Category: Issue 7

Dear MPA Friends,

As we celebrate the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. this month and all of those who fought for civil rights before him and continue to fight against inequities today, I hope you will reflect on opportunities to choose inclusiveness in your professional and personal life.

I read a book recently which underscored the important difference between diversity and inclusion. Just because we have more people of color, race, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender, or origin in the room does not mean that these individuals or groups are “included” in a meaningful way.  My takeaway is that inclusiveness requires intentionally listening, hearing and using the diverse voices and ideas that human experiences bring. I trust we all can find ways to be more inclusive in our lives.   Lori

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) became a policy maker for same sex marriage (SSM) in 2015.  In a split 5-4 decision in Obergefell v Hodges, SCOTUS ruled that the remaining sections of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which gave states the choice to honor or perform SSMs, were unconstitutional. Obergefell followed Windsor v USA, which granted federal recognition of marriage for couples regardless of their sex.

Before 1996, a marriage performed in one state was honored throughout the other US states, thanks to the US Constitution.  After DOMA became law, it restricted same sex couples from marriage by not recognizing those relationships at the federal and state level. The view of same sex couples as deviant and appalling by lawmakers ensured denial of benefits and protections only available through marriage.  DOMA was thought to be a good compromise by providing states the autonomy to define marriage as they wished while keeping the traditional definition of marriage for federal benefits. It also provided a means to preemptively limit policy diffusion of SSM from Hawaii to the rest of the country.

The SCOTUS decisions followed another policy change regarding the gay and lesbian community called Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT).  In 2010, the repeal of DADT, which barred gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military, came after careful review of its effects on military readiness, values, morale, and feedback from those impacted by the policy.  A major key in policy change on these issues involved revising the narrative of how gays and lesbians were viewed by lawmakers and the general population.  Showing the similarities between this community and the rest of the US population in raising families, community service, and other aspects of daily life was thought to enable this group and their families to benefits and protections against discrimination.  This narrative played a role in my personal involvement of sharing my story in both policy changes for the gay and lesbian community as a disabled Army veteran with over nine years of honorable service.

In 2012, my wife & I filed a federal lawsuit with the help of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) against the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for denial of benefits normally granted to veterans for their spouses.  The VA denied our claim, even though our marriage was recognized by our resident state of California.  Our federal lawsuit charged the VA discriminated against us by denying these benefits while granting them to spouses in heterosexual marriages. Cooper-Harris v USA resulted in a historic ruling in 2013 that declared sections of Title 38 of the US Code unconstitutional.  This statute prevented the VA from granting marital benefits to same sex spouses of veterans.  The US Federal Court’s decision in our case was the first to declare that veterans benefits must be provided to a married veteran regardless of the spouse’s sex.

As time goes on, I believe that anti-discrimination and protection policies for the gay, lesbian and transgender community will follow the same path as policy issues on discrimination based on race and sex. Legislation and court decisions to eliminate discrimination doesn’t necessarily change hearts and minds of those who view race or sex negatively. I believe that our roles as master administrators provide us with the opportunity to ensure that equity for our communities.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” 

So were the immortal words of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as he envisioned the dream of our nation. Dr. King’s words stirred passion and fear but also thought and vision. As we remember the life and legacy of Dr. King on January 21, let us be encouraged by the positive strides our nation has made to end discrimination of all types among our citizens. These positive accomplishments bring our nation closer to the dream Dr. King spoke of. However, let us honestly realize that each of us still has much to do so that collectively, one day our nation will achieve the dream.

Each of us must strive to see the good in others and respect the contributions, of whatever nature or degree, each person can make to better our society. We need to respect the opinion of others and honestly and openly debate our personal differences, without demeaning the debate by invoking discrimination. We need not be afraid of someone because they are different. These objectives could not be stated without realizing the difficulty each of us face in trying to accomplish them in our personal lives. Dr. King never said achieving the dream would be easy.

At the base of human existence is the desire and need to help others and band together at time of tragedy. We have witnessed kindness and strength many times recently and throughout our history as we, as a nation, have endured tragedy through the products of Mother Nature’s fury, or the violence of forces wanting to destroy our Nation, or the lone individual who commits a senseless violent act against the innocent. Each time we act with empathy and dignity, we move closer to achieving the dream. We are all capable of acting this way despite the absence of a tragic event. We can build on these actions and strive to accomplish more on an individual basis for our own good and the good of our nation. For as Dr. King also said, “We may have come over on different ships, but we are all in the same boat now.”

Advances in environmental science over the twentieth century are what have pushed our environmental policies forward. Measurement methods and an increased understanding of matter, particles, and substances led to federal regulations of air quality; these regulations are still politically-debated as scientists continue to discover causes of air pollution from our daily activities. The Clean Air Act regulates specific pollutants through the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and has established regulations on vehicle emissions. Similarly, for water pollution; the discovery of new harmful chemicals and additional sources of runoff into rivers and bodies of water have increased the regulations put in place to protect those natural resources. The Clean Water Act deals with the control of acid rain, acid mine drainage, mercury, and “priority pollutants,” especially in our drinking water.

In 2019, let us remember that transforming and revising established policy is key to keeping up with problems which science and research uncover in our nation. The initial chlorination of drinking water was done in 1908, some 6 years after the first studies of our water quality. A study of water pollution in 1925 led to the Clean Water Act. In 1969, the National Environmental Policy Act began to require our legislators to evaluate the environmental impact of every law passed, leading to numerous new laws and regulations showing more care for the planet.

As our knowledge and understanding of environmental issues has evolved over the last century, so has our environmental management policy. Such is the case with almost all issues that have research or scientific study behind them; as science progresses, so should the legislation.

In the last weeks of 2018, the South Carolina Department of Education released report cards for the public schools as required by state and federal law. These grades are meant to reflect how the school is performing and areas of improvement. These report cards in theory are a tool to see how schools are doing with meeting grade level expectations. It provides a direction on areas that need improvement and a mechanism to provide definable progress.

With limited knowledge about how these grades are calculated, the usefulness or validity of the grading system is unclear. It does impact the perception of the school and parents’ desire to enroll their children in that school. It also leaves me to wonder what tools are available to grade how the local, state, and federal governments are doing in their efforts to support the schools. The schools that are being graded do not all have access to same funding, services available, or government support. Therefore in my opinion, the responsibility and grade do not wholly lie with the school.

How can schools be equally judged if the level of support from governing bodies is not equivalent? The standard has been set to provide feedback on the effectiveness of schools but they are just a part of the whole picture. There is little public information on what governments are doing to support education or the policies they set. It seems to me that a report card completed by the schools, districts, and states would be a good place to start. Not only would it provide important feedback information to governments on where support was needed, whether the changes are financial or changes in policy. It would also provide voters with information on how their officials are doing in supporting the schools, giving context to school’s grade and information to the constituents.

Now that these school grades are posted, I am left to wonder, are the government agencies making the grade for our schools?