DAVID SOLMITZ TESTIMONY BEFORE THE MAINE LEGISLATURE EDUCATION AND CULTURAL
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, PUBLIC HEARING ON LD 1765
April 10, 2001
My name is David O. Solmitz. I live in Waterville, Maine. Although I
resigned from teaching at Madison High School in 1999, following 30 years
there, with reluctance and great sadness, I did not renew my teacher
certification that expired in 2000. I refused to be fingerprinted due to
the law passed by the legislature that went into effect that summer. I am
speaking to you today to urge you to vote "ought not to pass" on LD 1765.
To imagine that fingerprinting will reduce child abuse, and now changed
to any crime is a fallacy. First of all, those who enter the teaching
field do so out of love and dedication to children and youth. Who else
would be willing to take on a profession that is generally held in
low-esteem by the general public, with a salary that is pitifully low, and
where class size is large consisting of more and more disruptive students.
When the fingerprinting law went into effect, teachers were repeatedly
assured that the information gathered would remain confidential. However,
that privacy has been betrayed when the statewide press published the
statistic that 1,324 of those checked had some unspecified criminal record. Now teachers are not only blamed for students' poor academic achievement, but as a united profession are even suspected of being child abusers.
Background checks that are currently done by the hiring principal and
superintendent's office do scrutinize each applicant's record. Candidates
who appear unfit for the job are not hired. Even so, a fingerprinted
teacher could become a first time perpetrator. At the same time, there are
former criminals who have paid their debt to society and are reformed, who
rank among the very best teachers. But they are not given a chance to share
their skills and compassion. These methods do not tackle the real issues
that have brought on the hysteria, which caused legislators to mandate
fingerprinting of teachers.
All too often, in order to avoid controversy, school administrators,
supported by their local school boards, have given teachers, considered
suspicious of child abuse, good letters of recommendation if they resign.
School directors take this action rather than face costly, court battles and public embarrassment should an investigation of a teacher turn out to be unfounded. Therefore, potential child abusers remain within the system.
Fingerprinting will not resolve the issue of child abuse. Nor will it
alleviate the loneliness, alienation, and unhappiness that many children
experience as a result of parents pre-occupied with family quarrels, paying
off debts, divorce, not to mention additional burdens endured by
single-parent families. All too many parents turn to the TV and the
computer as expedient devices to get bothersome children out of their hair.
Though convenient, impersonal, babysitters, these cannot make-up for the
pain that children suffer. Nor can they stop the unfortunate consequences
that often arise - lack of compassion, abuse of others, disruptive behavior,
boredom, apathy, and even violence.
Fingerprinting, also, abuses the civil rights of teachers. All teachers
are being suspected of guilt before having even committed a crime. The 4th
Amendment to our Constitution - unreasonable searches - is at the brink of
being violated as Big Brother gains more power to watch over his citizenry
in the name of protection. Look what happened in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao Tse Tung's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia when the government created more and more lists to protect the citizenry from enemies within? Not just hundreds of thousands but millions of people were suspected of being enemies of society. Out of fear colleagues, neighbors and family members turned each other in to the government to escape retribution, ostracism, humiliation, imprisonment, torture, and even death. Do we really want more government control of this nature in our country?
The very intent of the Maine Learning Results to which teachers are required to adhere strictly are being violated. They specifically require that "students will understand the rights and responsibilities of civic life and will employ the skills of effective civic participation." If students receive the message that teachers are not trusted by the general public and the law, then how can they possibly be encouraged to become "independent, critical thinkers, and problem solvers" who are socially responsible and active citizens?
If teachers are not trusted by students, parents, the community at large and
legislators, then how can they be taken seriously by their students? If
they have little impact, as the educational leaders of the community, how
can they positively affect the social and emotional problems that all too
many of their students are experiencing?
Senators and representatives, members of the Education and Cultural Affairs
Committee, you have the responsibility to vote no against LD 1765, as by
voting for it you are aiding and abetting the fingerprinting law. Instead,
I urge you to provide the necessary funding for more school counselors.
These counselors, who should work closely with classroom teachers, will
offer psychotherapy to students. Not only will students in need get help,
but if situations of abuse - at school or at home are unearthed -, the
counselors will report these to the appropriate authorities who in turn
will take necessary corrective measures. This reflects a more solid,
compassionate and trusting approach that fosters the safe environment for
which we all long.
Thank you,
David O. Solmitz