Jackson Free Press

Only three weeks after his election, Mayor Frank Melton announced that he would like to see all students in Jackson Public Schools tested for drug use. The announcement came at the mayor's second City Council meeting, and he asked the council to study grants and discuss the issue. He said he would prefer that all students grades 6 through 12 be tested, in the interest of fairness.

"The only way that I can know to do it without profiling and selecting certain kids is just to test everybody," said Melton, as reported by WLBT.

Since that announcement, neither the mayor's office nor the city council has said anything more about drug testing publicly, and it is clear that plans for drug testing JPS students are in their earliest stage.
"Nothing has been brought to us at this point," said Jonathan Larkin, vice president of the JPS Board. "We as a district would have to investigate the legal ramifications of any policy."

Peggy Hampton, spokeswoman for Jackson Public Schools, offered a similarly cautious statement. "Because JPS officials have not yet researched student drug testing, we are not acutely aware of the pros and cons."

Melton's office failed to return several calls for further explanation of his drug-testing proposal. However, there are at least two roadblocks to the mayor's proposal. For one, it is unconstitutional. Second, such a plan would be very expensive, costing between $500,000 to $700,000 to test all students only one time.

The Limits of the Law

Under current U.S. Supreme Court precedent, it is unconstitutional to drug test all students in a school, even randomly. For the time being, districts and schools can only test students involved in extracurricular activities or students volunteered by their parents.

Drug testing in public schools is a new phenomenon. It was not until 1995 that the Supreme Court decided in Vernonia School District v. Acton that an entire group of students could be tested. The decision held that student athletes could be tested because drug use puts them at greater risk of injury than other students, since athletes are engaged in physically demanding activities. The court also emphasized that the athletes at the Oregon school in question had become leaders of a student drug culture that had embraced a rapid rise in drug use.

In 2002, the Acton decision was expanded in Board of Education of Pottawatomie County v. Earls to include all students who participate in any extracurricular activity. The decision was contentious, with the vote split five to four. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, while Justice Ruth Ginsburg offered a withering dissent. Thomas argued that schools have a right to invade students' privacy, because schools have a responsibility to protect students, and violators are not referred to law enforcement. Ginsburg protested that neither of the conditions that had been important in the Acton decision, namely the greater risk to athletes and their key role in a rapid rise in rates of drug use, applied to the Earls case.

Whatever the courts allow, it is left to individual communities to decide whether to actually adopt such policies. "The Supreme Court … specifically said they were not deciding on the wisdom of the policy, only whether it was constitutional," said Sheila Bedi, an attorney at the Mississippi Center for Justice specializing in youth issues.

The Money

Drug testing costs schools an average of $42 per student tested, according to the U.S. Department of Education. There are 15,200 middle and high school students in JPS, which is why testing all of them would cost at least $500,000. Only 7,250 of these students participate in one or more extracurricular activities, according to Hampton, so testing all of them once would cost $300,000.

The Rankin County School District, which has just begun drug testing of middle and high school students, is spending $150,000 on its first year of tests, said Assistant Superintendent Hugh Carr.

"We hope to get a federal grant to cover most of that expense, approximately $100,000," Carr said. Over the course of the year, Rankin will test 4,000 students out of a potential pool of 4,500, which includes all students involved in extracurricular activities and those who were volunteered by their parents. If students test positive, they will be suspended from extracurricular activities for 28 days and put into treatment. MEA Drug Testing of Jackson conducts the tests. The company also provides testing for the new program in Philadelphia (Miss.) schools, as well as Pearl and other districts, according to Lori Hamilton, MEA's manager of drug testing for the Jackson area.

If Jackson were to adopt a program with similar costs, it would cost at least $270,000. Federal grants might offset some of those costs, although Rankin County pushed forward with its program without any guarantee of federal money at all. Of course, in a state that ranks 47 out of 50 in per-student education spending, it remains to be seen whether drug testing is the best way to spend the money.

"Let's get pencils and paper and other supplies children need and then we might talk about it," says Oleta Fitzgerald of the Children's Defense Fund. From another perspective, $270,000 would pay the starting salaries of seven substance abuse counselors, assuming a base salary of $35,000. Education has a proven impact on student drug use, while student drug testing does not.

Experimental Surgery?

Proponents of drug testing assume it reduces drug use among students. At a recent meeting on Rankin County's new drug policy, both administrators and parents cited this rationale repeatedly as the most important reason to adopt testing. Yet, there is little scientific research to substantiate the claim. In fact, the largest study to date found that drug testing did not have an impact on student drug use. The study, which was published in the Journal of School Health, compared 76,000 students and was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. A follow-up study the following year confirmed the results.

The only formal study to claim a reduction in drug use was based on a snapshot of six schools and was suspended by the federal government for lack of sound methodology. "Schools should not implement a drug testing program until they're proven to work. They're too expensive. It's like having experimental surgery that's never been shown to work," Linn Goldberg, author of the suspended study, told The New York Times in 2003.

In the absence of scientific evidence, the federal Office of National Drug Control Policy, which supports drug testing, offers anecdotal evidence. For instance, the ONDCP cites the example of a single high school in New Jersey to argue that drug testing reduces student drug use.

"The studies they present in support of testing are generally not scientific articles published in professional journals," says Jennifer Kern, research associate with the Drug Policy Alliance. "Most of them are testimonials by principals of schools, who are major proponents of testing. These are people who have written books, who make the talk show circuit. I'm not questioning their ethics or motivations, but they're hardly disinterested parties."

This has not prevented the ONDCP from mounting cross-country tours promoting student drug testing with vague assurances that it will improve school safety. The Office of National Drug Control Policy did not return several calls for comment.

The Yellow Vial

Urinalysis drug tests yield false-positive results at least 10 percent of the time, according to research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Prescriptions containing codeine have been known to produce positive results for heroin, as Ibuprofen has for marijuana. Even herbal teas and poppy seeds can produce false-positives, according to a report by the House Committee on Government Operations. A confirmation test might correct a false-positive, but in Rankin County, parents must pay for these tests, at a cost of $150. This might be impossible for some families, which could lead to students withdrawing from extracurricular activity rather than bear the burden for further tests.

Hamilton disputes that MEA's testing might lead to false positives. She notes that MEA sends all their samples to LabCorp, which is the only lab in Mississippi certified by the Department of Health and Human Services. Also, any sample that tests positive is then subject to confirmation testing via gas chromatograph/mass spectrometry, which is more accurate and more expensive than urinalysis. Parents must foot the bill only if further testing is requested.

Yet Kern remains skeptical. "The drug testing companies have always painted this very rosy picture of testing. Some companies are better than others, but none of them get 100 percent accurate results, no matter how many times they say they do. They have a strong profit motive to exaggerate their accuracy."

Another concern is that standard urinalysis does not detect OxyContin or inhalants, according to Hamilton. Both of these drugs are increasingly popular among teen drug users, according to the Partnership for a Drug Free America. Urinalysis also fails to detect the use of alcohol, which is by far the most abused drug. It also causes the vast majority of drug-related deaths.

Students who use drugs may be able to defeat drug tests with relative ease. Cocaine can only be detected within a few days of use. Marijuana remains in the body for several weeks, but it can be hidden with nothing more than over-hydration and Vitamin B-12, according to a report by Justin Gombos of Erowid.org. Dozens of legal products claim to mask marijuana in urine samples, and all of them are readily available on the Internet, which teens navigate with ease.

The limitations of urinalysis might even encourage some students to switch to harder drugs. "If a student smokes marijuana on Friday night, a test on Monday will show it. If that same student shoots up heroin instead, the test on Monday won't show anything at all," Kern says.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent?

"We have had very positive feedback from parents in Rankin," Carr says. "In fact, we haven't had one negative comment."

Comments from parents at the recent informational meeting in Rankin County were generally positive, though it is important to note that only four parents attended. There were three times as many administrators and teachers at the meeting.

Both parents who spoke at the meeting were supportive. "If my kid is using drugs, this test will let me know. I want to find out as early as I can, so I can get him help before it's too late," one parent said.

Nevertheless, support may not come so easily in Jackson. Even supporters of student drug testing like Jackson entrepreneur Mark McCreery have questions about how it will be implemented. "There needs to be a real punishment for kids who test positive, or we're wasting our time. … I am also bothered that only those students who are involved in extracurricular activities can be tested. Wait until the end of the day, and you'll see Rankin County bragging that only 2 percent of their students test positive when they've only tested the better students anyway. This is a huge flaw in the testing."

Indeed, Rankin County officials recently announced that the first round of tests failed to produce a single positive result.

"We're excited, andIjust hope it continues. Ithink (drug testing) has definitely been a deterrent,"Carr said.

Of course, it may be that the students who were tested were not doing drugs in the first place.

Research cited by Justice Ginsburg in her dissent from the Earls case found that students who participate in extracurricular activities are already unlikely to develop substance abuse problems. Tenth graders who reported spending no time in extracurricular activities were "49 percent more likely to have used drugs than those who spent one to four hours per week in such activities."

A friend of the court briefing opposed to student drug testing, submitted by the American Pediatric Association and the National Education Association, among others, states: "There is … a demonstrated, strong association between student extracurricular involvement and abstinence from drugs. … More important, there is growing recognition that extracurricular involvement plays a role in protecting students from substance abuse. … (Drug testing) is disproportionately likely to discourage 'marginal' higher risk students whose attachment to school is weakest, but who are in greatest need of protection." (emphasis in original)

"If the American Pediatric Association is opposed, it ought to raise a red flag with parents," Kern says.

Questions also remain about protecting the privacy of students. Could students who are too shy or modest to hand their urine samples to officials avoid extracurricular activities altogether? Since universities take such activities seriously, would these students then be a disadvantage in gaining admission to higher education? Rankin County has gone to some length to protect the privacy of its students, to the extent that paper will be taped over windows in testing areas, and no unrelated traffic will be allowed. However, even these precautions will not keep results confidential, as there is no way to hide a student's suspension from extracurricular activity.

"High schools are a gossip train. If a student is pulled from class to test and then gets suspended from extracurricular activity, everyone will know. There isn't really confidentiality, just legal cover," Kern adds.

Will suspended students face bias from other students or adults in the school system? Without further research, there is simply no way to know.

The $500,000 Question

Drug testing remains an unproven and expensive proposition, which demands extensive public consideration and review. At present, only eight out of 152 Mississippi districts employ testing, according to Donna Hales, who is a spokeswoman for the State Department of Education, though several districts are considering the possibility.

Here in Jackson, Mayor Melton's proposal does not amount to a policy, in that it offers no details on what drug testing students would entail. Melton has shown no indication that he has explored the legal and financial ramifications of introducing such a policy to Jackson.

Critics warn that drug testing would send the wrong message to JPS students. "I'm concerned about the culture it creates. Instead of schools being dedicated to learning, we're turning them into an extension of the criminal justice system," Bedi says.

Fitzgerald agrees: "Most of our young people are not criminals. School has to be a safe place to learn, not a place where young people are guilty until proven innocent.

Previous Comments

ID

79050

Comment

The Jackson School Board is an independent government agency which, Mr. Melton previously discovered, he could not force to do anything. As the article states, "Mayor Meltonís proposal does not amount to a policy." So even if the city "found" a grant, applied for it, and got funding, would the Board have to implement drug testing without being a part of the proposal? Or would the Mayor once again fail at something due to a lack of communication?

Author

Rex

Date

2005-10-13T09:07:16-06:00

ID

79051

Comment

All, this story is featured at top of Altweeklies right now; cheers to Brian for an excellent cover package this week -- his first (of many) big stories for the JFP: http://www.altweeklies.com/gyrobase/AltWeeklies/

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-10-13T11:57:29-06:00

ID

79052

Comment

All, I was just alerted that the Casey Journalism Center on Children and Families is featuring this story today as one of their top three most provocative stories about children and families. Here is their summary, in case you look at the page on a different day: ìPass/Fail: Student Drug Testing For JPS?î 10.14.05, Jackson Free Press, Brian Johnson Only three weeks after his election, Mayor Frank Melton announced that he would like to see all students in Jackson (Miss.) Public Schools tested for drug use. Under current U.S. Supreme Court precedent, it is unconstitutional to drug test all students in a school, even randomly. For the time being, districts and schools can only test students involved in extracurricular activities or students volunteered by their parents. Read the Story Cheers, Brian. And everyone else, expect more great work from Brian to come. He's the latest addition to our reporting staff, and a most welcome one.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-10-14T14:47:56-06:00

ID

79053

Comment

This is a darned good article, Brian. I look forward to seeing your byline on more stuff! Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-14T18:48:16-06:00

ID

79054

Comment

While I will say there is a problem with marijuana within JPS, how exactly would this be funded given JPS cant even adequately provide textbooks for all of their students.

Author

K RHODES

Date

2005-10-18T17:32:11-06:00

ID

79055

Comment

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, K. That money could actually go towards educating these kids instead of investigating them. I don't mean to blame Melton for this because I like to think he really is above this sort of thinking himself, but there is a culture that says that public school kids are the enemy and should be treated as such--so these guys want to cut education funding, make attendance mandatory, arrest kids if they're on the streets during school hours, and generally use schools as halfway houses that allow for the monitoring, distraction, entertainment, supervision, and "character education" of the predominantly low-income, black students. That's what "keeping kids off the streets" is generally code for: Putting "them" in schools all day so "they" won't have time to get into trouble. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-18T17:58:24-06:00

ID

79056

Comment

Tom, you think Melton's is "above this sort of thinking"? I'm aghast. When does Frank think? Frank talks a lot. Think? nah.

Author

Towanda

Date

2005-10-18T22:36:25-06:00

ID

79057

Comment

I don't quite get your point, either, Tom. It's Melton's idea to drug-test them all. That's why we did this story in the first placeóbecause he declared that all kids in JPS should be drug-tested. And he's the same midnight-mayor who put minors' faces on TV while they were held down on car hoods. I wish he was above such draconian tactics, and disrespect, toward young people, but I haven't seen evidence of it. He does like to lecture, though.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-10-18T22:43:25-06:00

ID

79058

Comment

I don't mean to blame Melton for this because I like to think he really is above this sort of thinking himself, but there is a culture that says that public school kids are the enemy and should be treated as such--so these guys want to cut education funding, make attendance mandatory, arrest kids if they're on the streets during school hours, and generally use schools as halfway houses that allow for the monitoring, distraction, entertainment, supervision, and "character education" of the predominantly low-income, black students. I was under the impression that public school attendance is already mandatory. Is some alternative to mandatory school attendance being suggested?

Author

allred

Date

2005-10-18T22:52:29-06:00

ID

79059

Comment

Donna, the distinction between "I wish" and "I like to think" is not overwhelmingly large. You may be right about Melton. But I like to think, given his background as a volunteer, that he doesn't view these kids as the enemy. I think Melton's attitude is more paternalistic than adversarial, and there is a difference. That doesn't mean that his approach is perfect, or that it will even prove to be tolerable, but it would take a lot for me to believe that the thoughts that pass through Melton's mind when he thinks of low-income black youth are the same thoughts that pass through the mind of an average member of the North Jackson Angry Men's Club. I simply can't believe that. Not with his record. Buck, welcome back. You may be interested in knowing that I'm well on my way to finishing my doctorate in 2007, and I've never physically attended school for a full day in my llife. So yes, I suppose there are alternatives. But the more interesting question, for me, is whether by your post you're suggesting that mandatory school attendance for the purpose of confinement, and not education, is a desirable thing. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-19T00:31:49-06:00

ID

79060

Comment

(By the way, thanks for coming in and saying that just in time to make me look moderate. Now that's love, folks.)

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-19T00:32:40-06:00

ID

79061

Comment

BTW, for a really surreal effect, Mac OS X users: Option-click the Melton photo. Select "Set as Desktop Background." Select "Open Desktop Preferences." Select "Tile." *shaking head* I'm in a truly warped mood tonight, folks... Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-19T01:26:53-06:00

ID

79062

Comment

Okay, you'll get a kick out of this: After I did that, then tried to switch to another background image (the Barbour oath/potential liplock), my computer froze up cold. So for the moment I'm stuck with the Thousand Eyes of Frank Melton, as I do last-minute research on the Unabomber and serial killers of the 1990s. I wonder if Dr. S has an extra copy of The King in Yellow lying around, just to complete the effect? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-19T01:41:27-06:00

ID

79063

Comment

(Oh, yeah--and I need to remember to play Shuggie Otis' "Strawberry Letter 23" on loop in iTunes as I work...)

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-19T01:44:13-06:00

ID

79064

Comment

You may be interested in knowing that I'm well on my way to finishing my doctorate in 2007, and I've never physically attended school for a full day in my llife. So yes, I suppose there are alternatives. But the more interesting question, for me, is whether by your post you're suggesting that mandatory school attendance for the purpose of confinement, and not education, is a desirable thing. The purpose of school at any level is education and not confinement. I didn't suggest otherwise; I'm not sure what your point was in your previous post about school being mandatory, kids being arrested if they're on the streets during school hours, etc. Obviously school-aged kids who are not in school during school hours are subject to being picked up for 'truancy,' however quaint that term may seem to us now. Again, I'm not sure whether you are suggesting an alternative to mandatory school attendance, and if so, what that alternative would be. I imagine we would agree that the needs of elementary-through-high school-aged kids differs from those of college and/or post-grad students, at any rate.

Author

allred

Date

2005-10-19T10:10:57-06:00

ID

79065

Comment

Truancy laws and curfew laws have different purposes. Truancy laws say you should be at school. Curfew laws say you shouldn't be anywhere else. Curfew laws are always protective--and in this case they serve the function of protecting the rest of society from the alleged epidemic of juvenile delinquency. Let's not be silly here, Buck; you were conscious when the curfew laws were first proposed, and you know that they had nothing to do with education. If they did, enforcement of the truancy laws already on the books would have been more than adequate. A good Supreme Court would overturn curfew laws in non-emergency situations as unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of assembly, just as good Supreme Court would overturn (and even this one basically has overturned) blanket drug tests as a "general warrant" in obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment. The only reason we're having this conversation is because the subjects are minors. You should look at the Mississippi Black Codes from 1866, which established curfew and travel regulations on African Americans saying that they had to be at their employers at X times--allowing employment to function as de facto confinement. The purpose was to protect the rest of society from the perceived danger of free blacks. And the purpose here is to protect the rest of society from the perceived danger of free minors. The difference is that I suppose the Black Codes were at least consistently enforced. In this case we have selective enforcement--the law is only applied in cases where the juvenile is clearly at risk, or when a police officer with obvious control issues decides he wants to read the law broadly so that he can arrest a cute girl from north Jackson. That needs to change. Now, as I said before, I would need to see how the law is worded before I can have an intelligent opinion about exactly how that needs to change. But a blanket curfew, with or without warnings, is completely unacceptable. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-19T12:22:39-06:00

ID

79066

Comment

And as far as how Melton's psychology differs from the psychology of the majority of folks who enthusiastically support these laws: Melton has demonstrated, many times, that he feels a personal sense of responsibility for at-risk youth in Jackson. It would not be an exaggeration to say that he has dedicated most of his life over the past 10 or 15 years to that sense of responsibility. So the issue here is not that he wants to take every black man under 18 and ship him off to a desert island, or (to use one scumbag's example) to abort every black infant. The issue here, I think, is that he wants paternal control over the lives of local low-income black youth so that he can prevent kids like the ones he's worked with from getting in trouble. That's a flawed and very dangerous way of thinking, but it is not evil in the way that some other viewpoints on this matter are evil. Melton's a strange guy. I know people who have known him for years, who describe him as a good friend, who swear his heart is in the right place on this. I don't think Melton's a bad guy; I think he's a basically good guy who is capable of exercising really bad judgment on these matters. Can I be convinced otherwise? Sure. But I'm giving Melton the benefit of the doubt. I'm being charitable. There's a reason the AFL-CIO supported him, folks, a reason the Jackson Advocate supported him; he's not some kind of self-hating neo-segregationist. He has his own agenda. And it's not very well thought out at times, but I don't believe it's malicious. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-19T12:34:15-06:00

ID

79067

Comment

I don't disagree with any of that; my post was in response to your earlier post (" . . . but there is a culture that says that public school kids are the enemy and should be treated as such--so these guys want to cut education funding, make attendance mandatory, arrest kids if they're on the streets during school hours, and generally use schools as halfway houses that allow for the monitoring, distraction, entertainment, supervision, and 'character education' of the predominantly low-income, black students."). Truancy laws and curfew laws obviously present separate issues. I have thus far stated no position on curfew laws; your post above apparently states some opposition to or problem with laws that require kids to attend school. I see no productive alternative to truancy laws. I suspect that curfew laws (and truancy laws, as well) are targeted towards kids whose parents fail to keep track of them and/or show any real interest in what they are doing; thus those laws are an unfortunate necessity, in some cases. Which, of course, is not to condone the actions of Officer Flynt detailed in this article.

Author

allred

Date

2005-10-19T12:39:10-06:00

ID

79068

Comment

On the subject of Mr. Melton or any other elected official, Tom, what matters to me is not what's "in his heart." It's his actions, inactions, and what he says that is of utmost concern. I can certainly believe that he means well, at least until proven otherwise. However, whether he "means well" is not the criteria on which to judge whether or not he is a good mayor, or has the best interest of young people at heart ... from a public-policy standpoint. It takes different skills and knowledge to set public policy about young people then personally mentor them, or help individual ones to go to college. You can be good at one, and not good at the other. And the one we-the-public must be concerned with is the public-policy side. All the other stuff doesn't really matter if he doesn't get the public-policy side right. And, no, a curfew law cannot, and should not, be "targeted" toward certain kids. They should be applied equally for the same offenses. Otherwise, they are violating young people's constitutional rights. If there is other behavior you want to target, and target fairly, then do that. But it's un-American to pass wide-net laws in order to get certain kids (or adults, for that matter). We shouldn't stand for it. Find a better solution; don't rely on a lazy approach such as this that is rife with potential for abuse. That's ridiculous.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-10-19T17:01:32-06:00

ID

79069

Comment

Donna, you're thinking like someone with a journalism degree and I'm thinking like someone pursuing a philosophy/religion degree. I suspect this entire line of conversation could have been telegraphed in advance by anybody based on the information contained in our bio paragraphs. Truth is that I understand your emphasis on actions, and I agree with your disagreement of his actions. And you're willing to admit, at least, that his heart might be in the right place, so you appreciate my point vis-a-vis intention. So we agree, and we're disagreeing only on what to emphasize. That's hardly the stuff earth-shaking arguments are made of. Truth is that part of me rooted for Bush in the 2004 elections just because he was a recovering alcoholic trying to get out of the shadow of his father, who would always come out ahead when the two of them were compared. Too bad for the country, but it was an inspirational story other than the tens or hundreds of thousands dead, the collapse of the economy, etc. But I still have to admire Bush's ability to flip the bird to everyone who treated him like the black sheep of the family, and thought he'd never amount to anything. That was a nice underdog story, though I would not want to watch the sequel. And I always look for a motif. With Melton, the story is that he acted like a daddy to so many of these kids, and here he is in a position where he can make a real difference in their lives. That's dramatic. That's heroic. That's inspiring. But if he screws up this opportunity (and I agree with you that early indications are not positive), then that's also one bummer of a sequel. The heroic struggle for Melton right now is against his own stubbornness, his own inability to listen. We could be looking at a personal transformation process that will inspire all of us--a man rising to his office. Or we could be looking at another case of the Peter Principle. The story hasn't really been written yet. The jury's still out. He has almost four years. Where would the drama be if he was a perfect mayor coming in? This is the first second or two of the big montage scene, with the cheesy 80s soundtrack in the background. I think laws should be targeted at behavior--not people, and not classes of people. That's profiling. But I think we can see an adapted truancy law that serves some of the same beneficial purposes as the curfew with none of the negative effects. Here again, I understand Ali's point from earlier--that the curfew law can do some good when it's enforced selectively. The sodomy law also did some good when it was enforced selectively. Both are bad, draconian laws, but maybe there's a way we can have our cake and eat it too, like we did when the definition of rape was expanded to include forcible sodomy (carrying over everything that was good about the sodomy law). I would need to read the law, I would need to talk to Ali and more people like her, to be able to figure out what can be done here. Maybe someone in the Melton administration is doing that as we speak. Someone certainly should be. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-19T19:14:19-06:00

ID

79070

Comment

(Disagreement with, not disagreement of. Long day, folks.)

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-19T19:15:02-06:00

ID

79071

Comment

Tom, from one philosophy major to another (my degree was paired with English instead of religion) allow me to weigh in against your argument. That, after all, is what philosophy is all about. In fact, this might get a bit nerdy. I don't think the difference between you and Donna comes down to a difference in emphasis. It is starker than that. Donna (if I may take liberties in elaborating on your point) has a contractual understanding of how to evaluate Melton. In other words, when you're elected to public office, what's in your heart stops mattering. At that point, actions (read policy) are our sole legitimate criterion for evaluating performance, even morality. That's the bargain politicians strike when they sign over their heart in exchange for power. Obviously, this is not a contract you signed on for, because you want to think more holistically about what a politician intends and may or may not do in the future. But the difference between the two of you amounts to more than a difference in emphasis. I like the fact that you found sympathy for Bush during the election, since that in itself is almost a heroic feat. I couldn't tease out that redemption story because even on the narrative level, where politics are reduced, I hate Bush with all of my heart. He's a rich kid, a goat roper, a spoiled, vindictive little shit from Connecticut who likes to dress up like a cowboy to snooker the kind of people I grew up with into thinking he cares about them or even understands them. I can't get over that smirking arrogance, and the fact that he really showed Jeb by being president first (and last, PLEASE!) doesn't make me like him any more. Sympathy is usually a sign of intelligence, but I'm going to have to be dumb on this one. I'm not disputing that you hate Bush or trying to put on leftist airs. I just can't make that narrative work inside my head. To cut to the heart of the issue, don't you distort your thinking by giving too much space to "motifs"? Consider it from this perspective, what I would call the narrative-utilitarian approach (I warned y'all this was gonna get ugly). In other words, don't think in terms of strict utilitarianism, i.e. all the people Bush (and maybe Melton) have hurt through their incompetence, indifference, etc. Think instead of all the stories, the motifs, that stand against them. Or rather, weigh the importance of Bush/Melton's stories against the stories of everyone else. What do their stories mean in that context? They mean something ugly. In Bush's case, they mean something ugly because he's an awful, horrible person. In Melton's case, they mean something ugly because he has taken on the burden of power, which means that he can ruin people's lives. And save others. But the only way to weigh these competing stories is to weigh them, and that brings us back to policy rather than what's in his heart. Obviously, you can always confabulate an interesting narrative arc to accompany a public figure, but is that really the best way to think about political figures? I feel like I'm being hard on you until I remember that you speculated that someone in Melton's administration might be thinking of good ways to apply the curfew law "even as we speak". Are you kidding? That would show a refinement in policy-making that is several orders of magnitude beyond what these bumblers have demonstrated thus far. Well, I'm sure I failed to connect all the dots here, but it is getting awfully late. Props to you, Mr. Head, as your posts are always the most fun. The funnest. It's 3 a.m.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2005-10-25T02:05:23-06:00

ID

79072

Comment

Well, its basically the difference between understanding a singular person's "journey" and then understanding that no matter what this person does that is "honorable" in their personal life, this does not necessarily translate into them being fit for the position they hold. Like you (Tom), I can feel for Bush in some ways because of his personal struggles. But, like Brian, that doesn't mean I get to excuse him for using the White House and the Country as his personal therapy lesson to work out the angst. He's visiting his issues upon ME at that point. Same goes for Melton. I mean, I have issues as well. ;) But, when you go to WORK, you go to WORK. Especially when that work is a political office in which you have sworn to protect those that put you into that office. You don't get to bring all that shite with you into the position. One of the tenants of holding political office is the ability to step outside yourself, evaluate, and make logical decisions for the greater good. That very thing flies in the face of evaluating them based upon personal struggles. Or, at least, that is how I am understanding this discussion right now.

Author

Lori G

Date

2005-10-25T05:51:14-06:00

ID

79073

Comment

Couldn't agree more, Ali. I think Bush is doing a terrible job, Melton is off to a really bad start, and that people who go to work should leave their issues behind as much as possible. In some cases it's not possible, in which case we should be aware of all the limitations in advance of voting for the candidate, or in advance of hiring the person. But Brian, we're dealing with a category problem here more than anything else, I believe. There are four issues here: (a) A politician's record, and how it should be evaluated. (b) A politician's essence as a human being, and how it should be evaluated. (c) A politician's future actions, and how they might be predicted based on what we believe we can know of (a) and (b). My argument is not that (b) determines (a). My argument is that (b) determines (b), and may also have an impact on (c). This is less relevant with Bush than Melton, since Bush has been in office for close to five years, and we have--for lack of a better term--a larger sample group from which to draw when we evaluate him. That does not change the fact that, vis-a-vis (b), I'm not convinced that Bush is a terrible human being. I think he's a terrible president. I think most of us, if we were elected, would be terrible presidents, though probably not as bad as Bush. However... In Melton's case, we're dealing with somebody who has been in office for less than four months. He is still building his staff, settling in, learning what he can and can't do as mayor. This is the period where an impartial observer, familiar with Melton's bullheadedness, might have actually predicted he'd be making a fool out of himself. The issue, for me, is what he's doing a year from now. As for Bush: I look forward to seeing what he does as an ex-president. Remember that Jimmy Carter did not have a wonderful tenure, either, but he went on to do great things. Gerald Ford turned into an unexpected advocate for the pro-choice cause. Richard Nixon went from completely disgraced slimeball politician to semi-respectable political historian. I'm as secular as they come, but I still believe in a sort of original sin and in a sort of redemption. So as much as I wish Bush would get the impeachment he so richly deserves, as much as I wish the Supreme Court had ruled 5-4 in the other direction and given us Al Gore instead, the jury is still out, for me, on who he is as a human being. I don't know what his real motives are. I think your characterization of his personal life is understandable considering the anger his policy decisions provoke in all of us, but probably inaccurate. Jeb was never the black sheep. It was always George W. who was carried along, who was an alcoholic, who was a ne'er-do-well, who would never make anything of himself. Go back to the tapes of him in '88 hanging around with his father, where the most important thing he could ever do was win over some evangelical leaders by saying Jesus made him quit drinkin'. Then flash forward to the '94 gubernatorial debates, where you will see one of the most articulate and policy-conscious Republicans ever to grace a governor's mansion brilliantly hold his own against Ann Richards. Then flash forward to 2000, where he is so clearly out of his league, so clearly over his head. And he still won the presidency, not once, but twice. That's not a bad story in and of itself. What he did during that first term, what he's doing during that second term, sours it for me. But as a personal life story, it's damned inspiring. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-25T12:24:42-06:00

ID

79074

Comment

*sigh* Three issues, not four. Remind me to learn how to count after I finish my doctorate. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-25T12:25:41-06:00

ID

79075

Comment

Tom, I agree with you that (b) might be useful in evaluating (c), though politicians do everything they can to control our perceptions of (b), which makes all (b)-like information a bit dubious where they're concerned. I mean, we don't really know very much about Melton or Bush on a personal level, let alone their "human essence". My point regarding Bush's personal life was not that Jeb was the blacksheep, since I understand that George W. was, but rather that I can't take any pleasure from the fact that George W. succeeded so spectacularly when it was Jeb that everyone had their money on. My take on W.'s life-story does not derive from my anger at his corruption and disastrous policies. Rather, it's that if I knew him really well, I very much doubt that I would like him. I just don't find much that's inspiring or redeeming in the story of a wealthy kid who's had (almost) everything handed to him, who seems to take his affluence and power for granted, who pretends to be a down-home cowboy when he's really an East Coast Yaley. Yeah, I guess there's some tiny thread of inspiration in his story, but that's like picking gnat sh*t out of pepper, to quote one of my favorite Southern expressions. My point being, if we're going to consider motifs and narratives, don't we have to be careful which story we decide to tell? In some ways, I feel about Bush the same way I feel about celebrities who share with us the traumas and trevails of fame. I believe in their pain, but I don't care. Why are you so willing to twist into a pretzel to find something good about Bush? Or am I just being close-minded? As for Melton, I don't know any (b) about him. All I know is that the (a) ain't going very well. In his case, I agree that it is still early. I am not optimisitic about (c) because the (b) I'm seeing seems arrogant and inflexible, but maybe he really will grow into the job.

Author

Walker Sampson

Date

2005-10-25T15:01:05-06:00

ID

79076

Comment

Well said, Walker. I find Melton marginally more inspiring than Bush (who I really don't find either personally or politically inspiring), but neither of them is what I would call a role model. And, for politicians, I'm not really looking for inspiring motifs. I'm looking for 'em to get some stuff done, in a legal, ethical and effective manner. And so far, Melton seems to be better at talking than doing, so he's not winning any points with me.

Author

kate

Date

2005-10-25T15:35:32-06:00

ID

79077

Comment

Err, regarding the "black sheep" of the Bush family: recall that Dubya's brother Neil Bush testified in his recent divorce deposition that, while in Thailand, on more than one occasion a knock occurred on his hotel room door late at night, upon which opening said door Neil discovered a beautiful thai woman who came into his hotel room and had sex with him, and he had "no idea" why the aforementioned thai maidens appeared and did what they did.

Author

allred

Date

2005-10-25T15:59:48-06:00

ID

79078

Comment

Kate, as far as getting stuff done vs. inspiring motifs is concerned, what you're basically doing is getting into my car and saying "You know, this is a really lousy refrigerator." I'm interested in the personalities of political figures; I understand other folks sometimes aren't, but I find all that fascinating. Primarily because so much of the information does get controlled, and what slips out in vulnerable moments is worth studying. None of this makes Bush a good president or Melton a good mayor. Bush is a lousy president; Melton has not had time to definitively establish, to my satisfaction, whether he is a good or bad mayor. If he were great now, he could still be lousy later; and if he's lousy now, he can still be great later. I need more time to really come to a good assessment of him as a mayor. That's why mayors get four-year terms. I thought Bush was unspeakably terrible when he was elected, thought he was pretty good for a few months after 9/11, then renewed my negative assessment of him when Iraq started entering the picture. I don't think he's evil or stupid; I think he's dishonest (as most politicians are) and is making disastrously bad policy decisions based on a political philosophy that I find repulsive. But I'm not going to lie and say that there's nothing that I like about him. It warms my heart that we have a recovering alcoholic as president, that he sets a good example in terms of diet and physical exercise, that he went from being the laughingstock of the family to getting a two-term presidency, that he loves his dog, that he jokes around with his staff, and so on. None of this makes him a good president, but it makes him an interesting person. I have a very hard time disliking people enough that I'm completely out of sympathy with them. If I knew Haley Barbour in person, I'd disagree just as vociferously with his policy decisions there as I do here, but I'd have to resist the urge to apologize for some of the things I've said about him as a person that he might find hurtful. What can I say. There's a reason why I have no future in politics. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-25T16:55:29-06:00

ID

79079

Comment

Oops, due to inscrutable technical problems, my last post was credited to Walker Sampson. It's really me, brjohn9! (Brian Johnson.)

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2005-10-25T22:16:50-06:00

ID

79080

Comment

I just noticed that this thread dipped into personal insults, which is a clear violation of the User Agreement. I am snipping those insults now.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-10-29T08:58:12-06:00

ID

79081

Comment

In an attempt to return to the original thread topic, JPS is in dire need of principals and teachers that care! If Melton really would like to see results within JPS regarding many of the problems, he should start with holding accountable the teachers and principals that are simply not doing their jobs! I also must ask if any school in Jackson really need three principals (i.e. one primary and two assistants). I guess the answer to that would be yes when for too many primary principals arenít doing a damn thing! Also, social services should have a greater involvement within JPS, especially regarding the elementary and middle schools. The number of neglected kids within JPS is alarming.

Author

K RHODES

Date

2005-10-29T14:29:12-06:00

ID

79082

Comment

Update?

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-01-12T23:41:42-06:00

ID

79083

Comment

Update? If there life after sound bite? Not usually. No word that they are actually moving ahead with Mr. Melton's unconstitutional idea, no. He's too busy raiding apartment complexes with submachine guns.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-01-12T23:42:43-06:00