Star editorial on Stegeman ouster a bit . . . confused

by David Safier

It seemed like an interesting idea when I first read it in the Star editorial: that ousting TUSD Board Pres Mark Stegeman from his position as president

. . . is only a victory over free speech and freedom of thought – the very things the MAS program prides itself for instilling in its students.

Geez, he was only expressing his first amendment rights, right?

Then I unpacked it a bit. You shouldn't vote someone out of an elected position because you disagree with him? Isn't that what you do in a democracy? Did the vote declare "Stegeman will never be allowed to speak on the MAS program in public or in private"? No, freedom of speech and thought are alive and well. The board members, including Cuevas who often comes down on the same side as Stegeman, voted that they didn't want him to continue serving as president, that's all. They didn't put a gag on him.

It sounds a lot like the way conservatives complain their free speech rights have been violated when someone disagrees with them. (Point of clarification: I'm not saying Stegeman is using this tactic. I'm talking about the editorial).

And besides, the vote was more about the way Stegeman has handled the role of president than about his views. He hasn't done a very good job handling the disruptions which have been a part of the MAS controversy, as the editorial admits:

Now, there is no doubt Stegeman did not always do a good job managing Governing Board meetings where supporters and opponents of MAS spoke out during the call to the audience, interrupted each other or board members and prevented elected officials from doing their jobs.

But, y'know, the editorial continues, we're not sure other board members would have done any better.

That's it? Stegeman wasn't very good managing the meetings, but the board shouldn't replace him as president because they might not have done any better? That's kinda how a democracy works, isn't it? If you think someone isn't doing a good job and also think someone else might do a better job, you vote out the old and vote in the new.

Much of the rest of the article rehashes the paper's position that Huppenthal's case against MAS isn't very strong, then ends by stating,

As long as the primary mission on all sides is to punish people who think differently, then everyone loses. The MAS program has some fine qualities, as we have noted myriad times before, but teaching students that it's acceptable to demote people who disagree with you is not responsible education.

If board members, MAS supporters and opponents actually care about the students, they will remember that this is all supposed to be about the 53,500 kids who call TUSD schools their own.

Actually, it's perfectly acceptable to vote someone out of a position of authority if you think that person is both on the wrong side of an important issue and doing a poor job carrying out his/her duties. That's what democracy is all about.

DEPARTMENT OF UNSUBSTANTIATED SPECULATION: This is what The Meanie refers to as a WAG — Wild-Ass Guess. Without anything but internal evidence from the editorial, I've concluded this thing was mainly penned by Josh Brodesky. It has the trademark qualities of his columns. It's based on logic stretched to the breaking point — voting someone out of a position teaches bad things about free speech and democracy — then tries to look like it's being fair by bringing up arguments posed by the people it's condemning (the idea that Stegeman was voted out in large part because of his failures a president, not because of his ideas), only to shoot down those arguments down with more stretched logic.

I'll never know if my WAG is correct, of course. But, after consulting with Dr. Word, it is my considered opinion that the TUSD School Board just got Brodeskyed.