Letter from Anne Richardson, Dir. of Studies at Kents Hill School, to
Legislators:
Dear Legislators:
Re: the fingerprinting law for teachers
At Kents Hill School we live by our mission, part of which includes the
principle: One man or woman of principle can make a difference. As a
teacher of Holocaust history and literature it is this principle among
others that we talk about most in my classes, constantly asking the
questions about risks, about making a difference, about doing what is
right, and, ultimately, about how people could have stood by and let the
course of events that represent the Holocaust take place ? and continue to
take place.
I have been thinking a great deal about the fingerprinting law, the
presumption of guilt that is inherent in this law and the labeling and
isolating of a group of innocent people that this law does. It smacks of
the hysteria of the McCarthy fifties and of the Nuremberg Laws of the
thirties. This law is nothing but a misguided response to fear; it
justifies itself by playing on our anxieties about our greatest and most
vulnerable resource - our children - and in doing so exploits and
victimizes our profession. Columnist Molly Ivins wrote: "In this country
we get so scared of something terrible - of communists or illegal aliens or
pornography or crime - that we decide the only way to protect ourselves is
to cut back on our freedom. Well, now, isn't that the funniest idea - that
if we were less free we would be safer?" I greatly fear that we are moving
in this direction in this country and that this law is one more step on
this slippery slope.
While I in no way anticipate a holocaust of Nazi proportions in this
country in the near future, this country has not been above the mass
deprivation of freedoms of certain groups of individuals, whether it was
the African Americans during slavery or the Japanese Americans during WWII.
What I believe in and what I teach is that the end begins with the
gradual attacks on and deprivations of civil rights of groups of citizens.
What I also teach is that bystanders can be dangerous because of their
inaction and that the hardest part is knowing when to act. Professor Ervin
Staub wrote: "Bystanders can exert powerful influences. They can define
the meaning of events and move others towards empathy or indifference.
They can promote values and norms of caring, or by their passivity of
participation in the system, they can affirm the perpetrators."
It is our right in this country to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. It is one of our fundamental freedoms that
makes America different and makes me proud to be a citizen. I find it
extremely hard to go against what I teach and believe, and I will work
actively for the repeal of this law. At this point I also find it
extremely difficult to comply with the fingerprinting law in Maine. How
would I look my students in the face the next day?
I ask you to reconsider what you are doing to law-abiding, voting citizens
of this state in a misguided response to fear. Targeting one group of
people and robbing them of their rights will not ensure the lasting safety
of our children. Were the killings at Columbine started by teachers? Were
the children injured in the latest bus accident in Maine saved by the
fingerprinting laws? Are the children of our country really at the
greatest risk from their teachers? Surely you are playing into the hands
of the very people Roosevelt warned us against when he told the nation that
"we have nothing to fear but fear itself."
Albert Einstein wrote "The world is too dangerous to live in - not because
of the people who do evil but because of the people who sit and let it
happen." I will not stand by and let you rob me of my rights. I do
believe that what you have done is misguided and wrong, and I urge you to
repeal this law. I will actively campaign against and vote against any
legislator who thinks that robbing citizens of their rights makes this
country a better and safer place.
Sincerely,
Anne K.W. Richardson