New Haven Independent

Posted by: Joe | November 4, 2009 11:23 AM

This is kind of familiar...Didn't a Government used their young adults in their quest for party domination like 70 years ago?

Posted by: Pedro | November 4, 2009 11:28 AM

I've got to say, I'm a little disappointed at the subtext of machine politics in this article.
Thom Peters (one of my high school advisors! Hi Thom!), called up the Mayor's Office looking for opportunities for his students to volunteer on a campaign, and they directed him to one.

How is this "urging"? It does a lot to diminish the hard work these kids put into the campaign to portray them as puppets of the mayor. Other kids also worked on campaigns in their own towns.

This is also has a similar feeling of shoehorning this Triumph of the Machine into the other campaign stories of the evening.

Yes, it's patently clear that the mayor's office offered support to candidates it wanted to see elected, but it's also clear that there were many enthusiastic people who supported THOSE CANDIDATES themselves. Does every person who the "pro mayor" contingent support have to somehoe publicly disavow DeStefano, or refuse support?

Should O'Sullivan-Best have refused the Hopkins' student volunteers?

I would actually love to read an editorial from Paul et al just to read more clearly what they are getting at, since it's clear they are trying to make SOME point, but journalistic reporting is holding them back.

Posted by: Leslie Blatteau | November 4, 2009 11:57 AM

DeStefano should maintain contact with these kids. After they graduate college, he should recruit them to come back and teach in New Haven Public Schools. Remember, part of his big reform plan is to attract and retain excellent teachers. If we are going to do that, we are going to have to think outside of the box.

Posted by: robn | November 4, 2009 12:52 PM

Somewhat along the lines of the fairness doctrine, No matter what the intention or the results, I'm uneasy with a mandatory school assignment affecting the outcome of an election.

Posted by: takesonetoknowone | November 4, 2009 1:01 PM

these dudes are totally stoned!

Posted by: J, Hart | November 4, 2009 1:07 PM

These kids did a great job and should be proud of their participation in the democratic process. What I have to say is not meant to and shouldn't take away from their accomplishment, O’Sullivan-Best, or the many others that worked so hard on the campaign. They all deserve congratulations for a hard-fought race which, I hope, will ultimately result in better representation for Ward 11 and out city as a whole.

But I have to disagree with those that state that they mayor did nothing wrong or unethical. Directing these students to a campaign that he supports has, at best, the specter of conflict of interest. Pedro, no, O’Sullivan-Best should not have refused the volunteers, and people familiar with the issues, parties, and race likely don't see her as any sort of a puppet of City Hall. But should the mayor have handled this differently? Without any doubt in my mind. He could have just as easily directed them to the Ward 11 race as an active and contested race and provided contact information for both candidates. From there the school staff and kids could have made their own choices. Instead he pointed Thom Peters in a direction that ultimately benefited the Mayor's interests. Whether or not that was his motivation, that is the appearance and the ultimate outcome.

Situations like that appear as scenarios in ethics courses, texts, and exams all the time. The key is to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest or abuse of a public position. The fact is that the mayor either lacks the ethics to understand this, the presence of mind to sidestep an ethical dilemma, or is simply so comfortable in his uncontested position that he feels free to act with impunity.

My point is simple; as a person in a position of authority and power, the mayor or any other public servant has a duty to uphold the highest of ethical standards. Just because this doesn't happen all that often doesn't mean that it's not something that we should strive for and demand from our public figures.

PS. Yes, I recognize that it was DeStefano's campaign manager and not he himself who directed Peters to the O'Sullivan-Best campaign.

Posted by: What | November 4, 2009 1:08 PM

How about half of the students assigned to each of the two candidates? Wouldn't that have been a more fulfilling learning experience? Oh, but I forget, the Mayor's people weren't interested in these kids learning, they just were glad to get more warm bodies.

Posted by: Patrick | November 4, 2009 1:29 PM

You could choose what campaign you wanted to work for, so that wasn't a problem. I like Mayor DeStefano, so I worked for him and then later was asked - asked - to go work in Ward 11.

Posted by: The Professor | November 4, 2009 1:43 PM

What,

Or we could respect these children's autonomy and let them go their own way. I really doubt that any of them would've been punished for wanting to work for Lee.

The fact of the matter is that O'Sullivan-Best's campaign was resourceful while Lee's was lazy and arrogant.

And Robn, I can think of a whole slew of other things that routinely influence the results of elections that are significantly more pernicious than some kids knocking on doors.

Posted by: William Kurtz | November 4, 2009 1:46 PM

There are some shades of the 'Officer Speedy' story in here in that the story doesn't seem to have all of the details. For example, were these students assigned by their teacher to work for a campaign of Mayor DeStefano's choosing? Or were they simply assigned to volunteer for any campaign? Did they express personal interest in working for Democratic candidates? If that was the case, then approaching Mayor DeStefano for a suggestion doesn't seem inappropriate.

The tone of this article is more of a human-interest story than a hard-news one, so perhaps that's the source of the confusion.

Posted by: Don B | November 4, 2009 1:54 PM

this is nieher ethical nor is it right.

Posted by: Democracy Lover | November 4, 2009 2:06 PM

What was the name of this class? "How to participate in machine politics and stifle true freedom of speech and democracy?" Hopefully the teacher will follow-up with a section on what political machines are all about, how they hold onto power. And what democracy and freedom are really about: ALL views, even those that disagree. This piece is frightening. If I were a parent paying Hopkins tuition, I'd yank my child out of that school today!!!

Posted by: robn | November 4, 2009 3:39 PM

I believe that neither the students did anything wrong...nor did the mayor who was just taking advantage of available manpower. The teacher giving the assignment should have known better than to make mandatory a group assignment that affects the outcome of an election.

Posted by: Mister Jones | November 4, 2009 4:56 PM

Y'all seem to be forgetting that these kids go to a private school. If it was a public school mandatory assignment to work on a particular campaign then you can complain about a conflict. The students involved previously volunteered for Obama, so they weren't forced to work against their political beliefs.

Posted by: The Professor | November 4, 2009 4:57 PM

I still don't see why there's anything ethically questionable about what the teacher did. Why shouldn't he have assigned something that would have a real, tangible impact in the world? If these kids had affected real-world outcomes in virtually any other way (e.g. building a Habitat for Humanity house), we'd be applauding their civic-mindedness.

Also, Democracy Lover, I don't see anything undemocratic about what happened here. Frankly, this is how democracy works. What freedom of speech was stifled? Robert Lee certainly had the freedom to go knock on doors or put lawn signs up in the neighborhood, but he did none of that. He ran a terrible campaign and lost. Nobody's "freedom of speech" was in any way impacted.

And how was Democracy stifled? It's not like there were any voting irregularities, as there were up in Ward 30 when the representative from the Registrar of Voters showed up in the same car as the Goldson campaign's supervised balloting observer. There was a free and fair election. Your candidate was lazy and arrogant and lost. Get over it, and stop blaming these kids and vilifying their teacher.

Posted by: v | November 4, 2009 8:01 PM

About 45 students take this class at Hopkins, and they all had the ability to choose whichever campaign they wanted. About 10 chose the Mayor's campaign, and since they Mayor's race was not close, the DeStefano campaign recommended some closer races that needed volunteers. Nothing was stopping them from choosing Lee's campaign, except for the fact that Lee decided not to run a campaign because he thought he would win handily. Again, these students had total control over which campaign they worked for, and they naturally chose a candidate they supported.

Posted by: Captain Underpants | November 4, 2009 8:56 PM

This article and all these comments remind me of why i think the idea of separation between church and state is so bogus.

In this town the democratic party is the church.

Term limits for the king with 12% of the vote!

Posted by: City Hall Watch | November 4, 2009 9:50 PM

I'm glad the students learned about civics. How they learned it and the mayor's ease with sliding over the ethical line yet again, is precisely what is so wrong about it. If City Hall was really interested in education vs. power and control, they would have helped the students impact several races instead of directing them to defeat a critic. That the incoming alder can't tell the difference says much about her as well.
And this is particularly telling about the mayor: "She talked to people instead of yelling at them.”

John: Take your own advice.

Posted by: Observer | November 5, 2009 4:56 AM

It's absolutely silly to imagine that the work these kids did was the single cause for victory here. Yes they volunteered, yes they got to experience politics up close, but they just happened to be on the winning side. It could have gone the other way. The real cause for Lee's loss was Lee. It might not make good headlines that an arrogant politician got put in his place by the voters, but that is what really happened here. Implying misdoings by the mayor's office is a stretch.

Posted by: The Count | November 5, 2009 9:31 AM

The Professor:

Get over the Goldson win and move on.

Posted by: Mister Jones | November 5, 2009 10:04 AM

Sliding over the ethical line? Where? Because he directs student volunteers toward a particular campaign? Get real. We live in a state with a long history of really corrupt politicians. Say what you will about the mayor, but I doubt there are any developers renovating his house for free, stocking his wine cellar or handing him envelopes stuffed with cash. I'm not saying he should get credit for not being a crook, but is this is his big ethical flaw then we are doing pretty well.

Does he try to consolidate power to govern efefctively? Sure. Is he beholden to various constituencies and supporters? Of course. But that's politics, not utopia.

Posted by: Brian | November 5, 2009 10:51 AM

How many times do we hear people complain that kids don't care about politics?

Then when they do, how many times do we hear the losers complain about kids being a part of the political process?

I see no reason why students should be discouraged from participating in the political process.

Posted by: tonni | November 5, 2009 12:46 PM

Brian.....it's not so much the students got involved....the Mayor sent them to ward 11 to help Maureen O'sullivan Best....why not give some students for Robert Lee ...or have them pick out polls were they live ..not the Mayor saying go help Maureen....how about other candidates they could have used some help.. it's again when the Mayor and Susie Voight don't like who goes against the Mayor they get someone to run against that person....they will do it again next year when the co-chairs election start...they are already starting in certain neighborhoods....co-chairs beware the vultures are out...

Posted by: I | November 5, 2009 2:56 PM

As a student in this class, I wanted to set the record straight. The political campaign assigment has been a part of this Intro to Political Science Class since its inception. Students are allowed to support any political campaign at all--the ones who supported O'Sullivan-Best chose to be there. So what's the big deal?

Posted by: Mister Jones | November 5, 2009 5:00 PM

Finally, a voice of reason from someone actually in the class. The other posts demonstrate why it's called the silly season. Tonni, "why not give some students for Robert Lee"?? You gotta be kidding! First, they're not the mayor's to "give" -- they have free will and supported who they wanted. Second, no politician [or sports fan, for that matter] getting a call from a potential volunteer, is going to say no thanks, call my opponent!

Posted by: robn | November 5, 2009 6:29 PM

This is the big deal. Those choosing to not participate in an election have every right to do so and, like election volunteering or voting, abstention has an effect on the outcome of an election. Were students allowed to opt-out or do something neutral like observation?

Posted by: P | November 6, 2009 10:29 AM

Students could, of course, drop the class... The idea was to learn about the political process, and there really isn't a better way than participating in it.

Posted by: what | November 6, 2009 4:36 PM

Mister Jones,

You actually believe that I is a member of that class, come on, you can't be that gullible. How can these students, who didn't know Sullivan from a can of beans "decide" to support the "best" candidate. Now don't get me wrong, I think that Lee was a blowhard, but let's be real here, these kids were directed to the campaign for political and manpower reasons, they would have gone and campaigned for Mickey Mouse if the mayor had told them to.

Posted by: Katie Rohner | November 7, 2009 10:07 AM

This was a great assignment -- hands-on work for a political campaign of their choice to learn from first-hand experience how elections and the political process work. A handful of resourceful Hooker students also hit the sidewalks and knocked on doors in support of Justin Elicker. These kinds of involvement by young people is cause for celebration not condemnation. Anyone with teenage kids knows that they have a will of their own and were neither coerced nor manipulated into choosing one candidate over another. Robert Lee lost for reasons of his own making. To claim that the participation of the students determined the outcome of any election here is a gross overstatement. Now they are learning another aspect of the process -- those who must blow everything out of proportion for seemingly no good reason.

Posted by: Bryan | November 7, 2009 12:31 PM

Whether you choose to believe it or not, I am another student of the class in question, only of another section taught by a different teacher. However, all 50 of us taking 21st Century Democracy were given this campaign assignment. The exact assignment was: "You will be expected to spend five working sessions for the campaign of your choice this fall. Municipal elections are held in the fall of the "odd" years in most Connecticut towns. Local elections offer an unparalleled opportunity for you to learn about the political history and sociology of your hometown, and student volunteers often have the opportunity to get to know the relevant political actors who run town governments." Nowhere were we told to help out Democrats or DeStefano or anyone in particular.

I chose to help out Trish Pearson's Orange Democratic campaign. I saw them in the paper, and I said, "Hey, I'll help them out." I did all the same activities my classmates in New Haven did, and I worked as much as any of them; the only difference between us is that my campaign lost. Is that my fault?

Robn, you argue that it is a violation of free speech to require students to participate in an election as a school assignment. Is it also a violation of free speech for Hopkins to require its senior class to participate in Habitat for Humanity instead of taking final exams? Should they let us choose if we want the finals instead? Or what about English class? Is my teacher's requiring me to write an essay about King Lear also a violation of free speech?

The course's purpose is to expose students to the workings of 21st Century Democracy, and its expectations are clearly outlined in our Course Catalogue: "The class will place special emphasis on the municipal elections which will take place in the fall of 2009. Students will volunteer to work for a campaign of their choosing as part of that emphasis."

We knew what we were getting into, and we chose to take the class, and we chose what campaign we would support to fulfill our assignment. Instead of reading textbooks and taking exams, we got out in the world and experienced first-hand how democracy comes alive.

Posted by: robn | November 8, 2009 7:57 AM

BRYAN,

Please let me reemphasize that I don't think you and your fellow students did anything wrong. Also for the record, I have no preference for either candidate. Your leap to the idea of free speech is a good one and I applaud your intuitive sense of the issues...you're obviously getting a great education. These are my concerns…

Fair Elections :
This assignment clearly has an affect (not a determination, but an effect) on the outcome of events outside of school. Campaigns are bound by a myriad of regulations governing resources with the intent of leveling the playing field and protecting democracy. This assignment falls into a gray zone but assigning political novices to act as manpower for political campaigns has a great potential to be exploited by the unscrupulous.

Forced Labor :
Campaign work cannot be mandatory and voluntary at the same time. This assignment was distinct from generic school work because its not mandatory for all students and involved a great deal of outside work.

Free Speech/Choice :
If the assignment allowed students the option of some neutral involvement (like working with the Registrar of Voters or with a local newspaper), I wouldn’t have as much of a problem with it.

Posted by: The Professor | November 8, 2009 6:52 PM

Robn,

While I'm not a student in the class, I'd like to address your points one by one.

I am unclear as to what your problem is as far as your first point. Is it that schoolwork should not have an effect on the real world? It seems that the entire higher education system missed the boat on that--the work that goes on in colleges and universities has a direct impact on real-world outcomes, often with significantly more important outcomes than this. At what point in the educational system does this become okay? College but not high school? Keep in mind that many colleges give academic credit for internships and the like. A student at George Washington University, for example, is effectively expected to take some sort of political internship, and thus has a hand in impacting real world outcomes. Once again, where do you draw the line?

Or is the problem that it's some sort of end-run around campaign finance laws? I'm not even sure how you could claim that. The fact of the matter is that students chose to go to several campaigns; that's democracy in action, not an end run around campaign finance. It's not like the students were expecting some political favor in return, which is really the concern of campaign finance restrictions.

Your second problem is that this is "forced labor." My understanding is that students chose to take this class knowing full well that this was a requirement. When my younger brother was a senior in high school, he took an environmental science class that required him to clean up a beach for course credit. Is that forced labor as well? No, it's absolutely not. If anything at all could be considered to be forced labor, it would be the community service requirement that most high schools impose on their students. However, most of us see the good in these requirements, as they promote community-mindedness in our students. This isn't forced labor, plain and simple. If it were, you'd see Hopkins getting in a LOT of trouble with their accrediting body.

Finally, I think that allowing the students to pick a campaign is sufficient freedom considering that the class is about political campaigns. If the students really wanted to do something "neutral," they could have done something that was practically neutral (for example, volunteer for a campaign with an outcome that was a foregone conclusion). These students clearly chose to volunteer for a contested race. Give them credit; the country would be a better place if everyone were this politically engaged this early on.

Posted by: robn | November 8, 2009 7:37 PM

PROFESSOR,

My problem boils down to the lack of an opt-neutral in the program. Otherwise, I think (voluntary) youth involvement in the political process is great.