Letters for Aug. 18, 2024

Students deserve their own union

One of six initiatives introduced by Republican-allied group Let’s Go Washington, Initiative 2081 gave parents and legal guardians of public-school children under 18 years old certain rights, including to examine textbooks, curriculum and any supplemental materials used in their children’s classrooms. Although that’s innocent language in normal times, the 2024 Democratic-majority state Legislature was understandably suspicious of Republican motives. So, they passed a similar parental “bill of rights” that removed the initiative from the upcoming November election. Two other initiatives were Legislature-handled similarly. So, three Republican-sponsored initiatives remain for November voters; all must be defeated, especially the one repealing the capital gains tax that funds all-important early-childhood education.

Sue Lani Madsen’s June 27 Spokesman-Review column, “Parents are the new special interest group,” particularly addressed parental rights. But she conveniently avoided the “elephant in the room” that negates much of her argument.

Recent uptick in the school parental rights movement has largely been driven by banning books and dictating teachers’ curricula, including eliminating unpleasant aspects of our racial history.

But students, particularly the most mature at high school and college level, generally oppose these actions. They want books covering a range of subjects and the whole truth from their history classes. Even organized student protests have occurred along these lines.

When Madsen quotes educator Cory DeAngelis saying, “Now kids have a union of their own – their parents,” Madsen errs. Indeed, it is just the opposite: Kids deserve their own union that opposes anti-education efforts characteristic of the parental rights movement.

Norm Luther

Spokane

Providence should pay back the community

Providence recently congratulated itself for its $2.1 billion “community investment.” But a closer look suggests investments that are compulsory, and not exactly praiseworthy.

For example, Providence takes credit for being underpaid by Medicaid to the tune of $1.4 billion. Translated, that’s the difference between what Medicaid pays and what Providence says their full-retail bill should have been. In other words: a self-defined differential re-engineered as a “community benefit.”

Another example: Providence cites $240 million in free or discounted care for uninsured and underinsured–which the law requires of all hospitals. Interestingly, Providence defied the Charity Care Act for years and overcharged 99,446 low-income victims $150 million with predatory billing practices. Now that it’s been caught with this swindle, it’s taking credit for its obligation as a “community investment.” (With Providence’s creative accounting, perhaps the fines it paid for this criminal enterprise are also included as community benefit?)

Finally, Providence cites $184 million for “health education and research.” A goodly portion of that is likely required continuing education for professional staff licensing and certification. Might as well tout that as “community benefit” when, in fact, it’s a standard requirement for all professional practitioners.

Providence enjoys tax-free privileges worth millions. For these privileges it is required by law to return like value to its communities. Mostly it doesn’t. In fact, it has been rated as our nation’s worst system for fulfilling community benefit requirements. We taxpayers should take Providence’s self-flattery with a grain of salt.

Steve McNutt

Spokane

WSU Press saved for now

Thanks for the article by Alexandria Osborne regarding WSU Press. Phil Weiler’s decision to close the press, subsequently reversed by action of the provost, was a sad moment for many of us, and I am very glad that the closure has been avoided (at least temporarily).

I do wish others had been interviewed besides Phil Weiler’s email. His comment that the press “publishes the work of authors in the community to provide them an outlet for printing their books” misstates the press’s mission and work. WSU is not a vanity publisher, as Weiler implies. The press has published authors from all over the country, and those peer-reviewed manuscripts are meant to preserve and enhance understanding of our history and culture. Those publications have made an invaluable contribution to our region, our people, and our university’s mission.

The broad spectrum of publishing by WSU Press, like so many other university presses nationwide, is valuable in many ways. I will mention only one aspect: the publication of scholarly studies concerning our indigenous peoples in the Pacific Northwest. WSU Press is the ONLY academic press publishing in this field. Mr. Weiler’s short-sighted decision would have silenced this voice.

Robert Clark

Pullman