A8 Th e Bu l l eTin " Tu es day, FeBr ua r y 9, 2021
EDITORIALS & OPINIONS
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
Heidi Wright
Gerry O’Brien
Richard Coe
Publisher
Editor
Editorial Page Editor
Should we change
the way people
become lawyers?
T
he Oregon Supreme Court granted what’s called
“diploma privilege” in June 2020. People who had
graduated from law school could become lawyers
without taking the bar exam for a limited time.
Should Oregon keep that in
place? Legislators recently discussed
the issue with representatives from
the Oregon Bar Association.
Deans of Oregon’s three law
schools requested the temporary
change because of the pandemic.
Mass in-person testing could be
challenging during a pandemic. Re-
mote testing can have glitches. And
there was concern that COVID-19
disrupted the ability of students to
study. Utah and Washington state
took action similar to Oregon’s.
Wisconsin has had diploma privi-
lege for years.
The bar exam is the traditional
guard put in place to ensure only
people who are competent are al-
lowed to operate in a state. That
doesn’t mean the bar exam is perfect
or could not be improved.
Many question if a closed-book
test that rewards memorization is
a good measure of future perfor-
mance as a lawyer. A good lawyer
would never rely on memory alone.
Being a good lawyer is about care-
ful research and building good ar-
guments, along with other things
of course. Can a test even measure
that? There also is simply not a lot
of strong evidence that passing an
exam translates into being a com-
petent lawyer. Doesn’t it make sense
that the ability to successfully grad-
uate from law school is a better test?
There have been equity concerns,
as well. Even if a student’s parents
are wealthy, law school is expen-
sive. Many students then pay more
for tutoring for the bar exam after
law school. Piling up debt is not
good for anyone. Look back in his-
tory and the bar exam and other
measures were also used as a tool
to keep minorities from becoming
lawyers.
Switching to diploma privilege
has its own complications. Law
schools would be the new gatekeep-
ers. Will the standards they devise
be suitable? Would it be better to
move away from the current model
and have two years of schooling and
a third year of apprenticeship, legal
internship or work study? Profes-
sional responsibility and fitness of
character have also long been re-
quired for lawyers. Who should de-
cide those standards?
The pandemic forced Oregon
to think differently about how to
certify new lawyers. Do you think
Oregon should make a permanent
change, go back to the pre-pan-
demic pattern or try something
else? Tell your legislator or send us a
letter to the editor at letters@bend-
bulletin.com.
Run for school board
and make a difference
F
our seats will be up for elec-
tion in May on the Bend-La
Pine School Board. If you
want to make a difference in Bend
schools, there can be no more pow-
erful way than serving as a school
board member.
First thing to know: It can be a
rewarding way to give back to your
community and help kids.
Second thing: It’s demanding
work. It’s like a second job.
Third thing: It’s not paid.
Fourth thing: Check to ensure
you qualify.
The board makes critical deci-
sions about budgets, priorities and
policies. Parents, students and em-
ployees want questions answered.
Equity must be addressed. Excel-
lence must be ensured. There are
negotiations with unions and over
lawsuits. Maintenance and repair
must be kept up. In Bend there is
growth and no way to pay for new
buildings without asking the public
to vote to approve bonds. And don’t
underestimate the passion and con-
flict in naming a new school.
By the time you read this, in-
terim Superintendent Lora Nord-
quist, Board Chair Carrie Doug-
lass and Vice Chair Melissa Barnes
Dholakia likely will have already
held some interactive sessions for
people who have questions or want
more information. There will be
another one on Feb. 12 from noon
to 1 p.m. Recordings of the sessions
will be made public, so you can
watch later.
There is a bit more information
on the district website: tinyurl.com/
runforboard.
School board seats are zoned.
Links there can help you check to
ensure you qualify for a particular
seat.
Editorials reflect the views of The Bulletin’s editorial board, Publisher Heidi Wright, Editor
Gerry O’Brien and Editorial Page Editor Richard Coe. They are written by Richard Coe.
My Nickel’s Worth
Negotiating with St. Charles
I am a registered, diagnostic ultra-
sound technologist and a 40-year em-
ployee at St. Charles Health Systems
in Bend. I am one of approximately
150 technologists at the hospital who
are front-line caregivers, including
respiratory therapists, surgical tech-
nologists, radiation oncology technol-
ogists, technologists in all of radiology
and in the heart center, and others.
We work alongside doctors and reg-
istered nurses, treating traumatic in-
juries, critically ill patients, and, of
course, those who have contracted
COVID-19.
In 2019, my colleagues and I voted
to build a union to improve our work-
place, gain fair wages and benefits,
and to ensure that St. Charles contin-
ues to deliver the absolute best patient
care. We are seeking a contract that
will keep local health care provided
through St. Charles system function-
ing at a high level to serve patients
throughout the region. The experi-
ence that we have accumulated over
the years could be lost to Bend area
families if some of us must turn else-
where to receive fair compensation.
I am on our bargaining team and
over the past year while we have been
in negotiations, hospital administra-
tion has dragged its feet. Like so many
of my colleagues, I am disappointed
in my employer’s behavior. That is
why we recently held an informa-
tional picket — to make sure the com-
munity knows what is happening in
their hospital.
We are committed to continuing
to provide the best care possible. Our
hope is that you will support us to en-
sure the hospital does the right thing
for its employees.
— Dee Dee Schumacher, Bend
Legislature should not decide
company boards
Directors are theoretically put on
boards for their ability to aid the com-
pany in creating profits for it’s stock
holders. Unless the company is some-
how supported by the government (as
a major customer) the government
should have no right to interfere in
its business. Any company with self
respect should tell the government to
“Take a Hike”. Where in the U.S. Con-
stitution is it acceptable for the gov-
ernment to dictate private business
practices?
— Jay Feinstein, Bend
Letter to Cliff Bentz
Your vote to protect Marjorie Tay-
lor Greene was yet another clear in-
dication of your support for hatred,
violence and the overthrow of our
democracy. You have condoned the
idea of killing Congresswomen with
whom you work. You have given cre-
dence to outrageous and obviously
fictional conspiracy theories. You
have endorsed dangerous racist, mi-
sogynistic and Semitic lies. You have
encouraged citizens to distrust a free
and fair election, fracturing our pre-
cious democratic process. You have
perpetuated the Big Lie and the vio-
lent, seditious attack on our Capitol.
Instead of honoring your oath to de-
fend and protect our constitution, you
have sworn allegiance to a man who
would throw out the legitimate votes
of the American people and appoint
himself dictator. You are a disgrace,
and you insult each and every Orego-
nian in your district. We will not for-
get, Cliff.
— Janet Keen, Camp Sherman
Distribute vaccine by age
Why does Oregon State need a
27-person panel to determine who gets
the COVID vaccine? Does this panel
shield the Governor and the head of
the Oregon Health Authority from be-
ing held accountable for the misman-
aged distribution plan? Today’s Wall
Street Journal (Feb. 5th) had a great
editorial about rationing the vaccine.
It stated and I quote “Basing eligibility
in stages from oldest to youngest from
now on is simple, scientific and fair. As
supply increases, this will be the fast-
est way to inoculate the most people,
reduce demands on the health-care
system, and allow more businesses to
reopen.” Unfortunately, our Governor
and health authority chose to create
another bureaucratic panel which has
slowed the delivery of the vaccine to
the oldest and most needy citizens of
Central Oregon.
— Steven Bahr, Bend
Letters policy
Guest columns
How to submit
We welcome your letters. Letters should
be limited to one issue, contain no more
than 250 words and include the writer’s
signature, phone number and address
for verification. We edit letters for brevity,
grammar, taste and legal reasons. We re-
ject poetry, personal attacks, form letters,
letters submitted elsewhere and those
appropriate for other sections of The Bul-
letin. Writers are limited to one letter or
guest column every 30 days.
Your submissions should be between
550 and 650 words; they must be signed;
and they must include the writer’s phone
number and address for verification. We
edit submissions for brevity, grammar,
taste and legal reasons. We reject those
submitted elsewhere. Locally submitted
columns alternate with national colum-
nists and commentaries. Writers are lim-
ited to one letter or guest column every
30 days.
Please address your submission to either
My Nickel’s Worth or Guest Column and
mail, fax or email it to The Bulletin. Email
submissions are preferred.
Email: letters@bendbulletin.com
Write: My Nickel’s Worth/Guest Column
P.O. Box 6020
Bend, OR 97708
Fax:
541-385-5804
Best vaccination strategy is simple: Focus on Americans 65 and older
BY RUTH FADEN, MATTHEW CRANE
AND SAAD OMER
Special to The Washington Post
N
ow that COVID-19 vaccines
are increasingly becoming
available to people beyond
health-care workers and those in
long-term care, the question turns to
who should be immunized next. For
many people, the answer is essential
workers. But while many workers face
an elevated risk and should receive a
vaccine soon, we believe the most eth-
ically justified path forward is to focus
on individuals 65 and older.
The primary reason to prioritize
people in this age group is simple:
They account for more than 80% of
covid-19 deaths, even though they
are only about 16% of the population.
This disproportionate toll is why the
Biden administration’s vaccine plan
encourages states to expand vaccine el-
igibility to those who are 65 and older.
But while many places — such as
D.C., New York and Florida — are
converging on a 65-and-older strat-
egy, whether seniors qualify for vacci-
nation largely depends on where they
live. In New Mexico and Connecticut,
you need to be at least 75 years old.
In Colorado and Nevada, 70 is old
enough. And in Hawaii and Virginia,
older adults must compete with many
other people for the same limited vac-
cine supply, including essential work-
ers.
Prioritizing people 65 and older is
the most efficient route to reduce the
dying, but that is not the only reason
it is the most ethically defensible way
to proceed. The age cutoff also directly
addresses disproportionate mortality
in structurally disadvantaged groups.
The differences in mortality rates by
race are arguably the most morally
egregious of the covid-19 disparities.
The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention report that Black and Lat-
inx people have experienced death
at 2.8 times the rate of White people.
Indigenous Americans have only a
slightly lower ratio, at 2.6 times.
For many of the same structurally
unjust reasons that people of color are
dying of covid-19 at higher rates than
White people, they are also dying at
earlier ages. While nearly three-quar-
ters of White people who die of
covid-19 are 75 or older, that is true for
only 45% of deaths among Black peo-
ple and 33% of deaths among indige-
nous Americans. By contrast, almost
70% of covid-19 deaths among Black
and Latinx people and 60% of deaths
among Native people were among
people 65 and older.
There is substantial variation among
the states in terms of both percentage
of the population over 65 and the per-
centage who are members of disad-
vantaged minority groups. But within
each state, the relative distribution of
mortality by age and the relative im-
pact of disadvantage on mortality re-
mains effectively the same. Thus, by
simplifying vaccine prioritization to
focus on people 65 and older across
the nation, we can more effectively
protect most Americans at the highest
risk of dying in each ethnic and racial
demographic in a way that focusing
on essential workers would not.
While a national age cutoff of 65
would go a long way to address eq-
uity concerns, it would not, by itself,
be sufficient. We must also make in-
tensive efforts to overcome barriers in
vaccinating older people in commu-
nities of color. For many months now,
there have been pleas to address the
justified distrust many people of color
have in government programs and
public health, and to reduce barriers to
registration for and access to vaccine
administration. Any vaccine strategy,
whether it prioritizes essential work-
ers or older adults, will be inequitable
without addressing these challenges.
The considerable differential uptake of
vaccines among health-care workers
of color proves this point.
Massive efforts must be initiated,
now, to narrow this differential among
older Americans. The National Acad-
emies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine recommended ensuring
access in areas of social vulnerability.
Different jurisdictions are applying
metrics to do so. For example, D.C.,
which began offering vaccines to peo-
ple over 65 on Jan. 11, is differentially
reserving some vaccine appointments
for residents of sections of the city that
have been hit hardest by covid-19 hos-
pitalizations and deaths.
With thousands of Americans suc-
cumbing to covid-19 daily, it is imper-
ative we get our vaccine strategy right.
The use of a nationally coordinated
age cutoff of 65 may seem deceptively
simple, but in conjunction with in-
tensive equity efforts, it is also our
best opportunity to save lives with the
fierce urgency of now.
e e
Ruth Faden is the founder of the Johns Hopkins
Berman Institute of Bioethics and a professor at
Johns Hopkins University. Matthew Crane is a
medical student at the Johns Hopkins University
School of Medicine and a visiting scholar at
the USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and
Economics. Saad Omer is director of the Yale
Institute for Global Health and a professor at the
Yale University schools of medicine, nursing and
public health.