DONE

Exhausted. Dead-tired. Drained. Enervated. Fatigued. Spent. Debilitated. 

There simply are not enough adjectives in the English language to describe how I feel at the end of this school year. I am in the midst of my 24th year of teaching and am exasperated from the past almost two years. This feeling of exhaustion certainly coincides with the pandemic, however, it is not because of the pandemic itself- which, to be sure, exacerbates the issue. These problems are scion's of the pandemic. The compounding of the issues has begun to wear on not only me but scores of other educators down to the point where we no longer view teaching as a calling but is now nothing short of a penance. As recently as a year ago I knew I would certainly teach beyond 30 years. I might do 35, 37, maybe 40 years. I loved teaching, I loved interacting with students, and the annoyances were tolerable so long as I was in the classroom. Now, however, I am at the point where I find myself saying 'Just six more years'. I know I am not alone. I know there are many in classrooms today saying to themselves 'Just six more months'. This malaise is palpable in schools across the nation. For me, this feeling is not all that prevalent when I walk into my classroom, shut the door and its just me and 25-30 teenagers learning American History. That, for the most part, is still enjoyable. I still love teaching. I still love interacting with students. I still love history. Inside my classroom when the door is shut it is still chillingly exciting and wonderful. It's when the door is open and I step outside of my classroom or the outside world creeps into my classroom that is so very wearing. 

Over the past year and a half teachers have gone from heralded heroes of American society to enemies of society in the eyes of many people. Around this time last year, because I am currently the Vice President of the local teachers union, I was contacted by several people in the community accusing me of being against students because the teachers union was advocating for mandatory masking in the schools as well as maintaining the schedule of only half of the students being in-person with the other half being remote. I answered every email I received, I even had a few meetings with some of these individuals. In every interaction I was always polite, professional, and never attempted to dodge their questions or accusations. I can honestly say some of these individuals did not reciprocate. Most were very nice and and respectful, but not all were. Some accused me of simply not caring about the well being of students. I completely understood the frustrations and angst about online learning. I hated teaching online, and I despised even more teaching in-person and online simultaneously. I wanted nothing more that all students to be back in the classroom everyday, but only when we were reasonably sure it was safe for all. I loathe wearing a mask. It is cumbersome, uncomfortable, hot, and makes it difficult to hear what is being said. I want nothing more than to pitch the mask, but not at the risk of making others mortally sick. However, many people firmly know they know things about what I and other educators believe and want without actually knowing anything about our intents or beliefs. Being attacked in such a grievous manner is certainly taxing mentally and emotionally. It is very wearing.

As students began to return to the classroom- wearing masks I might add- a new bogyman appeared on the horizon, becoming the siren-call for many and placed a new target on educators, particularly American History teachers. Critical Race Theory. Suddenly, many believed, CRT was being taught in elementary and secondary classrooms across the country brainwashing American students turning them into good little Bolsheviks. First, let me be clear that CRT is an academic theory to explain the unfortunate prevalence of and role that racism has played in shaping American society. The theory has been around for decades and is primarily taught in graduate level political science and law classes. It is not taught in public classrooms. Believe me if I had the ability to brainwash my students I would be teaching them to put away their phones and turn in their work, it would not be teaching them to be Anti-American Communists. I have been asked by parents as well as community members if I taught CRT. My response is always the same. I simply reply, "I do not teach CRT. I teach what happened. Some of American history is good and inspiring. Some of it is bad and some of American history is awful and shameful. But good citizens should know the good to use as a blueprint for the future and they should know the bad to know what to not repeat." Racism is a thing, and it has played a role in American society. Slavery existed, it was real. Segregation happened. All are indisputable. No one should ever be taught to be ashamed of the color of their skin or of their nationality, and that does not happen in the overwhelming number of classrooms in the United States and it certainly does not take place in my classroom. However, if teaching and learning about what actually happened in our history is offensive, then the problem is not with schools but rather with individual sensibility. But, because many people believe that schools are destroying the fabric of America, teachers- history teachers in particular- are being targeted and attacked on false charges. When all you want to do is teach, this is beyond demoralizing and dispiriting

Perhaps the last component in all of this are the students themselves. I read an article recently that described them as "feral". This is a very apt description. I still really enjoy them and have a good time with them, however, over the past 18 months they have forgotten how to, for lack of a better term, "student". Since they returned full time this past fall the work ethic, which had become very suspect during remote learning, did not return as hoped. Cell phones which have always been the bane of my teaching have become even more of an issue to the point where the students don't even try to hide the fact that they are on their phones during class. And new to this year, is a wonton disrespect for the school facilities. Bathrooms are being mindlessly destroyed. Fights have become more frequent and brutal. Worse still is the fact that in the past other students would come to get an adult when such boorish acts were being committed, now students response is to get out their cell phones to record these behaviors. These unconscionable actions only compound the other new issues that have sprouted in the last year and a half. Altogether, they become a dispiriting, disheartening, dismal and crushing weight.

Teaching has never been easy. It has always been hard. People know when they enter the teaching profession they won't be paid well, respect is tenuous at best, and everyone is an educational expert willing to give their advice because they were students once as well. None of that has changed, it is still true. What has changed are new pressures and demands being placed upon teachers. Worse still, is that many of these new issues are completely unfounded at best and unfortunately very often completely irrational. Teachers are trained to use logic and rationalism when dealing with problems, but when confronted with aberrant rants the weapons of teachers are of little use. If I could remain in my classroom, with my students and my corner of the educational world, I could happily teach another 10-15 years, it is when my classroom door opens and the world outside slinks in that six years seems so far away. My parting words for my educator friends is this: I know we are all very tired and exhausted. It is real and it is palatable. Winter Break is rapidly approaching. Take advantage of that time. Go home, reconnect with your loved ones and recharge. That's what breaks are for. You sacrifice enough of your time during the school year, don't do it during break. There will always be planning to do, there will always be meetings to attend, there will always be problems to address, but time with those who are most important is limited. Do nothing but enjoy the holidays, your loved ones, and your time off. 

The Suffering of Suffrage

Voting has long been held as a right of citizenship in the United States. However, how voting has been conducted has changed quite a bit over the course of our nation's history. The way we vote has changed several times and more importantly WHO gets to vote has evolved over the last 230 years. What is curious about these revisions is that very often they are created less out of standards of fairness and adherence to the lofty ideals of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence but are more about political benefit to one group over the other. These Machiavellian suffrage maneuvers continue still today as some again begin to question who exactly can vote, when people can vote, and how citizens can cast their vote. 

Early in United States history voting was conducted in a few very different and inexact methods. One way was a method known as viva voce, which means voting by voice. Early on local officials would walk down roads past houses as eligible voters (white, land owning men) stood on top of their houses and shouted their vote as the local magistrate came by their house. This where the saying "shout it from the rooftops" comes from. In larger towns and cities, men would gather at the local courthouse or another central building in the area and would shout their preferences when they were asked how they would vote. Another way voting that was conducted early on would be for all of the men gather at the town square and were told to physically go to one side of the area or the other to show their voting preferences. Whichever side had the most men was the side that won. By the mid 1800s the United States began using paper ballots, however these paper ballots were very different from any paper ballot we would be familiar with now. Initially voters would simply write their choices on a paper and put them in the ballot box. However this was very limiting because knowing how to write was not a given at this time as well as corruptible because if you didn't know how to write you could have someone else write your choices for you and there was no guarantee that your surrogate elector would write out the choices you actually wanted. Eventually parties began to print their own pre-printed ballots with only their candidates names on the ballot. These ballots were then distributed to voters for them to cast. However, this was also corruptible because very often these ballots were distributed at the local saloons or party sponsored picnics which were nothing more than a bacchanalia of free alcohol. Which ever side provided the most free adult beverages would earn the support of the drunken voter. 

With the arrival of the Progressive Era in the late 1800s voting reform came in the way of the "Australian Ballot", a pre-printed ballot with all of the candidates names listed and this ballot was only distributed from the local government, not from political parties. With this reform elections became much more fair and counting far more accurate. As our methods for voting have evolved for the better, the question of  who could actually vote has always been a political football. Any notions of this question being one based upon the desire to fulfill the mandates of democracy, meeting the promises of the Constitution, or other equally noble aspirations is naïve at best. The question of who can vote and the ease of access has, and is still today, rooted in political gains for one side or, at the very least, politically damaging the opposition. 

The first major change in who was able to vote in the United States occurred during the 1820s and 1830s during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. Jackson narrowly lost the 1824 election to John Quincy Adams. Jackson and his supporters- many of whom were poor, uneducated white men- cried foul and accused Adams and Speaker of the House Henry Clay of fixing the election in favor of Adams, the so-called "Corrupt Bargain". Jackson spent the next four years expounding on the rule of the "elites" (educated, land owning men) at the expense of the the "common man". Realizing that by extending the vote would benefit Jackson because there were far more "common men" than elites, Jackson supporters began to get states to repeal the land owning requirement to vote. In 1828, Jackson ran for office again, and with the expansion of voting to almost all white men, not just land owning men, Jackson won the election handily.

Following the Civil War, the franchise was extended to all former adult male slaves in the South. In the 1868 presidential election Republican U.S. Grant won the election thanks in large part to the large black vote for him in the South. Recognizing an opportunity to expand their voting base and possibly begin to dominate American politics, Republicans passed the 15th Amendment in 1870 extending the right to vote to all black men in the United States. As a result, Republicans did begin to dominate American politics as African-American men at that time overwhelmingly voted Republican.

American women suffragettes, who for a long time were also ardent abolitionists, were shocked and repulsed when the 15th Amendment was passed. After all, they argued, white women had always been viewed as citizens whereas African-American men had only been recognized as citizens beginning in 1865 and yet former male slaves got the right to vote before them. Thus, the women's suffrage movement, more motivated than ever, continued their push for the right to vote. This cause was advanced in the early 1900s by the Republican Party, who were growing alarmed at the continuing rise of the Democratic Party on the national level. It was on the vote of the Republican congressional members that the 19th Amendment was passed in 1920. The Republican Party again benefitted from supporting the expansion of the franchise as women overwhelmingly voted Republican in 1920 beginning a decade of Republican domination of American politics.

The next major expansion of voting was again done with eyes on political gain, however, those hopes were not initially realized. In 1971 the 26th Amendment was passed lowering the voting age to 18 years old. The argument was that if young people were old enough to be drafted and sent to war (which they were) and were old enough to drink beer (at that time the drinking age was 18) then young people were old enough to vote. This argument was championed by liberals who were alarmed at the war in Vietnam and the rising popularity of Richard Nixon. Advocates looked at college campuses and the unrest there among young people. If these young people could vote, it was theorized, the war in Vietnam would come to an end and the likes of Richard Nixon would not be elected. However, the hopes were dashed after the passage of the 26th Amendment. Young people who could vote in 1972, did not in large numbers and Nixon was re-elected in one of the greatest margins of victory in American history. In fact, despite having the right to vote for the last 50 years, it was not until the 2020 election that large numbers of young voters actually cast a ballot.

This leads us to the movement taking place today. Unhappy with the election, many Republicans are advocating for laws to restrict access to the ballot claiming this is in the name of "election security". Despite the fact there has not been any evidence produced that shows widespread voting irregularities or fraud. In fact the Department of Homeland Security, whose officials were all Republican nominees, proclaimed the 2020 election the "most secure election ever in the history of the United States". But because the election was a record turn-out (indeed more people than ever before voted in the 2020 election) and Joe Biden won, there of course must have been fraud. Therefore steps must be taken to ensure that all future elections are "safe" and maintain the integrity of our democracy. The way to do this? Restrict access to the ballot box. This is a curious path being taken because, as we have seen, usually political parties have viewed increasing the franchise as the way to increase their political power. Aside from the Jim Crow laws passed in the South following Reconstruction which were aimed at taking away the right to vote from African Americans, political parties have usually wanted to expand not limit the ability to vote. And yet here we are, limiting the number of ballot boxes and voting precincts, not allowing food or water to be given to those waiting in line to vote, and severely limiting if not outright denying early voting. 

So, where do we go from here? I don't really know. I hope contraction is temporary. I hope that decisions are based on verifiable facts, not wild conspiracies. The right to vote is a basic American right. The right to vote shall not be abridged on account of race or sex.

Graduating From The Electoral College: A Primer For January 6th

In The Beginning...

In 1789 delegates from across the states convened in Philadelphia initially with the purpose of  fixing the numerous problems with the Articles of Confederation (our first form of government), soon it became all too apparent that the Articles were beyond worthy of redemption so their collective attentions turned to creating a new government. After a series of compromises and often grueling, bruising debates a new government emerged, a Constitutional Republic. A triumph of the Enlightenment Movement. One of the peculiar features of this new Constitution was the way the President would be chosen. Rather than by a direct vote of the people, the President would be chosen by the vote of electors who would be chosen by the vote of the people in their respective states. The reasons for such a...ahem..."unique" system are equally unique. In short, the Framers were fearful of a direct popular vote. They were worried that "uneducated" citizens (of which most at that time were), who did not understand the concepts or structures of the new Constitution could be swayed by a foreign (or domestic) entity convincing the people to choose a candidate who would be a threat to the interests of the nation, the government, and ultimately its citizens. So to safeguard such a happening, the Electoral College was born. The thought being that the electors would be "educated" citizens, who would recognize these cabals and refuse to allow such a threat to assume the presidency. This was the reason. The need for such an arrangement has been greatly debated and the chorus of debate has only grown louder within the last 20 years. Despite the merits of each sides argument, the Electoral College is still the method by which we chose our president today, and it will be on full display this Wednesday January 6, 2021 when the 117th Congress will officially meet for the first time and officially choose the next President of the United States. 

Here's What Will Happen January 6th

The process for January 6th is outlined and explained in Article II, Section 1. Both Houses of Congress will meet at midday with Vice President Mike Pence presiding. Vice President Pence will then open the certified electoral votes from each state in alphabetical order beginning with Alabama and ending with Wyoming. Once Vice President Pence has opened the certified vote for the state and inspects it for the proper signatures from the state officials of that respective state validating that states electoral votes, he will then hand the certificate to "tellers" (selected members from each house and from both parties), the tellers will then announce the totals to Congress. After the teller reads the certificate any member from either house can stand and object to that state's vote for any reason. Vice President Pence will then ask that member to present their objection in writing and the objection must be supported by a member of both the House and the Senate. If the objection is not in writing or is not signed by a member from both the Senate and the House, Vice President Pence will dismiss the objection and continue on opening and reading the states votes.

However, if an objection meets the above criteria, both houses will retreat to their respective chambers to debate the objection. The debate can take no  more than two hours and each member of the chamber will be allowed no more than five minutes to speak to the objection. At the end of the debate, each house will vote on the objection and a simple majority will carry the vote. At the end of the two hour time limit both house will come together again, for the objection to stand both the Senate and the House must have voted to support the objection. If both do not support the objection, the states electoral votes will stand and be counted. Vice President will then move to the next states certificate. During this process there are not any witness called, no testimony is taken, and any evidence to support the objection is not allowed. An objection is just that; an objection to the votes, nothing else.

Knowing that many Republicans plan to oppose a number of state's electoral votes and that there are a number of members of the House and the Senate to support those objections, what is normally a fairly perfunctory process may very well turn into a very long, drawn out process. So, the question begs: Will these objections be successful in overturning any of the electoral votes and/or overturning the 2020 Presidential Election? In short, the possibility of that happening is virtually non-existent. Remember, for any of these objections to stand and the electoral votes to not be counted, the majority of BOTH chambers must support the objection. That will not happen since the House is controlled by Democrats and in the Senate many Republican Senators have denounced such an effort and have stated they will not vote in favor of any objections. Making any objections to Joe Biden's electoral vote total an exercise in futility.

Has This Happened Before?

There are some instances in the past of electoral votes being questioned. The most notorious election was the election of 1876 when Democrat Samuel Tilden won the majority of votes and more electoral votes than Republican Rutherford B Hayes. However, Tilden did not have enough electoral votes to win the presidency, in dispute were 20 electoral votes from four states: Florida (it always seems to be Florida, doesn't it?), Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oregon. Both parties claimed victory although it seems highly unlikely in post Civil War America that any Republican would win any Southern state. The election was settled when a Republican controlled Congress decided to award the 20 electoral votes to Hayes and end Reconstruction in the South.

In 2001, George Bush narrowly defeated then Vice President Al Gore when he was awarded the electoral votes from Florida. There were several objections raised in Congress to the electoral votes of Florida. Vice President Gore had to rule several objections out of order and ultimately, with the bang of his gavel declared George W. Bush as the next President of the United States.

In 2016, with then Vice President Joe Biden presiding, there were numerous objections raised by Democrats to the election of Donald Trump. Vice President Biden ruled these objections out of order and without merit. Several times during this process, Biden angerly banged his gavel and admonished the Democrats reminding them the election was over.

A Death Knell: My Prediction

I have come to believe that midday on January 6th, 2021 will mark the time of death for the modern Republican Party. The aftermath of the 2020 election has been particularly stressful on the Republican Party. With each challenge, court loss, and controversy it has become increasingly clear; Republicans must decide between complete fealty to Donald Trump to retain his favor or seek to stake some independence from Trump and be labeled as a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only) at best or a traitor at worst. Indeed, Trump has already declared that he will make those Republicans whose loyalty was not complete pay for their infidelity.

The anticipated spectacle of January 6th will complete this split. Republicans will be forced to vote with Trump or the will of majority of American citizens. This will cause, I fear, an irreparable facture of the GOP. You will have the "Trumpers" faction and the "Traditional" Republican faction, which will lead to two distinctly different political parties and the end of the Republican Party. I say this with great sadness as I was a 30+ year proud member of the Republican Party. I truly believe my party will go the way of the Federalists, the Whigs and a host of other political parties whose infighting and questionable political stances doomed it to be remembered only to history.

In Conclusion...

Despite the chaos that it seems will be taking place outside of the Capitol and the histrionics that will be taking place inside the Capitol, Joe Biden will be formally elected as the 46th President of the United States on January 6th and will be inaugurated as such on January 20th.