TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2021
Baker City, Oregon
4A
Write a letter
news@bakercityherald.com
OUR VIEW
Oregon
targeting
businesses
Oregon Sens. Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden worked
in the waning days of the Trump administration to
ensure the federal government would not hammer
struggling businesses that received Paycheck Protec-
tion Act loans.
Thanks, in part to their work, it’s been made clear:
Forgiven PPP loans will not count as income on fed-
eral taxes. And even expenses paid with a PPP loan
are deductible on federal taxes.
But Oregon legislators may do things differently.
An amendment to House Bill 2457 seeks to tax the
federally forgiven PPP loans.
PPP loans were designed by Congress to keep
struggling businesses alive and their employees em-
ployed. It would be a sucker punch for the state to try
to grab it. Why would that be OK? Haven’t Oregon
businesses suffered enough?
To make matters worse, it’s not clear which legisla-
tor or legislators introduced this amendment. That
is not identifi ed in legislative documents. Why the
secrecy? Oregonians need to be able to hold their
legislators accountable. At least, legislators won’t get
away with hiding who votes for the amendment. We
will be watching.
We should be clear that the company that owns
the Baker City Herald received a PPP loan. So did
thousands of other Oregon businesses. And the PPP
program has received some criticism. It was put in
place quickly. Some businesses who needed the help
had trouble getting the help. It’s been argued others
that didn’t deserve help got it.
But it’s reprehensible that the state would attempt
to raid money to keep Oregonians employed and
allow businesses to avoid collapse. Oregon already
taxes some businesses even if they don’t make a
profi t under the state’s corporate activity tax, so
maybe some legislators think plundering the PPP is
fair game. Do you?
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the Baker City Herald.
Columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions
of the authors and not necessarily that of the Baker City Herald.
Letters to the editor
• We welcome letters on any issue of public interest.
Customer complaints about specifi c businesses will not be
printed.
• The Baker City Herald will not knowingly print false
or misleading claims. However, we cannot verify the
accuracy of all statements in letters to the editor.
• Writers are limited to one letter every 15 days.
• The writer must sign the letter and include an address and
phone number (for verifi cation only). Letters that do not
include this information cannot be published.
• Letters will be edited for brevity, grammar, taste and
legal reasons.
Mail: To the Editor, Baker City Herald,
P.O. Box 807, Baker City, OR 97814
Email: news@bakercityherald.com
Improving civics education
By Trudy Rubin
Anyone who wondered, during this
past annus horribilis, whether many
Americans no longer grasped the mean-
ing of democracy, could fi nd plenty of
stats to back that dismal conclusion.
In 2018 only around a third of Amer-
icans could pass a basic U.S. citizenship
test modeled on the one required of im-
migrants for naturalization, according
to a survey released by the Woodrow
Wilson National Fellowship founda-
tion. And that was before the Trump
administration made the immigration
test harder.
And in 2019, the Annenberg Public
Policy Center at the University of
Pennsylvania found that only 39% of
American adults could name all three
branches of our federal government.
In 2020, that number jumped to 51%,
perhaps because the fi rst impeachment
of Donald Trump provided a short
course in civics.
But as antidemocratic trends
threaten our country, this level of
civic ignorance has revived bipartisan
interest in civic education. Sens. Chris
Coons, D-Del., and John Cornyn, R-
Texas, have just introduced the Civics
Secures Democracy Act, which would
fund educators, nonprofi ts, and state
agencies to strengthen civics education
for K-12 students. The idea is to ensure
sustained federal support for civics
curriculum developed by districts and
states.
Before this bipartisan bill gets
bogged down by partisan attacks, I sug-
gest all sides take a look at Germany’s
deep experience with civic education,
and the role it plays in combating
extremism and racism. There are im-
portant lessons to be learned.
“Germany has a long tradition
of civic education,” I was told by
Daniel Koehler, director of the Ger-
man Institute on Radicalization and
De-radicalization Studies in Stuttgart.
Given the country’s history of fascism,
the German federal democracy set a
goal of “spreading basic knowledge of
democracy, rule of law, and history of
past confl icts,” Koehler said.
“We call it political education, and it
is very established in our primary and
secondary schools, including a history
of the Shoah [Holocaust], the reign of
the Nazis and national socialism, and
World Wars I and II. When I went to
school we had to visit several concentra-
tion camps.”
Beyond Germany’s particular his-
tory, political education includes the
basics of “how democracy works, how
a law is made, how elections work, and
why democracy today is the way it is,”
says Koehler. That includes discussing
democracy’s current problems in Ger-
many and elsewhere. (Civic education,
available for adults and kids, hasn’t
prevented actions by far-right extrem-
ists. But it well may have contributed
to sliding support for the far-right Al-
ternative for Deutschland party, which
won 12.6% of votes in the last federal
election).
And here is the most critical part for
Americans to ponder: Germany has a
Federal Agency for Civic Education,
along with civic education centers in
each of its 16 states, that is considered
nonpartisan. That means they focus on
producing books, workshops, and mate-
rials for teachers based on “the values
… in our constitution,” says Koehler.
Teaching materials are augmented
by a vast array of nongovernmental
organizations, including foundations
funded by each political party. There is
a strong focus on the need for pluralism,
and lessons on how to tell fake news
from real.
Sound too good to be true? Koehler
says not. “There is no partisan confl ict
over [federal and state] civic education
centers,” he says. “They are more or less
independent in choosing their topics,
and have academic expert advisory
groups.” Each state, he adds, “has its
own focus points, different culture and
political issues, but they try to follow
the basic template.”
However, and here comes the key:
“What is controversial in society must
be presented as controversial,” explains
Koehler. In other words, students must
be presented with all sides of a con-
troversy and then given the chance to
argue it out in the classroom.
“The idea is so they can make their
own views. There must be no conver-
sion on political issues. This protects
political education from political over-
reach.”
Is such a concept even imaginable in
today’s America? In the last months of
2020 the Trump administration called
for “patriotic education.” His presiden-
tial “1776 commission” promoted a
“pro-American” civic curriculum that
would downplay the role of slavery in
American history. President Joe Biden
has already disbanded the commission
as overtly political.
Yet the fact remains that as of 2018,
only nine states and the District of
Columbia required a full year of civics.
(In 2018, the Pennsylvania legislature
passed a vague act requiring schools
to give one civics test between grades
7-12 that could be based on the citi-
zenship test for immigrants.)
Led by Judge Marjorie Rendell,
Philadelphia’s Rendell Center has
had the brilliant idea of holding mock
trials in elementary classrooms based
on characters in the literature the kids
are reading; the students play lawyers,
judge, and jury. A great way for young-
sters to learn the meaning of rule of
law, but dependent on teachers having
the will and time to integrate the trials
into their curriculum.
To go wider, there needs to be
political consensus and funding for
civic education that teaches kids about
the meaning and value of democratic
institutions — with all their warts and
historic baggage.
And that hopefully incorporates the
German approach of letting kids debate
the controversies.
If Sens. Coons and Cornyn (with
White House backing) can convince the
public that civic ed is possible, with-
out partisan hysteria, they will truly
deserve the country’s thanks.
Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-
board member for the The Philadelphia
Inquirer. Readers may write to her at:
Philadelphia Inquirer, P.O. Box 8263,
Philadelphia, Pa. 19101, or by email at
trubin@phillynews.com.
OTHER VIEWS
U.S. Capitol security must project strength, not fear
Editorial from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
The sanctity and security of the U.S. Capitol
has not been breached since that woeful day
in January. But whispers and threats circulate
in dark corners of the internet, and a nation
remains on edge.
Lawmakers, Capitol Police, the National
Guard, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, all
are vigilant. Security fencing and razor wire
continue to slash across this country’s seat of
democracy. A clear message has been sent: “We
are ready for the next attack.”
This message does not quite hit the mark.
Rather, our country should exemplify the words
of President Theodore Roosevelt: “Speak softly
and carry a big stick.”
We must encourage the appearance of busi-
ness as usual, all the while preparing — being
prepared — to intervene in any further disrup-
tions to and within our seat of government.
The events of Jan. 6 will remain etched in
this country’s memory forever. It is part of
our history now. Lawmakers and citizens are
understandably shaken.
Nonetheless, we are called to be mindful
of the fact that the Capitol is not under siege.
Two months after the fact, the Capitol should
not continue to look like an armed encamp-
ment. Playing literal and symbolic defense
every day unwittingly plays into the hands
of those who thought they could infl uence
politics and policy with violence. To change the
look and feel of our nation’s capital is to the
detriment of our ideals. The obvious physical
presence of heightened security measures —
heightened fear — does not mesh with the
aura we want to emanate from the heart of
our country.
A bulking up of security is justifi able,
especially given the spike in threats against
lawmakers, as reported by Capitol Police. And
Jan. 6 response protocols required review
and revision. Indeed, intelligence and secu-
rity leaders have combed through the fl awed
decision-making processes that left the Capitol
vulnerable. The Capitol Police’s chief during
the riots resigned on Jan. 7. The acting chief,
Yogananda Pittman, has called for an increase
in the number of analysts and officers on staff
and the creation of a dedicated “stand-ready”
force, 80 officers strong, equipped to respond to
emergencies at any time. The department has
ordered additional protective gear.
What’s more, the delays that prevented
National Guard troops from arriving on-scene
quickly enough to assist the overwhelmed
Capitol Police are (rightly) under sharp scrutiny.
And communications issues that kept the FBI’s
warnings about the mob’s potential for violence
from being properly disseminated are certainly
being intensely examined, as well.
Evaluation and adjustment: These are com-
monsense moves. An ever-present show of force
is too much. The goal should be to be “prepared”
but “behind the scenes.”
Roosevelt was speaking about foreign policy
when he coined the “big stick” approach, but
the general idea is applicable. His figurative
“big stick” was quiet and invisible strength.
Not security fences. Not armed officers. Not a
uniformed military force. We want solid security
at the ready, not in plain sight.