. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
Since, as the headline on Josh O'Leary's story suggests, they seek "crowding solutions" and prefer "short-term ideas to building new high school," what option do I have but to oblige?
As a school board member (1998-2001) I offered up a number of ideas in a variety of forums, including a Press-Citizen column every two weeks (collected online here). After a respectful couple years of silence, from time to time since I've written on K-12 issues in this blog or in newspaper columns. (A Boolean Google search on -- "Nicholas Johnson" ("K-12" OR elementary OR "high school") (FromDC2Iowa OR "Iowa City Press-Citizen") -- produces 633 hits, which can't possibly be all mine, but I don't have the time to figure out a more refined search. Or, see links and a Google tool to search either the Web site or blog on the main Web site, http://www.nicholasjohnson.org)
My previous writing on the subject, some of which you can find there, is the best source of my ideas, but here are some overly-summarized snapshots, taken from a blog entry two years ago today:
The place to begin, of course, is by asking, "What are we doing inside these buildings and why?" When the Board was, I thought, moving a little too quickly to ask an architect to "design a school for us," I observed that normally, before enlisting an architect, the client is able to tell him or her "whether they want a courthouse or an outhouse." When high schools are about to burst at the seams is an ideal opportunity to consider reforms and redesign not only of physical buildings but of curriculum, mission, measures, educational philosophy, and output. Following which, hopefully, the latter will determine and drive the former.
If we want to continue to do exactly what we have been doing then, yes, we probably need more space somewhere. But there are numerous options that could produce a higher quality output at a lower per-student cost. Historically, many (but not all) ICCSD Board members, administrators, faculty and parents have shown a disinclination to adopt data-driven, innovative, "best practices." That may well still be the case. But one shouldn't assume that until we discuss them once again.
Of course, to make change politically possible it is essential, in my view, to announce plans/intentions that will not take effect for, say, six or seven years -- with the result that no child now in school would be affected by the proposal. With that in mind:
1. Build more, and smaller high schools. The best data indicates enrollments from, say, 600 to 800 students are ideal. Above that the problems increase: absence, dropouts, drugs, fights and bullying, graffiti and other property damage, teen pregnancy, etc. Increasing the enrollments at City, Tate and West is the exact opposite of the best way to go. Putting construction dollars into expanding them is irresponsible financial management as well as educational lunacy. (The least worst way to go down that ill-fated path would be to use temporaries.)
Question my assertion? As but three supporting examples of the rather overwhelming data and arguments favoring smaller schools in general and smaller high schools in particular, see Roger Ehrich, "The Impact of School Size," (with "Factors Affected by School Size" and some 13 referenced works); U.S. Department of Education, "School Size: Archived Information;"Karen Irmsher, "School Size," College of Education, University of Oregon, Clearinghouse on Educational Policy and Management, ERIC Digest 113, July 1997 ("None [of the studies] recommend fewer than 300 or more than 900 students").
Don't have the money to staff a fourth high school right now? It wouldn't be the first time an educational or other institution built first and staffed later. Besides, if you moved some of the students from the two overcrowded, conventional high schools into the new, fourth, high school presumably some faculty would be shifted as well; it's not like all faculty positions would be in addition to those we already have.
West High's capacity is 1800; City High's is 1600; and we'll soon (2017) need space for 4,000 -- coincidentally 600 over our current capacity, a near ideal size for a high school. [This data is from 2009.] Why not build it now rather than wait for a crisis?
2. Consider (a) district-wide after-school activities centers, for, e.g., sports, music. This could be done by designating existing high schools as the District's center for all District high school students interested in a given activity, or a new, multi-purpose center for all activities. (b) Individual schools could retain their own teams and music groups, or (c) if we really want to win state-wide football and other championships year after year, we could have single "Iowa City" teams that draw on all schools.
3. Relieve over-crowding in high schools by adopting the recommendations of the National Commission on the High School Senior Year. It concludes the senior year is largely wasted by students anyway. By getting, say, different groups constituting roughly one-half of the senior class out of the building on any given day you can pretty much eliminate the overcrowded hallways some students (and teachers) now believe to be a problem. So what will they be doing out of the building? A variety of things, from attending courses at the University of Iowa or Kirkwood, to job shadowing assignments, to public policy research on community problems -- any one of which, the data indicates, would eliminate the need for construction costs, reduce personnel costs, and increase the benefits to students.
[The following three numbered comments primarily involve elementary school innovation, but are otherwise of related relevance:]
4. In elementary schools equalize class size, building utilization, boundary equity, while easing the burden on administrators, with the "cluster school" concept -- with three or four elementary schools to a cluster. Each school would have a "lead teacher," and the cluster would have one administrator/"principal." Some 50-to-70% of the enrollment for each would come from within a circle around that school; a population guaranteed attendance at that school. The rest would come from (a) within the much larger circle around all three or four schools, but outside the schools' smaller circles, and (b) from the areas beyond all the elementary schools' large circles. Those students could be assigned to schools at the discretion of the Administration, in an effort to balance the assignment of low income students, or achieve other goals.
5. If there would still be gross disparities in the percentages of low income students in each school, bus them the minimum distances necessary to achieve near parity of distribution.
6. And, of course, as COPE-Iowa suggests, make an equal effort with junior high schools and high schools with regard to percentage utilization of each building, and distribution of low income students.
Of course, this is not an essential element of the cluster school approach. If the District's stakeholders would prefer to keep, or make worse, the disparity in the number of low income students in each school, it would also be possible to adjust the inequity up or down as preferred.
7. Exhibit a little more willingness to "think outside the boxes" than we've usually had. I'm told last evening's [March 30, 2009] meeting produced a couple: (a) make one of the junior highs a K-12 school. (There's Iowa City precedent in the University Elementary and High School, now "North Hall," that operated from the early 20th Century through the early 1970s.) (b) Move the 9th graders from West into the west-side junior high buildings. I'm not suggesting either of these suggestions would represent nirvana; but they do represent the kind of creative thinking about alternatives that we have failed to fully explore.
8. Someone needs to provide a little reality and tough talk for Iowa City's parents. The Iowa City Community School District is a public educational system, funded by all property tax payers regardless of whether they have children in school or not. I'm happy to pay my share, and probably most are willing to do so. As the bumper sticker has it, "if you think education's expensive just wait 'til you start paying for ignorance." Everyone benefits by living in a community with a well educated population.
But parents whose children are in the public schools are getting the benefit of an essentially cost-free education for their kids that would be at least $10-20,000 a year in a private school -- an amount that some could afford to pay now (and a fraction of what they will later be paying for a child's undergraduate and graduate tuition). That doesn't mean all of Iowa City's kids shouldn't get the best public education we can provide, that their parents shouldn't be kept in the loop on educational policy and future decisions, or that they shouldn't be listened to, or are not entitled to being treated with dignity and respect by the District's administrators, teachers and staff.
In fact, parental involvement in the schools, monitoring students' homework, attending teacher conferences, considering a run for school board or other volunteer work in the schools, and attending a meeting like the one at Parkview March 30, are one of the most important factors in a child's academic success. So parental advocacy for students is natural, to be expected, and should even be encouraged.
But none of that means that parents can have it all; they cannot dictate District decisions (as they might at a private school). Professions of a sense of entitlement are misplaced. In a public school system district boundary lines may need to be redrawn for the sake of district-wide equity and efficiency in ways parents would not have chosen, courses may not be offered that a parent would like to have, days and hours of school schedules may change, and students may be bused in, or out, of schools -- including their own children -- in ways that cause the parents minor (or even major) inconvenience.
9. These points are nothing more than examples. I claim neither expertise in the profession nor graduate degrees in "education." But that only strengthens my point. All I know I picked up from the writings of those who have done the research and have the credentials -- including ICCSD teachers and administrators. If even I can learn something about K-12 operations, anyone can. It doesn't require advanced degrees; it doesn't require attending conferences. It just requires the desire to make our K-12 system the best it can be, plus some imagination and time spent with Google and the Internet. Trust me, you'll be surprised with how much is available and the number of times you'll be saying, "Wow! I didn't know about that. Why aren't we doing that?"
There's a lot there to discuss, debate (and probably dismiss) I realize. But it's some of what I've thought about as a school board member and since. (And of course see "Long Range Planning Process and Parameters, An ICCSD Board Document," Approved April 11, 2000, which I played a major role in drafting.)
Three years ago, when Iowa's football program was also singled out for its players' criminal records, I wrote in this blog,
I've suggested in blog entries here before, but it bears repeating that in addition to whatever else the Athletic Department may be doing to improve its criminal record, it might give a little more attention to who it's recruiting.
And, No, I don't mean that a teenage athlete's single indiscretion should bar his or her entering our program. And I don't mean we should be probing in depth the private lives of potential recruits. And I understand that juvenile court records are not always available. And, Yes, I agree that living in a community like Iowa City, the added maturity of a couple of years, and a strong and positive relationship with the right coach can sometimes turn lives around.
But I do think it might be appropriate to make at least some greater effort to find out, before we bring them here, if those we are recruiting have already established patterns of anti-social and criminal behavior, and a disrespect for law, such that the data indicates the mathematical odds are it is likely to continue.
Today's SI/CBS report reveals that the failure to investigate recruits' criminal records, which I highlighted three years ago, is in fact a central cause of the problem.
Among the 25 schools in the investigation, only two -- TCU and Oklahoma -- perform any type of regular criminal background searches on recruits. But even TCU and Oklahoma don't look at juvenile records. . . .
Yet it wouldn't take much for schools to access this information. Take Florida, for example. The Sunshine State is not only one of the nation's largest football hotbeds, it also has the nation's most open public records law. Through the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, anyone can check a person's complete criminal history -- including many juvenile arrests -- for $24. . . .
But Barta said he has some reservations about the idea, noting that screening potential recruits and conducting background checks might not be the most effective way to keep athletes out of legal trouble.
“Maybe this will provide us another opportunity to open the discussions,” Barta told The Daily Iowan in a phone interview. “If it would help guarantee us that we wouldn’t have student-athletes making bad decisions, I certainly would consider it. I don’t know whether it would accomplish that, however.”
Not "the most effective"? He'll only consider improvements if they will "guarantee us that we wouldn't have student-athletes making bad decisions"? Which of his present approaches to the problem are "the most effective"? What does he have in mind that would "guarantee" no more "bad decisions"? How has his current approach to these problems been working for him? Why would you not want to consider advance information that is easily available to you before bringing a recruit on campus? Even if you do decide to go ahead and recruit with scholarship a player with a number of serious felony convictions, wouldn't it be helpful to know of that record ahead of time in arranging for the support and additional attention that might benefit the player (not to mention other students and the community)?
And so it was that four days later the Press-Citizen reported, in a little-noticed, small story on its back pages, that the basketball program both (1) "decide[d] to go ahead and recruit with scholarship a player with a number of serious felony convictions," and that (2) "it [would] be helpful to know of that record ahead of time. . .."
Here is that story. (Because I see no need to further implant future Google searches on the athlete's name with his criminal record, I refer to him simply as "the athlete.")
University of Iowa officials conducted an extensive background search on [a] 25-year old junior college basketball recruit . . . before allowing him to take an official visit over the weekend, [the athlete's] junior college coach said Monday.
According to HawkeyeInsider.com, Iowa coach Fran McCaffery reportedly has offered [the athlete] a scholarship despite [his] criminal background that includes spending nearly four years in prison after pleading guilty to robbery.
"They did their background work, absolutely," said [the athlete's coach] . . . this season. "We had paperwork here, and we sent the paperwork out to them."
[The] robbery charge stems from an incident in December 2003 in his hometown . . ..
[The athlete], who was 18 at the time, also was charged with malicious wounding and use of a firearm, which are felonies, stemming from the same incident. But he ultimately pleaded guilty to the robbery charge and served 37 months in prison.
[He] now is a sophomore at [the junior college] and has emerged as a Division I recruit.
He averaged 20 points and 10 rebounds this season, and the 6-foot-5, 220-pound combo guard has schools such as Iowa, Penn State and Iona pursuing him.
"To me, this is what I say to all the coaches; he made a mistake when he was 18 years old," [the athlete's coach] said. "He's now 25. Enough. He's a great kid and let's move on."
[He] also was arrested for a misdemeanor assault in January, but the charge later was dropped.
"It was nothing," [his coach] said without being specific.
[The coach] said Iowa's relationship with [the athlete] started in January when McCaffery called the coach] at home asking about [him].
McCaffery was not aware of [the athlete's] criminal record, but [the coach] said he was upfront and honest with McCaffery during their initial phone call.
Asked how McCaffery responded, [the coach] said:
"He said 'Well, let me see.' And he went and checked with some people and he made another call back and said, 'We're going to proceed a little bit further.'
"And as we proceeded a little bit further he was always checking with other people."
NCAA rules prohibit UI officials from talking about a specific unsigned recruit. However, UI Athletics Director Gary Barta said Monday that UI officials usually know about a recruit's background before approving a campus visit.
"I would just say that it would be highly, highly unusual for someone to come to Iowa in any sport and us not know about their background," Barta said. "Just think about a high school student-athlete, if they get into trouble during their high school time, it's very likely, especially in today's world that it's going to be in the newspaper. It's going to be documented some way or another.
"So most of the time we know a student-athlete's background and we know whether or not they're going to fit at Iowa."
[The athlete] told HawkeyeInsider.com that Iowa offered him a scholarship about two weeks ago.
"When we make a final decision to offer a scholarship to a young person in any sport, we've spent months and in some cases years trying to evaluate if it's going to be a good fit," Barta said. "I can tell you by the time they decide to bring someone to campus, or we decide to bring them to campus, we know more about them than one can imagine. We don't do official criminal background checks, but we do an extensive background search." . . .
[The athlete] told HawkeyeInsider.com that he has nothing to hide with regard to his past.
"I'm being straight up with everybody about what I've been through," he said. "I'm not hiding from anybody. It made me who I am today."
Now let me be clear. As I wrote in 2008, and quoted above,
No, I don't mean that a teenage athlete's single indiscretion should bar his or her entering our program. And I don't mean we should be probing in depth the private lives of potential recruits. And I understand that juvenile court records are not always available. And, Yes, I agree that living in a community like Iowa City, the added maturity of a couple of years, and a strong and positive relationship with the right coach can sometimes turn lives around.
To which I might add, I also understand that the college education made possible by an athletic scholarship can make an enormous difference in the future lives of many college athletes (with or without the subsequent unlikely role of professional sports in those lives).
But having said all that, what is one to make of Pat Harty's story about this recruit?
Is it the case that Iowa actually does check into the criminal background of recruits, notwithstanding SI's suggestion to the contrary? Or was this the first time it was done?
If the Hawkeyes do routinely check criminal records, why does AD Barta suggest he's reluctant to do what is already being done (unless, as he says, such research could "guarantee" the elimination of all Iowa athletes' criminal activity)? And if Iowa does do the checks, why would the UI not use the criminal record checking services that SI says are readily available? Or does it?
Does this story accurately reflect the Athletic Department's standards with regard to recruiting athletes with felony records? Does it even have such standards; that is, written guidelines regarding the maximum criminal record a potential recruit can have and still be acceptable to the program; taking into account such things as the number of arrests, felony convictions, the seriousness of the crime, and so forth?
How does athletic ability factor into the equation? This athlete averages 20 points a game. What if he'd only averaged 14 points a game? Assume, for illustration only, that 14 points a game is normally impressive enough to warrant recruiting a player. Would a felony record count more heavily against a 14-point player than a 20-point player? Or does the criminal record standard, if one there be, get applied the same to every potential recruit regardless of comparative athletic ability?
How, and in what ways, if at all, does it do risk assessment as a part of this evaluation; that is, the potential impact on the Iowa City community, the welfare of UI students, staff and faculty, and other athletes -- including the adverse public relations for all of the above -- if the past pattern of criminal activity continues in Iowa City? What is the risk the recruit's criminal behavior will continue, and how serious would it be if it does? Intuitively, one assumes an individual's criminal behavior is likely to continue, and that recidivism rates are high. But intuition is often wrong. What data is there, in general, regarding the relationship between past record and future behavior, and to what extent is that taken into consideration in our recruiting process?
And, finally, when the Hawkeyes do recruit convicted felons and bring them to Iowa City, do they, as I ask above, find it "helpful to know of that record ahead of time in arranging for the support and additional attention that might benefit the player (not to mention other students and the community)?" If so, what is the nature of those extra efforts, attention, and support -- above and beyond what is provided to all team members?
I think these are questions, and a story, worth pursuing, by local citizens, University administrators, the media -- and, of course, the Athletic Department.
When I bore some responsibility for the sealift to Vietnam, President Johnson asked me to tour Southeast Asia as a one-man investigative team and report back to him. One of the lines in the report I gave him was, “You can’t play basketball on a football field.” What I meant by that was that there are some circumstances in which war is not a very effective strategy. In Vietnam we had no front line, couldn’t tell our enemies from our allies, didn’t know the language or the culture, and were bound to be viewed as just the latest in a 2000-year string of imperialist invaders (following, most recently, the French). I have since broadened the application of the phrase to any situation in which military force is somewhere between inappropriate and counter-productive – for the kinds of reasons [General Collin] Powell has laid out [in what has come to be called "The Powell Doctrine"].
War, the overwhelming use of military fire power, is (with rare exceptions) seldom a happy choice with humanitarian benefits. Is our recent entry into Libya's civil war one of those happy exceptions?
Every decision to go to war has its unique elements. There is no cookie-cutter strategy for all. There are, however, some cookie-cutter questions worth asking in each case -- Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, and now Libya. I have thought, and written, about them from time to time in the years since Viet Nam. See, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "Ten Questions for Bush Before War,"The Daily Iowan, February 4, 2003, p. A6 (with links to others).
Here is one of the ways I've summarized those questions in the past -- sort of my version of The Powell Doctrine:
* What, specifically, is the goal you’re trying to accomplish?
* Why do you think a military operation will contribute to (rather than impede) its accomplishment?
* What will it require in troops, materiel, lives and treasure to achieve that goal?
* Are you prepared to provide those resources and pay those costs?
* Will the American people support this effort for as long as it takes -- and how long will that be?
* How will we know if we’ve ever been “successful”?
* What, then, will be our exit strategy?
* What will happen when we leave?
* Will that be consistent with our original mission?
Let me make clear what I am, and am not, saying. I'm not saying what we're doing in Libya is wrong, or that Defense Secretary Robert Gates and I know better than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice how the information available to them (and not to me) should have been evaluated and acted upon. The notion of the U.S. watching from the sidelines while tens of thousands of Libyans are slaughtered by their own government is not appealing.
But from what's been available in the world's media it's not clear that all the relevant questions that need resolution before the U.S. enters into war have yet even been asked, let alone answered.
Mike Keefe's got it right. We've seen this movie before.
March 18, 2011, 10:00 a.m. [March 19: Addition of new paragraph 5, "Predicting the Unpredictable," and, following the blog entry, responses to some blog readers' comments.]
Iowans' "Absolute Safety" from Nuclear Disaster Impossible to Achieve
["[W]e need to be willing to invest [in energy]. But if the investment is in nuclear energy, it must be absolutely safe." Editorial, "Nuclear Energy in Iowa Must be Used Safely,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 19, 2011, p. A13.]
What is, what should be, America's and Iowa's nuclear power plant future?
The blog essay I'd like to write on the subject will take more time, over time, than I have to devote to it this morning.
So here are some bullet points that, with luck, I'll be able to expand upon over time.
1. Conservation and Population. Our greatest source of the very cheapest energy is conservation. To focus solely on the energy supply side is like earning and borrowing ever more money each year in the futile effort to satisfy all of one's escalating wants, manipulated by a consumerist culture and economy, rather than budgeting and evaluating one's values and true needs. Conservation examples: encouraging more walking and use of bicycles, where feasible, rather than cars; relying proportionately more on urban and cross-country rail, rather than trucks and cars; transferring the tens of billions of dollars earmarked for the nuclear industry to an aggressive home insulation program.
Even less politically popular than conservation would be zero growth population policies. But, of course, the grim reality is that the world's population has gone from 300 million 2000 years ago, to one billion in 1800, 2 billion by 1927, 3 billion by 1960, 4 billion by 1974, 5 billion by 1987, 6 billion by 1999 -- on to a projected 9 billion by 2050. That's 1800 years to add 700 million, 127 years to add the second billion, 33 years to add the third, 14 years to add the fourth billion, 13 years to add the fifth, and 12 years to reach 6 billion.
There has been a three-fold increase in population just during my lifetime. But of course the increase in energy demand grows even faster than population. As a reader wrote me, "World population continues to increase at an alarming rate. Even if we could completely stop population growth tomorrow, people in India and China want our quality of life. They want cars, big houses, appliances, and lots of fancy electronic things. The need for energy will continue to skyrocket." Even if the world's people continued to use energy, per person, at the rates they do today, imagine the difference it would make if there were only half as many people to use (and waste) energy as there are now.
2. No Utopias. There is no single, perfect answer to our energy needs. No matter what we do, there will continue to be climate change, death and injury to civilian populations, and obviously the workers (e.g., the Japanese nuclear plant workers who are dying and will die as I write; those who died on BP's offshore drilling rig, and in the Massey coal mines, last year; those whose health is affected by polluted air and water; those who will suffer property damage, injury and death from exploding natural gas pipelines).
3. The Mix. We will undoubtedly continue to draw upon a mix of sources. Were we to put a multiple of present resources behind wind, solar, biomass, and hydro (which are not devoid of downsides) they could contribute a great deal more than they do now. But for the foreseeable future we are going to continue to have a significant reliance on coal, oil, natural gas -- and nuclear (now providing about 20% of our electric energy).
4. Risk Assessment. Assessing the risk of any event, from falling downstairs to a nuclear disaster, involves, among others, at least two factors: (a) What are the odds, the likelihood, that the event will occur? (b) If it does occur, how serious (i.e., costly in property damage and human life and health) would it be?
There are about 442 operating nuclear reactors in the world; four failed in the Fukushima Daiichi Plant. That is one percent of the world's reactors. Individuals will differ as to how likely a risk that is. But few would differ on the potential seriousness of the consequences should it occur. Coal mining and offshore oil drilling also pose risks to the environment and human life; the likelihood of their occurring are greater than for a nuclear disaster; but the quantity of the impact on human life and health is much less than a nuclear disaster when they do occur.
5. Predicting the Unpredictable. Whether dealing with possible terrorist threats to our airline industry, or the next big thing to threaten the safety of a nuclear reactor, it's much easier to respond to the last threat than to anticipate the next. One airline passenger puts a bomb in his shoe, and the next two million passengers have to take their shoes off before boarding. It's like the southern folktale, "The Story of Epaminondas and His Auntie." (E.g., Epaminondas brings home cake in his hand, turning it to crumbs, and is told he should have put it under his hat. The next day he's sent for butter, brings it home under his hat, where it melts down his face. The pattern continues.)
We're always working on the last threat, rather than preparing for the next. Was a nuclear power plant built to withstand a 7.2 magnitude earthquake "safe"? Sure -- until it's hit with a magnitude 9 earthquake, followed by a tsunami. We can build nuclear reactors to withstand the threats we have either dealt with before, or those we can imagine. But ironically, the very fact there have been so few nuclear reactor disasters means that it is even more difficult to predict what may trigger the next one. All we can know with certainty is that it will probably involve an event that no one predicted.
6. Decommissioning. Like natural gas pipelines that can corrode or otherwise increase the risk of ruinous explosions and fires with the passage of time, so do nuclear reactors. Among other things, the bombarding nuclear activity and heat can weaken the safety structures. Some engineers are suggesting the Fukushima reactors either were scheduled for decommissioning, or should have been, before now. Apparently, a forty-year operating life (which these had) is close to the outer reaches of safe operation. That would mean that the reactors in the U.S. that were constructed prior to 1971, which is a goodly number of them, are due to be decommissioned -- or, as in Germany, at least shut down and subjected to a very, very thorough stress and safety check (an approach rejected by the President and nuclear industry). Not incidentally, decommissioning is a lengthy and costly process, which is but one of the reasons the profit-driven nuclear and electric utility industries have a motive for pushing their luck.
7. Corruption and Capture. Warnings tend to be ignored. Massey's safety record was well known by government and within the industry. Ditto for BP. Ditto for nuclear. In the 1960s, GE's Mark I -- the reactor built at Daiichi -- was touted as a more economical source of nuclear power. Engineers inside and outside the company warned that the cost savings increased safety hazards. Some predicted years ago the precise scenario we have been witnessing over the last ten days in Japan.
In the case of BP, the "regulatory" agency employees were literally sleeping with the industry, while accepting on faith BP's representations regarding the safety of its operations. As a rough rule of thumb, major companies and industries get a return of 1000-to-one on their campaign contributions; give a million, get a billion. One form of that return is watered down, or non-existent, regulation as a result of Congressional, or Presidential intervention.
Unfortunately, this can also take the form of public officials essentially echoing industry propaganda. It was only days before the BP loss of life and ecological disaster that President Obama was assuring Americans that, because of technological improvements, any harm from offshore drilling was virtually impossible. More recently, the President and his Administration have been touting both the necessity and safety of his multi-billion-dollar push for more nuclear power plants. Not incidentally, he has recently appointed the CEO of GE -- the company that stands to gain the most from increased nuclear power plant construction (and whose officers were major Obama campaign contributors, not to mention the executives of MSNBC) -- to a top White House position, while essentially ignoring the ongoing, and unresolved, problems associated with nuclear waste disposal.
8. Increased Nuclear Safety Possible, but Unlikely. There is much that can be done to decrease -- not eliminate, but decrease -- the risk of nuclear disaster. Examples might include stronger containment vessels, removing (or at least not putting new) reactors that are close to major urban centers, drinking water supplies, or seismic fault lines. Unfortunately, for the reasons set forth above (7. "Corruption and Capture") such measures are unlikely to be as vigorously pursued as good science and rational policy would dictate.
9. Who pays? Not incidentally, it is we, as utility ratepayers and taxpayers, who pay for nuclear generated power plants. They are essentially a freebee for shareholders. Sometimes ratepayers must pay in advance of construction; always they will pay eventually in higher rates; and always they will pay as taxpayers following a major disaster. It's another example of "free private enterprise for the poor and socialism for the rich."
Moreover, there's a lesson to be learned from the lack of "free market" response to the nuclear "opportunity," even with billions of dollars from Washington. The relatively low price of domestic natural gas, the enormous (multi-billion-dollar) cost per reactor, the unsolved problem of nuclear waste, and the enormous safety concerns (even if taxpayers pick up most of the economic costs of disasters) have discouraged potential investors from building nuclear power plants over the past couple decades. Sometimes, as citizens, we need to listen to the marketplace in shaping public policy -- even if, as ratepayers and taxpayers, we are willing to be snookered by the utilities and their kept public officials.
_____
[The author of an anonymous comment on this blog says, in part, "To verify my sincerity I can tell you that I live within 10 miles of a plant similar to the ones in Japan except for a few important facts. 1. It is not on a fault line. . . ."
Now I'm not about to predict an earthquake in Iowa, or that if one were to occur Iowa's nuclear power plants would be at risk. After all, how could I know? Besides, the 1811 earthquake epicenter was somewhat south of Iowa, between Missouri and Illinois. But I do note that three months ago FEMA thought an earthquake in this region is "a significant risk today."
The [1811] earthquake took place in the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ), which is the site of several of the largest historical earthquakes to ever strike the continental U.S. and remains a significant risk today. . . . The earthquake caused strong shaking throughout the central U.S. . . . its impacts were felt as far away as Washington and Ohio . . . [and] caused large areas to be uplifted or dropped down in elevation.
Since then, the regions along the NMSZ have experienced explosive growth in both population and infrastructure. Another series of earthquakes with the magnitude of the 1811 earthquakes could prove catastrophic to the region.
The same comment author says, "The biggest difference [between the nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan, and the one in Palo, Iowa] is that in the U.S. we NEVER put 6 reactors in one place. When this is done you just end up with a problem waiting to happen." However, the March 19, 2011, Gazette reports that Palo, where there is already a 37-year-old reactor, is at least one of the possible sites for a second reactor. The story details some of the advantages of putting a new one there, but omits to mention the increased risks noted by the comment author. Rick Smith, "MidAmerican downplays mention of Palo as nuke site, but some say it makes good sense,"The Gazette, March 19, 2011, p. A1.]
Congressman King Poses Threat to National Security
Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisc.; 1908-1957) "was noted for making claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the United States federal government and elsewhere. Ultimately, McCarthy's tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led him to be censured by the United States Senate. . . . Today the term ["McCarthyism"] is used more generally in reference to demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents." "Joseph McCarthy," wikipedia.org.
Concern for our country's national security is not only appropriate for members of Congress, it is one of their highest responsibilities.
But doing so by focusing on the members of a single ethnic group or religion has the appearance of a pursuit fueled more by prejudice at best, or political strategy uber alles without regard to consequences at worst, than thoughtful protection of Americans.
Let's take a look at security, terrorism, and other threats to Americans in context.
President Bush at one time said that those who finance, or “harbor” terrorists and their training camps, are as much our enemy as those who attack us.
OK, but surely we don't want to argue that it is only "terrorism" when others do it to us. And yet, if not, how do we justify "harboring" -- to use President Bush's word – the American Catholics who were financing terrorist acts of the IRA against Protestants in Ireland?
What about the "harboring" of our former "School of the Americas" (“SOA”) training camp in Georgia? It's trained those we've called "freedom fighters," and others might call “terrorists,” in Central and South America.
School of the Americas Watch charges that, "Graduates of the SOA are responsible for some of the worst human rights abuses in Latin America.” Does that make the former School of the Americas a terrorist training camp?
Apparently our government thinks not. At least there was no known plan to bomb the State of Georgia -- to be distinguished from our military forces sent to the Republic of Georgia.
Should we have bombed the State of Idaho [Timothy McVeigh's residence] after the Oklahoma City bombing?
"Terrorism" is not the only, or even the worst, threat to our security and well being. Just ask the Japanese. "March 11 Earthquake and Tsunami," March 11, 2011. No terrorists were involved in that disaster.
As noted in that blog entry, one of the most useful inquiries Congress might undertake is a study of what we can learn from the Japanese preparation for, and response to, such disasters. Why, and in what ways, are they seemingly so much better organized and responsive than we were in our response to, say, Katrina? Alan Greenblatt, "Japanese Preparedness Likely Saved Thousands," NPR, March 13, 2011.
What is our government doing, for example, in the face of the U.S. chemical industry's resistance to security measures designed to prevent, or at least minimize, the consequences of spills of toxic chemicals or gases? "DHS eager to start monitoring chemical plant safety," DHS, Homeland Security Newswire, February 23, 2006 ("We have been critical of the chemical industry’s evasion of responsibility for the public welfare, and its stubborn resistance, until very recently, to any meaningful security measures in its more than 15,000 U.S. plants, including the 400 or so which pose the highest risk of mass-casualty catastrophes. . . . The problem now is that Congress has not yet passed legislation to extend DHS regulatory authority over chemical plants.").
It was a mite ironic that, at the same time Rep. King was attacking Muslims, the President and Mrs. Obama were hosting a conference at the White House on bullying. Jackie Calmes, "Obamas Focus on Antibullying Efforts,"New York Times, March 11, 2011, p. A18. Terrorism? Make no mistake, to a young child it is -- as the occasional suicide makes clear. (Not incidentally, "[Timothy] McVeigh claimed to have been a target of bullying at school and that he took refuge in a fantasy world where he retaliated against those bullies." Timothy McVeigh, wikipedia.org.)
And to the extent that, what let us call "extremists," engage in bombing or other use of force in attacking civilians at random, any rational and fair look at the problem requires a much broader view than King's focus on one religious group -- as R.J. Matson so colorfully explains:
If you can't read the text, Matson shows "Chairman Peter King" connecting the dots that spell "Muslims," while saying "All of those other dots don't need connecting" -- the dots related to "Anti-abortion zealots" (some of whom advocate assassinating abortion doctors), "Right-wing militias," "IRS haters," "Neo-Nazis" and "Al-Qaida."
An organization that has for years tracked homegrown terrorism is the Southern Poverty Law Center. As one of its recent reports notes, notwithstanding "historic Republican gains, the early signs suggest that even as the more mainstream political right strengthens, the radical right has remained highly energized. In an 11-day period this January, a neo-Nazi was arrested headed for the Arizona border with a dozen homemade grenades; a terrorist bomb attack on a Martin Luther King Jr. Day parade in Spokane, Wash., was averted after police dismantled a sophisticated anti-personnel weapon; and a man who officials said had a long history of antigovernment activities was arrested outside a packed mosque in Dearborn, Mich., and charged with possessing explosives with unlawful intent. That’s in addition, the same month, to the shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, an attack that left six dead and may have had a political dimension." Mark Potok, "The Year in Hate & Extremism, 2010," Southern Poverty Law Center, Intelligence Report, Issue Number 141, Spring 2011.
Nor are things getting better. As the Southern Poverty Law Center reports,
"Hate groups topped 1,000 for the first time since the Southern Poverty Law Center began counting such groups in the 1980s. Anti-immigrant vigilante groups, despite having some of the political wind taken out of their sails by the adoption of hard-line anti-immigration laws around the country, continued to rise slowly. But by far the most dramatic growth came in the antigovernment 'Patriot' movement — conspiracy-minded organizations that see the federal government as their primary enemy — which gained more than 300 new groups, a jump of over 60%."
A genuine, honest, look at the range of threats confronting Americans might be useful, depending on how it was done. Focusing on a single religion -- especially in a way that only strengthens Al Qaida, and any extremists tempted to join them -- is not.
My heart goes out to friends, indeed all, in Japan and the Pacific Rim
This video from NHK provides some sense of the damage wrought by the 10-meter waves as they hit one of Japan's cities, Sendai (in Miyagi Prefecture), following the 8.9 earthquake -- the worst in all of Japan's recorded history (and fifth worst in the history of the world).
Thanks to BBC World Service, I was able to follow the news on radio throughout the night, almost from the first reports.
Miraculously and thankfully, there appears to have been radically less damage (and death toll) from the earthquake than would be expected, with apparently almost all of Tokyo's high rise buildings still standing -- as a result of Japanese architecture,engineering, building codes, and lack of corruption among those charged with their enforcement.
While our thoughts are with the dead, injured, their families, and all caught up in this natural disaster, there are also lessons here for America's response to disasters, and the agencies charged with that responsibility, such as the Department of Homeland Security, and FEMA. How Japan has responded today is a case study that those agencies should study closely and embed in their planning and training programs: the advance preparation, the almost instantaneous response and seemingly well organized and smooth coming together and working together of all conceivably relevant institutions and individuals, the relative calm and cooperation of the population, and the transparency and fulsome reporting by means of a variety of technology of what information sources knew when they knew it.
There is now, and will continue to be, no shortage of the still unfolding global news services' coverage in video, still pictures, on-scene reports, and mounting death toll. (I'm currently watching the live feed from the English language NHK World, carried by MSNBC.) So there's no real purpose or need to my trying to provide a running report and commentary here.
We're Number Two! We're Number Two! (bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Sports Illustrated and CBS News have once again brought some national attention to the Hawkeye football program -- publicity we could have just as well done without. Jeff Benedict and Armen Keteyian, "College Football and Crime,"Sports Illustrated, March 2, 2011.
Last time it was the hospitalization of 13 players following a workout, when neither the Athletic Director nor the Coach had much to say initially. "Crisis Communications 101; There Are Three Steps," February 14, 2011.
As the report characterizes the highlights of its findings:
Story Highlights
A six-month SI/CBS News investigation ran criminal background checks on Top 25
Of 2,837 players, 7% had criminal records; 8.1% of scholarship players in trouble
Only two of Top 25 schools did background checks; none checked juvenile records
Thankfully, the University of Pittsburgh, not Iowa, was number 1. Iowa was actually tied for second place with Arkansas.
The SI/CBS report is chilling in its revelations of the serious crimes committed by athletes before as well as after arriving on campus: "Of the 277 incidents uncovered, nearly 40 percent involved serious offenses, including 56 violent crimes such as assault and battery (25 cases), domestic violence (6), aggravated assault (4), robbery (4) and sex offenses (3). In addition there were 41 charges for property crimes, including burglary and theft and larceny."
And note that in its chart the report only counts the number of players, not offenses. Moreover, it does not include players cut from the team because of their criminal behavior. Nor does it provide a report of the school's criminal record over a period of years.
Three years ago, when Iowa's football program was also singled out for its players' criminal records, I wrote in this blog,
I've suggested in blog entries here before, but it bears repeating that in addition to whatever else the Athletic Department may be doing to improve its criminal record, it might give a little more attention to who it's recruiting.
And, No, I don't mean that a teenage athlete's single indiscretion should bar his or her entering our program. And I don't mean we should be probing in depth the private lives of potential recruits. And I understand that juvenile court records are not always available. And, Yes, I agree that living in a community like Iowa City, the added maturity of a couple of years, and a strong and positive relationship with the right coach can sometimes turn lives around.
But I do think it might be appropriate to make at least some greater effort to find out, before we bring them here, if those we are recruiting have already established patterns of anti-social and criminal behavior, and a disrespect for law, such that the data indicates the mathematical odds are it is likely to continue.
Today's SI/CBS report reveals that the failure to investigate recruits' criminal records, which I highlighted three years ago, is in fact a central cause of the problem.
Among the 25 schools in the investigation, only two -- TCU and Oklahoma -- perform any type of regular criminal background searches on recruits. But even TCU and Oklahoma don't look at juvenile records. No school does, even though football and basketball players are among the most high-profile representatives of a university. (Of the 25 schools, only Virginia Tech did any type of background checks on admitted students, and admissions questionnaires at more than half the other universities ask applicants if they have ever been arrested.)
Yet it wouldn't take much for schools to access this information. Take Florida, for example. The Sunshine State is not only one of the nation's largest football hotbeds, it also has the nation's most open public records law. Through the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, anyone can check a person's complete criminal history -- including many juvenile arrests -- for $24.
Using this service, SI and CBS News checked all 318 Florida-based players in our sample. Thirty-one players (9.5%) had a criminal record. Twenty-two of those players had a juvenile record. Their juvenile offenses included felonies such as armed robbery, assault, domestic violence and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
Despite the easy access to this information, not a single school contacted by SI uses the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to check the criminal backgrounds of the players recruited from the state of Florida -- not even Florida, Florida State and Miami.
The report goes on to provide an illustration of what such a simple check could have revealed about one player.
On March 22, 2010, Darling [Antwan Darling, a Miami native and now a freshman linebacker at Cincinnati] was arrested for burglarizing a residence in Miami. That day, 17-year-old Kimberly Lewis was home alone from school sick when she heard two men prowling around the outside of her house, locked herself in a room and called 911 . . .. Miami police responded quickly and Darling was arrested at gunpoint and charged with felony burglary of an occupied dwelling. He subsequently entered a pretrial intervention program and the charge was dropped, clearing the way for him to accept a scholarship to Cincinnati.
But the burglary wasn't Darling's first run-in with the law. In 2006 he was charged with a felony count of firing a weapon in Dade County (which was disposed in juvenile court) and in 2008 he pleaded no contest to possession of marijuana after being arrested by police in Orlando.
When SI contacted Cincinnati for comment on Darling, a football spokesman said he was unaware of the player's arrest in the burglary case. Bearcats coach Butch Jones declined to comment specifically on Darling but said in a statement: "When recruiting a prospective student-athlete, we do our due diligence in exhausting all avenues looking into an individual's background."
Perhaps we need to redefine "due diligence" to the higher level that would require the effort to make a couple clicks on a laptop computer.
Additional commentary:
1. I think both the Iowa AD and Coach are to be congratulated for getting out front on this one, and for avoiding the natural inclination to "blame the media" for the University's bad public relations (something Barta did on the earlier SI criticism of the Hawkeyes handling of the hospitalized players).
2. Witoskey (linked above) reports, "Asked if the university had been treated unfairly by the report, Barta said, 'We are being lumped in and there is no differentiation between a misdemeanor or something more serious on the felony level"; and earlier, "Iowa officials pointed out that 15 of the 18 players were charged with alcohol related infractions, particularly underage consumption."
I think this is a valid criticism of the SI/CBS report -- but without more precise data from all schools one can't say whether or not Iowa was comparatively disadvantaged. And if Barta is including drunk driving as a mere "alcohol related infraction" that may be stretching the point.
When the Press-Citizen listed the violations of football players three years ago, see "Hawkeyes' Legal Troubles," February 25, 2008, below (embedded in "Hawkeyes' Criminal Record Lengthens," February 25, 2008), the list included some underage drinking. But it also included multiple examples of: interference with official acts; public intoxication and disorderly conduct; unauthorized use of a credit card; domestic assault; credit card fraud; shoplifting; drunken driving (at least three); second offense of underage possession of alcohol; public urination; driving with suspended license; failure to show at scheduled court appearance; possession of marijuana in dorm room; running from Coralville police; unlawful possession of prescription drug (oxycodone and carisoprodol) in dorm room and tax stamp violation.
These were from a prior time. They were not what Barta was talking about. But they did exist at one time, and they clearly include offenses more serious (not that underage possession of alcohol is not serious) than mere "alcohol related infractions."
3. The report can also be criticized, I think, for not providing statistics on the comparable criminal arrest statistics for (a) the student population generally at the football teams' schools, as well as (b) the general population within some standard distance from the campus in that community. (Otherwise it's kind of like the media reporting on the stock market stats by revealing the number of points the Dow Jones and S&P have moved, rather than the percentages, when the former is 10 times the points of the latter). When Iowa is ranked the ninth best party school (i.e., alcohol accessibility and quantity consumed) university in the country, it's likely the entire student population may have a higher percent arrest record than some other schools.
4. On the other hand, I think the DI's report of Barta's response to the idea of background checks leaves a good deal to be desired. I cannot imagine anyone who had read the SI/CBS report coming to his conclusions. The DI reports,
But Barta said he has some reservations about the idea, noting that screening potential recruits and conducting background checks might not be the most effective way to keep athletes out of legal trouble.
“Maybe this will provide us another opportunity to open the discussions,” Barta told The Daily Iowan in a phone interview. “If it would help guarantee us that we wouldn’t have student-athletes making bad decisions, I certainly would consider it. I don’t know whether it would accomplish that, however.”
Not "the most effective"? He'll only consider improvements if they will "guarantee us that we wouldn't have student-athletes making bad decisions"? Which of his present approaches to the problem are "the most effective"? What does he have in mind that would "guarantee" no more "bad decisions"? How has his current approach to these problems been working for him? Why would you not want to consider advance information that is easily available to you before bringing a recruit on campus? Even if you do decide to go ahead and recruit with scholarship a player with a number of serious felony convictions, wouldn't it be helpful to know of that record ahead of time in arranging for the support and additional attention that might benefit the player (not to mention other students and the community)?
Feb. 27: And see, Editorial, "Football Team's Legal Troubles Need to Stop,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 27, 2008, p. A12; and John Gray, "Maybe we should change football chant," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 27, 2008, p. A12 ("With the two recent additions to the long list of Hawkeye football players arrested, perhaps the football fans should change the 'Go Hawks!' chant to 'Make bail!'")
I've suggested in blog entries here before, but it bears repeating that in addition to whatever else the Athletic Department may be doing to improve its criminal record, it might give a little more attention to who it's recruiting.
And, No, I don't mean that a teenage athlete's single indiscretion should bar his or her entering our program. And I don't mean we should be probing in depth the private lives of potential recruits. And I understand that juvenile court records are not always available. And, Yes, I agree that living in a community like Iowa City, the added maturity of a couple of years, and a strong and positive relationship with the right coach can sometimes turn lives around.
But I do think it might be appropriate to make at least some greater effort to find out, before we bring them here, if those we are recruiting have already established patterns of anti-social and criminal behavior, and a disrespect for law, such that the data indicates the mathematical odds are it is likely to continue.
Shame on us, if a part of the reason they have become that way is because the adults in their lives have contributed to these young men's belief that skilled athletes are entitled to special treatment; a culture and law of their own; second, third, fourth and fifth chances; a wink and a nod from coaches, high school principals, and judges -- so long as they can contribute to winning teams.
That doesn't excuse college athletes' behavior, but it does require us to think about the extent to which it is we who have at least contributed to the creation of the problem we confront -- from Little League through professional sports -- including right here in Hawkeye land.
We -- the responsible adults in Iowa City -- can't solve it all by ourselves, but perhaps we could give a little closer look at who we're bringing to town.
Meanwhile, here's the Press-Citizen's list of the football team's record so far:
A list of Hawkeye football players who have had legal trouble since 2007.
Ryan Bain, DL: The 19-year-old junior-to-be was charged with interference with official acts, public intoxication and disorderly conduct April 15, 2007. Bain transferred to Akron before the 2007 football season because he wanted to improve his chance of starting.
Anthony Bowman, WR: The 19-year-old sophomore was charged with unauthorized use of a credit card, a Class D felony, on Aug. 18, 2007. On Dec. 26, 2007, he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of credit card fraud, an aggravated misdemeanor, and was granted deferred judgment. Bowman was suspended for the 2007 season, but he has rejoined the team and will have three years of eligibility remaining.
Dana Brown, RB: The 20-year-old sophomore was charged with domestic assault on Oct. 16, 2007. He was dismissed from the football team.
Dominique Douglas, WR: The 19-year-old sophomore was charged with unauthorized use of a credit card, a Class D felony, on Aug. 18, 2007. On Dec. 4, 2007, Douglas pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of credit card fraud, an aggravated misdemeanor, and was granted deferred judgment. He also was charged with stealing $30 worth of DVDs from Wal-Mart, which he pleaded guilty to in November 2007. The judge ordered Douglas to serve two years probation as well as pay $221.53 in restitution, a $625 civil penalty and other court costs. He was removed from the team. Douglas returned to his hometown of Detroit and is attending community college.
Ben Evans, WR: The 19-year-old red-shirt freshman was charged with drunken driving on July 30, 2007.
Tyler Gerstandt, TE: The 20-year-old walk-on football player was cited for underage possession of alcohol on May 18, 2007. The simple misdemeanor carried a $200 fine for a second offense. Gerstandt was cited for underage possession of alcohol in January 2006, according to Iowa online court records.
Clint Huntrods, long-snapper: The 22-year-old senior was charged with public urination, interference with official acts and public intoxication Sept. 6, 2007 after a police officer caught him urinating on a sidewalk. He was dismissed from the team. He issued a written guilty plea Oct. 24, 2007.
Bradley Fletcher, CB: The 21-year-old junior was charged with drunken driving on July 15, 2007. He was suspended for one game.
Arvell Nelson, QB: The 19-year-old red-shirt freshman was charged July 2, 2007, with driving with a suspended license and was scheduled to have his initial court appearance Aug. 16, 2007, but didn’t show. A warrant was issued that day for failure to appear, but Nelson turned himself in to authorities and posted a $545 cash bond Aug. 21, 2007. Nelson was arrested Saturday for possession of marijuana after police found the drug in plain view on top of the desk in his dorm room.
Ricky Stanzi, QB: The 20-year-old red-shirt freshman was charged with underage possession of alcohol on May 5, 2007.
Lance Tillison, S: The 20-year-old red-shirt freshman was arrested Sept. 15, 2007, for drunken driving. Tillison pleaded guilty to the charge in Jan. 4, 2008, in a plea deal. Under the arrangement, Tillison received a deferred judgment with unsupervised probation provided his participation in a substance abuse evaluation within 30 days, attendance of a weekend drunken driving program within 120 days and payment of $625 in fines and court costs. He was suspended for two games.
Ryan Donahue, P/PK: The 19-year-old red-shirt freshman was charged with underage possession of alcohol on Feb. 15, 2008.
Brandon Myers, TE: The 22-year-old junior was arrested Dec. 23, 2007, and was charged with public intoxication and interference with official acts after running from Coralville police. Court records show Myers pleaded guilty to the charges the same day he was arrested and was charged $350 for the two offenses.
James Cleveland, WR: The 19-year-old was arrested Saturday for two counts of unlawful possession of a prescription drug and a tax stamp violation after police allegedly found 21 doses of oxycodone and 24 doses of carisoprodol in his dorm room desk.
# # #
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
