“While You Wait” (A Play from The Smart Set, June 1900)

March 26, 2019June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

“While You Wait” (By Charles Newton Hood) – The Smart Set (June 1900)

SCENE—The cozy breakfast-room in the home of MR. and MRS. RICHARD JAMES VAN CLEEF. Young MR. VAN CLEEF strolls in and is considerably surprised to discover that his charming wife has preceded him, and, what is more, is placidly awaiting his arrival before ordering her own matutinal repast; such a thing being so unusual that MR. VAN CLEEF could scarcely tell the date of its last occurrence; and, furthermore, MRS. VAN CLEEF appears to be mildly interested in his arrival.

MR. VAN CLEEF (in a rather perfunctory way, as he drops into his chair and selects his favorite morning newspaper from the pile by the side of his place)—This is an unexpected pleasure.

Pretty little MRS. VAN CLEEF only smiles in response and rings for breakfast. After the meal is well under way, and MR. VAN CLEEF is beginning to enjoy his coffee—experiencing the odd sensation of having MRS. VAN CLEEF pour it, instead of James, and smiling to discover that she really has forgotten how many lumps of sugar he prefers and how little cream-he is surprised, in the midst of a financial article he is reading in a paper propped up against the fruit dish, to discover that MRS. VAN CLEEF is not partaking of food, but is regarding him with a troubled look. MR. VAN CLEEF glances up inquiringly.

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Dick, we’ve done our parts remarkably well, haven’t we?

MR. VAN CLEEF—I don’t exactly understand.

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Why, I mean, since we talked it all over three years ago, and decided that we had both made the same mistake—that we were never intended for each other, after all, but that, being married, we’d got to make the best of it. We’ve acted our parts admirably to the world, so that it is doubtful if anyone really suspects that we are not still enjoying an indefinitely extended honeymoon. We have done some remarkably clever acting, for amateurs, and it seems to me that we deserve all of the “good notices” we get in the society columns.

MR. VAN CLEEF does not respond in words, but he looks troubled.

MRS. VAN CLEEF (as if in answer to a protest)—No, Dick, I’m not going to go over the whole story again. Don’t think it! We married because I was old Emprett’s only daughter—tolerably good-looking they used to say—and you were Mr. Richard James Van Cleef, son of the same, and descendant of a long line of Van Cleefs running back a good many generation without ever getting out of alignment; the best catch of the Summer of ’92. The walks and talks, and dances and swims, and books and looks, and moons and spoons, and boating and tennis and all that sort of thing we enjoyed together at Oderkonsett that Summer we thought had developed a sincere and undying affection, and we were really and truly surprised when we discovered, after something over a year of constant companionship, how much we bored each other. I think we were wise, as things looked to us then, to come to the decision we did: to make the best of it; but just tolerably good friends in private, but to keep up the romance so far as other people were concerned. As I say, we’ve done it very credibly. You’ve been very nice to me, and helped me nobly each time we have had to entertain together, and I’ve tried to be everything that could be expected of me except a loving and devoted companion. I’ve never flirted, to speak of, and they do say, Dick, that you have settled down wonderfully since you were married. It has all be done beautifully.

MR. VAN CLEEF (with a puzzled expression)—Well?

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Be patient. We decided, on coming to our senses, that we didn’t really love each other at all. You don’t love me now, do you?

MR. VAN CLEEF—Dear! Dear! What is the use of all this? What is the—

MRS. VAN CLEEF—One moment, please. I’ve really got quite deep reasons for it all. (To servant) No, James, we don’t need anything. I shall ring if we do. You see, Dick, I’ve got my plans all laid along a certain line, and I must follow that line or I may get mixed up. You must be very accommodating and answer every question. Now, you don’t really love me at all, do you?

MR. VAN CLEEF—Why, of course, I—

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Now, be honest, speak right out—square-toed, plain, commonsense, hygienic, French-toed without a patent-leather tip, I might say. You know you don’t love me, and why not say so?

MR. VAN CLEEF—Well, then, I don’t.

MRS. VAN CLEEF—That’s right. Not the least little bit in the world?

MR. VAN CLEEF—Why, I suppose—

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Come, come, be honest.

MR. VAN CLEEF (actually grinning a little at the peculiar cross-examination)—Well, then, not the least little bit in the world.

MRS. VAN CLEEF (clapping her hands together ecstatically in front of her face and laughing in a way young MR. VAN CLEEF used to think very charming indeed)—Neither do I you, not the least little bit in the world—not the very least. You’re an awfully nice fellow, and I like you about as well as I do anybody, but I don’t Love you, with a large L, and you don’t Love me, with a large L, and there you are. I wanted to get it all thoroughly understood before I divulged my great plan. Don’t you think that, after all, we’re sort of foolish?

MR. VAN CLEEF—Why, I don’t know; under the circumstances—

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Yes, yes. That’s all right; but we’re young and—nice—and all that, and, someway, do you know, it seems to me that we ought to be privileged to fall in love if we wanted to and—

MR. VAN CLEEF (thinking he sees a light)—Oh, that’s—

MRS. VAN CLEEF (hastily)—Now you’re wrong. You’re wrong. I haven’t fallen in love with anybody, and I don’t suppose that you have, but even if we wanted to, either one of us, we mustn’t, and it doesn’t seem as if we’re being fair to ourselves.

MR. VAN CLEEF—Well?

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Well, I have been looking into the matter a little and I think it could all be arranged very nicely and easily, and everything would be lovely. The circular says—

MR. VAN CLEEF—The circular?

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Oh, yes, I forgot to tell you. I wrote to some lawyers in Dakota and Oklahoma, who call themselves “Divorce Specialists,” and advertise “Divorces While You Wait;” and, really, the way they put it, all you have to do to get a divorce is just to go out there and spend a few months enjoying the lovely climate and all that, and come back divorced. I think—

MR. VAN CLEEF (excitedly)—Do you mean to say, Mrs. Van Cleef, that you have been writing to those sharks on the subject of divorce?

MRS. VAN CLEEF (placidly)—Why, certainly; but, of course, not in my own name, my dear. Annette attended to that, and I had the letters come to Mrs. J. J. Jones in care of a private post-office on the other side of the city. Annette got the letters for me, but she doesn’t know anything at all about what was in them. I was very particular about that.

MR. VAN CLEEF (with a resigned gasp)—Well, I should hope so. Go on.

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Now, in this divorce business, there seems to be a great rivalry between South Dakota and Oklahoma, but the Oklahoma firm’s circular is a good deal the more enticing. Listen. It says (she reads from a circular which she takes from her pocket): “Our newer States, in compiling their laws, have seen fit to show more liberality in the matter of obtaining divorces than may be found among the older states, whose laws on this subject were enacted at a time when ideas were less in accord with the advanced liberal thought of the present.

“As the Mohammedan devotee confidingly turns his eyes toward the tomb of his beloved leader, so has Dakota been regarded as the Mecca of hope to weary companions in matrimony.”

Isn’t that nice? We’ll be the weary companions.

“But,” it says, “Dakota can no longer claim this undivided homage. In the still newer but none the less advanced Commonwealth of Oklahoma she has met a rival, and a fair comparison must show largely to the advantage of the sometime State, and, while the divorce laws are almost identical, the many physical advantages of Oklahoma place her in the lead at once.

“Contemplate, in comparison to the storm-swept plains of Dakota, the picturesqueness of Oklahoma’s ever varying scenery, her fertile fields and blooming prairies, fringed with beautiful groves and ribbed with many a rippling brook. Here nestles the newborn child of the Republic in all her virgin beauty, and here, almost in the centre of the Union, you may enjoy the luxuries of civilization and the rugged beauties of nature while shuffling off the unworthy partner. Here the pleasure seeker and naturalist, while waiting his or her divorce, may revel amid the delights of mountain scenery and explore the caves and cañons so lately the haunts of outlaws. Here the lover of the chase may vent his ardor in pursuit of deer, bear, antelope and mountain lion, while grouse, quail, ducks and geese are plentiful and the streams abound in fish peculiar to Western and Southern waters. The hotels are,” etc., etc.

Isn’t that nice? It says we have to live there only ninety days before we can get a divorce and be as free as the glorious air of Oklahoma. All we have to swear to is that we are uncongenial and incompatible, and you swear that you are a poor, neglected husband, and I’ll swear that I am a poor, neglected wife, and we’ll go out there for a little vacation, and you can hunt and explore and neglect me and be uncongenial and incompatible, and I’ll climb mountains and fish and be incompatible and uncongenial and neglect you, and we’ll have just a lovely time, and there won’t be any scandal, and when we come back we’ll just be good friends and make a joke of it, and you can go your way and I’ll go mine, and—What do you think of it?

MR. VAN CLEEF (looking rather grave)—Why, I have never given the subject thought. It is easily enough arranged, evidently, and if you particularly desire it—

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Now, now; don’t throw it all on me, please, Dick, just because I happened to think the plan all out. Say “we.”

MR. VAN CLEEF—Well, “we,” then. As I say, I haven’t had a chance to think it over, but I suppose, considering the way our lives have been lived for the past few years, it would be the wisest thing to do.

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Why, certainly; and I’ve never seen all that Western country at all, and it would be just a lovely trip and outing for us. A sort of farewell tour, you know. When shall we start?

MR. VAN CLEEF (entering more into the spirit of the thing)—Why, if we’re going, we might as well start to-morrow as any time. I don’t suppose they have special excursion rates at regular intervals for parties seeking divorce, have they?

MRS. VAN CLEEF—I don’t suppose so, but it would be an idea for the railroads, wouldn’t it? Sell a round trip ticket for a fare and a third, including a coupon good for one absolute divorce.

MR. VAN CLEEF—Yes, and there could be personally conducted, special car lots of divorce-hunting couples, and we could flirt desperately on the way out and maybe come back married to somebody else.

MRS. VAN CLEEF (gravely)—I don’t believe we’d want to associate much with other people who were looking for divorces, because they might not be as—nice as we are, with their “grounds” taken from the Ten Commandments.

MR. VAN CLEEF—M-m-m. It won’t be necessary to make any special preparations for the trip, will it?

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Oh, no, indeed. I don’t suppose we’ll be going out much, and we’ll be roughing it, near to nature’s heart, while we’re waiting. I don’t suppose there’s any special divorce costume necessary.

MR. VAN CLEEF—There really ought to be. Why shouldn’t divorces eventually become a regular social function, the same as swell weddings, to “accord with the advanced liberal thought of the present”?

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Yes, indeed. The society columns ought to write them up, the same as they do weddings. Wouldn’t this sound pleasant? (She snatches up a paper and, holding it upside down, pretends to read.)

“A CHARMING DIVORCE

“Mr. and Mrs. Richard James Van Cleef were divorced yesterday morning in the presence of a small company of invited guests, the occasion being one of the most delightful absolute divorce ceremonies seen in Oklahoma this season. Justice Van Brun officiated in his usual impressive manner, his remarks and advice at the close being most felicitous. The couple were divorced standing before a magnificent floral design representing ‘Liberty.’ Mrs. Van Cleef wore a simple yet wonderfully becoming traveling gown of changeable green, and Mr. Van Cleef was attired in the conventional costume for morning divorces. The fair divorcée entered leaning upon the arm of her venerable attorney, but Mr. Van Cleef was entirely unattended. After receiving the congratulations of their many friends,” etc.

Wouldn’t that be nice? But I presume that we can get all we’ll want to take in one trunk.

MR. VAN CLEEF—One trunk? Well, I guess not. We’d fight over who should have it coming back.

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Why, that’s so. I never thought of that. We’ll take two small trunks, then.

MR. VAN CLEEF—As long as we are going right through Chicago, we might stop over there—

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Not to get—it—the papers, you don’t mean?

MR. VAN CLEEF—Oh, no; but we haven’t been there since the Fair. Our honeymoon was bright and new then.

MRS. VAN CLEEF (pensively)—Oh, wasn’t it pretty?

MR. VAN CLEEF—What, the moon?

MRS. VAN CLEEF—No, no. The Fair—the grounds, the buildings, and the water. They say nearly every vestige of it is gone now.

MR. VAN CLEEF—Like our honeymoon.

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Seems a pity, doesn’t it? Do you remember how we floated around the lagoon in the gondola that night of the illumination? Wasn’t it just too enchanting?

MR. VAN CLEEF—It was, it was. And we thought we were happy.

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Why, we were happy!

MR. VAN CLEEF—Were we? It’s so long ago. We’ll go and see the place, anyway.

MRS. VAN CLEEF—I suppose we ought to divide the furnishings and other things we own in common before we go, oughtn’t we?

MR. VAN CLEEF—I suppose it would be less embarrassing. Let me see, what do we own in common?

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Why, there’s the big leather chair—

MR. VAN CLEEF—Oh, yes; the chair. May I have that?

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Oh, no, Dick. I couldn’t spare that. Don’t you remember, we bought it together and ordered it made especially wide and easy, so that we could both sit in it together before the fire in the library? Don’t you remember?

MR. VAN CLEEF—Oh, yes, I remember. I thought I’d sort of like it as a memento.

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Would you? Well, of course you shall have it, but ‘twill break my heart to part with it. And of course you will take your books and I shall take mine. That’s easy.

MR. VAN CLEEF—And the pictures?

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Oh, dear me, dear me! We bought almost every one of them together. You choose one first.

MR. VAN CLEEF—I’ll take that marine, “Break, Break, Break.” That ought to be appropriate, under the circumstances.

MRS. VAN CLEEF (with a little gasp)—Why, Dick, that was the very first one we bought. Don’t you remember, we bought it, because I liked it, of the artist himself, and you sulked because I raved over the artist’s hair and eyes, and—

MR. VAN CLEEF—Yes, the confounded little whipper-snapper. I never could abide that sort of men.

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Neither can I, but they’re pretty to rave about. We almost quarreled. Do you remember?

MR. VAN CLEEF—Yes. That was the first time.

MRS. VAN CLEEF—And I cried and cried, and you didn’t know what to do, and walked the floor, and by-and-by—

MR. VAN CLEEF—I went and tore your hands away from your eyes—

MRS. VAN CLEEF—And made me let you kiss the tears away.

MR. VAN CLEEF—U-m-m. Now you choose one.

MRS. VAN CLEEF—I’ll take—let me see—“The Elopement.”

MR. VAN CLEEF—But that’s yours, anyway.

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Why, so it is! You gave it to me on our first anniversary. How pleased I was! We were awfully happy, weren’t we?

MR. VAN CLEEF—We thought we were.

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Why, we were. We ought to be happy now.

MR. VAN CLEEF—We will be, as soon as the knot is untied.

MRS. VAN CLEEF—I wonder if we will?

MR. VAN CLEEF—Why, of course!

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Doesn’t it seem strange?

MR. VAN CLEEF—It do so—it do so.

MRS. VAN CLEEF—What made us get tired of each other, I wonder?

MR. VAN CLEEF—Well, it was like this: The first time I came home drunk from the club you—

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Why, Dick Van Cleef, you never came home drunk to me in your life!

MR. VAN CLEEF—Didn’t I? Well, I have been neglectful, haven’t I? I give it up.

MRS. VAN CLEEF—We just got tired of each other, that’s all. Never mind the dividing. Let’s just plan our trip.

MR. VAN CLEEF—Shall we stop at Niagara Falls?

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Oh, let’s! And go to every last place we went to when we stopped there on our wedding trip—Goat Island, and the Three Sisters, and the Whirlpool Rapids, and under the Falls, and the Cave of the Winds, and everywhere.

MR. VAN CLEEF—And we certainly ought to go to Luna Island.

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Do you remember the guide telling us about the French couple who couldn’t speak English, and of how he came back from Third Sister Island alone and said that his wife and fallen in, and then afterward confessed that he wanted to get rid of her and had dared her to kneel down and drink out of the rapids, and then, when she tried to do it, he pushed her in?

MR. VAN CLEEF—Yes, I remember. Too bad he didn’t know about Oklahoma!

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Aren’t you a horrid thing!

MR. VAN CLEEF—I am, indeed. And shall we take the Great Lakes trip to Chicago again, too?

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Oh, yes, let’s. We did enjoy that so, didn’t we? I do love the water so! The moonlight evenings on deck and—

MR. VAN CLEEF—You probably won’t sit on the deck and go to sleep with your head on my shoulder, as you did on one of the said moonlight nights, will you?

MRS. VAN CLEEF (pensively)—You wouldn’t want me to.

MR. VAN CLEEF—We used to sit there on deck in the evenings for hours without speaking a word. We could do that all right now.

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Why, we were just too happy to speak; and besides, we didn’t need to. When you squeezed my hand and I squeezed your hand back again, it meant everything that we could possibly say.

MR. VAN CLEEF—And now, when we sit up there, I can box your ears and you can slap my face, and that will express everything, just the same, without a word being spoken.

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Oh, Dick, don’t! Our dear, dead love ought to be sacred, and we did know, because, don’t you remember, we tried it once, and when I squeezed your hand you told me exactly what I was thinking, and when you squeezed my hand back again, I told you. It was a kind of telepathy.

MR. VAN CLEEF—I wonder if it would work now?

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Perhaps.

MR. VAN CLEEF (going around behind his wife’s chair and taking one of her hands in his)—Now.

MRS. VAN CLEEF (gently, almost timidly, pressing her husband’s hand)—Now, what am I thinking?

MR. VAN CLEEF (promptly)—You are thinking what a pair of fools we’ve been to make ourselves believe that we didn’t love each other, when we really did, down in our hearts, all of the time, only we were too proud to admit it.

MRS. VAN CLEEF (with a little gasp)—Why, that’s exactly right! Oh, Dick, do you? Do you?

MR. VAN CLEEF (dropping on one knee beside his wife’s chair and choking a little)—Yes, darling.

MRS. VAN CLEEF—And shall we begin all over again and not want any divorce at all—while we wait?

MR. VAN CLEEF (with his arm around his wife’s waist)—Yes, dearest. But why not take the trip, just the same?

MRS. VAN CLEEF—Oh, yes; let’s take one every year at just this time—

MR. VAN CLEEF—And call them our regular annual farewell tours. We’ll start to-morrow.

MRS. VAN CLEEF—With one trunk.

Helen Churchill Candee on Women in Oklahoma Territory

March 25, 2019June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

Helen Churchill Candee arrived in Gurthrie, O.T., in the mid-1890s, primarily because of the territory’s widely-advertised lax divorce laws and her desire to escape an abusive marriage. She’d come from a respectable New England upbringing and a life of some affluence, including travel, books, art, and an impressive formal education. While not necessarily an oddity in Oklahoma society, she was certainly not your average boomer.

Her writings on Oklahoma and its people are some of the most insightful and sympathetic of her generation. Six articles and a novel, with overlapping themes and anecdotes, between 1896 and 1901. In them she covers a variety of topics comfortably, from agricultural logistics to social dynamics to government policy and how it impacts very real people—people she observed, interacted with, and developed affections for on a daily basis.

One of the most intriguing threads in this early writing is her approach towards women in Oklahoma Territory. Candee was already something of a feminist, although the term itself would have been unfamiliar to most and these leanings were not as pronounced as they’d become a few decades later. Her first book, How Women My Earn A Living, was first published in 1900, and took a socially-appropriate-but-imminently-practical approach towards ladies who found themselves in need of substantive employment. In retrospect, it’s considered something of a minor landmark in feminist literature.

Candee’s treatment of female society in the territories which is particularly fascinating. She writes with gentle candor, taking the reader into her confidence without ever quite becoming gossipy, only periodically stepping into other narrative “voices” in order to better explore her subject. Surely such forthrightness suggests we might catch occasional glimpses of the woman behind the words?

First Impressions “In Oklahoma”

Her first piece on life in O.T., “In Oklahoma,” was for The Illustrated American, a periodical for whom she’d written regularly for several years. It was published on April 4, 1896, not long after she’d moved to the area. It’s one of the edgiest of her writings on the Territory and offers her earliest commentary on Indians, government policy, violence over disputed claims, and other themes to which she’d later return. It lacks the warmer perspective she’d have a few years later, when her affections for the Territory seem to color her portrayals of even the most unpleasant realities.

It’s also the first time she writes specifically about women in O.T.:

Among the home-seekers there were women—not helpless, discouraged women, inefficient and parasitical, but belonging to the large class who prefer work to dependence and who looked upon “proving up a claim” as a business measure, perhaps not expecting to spend all their lives in exile, but willing to conform to the time of residence stipulated by the Government, that they might sell the claim later with its improvements and realize a fair sum.

So there’s a sentence.

Candee’s contrast of O.T. home-seekers with “helpless, discouraged women, inefficient and parasitical” certainly cuts more sharply than her later works. At the risk of reading too much into one colorful phrase, perhaps this reflects a bit of her own “strength via defiance” – her own refusal to be a “helpless, discouraged woman”?

Candee was caring for two children in a frontier town. Divorce carried substantial social stigma, whatever her former society or current surroundings. There’s nothing to indicate she was in financial difficulty, but neither could she possibly have maintained in Guthrie the sort of comfort and security which had defined her world for nearly forty years. It must have taken some grit and grind in practice, however much grace and style were manifested in the presentation.

A little defensiveness or hostility is not inconceivable. It happens.

Or maybe that’s too much of a leap – inferring more than the text justifies. That also happens.

Holding Claims and Digging Out

But unless a woman is as brave as a lion and as self-sufficient as Webster’s Unabridged, it is a weary banishment. Houses are not huddled together in the territory; they are far apart, one every mile perhaps, and the majority occupied by negroes or the usual class of workers that open up the frontier, so there is no society for the woman “holding down” a claim, unless she is interested in humanity of the lowest sort.

A phrase like “brave as a lion and as self-sufficient as Webster’s Unabridged” is too golden to pass into obscurity. If only we could run about quoting it to people while shaking them by the collar enthusiastically, without getting arrested…

Her claim is probably from twelve to forty miles from the nearest railroad town; the other settlements scarcely count. And yet, inside her cabin you perhaps may see late magazines, a few books, an old Satsuma plate, some Oriental stuffs, to remind her of the world beyond the blackjacks and the rolling prairie.

More magazines than books, and a single “Satsuma plate” along with other “Oriental stuffs.” Can you feel it?

Satsuma was a type of Japanese dinnerware which could be a sign of substantial sophistication, but which was mass- produced by American factories during this time in imitation thereof. Taken together, this scattered collection acknowledges civilization, and reaches for it despite surroundings. What would prove a rather pathetic effort in other settings seems a noble declaration of values on the frontier.

Candee is perfectly comfortable with the independent female accomplishing things formerly associated with men. She’d almost have to be, since she was doing it herself, and she’d certainly have encountered others in such unorthodox surroundings. And yet…

Her house began as a “dug-out”… It is getting uncomfortably near to nature’s heart to live in a square hole dug in the ground…
The dug-out is cool in summer and warm in winter, and the tireless hurricane that incessantly sweeps the territory is powerless to blow it over; but the soul of the woman longs for something more, and when the claim has yielded a profit she invests the money in a suitable house…

The “tireless hurricane that incessantly sweeps the territory”? Yeah, there’s still some edge working its way to the surface here. We’re not letting her write the state musical.

Candee’s independent woman embraces the practicalities of a dug-out, but her “soul… longs for something more” – in this case, the comforts of proper domesticity. If only we could get her, Betty Friedan, and Michelle Obama in a room together for a few hours and just… listen.

*giddy*

Changing Perspectives and Falling Plums

“Divorcons,” a piece published a week later in the periodical, is atypical. Candee writes in the fictionalized role of an “investigator” coming to Oklahoma City to “familiarize myself with the Government employés and their methods.” It ends with an editorial call for longer residency requirements before divorce can be secured, a topic possibly of some discomfort to Candee—perhaps explaining the detachment with which she writes in this unusual case.

The characters in this short piece are caricatures, alternately shadowy and one-dimensional. The “girls of easy assurance and ready tongue who bandied slang with… negroes,” the “mulatto chambermaid,” and the giggling arm-candy of businessmen in town only long enough to divorce their unseen wives before heading for Europe with their latest conquests, are hardly meant to be flattering, but neither are they presented as typical. They’re set pieces in an odd little moral noir.

Stark contrast is provided two years later when Candee wrote rather extensively of “Social Conditions In Our Newest Territory” for The Forum in June, 1898. This time it’s women in town who strive to balance gritty practicality with traditional womanhood and some appearance of high society.

The President appoints all important officers, beginning with the Governor and extending to the judiciary, the marshalship, and minor positions. The men who occupy these offices have the privilege of making subordinate appointments in connection with their work. Each change of Administration disrupts the entire Territory; and business is temporarily paralyzed. Candidates and their aids flock to Washington, and wait on the pleasure of the President…
Local vernacular describes this condition as “waiting for plums to fall.” Except in the judicial positions, the candidates are professional or commercial men who expect to supplement their ordinary business with the duties and emoluments of Government service. Sometimes the Government at Washington delays settling the affairs of our youngest Territory; but this would never be done were it known how agonizing is the suspense in awaiting the falling of the plums.

Andrew Jackson would have been horrified, yet no doubt strangely aroused.

It comes hardest on the women, who in public maintain a dignified composure, but in private abandon stoicism and weep hysterically over the delay or the denouement.

Candee has some—but not much—sympathy for the traditionally supportive wife, flinging feelings everywhere while the men do manly things like grovel for patronage. One wonders how much her own background – the longsuffering spouse of a successful businessman, now divorced on the last frontier and proudly pushing forward on brains and style – shapes such portrayals.

Redefining Class

Later in the piece, Candee addresses the affectations of high society:

One of the most striking things in Territory society is the existence of class distinctions – more especially among the women. In business, in politics, in all the affairs of life except amusement, people are equal; but inside the parlors of the frame houses distinctions are arbitrarily made according to local standards. Occupation has little to do with it; for an auctioneer’s wife may be received, while a lawyer’s wife will be debarred.

In other words, the standards have adapted to the circumstances. Traditional social distinctions would leave most Oklahomans out of elite loops altogether, so the unwritten rules have been re-unwritten.

Young men in this country pursue any occupation by which they can life; and few of the young women lead lives of simple domesticity. All young people are at work, some of them in the humblest positions; but these things have nothing to do with the social position.

Most women in the Territory were employed in one way or another. That alone would disqualify them from high society elsewhere, but this wasn’t elsewhere. And there were few circumstances in which men of independent wealth would find themselves in Oklahoma Territory in the late 19th century.

In some places money secures the latter; but, as a rule, it is created by one of two causes,—personal magnetism, and that ultra-snobbishness which is found in its highest development in America.

So… personality and attitude? Two sides of the same shiny, annoying coin.

The extremest of conventionality marks the women, who know nothing of the delightful freedom of the women of larger cities. They live entirely within the limits of their little town; paying visits to one another. When they take their walks abroad, or drive in their buggies or surreys, it is to trot up and down the gridiron of unshaded streets; disregarding the soul-satisfying wonders of the wide prairies beyond. They become absolutely self-centered, and their views, circumscribed; but this works to the advantage of local development.

Written by a man, this would sound severe and condescending. Written by Candee, who may have partaken in some of these exact rituals, it merely seems honest – if a bit blunt. The women become sympathetic characters rather than either role-models or villains. And, as became typical of much of Candee’s writing about the Territory, they’re not entirely to blame, even for their snobbery or ignorance. They are products of their circumstances, pursuing intangible desires while accommodating very tangible limitations.

As to this “advantage of local development”…

If their eyes were always on the unattainable, whether apparel or the cultivation of the mind, there would be discontent and a tendency to scorn the simple pleasures which alone are possible. The truly feminine desire to follow the mode is evinced by the tendency to adopt new forms of expression and hospitality. Society events are reported in the local papers in the same descriptive terms as those which tell of metropolitan entertainments; and thus the people pleasantly delude themselves.

They’ve never been to Daniel Boulud’s, so they maintain a perfectly enjoyable uppity-ness over their reserved seats at Applebee’s. Accurate, perhaps – but harsh!

Moving On

“Oklahoma Claims,” published in Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine, October 1898, utilizes three presumably fictional characters. The narrator, a variation of Helen, acts as the bemused-but-curious traveling companion for Ollin, a well-intentioned but slightly corrupted homesteader who proudly plays the government system in his favor. They are accompanied by Leora, Ollin’s “buxom niece,” who is comically large and somewhat simple, but still wily and shameless in gaming the system herself.

“Oklahoma” (The Atlantic Monthly, September 1900) and “A Chance In Oklahoma” (Harper’s Weekly, February 23, 1901) are arguably the strongest of the six pieces, but neither speaks of women other than in passing. Whether this is an intentional shift or the discussion simply falls outside the primary focus of each piece, they add little to this particular equation.

We’re left to Candee’s other works to better understand her and her approach towards the complex sex. As to women in early Oklahoma, we’ll simply have to seek further information in far less-entertaining accounts.

Helen Churchill Candee – An Introduction

March 25, 2019June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

Helen Churchill Candee was born in 1858 as Helen Churchill (her mother’s maiden name) Hungerford of New York. Her father was a successful merchant, and Helen grew up in relative comfort both there and in Connecticut where the family moved shortly thereafter. More important than the physical provisions prosperity allowed, she was exposed to ideas and stories, music and art, history and culture, in ways unlikely to have been possible had she lived a generation before, or anywhere else.

Helen started her formal education in one of America’s first kindergartens, then attended several girls’ boarding schools of the sort only available to a certain quality of family – and even then mostly only those in New England. Before she was a teenager she spoke and wrote multiple languages, was schooled in grace and etiquette, and probably knew more history and literature than a majority of adult men in the nation at the time. She was particularly inspired, according to one diary entry, by an event at which Charles Dickens read aloud from one of his works.

How many of you have heard Dickens live? My point exactly.

She was born into the right sort of family in the right part of the country at a pretty good time to become what she became. While her life was not without suffering or tragedy, neither did she rise from rags and neglect to riches and fame. Upbringing mattered, as did education and opportunity.

None of which detracts from her choices, hard work, or natural abilities, of course. Sometimes you gotta shake what your mama gave you if you really want it to rain.

Er… as it were.

Helen fell in love with successful businessman Edward Candee of Connecticut; they married in 1880 shortly after she turned 22. For 15 years, Edward was able to continue and expand the lifestyle to which Helen had grown accustomed. They traveled and they entertained – and not in that desperate, Gatsby-sort-of-way we read about a generation later. The Candees didn’t use their money to imitate or buy culture; they used their resources to live and support culture. They were all the best things about having money.

But there was one little problem. Henry turned out to be short-tempered and perhaps a bit abusive. Details are thin, and even court records potentially suspect (testimony having been given in order to secure a divorce and all), but apparently he drank excessively and often exploded at Helen and the kids, Edith and Harold. Eventually, Helen decided to leave.

The thing was, in addition to the substantial social stigma of divorce in the 19th century, it was difficult to do, legally and logistically. Helen hired a private detective to follow Henry on his various business trips, and while recorded accusations lean a bit euphemistic, she went to court in New York convinced she had sufficient proof of his unfaithfulness and/or abusiveness to secure her freedom.

The court did not agree. And now it was in the papers – public records being public and all.

Here’s where specifics of time and place insert themselves into the equation yet again. Divorce was inherently difficult across most of the civilized northeast, but there were places further west quite proud of their liberal un-marrying laws. The Dakotas had become the traditional vacation spot for those wishing to reboot their personal narratives with minimal time and effort – residency there could be established in a mere six months, and the courts were reputedly generous when it came to breaking sacred bonds. Lawyers and boosters in other western states advertised the comfort and convenience of their hotels, their climate, their recreation… and for several decades, capitalism’s wonders were fully unleashed in service of mommy not loving daddy anymore.

Oklahoma Territory had them all beat, however. Ninety days – that’s how long you needed to establish residency. Three short months and you were eligible to file. If your soon-to-be ex didn’t show, the court appointed someone to speak on his or her behalf, whether they knew their “client” or not. Generally, things were wrapped up in time to grab some lunch before getting back to watching lazy hawks circle in the sky and whatnot.

Boasting of being a divorce mill in order to build your population wasn’t necessarily anything to be proud of, but then neither was getting a divorce. Helen secured transportation for herself, Edith, and Harold, and off they went to the most hoppingest, happeningest, big-little metropolis of the entire Territory…

Guthrie.

It’s here that Act One of her public story really begins. Helen wasn’t going to play the wounded woman or become someone’s mercy case. She had a family to support, and looking around, she had a pretty good idea where to begin.

She was going to tell the world about Oklahoma. For money. Turns out she was quite good at it.

Candee had a gift for observing people and a writing about them in amusing, poignant, and illuminating ways. She’d already established herself as a mildly successful writer for various periodicals back east – mostly women’s magazines, writing about upscale etiquette, effective management of one’s household, and other traditionally “female” topics, with a smattering of general human interest type pieces.

She’d also just published her first book – How Women May Earn A Living (1900). This practical but pithy guide for women finding themselves in need of a respectable-but-profitable gig is now considered a landmark in women’s literature. Its combination of factual detail and a sort of “tough love,” softened by that graceful, dignified upbringing referenced earlier, makes it quite readable even today.

Between 1896 and 1901, Candee wrote six pieces for five different periodicals about Oklahoma Territory and life therein. They’re strong enough to consider individually, but what they demonstrate consistently is her knack for capturing things like crop production reports and detached observations on cultural evolution while always circling back to the human experience that makes all the rest of it matter.

Candee also published her only novel, An Oklahoma Romance, during her time in Guthrie. It’s surprisingly readable over a century later – the first novel set in Oklahoma and a grand bit of historical fiction at that. Those in the know suspected many of the characters and events were based on the very real people around Helen in her Oklahoma years, making it even more intriguing for contemporaries.

Candee would eventually move to Washington, D.C., and her writing would go very different directions. She published six more books, all non-fiction, on topics like historical tapestries or the ancient wonders of Cambodia. Digging through her biography becomes almost surreal as one discovers her helping to remodel the White House, riding a white horse at the head of a women’s rights march in D.C., nursing Ernest Hemingway back to health as part of the Italian Red Cross, and – most famously – surviving the sinking of the Titanic.

Give them a pen and a paycheck, and they think they’re real people, boys. They get themselves going and before you know it, you’ve lost all control.

Helen Churchill Candee passed just short of her 91st birthday in 1949. She’d begun an autobiography which was never finished and never published, but which efforts are currently being made to resurrect. In her time on earth she periodically broke the surface of historical waters in ways both glorious and sublime, while never actually doing anything a reasonably educated and focused person shouldn’t have been able to do. While I missed her by a generation, I am in some ways in love with the idea of her, and I’m OK with that.

Books by HCC:

How Women My Earn A Living (1900)

An Oklahoma Romance (1901)

Decorative Styles and Periods In The Home (1906)

The Tapestry Book (1912)

Jacobean Furniture (1916)

Angkor the Magnificent (1924) – Note: The 2008 republication of this contains the most complete and engaging biography of HCC available to date, written by Randy Bryan Bigham.

New Journeys In Old Asia (1927)

Weaves and Draperies: Classic and Modern (1930)

HCC Articles About Oklahoma:

“In Oklahoma” (The Illustrated American, April 4, 1896)

“Divorcons” (The Illustrated American, April 11, 1896)

“Social Conditions In Our Newest Territory” (The Forum, June 1898)

“Oklahoma Claims” (Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine, October 1898)

“Oklahoma” (The Atlantic Monthly, September 1900)

“A Chance In Oklahoma” (Harper’s Weekly, February 23, 1901)

While her other publications are too numerous to list here, it would be remiss not to mention what may have been her most widely-read and oft-remembered piece, written shortly after she survived the sinking of the Titanic:

“Sealed Orders” (Collier’s Weekly, May 4, 1912)

Mo Money Mo Problems: House Bills 1400 and 1401 (Guest Post: Rep. John Montgomery, HD62)

January 29, 2017July 31, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

NOTE: Rep. John Montgomery was elected to represent HD-62 (Comanche, think “West of Lawton”) in 2014 and re-elected this past November. I consider him a friend to #oklaed and a decent guy all ’round. He’s also unexpectedly amusing when he’s mocking me privately on social media. Like, he’s REALLY good at it. That’s rare.

Not the mocking part – I get that a LOT. But being good at it – THAT’S a gift.

When I started my recent post on positive potential legislation sitting in the OK Legislative queue recently, I reached out to him along with several other legislators asking what I might be overlooking. Rep. Montgomery brought up the bills he’s discussing here, and explained them to me as clearly as could be expected one Twitter app to another. But I know my strengths, and economics-made-easy isn’t among them. I half-jokingly suggested he should just write a guest blog explaining it instead.

And he did.

I very much appreciate him taking the time to share this information and explanation here. I wish more of our elected leaders would be so communicative.

While I cannot endorse all of the messages Notorious B.I.G. puts out there, the name of this song seems fitting to a discussion on state finances. The underlying wisdom seems to hold true elsewhere: more than a few articles have been written pointing out that up to a third of lottery winners end up declaring bankruptcy.

I wish I could make a blog post about state finance more exciting. Nobody likes talking about checkbook balancing, or for the hip young readers out there, paying your bills with Venmo or Google Wallet. No, we cannot just pop open a GoFundMe and plug our budget holes, and yes I have tried.

Much like those lottery winners, Oklahoma has also in a way won the economics equivalent of the winning numbers by way of our oil and gas resources. Unfortunately, we as as a state have similar problems to many winners – just one a larger scale. Mental health, divorce, tensions with others, and… trouble keeping our finances in order. The Economist has written rather extensively on what could be termed the “resource curse.”

In my humble opinion, it is time we turned our Achilles heel into our greatest blessing.

Fortunately, there is a way to insure permanent investments into education and put ourselves in an incredible position if we make the long-term commitment. I realize in a day and age when some folks my age are setting up dates at the swipe of a screen, that “long term” might be somewhat of a foreign concept for some. However, if you talk to more than a handful of my constituents and I suspect many Oklahomans, a long-term plan and vision is what they want most out of state government and other community leaders.

For the better part of two years, I have been watching and analyzing how our revenue streams function, as well as considering what other states (or countries) do that might make an improvement for Oklahomans. One idea is to set up a permanent fund or an endowment or two that would take in some level of revenue and grow large enough that interest from the fund can replace or eliminate our reliance on volatile revenue sources, as well as help stabilize the way we approach other revenue as well. Ideally, this would have a tangential effect of unleashing the spirit and ingenuity of Oklahomans.

“Whoa whoa whoa now, don’t hurt yourself, Mr. Big Talk,” I can almost hear you saying. “We’re on to you legislator types and your fancy-but-often-bewildering plans!”

Backing it up a bit, if we carry our personal finance analogy forward, we could say that we need to plan for retirement primarily from our oil and gas tax revenue, but secondarily from other potential tax sources. You know, diversify.

If I had a dollar every time I heard, read, and said “we need to diversify our state economy,” this discussion would be unnecessary because the state would be LOADED. Unfortunately, that’s not how it works.

Another problem with “diversify our state economy,” is that there is no big red “that was easy” button we can push and all of the diversity happens. Many very intelligent, caring, and tireless legislators and community leaders before me have made significant efforts in this direction – and with a high degree of success. Contrary to what many might believe, this most recent downturn could have been much worse for many Oklahomans.

The State Chamber of Oklahoma estimates that the oil and gas industry makes up roughly 13-15% of our state economy. However, state government reliance on tax revenue from the oil and gas industry can reach as high as 25% of state revenue.

Houston, we have a problem.

If you want us to try to take the bumps out of that chart above, I would refer you to HB2763 from last year. Fortunately, 2763 passed and we will stabilize that revenue in future years. http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB2763&Session=1600

If you think we also need a long-term vision and plan, then keep reading.

Fortunately for us, many states and several countries have trail-blazed the idea of saving sizeable amounts of what may not be an indefinite source of revenue and using the interest earned from investments, equities, real estate, etc., as revenue. Many countries like Norway, almost every country on the Arabian Peninsula that can pull oil from the sand with a straw, and most recently Israel, have set up a savings plan like this. Norway is sitting on just shy of $1 trillion in their fund, depending on which way the markets are going and if there’s a notion of divesting from the latest company to militarize farts. Saudi Arabia has been eating some of its $700 billionish fund in its global War on Fracking.

In the United States, 8 of the 9 states that rely heavily on oil or gas severance/gross production taxes have a permanent fund, endowment, or major savings plan for that revenue. I would not be writing this if Oklahoma were one of those 8.

North Dakota has become probably the most famous and envied. Voters there approved setting aside 30% of their oil and gas revenue into a Legacy Fund in 2010. That fund has grown to over $4 billion due to an oil production explosion of literally ten-fold over the past decade (compared to doubling in Oklahoma). They also set aside 5% of the revenue into an education endowment which has been growing since the late 1990s. The interest from the fund goes to schools, and thus it’s not hard to see how the ten-fold production increase translated to double digit education spending increases there.

They did not establish how the Legacy Fund would be used, which has caused some debate given the energy downturn. The state spent its $750 million rainy day fund to shore up against what we have called “revenue failure” here: that spending was coupled with a 3-4% across the board cut as well. This next two-year budget does not look much better for them either.

The state that has not received much attention in this regard is Alaska. 90% of state revenue there comes from the energy industry, so they were talking about $3-4 billion shortfalls most recently. However, they are also sitting on a $50 billion Permanent Fund that is used to generate interest and kick out a couple grand to each man, woman, and child in the state. They, by the way, have a $10 billion Rainy Day Fund that they technically owe $3-4 billion to because paying the fund back is required. There are some hot debates going on in that state over budget too of course, but the difference of position they are in financially is not by any accident

We should take what these other places have done, and put Oklahoma at the forefront of state financial dynamism. This year, I have introduced HB1400 and HB1401 to do just that.

HB1401 is primarily geared toward what I have spent most of this post talking about doing: setting aside a significant part of our oil and gas gross production tax revenue into what would be called the Legacy Fund. 20% of future revenue would be dedicated in this way. The fund would have subfunds for common education and higher education, who currently receive up to roughly the first $145 million of this revenue (which has actually caused some issues in the most recent downturn, but that’s a different topic). That would be directed into endowments that would become large enough that modest investment earnings could replace that revenue, permanently within about 10-12 years. Ideally, we would continue putting some part into these sub endowments after then, and can redirect another part of the funding either for more savings or bolstering current spending at the time.

HB1400 establishes a Vision Fund. It is aimed toward a position Alaska finds itself in: not levying the traditional, major state level taxes on income and sales. Once fully implemented, Oklahoma would be perhaps the second state to be in a position to eliminate a major tax source while providing a potent source of funding for education, research and development, and a group that was created after the 1980s oil bust called Oklahoma Center for Science and Technology (OCAST) – a group whose basic mission is the diversification of our state’s economy. We will build this fund through a structure in our state budget process which ends up leaving cash on the table to be appropriated, in addition to taking in a crude version of what could be called “micro-financing” where we will take a barely noticeable fraction of revenue each year and set it aside.

This plan will require a high degree of resolve, and it likely requires shielding from short term whims and thinking that have held our state back. We must rally behind a Vision or we leave no Legacy. Let’s not throw away our shot.

Bills, Bills, Bills (Silver Lining Edition)

January 26, 2017June 27, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

I’m not known for the sunshine I spread or my rainbow-themed unicorn farm. I’m surrounded by edu-bloggers in Oklahoma and beyond who are both smarter and more experienced than myself, and I’m under no illusions about the role I play.

But I do believe in being pragmatic. Having spent most of 2016 burning energy I didn’t have promoting the so-called ‘Teacher Caucus’ and related issues in #OKElections16, and having had slightly less than zero impact (the pro-education newbies who won were the handful I’d never gotten around to writing about), I’d like to try to find approaches that might, you know… work. Or at the very least, play against type – like Daniel Radcliffe.

I don’t want to be naked horse guy, though – but it’s like I’ve been naked horse guy and now I want to be a wizard…

This has gone way off course, hasn’t it?

The 2017 Oklahoma Legislature officially convenes on February 6th. The rules vary between houses, but for the most part bills have to be submitted a couple of weeks ahead of time.

Which is now.

Should you go poking around on oklegislature.gov or openstates.org/ok, you’ll discover a wide variety of bills and resolutions and thinly veiled cries for help. A few warnings should you decide to venture forth unprepared…

“Shell Bills” are a thing. Because State Representatives have to submit bills ahead of time, and have a limited number allowed, it’s not uncommon for them to throw together something filled with essentially meaningless language as a placeholder of sorts. Sometimes these end up being fleshed out with details related to their working title, other times they simply wither on the statutory vine. Occasionally they end up being bills about entirely different things altogether. It’s a misleading quirk of the system.

Every year brings a ridiculous number of bills fetishizing guns, proposing draconian punishments for abortion, fighting back against perceived abuses by the federal government, etc. Most of these never make it through a committee – they’re just there so demagogues can appease angry and/or ignorant voters in their respective districts. These are sometimes referred to as “red meat” bills.

Bills aren’t automatically put before the entire House or Senate. Some die right there in their sponsor’s arms, like buried flowers. Others are assigned to a related committee, where they may or may not be discussed, may or may not be approved, and may or may not continue their journey “I’m Just A Bill” style. House versions are reconciled with Senate versions, etc., until a small handful go to the Governor to sign – or not.

Just because something’s listed here doesn’t mean it’s going to be a thing. Don’t get your hopes up or expect your legislator to have the slightest idea what you’re talking about should you call and ask them to support one of these.

And yet, that’s largely why I’ve gathered them here – so you can call, and email, and bring them up at meetings. So we can have things to support and not just things to oppose. So we can bring solutions and not just –

Oh god, maybe I DO have a unicorn farm. Is that Celine Dion playing in the background? Has Meghan Loyd hacked my account?!

Whatever my frustrations – and they are legion – I think we can do a better job this session of starting off positive. Of demonstrating that we can be informed and rational and not all racist thugs like Rick Cobb.

Sorry – inside joke. Rick is not a racist thug. See, what happened was…

I’m off course again. Sorry. Legislation is boring.

Here are a few things worth looking at, asking about, and possibly promoting as we march boldly into the fray. Please feel free to add anything I’ve overlooked in the comments, or email me. Heck, write a guest blog about some of them if you like.

Light is all we have.

Pay Raise Bills

The Tulsa World recently did a nice slideshow highlighting some bills which caught their attention, including a variety of teacher raise proposals. Because I’m still rather skeptical of the chances of ANY of these passing, I’ll just share the highlights here:

HB 1115 – Representative Avery Frix (R), HD 13

This would prohibit the state legislature from passing new mandates on public schools unless they’re willing to fund them as well. Crazy kid – clearly Frix is new here!

HB 1279 – Representative Jason Dunnington (D), HD88

This would return income tax rates to what they were a little over a decade ago for the state’s highest earners. It would also remove the Oklahoma Capital Gains Deduction which was enacted in 2004 and benefits the top sliver of Oklahoma’s wealthiest almost exclusively.

Dunnington argues this would generate more than $500 million in recurring revenue – recurring revenue, not the kind you get by selling grandma’s car at the auction. He’s quick to mention teacher pay as something that revenue might be useful to fund.

It strikes me as a long-shot – it will be smeared as a “tax increase” – but for the first time in a while, legis seem to be talking seriously about meaningful ways to get un-broke, so who knows? Two of the bill’s three sections simply close existing tax loopholes – and that’s something we all at least claim to support.

In any case, this is a good one to get behind and call YOUR representative in support of.

HB 1351 – Representative Monroe Nichols (D), HD72

Currently, the Oklahoma Higher Learning Access Program (aka “Oklahoma’s Promise”) helps pay for college for students who meet basic requirements in High School and who fall below a certain income level. There’s an exception made for military families (who tend to move around a great deal) – their kids qualify regardless. This would add a similar exception for teachers’ kids.

It would be a simple, almost revenue-neutral way to show some love to educators. I’m just saying.

HB 1352 – Representative Monroe Nichols (D), HD72

Since 2011, Oklahoma has had the “Oklahoma Equal Opportunity Education Scholarship Act.” Essentially this allows individuals or businesses to donate money to a ‘scholarship fund’ which is disbursed as a sort of voucher (i.e., “scholarship”) to parents who’d like their child in private school. These individuals and businesses get a substantial tax break on moneys so donated.

This bill would add the option of donating money under similar conditions with the same limits and tax benefits to an endowment to fund the salaries of public school teachers. I’m not clear on how this works in terms of disbursement, but the idea amuses me to no end. It’s brilliant.

HB 1760 – Representative Katie Henke (R), HD71

Students in Kindergarten through Third Grade are monitored regularly for reading proficiency. Students in Third Grade take a reading exam (often referenced as the RSA – Reading Sufficiency Act) to determine whether or not they’ll advance to Fourth Grade.

Currently, students who do not pass this exam are not automatically promoted to Fourth Grade. A small team of the child’s parent(s), teacher, and a school reading specialist or similar professional meet to decide whether it makes more sense to retain the child another year or move them to Fourth Grade with additional reading support. The idea is that some kids just need more time to marinate where they are, while others should progress but with increased support.

This compromise ends this year and retention could become mandatory (no discretion left to the parents and teachers) unless this or something like it passes this session.

This bill is very similar to HB 2158 sponsored by Representative Jadine Nollan (R), HD66, and SB 123 sponsored by Senator J.J. Dossett (D), SD34. That’s neither unusual nor bad; it suggests widespread interest in making this happen. They can work out any minor differences once things are rolling.

HB 2154 – Representative Jadine Nollan (R) – HD66

This would continue altering the rubrics and algorithms of the Oklahoma A-F School Shaming System. It has lots of words in it and bunches of stuff in current law which it would cut, so I make no promises about my full understanding, but the gist of it seems to be to dial back the more abusive elements of A-F, citing the flexibility allowed by the ESSA.

It retains the A-F report itself, which I despise, but the innards seem to be gradually reworked in order to make the package less loathsome. I’d speculate this is a pragmatic compromise on the part of pro-education leadership with those who simply insist on looking tough on those damn teachers. The fact that no one will go on record with me to confirm this pretty much convinces me that’s the case. But, that’s just me – speculating.

HB 2158 – Representative Jadine Nollan (R), HD66

See HB 1760 above.

SB 2 – Senator J.J. Dossett (D) – SD34

This eliminates the U.S. History state test currently required of all high school students in Oklahoma. Now, we all know what’s going to happen. We cry out that there’s too much testing and it doesn’t do what proponents claim it does and why can’t we have fewer tests OMG OMG OMG! Then, someone suggests eliminating a test from the pantheon and we panic in reverse – ARE YOU SAYING MY SUBJECT ISN’T IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO TEST?! WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?!

This doesn’t remove U.S. History from the “stuff schools are required to teach” pile. Like Oklahoma History and American Government, it’s still a requirement – just not a state test. Calm the hell down.

On a side note, I think this one has at least some potential to erupt into the most fascinating patriotism-pissing contest if someone decides to go after it as anti-American or some such nonsense. Not saying it will – certainly not suggesting it should – but we have a weird relationship with history in this state. We don’t like it really, but we like it in theory and want to pretend we care about it deeply. It’s our arm-candy third wife, as it were.

SB 9 – Senator J.J. Dossett (D) – SD34

This would eliminate the straight-party voting option from Oklahoma ballots. That’s not directly related to public education, but it would do education a huge favor if voters were expected to at least look at the names before them and consider whether or not they know anything about that person’s positions or record before checking that box.

I know taking ten minutes to get informed before voting sucks, but we can try.

Voters elected and re-elected by substantial margins legislators openly hostile to public education in November 2016. They then turned around and told pollsters that their NUMBER ONE CONCERN for the upcoming legislature is supporting public education. They’re either lying or ignorant. I assume they’re lying – they want to sound like good people when polled, so they pretend they give a damn. This bill presumes they’re merely ignorant, and don’t see the connection. It doesn’t promise they won’t still vote straight ticket, but they have to take a few more tiny steps suggesting they mean it.

SB 123 – Senator J.J. Dossett (D) – SD34

See HB 1760 above.

SB 124 – Senator J.J. Dossett (D) – SD34

This would prohibit public money from being used, directly or indirectly, to support private schools (w/ the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities being a specific exception). This is obviously an effort to erect a roadblock to future voucher bills, and difficult to argue with it as a matter of principle.

SJR 32 – Senator J.J. Dossett (D) – SD34

This would put to a vote of the people a change in the Oklahoma Constitution which would require appropriates for public education to be made separately from general appropriations, and first. Man, give a guy an unexpected special election win and a year later he’s getting all saucy!

I’m sure there are some I’ve missed, and I know there are several I didn’t miss but am not sure how to explain (since I barely understand them myself). Feel free to add those you come across in the Comments below.

I’m still skeptical anything good is coming, but that doesn’t change our obligation to try. Be prepared, be firm but polite, and for golly gosh jeepers – BE INVOLVED.