In reality Vargas actually does not support teacher-led schools unless they become independent entities separate from the RCSD. I really think Vargas is afraid that a successful teacher-led school will show that he and his administration buddies have no legitimacy and very weak leadership abilities!
"Major upset" indeed. Particularly for the Smugtown elite. I won't name names.
The teachers are hurt and humiliated? The ,"Wicked Words" by Hugh Rawson have come home to roost and it's about time! Rosetta Douglass – Frederick Douglass’s Daughter
The sign embodies this message: “In 1845, the Rochester Board of Education implemented the common council’s recommendation that the city’s public schools be closed to black students. The board divided the city into school districts, determined the number of schools in each district, and organized specific schools for the instruction of black children. Frederick Douglass declined to send his eldest daughter to the black school that the city had maintained since 1830’s. In August 1848 he enrolled nine year old Rosetta in the Seward Seminary, Rochester’s oldest female academy, but withdrew her upon learning that she was being taught in a classroom apart from the other students. During the next five years, Rosetta was being educated at home by a private tutor.”
TO H.G. WARNER, ESQ., (Editor of the Rochester Courier)
My reasons – I will not say my apology, for addressing to you this letter, will become evident, by perusing the following brief statement of facts.
About the middle of August of the present year – deeply desiring to give my daughter, a child between nine and ten years old, the advantages of a good school – and learning that “Seward Seminary” of this city was an institution of that character – I applied to its principal – Miss Tracy, for the admission of my daughters into that Seminary. The principal – after making suitable inquiries in the child’s mental qualifications, and informing me of the price of tuition per term, agreed to receive the child into the school at the commencement of the September term. Here we parted. I went home, rejoiced that my child was about to enjoy advantages for improving her mind, and fitting her for a useful and honorable life. I supposed that the principal would be as good as her word – and was more disposed to his belief, when I learned that she was an abolitionist - a woman of religious principals and integrity - and would be faithful in the performance of her promises, as she had been prompt in making them. In all this I have been grievously – if not shamefully disappointed.
While absent from home, on a visit to Cleveland, with a view to advance the cause of education and freedom among my despised fellow countrymen – with whom I am in all respects identified, the September term of the “Seward Seminary” commenced, and my daughter was promptly sent to that school. - But instead of receiving her into the school according to agreement – and as in honor the principals was bound to do, she was merely thrust into a room separate from all other scholars, and in this poison-like solitary confinement received that occasional visits of a teacher appointed to instruct her. On my return home, I found her still going to school, and not knowing the character of the treatment extended to her, I asked with a light heart, as I took her to my side, well, my daughter, how do you get on at the Seminary? She answered with tears in her eyes, “I get along pretty well, but father, Miss Tracy does not allow me to go into the room with the other scholars because I am colored.” Stung to the heart’s core by this grievous statement, and suppressing my feelings as well as I could, I went immediately to the Seminary to remonstrate with the principal against the cruelty and injustice of treating my child as a criminal on account of her color - subjecting her to solitary confinement because guilty of a skin not colored like her own. In answer to that I could say against such treatment, I was answered by the principal, that since she promised to receive the child into school, she had consulted with the trustees, (a body of persons I believe unknown to the public,) and that they were opposed to the child’s admission of the school – that she thought at first of disregarding their opposition, but when she remembered how much they had done for her in sustaining the institution, she did not feel at liberty to do so; but she thought if I allowed her to remain and be taught separately for a term or more, that the prejudice might be overcome, and the child admitted into the school with the other young ladies and misses. At a loss to know what to do for the best interest of the child, I consulted with Mrs. Douglass and others, and the result of the consultation was, to take my child from the Seminary, as allowing her to remain there in such circumstances, could only serve to degrade her in her own eyes, and those of the other scholars attending the school. Before, however, carrying out my determination to withdraw the child from the Seminary, Miss Tracy, the principal, submitted the question of the child’s reception to each scholar individually, and I am sorry to say, in a manner well calculated to rouse their prejudices against her. She told them if there was one objection to receiving her, she should be excluded; and said if any of them felt that she had a prejudice, and that that prejudice needed to be strengthened, that they might have time to whisper among themselves, in order to increase and strengthen that prejudice. To one young lady who voted to receive the child, she said, as if in astonishment; “did you mean to vote so? Are you accustomed to black persons?” That young lady stood silent; the question was so extraordinary, and withal so ambiguous, that she knew not what answer to make to it. Despite however, of the unwomanly conduct of the principal, (who, whatever may be her religious faith, has not yet learned that simplest principle of Christianly – to do others as ye would that others should do unto you) – thanks to the incorruptible virtue of childhood and youth, in terms of fullness of their affectionate hearts, they welcomed my child among them, to share with them the blessings and privileges of the school; and when she should sit if admitted, several young ladies shouted “By me, by me, by me.” After this manifestation of sentiment on the part of the scholars, one would have supposed that all opposition on the part of the principal would have ceased; but this was not the case. The child’s admission was subjected to a severer test. Each scholar was then told by the principal, that the question must be submitted to their parents, and that if one parent objected, the child would not be received into the school. The next morning my child went to school as usual, but returned with her books and other materials, saying that one person objected, and that she was therefore excluded form the Seminary.
Now, sir, these are the whole facts, with one important exception that fact is, that you are the person, the only person of all the parents sending young ladies and misses to that Seminary, who was hardened and mean enough to take the responsibility of excluding that child from school. I say, to you exclusively belongs the honor or infamy, of attempting to degrade an innocent child by exclude her from the benefit of attending a respectable school.
If this were a private affair, only affecting myself, and family I should possibly allow this to pass without attracting public attention to it; but such is not the case. It is a deliberate attempt to degrade and injure a large class of persons, whose rights and feelings have been the common sport of yourself, and such persons as yourself, for ages, and I think it unwise to allow you to do so with impunity. - Thank God, oppressed and plundered as we are, and have been, we are not without help. We have a press, open and free, and have ample means by which we are able to proclaim our wrongs as people, and your own infamy, and that proclamation shall be as complete as the means in my power can make it. There is a sufficient amount of liberty in the public mind of Rochester to see that justice is done to all parties, and upon that liberality I rely. The young ladies of the school who saw the child, and had the best means of determining whether her presence in the schoolroom would be offensive or degrading to them, have decided in favor of admitting her, without a dissenting vote. Out of all the parents to who the question of her admission was submitted, not one, except yourself, objected. You are in a minority of
one. You may not remain so; there are perhaps others, whom you may corrupt, and make as much like yourself in blindness of prejudice, as any ordinary wicked person can be.
But you are in minority, and if I mistake not, you will be in a despised minority. – You have already done serious injury to Seward Seminary. Three young ladies left the school immediately after the exclusion of my daughter, and I have heard of three more, who had intended to go, but who have now declined going to that institution, because it had given its sanction to that anti-democratic, and ungodly cast. I am also glad to inform you that you have not succeeded as you had hoped to do, in depriving my child of the means of a decent education, or the privilege of going to an excellent school. She had not been excluded from Seward Seminary five hours, before she was gladly welcomed into another quite as respectable, and equally christian to the one from which she was excluded. She now sits in a school among children as pure, and as white as you and yours, and no one is offended. Now I should like to know how much better are you than me, and how much better your children than mine? We are both worms of the dust, and our children are like us. We differ in color, it is true, (and not much in that respect,) but who is to decide which color is most pleasing to god, or most honorable among men? But I do not wish to waste words or argument on one whom I take to be as destitute of honorable feelings, as he has shown himself full of pride and prejudice.
The 9North Star, March 30, 184
First of all, Mr.Richards, as CEO of RG&E, did not promote innovation, and certainly did not lower the high cost of electricity for local consumers. He DID however, manage to sell the company to a Spanish company. Secondly, he has not achieve a clear vision that excited residents-it was more a reaction to projects already underway. Creative initiative has not been a part of his administration. Perhaps Ms. Warren will be a Corey Booker-type of mayor, not the cocktail circuit, political insider that Mr. Richards became.
First, this is only the Democratic primary. There are other voters to be heard from including Independents like myself. I imagine Warren got a good fraction of her potential total supporters out yesterday.
I have to comment on the "Warren's central focus in this campaign was education". To have her message on education taken seriously - in particular as an African American candidate running what appears to be an African American-centric campaign - and not even begin to acknowledge the giant issue driving the "failing" schools is striking. That issue I see several days a week as a volunteer tutor and that is unbelievably low commitment to education amongst many African American students and their parents.
It was welcome news that a recent gathering of African American ministers acknowledged this situation. But where is Lovely Warren on this issue or any other critical look at the African American community?
Hopefully the first thing that Mayor Warren's handlers will tell her to do is to trash the asinine Duffy-Richards Port of Rochester Marina project. If we must spend millions of scarce tax dollars we should at least spend them downtown where they’ll benefit all segments of the population and not just the yacht club types and a handful of lakeside condo owner wannabes. After all, even Bob Duffy started his maladministration with one intelligent decision when he killed off that other Charlotte boondoggle, Bill Johnson’s Less-Than-Fast-Ferry.
It has been clear to me from the start that Tom Richards didn't want to do the work of running for mayor. He accepted his installation as mayor through some shady insider manipulation. The Republican-in-disguise lost fair and square dueto his own smugness and that of the Deomcratic establishment. Rochester didn't need someone so disconnected from what was really going on.
In November, voters will have the chance to vote for the only innovative candidate who has a proven track record of truly new ideas and real solutions Rochester needs. That candidate is the Green Party's Alex White.
Rochester voters have just proven their ability to break out of the status quo that favors the big money-slick TV ad candidate. In Novermber Rochester voters can can go a step farther and vote for Alex White and all the Green Party candidates on Row F.
Maybe at this point it should just be obvious that there aren't good potential mayoral candidates in the pipeline. Richards is a dud, but -- although I would love to see someone other than an old white guy in the mayor's office! -- he's got the management and policy chops for the job. Warren has a passion for the city and for service, but not the experience or breadth of skills the job demands. The baseline reality, however, is that neither is a thrilling candidate, and neither is likely to be the kind of long-term transformational leader that Rochester needs. I'm a young professional who grew up in the city, and I've been thinking about moving home to work and live there. With the results of this primary, I might think again...
It's obvious that Lovely Warrens' supporters were far more enthusiastic about their candidate than Tom Richards' supporters were; his simply didn't show up. I think it is doubtful that Richards will continue on the Independence and Working Families lines, but stranger things have happened, and it would be one hell of a race. I hope Alex White and the Green candidates for City Council and School Board get a fair airing before the November election. No candidates should be crowned victors before the votes are cast, as tonights results certainly proved. Lovely Warren and the rest of the incumbents re-elected tonight should face honest questions about their vision for Rochester. The Greens do have an alternate vision, and Rochestarians are not without a choice come November, even if most people think it has already been made for them.
I like Richards' vision of investing in downtown and transitioning neighborhoods to compete for young professionals, empty-nesters, & other people who are considering a return to urban living by choice. Upscale residential development admittedly predates Richards' control, but Richards has increased momentum, is the only mayor who has made headway on fixing Main & Clinton, and has even garnered investment in neighborhoods outside of the southeast quadrant.
It's perhaps a fair criticism to say that there's "two Rochesters" and that Richards seems focused mainly on one, but what's wrong with wanting your city to be upwardly mobile? And have the other neighborhoods really been terribly neglected? Richards has supported development wherever the market would invest and has done a reasonably good job of dealing with blight, e.g. replacing abandoned buildings with neighborhood peace gardens.
I do question whether Rochester Police could potentially be more effectively managed, and not merely to be more sensitive, but rather to command more respect and particularly to be more proactive especially in dealing with drug houses. I get it that if a majority of residents in a particular neighborhood want to use hard drugs, eliminating those becomes a difficult proposition, but I don't see why there's so little apparent effort.
Just when we thought this burg couldn’t produce a candidate for mayor more unqualified than Bill Johnson, Bob Duffy or Tom Richards, along comes Lovely Warren.
Rochester's race to the bottom continues.
Good job representing us, Paul.
I'd like the writer to include the comments of Russian- American Rochester residents who moved here from Novgorod, or from our counterparts there. They are not too hard to contact for input. You just have to wake up early or stay up a little late to call at a good time. Perhaps there will be follow up. Perhaps City could dedicate a column to Sister Cities news in their international section ;)
Henry, I truly appreciate your Grandfather and all he has done. He is a great man. I learned a lot from working with him, Joe G, and several others on the board and our committee over the past 14 years.
My grandparents Dick Fitts and Nancy Eckerson Fitts were instrumental in helping establish the Sister Cities relationship between Rochester and Novgorod in the 1980's. Amid the tensions of the Cold War, they and advocates for peace here in Rochester acutely identified that the conflict was not between the peoples of our two nations, but between posturing governments. Visiting the then USSR in 1984, their group found kindred spirits in Novgorod. The result was Linkages, a volunteer group devoted to increasing the "...understanding of the people, politics, and culture of Russia, with a focus on people-to-people relations". In 1989 the official Sister Cities relationship was established and remains one of the strongest connections that Rochester has through the program. My grandfather was also involved in establishing economic ties with Novgorod through the creation of Genesee-Volkhov Connection (GVCO), a firm that ran a chain of consumer photo processing labs in the Novgorod region that featured Kodak film.
This new controversy should remind us of these origins and the purpose of the Sister Cities Program. While I believe that Russia's LGBT laws are archaic and inhumane, calling off a decades old alliance over these injustices would send the wrong message. I know that while our elected officials may disagree on law, there are people in Novgorod who are fighting for change and supporting their LGBT neighbors. We must be a source of inspiration and unwavering support for our citizen allies around the world, or our advancements in social justice are for naught. If anything, we should reaffirm our connection with Novgorod and our support for their LGBT community in this trying time.
Mr. Rice, this response just came over from Judge Sciolino :
"You're right, the Pius numerals are wrong. Pius IX was proposed in 2000 with John XXIII. Pius XII was proposed in 1965. I'll correct the error when my book is re-published."
Thanks for catching. We'll correct it in print and on the website.
City news editor
Mr. Rice, I've sent your question to the writer. Hopefully, we'll have an answer before too long.
City news editor
Daniel, I live on Selye Terrace. I know what it is like to have unruly neighbors who have no consideration of others. Their color does not matter, what matters is that I have to put up with loud noise from music, children screaming (my mother taught me not to bother neighbors as I played...politeness counts), vulgarities suh as the F and N words spewing loudly and inconsiderately while these neighbors conduct their fights right out in the open, cars parked on lawns as if we live in a ghetto, garbage dropped regularly on my lawn, my car rifled through - change stolen from it if I forget to lock it, I have to see more dirty laundry aired by some neighbors than I care to. I DON'T care what color someone is. What I DO care about is how their behavior affects me. So you might want to live here too, or other neighborhoods afflicted with similar problems, before trying out your sympathetic ideas.
"John Paul II also beatified Pope Pius XII,"
Could you kindly provide me with the date of the beatification???
I strongly doubt that the trend toward aggressive policing is to the benefit of young black males and minority communities. Show me some studies that show anything like that and I'll consider revising my views on this. The plain fact is that crime has been going down now for over 20 years and no one, not criminologists, sociologists, police chiefs or mayors can show that it is their policies and procedures (such as stop and frisk) that have achieved that result. They all want to take the credit, but to my knowledge so far there is no definitive causative link.
I am as concerned by the tactics displayed here as by the possible unjustified arrest and the trend toward more "contempt of cop" arrests which is actually official oppression and profiling.
Website powered by Foundation