TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 2021
Baker City, Oregon
A4
Write a letter
news@bakercityherald.com
EDITORIAL
Positive
milestone
during the
pandemic
At long last — 15 months long — it’s over.
Not the pandemic, to be sure.
The virus remains a threat, and particularly to those
who are not vaccinated.
But some of the more harmful economic effects will
go away this week when Oregon Gov. Kate Brown
ends statewide restrictions, including limits on capaci-
ties in restaurants and bars, as well as for a variety of
events.
Brown said on Friday, June 25 that she would cancel
the restrictions either Wednesday, June 30, or when at
least 70% of Oregonians 18 and older are partially or
fully vaccinated. Based on vaccination rates, it appears
June 30 will arrive fi rst.
We can rejoice in the relief at no longer having to
monitor the Oregon Health Authority’s dashboards
and worry that a handful of new cases will move Baker
County into a higher risk level, with more stringent
limits that hurt businesses.
“County risk level” is a term which, we can only
hope, will be banished hereafter.
But even as we move into a summer that looks
much more like a typical season in Baker County than
2020’s version — a full slate of Fourth of July events at
Haines, Miners Jubilee and the bull and bronc riding
competitions, the East-West Shrine All-Star Football
Game all scheduled — we would do well to recognize
that COVID-19 is hardly eradicated.
Just last week the county had 19 new cases over two
days — the most in a two-day stretch in two months.
That capped a more modest increase in cases that
started in early June (on a positive note, there were
just fi ve new cases in fi ve days, June 23-27). Nancy
Staten, director of the Baker County Health Depart-
ment, said some people who were infected recently are
sick enough that they are being treated in a hospital.
Staten also noted that none of the 19 people whose
cases were counted on June 21 or 22 was vaccinated.
Most of us are at relatively low risk of contracting
the virus. But people who are vaccinated are vastly
better protected than those who aren’t.
Vaccination is of course a personal choice, as it
should be.
But with Baker County’s vaccination rate well below
the state average — just seven of Oregon’s 35 other
counties had a lower rate as of Friday, June 25 — the
risk remains that friends, relatives and neighbors
could become ill, perhaps severely so.
It’s exciting to ponder all the events still to come this
summer.
Better still that we get through the season with
Baker County’s COVID-19 death toll, which has been
at 15 since May 21, staying right where it is.
— Jayson Jacoby, Baker City Herald editor
Letters to the editor
• We welcome letters on any issue of public interest.
Customer complaints about specifi c businesses will not be
printed.
• The writer must sign the letter and include an address and
phone number (for verifi cation only)
Mail: To the Editor, Baker City Herald,
P.O. Box 807, Baker City, OR 97814
Email: news@bakercityherald.com
Your views
City manager shouldn’t have
endorsed Juneteenth event
It was with interest that I opened
the email copy of the latest Baker City
Newsletter sent out by our young city
manager. Over the years I had grown
used to receiving that weekly update
and its connection with the business
of our city’s operation. I believe every
resident should sign up to receive the
newsletter as it affords an overview
and understanding of operational
activities by our employees.
The latest issue, sent out June 17,
contained one prominently placed item
which generated a mixed response
— and not a favorable one. Manager
Cannon has fi red a shot across our
bows, creating deep concern for his
perspective on life in the rural West.
He proudly announced (complete with
typo) that City operations would be
closed the 18th in observance of “Ju-
neteenth,” a fabricated holiday passed
by our demented federal government. I
will not at this time go into the fallacy
of the concept. I will say I strenuously
object to the reported “Black National
Anthem” and the display of the “Pan-
African Flag.”
As all Americans know, the pledge
of allegiance contains these words, “...
One Nation under God, with liberty
and justice for all.” Refl ect on this —
“One Nation.” There is no acknowl-
edged subset, just as there is no
other fl ag representing this, the most
remarkable nation of modern times
and perhaps ever.
As far as the “Juneteenth” fl ag and
attendant ceremony, that is about as
signifi cant in America as the French
Bastille Day (which is to say not at all).
I suggest the folderol surrounding the
black event be accorded the respect it
deserves, that being limited to private,
personal expression. Let it be some-
thing similar to when I fl y the “Ram-
pant Lion” fl ag. That is my personal
oddity, not requiring genufl ecting or
observance by the disinterested. Per-
haps we can just smile and nod when
the topic is raised, then go on about
our business.
“Juneteenth” does not deserve obser-
vation as a national holiday, accorded
as much or more ceremony than that
allowed for the 4th of July.
It was suggested that City Manager
Cannon jumped on this opportunity
to give himself and the city employees
an extra paid day off. He reacted to
Biden’s signing with all the enthusi-
asm of a teenager being offered a free
phone. It was as though he wanted to
be the fi rst one to shove this so-called
“holiday” down our Eastern Oregon
throats. I fi nd myself choking on it.
How about the rest of the commu-
nity? Do you fi nd this easy to swallow?
Rick Rienks
Baker City
OTHER VIEWS
Supreme Court right on free speech
Editorial from Los Angeles Times:
Sometimes the Supreme Court pro-
tects constitutional rights best when
it doesn’t establish what lawyers call
a bright-line rule applicable to every
possible future situation. That was
the case Wednesday when the court
ruled in favor of a high school cheer-
leader who had been disciplined for a
vulgar outburst on social media and
a California man who was arrested
after a police offi cer entered his garage
without a warrant.
In Mahanoy Area School District
v. B.L., the justices ruled 8-1 that a
Pennsylvania school district violated
the free speech rights of Brandi Levy
when it suspended her from her
school’s junior varsity cheerleading
team. The school acted after Levy,
disappointed that she hadn’t made the
varsity squad, took a photo of herself
and a friend raising their middle
fi ngers and posted it on Snapchat.
She also used a vulgarity to denounce
the school, the cheerleading team and
“everything.”
In agreeing with the U.S. 3rd Circuit
Court of Appeals that the school vio-
lated Levy’s First Amendment rights,
the court essentially reaffi rmed the
position it took in a landmark 1969
case that students at public schools
have free speech rights so long as their
speech doesn’t create the risk of a
“substantial disruption of or material
interference with school activities.”
The 1969 case, Tinker v. Des Moines
School District, involved students
wearing black armbands to protest the
Vietnam War. Levy’s speech obviously
was more personal than political. But,
writing for the court, Justice Ste-
phen G. Breyer properly said that it
constituted “criticism of the rules of a
community of which B.L. forms a part”
and thus deserved protection.
Yet, even as it agreed with the
appeals court that Levy’s rights
were violated, the court rejected the
lower court’s sweeping conclusion that
schools couldn’t punish off-campus
speech. Breyer rightly suggested that
there were circumstances in which
a school might regulate off-campus
speech, such as “severe bullying or
harassment targeting particular
individuals.”
He warned, however, that “courts
must be more skeptical of a school’s
efforts to regulate off-campus speech,
for doing so may mean the student
cannot engage in that kind of speech
at all.” That makes sense. Even in
the internet age, conduct by students
off campus should generally be the
responsibility of parents, not school
offi cials.
In another decision handed down
Wednesday, Lange v. California, the
court refused to establish a categori-
cal rule that police who are pursuing
someone they have probable cause to
arrest for committing a minor offense
can always enter the suspect’s home
without a warrant.
In 2016, California Highway Patrol
Offi cer Aaron Weikert noticed that
Arthur Lange was playing loud music
and honking his car’s horn. Weikert
followed Lange home and, as Lange
was preparing to turn into his drive-
way, the offi cer said he turned on his
car’s fl ashing red lights, a signal that
a motorist should stop. Lange pulled
into his garage anyway and Weikert
entered the garage after him, where
the offi cer said he noticed signs that
Lange was intoxicated.
Lange sought to suppress the evi-
dence obtained by Weikert because the
offi cer had entered Lange’s residence
without a warrant. But the Califor-
nia Court of Appeal took the position
that the offi cer didn’t need a warrant
and endorsed the idea that, under
an exception for emergencies called
exigent circumstances, a warrant
isn’t required when there is probable
cause that a person being pursued
had committed even a misdemeanor
offense. (The Supreme Court has rec-
ognized an exception from the warrant
requirement in cases in which police
were pursuing suspected felons.)
Writing for a seven-justice majority,
Justice Elena Kagan rejected any such
blanket exception for misdemeanors.
Instead, she said, the court’s Fourth
Amendment precedents called for a
case-by-case consideration of whether
a warrantless search involved exigent
circumstances. She went on to invoke
the principle from the common law
that “a man’s house is his castle.”
As in the case of the cheerleader, the
court in this case declined to establish
a rigid rule. But police are on notice
that they must think carefully before
entering a home without a warrant,
just as school administrators now
know that they aren’t overseers of
everything their students say online.
The court has spoken clearly and
powerfully, even if it hasn’t addressed
every possible contingency.
CONTACT YOUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS
President Joe Biden: The White House,
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C. 20500;
202-456-1111; to send comments, go to www.
whitehouse.gov.
U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley: D.C. offi ce: 313
Hart Senate Offi ce Building, U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-3753; fax
202-228-3997. Portland offi ce: One World
Trade Center, 121 S.W. Salmon St. Suite 1250,
Portland, OR 97204; 503-326-3386; fax 503-
326-2900. Baker City offi ce, 1705 Main St.,
Suite 504, 541-278-1129; merkley.senate.gov.
U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden: D.C. offi ce: 221
Dirksen Senate Offi ce Building, Washington,
D.C., 20510; 202-224-5244; fax 202-228-2717. La
Grande offi ce: 105 Fir St., No. 210, La Grande,
OR 97850; 541-962-7691; fax, 541-963-0885;
wyden.senate.gov.
U.S. Rep. Cliff Bentz (2nd District):
D.C. offi ce: 2182 Rayburn Offi ce Building,
Washington, D.C., 20515, 202-225-6730; fax 202-
225-5774. La Grande offi ce: 1211 Washington
Ave., La Grande, OR 97850; 541-624-2400, fax,
541-624-2402; walden.house.gov.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown: 254 State
Capitol, Salem, OR 97310; 503-378-3111; www.
governor.oregon.gov.
State Sen. Lynn Findley (R-Ontario):
Salem offi ce: 900 Court St. N.E., S-403,
Salem, OR 97301; 503-986-1730. Email: Sen.
LynnFindley@oregonlegislature.gov
State Rep. Mark Owens (R-Crane): Salem
offi ce: 900 Court St. N.E., H-475, Salem, OR
97301; 503-986-1460. Email: Rep.MarkOwens@
oregonlegislature.gov