的政治鐘擺,多大程度上預示了全美風向,人們拭目以待。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Pakistan: Trump’s Gaza Blueprint Unfolds

Peru: Blockade ‘For Now’

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Topics

Peru: Blockade ‘For Now’

Japan: US President and the Federal Reserve Board: Harmonious Dialogue To Support the Dollar

Austria: The EU Must Recognize That a Tariff Deal with Trump Is Hardly Worth Anything

Mexico: The Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Venezuela and President Nicholás Maduro

Hong Kong: Cordial Cross-Strait Relations Will Spare Taiwan Trump’s Demands, Says Paul Kuoboug Chang

Germany: The Tariffs Have Side Effects — For the US Too*

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backward with Americans on Trade

Related Articles

Thailand: Appeasing China Won’t Help Counter Trump

India: Will New US Envoy Help to Repair Ties under Threat?

France: Global South: Trump Is Playing into China’s Hands

Zimbabwe: What the West Doesn’t Understand about China’s Growing Military Might

Sri Lanka: Trump Is Very Hard on India and Brazil, but For Very Different Reasons