A teachers union rep posted school board campaign flyers by Skyline High's main office — a year after principals reported union threats and intimidation.
I firmly believe that the most important subject that should be taught in high schools, in particular, right now is "Corruption." If we teach Civics and Government and US History but fail to define Corruption and relate it to the history of attacks on democracy from political corruption, then we fail to prepare our citizens for participating in democracy. If our citizens want to understand the unique benefits of democracies, they need to understand the history of corrupt societies, including the dictatorships in the world today, such as Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China. It even helps explain why those dictatorships consider our democracies to be enemies, since our success threatens their systems and their control over their terrified citizens.
In relation to local and State elections, and unfortunately recent Federal elections, our citizens cannot sort out the corruption in plain sight without this basic education. Calling out wealthy developers for buying elections to benefit their bottom lines while ignoring public unions doing the same thing reflects profound ignorance of what corruption is.
I find it interesting that the author gives themselves a pseudonym “to protect their privacy and prevent personal and professional retaliation”, but uses this article to do that very thing to Mr. Drewry
Hi anonymous— Thank you for your comment, but it seeks to redirect blame from the offender to the messenger. One key difference between Drewry and the article’s author is that Drewry violated district policy and state law regarding political advocacy in schools — and he appears to have done so on the district’s time and the public’s dime. The author didn’t commit that violation; they shone a light on it.
Thank you again for your comment; the engagement is appreciated — even when it doesn’t address the substance of the matter at hand.
And it’s you who gets to adjudicate such violations? There is no reason to name a particular individual before any violations are determined. Doing so is solely for the purposes of retaliation
Hi anonymous, thank you for your comment, but you are wrong, once again. The author doesn't claim to be the adjudicator of the violation that occurred, nor do I. The article outlines, with evidence, the district policies and state education code that were violated by the flyers' posting at the school, and the agencies that would be responsible for adjudicating the violation. Also, the school administration itself identified the person who put up the flyers.
Thank you again for commenting. I wish you well, and I hope you find a way to communicate without opening with deflections and falsehoods, someday.
Well. We can take that poster down, and replace it with a recruitment poster for the new bay area college, The Horowitz Andreesen Academy - and revel in the irony.
Do you have any comments on how the SEIU (1) circumvented normal channels to get Measure E on the ballot and (2) campaigned to get it voted into policy?
Reminder - they stood to benefit greatly from Measure E
Rich -- Thank you for your comment, but you are deflecting. The flyers were posted at an Oakland public high school, apparently to influence potential voters in the local school board election; not to recruit people to a private collegiate academy in San Francisco. Those two things are not the same. Your comment is unclear as to what the irony would be. Thank you again for your comment, the engagement is appreciated.
Sean/Charlene - the irony? I thought you two were affiliated with Empower Oakland? The CEO of Empower Oakland recently announced his latest venture last week - opening that school with billionaires and naming the school after billionaires, and then bantering online with Jon Lonsdale about it. As someone in the education space, that is not the governance influence and reform we need in here in Oakland.
Rich -- Thank you for your comment, but you are misdirecting again. The article is about an OEA union rep who was caught posting political attack flyers at the school where they work. It also notes that OEA is on record as the single biggest outside spender seeking to influence the school board elections -- not so-called "billionaires." If you have a specific rebuttal to the substance of the article, I encourage you to share it. Otherwise, people can read the article, the evidence it presents, and decide for themselves what to think about it. Thank you again for your comment; the engagement is appreciated -- even when it is a deflection.
This response is positively Trump-like. Just as right-wingers throw the word "communist" around meaninglessly in an attempt to distract from the real issues, Bay Area public employee unions figure if they repeat "billionaire" often enough, no one will notice that their unethical conduct, like illegally posting political flyers in schools and buying elections for their chosen candidates.
Peter, thank you for your question. Who to vote for is for each voter to decide for themselves — but they can only do that in an informed way when they are provided all the relevant information, factual and fairly presented according to the rules for such.
As the author points out, a self-interested union rep posting political attack flyers in the high school where they work violates all the above.
Thank you again; your question is very much appreciated.
This article doesn’t even refute the information that was posted to the board, but instead spends it’s time fearmongering about teenagers understanding the forces at play in their school board elections and equivocating a teachers union spending money in Oakland school board elections with what the article itself admits as spending from political committees with no connection to Oakland families
Hi anonymous, thank you for your additional comment, but you are misdirecting again. The article displays the flyer in question and allows it to speak for itself. Also, the article doesn't make the claim you state: that the opposition committees have "no connection to Oakland families." The article doesn't say that. Regarding your comment about "fearmongering" among teenagers: the author didn't post the flyers at the school -- the union rep did. People can read the article, the evidence it presents and decide for themselves what to think about it.
Thank you again; your comments are appreciated -- even when they are false.
You will never hear about this in The Oaklandside. That’s because they are political operatives NOT journalists.
I firmly believe that the most important subject that should be taught in high schools, in particular, right now is "Corruption." If we teach Civics and Government and US History but fail to define Corruption and relate it to the history of attacks on democracy from political corruption, then we fail to prepare our citizens for participating in democracy. If our citizens want to understand the unique benefits of democracies, they need to understand the history of corrupt societies, including the dictatorships in the world today, such as Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China. It even helps explain why those dictatorships consider our democracies to be enemies, since our success threatens their systems and their control over their terrified citizens.
In relation to local and State elections, and unfortunately recent Federal elections, our citizens cannot sort out the corruption in plain sight without this basic education. Calling out wealthy developers for buying elections to benefit their bottom lines while ignoring public unions doing the same thing reflects profound ignorance of what corruption is.
I find it interesting that the author gives themselves a pseudonym “to protect their privacy and prevent personal and professional retaliation”, but uses this article to do that very thing to Mr. Drewry
Hi anonymous— Thank you for your comment, but it seeks to redirect blame from the offender to the messenger. One key difference between Drewry and the article’s author is that Drewry violated district policy and state law regarding political advocacy in schools — and he appears to have done so on the district’s time and the public’s dime. The author didn’t commit that violation; they shone a light on it.
Thank you again for your comment; the engagement is appreciated — even when it doesn’t address the substance of the matter at hand.
And it’s you who gets to adjudicate such violations? There is no reason to name a particular individual before any violations are determined. Doing so is solely for the purposes of retaliation
Hi anonymous, thank you for your comment, but you are wrong, once again. The author doesn't claim to be the adjudicator of the violation that occurred, nor do I. The article outlines, with evidence, the district policies and state education code that were violated by the flyers' posting at the school, and the agencies that would be responsible for adjudicating the violation. Also, the school administration itself identified the person who put up the flyers.
Thank you again for commenting. I wish you well, and I hope you find a way to communicate without opening with deflections and falsehoods, someday.
Well. We can take that poster down, and replace it with a recruitment poster for the new bay area college, The Horowitz Andreesen Academy - and revel in the irony.
Do you have any comments on how the SEIU (1) circumvented normal channels to get Measure E on the ballot and (2) campaigned to get it voted into policy?
Reminder - they stood to benefit greatly from Measure E
Rich -- Thank you for your comment, but you are deflecting. The flyers were posted at an Oakland public high school, apparently to influence potential voters in the local school board election; not to recruit people to a private collegiate academy in San Francisco. Those two things are not the same. Your comment is unclear as to what the irony would be. Thank you again for your comment, the engagement is appreciated.
Sean/Charlene - the irony? I thought you two were affiliated with Empower Oakland? The CEO of Empower Oakland recently announced his latest venture last week - opening that school with billionaires and naming the school after billionaires, and then bantering online with Jon Lonsdale about it. As someone in the education space, that is not the governance influence and reform we need in here in Oakland.
Rich -- Thank you for your comment, but you are misdirecting again. The article is about an OEA union rep who was caught posting political attack flyers at the school where they work. It also notes that OEA is on record as the single biggest outside spender seeking to influence the school board elections -- not so-called "billionaires." If you have a specific rebuttal to the substance of the article, I encourage you to share it. Otherwise, people can read the article, the evidence it presents, and decide for themselves what to think about it. Thank you again for your comment; the engagement is appreciated -- even when it is a deflection.
This response is positively Trump-like. Just as right-wingers throw the word "communist" around meaninglessly in an attempt to distract from the real issues, Bay Area public employee unions figure if they repeat "billionaire" often enough, no one will notice that their unethical conduct, like illegally posting political flyers in schools and buying elections for their chosen candidates.
so who to vote for then, certainly not those backed by empower oakland
Peter, thank you for your question. Who to vote for is for each voter to decide for themselves — but they can only do that in an informed way when they are provided all the relevant information, factual and fairly presented according to the rules for such.
As the author points out, a self-interested union rep posting political attack flyers in the high school where they work violates all the above.
Thank you again; your question is very much appreciated.
This article doesn’t even refute the information that was posted to the board, but instead spends it’s time fearmongering about teenagers understanding the forces at play in their school board elections and equivocating a teachers union spending money in Oakland school board elections with what the article itself admits as spending from political committees with no connection to Oakland families
Hi anonymous, thank you for your additional comment, but you are misdirecting again. The article displays the flyer in question and allows it to speak for itself. Also, the article doesn't make the claim you state: that the opposition committees have "no connection to Oakland families." The article doesn't say that. Regarding your comment about "fearmongering" among teenagers: the author didn't post the flyers at the school -- the union rep did. People can read the article, the evidence it presents and decide for themselves what to think about it.
Thank you again; your comments are appreciated -- even when they are false.