Property Rights vs. The Communal Good – Two Early Supreme Court Cases

May 12, 2020June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

The dilemma of any effort to compile “must know” Supreme Court cases is deciding where to draw the line. If you narrow it to a list of 12, there are at least 3 or 4 others that really MUST be added in the name of consistency. If you expand the list to, say… 24, you’re sacrificing another half-dozen that should simply NOT be neglected if you’re to retain ANY credibility.

Then there’s the actual summarizing. How much background really matters to the casual reader or panicked student? Is it enough to say that the Dred Scott decision declared that slaves weren’t people and Congress couldn’t limit slavery in the territories, or is it necessary to explain how this helped lead to the Civil War? What about the individuals involved and their stories? Even notoriously bad Supreme Court decisions are built around real situations, the details of which matter very much to the outcome. Besides, decisions (good or bad) mean nothing out of their historical context, do they?

It’s in that spirit I’ve decided to add a dozen or so cases to my ongoing effort to publish my own compilation of accessible, enlightening, brilliantly witty summaries of the “Landmark Supreme Court Cases” every American should know and every worried student can reference before the AP Exam or Semester Test. Rather than duplicate my approach with the current fifteen or so, these additions will be one-page summaries hitting the highlights of each case along with a brief excerpt from the Court’s majority opinion.

In my draft, I’m calling these “Worth A Look.” Because they’re, well… you know.

The two cases below occurred forty years apart and involved very different circumstances. In Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837), the issue was whether or not Massachusetts owed it to a company with whom they’d done business to stick to the implied terms of their original contract. In Munn v. Illinois (1877), the question was whether or not the state could regulate private business in the name of public good. Both, however, dealt with the question of property rights and individual autonomy vs. the social contract – what was good for society as a whole. It’s that aspect I find most interesting, and most relevant all these years later.

**Worth A Look: Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837)**

{W}hat is a monopoly, but a bad name, given to anything for a bad purpose? Such, certainly, has been the use of the word in its application to this case… A monopoly, then, is an exclusive privilege conferred on one, or a company, to trade or traffick in some particular article; such as buying and selling sugar or coffee, or cotton, in derogation of a common right. Every man has a natural right to buy and sell these articles; but when this right, which is common to all, is conferred on one, it is a monopoly, and as such, is justly odious. It is, then, something carved out of the common possession and enjoyment of all, and equally belonging to all, and given exclusively to one.
But the grant of a franchise is not a monopoly, for it is not part or parcel of a common right. No man has a right to build a bridge over a navigable river, or set up a ferry, without the authority of the state. All these franchises, whether public property or public rights, are the peculiar property of the state… and when they are granted to individuals or corporations, they are in no sense monopolies; because they are not in derogation of common right.
{from the Court’s Majority Opinion, by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney}

In 1785, the Massachusetts legislature worked out a deal with the Charles River Bridge Company (CRBC). In exchange for building and maintaining a bridge across the Charles River (connecting Boston and Cambridge), the company would have the right to collect tolls from those traveling over the bridge. The bridge was built and the company because quite wealthy from the tolls, which they kept rather steep even long after their initial costs were recouped. Over time, as Massachusetts continued to grow, people grew rather annoyed with the high tolls and demanded their elected representatives do something about it.

In 1828, the state legislature granted a new charter to the Warren River Bridge Company (WRBC), who built a second bridge not all that far from the first. This bridge, however, was to be toll-free once initial costs were recovered and a reasonable profit earned for the company. Not surprisingly, people liked this bridge much better. The Charles River Bridge Company sued in state court, claiming the new charter violated their property rights and represented a broken contract by the State of Massachusetts. Not only was this very naughty, they argued, but it violated Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which says (among other things) that “no state shall… pass any… law impairing the obligation of contracts…”

The case worked its way to the Supreme Court, which found that Massachusetts had neither broken their original contract with CRBC nor violated the “contract clause” of the Constitution. While the original contract with CRBC may have been reasonably understood to suggest monopoly rights for the life of the company or the bridge, the contract never actually stated that, so… oops.

The Charles River decision was important for several reasons beyond “read the small print before you sign.” It was an early demonstration of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s desire to pull back from the passionate nationalism of his predecessor, John Marshall. Taney was a big believer in States’ Rights, which would shape a generation of Supreme Court decisions in various ways – most infamously in the Dred Scott decision authored by Taney in 1857.

Charles River also reflected a concern with the “general welfare” of both society and the economy. The perceived exploitation by CRBC as they refused to back down on their rates or otherwise compromise for the good of the collective meant they were standing in the way of prosperity. What if steamboat operators who’d received exclusive rights up and down the river took a similar approach and decided that competition from railroads violated the spirit of that agreement? Should perceived property rights be allowed to hold back society’s progress indefinitely?

States can limit or modify what’s acceptable even in contracts between private citizens or organizations as long as such interference is tempered with reason and done in the name of appropriate state “police powers.” They also have great latitude to serve the “general welfare” of their citizens. That didn’t start with Charles River, but the case certainly helped clarify and strengthen those roles going forward.

**Worth A Look: Munn v. Illinois (1877)**

When one becomes a member of society, he necessarily parts with some rights or privileges which, as an individual not affected by his relations to others, he might retain. “A body politic,” as aptly defined in the preamble of the Constitution of Massachusetts, “is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.”
This does not confer power upon the whole people to control rights which are purely and exclusively private… but it does authorize the establishment of laws requiring each citizen to so conduct himself, and so use his own property, as not unnecessarily to injure another. This is the very essence of government…
Under these powers, the government regulates the conduct of its citizens one towards another, and the manner in which each shall use his own property, when such regulation becomes necessary for the public good. In their exercise, it has been customary in England from time immemorial, and in this country from its first colonization, to regulate ferries, common carriers, hackmen, bakers, millers, wharfingers, innkeepers, &c., and, in so doing, to fix a maximum of charge to be made for services rendered, accommodations furnished, and articles sold. To this day, statutes are to be found in many of the States upon some or all these subjects; and we think it has never yet been successfully contended that such legislation came within any of the constitutional prohibitions against interference with private property…
{from the Court’s Majority Opinion, by Chief Justice Morrison R Waite}

Responding to pressure from the National Grange (a farmers’ cooperative often remembered simply as the “Grangers”), the state of Illinois passed legislation capping the amounts grain elevators and storage warehouses could charge. A Chicago warehouse run by Munn & Scott was caught overcharging and found guilty after a brief trial. They appealed, claiming that the state-imposed limits on their income was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment which says, in part, that no State may “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

The Supreme Court rejected this line of reasoning and validated the “Granger Laws” as entirely appropriate and constitutional. Since before the founding of the United States, Chief Justice Waite explained, the foundational purpose of enlightened government is to support and regulate the social contract – each citizen giving up a small bit of autonomy for the larger good. In the end, this benefits everyone, including those making these minor sacrifices.

The Court also noted that while the Commerce Clause (in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution) gives the federal legislature final power over interstate commerce, that doesn’t prevent states from reasonable regulation and oversight of the portion of that commerce taking place within their borders. The extent to which states could exercise this regulation and oversight was severely rolled back a decade later in Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Company v. Illinois (1886), after which Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate railroad and storage rates, and eventually a wide range of public utilities.

Munn established the validity of legislation regulating any industry or service determined to be essential to public interests. In the short term that primarily meant those related to farming and distribution of crops – meaning even the all-mighty railroads were impacted by the Court’s decision. While which products or services are considered essential to the public good have naturally evolved over the years, but the underlying principle has held ever since.

The Ghost Dance Movement(s)

April 24, 2019June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

Stuff You Don’t Really Want To Know (But For Some Reason Have To)

Three Big Things:

1. The tribes of the Great Plains faced confinement or extermination as the 19th century drew to a close; they were desperate and confused in the face of ongoing U.S. expansion, aggression, and manipulation.

2. The “Ghost Dance” promised to bring back their former way of life, to raise their dead, and to bring peace and prosperity to all who believed.

3. Variations in tribal interpretations of “Ghost Dance” teachings and white fears of Amerindian uprisings led to unnecessary death and violence, most notably at Wounded Knee in 1890 – the effective end of Native resistance on the Great Plains.

Background

The end of the American Civil War allowed the U.S. to turn its military focus to the Great Plains. The Homestead Act (1862) codified and intensified the westward expansion which had been a defining feature of the United States since its political birth a century before. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 had largely cleared the southeastern portion of the continent of its Native American inhabitants, most famously the Five Civilized Tribes, who were forcibly settled in Indian Territory (I.T.), along with a number of lesser-known tribes, where they did their best to rebuild what lives they could in this strange new land.

When the Civil War broke out, the Five Civilized Tribes largely supported the Confederacy – some wholeheartedly, others in part. Upon Union victory, Congress – controlled by the same Radical Republicans who would try so intently to “reconstruct” the South – punished the inhabitants of I.T. by drastically reducing their land allotments. The Five Tribes were confined to what is today the eastern half of Oklahoma, thus opening the western half to a new round of forced migration. This time it would be the tribes of the Great Plains – roughly the middle third of the U.S. – who would be hunted, cajoled, or otherwise forced onto this ever-shrinking reservation.

The Post-Bellum Indian Wars

The U.S. used a variety of tactics against the Plains Tribes in the decades after the Civil War. A favorite of George A. Custer was the early morning winter attack. Soldiers would surprise a village of “hostiles,” bundled with their women and children against the cold, and open fire just before dawn. Startled warriors were caught without their horses, weapons, or even clothing, and were generally slaughtered with relative ease.

A second strategy was less direct but arguably even more effective. Buffalo were essential to cultures and basic survival of most Plains Amerindians. Food, clothing, tools, storage, and rituals all involved parts of this ubiquitous beast. The U.S. began encouraging large-scale hunting of these creatures, on horseback or – no joke – by railroad. Excited urbanites paid good money for the chance to lean out of train windows firing rifles into the herds. The carcasses were often left in the sun to rot.

Then, of course, there were the actual battles between U.S. soldiers and various Plains tribal groups. There were a few Amerindian victories – most notably the Battle of Little Bighorn (aka, “Custer’s Last Stand”) in 1876, but by and large the Native Americans adapted poorly to the sort of hierarchical structure and sustained discipline essential for U.S.-style military engagement. While brave and creative warriors, they carried a deeply-rooted sense of individuality and a distaste for telling other men what they could or could not do. However much this stirred the romantic notions of distant whites, it completely undermined efforts to coordinate large-scale resistance.

In short, the U.S. had them out-numbered, out-gunned, out-financed, and out-structured. By the late 19th century, few Amerindians of any tribe could claim much hope for their collective futures.

The First Ghost Dance: Wodzibob

Around 1870, a Paiute holy man by the name of Wodzibob began sharing a vision he’d had in which God had taken him up to heaven and informed him that a time of resurrection was soon coming. The dead would be resurrected and the buffalo would return. The people could help speed this by performing a series of rituals, most notably an extended dance involving the entire community, women as well as men, moving rhythmically in a large circle.

“Round dances” were not new to the Plains Amerindians; most tribes had their own variations. Dancers sometimes entered trance-like states leading to visions or prophesies, so while Wodzibob’s message was new, the format and source were familiar. It was left to the individual to decide the extent to which someone else’s revelation applied to them. As an established healer and respected member of the tribe, Wodzibob’s teachings spread quickly and endured for several years, until it gradually became clear his predictions were not coming to pass in the promised time frame.

The Second Ghost Dance: Wovoka

By the late 1880s, the majority of the tribes native to the continental United States had been defeated – by warfare, by disease, by the loss of land, and – in the case of the Great Plains – the disappearance of the buffalo. Many were forced onto reservations or packed into Indian Territory where they were expected to farm and practice “white” lifestyles on unwilling land, without essential tools or adequate supplies, and minus the requisite desire. The provisions “guaranteed” by the U.S. government either never arrived or were of such poor quality as to prove useless. The proud nations of the Great Plains were broken and bewildered, and quite possibly nearing extinction.

In January 1889, an emerging Paiute spiritual leader named Wovoka (aka “Jack Wilson”) claimed to have experienced a vision reminiscent of Wodzibob’s two decades before. Wodzibob’s teachings and experiences would have been familiar to Wovoka, both as recent tribal history and because his father had been a close associate of the revered shaman, so it’s probably no surprise the basic message was the same: those who’d been lost would soon return, as would their way of life, so have faith and dance.

Wovoka’s message, however, reflected additional influences, particularly his exposure to Christianity. Wovoka taught that the people should love one another, avoid stealing or lying or even fighting the whites, and do their best to live in peace even with those who had abused them. Tribal rituals involving self-mutilation were condemned, although by some accounts Wovoka punctured his hands – a “self-inflicted stigmata” to reflect his role as either the prophet of the returning Christ, or perhaps some form of the Messiah himself.

There was also a bit where God put Wovoka in charge of the weather, at least in the western half of the United States. That’s the tricky thing about visions and faith and conflicting primary sources – they make history so much more interesting but also so… messy.

The Wounded Knee Massacre

As tends to happen with ideas as they spread, Wovoka’s message quickly evolved as it was taken up by different tribes. With the Lakota Sioux in particular, it took on a more militant tone. Their concept of renewal – of heaven on earth – was incompatible with the presence of white folks, despite Wovoka’s calls for racial unity. It was also most likely a Lakota who added the idea of a “ghost shirt,” which would render its wearer impervious to bullets (since, presumably, you can’t shoot ghosts). It was exposure to the Sioux version of Wovoka’s visions which most led to white characterizations of the dance at the heart of the movement as a “Ghost Dance” with militant overtones.

As U.S. concern over a possible Sioux uprising simmered, they more and more saw the dance as inherently hostile, or even preparatory for war. It was this fear that led to the arrest and subsequent death of Sitting Bull in 1890, a few weeks before Christmas. U.S. military officials next targeted a Lakota chief by the name of Big Foot. Most of his followers were women and children whose men had been killed resisting U.S. aggression. As those who’d lost the most, they were often the most devout adherents of the dance, pushing themselves until they collapsed or became otherwise incoherent.

Big Foot had led his group to the Pine Ridge Reservation to surrender. They were told to set up camp while officials figured out what to do with them next. The next day, December 29th, 1890, soldiers were sent into the camp to gather any remaining weapons among the Sioux. It’s unclear to what extent the Lakota resisted. Some accounts refer to a medicine man encouraging them to don their “ghost shirts” and fight, while others focus on a single young Sioux, probably deaf, who attempted to retain his rifle. Whatever the specifics, at some point a shot was fired and things pretty much went to hell from there.

Soldiers opened fire on the camp while panicked Sioux tried to grab what weapons they could to fight back. When the shooting stopped, 153 Lakota and at least 25 soldiers were dead. Most of the U.S. deaths appeared to be the result of “friendly fire,” which would be consistent with the sort of panic that comes after weeks of creeping paranoia.

Aftermath

Although periodic smaller conflicts would continue for a time, the Massacre at Wounded Knee marks the effective end of “Indian Resistance” on the Great Plains. Seemingly rubbing salt into the tragedy, the U.S. awarded twenty medals of honor to surviving soldiers for their actions.

As news of events at Wounded Knee spread, reactions were mixed. Some saw the military’s behavior as a gross overreaction – further abuse of a people clearly already defeated and pacified. Whatever the extent of the backlash, it did result in temporary efforts by the U.S. to more consistently honor its treaty obligations with survivors.

It would be nearly a century before American Indian groups began actively reclaiming their status and tribal identities.

Fake History Repeats Itself

March 19, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 1 Comment

[[{“type”:”media”,”view_mode”:”media_small”,”fid”:”685″,”attributes”:{“alt”:””,”class”:”media-image”,”typeof”:”foaf:Image”}}]]

Oh god, here we go again. I knew it would be back, but I thought it would take longer.

As a teacher, you fight ignorance, apathy, a little delusion here and there… part of the job is that kids are clueless, and we’re trying to help de-ignorize them.

From time to time (more and more often, I’m afraid) you have that kid whose parents are doing everything they can to prevent their child from ever having that first clue. They go to extreme, hostile measures to shield them from the least little bit of accountability, from any real academic or behavioral expectations, and they demand high marks and rainbow connections in return. You know they’re ruining whatever chance this kid has to ever not be useless – you know they’re probably setting the kid up for a long, painful existence even when they’re NOT in jail.

But they’re the parents, and while you have some control over what you will or won’t do, in the end they’re pretty much in charge of their minor child.

That’s what it’s like to live in Oklahoma. The entire state is, in the end, controlled by malicious idiocy. We can rant and complain, we can “educate” our understaffed little asses off, but we can’t fix it. They’re in charge – and they’re going to stay in charge for the forseeable future.

Tell me again what a GREAT idea democracy is. Good thing we gave the vote to all the stupid people, isn’t it?

Representative Dan Fisher, Black Robed Regiment Bringer Backer, has authored a Concurrent Resolution condemning APUSH for not being ‘Merican enough. A Concurrent Resolution isn’t a law – it’s the kind of thing usually used to commemorate the local football team’s one win of the season or acknowledge National Potato Week – but it’s still worth looking at.

I’m trying to clarify a few things for myself regarding what actual impact a ‘resolution’ can have on the State Board of Education or how tax dollars are or are not spent before I rant further – not that having all the facts should be an issue here, given the nature of the legislation we keep having to debunk.

In the meantime, here it is, word for word. Keep in mind that if you don’t like something you see here, it’s because you’re “dishonest” and because you’re too stupid to understand what he means.

You gotta love small people with just enough power to become truly loathsome.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES – FLOOR VERSION
STATE OF OKLAHOMA – 1st Session of the 55th Legislature (2015)
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 1002 By: Fisher
AS INTRODUCED
A Concurrent Resolution urging the College Board to change the Advanced Placement United States History course framework and examination; directing the State Board of Education not to award grants or expend certain money for any Advanced Placement United States History course or examination until certain conditions are met; directing the State Board to explore certain options; directing the State Board and boards of education to make certain decisions using certain criteria; and directing distribution.
WHEREAS, approximately 500,000 students in the United States take the College Board’s Advanced Placement United States History course each year; and WHEREAS, in Oklahoma, approximately 5,000 students are enrolled in an Advanced Placement United States History course for the 2014-2015 school year; and WHEREAS, traditionally the Advanced Placement United States History course was designed to present a balanced view of American history and to prepare students for college-level history courses; and
WHEREAS, the College Board is a private not-for-profit organization that is responsible for administering the SAT college readiness examination and for developing and providing Advanced Placement (AP) courses and examinations in various subject areas; and
WHEREAS, the College Board released changes to the Advanced Placement United States History course framework which took effect for the 2014-2015 school year and will be assessed with the May 2015 administration of the Advanced Placement United States History examination; and
WHEREAS, the new Advanced Placement United States History course framework differs from the current Oklahoma Academic Standards for Social Studies-United States History; and WHEREAS, the new Advanced Placement United States History course framework and examination emphasize the negative aspects of our nation’s history using the ideology of race, gender, class, and ethnicity to teach themes and events in United States history while omitting or minimizing positive aspects of United States history, which presents a radically revisionist, biased, and inaccurate view of United States history; and
WHEREAS, the Advanced Placement United States History course framework and examination neglect critical topics that were formerly part of the Advanced Placement United States History course. For example, very little is mentioned about the Founding Fathers, the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and the religious influences on our nation’s history; and
WHEREAS, the Advanced Placement United States History course framework and examination present inaccurate and incomplete views of historical events such as the motivations and actions of 17th through 19th century settlers, the causes of the Great Depression, and the development of and victory in the Cold War; and
WHEREAS, the Advanced Placement United States History course framework and examination exclude discussion of the United States military (no battles, commanders, or heroes), and omit individuals and events that greatly shaped our nation’s history such as Albert Einstein, Jonas Salk, George Washington Carver, Rosa Parks, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Tuskegee Airmen, the Holocaust, and many other critical topics that have long been part of the Advanced Placement United States History course and examination; and
WHEREAS, some of the best and brightest students in Oklahoma will be studying history according to the Advanced Placement United States History course framework developed by the College Board, which has stated “any teacher who presents the principles of the American Constitution taught in the traditional way would be severely disadvantaging students for the College Board examination”; and
WHEREAS, despite offering revisions and clarifications to the Advanced Placement United States History course framework, the College Board has refused to change the themes and key concepts of the framework; thus the Advanced Placement United States History required knowledge that is currently being taught to Oklahoma students is inaccurate, biased and negative and includes revisionist themes and concepts; and
WHEREAS, in order to prepare students for the Advanced Placement United States History examination, Oklahoma teachers who teach the Advanced Placement United States History course will have to be trained in and adopt materials which are in conflict with the Oklahoma Academic Standards in Social Studies-United States History; and
WHEREAS, if the Advanced Placement United States History course framework is taught in classrooms in the state it will usurp the Oklahoma Academic Standards in Social Studies-United States History.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 55TH OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE, THE SENATE CONCURRING THEREIN:
THAT the College Board is hereby urged to withdraw the new Advanced Placement United States History course framework before the beginning of the 2015-2016 school year and replace it with the Advanced Placement United States History course framework that was in place prior to the 2014-2015 school year.
THAT the State Board of Education is directed not to use taxpayers’ money to implement or administer the Advanced Placement United States History course or examination and to withhold the award of grants under the Oklahoma Advanced Placement Incentive Program for funding teacher training, curriculum, instructional materials, examination awards and examination scholarships for the Advanced Placement United States History course and examination for the 2015-2016 school year and subsequent school years until the College Board reverts back to the previous Advanced Placement United States History course framework.
THAT the State Board of Education is directed to explore alternatives to the College Board’s Advanced Placement United States History course and examination that would offer Oklahoma students the same opportunities that the Advanced Placement program offers and is in agreement with the Oklahoma Academic Standards for Social Studies-United States History.
THAT the State Board of Education and all boards of education of school districts in Oklahoma are directed to make all decisions concerning the curriculum and materials used in courses and programs in United States History, Honors United States History and Advanced Placement United States History in accordance with the Oklahoma Academic Standards for Social Studies-United States History adopted by the State Board of Education and that all curriculum and materials have an emphasis on America’s founding principles, exceptionalism, and unique role in the world.
THAT copies of this resolution be distributed to David Coleman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the College Board, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Governor of Oklahoma, and the Lieutenant Governor of Oklahoma.
DIRECT TO CALENDAR.

I don’t want to write about this again. I was enjoying my little Civil War series, and more than anything I wish I could afford to just pack up and move tomorrow. I’ve never known a state to work SO hard at getting even worse.

Top 10 Reasons America Is Exceptional

February 20, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

As the kerfuffle surrounding Oklahoma’s sudden desire to de-thinkerize APUSH started making headlines this past week, NPR made a visit to the classroom of Christine Custred of Edmond, OK. The audio and transcript of the resulting piece is worth a listen and a read if you haven’t already done so.

One of the central issues, of course, is the belief by some on the right that the new APUSH course outline doesn’t sufficiently emphasize American Exceptionalism – the belief we are unique and awesome in ways others can only long for. Everyone wants to either be us or blow us up – either way, must be because we’re awesome.

Custred managed one of my favorite understated rebuffs of this century when she slid in this bit:

In most places in the world, you’ll be hauled off by some kind of Gestapo if you criticize the country and/or government, and that is exceptional that we can do that.

A few days later, still apparently fuming over state efforts to make our kids LESS prepared to function outside the Dollar General or local feed store, she posted this to her Facebook page. It is reprinted with permission here.

TOP TEN REASONS AMERICA IS EXCEPTIONAL
1. Separation of church and state. Our Founding Fathers ensured this for us. A cursory knowledge of history and current world governments (and the Puritans) enlightens us to why this us so very important.
2. The Zenger trial led the way for the 1st amendment which allows Americans to safely criticize their government.
3. As a result of our free speech, history teachers can teach all of American History (the good, the bad, and the ugly). Try doing that in North Korea. Wait, don’t.
4. America educates all of its citizens. Simply AMAZING.
5. America has a very sad and tragic history with regard to civil rights and the mistreatment of ethnic and racial minorities. But because of our 1st amendment (again, thank you Founding Fathers) demonstrations and criticism led to significant changes. We still have gains to make on this front but we now have an African American president. Really think about that.
6. Students in America will learn about that sad and tragic history.
7. There is a shop that sells cupcakes across the street from my school. They haven’t gone out of business. It seems crazy that someone would pay $4.00 for a cupcake. You go free market and the American Dream.
8. Anthropologie
9. My daughters can go to school without fear of being shot in the face. They can achieve and aim for things that would never have been available to them 100 years ago or currently in many countries of the world. The same goes for your daughters.
10. An average girl from the great state of Minnesota, who was told by her high school counselor that a community college was her only option (remember that Thomas Legierski and Marie Legierski?) can become an advocate for education.

Feel free to share your lists as well, if you prefer. Personally, I’m having a hard time topping this one.

A Student Defends AP

February 20, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

I don’t know what they’re teaching kids these days. Give them a little learnin’ and they think they’re supposed to go out and spout their thinkin’ about everything.

This was sent to me by a former student who I managed not to completely ruin during her brief time in my world. She initiated the discussion, although I confess once I read the letter I got a lil’ tingly teacher feeling. She’s mailed it out – OLD SCHOOL HARD COPY – to relevant legislators.

*sniff* These are the ones Whitney wanted us to teach well so they could lead the way and such. Megan will be ruling a world of her choice soon – I’m glad she’s using her powers for good and not evil.

Well, so far.

Printed with permission.

~~~~~~~

19 February 2015

Dear Oklahoma Representatives and Senators:

I cannot recall a day where I have not been proud to call myself a Union Redskin – a student of Union High School in Tulsa, Oklahoma. In elementary school, my teachers would try to give me extra work to challenge me because I always finished my work before everyone else. They always told me I would go on to do great things, that they could not wait to see the person I would grow to become in high school and beyond.

That time is now. In just three short months, I will be graduating as a Salutatorian of one of the top public high schools in Oklahoma with a weighted GPA of 4.939 and an unweighted GPA of 4.00. In addition to that, I have been named a National Merit Finalist, occupied a student leadership role of great significance in the Union High School Marching Band, and earned community service recognition by serving over 300 hours during high school. Just like they said they would, my elementary school teachers have watched me grow up and mature into a bright, successful young woman. They have come to support me at my awards ceremonies and musical performances. That same dedication of teachers to their students is seen throughout all grades at Union Public Schools, and I am beyond grateful to be taught by such loving, caring people.

Those supportive teachers are the foremost reason that I have a desire and drive to succeed in school. They prepared me for high school. When I got to high school, my 9th grade pre-AP US Government/Oklahoma History teacher Dallas Koehn realized from the start that I had a drive to succeed. He pushed me to my limits and taught me what learning is really supposed to be like. He taught me to think outside the box, to form my own opinions about things. He especially prepared me to take Advanced Placement United States History (APUSH) as a sophomore. This began my tenure of AP classes at Union; totaling 8 classes in grades 10-12, they are the reason why I am now Salutatorian of my graduating class, ranked 18 out of 1080.

This high class rank is what gives me an advantage when applying for selective universities, like my top choice, Washington University in St. Louis. I will pursue Electrical Engineering at Wash U in fall 2015, where I will certainly need to think independently and manage my time wisely.

AP CLASSES HAVE TAUGHT ME HOW TO THINK INDEPENDENTLY AND MANAGE MY TIME WISELY.

So you see, the presence of AP classes in my high school career DIRECTLY INFLUENCES my life in college and beyond in a series of intertwined ways! If I did not have the ability to take APUSH as a sophomore, or any AP classes for that matter, I would not be able to achieve and live out my American Dream of going to my top choice college to study Engineering, music, business, and anything else that might fit my fancy. Knowledge is a beautiful thing, and I desire more than anything to expand my horizons of knowledge in community with other passionate individuals like myself. That’s my dream.

And really, isn’t that what American Exceptionalism is all about? Raising new generations to find their own American Dream and give them the tools to pursue it? If you take away AP classes, you will be denying future generations their right to live out their passions. Please, Oklahoma Representatives and Senators, DO NOT rid Oklahoma of Advanced Placement classes.

Sincerely,

Megan Harju
Union High School
Tulsa, OK

Worth A Look: Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837)

Worth A Look: Munn v. Illinois (1877)