Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The Bulletin. (Bend, OR) 1963-current | View Entire Issue (June 5, 2021)
The BulleTin • SaTurday, June 5, 2021 B5 EDITORIALS & OPINIONS Tents line both sides of NE Em- erson Av- enue near Second Street in Bend on Thursday. Ryan Brennecke/ The Bulletin A failure of the community, on Emerson Avenue N ot tonight. Not tomorrow. Not any day should people in Bend find the only place to live is on the street. It’s failure that people with no houses live around the west end of Emerson Avenue in Bend. They deserve to be able to eat and sleep in peace. They de- serve a place to stay without wondering when the announcement will come that their government is removing them. That knock on the tent flap is coming to erase their passage and drive them out. Health and safety are the justifications given by city government. And there are health and safety concerns. Trash. Crime. Fire violations. Building code violations. People using the outdoors as a bathroom. That is what happens, though, when the safety net cracks open. People try to survive how they can. That is what happens when a city, a community fail to take adequate care of those with no good place to call home. The failure on Emerson should be a shock. A tear in our comfort and com- placency. It should create a rush to insist the city, the county, the state do more. It should create a line of people back- ing up the organizations such as Reach, Shepherd’s House, Family Kitchen, the Homeless Leadership Coalition and more that are trying to help. Most of our lives carry on un- changed. Air conditioning or fans strain to keep us cool. The dog stretches out on the couch. The cat is stroked on the windowsill. Streams of bits beguile. Is it fair to remove the people living on Emerson? Not for them. Not to- night. Not tomorrow. Not any day un- less a better place is found for them. AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER Heidi Wright Gerry O’Brien Richard Coe Publisher Editor Editorial Page Editor There’s 561,000 reasons to support superintendents of color in Oregon GUEST COLUMN BY COLT GILL, ANTHONY ROSILEZ, DANIEL RAMIREZ, JIM GREEN, AND CRAIG HAWKINS O regon’s public schools are more diverse now than at any other time in our his- tory, but the number of superinten- dents of color in our state is not just stagnant, it is in a highly concerning free-fall. Only a handful of the 197 school districts in the state of Or- egon are led by superintendents of color, and we believe this is a seri- ous problem. In recent years, student demo- graphics have continued to shift in Oregon. Today, nearly 2 of every 5 students (38.5%) are racially, ethni- cally and/or linguistically diverse. There are 25 districts in Oregon where students of color make up the majority of their schools’ popu- lation. Meanwhile, the composition of our educator and administrator workforce is changing very slowly. The 2020 Oregon Educator Equity Report shows that just 11.7% of teachers and 12.5% of administra- tors are racially, ethnically and/or linguistically diverse. This disparity is glaring in the ranks of our school superinten- dents. After five departures this spring, less than 5% of Oregon su- perintendents today are leaders of color. Put another way, Oregon now has so few superintendents of color that they could all ride together in one vehicle. Why does this matter? Because these numbers indicate a frighten- ing trend that will not benefit stu- dents, educators or communities. And this lack of visible representa- prioritize their support and success. School boards have a specific role and responsibility here, given that superintendents are their one and only employee to directly support, supervise and evaluate. The Oregon Department of Education, the Oregon School Boards Association, the Coalition of Oregon School Administrators, the Oregon Teacher Standards and Practices Commission and the Oregon Educator Advancement Council commit to immediately commission a study to examine the difficulties Oregon is facing in recruiting, hiring and retaining su- perintendents of color. The study will identify what factors contrib- ute to their successes or career challenges as well as recommen- dations for change and improve- ment. Also important is Senate Bill 334, which requires equity and gover- nance training for school boards. We encourage the Legislature to pass this important legislation. These actions, and the hiring deci- sions around them, will have signif- icant repercussions for students. We have nearly 561,000 students in our K-12 schools. That’s 561,000 reasons to get this right. tion conveys a perception that Ore- gon is not a welcoming or support- ive environment for leaders of color, making it even more challenging to recruit, support or encourage edu- cational leaders to consider the su- perintendent role. Decades of research provide data about the positive impacts of educa- tor diversity on academic achieve- ment and social and emotional de- velopment for students of color and tribal students, as well as their white peers. Studies show that students of color benefit from higher teacher expectations and from seeing mem- bers of their own race/ethnicity as role models in respected profes- sions. Our experience in Oregon has demonstrated that districts led by superintendents of color attract a more diverse educator workforce and welcome otherwise- unheard community voices in district deci- sion-making. But today, our school boards are challenged to find and keep lead- ers that reflect the makeup of our schools. Our school communities — and the organizations we lead — are challenged to support and retain leaders of color. For this to change, we have to change. We need to change our systems, our behav- iors and our approaches. Our stu- dents need leadership who directly reflect their identities, and we need both immediate and sustainable long-term solutions. It’s imperative that school districts communicate a goal to hire leaders of color, and e e This was submitted by Colt Gill, director of the Oregon Department of Education; Anthony Rosilez, executive director of the Oregon Teacher Standards and Practices Commission; Daniel Ramirez, interim executive director of the Oregon Educator Advancement Council; Jim Green, executive director of the Oregon School Boards Association; and Craig Hawkins, executive director of the Coalition of Oregon School Administrators. Historical editorial: Funding the courthouse e e Editor’s note: The following historical editorial originally appeared in what was then called The Bend Bulletin on June 29, 1906. T he editor of the Crook County Journal may perhaps be par- doned for printing misleading inaccuracies about the court house matter and county finances as fur- nished him by the Prineville ring, since he is a new man in the community, not onto Prineville curves and crooks. Per- haps a little later after the coming inves- tigation and he learns a little history, he will be more wary of championing the ring’s doings. As he seems so good at explaining, will he explain how, when the treasurer swears that there is only $18,867 in the general fund, the county is to build a $45,000 court house without incurring indebtedness, and how, if the county ex- pends that $18,000 or the major portion thereof for the proposed building, the county expenses are to be provided for? If $61,000, or even $45,000, is to be paid out, where will the money come from if not from the taxpayers? Perhaps he can explain how a “competent architect” made plans for a $40,000 building and the bids ran up to $75,000 or $80,000, and how the advertisements for bids were so ingenuously arranged that only one man in America could intelligently sub- mit a bid, and also explains the relations between the Salem and Portland bidders. Perhaps he can explain away the story published last week in the Madras Pioneer, and perhaps may flounder in the mire attempting to do so. The taxpayers are assured, in one is- sue of the Journal that the rate will be lower than heretofore — “a material re- duction.” In another issue it is explained that the rate will be 19 and 1/2 mills as against 21 last year. Again it is admit- ted that the valuations are raised from $3,000,000 to $6,000,000 in the new as- sessment. … It is not up to the editor of the Jour- nal to explain that he approves the ring methods and stand in with them or to admit that, being a new man in the county, he did not know the game but was told what to do by the gang. Let there be light. 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. 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 reject poetry, personal at- tacks, form letters, letters submitted elsewhere and those appropriate for other sections of The Bulletin. Writers are limited to one letter or guest col- umn every 30 days. Your submissions should be between 550 and 650 words; they must be signed; and they must include the writ- er’s phone number and address for ver- ification. We edit submissions for brev- ity, grammar, taste and legal reasons. We reject those submitted elsewhere. Locally submitted columns alternate with national columnists and commen- taries. Writers are limited to one letter or guest column every 30 days. Please address your submission to ei- ther 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 Col- umn P.O. Box 6020 Bend, OR 97708 Fax: 541-385-5804 Let’s fire college admission officers, commit to lottery system BY CATHY O’NEIL Bloomberg A fter yet another spring in which millions of American kids endured the anxiety of discovering whether their chosen col- leges had accepted them, pundits are yet again lamenting the absurdity and social ills of the process. Why should a cabal of admissions officers hold so much sway over high-school students’ self-esteem and access to the elite? Allow me to offer a radical solution: Fire the functionaries and use random selection instead. I’m not the first to suggest this. The progressive foundation New America has even made the idea — specifically, adopting lottery admissions at highly selective universities — part of its plan to achieve greater diversity in higher education. There could be a weak no- tion of who is “qualified” — say, a high school degree and a minimum grade- point average. Beyond that, selection would be publicly and provably ran- dom. Never mind optional standard- ized tests. If you show interest, your name goes in a big hat. One downside is that applications to the most selective colleges would soar, causing acceptance rates to plunge and leaving the “strongest” candidates with little chance of getting into their cho- sen schools. The kids who struggled to get perfect grades, who spent their high school years getting really good at obscure yet in-demand sports, the leg- acies and the offspring of big donors, would lose their advantages. That said, the positives would be immense. Preferences for legacies, for sports admissions, for kids whose parents can afford tutoring to boost grades and test scores — all contrib- ute mightily to inequality. The simple qualification standard would take the pressure off students to conform to the prevailing definition of the ideal candidate. They’d be free to be kids again, smoking pot and getting laid in between reading Dostoyevsky and writing bad poetry. Or pursuing the sports and disciplines that actually in- terest them. But what if the kids who got in couldn’t afford to attend? What if the colleges couldn’t bring in enough money to pay all their administrators and maintain all their cafeterias and rock-climbing walls? Some economiz- ing might be in order. For one, leav- ing admissions to the luck of the draw would obviate the need for the bloated departments that currently run the process. Best of all, random selection would immediately boost the diversity that colleges say they’ve been seeking to achieve. Colleges wouldn’t have to worry about fighting claims of racial discrimination in the Supreme Court because by construction the admis- sions process would be nondiscrim- inatory. No more “soft” criteria. No more biased tests. Just blind chance. If some schools went for it and oth- ers didn’t, the result could be a vast, nationwide experiment to test the idea that — as recent research suggests — diversity adds value. The gold stan- dard for testing things is to randomly sample two groups, with one subjected to the treatment or policy being stud- ied and the other serving as a control. I’m sure some private schools would be happy to take the latter role, insist- ing on sticking to the old admissions system. If the experiment demonstrated that diversity is better, and that random selection delivers it, institutions of higher education would be left with a choice: Dump the old system, or admit that they’re really in the business of perpetuating the privileges of wealth, and that all their admissions officers’ talk about inclusion is merely orna- mental. e e Cathy O’Neil is a Bloomberg columnist. She is a mathematician who has worked as a professor, hedge-fund analyst and data scientist. She founded ORCAA, an algorithmic auditing company, and is the author of “Weapons of Math Destruction.”
