4A
EDITORIALS/The Charlotte Post
February 13,1997
®i)e cijariottc $osit Pre-school no bargain for at-risk
Published weekly by the Charlotte Post Publishing Co.
1531 Camden Road Charlotte, N.C. 28203
Gerald O. Johnson
CEO/PUBLISHER
Robert Johnson
CO-PUBLISHER/
GENERAL MANAGER
Herbert L. White
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Why Perry
should be
Labor boss
By Sylvia Perry
SPECIAL TO THE POST
Herman
A few years ago, I co-taught the Capstone Seminar for 22 second-
year graduate students at the University of Pennsylvania’s presti
gious Pels Center of Government. Earning master’s degrees in vari
ous aspects of government and public affairs at the end of that semes
ter were 14 Phi Beta Kappa’s, several former Rhodes Scholars, a pas-
sel of honors bachelors degree holders and a majority who had rich
backgrounds as legislative aides to congresspersons or assistants to
various mayors and governors.
During the final class meetings, we polled each student about his or
her career plans after graduation. With the exception of one, aU of
these stimulating and bright young people excitedly reported their
success in finding coveted positions with private corporations and
industries, not with governmental agencies or pub
lic organizations. Why? Because they feared the
effects of press intrusion and unwarranted notori
ety on their children and families, and felt that,
given the conservatively capped government
salaries and other restricted public employment
amenities, the gains from public service simply
were not worth the pain.
The years which I describe were 1986 through
1989. I wonder if these students feel vindicated
today when they look at the cannibaUzing of public
servants which soaks the front pages of national
newspapers? I wonder if they did not possess some
superior intuition or power of prognostication which warned them to
steer clear of the governmental fast track which far too frequently
penalizes rather than awards excellence? It appears to me these days
that prominence in public service eventually leads to having every
minor personal flaw magnified and having the well intentioned and
completely appropriate^ fulfillment of Intimate duties of public posi
tion distorted into devious schemes of personal or political aggran
dizement.
There are numerous recent cases of character assassination and
reputation assault which would discourage any sane person finm vol
untarily accepting high government appointment. Often, the entire
family is vilified and tarnished by broad brush allegations of “appear
ance of improprietjr” which, once described, become incorporated by
reference into the persona of the public figure, and whether or not
proven to be true, remain indelibly inscribed in the media's memory,
to be automatically retrieved as copy for any future publicity. “Once
accused of...” “Thought to have been involved in...’” “Allegedly associ
ated with so-and-so (who was once accused of..)” and so on, haunt
public figures even through their obituaries into their graves.
It should come as no surprise, therefore, that of the many who are
called to offer service in a national public administration, few choose
to be chosen. And of those who do choose, many (especially women
and minorities) come to wish that they had not. The current con
tretemps over the alleged/implied/assumed/speculated upon role of
Alexis Herman in the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) fund
raising investigation is a graphic and dramatic case in point.
Herman’s primary responsibility m the White House for the last
four years has been to reach out to constituents, especially tradition
ally excluded or under-represented classes, to make sure that they
felt embraced. Since these groups included clergy, small business
owners, labor groups, minorities and women who often also feel that
their contributions do not count, Herman’s office was responsible for
correcting that impression and improving the reality. Where excluded
groups often are not asked to help make a difference in decisions
affecting all Americans. Herman’s office existed in order to faciHtate
their making a difference by the inclusion of their opinions, encourag
ing their influence and recognizing their civic and entrepreneurial
power.
Alexis Herman did her job well. This fact has been under-reported
and underestimated. Unfortunately, the decision to leak im-annotat-
ed records of the many perfectly legitimate meetings which she
arranged for diverse groups of Americans added to the problem and
was unhelpful at best, cynical at least.
There is no doubt among women and minorities that minority
women have a harder time than anyone in gaining public acceptance
in positions of authority, and in overcoming ingrained stereotypes
and prejudices about race and gender. Sniping and sabotage, moti
vated by these biases alone, have torpedoed many women’s and
minorities’ career advances. Harvard-trained lawyer Lani Guinier,
denied the chance of becoming Deputy Attorney General for Civil
Rights, and Dr. Heniy Foster, unsuccessfully advanced for the posi
tion of Surgeon General, immediately come to mind.
But this reality is further complicated by the growing occupational
hazards of high-level governmental service and compounded by
ambiguous ideas of loyalty and the deadly “friendly fire” of political
expediency from within the administration's own ranks. The press
then enters upon a feeding frenzy, resulting last week in prominently
placed photos of Herman in the daily press and weekly news reports,
the substance of which had very little to do with her, and virtually
nothing which accm-ately, fairly or fully explained her legitimate
responsibilities in the White House public liaison job which she held.
It should be anticipated by everyone, therefore, that eventually the
best qualified and experienced public service professionals will opt for
some other line of work. Americans will then well deserve the resul
tant gang of dispirited, uninspired and mediocre bureaucratic drones,
who will probably provoke little scandal, because they probably will
do very httle that makes much difference. They will be just the oppo
site of Labor Secretary-designate Alexis Herman, vrith her positive
administrative and executive profile.
SYLVIA PERRY is a syndicated columnist.
By Kevin Campbell
SPECIAL TO THE POST
The proposed pre-school pro
gram being considered by
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
in and of itself will do more
harm than good, especially to
the black communities and the
taxpayers.
The proposal started during
CMS Supt. Eric Smith’s first
months on the job. Over 7,000
children under age five were
identified as Uving in poverty
and two-thirds receive no
preschool experience. The plan
being sold to the public is to dis
continue most of the Title I pro
grams and divert the funds to
at-risk 4-year-olds. The pro
grams to be cut are reading pro
grams, reduced class sizes, liter-
aty teachers that work with the
disadvantaged children and
other programs designed to help
at-risk children catch-up with
their more fortunate class
mates
The Title I programs provide
services to about 8,200 chil
dren of which a very large per
centage are Afiican American.
The school system will not be
the only institution effected.
The N.C. Division of Child
Development already provides
child care funding for low
income families in the form of
a voucher. The vouchers may
be used to purchase child care
fiom a licensed child care cen
ter. If the preschool program
moves forward, the child care
centers which serve the gener
al public will be weakened and
children of all ages will receive
lower quality care.
Lower quality will follow
because one of the key factors
of quality is that a center be
operating at or near capacity.
'This point was recently support
ed by a four state study in
which The Frank Porter
Graham Center af the
University of North Cdrolina-
Chapel Hill participated.
One of the major problems in
Mecklenburg County is an
already low enrollment level of
children in child care centers. In
other words, child care quality
is harmed because there are too
many centers on a countywide
basis. 'The CMS pre-school will
not compete with and not com
plement the current delivery
system of child care. So, if the
pre-school is established, the
enrollment problem worsens.
Thousands of children will be
left behind, the infants to three
year olds and the non-CMS
preschoolers, all will receive
even lower qualify care because
resources will be drained. The
centers that lose the most chil
dren and resources will be the ,,
ones serving the African
American neighborhoods.
The benefits do not outweigh
the costs. To serve 2,000 at risk
children, 8,200 others will lose
service, a net loss of 6,200, of
which a very high percentage
will be African American. To
estabhsh a pre-school for 2000
children, many times that stand
to have reduced child care quali
ty. To provide classrooms, the
bond issue will be larger, but
child care spaces are unfilled
countywide.
Let’s go back to the drawing
board and design a complemen
tary system utilizing CMS, the
Division of Child Development,
Smart Start and the private sec
tor. The end result would be
more children receiving quality
care.
KEVIN CAMPBELL is a day
care operator inCharlotte.
AUiFUWMTW
Reflections on the Henrietta Marie exhibit
By Wendy Mills
SPECIAL TO THE POST
The best part about the
Henrietta Marie exhibit was
working with Dawn Womack,
vice president of arts and educa
tion at Spirit Square. I haven’t
met a dynamo like Ms. Womack
since I left New York and
worked with a mutual fiiend of
ours, who is now the assistant
to the New York City school sys
tems’ chancellor, Barbara Byrd
Bennet,
Every day, there was a call
from the ancestors, an ancient
presence was with Dawn and
me from the beginning of this
exhibition. Ms. Womack’s ener
gy seemed to exude and never
before have I given so much of
myself for a single purpose since
my first years teaching in New
York.
Even before the first article
about the Henrietta Marie
appeared in 1995, there was
this absolute feeling that the
ship was coming to Charlotte.
Since I was already familiar
with the exhibit from being a
member of the National
Association of Black SCUBA
Divers, I wanted the exhibit to
come to Charlotte with more
than just the historical slave
issue. I wanted to bring black
inventors with the exhibit.
After the article about the
exhibit coming to Discovery
Place, others about the rejection
of “A Slave Ship Speaks: The
Wreck of the Henrietta Marie,”
started appearing. So I began
informing Dawn about the
exhibit and put her into contact
with Dr. Jose Jones, NABS
president, and the Mel Fisher
Maritime Museum.
As soon as Dawn received aU
the necessary information she
made a commitment to bring
the exhibit to Spirit Square. She
alone raised the entire fimding
for the pro-rams that she initi
ated “From Enslavement to
Empowerment,” with little help.
My husband, Fred, and I accom
panied her to a couple of church
es in February 1996 helping to
raise the consciousness of the
people and money for the pro
grams. Dawn was out every
night speaking to clubs, church
es and local individuals and
during the day meeting with
bank presidents, bank officers
and men like Hugh McCoU, lay
ing out her plan and getting
them to commit.
The careful planning by Dawn
Womack for her lecture series
was demonstrated when the
very first guest speakers on
opening night of the exhibit
were Dr. Jose Jones, President
of the National Association of
Black SCUBA Divers and
Marine Biologist, and Dr. David
Moore, the marine archeologist
commissioned by Mel Fisher to
excavate the wreck. It was such'
an appropriate opening with
these two men telling the story
of how the wreck was found,
excavated and scientifically'
studied to put together the only
exhibit of a slave ship in history.
The audience was further
informed about the history and
struggles of Black SCUBA
divers and NABS by Dr. Jones.
This has been one of the most
rewarding and empowering
experiences of my fife and hope
the people of Charlotte know
what a blessing it is to have
Dawn Womack, a woman of
vision and action, in our pres
ence.
Donna Devereux and her staff
in the Spirit Square Visual Arts
Department should be applaud
ed for the exhibit and the com
plementary art exhibit.
WINDY MILLS lives in
Charlotte.
Lots of promises, no budget action
By Walter R. Hears
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON - It is a bal
ancing act tried and toppled
before, but President Clinton
makes it sound easy - Congress
votes for a deficit-free budget, he
signs, and the deal is done.
The deal, but not the deed.
That will be five uncertain
years away even after Clinton
and the Republicans come to
terms on a 2002 balanced bud
get plan, as they almost surely
will. After all, it was a GOP goal
first, embraced by the
Democratic president in transit
to the political center. Now he
champions the goal with the
zeal of the converted; he said
shortly after his re-election that
a balanced budget should be
easily achievable. Three decades
of unmet pledges and projec
tions say otherwise. This may
well be different; there is a
shared commitment in a divided
government to get the budget
balanced. Still, the administra
tion and congressional budget
architects will have to bargain
out the details. There are
marked differences on spending
priorities, how much and how to
cut taxes, and on the economic
projections that underlie any
long-term budget.
Administration assumptions on
economic growth are more opti
mistic than those on which GOP
budget outlooks are based, eas
ing the path to the $17 billion
surplus Clinton projects in
2002. StiU, it is aU on paper, a
promise to be delivered after
CUnton has left office. It is all
subject to the course of the econ
omy, and subject also to political
decisions that will be shaped by
two congressional and one presi
dential election before the due
date. “Let this Congress be the
Congress that finally balances
the budget,” the president said
to State of the Union cheers last
Tuesday. But what this
Congress does won’t be final. It
can enact a
plan for 2002
balance. But it
will be up to
the next
Congress, and
the one after
that, to make
sure that it
finally hap
pens for the
first time in
nearly 30
years. Clinton’s new budget
includes a system meant to
assure that the budget is bal
anced in 2002 even if economic
projections are off and there is a
gap that the next president and
Congress can't settle. It involves
automatic steps to increase tax
revenues and limit spending.
That harks to a system of auto-
Clinton
matic cuts set up in 1985 to
force a course to balanced bud
gets, unsuccessfully because
Congress moved the targets and
spent the money anyhow. While
Clinton made deficit reduction a
first priority of his presidency,,
his commitment to balanced
budgets came later, only after
the Republicans captured
Congress. Even then, he began
two years ago with a budget
that projected continuing
deficits, amending it later to
aim at balance in 10 years, then
in 7, now in 5. Presidents since.
Richard M. Nixon have been
promising to control deficits.
And two. Democrat Jimmy
Carter and Republican Ronald.
Reagan, came to office after
promising to balance the budget
within a term. Neither came
close, and deficits soared during
the Reagan years.
WALTER R. MEARS is an
Associated Press vice president.