The Topeka Capital-Journal, July 28

The Kansas Department for Children and Families recent suggested guidance about how child placement agencies handle LGBTQ youths in their care strikes us as good sense, despite grousing from some self-righteous conservative groups. DCF wants these children to be placed with foster parents or homes that affirm their identities.

What does that mean? Simply put, if a gay teenager is in foster care, his or her family won’t discipline that teen for being gay or attempt to “convert” him or her to being straight. If transgender teens are in foster care, their families will respect their current gender.

Being a teenager is tough enough. LGBTQ teens face bigger challenges than their straight peers, given pervasive bullying and discrimination. The last thing they need are foster families determined to undermine their identities. Nothing could be more troubling or disturbing to a young person trying to move through a challenging world than having their very being questioned by those chosen by the state to care for them.

This should be common sense. Experts affirm the obvious, according to The Topeka Capital-Journal’s Sherman Smith.

“Adolescence is such a huge time when kids are developing their sexual identity, their gender identity,” Pam Cornwell, a family therapist with St. Francis Ministries, told Smith. “When they don’t have the support of their family, they’re in the foster care system, it makes it much more difficult for them to find they kind of support they need to get through this very challenging developmental period.”

But the Family Policy Alliance, a conservative advocacy group, claimed the DCF guidance was part of an “invasive sexual agenda” that could limit homes for children.

We think this is overwrought. The vast majority of foster parents understand the difficulty of the teen years. We trust that these families want to support the youths in their care, whatever their sexual orientation or gender expression.

If there are families that legitimately would not take part because they might have to care for an LGBTQ teen, they might want to consider their place in the program. In this changing world, respect and tolerance should be taken as given. You don’t have to agree (whatever that means) with a teen’s sexual orientation or gender expression to support them as people or respect their basic humanity. You don’t have to ignore destructive or harmful activity.

But gay and transgender folks are part of the world today. They will be part of the world tomorrow. And all of the huffing and puffing in the world won’t change that.

_____

The Lawrence Journal-World, July 28

Both parties would benefit from some clear-eyed thinking this election season

To the uninformed, pragmatism does sound like a condition that requires a trip to the doctor and a strong prescription. Maybe that is why most modern politicians avoid it.

Pragmatism, of course, isn’t a disease. It is a philosophy that embraces practical approaches to problems and affairs. It is a philosophy that allows for compromise because it recognizes that the world is always changing, so sometimes your positions have to as well.

Both major political parties may find it necessary to adopt the philosophy to be successful this election season. At least, we should hope so.

Let’s start with Kansas Republicans. Former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach is running for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate. Pragmatism would argue that Republicans should reject him.

Kobach just lost a statewide election to Democrat Laura Kelly in the governor’s race. Kobach may appeal to Republican voters in a primary, but he doesn’t appeal to the larger electorate in a general election. Republican voters should do the pragmatic thing and reject Kobach in the primary. Why nominate someone who stands a good chance of losing?

It appears Republicans are taking that approach. The national Republican Party has said it would actively oppose Kobach’s bid. A victory for pragmatism.

It is not yet clear that Democrats have seen such a light. Impeachment talk continues in Congress. This is despite the fact that it is crystal clear there have been no new developments that would lead to the Senate convicting President Trump. An impeachment vote by the House would be a statement of principles. But would it help elect a Democrat to replace Trump in 2020? Pragmatism says no. Voters who want to impeach Trump already are going to vote against him. A failed impeachment bid’s most likely outcome is to energize Trump’s base. Democrats can investigate in hopes of finding that smoking gun that would turn the tide in the Senate. There is a duty there. But there is no duty to conduct a doomed impeachment proceeding.

There also doesn’t seem to be much pragmatism in selecting a Democratic nominee. The political calculation seems pretty simple: The president is unlikely to expand his base. What state did Hillary Clinton win that Trump is likely to win in the next election?

The path to Trump’s reelection seems to be to win the states he won in the last election. Democrats need to change some minds in those states. Pragmatism says to focus on the states where you have the least number of minds to change. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are the three states to focus on. Trump’s margin of victory over Clinton was less than 1% in all those states.

Pragmatism says the Democratic nominee should appeal to voters in those states. It is not clear that Democrats are heeding that message. Former Vice President Joe Biden has that best combination of name recognition and policies to appeal to voters in those states. You can’t blame his Democratic opponents for attacking him - they want to win too - but it would be nice if the attacks were about policies from this decade. Pragmatic voters, though, will keep electability in mind.

Biden also is not doing himself any favors. He has to talk his way out of seemingly supporting the idea of decriminalizing illegal border crossings (Remember when he raised his hand at the last Democratic debate? Don’t worry, Republicans have photos.) Democrats can and should advocate for a kinder, humane immigration system. But if the message becomes immigrants can enter the country without knocking first, Democrats likely will lose another election that is winnable.

A pragmatist would also recognize that there are lots of ways Trump can win this election. He has done many things that appeal to people in those three states. Manufacturing jobs are up, people with less than a college degree have seen economic improvement, the stock market is soaring, and the national economy is generally good.

The country needs more pragmatism because so little gets done without it. Democrats likely are going to need it to win an important election. But it is tough to bet that they will adopt it in time. There are many Democrats who want a revolution. But there are many Americans who just want a moving truck at the White House. Trying to have both might be a good way to get neither.

______

The Kansas City Star, July 29

Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools fumbled with the hiring of athletic director Tammie Romstad, who was part of a controversial, win-at-all-costs operation at Independence Community College.

Hiring the longtime athletic director of a Kansas junior college that is perhaps best known for its former football coach’s offensive remark about Hitler is a questionable decision on its face. But the fact that Romstad still hasn’t condemned Jason Brown or his comment - and won’t even address the situation publicly - is all the more troubling.

Her track record raises serious concerns about whether Romstad will set the right priorities in hiring and managing coaches who should also be role models for their athletes.

For starters, Romstad owes the community an explanation of why she supported Brown, a coach who resigned under pressure in February after texting a student athlete from Germany: “I’m your new Hitler.”

Romstad, a supporter of the volatile coach, has never publicly disavowed Brown’s text. She did not return several phone calls from The Star seeking comment.

Romstad could have distanced herself from Brown and should have acknowledged that she was part of an administration that erred in hiring the coach, who starred in the last two seasons of Netflix’s “Last Chance U.”

But she appears to have few, if any, regrets about Brown’s tenure.

For his part, Brown was defiant to the end - his resignation did not include an apology or admission of wrongdoing. Romstad, who is identified on “Last Chance U” as Tammie Geldenhuys, hasn’t directly addressed the Hitler comment. But she has come to Brown’s defense in general terms, noting that “he didn’t survive and grow up by being politically correct.”

What message does that send to the student athletes in Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools?

Superintendent Charles Foust said he has spoken about the hire with the district’s human resources department, which is now led by former Independence Community College human resources director Keli Tuschman.

Foust wouldn’t divulge the nature of those discussions, and Tuschman didn’t respond to requests seeking comment.

Foust said of Romstad’s support for Brown: “The press pressed her for comment, and she stayed in the middle of the street. She never states she supported (Brown’s) comment.

“They wanted her to kowtow. Everyone wants (officials) to tell the truth, but the other person has a right, too,” he said.

Yes, Brown has rights, too. But Romstad, who will be paid $102,000 a year in her new job, has a responsibility to draw a bright line here, condemn the Hitler comment and make clear that going forward, she won’t turn a blind eye to inexcusable behavior with the hope of winning a few more games.

As Andy Taylor, editor of the Montgomery County, Kansas Chronicle told The Star, Romstad was part of a team that ran with the idea of turning “Last Chance U” and Jason Brown into a marketing tool to boost the school’s profile.

That proved to be a dangerous strategy that brought national attention to Independence Community College for all the wrong reasons. If Romstad shows similarly poor judgment in her new job, Foust and other top school officials who signed off on this hire will share the blame.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC.