For nearly three decades, I’ve felt lucky to live on Capitol Hill. Despite the inequities of gentrification and occasional spikes in crime, my neighborhood, anchored by Eastern Market, has seemed blessed by that magical quality of small-town community blended with a progressive urban vitality and diversity. But the recall campaign against D.C. Council member Charles Allen (D-Ward 6) offers a case study in how a right-wing “soft on crime” accusation can gain traction, even in an area known for its liberalism, and derail more thoughtful approaches to public safety.
I don’t mean to minimize security concerns or trivialize the carjackings and rash of murders that plagued D.C. in 2023. I, too, have been exasperated by snatched packages and slashed tires. But what I want are credible, evidence-based approaches to making my neighborhood safer, not emotional responses such as a return to longer juvenile sentences.
That does not appear to be a desire the recall backers share. Rather, they seem intent on using a number of recall efforts to make the City Council friendlier to developers and big business. And, as the Washington City Paper reported in February, much of the financial backing for the campaign — which is now seeking big-dollar donations through a campaign committee — has come from Republicans who apparently see the recall as another chance to paint D.C. as unable to govern itself and in need of colonial oversight.
Advertisement
That’s grim but not surprising. What troubles me is how quickly some of my neighbors have taken up the cry for unfettered policing, harsh sentencing and Mr. Allen’s job — despite the fact that he was reelected in 2022 with 94 percent of the vote.
When my husband and I moved into our house in 1995, acquaintances murmured that we were bold to buy in the District. But we landed on a block with a culture of community, including a shared list with everyone’s contact info, the names of our kids and the makes of our cars. When I was ill this past year, our neighbors got our groceries and shoveled our sidewalk. The young guy renting across the street has become the baked goods ambassador to newcomers.
I want my elected representatives to serve the community well and uphold democratic values, and I believe Mr. Allen does. But communal security is not just his responsibility; it’s ours. It’s each of us, loving our neighbors as ourselves, that really keeps us safe.
Advertisement
Kim Fellner, Washington
Safer schools
The halls at John F. Kennedy High School are always noisy, so my students and I initially took no notice of a recent commotion as the literary magazine started a playwriting prompt. Then a student stepped out to get lunch and immediately stepped back into my room.
“Call security,” he said. “There’s a fight. And someone has a knife.”
My fellow staff members and I are well trained and calm in emergencies. But in recent years, both mundane disruptions and real danger have intruded more frequently into our classrooms.
Teachers in every high school in our district share similar stories of students skipping classes and wandering the halls during the day, in large part because we lack meaningful attendance policies. We try to prod the loiterers into going to class. “I make more money than you do,” one student sneers in response. We train to administer Narcan but lack policies to counter the in-school drug trade that inspires fights. Our students worry about their safety going to the bathroom — when they can find one that is unlocked.
Advertisement
This is not to say that we have given up. There is so much joy in our classrooms. We share our best lessons with one another, hang up outstanding student work, and brag about scholarships won and milestones reached like proud parents.
But we know we can do better and be better, with more support. Our students have changed over time, and policies need to change to keep up with current needs. Restorative justice works to keep students reflective over conflict, but other measures are needed to keep students accountable for their actions. We cannot continue to wait on vague promises that the county will look at the problems and consider its options at some point in the future. All of our students deserve a safe environment in which to learn.
Stacey Wahrman, Silver Spring
The writer has been an English teacher in Montgomery County for 24 years.
Share this articleShareRoads for all
Regarding the April 13 Metro article “District hits brakes on divisive bike route”:
Advertisement
Mayor Muriel E. Bowser’s cancellation of the Connecticut Avenue bike lanes signals that road safety for all is of little import to her administration. Bike lanes improve overall road safety by supporting appropriate channels for each type of user — driver, cyclist, scooterist, pedestrian — and by slowing traffic all around. Does Connecticut Avenue need to be a veritable six-lane superhighway through the heart of residential neighborhoods?
Everyone has a right to safe, people-centered public roads. With that understanding comes the acknowledgment that sometimes people, whether pedestrians crossing in the middle of the road or headphone-wearing scooterists cutting across lanes, will be where they should not be. That requires a beat of tolerance and grace from all of us. But such occurrences and accidents can be greatly ameliorated by offering dedicated space for all types of users.
As someone reliant on bikes and a motor scooter to get around, I feel an increasing sense of risk when I head out on my commute. I routinely encounter toxic and angry people — or even just oblivious and distracted ones for whom it might not register that everyone gets to choose their means of transport. Many people cannot afford personal cars, prefer walking or other options for short trips, or do not support car use. People riding bikes (or walking or scootering) might be recreating, commuting, doing errands or working. It’s not up to anyone else to judge or decide for them.
Advertisement
The mayor and other city officials ought to step up and safeguard all road users. And citizens: If you care at all about your safety — and that of your family and friends out there walking, biking, scooting, and ferrying children, their stuff and themselves — please remember that safe roads have to be safe for everyone who uses them.
Jennifer Riddell, Washington
Prayerful disagreement
Regarding Kate Cohen’s May 1 op-ed, “A National Day of Prayer? James Madison would be horrified.”:
I agree totally with Ms. Cohen’s skepticism of the National Day of Prayer. But her op-ed did not address a significant justification for removing religious prayer, even if not mandatory, from any sectarian entity such as public schools.
As a third-grader in the early 1950s, I attended a public school with virtually a 99.9 percent White Christian population of both teachers and students. On my first day of school, everyone rose as the homeroom teacher prepared to recite a morning prayer. That is, everyone but me. Before moving to an area in Baltimore with virtually no Jewish people, we lived in an area with a majority of Jewish kids. I was initially in a religious school, even though my parents were not very religious. I developed a strong Jewish identity as a youngster. When I didn’t stand, the teacher asked me why, and everyone in the class starred at me judgmentally.
Advertisement
I remember that day vividly even though it was over 75 years ago. I said I did not believe in Jesus and would not pray to him. I was allowed to sit but felt embarrassed and ashamed for my position. Should anyone, young or old, have to ever justify his or her religious beliefs? Never! Not in this country. Even if it is not mandatory to pray on this day, by not doing so, a person is put into the position of identifying themselves. This is a personal thing and should be kept personal. As with a woman’s right to choose, all people have a right to choose their beliefs without being forced to justify them.
Howard Pedolsky, Rockville, Rockville
Ms. Cohen’s op-ed on what she imagines would be James Madison’s horror over the prospect of a National Prayer Day for the United States was more than a bit over the top. Although our forefathers were adamant about ensuring that the country would not become a theocracy, there was a more basic rationale for what they set in motion. While they recognized that human beings should organize their own affairs as a democracy rather than allow themselves to be ruled by the government, headed by King George III, they also believed there was a higher power to whom individuals would answer in the end.
Advertisement
It allowed our Founding Fathers (and Mothers) to carefully craft and execute their daily lives and governance while believing, as Benjamin Franklin expressed in a letter to Ezra Stiles a minister, president of Yale, and co-founder of Brown University: “Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe: That he governs the World by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life, respect its Conduct in this.” That is the seed from which our country was born.
James P. Moore Jr., Alexandria
The writer is the author “One Nation Under God: The History of Prayer in America.”
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7uK3SoaCnn6Sku7G70q1lnKedZLyxtc2ipqerX2d9c4COaWxoaGNksKmt0aWcrGWRobmmuoyrnJyZnKF6o7XKnmSlmZ6awHA%3D